This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.

Genetic "signals"

Topics Concerning Race and Ancient Man

Genetic "signals"

Postby wmfinck » Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:55 pm

It is doubtless that the mainstream version of "science" is being engineered in order to have all Whites believe that they are either bleached niggers, or if they do not accept that, then that they are, at the very least, some sort of bastard anyway.

The status quo is to destroy any sense of identity among Whites, one way or another.

Here is the latest spin of the anthropology bottle:

Modern Europeans descend from FOUR groups of hunter-gatherers: New strand of DNA discovered in the Caucasus is the 'missing piece in the ancestry puzzle'

I am going to comment on the article's conclusions, briefly. They appear in the original article in a little orange box on the right hand side (not all the way over in the right sidebar, where there is a parade of Hollywood bimbos and bozos featured in various "articles"):

EUROPE'S FOUR STRANDS OF HUNTER-GATHERER ANCESTRY


This is funny. We have 5,000 years of recorded history where we have always been either pastoral or agrarian. During this time, men were only forced into "hunter-gatherer" status in times of exploration or distress. Even the ancient Phoenician sailors knew enough to plant along the routes of their travels, hoping to harvest on the way home, according to Herodotus in Book 2 of his Histories.

Most modern populations in Europe are mixtures of different ancestral strands.
By retrieving DNA from ancient fossils, it allows scientists to unpick the genetic melting pot that formed these modern populations.


The oldest historical records which may be consider Occidental, which for our purposes we shall consider west of Mesopotamia, the center of the ancient world, are the Greek poets and the Bible. There are some Hittite records, but interpretations are arguable and many of the names are obscure.

The Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek epic poems agree in large extent on the tribes which are found in Europe, and therefore they represent a rough historical picture of the tribes of the Mediterranean basin from 1,500 BC forward. Accepting what they themselves say about their own past, we can presume that we actually have a description of those tribes, at least in part, from as early as perhaps 2,500 BC.

The latest study has identified a fourth group of early Homo sapien hunter gatherers who helped to make up European DNA.


The oldest poetry of the Greeks and Hebrews describes exploration for things such as natural resources and arable land.

People move, and a few bones found in one place or another cannot be fairly identified as a "culture", and then assigned the status of "hunter-gatherer" simply because no concrete evidence of permanent settlement or technical accomplishment were found with their remains.

First, a group that migrated out of Africa are thought to have travelled through Turkey and into Europe around 45,000 years ago.


The Hebrew Bible picks up the story of Creation with both a man and a race called Adam, relating that this certain Adam was the progenitor of what became a group of nations described in Genesis chapter 10. Those nations represented the descendants of three families.

Those families were said to have separated into diverse, semi-isolated groups. Genetic speciation across those groups can easily account for differences perceived later.

[Of course, speciation is denied humans by modern scientists, where minor differences among finches or dogs are said to be different species.]

But the Hebrew Bible certainly also suggests that other people were present here before Adam. It is not necessarily true that all "modern humans" have the same origination, and the DNA "experts" are only forced to assume this to hold the line concerning their "out of Africa" theory, a house of cards built on the premise that "mutations" in mitochondrial DNA can somehow be extrapolated backwards in order to insist that certain peoples are related. This is all contrived hocus-pocus which cannot ever be proven.

There certainly seems to have been people in Europe 10,000 or 20,000 years ago, or perhaps longer, and there are some archaeological remains that indicate that modern Europeans had predecessors in the pre-historical period. However there were no identifiably significant remains of those people or their cultures when the first historical tribes entered Europe.

[One example is [url-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk]Çatalhöyük[/url], although that may fall into the antediluvian Adamic time frame.]

Simply because their are similarities in DNA does not necessarily prove that ancient inhabitants of Europe are among the ancestors of modern Europeans. Claims about ancestry based on DNA similarity could just as well lead humans to believe they descended from dogs or monkeys.

The original DNA structure of man as man was created, or at least in the earliest phases of his history, is not known. There are not sufficient ancient DNA samples that can refute the historical narrative, and there is no fuss about DNA to be made which can somehow prove that man "evolved". Predecessors are not necessarily ancestors, and people with similar DNA are not necessarily either ancestors or relatives.

But at least some of the DNA "scientists" believe they can guess mutations in order to relate two "people" that may very well not be related at all. Claims about mitochondrial DNA by which scientists claim to trace the origins of people are based on things that cannot at all be proven.

While the Daily Mail article we are addressing here does not mention mitochondrial DNA, an investigation into its sources reveals that it is based on mitochondrial, and not nuclear, DNA, as we found here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.wissenschaft.de/home/-/journal_content/56/12054/4302111&prev=search

Mitochondrial DNA exists in the walls of cells and allegedly contains information governing cellular function. Nuclear DNA is a more important determinant of the nature of the creature itself.

A second group who had settled in the Levant developed agriculture and then migrated into Europe around 6,000 to 7,000 years ago.


The beginnings of the historical records of our Adamic race (those who find their origin in the demonstrably White Genesis 10 Nations - at least as they were originally) date from 6,000 to 7,000 years ago, and the first of those Genesis 10 nations evidently entered Europe during this period. The early records places them in what are modern Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy and Spain - but that does not mean that they did not travel elsewhere.

The historical records also show that there was a steady migration of people from Egypt, the Levant and Anatolia into Europe as far north as the British Isles and the Danube river valley from 1,500 BC to the Hellenistic period. No amount of DNA "science" should be permitted to set these records aside, records which are verifiable in archaeology.

The newly identified group who settled in the Caucasus and were isolated from all other groups around 25,000 years ago. They then interbred with other human groups from further east to lead to the Yamnaya culture, who then migrated into Europe around 5,000 years ago.


This is meaningless conjecture based on a few bones, and not the discovery of a civilization. If we accept the claims concerning similarities in DNA, there remain other plausible explanations that may be constructed which account for those similarities.

The model offered by the DNA scientists ignores the recorded history which tells us that the people later known as Germanic passed through Anatolia and the Caucasus region as recently as 2,500 years ago, to settle in regions of Northern Europe north of the Danube. According to the same historical records which tell us these things, before their migrations those parts of Europe were only scarcely inhabited.

Whites are confronted with two choices: to believe the modern scientists, who contrive models of human origins for political purposes and who ignore all of our earliest historical records, or to believe the attestations of our own ancestors found in those historical records.
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Genetic "signals"

Postby bahr » Wed Nov 18, 2015 7:41 pm

About "mitochondrial DNA":

From http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Endosymbiosis.html

The endosymbiosis theory postulates that

The mitochondria of eukaryotes evolved from aerobic bacteria (probably related to the rickettsias) living within their host cell.
The chloroplasts of red algae, green algae, and plants evolved from endosymbiotic cyanobacteria.

The Evidence

-- Both mitochondria and chloroplasts can arise only from preexisting mitochondria and chloroplasts. They cannot be formed in a cell that lacks them because nuclear genes encode only some of the proteins of which they are made.
-- Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own genome, and it resembles that of bacteria not that of the nuclear genome.
    - Both genomes consist of a single circular molecule of DNA.
    - There are no histones associated with the DNA.

-- Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own protein-synthesizing machinery, and it more closely resembles that of bacteria than that found in the cytoplasm of eukaryotes.
    - The first amino acid of their transcripts is always fMet as it is in bacteria (not methionine [Met] that is the first amino acid in eukaryotic proteins).
    - A number of antibiotics (e.g., streptomycin) that act by blocking protein synthesis in bacteria also block protein synthesis within mitochondria and chloroplasts. They do not interfere with protein synthesis in the cytoplasm of the eukaryotes.
    - Conversely, inhibitors (e.g., diphtheria toxin) of protein synthesis by eukaryotic ribosomes do not — sensibly enough — have any effect on bacterial protein synthesis nor on protein synthesis within mitochondria and chloroplasts.
    - The antibiotic rifampicin, which inhibits the RNA polymerase of bacteria, also inhibits the RNA polymerase within mitochondria. It has no such effect on the RNA polymerase within the eukaryotic nucleus.


From http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/4/9/a011403.full:

Viewed through the lens of the genome it contains, the mitochondrion is of unquestioned bacterial ancestry, originating from within the bacterial phylum α-Proteobacteria (Alphaproteobacteria). Accordingly, the endosymbiont hypothesis—the idea that the mitochondrion evolved from a bacterial progenitor via symbiosis within an essentially eukaryotic host cell—has assumed the status of a theory. Yet mitochondrial genome evolution has taken radically different pathways in diverse eukaryotic lineages, and the organelle itself is increasingly viewed as a genetic and functional mosaic, with the bulk of the mitochondrial proteome having an evolutionary origin outside Alphaproteobacteria. New data continue to reshape our views regarding mitochondrial evolution, particularly raising the question of whether the mitochondrion originated after the eukaryotic cell arose, as assumed in the classical endosymbiont hypothesis, or whether this organelle had its beginning at the same time as the cell containing it.


From http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cells/organelles/:

There is compelling evidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts were once primitive bacterial cells. This evidence is described in the endosymbiotic theory. How did this theory get its name? Symbiosis occurs when two different species benefit from living and working together. When one organism actually lives inside the other it's called endosymbiosis. The endosymbiotic theory describes how a large host cell and ingested bacteria could easily become dependent on one another for survival, resulting in a permanent relationship. Over millions of years of evolution, mitochondria and chloroplasts have become more specialized and today they cannot live outside the cell.
It's Just a Theory

In everyday speech, people use the word theory to mean an opinion or speculation not necessarily based on facts. But in the field of science, a theory is a well established explanation based on extensive experimentation and observation. Scientific theories are developed and verified by the scientific community and are generally accepted as fact.
Mitochondria Have DNA

Mitochondria and chloroplasts have striking similarities to bacteria cells. They have their own DNA, which is separate from the DNA found in the nucleus of the cell. And both organelles use their DNA to produce many proteins and enzymes required for their function. A double membrane surrounds both mitochondria and chloroplasts, further evidence that each was ingested by a primitive host. The two organelles also reproduce like bacteria, replicating their own DNA and directing their own division.


So, according to the endosymbiosis theory, the genetic material of the mitochondria evidently cannot be compared, and even less identified, to the genetic material of the host. But I suppose that theory is not ideologically promising nowadays... and so the masses don't hear much about it anymore.
User avatar
bahr
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:44 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Genetic "signals"

Postby brucebohn » Wed Nov 18, 2015 11:54 pm

by wmfinck » Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:55 pm
quote:
It is doubtless that the mainstream version of "science" is being engineered in order to have all Whites believe that they are either bleached niggers, or if they do not accept that, then that they are, at the very least, some sort of bastard anyway.

Right Bill..

Overheard several elderly ladies discussing the mental anguish that
was taking a toll on a fellow, a relative actually , a man who took
pride in his white heritage. A DNA test "revealed" 4% negro blood. This was affecting the entire family!
I could not resist interrupting the conversation to inform this lady that
this, at best, was an inexact science, and that furthermore, it was being
manipulated by the adversaries of Christian Israel to promote their
agenda of white genocide! I cannot number the times that I have
heard folks claim some mudblood in their tree, proudly. Older folks
certainly seem more racially conscience.
"Do you not know that with those running in a race,while all run,
but one takes the prize? In that manner you run, in order that you shall obtain."
1Cor. 9:24
User avatar
brucebohn
 
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:22 pm
Location: GEORGIA

Re: Genetic "signals"

Postby EzraLB » Thu Nov 19, 2015 7:40 am

Thanks, Bahr, for posting that information on mitochondrial DNA. Reading between the lines, it should be obvious to anyone that it's all just speculation. It's amazing that they can insist that we are all descendants of bacteria with a straight face.

But it highlights a problem--a paradox--that neo-Darwinists have always faced. You can't have a cell wall without DNA to build it. You can't have DNA without a cell wall to protect it. A cell can't use mitochondria within the cell without DNA to program the function. A cell can't live without mitochondria. Mitochondria DNA does not act independently from the main DNA in the cell nucleus.

The idea that a cell without mitochondria literally "ate" another cell with mitochondria in order to create a super cell that could use mitochondria for its own purposes is beyond preposterous. That's like saying a human being could eat a live mouse and instead of digesting it, we turned it into another organ that was beneficial to us. Cells eat other cells to destroy them--not to move up the "evolutionary ladder."
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
EzraLB
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: Genetic "signals"

Postby EzraLB » Thu Nov 19, 2015 8:00 am

Bill, all this speculation is based on the logical fallacy that you point out--claiming that DNA similarities therefore mean common ancestry. By that logic, we should have a very recent common ancestor with earthworms, as we share 98% of our DNA in common.

