NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » Race Realism » Response to Daily Stormer article “Black Africans are Genetically Closer to Bonobos Than to White Humans”

Response to Daily Stormer article “Black Africans are Genetically Closer to Bonobos Than to White Humans”

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 99 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

JP Rushton

Richard Lynn

L:inda Gottfredson

Goodreads

UPDATE:

I emailed one of the researchers and I got this response:

Hello,

you are of course absolutely right. Bonobos are equally distant to
people from Africa, Europe or anywhere else in the world.

The X/A ratio measures something completely different: It compares
individuals from a certain group (bonobos, chimpanzees, or human
populations) and compares how different the X autosomes in this group are from the autosomes (the non-sex-chromosomes, i.e. everything that is not X and Y). Since each generation you have three X chromosomes per four autosomes (XX for the mother + XY from the dad = three X), you would
expect that the ratio should be 3/4 (thats why there is a dashed line at
0.75 in the plot). But there are many ways in which this measure could be nudged off this expected value. That Europeans look different in this measure could for instance be explained by later waves of primarily male migrants out of Africa that mixed with people in Europe, but there are other ideas as well.

I am really sorry to see that the plot is misconstrued as evidence for racist ideas. Hope this helped to clear up what is meant with this plot.

Cheers

 

 

lolindeed

‘lol’ indeed. Learn how to read scientific papers

800 words

Seems to be a bit of misinformation going on because of this piece so I thought I’d clear it up.

Andrew Anglin claims that the Nature article says that blacks are genetically close to bonobos than to Europeans.

That couldn’t be more wrong.

First off, the article doesn’t talk about any type of actual genetics being closer to anything that is mentioned in the article. What the article is talking about is social and sexual behaviors.

Although they are similar in many respects, bonobos and chimpanzees differ strikingly in key social and sexual behaviours and for some of these traits they show more similarity with humans than with each other.

It also says:

We find that more than three per cent of the human genome is more closely related to either the bonobo or the chimpanzee genome than these are to each other.

And? Is that supposed to mean anything? Cats have 90 percent homologous genes with humans; 82% with dogs; 80% with cows; 79% with chimpanzees; 69% with rats and 67% with mice.

90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome.

99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans.

We  share 97.5 percent of our DNA with mice.

So we see here that we share a lot of DNA with other animals, as well as animals also sharing similar amounts of DNA, which shows that it comes down to how genes are expressed and not the amount of genetic distance between the 2 animals being tested.

Looking to the image on top of the article, it shows the X/A ratio between Europeans, Africans, the Pan Ancestor and Bonobos.

The X/A ratio is the ratio between the number of X chromosomes and the number of sets of autosomes in an organism. It’s used primarily to determine sex in some species, such as the drosophila flies.

A simple reading of the text above and below this chart that was referenced to supposedly show that Africans are genetically closer to Bonobos will show you that it’s talking about the X/A ratio, not about genetics.

 

Differences in female and male population history, for example, with respect to reproductive success and migration rates, are of special interest in understanding the evolution of social structure. To approach this question in the Pan ancestor, we compared the inferred ancestral population sizes of the X chromosome and the autosomes. Because two-thirds of X chromosomes are found in females whereas autosomes are split equally between the two sexes, a ratio between their effective population sizes (X/A ratio) of 0.75 is expected under random mating. The X/A ratio in the Pan ancestor, corrected for the higher mutation rate in males, is 0.83.

Similarly, we estimated an X/A ratio of 0.85 (0.79–0.93) for present-day bonobos using Ulindi single nucleotide polymorphisms in 200-kb windows.

Under the assumption of random mating, this would mean that on average two females reproduce for each reproducing male. The difference in the variance of reproductive success between the sexes certainly contributes to this observation, as does the fact that whereas bonobo females often move to new groups upon maturation, males tend to stay within their natal group.

Here’s the main point:

Because both current and ancestral X/A ratios are similar to each other and also to some human groups (Fig. 4), this suggests that they may also have been typical for the ancestor shared with humans.

Talking about the X/A ratio, not genetics.

Here is the text below Fig. 4:

The X/A ratios for Ulindi (bonobo), an African human and a European human were inferred from heterozygosity, and that for the Pan ancestor was inferred from ILS. The low X/A ratio for the European has been suggested to be due to demographic effects connected to migrating out of Africa30. Errors, 95% confidence interval

I hope this clears up anything about this article.

What it’s saying is, is that the X/A ratios for the bonobo, African and European were gathered from heterozygosity, for the Pan ancestor is was gathered from incomplete lineage shortages (ILS).

Low X/A ratio for the European doesn’t mean more genetic distance from Africans or bonobos.

Advertisements

7 Comments

  1. Phil says:

    Hello, race realist? I like this post you did.

    BTW, I’m a Black race realist who is trying to learn from HBD to see if it can have clues to U.S Black achievement through means outside of environment.

    Mainly my idea is based on community self help with Church Blacks. They, I’ve witnessed, seemed to be better in terms of behavior and intelligence than the general population.

    Mainly, they function better. While I believe IQ in an individual is important, from what I’ve witnesses, it’s behavior caused by IQ that hurts Blacks more than there ability to go to college.

    My point is that while many Blacks have lower IQ averages than many whites, I suspect that they’re might be behavior variations in them or variations in behavior combinations between laziness, honesty, aggressiveness, work ethic, etc. On how widespread these types of combinations are I’m agnostic of though due to this being rather anecdote than data, but I’m only using this anecdote as an observation rather than evidence to prove the general people so I see no harm.

    Whether caused by IQ or not, taking advantage of this could be something that could be selected for to make a Black community better if direct IQ may not be available.

    If what I’m saying seems illogical, forgive me. While I have principles of HBD down, I’m not as sophisticated in the literature as you for example.

    Like

    • racerealist says:

      Mainly my idea is based on community self help with Church Blacks. They, I’ve witnessed, seemed to be better in terms of behavior and intelligence than the general population.

      I have noticed this as well, for instance (anecdote), I worked with a black woman at a homeless shelter, she was Baptist. Very nice woman. No idea if there are any studies on black church-goer IQ. I can’t find any at the moment, best I can find is this.

      White Episcopalians barely outscore black Unitarians

      http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/10/episcopalians-v-jews-on-iq.html

      Mainly my idea is based on community self help with Church Blacks. They, I’ve witnessed, seemed to be better in terms of behavior and intelligence than the general population.

      That’s a good idea. If only more black Americans were like you and attempted to take initative to better the situation for blacks in America, we wouldn’t have this political and social strife going on, if only people accepted and took responsibility for their actions and attempted to better themselves, race and community.

      Mainly, they function better. While I believe IQ in an individual is important, from what I’ve witnesses, it’s behavior caused by IQ that hurts Blacks more than there ability to go to college.

      Well that same behavior caused by low IQ, that same low average IQ also leads to lower average scholastic achievement.

      I do agree they do function better, though I have noticed that it is older blacks who are that way, they are more humbled IMO.

      I suspect that they’re might be behavior variations in them or variations in behavior combinations between laziness, honesty, aggressiveness, work ethic, etc.

      Right.

      On how widespread these types of combinations are I’m agnostic of though due to this being rather anecdote than data, but I’m only using this anecdote as an observation rather than evidence to prove the general people so I see no harm.

      I found this for the time being:

      In many cases, culture-level correlates can be understood as simple extensions of individual-level personality correlates. Low Openness to Values is associated with HIV stigmatization at the individual level, and countries such as Zimbabwe and South Africa, where governments have been reluctant to address the epidemic, score among the lowest on aggregate levels of Openness to Values

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2756039/

      And we know that the Big 5 Personality Traits are heritable:

      The genetic and environmental etiology of the five-factor model of personality as measured by the revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) was assessed using 123 pairs of identical twins and 127 pairs of fraternal twins. Broad genetic influence on the five dimensions of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness was estimated at 41%, 53%, 61%, 41%, and 44%, respectively. The facet scales also showed substantial heritability, although for several facets the genetic influence was largely nonadditive. The influence of the environment was consistent across all dimensions and facets. Shared environmental influences accounted for a negligible proportion of the variance in most scales, whereas nonshared environmental influences accounted for the majority of the environmental variance in all scales.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8776880

      Whether caused by IQ or not, taking advantage of this could be something that could be selected for to make a Black community better if direct IQ may not be available.

      I personally believe it’s IQ. Maybe, through a sort of self-eugenics, certain blacks with high IQ genes can prevent too much regression to the mean, and those higher IQ blacks can sort of ‘rule over’ if you will, the lower IQ population.

      Though, by showing forsight and a want and drive to better your community, you’re already showing more than at least 95 percent of your race (BLM doesn’t count).

      If what I’m saying seems illogical, forgive me. While I have principles of HBD down, I’m not as sophisticated in the literature as you for example.

      No worries, I understood fine. We all start somewhere, I see that you have at least a basic grasp on it. I recommend reading a bit of my blog, check out hbd chick, JayMan, check out Rushton, Jensen, Gottfredson, Razib Khan etc. Just research the reality of race, check out Unz Review as well, there is tons of good stuff on HBD there. There is a wealth of knowledge out there. Also check out American Renaissance and their videos on YouTube, there is a wealth of information out there. If you would like anything specific I can point you in the right direction.

      Thank you for the comment, best of luck to you and your endeavors.

      Like

  2. Phil says:

    To Race Realist

    “Well that same behavior caused by low IQ, that same low average IQ also leads to lower average scholastic achievement.”

    I know those things are combined together, what I meant was that it one thing to be bad at achievement but it’s another to have anti-social behavior.
    I see it as two problems from the same source. The lower IQ causes the population to lack in comprehension, with makes it hard for them to assimilate, and them being at the bottom.

    Anyways, thanks for the sources and I’ll look in too it.
    Also, have you read Peter frost’s articles on polygamy and African populations? It’s some pretty interesting stuff and apparently in Senegal for example there is a polygamous majority that are aggressive and a monogamous minority that is lower aggressive.
    I believe that the monogamous one would have higher IQs.

    ” personally believe it’s IQ. Maybe, through a sort of self-eugenics, certain blacks with high IQ genes can prevent too much regression to the mean, and those higher IQ blacks can sort of ‘rule over’ if you will, the lower IQ population.

    Though, by showing forsight and a want and drive to better your community, you’re already showing more than at least 95 percent of your race (BLM doesn’t count).”

    Thank you, and what you’ve explained is very similar to what I’ve thought. However thinking that I would base it of a Social system of Africans called the Igbo that had a council of family heads, age grades, and religious centers.These types of institutions were not uncommon in African cultures, though the Igbo were they most efficient. I believe that if it worked for them, some modern takes to the System could work for Aframs with better behavior.

    As far as sources go I’ve been looking at HBD Chick, a little of Jayman,a few points by Lynn and various other researchers as you’ve mentioned.
    Really, making the Black community better isn’t hard in terms of how to make a population more evolved but really WHO is going to be that person to initiate it. My idea is to somehow appeal to Blacks by not being alien from them.

    The Key is, what I’m thinking of, is making a distinction from being Black and being pathological. I would be tolerant with certain rap titles and behavior, but I would draw the line at pathology.
    Without such distinction it makes the game harder. This could be pointed out more often in HBD fourms, but it isn’t due to too many bad experiences with Black culture to know the inner workings and too little “cultured” Blacks like myself in HBD.

    This doesn’t mean pathological individuals get a free pass, but rather it makes behavioral selection easier to picture and to achieve with Blacks,

    Like

    • racerealist says:

      “I see it as two problems from the same source. The lower IQ causes the population to lack in comprehension, with makes it hard for them to assimilate, and them being at the bottom.”

      Yes. IQ correlates both positively and negatively with tons of things in life. Have you read The Bell Curve yet?

      “Also, have you read Peter frost’s articles on polygamy and African populations?”

      Got a link?

      “I believe that the monogamous one would have higher IQs.”

      Same. Thinking about a lot of sex, as well as having a lot of sex with many different partners, is, again, correlated with low IQ.
      I know I talk about IQ a lot, but it really is one of, if not THE best predictors for success in life, which is why I talk about it so much.

      “However thinking that I would base it of a Social system of Africans called the Igbo that had a council of family heads, age grades, and religious centers.These types of institutions were not uncommon in African cultures, though the Igbo were they most efficient. I believe that if it worked for them, some modern takes to the System could work for Africans with better behavior.”

      I’ve glanced at Frost’s article on the Igbo and how they’re the Jews of Africa, but his citations, as well as his explanations make sense. I know of the Igbo as like a super (in comparison to the average Nigerian) intelligent Nigerian, which is most likely a case of assertive mating, only mating with those with high IQ/good genetic stock.

      “As far as sources go I’ve been looking at HBD Chick, a little of Jayman,a few points by Lynn and various other researchers as you’ve mentioned.
      Really, making the Black community better isn’t hard in terms of how to make a population more evolved but really WHO is going to be that person to initiate it. My idea is to somehow appeal to Blacks by not being alien from them.”

      All those are good. PumpkinPerson is another good one. I recommend checking out Dr. Shockley too. As well as Arthur Jensen. Read Jensen’s books, as well as Rushton’s. Have you read this before?

      http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED023722.pdf

      This is the paper that set off the B-W IQ debate, authored by Arthur Jensen.

      “The Key is, what I’m thinking of, is making a distinction from being Black and being pathological. I would be tolerant with certain rap titles and behavior, but I would draw the line at pathology.”

      Good ideas. That’s the thing though, the low IQ is the cause of those pathologies, some eugenics would have to be in order to cull some of those lower IQ blacks.

      “Without such distinction it makes the game harder. This could be pointed out more often in HBD fourms, but it isn’t due to too many bad experiences with Black culture to know the inner workings and too little “cultured” Blacks like myself in HBD.”

      If only there were more blacks like you, with a hunger to learn the truth as well as a want to better your race and your people. We wouldn’t be dealing with a lot of the inane things we deal with media wise in America. Though, if you mate with a higher IQ black, even though regression to the mean will take effect, your off spring will still have a higher average IQ. Though, I think that over time, assortive mating, as well as selection for good traits, will be able to have a small population of blacks with high IQ alleles, as well as other positive traits, and over time with no admixing with ‘inferior blacks’, they will be genetically distinct and keep an average IQ higher than the average black.

      “This doesn’t mean pathological individuals get a free pass, but rather it makes behavioral selection easier to picture and to achieve with Blacks,”

      Personally, and this goes for all races and peoples, we should sterilize all peoples who act impulsively and on their first impulses. Society would be much better.

      You seem like a bright guy. How did you come across race realism? What did you think about it when you first discovered it? Do your friends know about your views?

      Like

  3. Gian Luca says:

    The term “Blacks” is broad since among the negroid race there are two subgroups – the Nilotics and Bantus/Congoids. For example the Massai or Samburus that are Hamito-Nilotics are genetically very distinct from a West African Bantu or a black American, the difference is visible. A black American would not pass for a typical Massai or Samburu. Furthermore the light skinned highland Ethiopians that have admixed ancestry(Nilotic- Arabo mix) are genetically closer related to Caucasians thant to Bantus. Despite these facts the Massai and Northern Ethiopians are lumped together with Bantus as one people and get the label “black”. In Africa skin colour was never an identity since the Africans saw and were aware of their ethnical and cultural diversity.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Well, the author of the post that I refuted was so wrong with his “interpretation” of the line graph. It didn’t show what he wanted it to show.

      Furthermore the light skinned highland Ethiopians that have admixed ancestry(Nilotic- Arabo mix) are genetically closer related to Caucasians thant to Bantus.

      Right. They have a Caucasoid skull structure. Like the Somalis, they’re around 40 percent Caucasoid on their paternal line.

      In Africa skin colour was never an identity since the Africans saw and were aware of their ethnical and cultural diversity.

      Right. Which is why the Rwandan genocide happened. /s

      Skin color is a good identifier for race as I have previously mentioned.

      But the point of this post was to refute the idiocy of someone who doesn’t actually read a paper, but scrolls down to something and didn’t even read the surrounding text to say that “blacks are closer to bonobos than are Europeans” is stupidity.

      Like

  4. […] and is therefore not natural [citation needed]. This also goes hand-in-hand with his look at the table showing the X/A ratio between Europeans, Africans, the Pan Ancestor and Bonobos, which he took to say that the African genome is closer to that of bonobos which is clearly […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Please keep comments on topic.

Charles Murray

Arthur Jensen

Blog Stats

  • 180,994 hits
Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on WordPress.com

suggestions, praises, criticisms

If you have any suggestions for future posts, criticisms or praises for me, email me at RaceRealist88@gmail.com
%d bloggers like this: