It still functions as a water-soluble antioxidant. Pauling mega-dosed it for his whole life and lived to be nearly 100. Anecdotal evidence obviously, but I think there are worse things we can do than take a synthetic vitamin C. Getting multiple grams of naturally formed vitamin C would require an absurd amount of plant food.
[ - ] zr855 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 21:56:05 ago (+1/-0)
That guy is absolutely 100% wrong. It's a hucksters ploy to sell bs pills. Knew a dentist that sold that shit and believed it and died of a massive heart attack. Chemical analysis of the vitamin C animals create intrinsically has shown that it's quite literally ascorbic acid.
Thank you for this link; I've always had a hunch that this 'natural complex' shit was nonsense. I've been a big orthomolecular guy for some time now, after having a fleeting obsession with herbal medicine years and years ago that got me positively nowhere. I learned a lot from the errors though. I tend to stay away from it almost completely. I usually get a kick out of the guys trying to sell you expensive 'natural C' supplements containing whatever the du jour 'superfood' is - acai or whatever it is that year.
It has to be positively billions of dollars wasted on plant-based supplements every year - and this isn't me saying that plant food is worthless. It's just that nowadays when it comes to incorporating plants, if I can't directly integrate it into my diet (even as a tea), I won't get it in pill form. My entire approach with supplements is orthomolecular at this point.
That's retarded kike shit that someone tried to say to sell "organic" vitamin C years ago. I knew a dentist that pedaled that shit and he flat died of a massive heart attack. It's total debunked bullshit. Most animals quite literally make ascorbic acid intrinsically. Only guinea pigs, apes, humans and a few others don't. We all die from heart attacks without enough vitamin C. Heart disease is literally scurvy lite. Don't get caught up by hucksters selling that bs.
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 09:29:54 ago (+1/-0)*
Supplements of D3 will usually come in 5,000IU capsules. You can take 10,000IU (or two such capsules) per day completely safely, and it will be good for you to do this.
Consider the war on masculinity. Vitamin D is directly implicated in testosterone production in the testes. A study from just over a decade ago studied supplementation with slightly more than 3,000IU/day. While the placebo group had no significant elevation in testosterone, the supplemented group saw between 200-400 ng/dl increases.
For those of you who know the relevant ranges in human men, this is substantial, the difference between a low and normal testosterone level - or for that matter between a normal and a higher than average lvl.
It also increased the free fraction, in the range of 6.3-7.45 ng/dl, where a normal range for human men under 50 yrs is generously 4-20 ng/dl. In other words you're talking realistically about 40% increases after one year of steady vitamin D supplementation at the necessary levels.
You know, on the subject of falling T levels in american men, I discovered that nicotine raises testosterone. Im wondering if the decline isn’t partly due to lower smoking rates.
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 10:40:27 ago (+1/-0)*
It's interesting that you mention this because it was once a controversial topic on a forum I used to post in years and years ago. The one thing that makes me skeptical about relying on the mechanism is that it probably has something to do with dopamine signaling - nicotine is dopaminergic. The problem I see is that the behavior is less medicinal and more prone to addictive escalation. What you tend to see precipitate the addiction is that it is so dopaminergic that dopamine receptors are actually reduced in response to increased smoking. I'm guessing, but I'd wager that there is probably a short-term increase followed by a negative response if the behavior continues without stoppage. That would mean somebody who smoked occasionally, perhaps like a weekend smoker, might transiently boost their testosterone levels, but a chronic smoker would not.
The way I wound up coming down in that debate from long ago had nothing to do with the mechanism though; as a smoker I couldn't tolerate what I knew to be the overwhelmingly negative side effects on the respiratory system of chronic smoking. If the benefits were real, I compared it to crawling across a floor covered in razor blades just to get to a box of Band-Aids.
So I suppose it is all contingent on the method of delivery, and on how resilient someone is to the addiction risk. I tend to lean on the side that says there are no real cheat codes. Getting a higher than federally recommended amount of vitamin D is not 'cheating' in this sense, not in the same way that flooding the body with exogenous nicotinic acid is. Even in the case where someone is supplementing D in order to raise their testosterone levels, less than great things can happen if, for example, the person is significantly overweight. I've always believed that testosterone is a preparatory hormone; it increases in response to a particular kind of lifestyle and helps propel an individual male up the status hierarchy. An unfit, overweight male supplementing to increase his testosterone is not the same as a male who is actually positioning himself socially to be in the sorts of situations where his testosterone is actually required (to win things, and then reproduce afterward). In the fat man, he'll aromatize his testosterone and wind up with increased estrogen.
All in all, I think we go wrong when we imagine we can micromanage a homeostatic system as complex as the body by just front-loading one end of the chain with this or that chemical. I'm recommending men take substantially more vitamin D here than what is recommended, but I'd also say that for testosterone to do good things for you (it is not some divine nectar in and of itself), you need to be optimizing the entire picture. Some basement dwelling obese neet might get some psychological benefits from taking 10-20k IUs of vitamin D, which might help encourage him to better his situation, but it isn't as if more comprehensive life changes are directly caused by increased testosterone; it's not like the world somehow directly responds to that serum value for a steroid hormone. It's more like having the right kind of ammunition for your gun; it's no good if you are not out shooting something (or rather, at something).
In this world of death by a thousand cuts, the solution is a thousand bandages. We have to guard against every attack ... and it will take work. It can't be purchased and just simply consumed.
I've been taking 10,000 IU per day for years. As the days begin to shorten I will ratchet it up to 15k and in the months of Dec-Feb I am usually doing 20k. It changes the game.
Note that vitamin D supplementation needs to be done with vitamins A & K. Many of the pathways that vitamin D operates through involve signaling chains that are dependent on A & K (in other words, fat soluble vitamins are not surprisingly a functional package). For more information I would check out Chris Masterjohn. I take him as the authority on this subject, and he was busting up this RDA myth years ago. The doses of A and K needed are not on the same order as D. I do supplement a few forms of K, but I tend to get A through eating liver. You can get 15-20k IUs of vitamin A from just 3 oz of liver; however, liver is so absolutely fucking nutrient dense that it actually contains amounts of many other things (like B12) that exceed your body's absorptive capacity. It is ideal to pre-cook some liver at the start of the week and eat about 15-20 grams of it every day. Or, if that's appalling, get some liver pills. There simply is not a more powerfully nutritious class of food for human beings than animal organs.
Hey, you are aware that the light skin of europeans probably evolved as an adaptation to produce more vitamin D, particularly as high carb, low meat diets became a thing 8000 years ago. Do you think with high D supplementation could turn us back to niggers in about 100 generations? ;-P but seriously, could it?
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 11:14:14 ago (+1/-0)*
I think the kind of diet is not so much dependent on time as on location. Ancient Africans were eating more plant matter than animal meat by a decent margin: fruits and bushes and grasses. Human origins are a confusing story for me at the moment; there seems to be a lot of conflicting evidence, but the Out of Africa theory is called into question. My guess would be that other proto-human species living in northern latitudes (probably forbears of caucasoids who breed with different related species than modern African ancestors did), ate more meat simply due to the climate constraints.
It's possible that we became even paler as a response to the agricultural shift, perhaps as the intake of fat-soluble vitamins decreased. But I don't know. We might be able to show that even if meat consumption as a total % of the average diet declined, that better cooking methods combined with technology for concentrating fat-soluble vitamins in things like butter actually offset that change.
I don't deny that light skin is an adaptation to produce more vitamin D, but my guess is that the change was not primarily caused by the agricultural revolution, and had more to do with the generally less solar irradiance where our early ancestors were living. Again, less animal consumption beginning 10k years ago might have favored even greater loss of pigmentation, but I don't know if I'm convinced that human beings were really losing out on fat-soluble vitamins in Europe at that time (again, because of things like our ability to make water-in-fat emulsions out of dairy).
But who the fuck knows. If we go way, way back and begin to think about primates - primarily tree-dwellers, which our ancestors almost certainly were at one time - then fruit was the mainstay. I think the transition toward scavenging was either a later development or at least made up a smaller proportion of the diet. If different near-human species developed independently in the area of modern Russia (or something) then it might have been something more like a ground-dwelling biped like the bigfoot stories. I am not the guy to ask about this shit though.
Human origins are a confusing story for me at the moment; there seems to be a lot of conflicting evidence, but the Out of Africa theory is called into question.
Im interested in this stuff.
One imagines negroids got plenty of vitamin D because they made it. One imagines early europeans might have coloring similar to eskimos, who are certainly lighter than africans but consume a nearly all meat diet. Inuits certainly have had enough time to develop lighter skin . Why are they not as light as scandis? Early Western Hunter Gatherers were allegedly brown skinned. So perhaps living off of wheat and other grains dramatically changed the color of europeans. Maybe. This is the accepted theory. Then again we started drinking a lot of milk as a group about 6000 years ago. I guess that still doesn’t give you as much D as an eskimo gets.
The more I read on the subject the more I think human evolution was much more distributed rather than local to africa. There were obviously homo erectus types living all over eurasia. And then, over the last decade or so, there’s been all this shit about neanderthal and denisovan dna in our genome, as well as multiple other hypothesized “ghost populations” that have admixed with our various sub-populations in africa and asia. Modern africans seem to have been massively introgressed by eurasians in the last 5 or 10 thousand years, except for a few lingering isolated tribes. Back-to-africa can hardly be overestimated as a phenomenon, and I think people just don’t realize that.
Here’s the suspiscious thing. It seems kinda like a rule for humans that groups that move in to colder high latitudes get smarter. So why assume that niggers even more primitive than modern ones were somehow able to replace neanderthal in western eurasia?
Its known that our (modern human) mtDNA and Y haplogroups are rooted in a population that probably lived in ethiopia or something like that around 300 kya (L0 and A00 estimates ). I thought, why couldn’t neanderthal daddies migrating from ice age eurasia have been the Y chromosomal adam? We’re supposed to believe that humans just suddenly got smarter hanging around Ethiopia? That’s not my experience with people from ethiopia. Ethiopians are actually a bit smarter than other niggers because they are genetically about half arab.
Then I found this study
The evolutionary history of Neandertal and Denisovan Y chromosomes
...which explains that both the mtDNA and Y haplogroups of neanderthals seem to be more similar to humans than denisovans— not the case with their autosomal dna. It seems early neanderthal samples show an mtDNA type closer to Denisovan, but then late neanderthals seem to have human mtDNA types— which is consistent with neanderthal dudes hooking up with sapien sheboons, resulting in hybrids which replaced Neanderthal females.
This study also concludes that human Y haplogroups totally replaced neanderthal Ys in late neanderthal populations. But I don’t know why they do. It seems more likely to me that neanderthal Y haplogroups replaced human ones. At least it should be even money that they did.
How do all invasions go? Smarter dudes invade dumber dudes’ countries and steal their women; produce aggressive hybrids, which in turn destroy the society of their fathers. Anyway, I think our dads were neanderthal. We are the half nigger mutts that totally replaced them. Not exactly sure how it went with denisovans though.
Theories on the peopling of the americas may undergo some revisions as well. But I’ll spare you that. I just thought it was really interesting that some neanderthals seem to have human Y chromosomes or vice versa.
I did some reading after we had this talk; it seems mutation/s favoring lighter skin developed in northern Eurasia and propagated with the steppe pastoralists of Russia/Caucasus mountain region. Now the question would be did these mutations occur before or after the split which led some of these Eurasians into the Americas? Perhaps it is the case that the mutations that tended to favor lighter skin as a response to Vitamin D status were simply not with those populations. But I don't favor that idea.
I think you are probably correct about diet being the primary influence.
Yeah, even the Greeks recognized Ethiopians were different. I wonder how your theory might impact the 'white pharaoh' ones.
So you are suggesting earlier Neanderthal hybridizes with out-of-Africa pre-humans, and then there is, what, back-migration onto the African continent - where modern Africans come from interbreeding with some African 'ghost'pop - and European ancestral hybrids remain in Europe growing whiter and whiter and they spread north toward Scandinavia?
Would the Denisovans just account for modern Asian pops?
would be did these mutations occur before or after the split which led some of these Eurasians into the Americas?
I would think these mutations originated in neanderthal or other archaic homo populations. Neanderthals were living in europe for hundreds of thousands of years. We know some neanderthals had blond or red hair and blue eyes. I dont know about denisovan populations. Maybe they looked like chinks.
Mongoloids and australoids have a decent amount of neanderthal DNA but none have blond hair or blue eyes. Maybe they just mixed with a different neanderthal population that had a different darker phenotype. You would think if there were any light hair/eyes genes in populations mongoloids living in higher latitudes — chinks, siberians, early native americans— they would begin to increase in frequency. But you dont have that. Eh, Im pretty much talking out of my ass at this point.
So you are suggesting earlier Neanderthal hybridizes with out-of-Africa pre-humans, and then there is, what, back-migration onto the African continent - where modern Africans come from interbreeding with some African 'ghost'pop - and European ancestral hybrids remain in Europe growing whiter and whiter and they spread north toward Scandinavia?
Yeah. I dont suppose it matters if these early hookups happen in africa or eurasia. But I like to picture neanderthals trying to colonize africa wearing cute little safari outfits. Anyway the half breeds are more intelligent than the local african homos but more agressive than the neanderthals. Or maybe they kill off neanderthal pure bloods with some sort of cave man AIDS. Anyway a cline begins to form ( I used cline in a sentence, did you see? ) , a racial cline, from europe to ethiopia, in which people tend to have neanderthal Y chromosomes and mtDNA from whatever the local homo niggers are in eastern africa, but with variable levels autosomal admixture from north to south. Populations in eurasia get a bit smarter because of a climate that favors higher intelligence but also perhaps because of higher levels of neanderthal genetics. Whereas populations that remain in the tropics tend to stagnate.
For whatever reason there is still this isolated archaic nigger ghost population that may have remained separated from the new homo sapien population in east africa until as late as 30,000 years ago. Maybe one group were jungle niggers and the other were savanah niggers. Maybe it took them 200,000 years to figure out how to cross a river. But yeah, if we all patrilineally descend from some safari neanderthal, then this admixture with a west african ghost population would have occured much later. And then subsequent to that introgression would have been ongoing sporadic back-to-africa migrations from eurasia.
A couple years ago when I was studying Y haplogroups I realized that Haplogroup E is really a very eurasian type that originates with types C, D, and F from a common “eurasian adam” about 100 kya in a proto-eurasian population and is not closely related to the paleo-african types A and B that you see in pygmies and khoie-san populations. And yet E haplogroups account for 80 or 90 percent of the men in SS africa. Most SS africans are autosomally closer to pygmies and san in some areas, but the Y-chromosomes say eurasian daddy. You don’t have to be heavily related to your patrilineal ancestor.
Would the Denisovans just account for modern Asian pops?
You mean account for their phenotype? Or are you wondering who has denisovan DNA? Its pretty well known that melanesian/australoid groups have the highest levels and east asians must have absorbed some of a mainland australoid people who had mixed with denisovans at an earlier period.
Also it maybe hard to tell where denisovan leaves off and neanderthal begins, you know?
Interestingly central native americans seem to have relatively high neanderthal and denisovan DNA which is not found in other NA groups. Could be from Polynesians.
The genetic analysis of different racial groups show black africans are farther removed from the other races than any other group. Your ancestors won't suddenly shift to being a different race, especially not black. Looking at genetic data, they'd have more of a chance becoming chinese.
Australoids are, for all intents and puposes, niggers. Are they closely related to afro-niggers? No they are more related to chinks. What made the difference between abos and chinks? Environment.
Northern indians are partly descended from our common aryan ancestors. But damn. Now they’re shit skin. Okay some of this is hybridization but my point is, genetic drift is a thing. Yes you can turn in to a nigger over time.
[ + ] zr855
[ - ] zr855 2 points 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 08:03:54 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] VitaminSieg
[ - ] VitaminSieg 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 08:10:36 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 09:23:46 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] zr855
[ - ] zr855 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 21:56:05 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] zr855
[ - ] zr855 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 22:07:39 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 23:41:37 ago (+0/-0)
It has to be positively billions of dollars wasted on plant-based supplements every year - and this isn't me saying that plant food is worthless. It's just that nowadays when it comes to incorporating plants, if I can't directly integrate it into my diet (even as a tea), I won't get it in pill form. My entire approach with supplements is orthomolecular at this point.
[ + ] zr855
[ - ] zr855 0 points 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 21:54:12 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] zr855
[ - ] zr855 0 points 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 22:07:58 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] ModernGuilt
[ - ] ModernGuilt 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 06:15:51 ago (+1/-0)
Moral of story, take your megadose sups faggots
[ + ] texasblood
[ - ] texasblood 5 points 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 02:52:46 ago (+5/-0)
All of God's creation must be destroyed.
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew 4 points 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 01:03:59 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] germ22
[ - ] germ22 3 points 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 06:00:10 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] ModernGuilt
[ - ] ModernGuilt 6 points 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 06:17:34 ago (+6/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 09:29:54 ago (+1/-0)*
Consider the war on masculinity. Vitamin D is directly implicated in testosterone production in the testes. A study from just over a decade ago studied supplementation with slightly more than 3,000IU/day. While the placebo group had no significant elevation in testosterone, the supplemented group saw between 200-400 ng/dl increases.
For those of you who know the relevant ranges in human men, this is substantial, the difference between a low and normal testosterone level - or for that matter between a normal and a higher than average lvl.
It also increased the free fraction, in the range of 6.3-7.45 ng/dl, where a normal range for human men under 50 yrs is generously 4-20 ng/dl. In other words you're talking realistically about 40% increases after one year of steady vitamin D supplementation at the necessary levels.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 3 points 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 10:13:14 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 10:40:27 ago (+1/-0)*
The way I wound up coming down in that debate from long ago had nothing to do with the mechanism though; as a smoker I couldn't tolerate what I knew to be the overwhelmingly negative side effects on the respiratory system of chronic smoking. If the benefits were real, I compared it to crawling across a floor covered in razor blades just to get to a box of Band-Aids.
So I suppose it is all contingent on the method of delivery, and on how resilient someone is to the addiction risk. I tend to lean on the side that says there are no real cheat codes. Getting a higher than federally recommended amount of vitamin D is not 'cheating' in this sense, not in the same way that flooding the body with exogenous nicotinic acid is. Even in the case where someone is supplementing D in order to raise their testosterone levels, less than great things can happen if, for example, the person is significantly overweight. I've always believed that testosterone is a preparatory hormone; it increases in response to a particular kind of lifestyle and helps propel an individual male up the status hierarchy. An unfit, overweight male supplementing to increase his testosterone is not the same as a male who is actually positioning himself socially to be in the sorts of situations where his testosterone is actually required (to win things, and then reproduce afterward). In the fat man, he'll aromatize his testosterone and wind up with increased estrogen.
All in all, I think we go wrong when we imagine we can micromanage a homeostatic system as complex as the body by just front-loading one end of the chain with this or that chemical. I'm recommending men take substantially more vitamin D here than what is recommended, but I'd also say that for testosterone to do good things for you (it is not some divine nectar in and of itself), you need to be optimizing the entire picture. Some basement dwelling obese neet might get some psychological benefits from taking 10-20k IUs of vitamin D, which might help encourage him to better his situation, but it isn't as if more comprehensive life changes are directly caused by increased testosterone; it's not like the world somehow directly responds to that serum value for a steroid hormone. It's more like having the right kind of ammunition for your gun; it's no good if you are not out shooting something (or rather, at something).
[ + ] Rebooted
[ - ] Rebooted 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 12:21:19 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] NeoNazirite
[ - ] NeoNazirite 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 14:17:09 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 2 points 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 09:21:02 ago (+2/-0)*
Note that vitamin D supplementation needs to be done with vitamins A & K. Many of the pathways that vitamin D operates through involve signaling chains that are dependent on A & K (in other words, fat soluble vitamins are not surprisingly a functional package). For more information I would check out Chris Masterjohn. I take him as the authority on this subject, and he was busting up this RDA myth years ago. The doses of A and K needed are not on the same order as D. I do supplement a few forms of K, but I tend to get A through eating liver. You can get 15-20k IUs of vitamin A from just 3 oz of liver; however, liver is so absolutely fucking nutrient dense that it actually contains amounts of many other things (like B12) that exceed your body's absorptive capacity. It is ideal to pre-cook some liver at the start of the week and eat about 15-20 grams of it every day. Or, if that's appalling, get some liver pills. There simply is not a more powerfully nutritious class of food for human beings than animal organs.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 10:53:06 ago (+1/-0)
Hey, you are aware that the light skin of europeans probably evolved as an adaptation to produce more vitamin D, particularly as high carb, low meat diets became a thing 8000 years ago. Do you think with high D supplementation could turn us back to niggers in about 100 generations? ;-P
but seriously, could it?
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 11:14:14 ago (+1/-0)*
It's possible that we became even paler as a response to the agricultural shift, perhaps as the intake of fat-soluble vitamins decreased. But I don't know. We might be able to show that even if meat consumption as a total % of the average diet declined, that better cooking methods combined with technology for concentrating fat-soluble vitamins in things like butter actually offset that change.
I don't deny that light skin is an adaptation to produce more vitamin D, but my guess is that the change was not primarily caused by the agricultural revolution, and had more to do with the generally less solar irradiance where our early ancestors were living. Again, less animal consumption beginning 10k years ago might have favored even greater loss of pigmentation, but I don't know if I'm convinced that human beings were really losing out on fat-soluble vitamins in Europe at that time (again, because of things like our ability to make water-in-fat emulsions out of dairy).
But who the fuck knows. If we go way, way back and begin to think about primates - primarily tree-dwellers, which our ancestors almost certainly were at one time - then fruit was the mainstay. I think the transition toward scavenging was either a later development or at least made up a smaller proportion of the diet. If different near-human species developed independently in the area of modern Russia (or something) then it might have been something more like a ground-dwelling biped like the bigfoot stories. I am not the guy to ask about this shit though.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 31, 2022 01:16:27 ago (+1/-0)*
Im interested in this stuff.
One imagines negroids got plenty of vitamin D because they made it. One imagines early europeans might have coloring similar to eskimos, who are certainly lighter than africans but consume a nearly all meat diet. Inuits certainly have had enough time to develop lighter skin . Why are they not as light as scandis? Early Western Hunter Gatherers were allegedly brown skinned. So perhaps living off of wheat and other grains dramatically changed the color of europeans. Maybe. This is the accepted theory. Then again we started drinking a lot of milk as a group about 6000 years ago. I guess that still doesn’t give you as much D as an eskimo gets.
The more I read on the subject the more I think human evolution was much more distributed rather than local to africa. There were obviously homo erectus types living all over eurasia. And then, over the last decade or so, there’s been all this shit about neanderthal and denisovan dna in our genome, as well as multiple other hypothesized “ghost populations” that have admixed with our various sub-populations in africa and asia. Modern africans seem to have been massively introgressed by eurasians in the last 5 or 10 thousand years, except for a few lingering isolated tribes. Back-to-africa can hardly be overestimated as a phenomenon, and I think people just don’t realize that.
Here’s the suspiscious thing. It seems kinda like a rule for humans that groups that move in to colder high latitudes get smarter. So why assume that niggers even more primitive than modern ones were somehow able to replace neanderthal in western eurasia?
Its known that our (modern human) mtDNA and Y haplogroups are rooted in a population that probably lived in ethiopia or something like that around 300 kya (L0 and A00 estimates ). I thought, why couldn’t neanderthal daddies migrating from ice age eurasia have been the Y chromosomal adam? We’re supposed to believe that humans just suddenly got smarter hanging around Ethiopia? That’s not my experience with people from ethiopia. Ethiopians are actually a bit smarter than other niggers because they are genetically about half arab.
Then I found this study
...which explains that both the mtDNA and Y haplogroups of neanderthals seem to be more similar to humans than denisovans— not the case with their autosomal dna. It seems early neanderthal samples show an mtDNA type closer to Denisovan, but then late neanderthals seem to have human mtDNA types— which is consistent with neanderthal dudes hooking up with sapien sheboons, resulting in hybrids which replaced Neanderthal females.
This study also concludes that human Y haplogroups totally replaced neanderthal Ys in late neanderthal populations. But I don’t know why they do. It seems more likely to me that neanderthal Y haplogroups replaced human ones. At least it should be even money that they did.
How do all invasions go? Smarter dudes invade dumber dudes’ countries and steal their women; produce aggressive hybrids, which in turn destroy the society of their fathers. Anyway, I think our dads were neanderthal. We are the half nigger mutts that totally replaced them. Not exactly sure how it went with denisovans though.
Theories on the peopling of the americas may undergo some revisions as well. But I’ll spare you that. I just thought it was really interesting that some neanderthals seem to have human Y chromosomes or vice versa.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 3.4 yearsJan 31, 2022 08:35:12 ago (+0/-0)
I think you are probably correct about diet being the primary influence.
Yeah, even the Greeks recognized Ethiopians were different. I wonder how your theory might impact the 'white pharaoh' ones.
So you are suggesting earlier Neanderthal hybridizes with out-of-Africa pre-humans, and then there is, what, back-migration onto the African continent - where modern Africans come from interbreeding with some African 'ghost'pop - and European ancestral hybrids remain in Europe growing whiter and whiter and they spread north toward Scandinavia?
Would the Denisovans just account for modern Asian pops?
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.4 yearsJan 31, 2022 21:14:10 ago (+0/-0)
I would think these mutations originated in neanderthal or other archaic homo populations. Neanderthals were living in europe for hundreds of thousands of years. We know some neanderthals had blond or red hair and blue eyes. I dont know about denisovan populations. Maybe they looked like chinks.
Mongoloids and australoids have a decent amount of neanderthal DNA but none have blond hair or blue eyes. Maybe they just mixed with a different neanderthal population that had a different darker phenotype. You would think if there were any light hair/eyes genes in populations mongoloids living in higher latitudes — chinks, siberians, early native americans— they would begin to increase in frequency. But you dont have that. Eh, Im pretty much talking out of my ass at this point.
Yeah. I dont suppose it matters if these early hookups happen in africa or eurasia. But I like to picture neanderthals trying to colonize africa wearing cute little safari outfits. Anyway the half breeds are more intelligent than the local african homos but more agressive than the neanderthals. Or maybe they kill off neanderthal pure bloods with some sort of cave man AIDS. Anyway a cline begins to form ( I used cline in a sentence, did you see? ) , a racial cline, from europe to ethiopia, in which people tend to have neanderthal Y chromosomes and mtDNA from whatever the local homo niggers are in eastern africa, but with variable levels autosomal admixture from north to south. Populations in eurasia get a bit smarter because of a climate that favors higher intelligence but also perhaps because of higher levels of neanderthal genetics. Whereas populations that remain in the tropics tend to stagnate.
For whatever reason there is still this isolated archaic nigger ghost population that may have remained separated from the new homo sapien population in east africa until as late as 30,000 years ago. Maybe one group were jungle niggers and the other were savanah niggers. Maybe it took them 200,000 years to figure out how to cross a river. But yeah, if we all patrilineally descend from some safari neanderthal, then this admixture with a west african ghost population would have occured much later. And then subsequent to that introgression would have been ongoing sporadic back-to-africa migrations from eurasia.
A couple years ago when I was studying Y haplogroups I realized that Haplogroup E is really a very eurasian type that originates with types C, D, and F from a common “eurasian adam” about 100 kya in a proto-eurasian population and is not closely related to the paleo-african types A and B that you see in pygmies and khoie-san populations. And yet E haplogroups account for 80 or 90 percent of the men in SS africa. Most SS africans are autosomally closer to pygmies and san in some areas, but the Y-chromosomes say eurasian daddy. You don’t have to be heavily related to your patrilineal ancestor.
You mean account for their phenotype? Or are you wondering who has denisovan DNA? Its pretty well known that melanesian/australoid groups have the highest levels and east asians must have absorbed some of a mainland australoid people who had mixed with denisovans at an earlier period.
Also it maybe hard to tell where denisovan leaves off and neanderthal begins, you know?
Interestingly central native americans seem to have relatively high neanderthal and denisovan DNA which is not found in other NA groups. Could be from Polynesians.
[ + ] Rebooted
[ - ] Rebooted 0 points 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 12:24:52 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 3.4 yearsJan 31, 2022 01:32:39 ago (+0/-0)
Northern indians are partly descended from our common aryan ancestors. But damn. Now they’re shit skin. Okay some of this is hybridization but my point is, genetic drift is a thing. Yes you can turn in to a nigger over time.
[ + ] NumbDigger
[ - ] NumbDigger 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 07:58:59 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted -8 points 3.4 yearsJan 27, 2022 21:52:50 ago (+0/-8)
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew 5 points 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 01:04:30 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 3.4 yearsJan 29, 2022 13:45:34 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Hadza
[ - ] Hadza 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 02:43:59 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] beece
[ - ] beece 1 point 3.4 yearsJan 28, 2022 08:36:52 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 2.5 yearsDec 13, 2022 09:49:56 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.5 yearsDec 13, 2022 11:31:10 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 3.4 yearsJan 29, 2022 13:44:09 ago (+0/-0)