Ultimately, the jews that control and promote DNA testing want to convince White people that they are not White, so it doesn't matter with whom they breed. A recent "scientific" article came out claiming they found one single tooth in Siberia, over 50,000 years old, that could prove our common genetic ancestry with "Australian aborigines, New Guineans and Polynesians." Amazing they can conclude that from one single tooth:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/scien ... .html?_r=1

How these "scientists" extracted viable DNA from a "fossilized" tooth is not explained.
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
EzraLB
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: Genetic "signals"

Postby wmfinck » Thu Nov 19, 2015 9:57 am

In a Tooth, DNA From Some Very Old Cousins, the Denisovans

“There you’ve got elves and dwarves and hobbits and orcs,” he continued. On the real earth, “we had a ton of hominins that are closely related to us.”


Wow, this is as bad as the Orwellian language in the article about the girl with two daddies that is being forced to be a boy. The real earth "science" is actually more fantastic than The Hobbit, which at least recognized the existence of halflings.

The language of the article is engineered to sound absolutely authoritative, that it may be deemed ridiculous to even think of challenging the conclusions which are asserted.

I am certain that it took three years, a 7-figure US Gov't grant, and a cadre of imported workers with logistics suppliers to build the staircase up to the cave.

Image
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Genetic "signals"

Postby Gaius » Thu Nov 19, 2015 1:14 pm

Thanks for this exposé of rampant foolishness among the "scientific" community.

Let's hope some true and real scientists catch on to the fact that academic endeavour is being used to promote a perverted demonic agenda.
What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
(Romans 8 v 31)
User avatar
Gaius
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:27 am
Location: Ulster

Re: Genetic "signals"

Postby Teutonic » Thu Nov 19, 2015 1:47 pm

It's really sad how many whites I know who parrot around the 'out of Africa' theory, especially among those who consider themselves nationalist.

But we can't be surprised when no other theories are allowed within the educational system and its network of Marxist indoctrination camps.
Duty, Honour, Sacrifice.
User avatar
Teutonic
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:38 pm
Location: Weimar America

Re: Genetic "signals"

Postby EzraLB » Fri Nov 20, 2015 7:51 am

By not acknowledging that the White peoples are descendants of the true Israelites, Judeo-Christians put themselves in an untenable position in regards to evolution. While they may reject evolution outright as anti-Scriptural, they have no answer as to the existence of the different races, aside from a misreading of the story of Noah in Genesis.

We see this in how many of them are forced to compromise on this issue by going along with the idea that "God" created the different races through the process of evolution. And if they reject that idea, they are forced into a position of believing that "God" inexplicably put people in Europe out of nowhere.

Without the proper historical and archaeological knowledge concerning their true origins, Judeo-Christians serve only to discredit Christians in the eyes of "scientific" evolutionists as irrational and arbitrary. Only Identity Christians have the irrefutable answer to the absurdities continually put forth by the pseudo-scientists concerning our true ancestry.
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
EzraLB
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: Genetic "signals"

Postby Gaius » Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:37 am

EzraLB wrote:By not acknowledging that the White peoples are descendants of the true Israelites, Judeo-Christians put themselves in an untenable position in regards to evolution. While they may reject evolution outright as anti-Scriptural, they have no answer as to the existence of the different races, aside from a misreading of the story of Noah in Genesis.


True and logical, Ezra.

The Scriptural inconsistencies (not to mention the frequent gross immorality) of J-C "churches" make them appear as foolish as the godlessness they pretend to be standing against.
Because of their apparently accelerating slide into irrelevance in the public eye, the Name of our great Father is similarly held in contempt and distain since they pretend to represent Him ...

Woe unto the "pastors" who lead God's people astray ... may Judgment find them quick and soon.

Let us hope that increasing numbers of our people from all walks of life catch on to these traps, even perhaps some of the fake pastors themselves, and see the danger ahead.
What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
(Romans 8 v 31)
User avatar
Gaius
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:27 am
Location: Ulster

Next

Return to Anthropology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron