H02tYK4V

1We both matched with LGBT
2
3You: Hey
4
5Stranger: Hi
6
7You: Which letter are you?
8
9Stranger: I raped some female
10
11You: NICE
12
13Stranger: Relax
14
15You: Don't cut yourself on the edge
16
17Stranger: So you think rape is edgy
18
19You: Oh jesus christ are you a fucking incel
20
21You: Yeah it is fag
22
23Stranger: How
24
25Stranger: Do you dislike rape victims
26
27You: I don't have a personal vendetta against rape victims, no
28
29You: I think I spoke to you some time ago
30
31Stranger: Lies
32
33You: You got really hostile when I said you seemed like a 12 year old
34
35Stranger: Ok
36
37Stranger: Why do you find rape edgy
38
39You: Because its not exactly a normal thing to want to be, a rapist that is. Do you think its normal to rape someone?
40
41Stranger: So everything that is not normal is edgy
42
43Stranger: So rape victims are not normal humans
44
45Stranger: Wow that's
46
47You: False equivalence
48
49You: Thats cute
50
51Stranger: That's really mean
52
53Stranger: You think raped people are not normal
54
55You: >literally stated that rapists aren't normal
56>"durr hurr u said raped people are not normal XDD"
57
58Stranger: No if rape is odd so is rape victims
59
60Stranger: Same thing
61
62You: Nope
63
64You: Its really not
65
66Stranger: You just lie
67
68You: Do you think pedophilia is disgusting?
69
70Stranger: If rape victims is normal you have to agree rape is normal
71
72Stranger: Wich one is it
73
74You: I asked you a question first
75
76Stranger: Well you aviod what i say
77
78You: Nope, you're the one avoiding questions here mate
79
80Stranger: I can't believe you said that
81
82You: Do you think pedophilia is disgusting? If you avoid the question I will be inclined to believe that you don't
83
84Stranger: If i think the attraction to kids is wrong
85
86Stranger: Yes
87
88You: So you think its disgusting? Then you must find the child victim disgusting too
89
90You: There's your rape logic
91
92Stranger: But you said definition
93
94You: When?
95
96Stranger: Not rape
97
98You: What
99
100Stranger: Pedophilia is some definition to something
101
102Stranger: Wrong or right don't answer if it's gross or not
103
104You: So do you find pedophilia gross?
105
106Stranger: I answerd some definition
107
108You: Cmon mate its a yes or no question
109
110Stranger: You just said some definition
111
112You: >avoiding the question constantly
113
114Stranger: Well you can't answer definition in the way you want
115
116Stranger: You have to say the whole thing
117
118You: Are you literally telling me you can't answer the question that is do you find pedophilia gross?
119
120You: Thats...um interesting
121
122Stranger: Well pedophilia is just some definition to being attracted to kids
123
124You: And to you, is that gross?
125
126Stranger: It is wrong and gross if i see it
127
128Stranger: You can't compare kids to adult people in sex
129
130Stranger: That's very mest up
131
132You: I'm comparing your logic of the victim being as bad as the perpetrator
133
134You: "mest up"
135
136Stranger: Well you can't do it with kids
137
138Stranger: Rape on adults is not like rape on kids
139
140Stranger: Rape on adults is healthy
141
142You: How so?
143
144Stranger: Rape on kids is very bad
145
146Stranger: It fix adult people
147
148Stranger: It don't fix kids
149
150You: Can you back up your claim at all?
151
152Stranger: Well reality itself do
153
154You: How so
155
156Stranger: Raped adult people act better
157
158You: Give me any example
159
160Stranger: I raped some adult female
161
162Stranger: She acted better
163
164You: You aren't backing up what you're saying you're literally just claiming things
165
166Stranger: Explaine that
167
168Stranger: But what i saw is proof
169
170You: How am I meant to believe you when you can't back up your claims
171
172You: How am I meant to believe you when theres no evidence
173
174Stranger: What i see can be proof
175
176Stranger: In law even
177
178You: Thats like me saying theres proof of UFOs because I've supposedly seen one.
179
180You: Theres no actual evidence
181
182Stranger: But you can see humans
183
184Stranger: You can see her
185
186Stranger: Its proof
187
188You: But I can't, so how can I trust you. Also even if that were true, thats ONE female that does not reflect all rape victims
189
190Stranger: You don't know that
191
192Stranger: Proof?.
193
194You: So are you saying that if one person in a group of people acts a certain way, the rest of them do too>
195
196You: ?*
197
198Stranger: Hmm what's that
199
200Stranger: No proof
201
202Stranger: HA
203
204Stranger: That's right prove it don't reflect all females
205
206Stranger: Right now
207
208Stranger: Yeah that's right you can't
209
210You: Thats ironic, https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/mentalimpact.shtml
211
212Stranger: That don't prove how it effect all females
213
214You: I didn't say it effected all females, YOU'RE the one saying rape is good for all women
215
216You: Hmm whats that
217
218Stranger: It is
219
220You: No proof
221
222You: HA
223
224You: Give me proof then
225
226Stranger: This data is based from other things
227
228You: It goes through many instances, yes, but mental health is the prime focus
229
230You: Yet you still dont have any proof to back up YOUR claim
231
232Stranger: Mental health is bullshit
233
234Stranger: Normal doesn't exist
235
236You: Says you, based on no evidence
237
238You: Nice claims
239
240Stranger: But this is not proof
241
242Stranger: This is made up facts
243
244You: How are they made up?
245
246You: All the sources are there
247
248Stranger: They say mental health exist in negative
249
250Stranger: It don't exist at all
251
252You: But you can't prove that
253
254Stranger: I can't prove something that don't exist
255
256You: But what basis are you making these claims on?
257
258You: Your own personal opinion?
259
260Stranger: The fact they play with words
261
262You: How do they?
263
264Stranger: They say things like mental health
265
266Stranger: And avarge
267
268You: avarge
269
270You: Iconic
271
272Stranger: There is no normal or avarge
273
274You: Prove it
275
276You: How is there no such thing as normal or average
277
278Stranger: Every brain is not even the same
279
280Stranger: What makes you think normal exist
281
282Stranger: Nothing is normal
283
284Stranger: What's called normal in japan is not normal in sweden is just made up
285
286You: Normality as opposed to being deviant, eccentric or unusual
287
288Stranger: All that is subjective
289
290Stranger: So again made up
291
292Stranger: Normal is soicaly made up
293
294You: Do you think pedophilia isn't normal?
295
296Stranger: What is normal
297
298Stranger: Nothing
299
300Stranger: No brain is the same
301
302You: Doesn't mean there aren't en masse societal averages and common ways of thinking
303
304Stranger: Not really only similar ways
305
306Stranger: Not common ways
307
308You: Are you saying common occurances aren't a thing?
309
310Stranger: I'm saying no one think the same on things
311
312You: Sorry to break it to you but most people think rape is bad
313
314Stranger: What you think is red from the eyes is not the same red for someone elses
315
316Stranger: NO
317
318Stranger: Don't say that
319
320You: Only to people with colour blindness would see red to be a different colour, but the MAJORITY would see it the same as me, thus making it normal to see red that way
321
322Stranger: No red is the same red
323
324You: Why shouldn't I say most people think rape is bad?
325
326Stranger: In eyes
327
328Stranger: Everyone have there own red is proven
329
330You: Prove it then
331
332Stranger: Is all ready proven
333
334You: Link it to me
335
336Stranger: Every eye don't have the same thing on it when it Comes to color
337
338You: How does that reflect onto societal norms? Those are biological norms
339
340Stranger: Just go on youtube and type do people see different colors
341
342Stranger: No red is the same
343
344You: But that doesn't reflect societal norms
345
346Stranger: The eye don't see reality
347
348You: Do you know what societal means?
349
350Stranger: In fact no one see true reality
351
352Stranger: Societal don't change anything
353
354You: Hmm yes in the context of rape it does
355
356Stranger: No brain think like some other brain
357
358You: So you say rape is good?
359
360Stranger: Saying rape is bad or good is made up
361
362Stranger: There is no bad or good
363
364You: Well you obviously like it if you raped someone
365
366Stranger: Evil and good come from religion
367
368You: Only in some cases, a lot is based on biological human morality
369
370You: And survivalistic natures
371
372Stranger: What you find good someone elses may find it evil
373
374Stranger: Morality is subjective
375
376You: But in society rape is seen as bad
377
378Stranger: Nothing biological tells us how to act in morality
379
380Stranger: Morality is soicaly made
381
382You: Yes it does, we have biological survival instincts that reflect on how we act in society
383
384You: Jesus you're retarded
385
386You: Or 12
387
388Stranger: In fact biological rape is normal
389
390You: probably the latter
391
392You: HOW IS IT NORMAL
393
394Stranger: Very normal
395
396You: you still haven't given me ANY proof
397
398Stranger: Biological is something in human nature
399
400You: Yes of course, but that doesn't account for rape
401
402You: Please use actual evidence to prove to me how rape is normal
403
404You: WAIT A SECONF
405
406You: SECOND
407
408Stranger: Biological morality say rape is ok
409
410You: I thought you said that there is no such thing as normal
411
412Stranger: That's why people raped in wars
413
414You: Doesn't make it the right thing to do
415
416Stranger: Well like you said biological
417
418You: Awful things happen in war
419
420Stranger: Yes its what makes morality
421
422You: Give me one linked piece of evidence
423
424You: ONE
425
426Stranger: In your logic
427
428Stranger: So it makes it not just right but its in human nature to rape
429
430You: These are all claims backed on no proven truth
431
432Stranger: Its something that have always happend
433
434Stranger: And will always happend
435
436You: I wonder how you'd feel if someone raped your mother
437
438Stranger: Biologicaly is proven rape is in human nature thats why it never go away in history
439
440You: Then by that logic it isnt wrong if someone raped your mother?
441
442You: Would you be fine with that?
443
444Stranger: You based your morality on biological things and in biological morality you defend only family and not strangers
445
446You: A stranger to you is a family member to someone else
447
448Stranger: Is eveyone for themself
449
450You: So what would your reaction be to someone raping your mother
451
452You: Just answer me
453
454You: Thats all I ask for
455
456Stranger: Biologicaly my morality can be everyone for themself
457
458You: Why do you keep avoiding the question?
459
460Stranger: You just answerd your own answer
461
462You: Can't you answer me?
463
464Stranger: Everyone for themself
465
466Stranger: Its evolution right
467
468You: So you wouldn't mind if some random guy raped your mother>
469
470You: ?*
471
472Stranger: Natruley we only live with 12 people
473
474Stranger: Strangers don't matter
475
476You: I'm loving the lack of an answer here
477
478Stranger: My morality math up in evolution
479
480You: So you wouldn't mind if some random guy raped your mother?
481
482Stranger: I all ready answerd you everyone for themself
483
484You: So you wouldn't mind if some random guy raped your mother?
485
486You: Yes or no
487
488Stranger: I all ready answerd you that its everyone for themself
489
490You: Oh so you wouldn't mind?
491
492You: Wow you really are a degenerate
493
494Stranger: I don't base my morality based on your morality
495
496Stranger: Its like saying is your mom in jail yes or no
497
498You: No, but how does that compare to my question
499
500Stranger: You try to force your own morality on to me
501
502Stranger: It does i all ready answerd you
503
504You: You still haven't linked any proof
505
506You: No studies, no facts
507
508You: Nothing
509
510Stranger: Every grupp for themself
511
512You: Don't forget to kick the chair when you tie the noose
513
514Stranger: Morality is not facts and proof is subjective
515
516You: Not really
517
518Stranger: Saying eveyone for themself is one morality
519
520Stranger: Is very old
521
522You: So its subjective to think that the ocean exists
523
524You: Its subjective to think that water is wet
525
526You: Jesus
527
528Stranger: Morality is not like water
529
530Stranger: You really don't understand morality
531
532You: You really don't understand evidence, thus you cant back up your claims
533
534You: Wew lad
535
536Stranger: You think morality is something you can prove and not something that is subjective
537
538You: Neck yourself
539
540Stranger: Prove morality
541
542You: BUT HOW IN ANY WAY IS RAPE NOT A BAD THING
543
544Stranger: The golden rule prove it
545
546Stranger: Oh waite you can't
547
548You: I'm not gonna find evidence for YOUR claims, faggot
549
550Stranger: The golden rule is just some subjective morality
551
552Stranger: You used the golden rule
553
554Stranger: Many times
555
556Stranger: Something that can't be proven
557
558Stranger: There is no one most true truth
559
560Stranger: We only agree on things and accept it like truth
561
562You: Is pedophilia just subjective then?
563
564Stranger: Everything you see hear or smell could all be Fake
565
566Stranger: Everything is subjective in reality itself if it exist
567
568You: Nice so pedophilia isn't morally wrong?
569
570Stranger: If you follow evolution yes
571
572You: WEW LAD
573
574Stranger: But if you also follow evolution rule rape is ok
575
576You: So to you, pedophilia and rape is ok?
577
578Stranger: Well not if i follow evolutions morality
579
580You: Oh so there IS a set morality
581
582Stranger: Rape on adults is only ok there
583
584You: How is it ok due to evolution?
585
586You: How can that be reflected upon society
587
588Stranger: Well is just one set morality i follow but its still subjective
589
590Stranger: Everything is subjective
591
592Stranger: You just asked what i personaly follow
593
594Stranger: That's it
595
596You: Ah but in society you're seen as a lunatic
597
598Stranger: Society have raped in war
599
600You: Which societies
601
602Stranger: What you say don't math up with reality
603
604Stranger: World war 2
605
606Stranger: Raped people
607
608You: You're the pedo defending rapist here
609
610You: Which army>
611
612You: ?*
613
614Stranger: World war 1 raped people
615
616You: But which army?
617
618Stranger: Its in human nature
619
620You: Can you answer mu question, nigger?
621
622You: my*
623
624Stranger: I don't defend pedos i just defend the fact is normal to rape adult females in war
625
626Stranger: You seem to fail in the evolution part
627
628You: Children were also murdered in Vietnam, does that make it ok then?
629
630Stranger: In evolution you don't have sex with kids
631
632Stranger: That's basic
633
634Stranger: Well its not something natrule in human nature like rape
635
636Stranger: Rape on adult females is nature
637
638Stranger: It have always been
639
640You: Children were also murdered in Vietnam, does that make it ok then?
641
642Stranger: You just exposed yourself being anti logic and pro racist
643
644Stranger: Thank you for that
645
646You: Seperating the races is natural, I thought you'd love that
647
648Stranger: I know see your deep bias for white people and i did not do anything related to race
649
650Stranger: Well in fact nature kill white people
651
652You: I mean you're a rapist (supposedly), you're more likely to be a nigger
653
654Stranger: Mixing is also in nature
655
656You: Nope
657
658You: Very rarely
659
660Stranger: The fact white people die is nature
661
662You: We were all seperated for a reason
663
664You: How so
665
666Stranger: White dna is inferior and black is dominate
667
668Stranger: That's why white people die out
669
670You: People of all races will all naturally die. Also give me any evidence for that claim
671
672Stranger: Its evolution
673
674You: There's a white genocide caused by the Jews
675
676You: PROVE IT NIG
677
678Stranger: Why are you anti evolution white people die out like the neanderthals
679
680Stranger: Same reasons
681
682You: Nice claim where's the evidence
683
684Stranger: If you mix white and black guess wich is dominate
685
686Stranger: Black
687
688You: Prove it
689
690Stranger: That's called dominate dna
691
692You: With evidence please
693
694You: Not claims
695
696Stranger: You can look this up
697
698You: Why don't you link me it
699
700Stranger: White dna is resesive
701
702You: Link me the study
703
704Stranger: Just google that
705
706You: I'd like you to link me to the specific evidence
707
708You: Or are you incapable
709
710Stranger: That is proof that's why white people die out
711
712You: Please link me the evidence
713
714Stranger: Well the proof is litrealy in google
715
716You: I'm not gonna believe your claim
717
718You: Link me the specific study that shows that
719
720Stranger: This is very basic logic even for racist people
721
722You: Link me the evidence
723
724Stranger: Google it
725
726You: Link me the evidence
727
728Stranger: White genes resesive
729
730You: Link me the evidence
731
732Stranger: Google that and stop being retarded
733
734You: Link me the evidence and stop being a retarded rapist
735
736Stranger: I'm on mobile
737
738You: Poor you
739
740You: Can you still not copy a link?
741
742You: wow
743
744Stranger: Stop being some retard racist that can't google basic facts
745
746You: Stop being a morally defunct rapist nigger who can't find any studies or evidence to back up their calims
747
748You: claims*
749
750Stranger: Well you don't know my skin color and there is hard proof for this and saying link me proof 100000 times while i'm on mobile is dumb
751
752Stranger: Its easy to google
753
754You: Its easy to link me a study
755
756You: Are you literally too retarded to go into another tab, find the link, copy it, and send it?
757
758You: Cute
759
760You: I'm not finding the evidence for YOUR claim
761
762Stranger: If i have to google basic evolution facts i don't think you understand evolution
763
764Stranger: So you waste my time with proof on everything simple
765
766You: If you are unable to find evidence for yourself I don't think you quite understand the concept of finding proof
767
768Stranger: That's like saying link me the earth is not flat
769
770Stranger: Link me gravity exist
771
772Stranger: Its dumb stuff like that you ask
773
774Stranger: White resesive genes is basic in dna
775
776Stranger: You cleary don't know what i talk about and say proof 24 7
777
778You: https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
779https://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law
780
781Stranger: You could not even comprehend the proof if you can't even google it
782
783You: There are two links
784
785You: See, easy!
786
787Stranger: Yeah on some pc
788
789You: Its literally so easy to tab out, find a website, copy the link and hit SEND
790
791Stranger: Like always retarded racist like yourself reject basic logic
792
793You: Like always, niggers can't find evidence
794
795Stranger: If its so easy to google you can do it
796
797You: Like I said before, I am not finding evidence for your claim
798
799Stranger: But you wont do that basic bias
800
801You: You make the claim, you find the evidence
802
803Stranger: Basic retarded idiot who think everything is some youtube cooment
804
805You: Your needless back tracking and excuses make me believe that there IS no evidence
806
807You: CUTE
808
809Stranger: There is all ready proof
810
811You: Link me the proof then
812
813Stranger: I see you suffer from being low iq
814
815You: Hmm cute insult
816
817You: Avoiding getting evidence again
818
819You: Oh, silly monkey!
820
821Stranger: I all ready tolld you to google it while you google flat earth and ignore it
822
823Stranger: Low iq racist white guy
824
825You: Because I am not getting the evidence for your claims
826
827You: >guy
828
829You: Iconic
830
831Stranger: You don't look for it when it exist in google
832
833You: That made little to no sense
834
835Stranger: So proof is no sense
836
837You: >nigger
838>can't form basic coherent sentences
839amazing
840
841You: Yeah, so you literally make so sense
842
843You: WHERE IS THE PROOF
844
845You: Links please, then we can carry on
846
847You: But I can't believe you based on claims
848
849Stranger: You can't even google coherent sentences
850
851Stranger: So that's hypocritical
852
853You: Like I said, not searching for evidence to back your claim
854
855You: Thats up to you
856
857You: I found you evidence for those studies on rape victims
858
859Stranger: You seem to not care for proof you only care to act bias
860
861You: Shame you can't find any proof
862
863Stranger: So my argument ends here
864
865You: You're the one who can't link me proof
866
867You: Thats cute
868
869Stranger: Well its pathetic how you keep saying that
870
871You: Link me the proof then
872
873You: I'm waiting
874
875Stranger: So i will link it and track your ip
876
877You: You do that then
878
879You: Go on
880
881Stranger: Uk
882
883Stranger: Nice
884
885Stranger: I will link the genes things also
886
887You: Do it then
888
889You: I'm still waiting
890
891Stranger: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-white-genes-recessive
892
893You: Ok lets have a look
894
895Stranger: There you go basic logic
896
897You: There are no sources in that article that show any particular scientific studies
898
899Stranger: https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/02/22/whites-genetically-weaker-than-blacks-study-finds.amp.html&ved=0ahUKEwjT5NPTjfHXAhVKMJoKHWVvA9oQFghTMAw&usg=AOvVaw3PoThECpRDKG8U9lKKFTta&ampcf=1
900
901Stranger: Also this is basic logic in dna something i knew you don't comprehend
902
903You: Ok lets take a look
904
905Stranger: The first link talked about proof
906
907Stranger: https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.mic.com/articles/amp/106856/geneticists-have-found-something-surprising-about-the-dna-of-white-people&ved=0ahUKEwjT5NPTjfHXAhVKMJoKHWVvA9oQFghbMA4&usg=AOvVaw0E0CsPO5nWKS-WKcVpSons&ampcf=1
908
909Stranger: And here is some other one
910
911Stranger: Also
912
913You: Most of the studies also covered african americans and latinos
914
915You: hmmm
916
917Stranger: https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl%3Fmd%3Dread%3Bid%3D1869&ved=0ahUKEwjhoP-kjvHXAhXGB5oKHfCqBx4QFggtMAI&usg=AOvVaw1egxSp3Bbv7_StUAxJLKuw
918
919Stranger: Also this
920
921You: Every race has recessive genes it shows
922
923You: Not particularly whites
924
925You: Lol
926
927Stranger: Its a fact the white dna is the most resesive genes
928
929You: Recessive =/= Inferior and vice versa.
930Recessive and Dominant are solely related to how the genes behave during reproduction and not how they manifest in an organism.
931
932Stranger: Inferior dna will die out in evolution
933
934You: Like I said, recessive does not mean inferior
935
936Stranger: That's basic logic genes is not intelligence based its dominate or resesive
937
938You: Like blackness, Huntington's disease is a dominant gene disorder too, doesn't mean it's a good thing. And THAT is a dominant gene
939
940Stranger: Resesive is inferior in evolution over the fact it will die out
941
942Stranger: Anyone who reject this reject basic reality
943
944You: So whites breeding with whites means they will die out
945
946You: Nice
947
948You: You're the one taking specific details from studies and assuming it means something it doesn't
949
950Stranger: White genes is like neanderthals genes resesive white people need to die in evolution
951
952Stranger: Is natrule
953
954You: Jews are the closest linked to neanderthals
955
956You: Sadly I don't see them dying out
957
958Stranger: They are also white
959
960Stranger: They have resesive genes just like you do
961
962You: Jews aren't fucking white mate
963
964Stranger: But its proven white genes is most resesive and jews is white in dna
965
966You: How are jews white?
967
968Stranger: Through dna
969
970You: http://www.tbshamden.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2446:ashkenazi-jews-are-not-white&catid=97&Itemid=61
971
972Stranger: Can't open links i'm on mobile
973
974You: You can't even copy a link and paste it into another tab?
975
976You: Sad
977
978Stranger: You can't do that on touch phone mobile in omegle
979
980Stranger: You're retarded
981
982Stranger: Can't open link in omegle based on mobile = retarded guy don't understand it = ok
983
984You: What you can do it highlight the link by holding down on the message and waiting for the blue selection highlight to appear, then select the entire link with that. Then you hit "copy" and open a new tab, then you hold your finger down and click "paste"
985
986You: There you go sweetie
987
988Stranger: So you still don't get it
989
990Stranger: It don't work on omegle on my mobile to do that
991
992You: Hmm but earlier when I sent you the rape study, you could open that right?
993
994Stranger: No
995
996You: "Ashkenazi Jews who identify as “white”, please understand the following:
997
9981. History and identity – As late as 1987 the US legally defined Jews as non-white. To the best of my knowledge, 50 years ago Jews had the same skin color as they do today. I deduce that white is not skin color, it is first and foremost an issue history and identity. The “white people world” is represented by its European (often colonial) history, it’s culture, heroes, it’s Kings, ethos, faith etc. – and Ashkenazi Jews are not part of that world. Their heroes are the Maccabees and not the Vikings or Joan of Arc, their Kings are David King of Israel and Hezekiah King of Judah (both archeologically confirmed historical figures) and not Kings Edward and George.
999
1000Secondly, Jews are not a “religion”. While in the Western world identities fall under the categories of religion or race, Middle Eastern people have tribal identities that are based neither the former nor the latter. Jews, similar to Pashtuns (who also often have pale skin and yet would not identify as white people) and other Middle Eastern Tribes, are neither religion nor race but a tribe. Jewish identity since the days of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel had always been a tribal/national peoplehood. While tribal practices and customs (which is often incorrectly referred to as “Judaism”) and a strong biological link between many of the members are certainly present, Israelite identity was never based on either of these. Israelite identity has always been a tribal membership that goes by lineage (being born into the Tribes of Israel) or tribal acceptance (which is incorrectly translated as “conversion”). The identity Ashkenazi Jews have today is identical to that of King David whose great grandmother was a Moabite convert, but was nonetheless a Jew by virtue of being born into the Tribes of Israel by lineage.
1001
1002You are Jews not because of your “religion” (are you even religious?), but because you were born into a tribe/people called the Nation of Israel. You are not “white people” with a “Jewish religion”, you are Jews – members of a people who origniated in Judea, whether you adhere to the laws of the tribe or not.
1003
1004Thirdly, Ashkenazi Jews have been the victims of Europeans and Western imperialism for centuries precisely because they were not perceived as part of the “white people world”, beginning with the Roman colonialism of their nation state and ending with 6 million of them being killed precisely because they were non-whites.
1005
10062. Culture – Whether it’s the Hebrew calendar, the tefillin they put on at their Bar Mitzvah identical to the ancient second Temple tefillin found in Qumran and across Israel or celebrating the Judean revolt for independence in our historic homeland on Hanukkah – Ashkenazi Jews have kept the entire indigenous culture, customs, traditions, books, and to a high extant language and of their ancestors – Judeans and other Israelites.
1007
10083. Biology – Although biology is not the main part of the issue, Ashkenazi Jews are not genetically white either. An extensive number of genetic studies show they originated in the Middle East, that despite European admixture they are genetic brothers of other Jews, Palestinians, Druze and Lebanese Arabs and share a highly significant amount of ancestry with Sephardi Jews to whom they are genetically almost identical. Tests also show Ahskenazi Levites are descendants of Hebrews, and Ashkenazi Cohanim share lineage with Sephardi Cohanim.
1009
1010Lastly, Ashkenazi Jews, whether the world likes it or not (and apparently it does not), are direct descendants of the Tribes of Israel, as we know from history, culture, science and a little something I like to call reality. Those who wish to deny it for political or theological reasons, should try forming an alliance with holocaust deniers because the two are no different.
1011
1012Jews are not white. People who try to argue otherwise are not only abrogating history and denying our people’s authentic identity, they are in fact (even if unintentionally) also practicing a form of Western imperialism, as nobody has the right to superimpose an artificial Western identity on a people with an ancient Middle Eastern-tribal identity. Nobody has the right to try and make Jews, or any other Middle Eastern people, feel they “need” to fit into the “neat” Western categories of religion and race. Nobody has the right to force Jews into identifying as white people when they are clearly not. As for Jews who identify as white without being forced to do so – please decolonize your identities and understand that the identity your claim to express is a falsification of who you really are."
1013
1014You: There is the entire article
1015
1016You: Lemme copy the sources now
1017
1018You: "
1019U.S. Supreme Court
1020Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615 (1987)
1021
1022Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb
1023
1024No. 85-2156
1025
1026Argued February 25, 1987
1027
1028Decided May 18, 1987
1029
1030481 U.S. 615
1031
1032CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
1033
1034THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
1035
1036Syllabus
1037
1038After their synagogue was painted with anti-Semitic slogans, phrases, and symbols, petitioners brought suit in Federal District Court, alleging that the desecration by respondents violated 42 U.S.C. § 1982. The District Court dismissed petitioners' claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that discrimination against Jews is not racial discrimination under § 1982.
1039
1040Held:
1041
10421. A charge of racial discrimination within the meaning of § 1982 cannot be made out by alleging only that the defendants were motivated by racial animus. It is also necessary to allege that that animus was directed toward the kind of group that Congress intended to protect when it passed the statute. P. 481 U. S. 617.
1043
10442. Jews can state a § 1982 claim of racial discrimination, since they were among the peoples considered to be distinct races, and hence within the protection of the statute at the time it was passed. They are not foreclosed from stating a cause of action simply because the defendants are also part of what today is considered the Caucasian race. Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, ante, p. 481 U. S. 604. Pp. 481 U. S. 617-618.
1045
1046785 F.2d 523, reversed and remanded.
1047
1048WHITE, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
1049
1050Page 481 U. S. 616
1051
1052JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
1053
1054On November 2, 1982, the outside walls of the synagogue of the Shaare Tefila Congregation in Silver Spring, Maryland, were sprayed with red and black paint and with large anti-Semitic slogans, phrases, and symbols. A few months later, the Congregation and some individual members brought this suit in the Federal District Court, alleging that defendants' desecration of the synagogue had violated 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1985(3) and the Maryland common law of trespass, nuisance, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On defendants' motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6), the District Court dismissed all the claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed in all respects. 785 F.2d 523 (CA4 1986). Petitioners petitioned for writ of certiorari. We granted the petition, 479 U.S. 812 (1986), and we now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
1055
1056Section 1982 guarantees all citizens of the United States, "the same right . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens . . . to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property." The section forbids both official and private racially discriminatory interference with property rights, Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409 (1968). Petitioners' allegation was that they were deprived of the right to hold property in violation of § 1982 because the defendants were motivated by racial prejudice. They unsuccessfully argued in the District Court and Court of Appeals that Jews are not a racially distinct group, but that defendants' conduct is actionable because they viewed Jews as racially distinct, and were motivated by racial prejudice. The
1057
1058Page 481 U. S. 617
1059
1060Court of Appeals held that § 1982 was not
1061
1062"intended to apply to situations in which a plaintiff is not a member of a racially distinct group, but is merely perceived to be so by defendants."
1063
1064785 F.2d at 526 (emphasis in original). The Court of Appeals believed that, "[b]ecause discrimination against Jews is not racial discrimination," id. at 527, the District Court was correct in dismissing the § 1982 claim.
1065
1066We agree with the Court of Appeals that a charge of racial discrimination within the meaning of § 1982 cannot be made out by alleging only that the defendants were motivated by racial animus; it is necessary as well to allege that defendants' animus was directed towards the kind of group that Congress intended to protect when it passed the statute. To hold otherwise would unacceptably extend the reach of the statute.
1067
1068We agree with petitioners, however, that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Jews cannot state a § 1982 claim against other white defendants. That view rested on the notion that, because Jews today are not thought to be members of a separate race, they cannot make out a claim of racial discrimination within the meaning of § 1982. That construction of the section we have today rejected in Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, ante p. 481 U. S. 604. Our opinion in that case observed that definitions of race when § 1982 was passed were not the same as they are today, ante at 481 U. S. 609-613, and concluded that the section was
1069
1070"intended to protect from discrimination identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics."
1071
1072Ante at 481 U. S. 613. As Saint Francis makes clear, the question before us is not whether Jews are considered to be a separate race by today's standards, but whether, at the time § 1982 was adopted, Jews constituted a group of people that Congress intended to protect. It is evident from the legislative history of the section reviewed in Saint Francis College, a review that we need not repeat here, that Jews and Arabs were among the peoples then considered
1073
1074Page 481 U. S. 618
1075
1076to be distinct races, and hence within the protection of the statute. Jews are not foreclosed from stating a cause of action against other members of what today is considered to be part of the Caucasian race.
1077
1078The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
1079
1080It is so ordered."
1081
1082Stranger: But all this dont prove there dna only history
1083
1084You: Shows jews are legally non white^
1085
1086Stranger: Not in dna
1087
1088You: "For more than a century, Jews and non-Jews alike have tried to define the relatedness of contemporary Jewish people. Previous genetic studies of blood group and serum markers suggested that Jewish groups had Middle Eastern origin with greater genetic similarity between paired Jewish populations. However, these and successor studies of monoallelic Y chromosomal and mitochondrial genetic markers did not resolve the issues of within and between-group Jewish genetic identity. Here, genome-wide analysis of seven Jewish groups (Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek, and Ashkenazi) and comparison with non-Jewish groups demonstrated distinctive Jewish population clusters, each with shared Middle Eastern ancestry, proximity to contemporary Middle Eastern populations, and variable degrees of European and North African admixture. Two major groups were identified by principal component, phylogenetic, and identity by descent (IBD) analysis: Middle Eastern Jews and European/Syrian Jews. The IBD segment sharing and the proximity of European Jews to each other and to southern European populations suggested similar origins for European Jewry and refuted large-scale genetic contributions of Central and Eastern European and Slavic populations to the formation of Ashkenazi Jewry. Rapid decay of IBD in Ashkenazi Jewish genomes was consistent with a severe bottleneck followed by large expansion, such as occurred with the so-called demographic miracle of population expansion from 50,000 people at the beginning of the 15th century to 5,000,000 people at the beginning of the 19th century. Thus, this study demonstrates that European/Syrian and Middle Eastern Jews represent a series of geographical isolates or clusters woven together by shared IBD genetic threads."
1089
1090Stranger: Laws are not dna
1091
1092You: Theres some DNA^
1093
1094Stranger: That's not proof
1095
1096You: So facts are no longer proof? Nice logic
1097
1098Stranger: They only think it may be that
1099
1100Stranger: They never said its facts
1101
1102You: "It has been known for over a decade that a majority of men who self report as members of the Jewish priesthood (Cohanim) carry a characteristic Y chromosome haplotype termed the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH). The CMH has since been used to trace putative Jewish ancestral origins of various populations. However, the limited number of binary and STR Y chromosome markers used previously did not provide the phylogenetic resolution needed to infer the number of independent paternal lineages that are encompassed within the Cohanim or their coalescence times. Accordingly, we have genotyped 75 binary markers and 12 Y-STRs in a sample of 215 Cohanim from diverse Jewish communities, 1,575 Jewish men from across the range of the Jewish Diaspora, and 2,099 non-Jewish men from the Near East, Europe, Central Asia, and India. While Cohanim from diverse backgrounds carry a total of 21 Y chromosome haplogroups, 5 haplogroups account for 79.5% of Cohanim Y chromosomes. The most frequent Cohanim lineage (46.1%) is marked by the recently reported P58 T->C mutation, which is prevalent in the Near East. Based on genotypes at 12 Y-STRs, we identify an extended CMH on the J-P58* background that predominates in both Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim and is remarkably absent in non-Jews. The estimated divergence time of this lineage based on 17 STRs is 3,190 ± 1,090 years. Notably, the second most frequent Cohanim lineage (J-M410*, 14.4%) contains an extended modal haplotype that is also limited to Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim and is estimated to be 4.2 ± 1.3 ky old. These results support the hypothesis of a common origin of the CMH in the Near East well before the dispersion of the Jewish people into separate communities, and indicate that the majority of contemporary Jewish priests descend from a limited number of paternal lineages.
1103Electronic supplementary material
1104
1105The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00439-009-0727-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
1106Go to:
1107Introduction
1108
1109More than a decade ago a characteristic Y chromosome haplotype was found to be associated with the Jewish priesthood, a patrilineal dynasty thought to be founded by the first Jewish priest, the biblical Aaron (Skorecki et al. 1997). The sharing of this Y chromosome lineage between Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Jews pointed to a common origin of the Cohanim before the separation of Jewish communities in the Diaspora. Subsequently, it was shown that ~50% of Cohanim carry a characteristic suite of alleles at six Y-linked STRs, which defined the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH). Dating based on variation associated with five of these six Y-STRs suggested that contemporary CMH chromosomes trace to a common ancestral chromosome 2,100–3,250 years ago (Thomas et al. 1998). This time roughly corresponds to the period between the biblical exodus and the destruction of the first temple. However, the small number of Y-STRs typed by Thomas et al. (1998) produced a “low resolution” CMH that was shared among many non-Jewish populations (Arredi et al. 2004; Behar et al. 2004; Bonne-Tamir et al. 2003; Cadenas et al. 2008; Cinnioglu et al. 2004; Nebel et al. 2001; Robino et al. 2008; Shen et al. 2004; Zalloua et al. 2008). Similarly, the few binary markers known at the time did not provide the phylogenetic resolution needed to infer the geographic origin of the CMH lineage. Also left unresolved is the paternal ancestry of Cohanim who do not carry Y chromosomes related to the CMH, leaving open the question of the number of founding lineages of the priesthood.
1110
1111The recent publication of a revised Y chromosome haplogroup tree comprised of >600 binary markers (Karafet et al. 2008) and the availability of dozens of Y-STRs provides the opportunity to determine the origin(s) of Cohanim lineages with greater phylogenetic and geographic resolution than previously possible (Kayser et al. 2004; Lim et al. 2007; Redd et al. 2002). To further elucidate the paternal ancestry of Jewish priests, we genotype 75 binary markers and 22 Y-STRs in a sample of 122 Ashkenazi and 93 non-Ashkenazi Cohanim, and compare patterns of Y chromosome variation with similar data from 3,459 Jewish and non-Jewish men from the Near East, Europe, Central Asia, and India. We define a 12-locus “extended CMH” and then determine the phylogenetic position and geographic distribution of this lineage. To explore the origin of this and other Cohanim haplogroups, we estimate the ages of Y-STR diversity associated with several key lineages present at frequencies >5% in our sample of Cohanim. Finally, we discuss models for the origin and maintenance of multiple paternal lineages since the founding of the Jewish priesthood.
1112Go to:
1113Subjects and methods
1114Population samples
1115
1116Blood or buccal samples were collected from a total of 3,674 individuals according to procedures approved by the Human Subjects Committees at the University of Arizona, Rambam Medical Center and the National Laboratory for the Genetics of Israeli Populations. Volunteers reported the birthplace of their father, grandfather, and in many cases, great grandfather. Jewish volunteers were also asked to report their affiliation to one of the three Jewish castes, Cohen, Levite, or Israelite. Those who did not know their caste status were classified as “unknown”. Table S1 lists the Jewish population samples genotyped, which were comprised of unrelated Jewish males representing the major Jewish communities across the Jewish Diaspora (n = 1,575), including 215 Cohanim, 738 Israelites, 154 Levites, and 468 of unknown caste status. Table S2 lists our surveyed samples of unrelated non-Jewish men from 30 populations representing Europe, India, the Near East, North Africa, and Central Asia (n = 2,099). We note that many additional markers were genotyped in samples that were previously reported, and that Cohanim samples reported here do not overlap with the original collection of Skorecki et al. (1997) and Thomas et al. (1998).
1117NRY marker analysis
1118
1119We chose the following set of 75 binary markers to be typed hierarchically in this set of 3,674 chromosomes: Hg BT: SRY10831.1; Hg B: M60 or (its equivalent) M181; Hg D: M174, P99, P47; Hg E: M96, P2, P1 or M2, M35, M78, M81, M123; Hg C: M216; Hg FT: P14 or M89; Hg G: M201, M285 or M342, P287, P15, M287, M377; Hg H; M69; Hg IJ: P123; Hg I: P19 or M170 or M258, M253, P37.2, M223; Hg J: 12f2a or M304, M267, M62, M365, M390, P58, M367, M368, M369, M172, M410, M47 or M322, M67, M68, M318, M319, M12; Hg KT: M9; Hg L: M20; Hg M: M256, P35 or M106; Hg NO: M214; Hg N: M231; Hg O: M175, M119, P31, M122; Hg PQR: M45; Hg Q: M242, M378; Hg R: M207, M173, SRY10831.2, M17 or M198, M343, P25, M269, M124; Hg S: M230; Hg T: M70, M184. This set of binary markers represents a total of 64 different bifurcations on the NRY phylogeny, as 10 are phylogenetically equivalent (Fig. 1). The genotypes for these sites were determined by multiple techniques such as allele-specific PCR, TaqMan, Kaspar, and direct sequencing. The technical information for detecting these binary polymorphisms has been previously reported by Karafet et al. (2008).
1120Fig. 1
1121Fig. 1
1122The phylogeny of NRY haplogroups inferred from the panel of 75 binary markers used herein. The polymorphic sites are shown on the branches. The number of chromosomes in each haplogroup (counts) for 215 Cohanim and 737 Israelites is shown at the right ...
1123
1124For the microsatellite analysis, 12 short tandem repeats (Y-STRs): DYS19, DYS385a, DYS385b, DYS388, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS426, and DYS439) were genotyped in 2 multiplex reactions following the protocol of Redd et al. (2002). To allow more accurate coalescence estimates and better comparison ability with published databases the Cohanim samples were genotyped by an additional set of the following ten STRs: DYS437, DYS438, DYS447, DYS448, DYS449, DYS454, DYS455, DYS458, DYS459a and DYS459b. For the duplicated microsatellites DYS385a,b and DYS459a,b, the short and long scores are reported according to allele size (i.e., without confirming that identical scores observed in two different samples represent the same locus). PCR products were electrophoresed on a 3730xl Genetic Analyzer (Applied Biosystems) and fragment lengths were converted to repeat number by the use of allelic ladders. Table S3 lists all 215 Cohanim surveyed here and their allele scores for 22 Y-STRs.
1125Terminology
1126
1127We follow the terminological conventions recommended by the Y Chromosome Consortium (Karafet et al. 2008) for naming NRY chromosomes. Capital letters A-T identify the 20 major NRY haplogroups and are followed by the names of the binary markers used to assign samples to their positions on the NRY phylogeny. When no further downstream markers in the Karafet et al. (2008) NRY phylogeny were typed, we considered the most derived marker to define a haplogroup (Fig. 1). Haplogroups not defined on the basis of a final derived character state represent interior nodes of the tree and are potentially paraphyletic. In these cases, all binary markers that were excluded by our genotyping strategy are noted within parentheses after an initial “x” symbol. We note that all Cohanim J-P58* chromosomes were found to have the ancestral state at the three downstream markers shown in Fig. 1 (i.e., M367, M368, and M369). Therefore, these chromosomes belong to paragroup J-P58(xM367, M368, M369) (or J1e*); however, we refer to this lineage as J-P58* for simplicity. The term haplotype is used to describe any combination of STRs for a given sample.
1128Network analysis
1129
1130Compilation and organization of the data was performed using standard Excel files. Median Joining networks were created using the software NETWORK 4.5.1.0 using the following 12 STRs: DYS19, DYS385a, DYS385b, DYS388, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS426, and DYS439. Networks were constructed by the median-joining method (Bandelt et al. 1995). We weighted the STR loci according to their observed variation in our collection of J-P58* Y chromosomes, giving less weight to STRs with higher variance in repeat numbers. To allow maximal resolution we included the duplicated microsatellite DYS385a,b in our network analyses (Niederstatter et al. 2005). While it is possible that identical scores in different samples represent different loci we assume that this potential error is less likely in the case of closely related Cohanim Y chromosomes. We applied the reduced-median algorithm followed by the median-joining algorithm as described at the Fluxus Engineering Web site.
1131Coalescence analysis
1132
1133The coalescence times of closely related clusters of haplotypes were estimated using several approaches. First, the age of the Cohanim lineages were calculated as previously reported by Zhivotovsky et al. (2004). The age of STR-variation was computed by averaging across loci the single-locus variances in repeat scores (i.e., with respect to median value at each locus), and then dividing by an average mutation rate of 0.00069 per 25 years. Standard errors were computed across loci as described by Zhivotovsky et al. (2004). The duplicated loci, DYS385ab and DYS459ab, were omitted from the analysis. In addition DYS449 was excluded as it was previously shown to be characterized by multi-repeat variation that substantially differs from all other genotyped STRs (Kayser et al. 2004). We also performed calculations based on a subset of the 17 Y-STRs used in the above analysis. To control for the use of different STRs in our study and that of Zhivotovsky et al. (2004), we calculated divergence times using the same nine Y-STRs in Zhivotovsky et al. (2004): DYS19, DYS388, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, and DYS439. In addition, we used the same five Y-STRs as in the original CMH paper by Thomas et al. (1998): DYS19, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, and DYS393.
1134
1135We also estimated coalescence times for key Cohanim lineages by employing the Bayesian Analysis of Trees With Internal Node Generation (BATWING) program of Wilson et al. (2003). To do this within a population genetics framework, we constructed an Ashkenazi population by including our sample of Ashkenazi Israelites and a sub-sample of our Ashkenazi Cohanim to equal 5% of the total population. We used both Y-STR and SNP data to constrain the coalescence of lineages and estimate the TMRCA of individual haplogroups. To estimate the age of a particular Cohanim haplogroup, we excluded non-Cohanim samples carrying this haplogroup (i.e., so that only Cohanim samples carried the particular haplogroup under study). For example, in the case of J-P58*, we included all 317 Ashkenazi Israelite samples that did not carry J-P58*, and a random sample of 17 Cohanim (i.e., which could carry any Y chromosome lineage including J-P58*). We repeated this analysis four times with a different random sample of Cohanim. A phylogenetic tree of binary markers (UEPs) was considered (under option 2) using SNPs that were variable in the Ashkenazi population: M96, M123, P14, M201, M69, P123, M304, M67, P58, M172, M410, M12, M9, M45, M207, M173, M269, M17, and M70. The priors used were: gamma(1.46, 2124) for STR mutation rate, corresponding to a mean of 0.00069 and standard error of 0.00057 as in Zhivotovsky et al. (2004); gamma(1.2, 0.00016) for N, corresponding to a mean ancestral population size of 7,500 and a standard deviation of 6,847; gamma(1.5, 75) for alpha, corresponding to a mean exponential growth rate of 0.02 and a standard deviation of 0.016; and gamma(1.2, 4) for beta, the time of start of expansion (in units of N generations). These priors returned posteriors of the mutation rate that were similar to the prior for mutation rate. A total of 5 × 104 samples of the program’s output were taken after discarding the first 2 × 104 samples as “burn-in”. Convergence was confirmed by finding that results of longer runs (i.e., 105 MCMC cycles) were similar to those of the shorter runs.
1136Simulations of the decay of paternal lineages
1137
1138Simulations of the decay of paternal lineages were performed in Matlab using code written for this purpose. The standard constant population size Wright-Fisher model without mutation was used, since only the loss of lineages due to drift was of interest. Each simulation began by assigning the N individuals a number indicating haplogroup membership. In the first set of simulations, each individual was given a unique number representing N distinct founding lineages, while in the second, each individual was randomly assigned to a haplogroup (with the number of haplogroups varying from 2 to 10) (see Supplementary Material). For all initial conditions 10,000 simulations were performed and the results were averaged. Simulations were run for 160 generations corresponding to between 4 and 5,000 years. We note that a bottleneck or founder event would reduce the number of haplogroups faster on average than we see in a population with constant size, whereas the decay of lineages would be slower on average in an expanding population.
1139Comparative data
1140
1141We conducted an extended literature search for Cohanim haplotypes identified here, by comparing allelic scores at as many Y-STRs as possible (i.e., that were typed in our study and the published literature). Allele scores at the 12 STRs that we use to define the extended CMH (DYS19, DYS385a, DYS385b, DYS388, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS426, and DYS439) are 14-13-15-16-13-30-23-10-11-12-11-12, respectively (Table S4). The addition of the four STRs DYS437, DYS438, DYS459a, and DYS455 showed no further variation while the addition of DYS459b and DYS454 demonstrated two additional haplotypes that were each comprised of two samples one mutation step away from the extended CMH. The four remaining STRs DYS447, DYS448, DYS449 and DYS458 contained most of the observed variation with 26, 21, 26, and 17.2, respectively, being the most frequent scores observed for these sites. A similar pattern was found for with two relatively frequent haplotypes that are closely related to the extended CMH at 12 Y-STRs (see “Results and Discussion”). A total of 14 out of the possible 17 STRs were compared with the YHRD database: DYS19, DYS385a, DYS385b, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439, DYS448 and DYS458. The search yielded zero out of 10,243 matching haplotypes in 66 populations for the extended CMH and its two closely related haplotypes. The same STRs demonstrated no matches when compared to Cadenas et al. (2008). No matches were found when the following 12 STRs were used to the dataset reported by Arredi et al. (2004): DYS19, DYS388, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS426, DYS437, DYS438 and DYS439. Similarly, no matches were found when the following 14 STRs were used to compare with Robino et al. (2008) dataset: DYS19, DYS385, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439, DYS448, DYS458. Two matches were found when the following nine STRs were screened in Cinnioglu et al. (2004): DYS19, DYS388, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393 and DYS439; one of which was J1-M369 and the second was J1-M267(xM369). Three Lebanese samples from Zalloua et al. (2008), defined as J-M304(xM172) matched the extended CMH or its two closely related haplotypes when the following 11 STRs were compared: DYS19, DYS388, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439. In a recent survey of Hg J-M267, only five of the 282 J-M267 samples studied fell within J-P58; all of these were M367 positive and did not fit within the J-P58* lineage found among our Cohanim sample (Tofanelli et al. 2009). We compared the following 15 STRs overlapping between our paper and Tofanelli et al. (2009) and found no matches: DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS385a, DYS385b, DYS388, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439, DYS448 and DYS458. Available datasets that did not allow comparison of more than seven STRs were not included in our comparative database because they did not allow a sufficiently high level of resolution.
1142Go to:
1143Results and discussion
1144
1145Genotyping with binary markers yields a total of 37 haplogroups in our Jewish database (Fig. 1). Interestingly, men self-reporting as Cohanim carry Y chromosomes that belong to 21 different haplogroups. However, most of these haplogroups are extremely rare, and a single lineage within the J1 sub-clade of haplogroup J (J-P58*) predominates in both Ashkenazi (51.6%) and non-Ashkenazi (38.7%) Cohanim in the current sample set (Fig. 2b). Only four of the remaining haplogroups are found at frequencies greater than 5% in all Cohanim sampled, three within the J2 sub-clade of haplogroup J (J-M410*, 14.4%; J-M12, 7.4%; and J-M318, 6.1%), and one within haplogroup R (R-M269, 5.6%). In contrast, the distribution of haplogroups within Israelites is more uniform, with no single haplogroup reaching a frequency greater than 14% in our Israelite sample (Fig. 2a).
1146Fig. 2
1147Fig. 2
1148The distribution of haplogroup frequencies for all haplogroups present in Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Israelites (top) and Cohanim (bottom) at a frequency >5%. The following haplogroups are not shown: C-M216, E-M96, E-P2, E-M81, F-P14, I-M170, ...
1149
1150When we genotype the 6 Y-STRs that defined the original CMH (DYS19, DYS388, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393) (Thomas et al. 1998) in our sample of 99 Cohanim with J-P58* chromosomes, we find that 87 carry a haplotype that is identical to the original modal haplotype and 10 carry haplotypes that are one-step removed from the original CMH (i.e., only 2 individuals were 2 or more steps removed). A total of 43 of the 99 chromosomes still match completely when we increase the number of Y-STRs to 12 (DYS19, DYS385a, DYS385b, DYS388, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS426, and DYS439) (Table S4). We call this 12-locus modal haplotype the extended CMH. Figure 3 shows a median-joining network of the 29 12-locus STR haplotypes associated with Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim J-P58* chromosomes. One-step mutations at two hypermutable Y-STRs (DYS385 and DYS439) result in two relatively frequent haplotypes (i.e., present at frequencies of 10.1 and 11.1%) that are closely related to the extended CMH (Table S4). The extended CMH and the two closely related haplotypes, which are shared between Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Jews, account for a total of 64.6% of the chromosomes within the Cohanim J-P58* lineage (and 29.8% of Cohanim variation).
1151Fig. 3
1152Fig. 3
1153Network of J-P58* haplotypes observed within Ashkenazi (black) and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim (white). The following STRs comprise the network: DYS19, DYS385a, DYS385b, DYS388, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS426, and DYS439. Circle areas ...
1154
1155The availability of a greater number of binary markers enables examination of the distribution of the original and extended CMH across the branches of a highly resolved Y chromosome haplogroup tree. In our dataset, the original CMH is observed in a total of 215 chromosomes, all of which belong to haplogroup J. Notably, most of these chromosomes are partitioned between the J1 and J2 subclades of the J haplogroup, specifically on the J-P58* and J-M67 lineages. A small number of original CMH chromosomes (n = 9) are found within other subclades of Hg J. In contrast, the extended CMH and its two closely related haplotypes shown in Fig. 3 are almost entirely limited to P58 chromosomes within the J1 clade: the extended CMH appears outside of J-P58* only once (i.e., within J-M319), while one of its two closely related haplotypes appears within haplogroup J-M67.
1156
1157A survey of our database confirms that chromosomes carrying the original CMH are not specific to either Cohanim or Jewish populations. The original CMH is present at moderate frequencies (5–8%) in the other Jewish castes (i.e., Levites and Israelites), among non-Jewish Yemenites (13%) and Jordanians (~7%), and as singletons in a number of other non-Jewish populations (Druze, Egyptians, Palestinians, Syrians, Turks, Iranians, Italians, Romanians, and Uzbeks). In contrast, the extended CMH and its two related haplotypes are observed only among Cohanim (29.8%) and Israelites (1.5%) (i.e., it is completely absent from the Levites and non-Jews surveyed here). We also performed a search of the current literature (Arredi et al. 2004; Cadenas et al. 2008; Cinnioglu et al. 2004; Robino et al. 2008; Zalloua et al. 2008) and found a similar pattern: the original CMH is present in several Near Eastern populations, while the extended CMH is extremely rare outside of Jewish populations.
1158
1159To better estimate the age of the Cohanim J-P58* lineage, we genotyped an additional 10 Y-STRs (DYS437, DYS438, DYS447, DYS448, DYS449, DYS454, DYS455, DYS458, DYS459a and DYS459b) (i.e., a total of 22) in our sample of 215 Cohanim. Interestingly, 4 of the additional 10 Y-STRs (DYS437, DYS438, DYS459a and DYS455) do not further subdivide the group of 43 samples comprising the modal haplotype in Fig. 3. Using the method of Zhivotovsky et al. (2004) (and excluding the duplicated DYS385ab and DYS459ab loci, as well as DYS449, which contains a complex repeat structure) we estimate the age of Y-STR diversity associated with Cohanim J-P58* chromosomes as 3,190 ± 1,090 (Table 1). To control for differences in mutation rate among loci, we also calculate divergence times using the nine loci that Zhivotovsky et al. (2004) employed to estimate the effective mutation rate of Y-STRs. Similar age estimates are returned for our set of 17 Y-STRs and Zhivotovsky et al.’s (2004) set of 9 Y-STRs in our sample of all 99 Cohanim, as well as in our sample of 63 Ashkenazi Cohanim (Table 1). We note that estimates of the age of the J-P58* lineage are lower when using the five Y-STRs that were employed in the original CMH study of Thomas et al. (1998) (Table 1). This effect is exaggerated when assuming the pedigree mutation rate of 0.0021/generation, which was implemented in the Thomas et al. (1998) calculation (i.e., we obtain a J-P58* lineage divergence time estimate of 0.4 ± 0.2 kyears). A Bayesian-based coalescence analysis using BATWING (Wilson et al. 2003) on a constructed Ashkenazi population comprised of 95% Israelites and 5% Cohanim yields an average median TMRCA for the Cohanim J-P58* lineage of 4,415 years (95% CI 1,130–21,530 years) (Table S5).
1160Table 1
1161Table 1
1162Divergence time (based on method of Zhivotovsky et al. (2004)) (ky) (mean ± SE) of Cohanim lineages based on Y-STR loci
1163
1164In sum, the high frequency of a closely related set of J-P58* chromosomes among Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim that share a common modal haplotype, and that are estimated to have diverged from a common ancestor >2,000 years ago, is consistent with the hypothesis that the J-P58* lineage traces the Cohanim dynasty to a time before the Jewish diaspora. While the frequency of the J-P58* lineage is higher among Ashkenazi Jews (Fig. 2a), Y-STR variation associated with this haplogroup is older in the non-Ashkenazi community (e.g., we obtained divergence time estimates of 4.6 ± 1.8 and 3.5 ± 2.1 kyears for the 17- and 9-locus datasets, respectively). In this regard, it is also worth noting that the J-P58* network topology suggests population expansion, especially within the Ashkenazim. This may be attributable to the strong founder effect previously suggested for the Ashkenazi population (Behar et al. 2004, 2006).
1165
1166Our results also document a set of non-J-P58* lineages that are carried collectively by more than 50% of Cohanim. Some of these lineages are members of the J2 subclade, while others are more distantly related (i.e., within haplogroups R and E) (Figs. 1, ​,2).2). To further explore the origin of these Cohanim lineages, we estimate the ages of Y-STR diversity associated with the J-M410*, J-M318, J-M12, and R-M269 lineages (Table 1), all of which are found at frequencies >5% in the Cohanim sample groups examined here (Fig. 2b). J-M410*, which is carried by both Ashkenazi (18.9%) and non-Ashkenazi (8.6%) Cohanim, is also found in ~5% of non-Cohanim Jews, as well as in many non-Jewish populations from the Near East (data not shown). Moreover, there is a modal Cohanim haplotype that is shared between Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi (North African and Sephardi) communities (Figure S1), and absent from non-Jewish populations. Divergence time estimates of Cohanim J-M410* chromosomes based on 17 and 9 Y-STRs range between 5.9 ± 2.0 and 4.9 ± 1.9 kyears, respectively. However, median-joining networks constructed from our Cohanim and non-Jewish data indicate that two Cohanim individuals carry divergent haplotypes that do not appear to descend from a common (modal) cluster of Cohanim J-M410* chromosomes (Figure S2). When we exclude these two divergent haplotypes from the analysis, we obtain divergence time estimates of 4.2 ± 1.3 and 3.8 ± 1.4 kyears for 17 and 9 Y-STRs, respectively. Our BATWING analysis returns coalescence time estimates of 3.2 kyears (95% CI, 0.7–16.7 kyears) (Table S5), similar to the divergence time estimates for Ashkenazi Cohanim in Table 1. These results support the hypothesis that J-M410* represents a second major founding lineage of the Cohanim, coalescing to a point within the early history of the ancient Hebrews of the Near East.
1167
1168Similar results are obtained for the less frequent J-M12 lineage, which is carried by 16 Cohanim in our survey (14 of which are of Ashkenazi descent). As in the case of J-M410*, a median-joining network suggests that 2 of 16 individuals (1 Ashkenazi and 1 non-Ashkenazi Cohen) carry divergent haplotypes that may have entered the Cohanim population recently (Figure S3). Divergence time estimates made after removing these individuals are comparable to those for the Cohanim J-P58* and J-M410* lineages (3.4 ± 1.2 and 4.0 ± 1.8 kyears for the 17- and 9-locus datasets, respectively) (Table 1). In contrast, our network and divergence time analyses suggest that R-M269 chromosomes entered the Cohanim population via several “migration” events, and do not represent a single Cohanim founding lineage. For example, divergence time estimates are much older for Cohanim R-M269 chromosomes (>10 kyears) than for the three Cohanim lineages in haplogroup J discussed above, and median-joining networks of Cohanim R-M269 chromosomes lack a modal haplotype and show many unrelated singleton haplotypes that are interspersed among Cohanim and non-Jewish samples (Figure S4).
1169
1170We note that divergence times for the J-P58*, J-M410, and J-M12 lineages are not statistically significantly different from one another as a result of the large standard deviations in Table 1. Moreover, we cautiously interpret dating of lineages that are not defined by the derived state at a terminal SNP (i.e., are internal nodes on the Y chromosome tree) and those that we have not typed all known downstream SNPs (J-M410*/J-P58* and J-M12, respectively) because subsets of chromosomes within these lineages may be marked by undiscovered SNPs. Our estimate of the age of J-M318 may be more reliable because this SNP represents a terminal mutation within the M410 sub-clade of the J2 branch (Fig. 1). Originally discovered in a single Libyan Jew (Shen et al. 2004), we find the derived allele at M318 to be present in 16 individuals in this survey—13 of which are Cohanim from Tunisia/Libya or the island of Jerba (the remaining 3 samples come from Tunisian or Libyan Jews who did not have information on their Cohen, Levite, or Israelite status). The much younger estimated divergence time for the J-M318 haplogroup (1.3 ± 0.5 and 1.9 ± 0.8 kyears for the 17- and 9-locus datasets, respectively) (Table 1) suggests that either the M318 mutation (a) arose within the Cohanim population of North Africa, (b) expanded within this community following migration of a founding J-M318 Cohen from another geographic location, or (c) became incorporated into the Cohanim patriline via conversion, adoption or non-paternity. The first of these possibilities (a) is supported by the fact that the M318 mutation occurred on the M410 background (Fig. 1), and median-joining network analysis links the cluster of Cohanim J-M318 chromosomes to that of the Cohanim J-M410* chromosomes (i.e., rather than to other J-M410* chromosomes from North Africa and the Near East) (Figure S5). The high frequency (~60%) of the otherwise rare J-M318 haplogroup in our sample from the island of Jerba may be the result of an ancient founder effect in this Jewish isolate, which is thought to be descended from one of the earliest Diaspora communities that left the Middle East before the destruction of the second Temple in 70 A.D. (Tessler and Hawkins 1980).
1171
1172Here, we discuss alternative explanations for presence of several founding lineages within the Cohanim. One possibility is that multiple males were designated as Cohanim early in the establishment of the priesthood. We performed exploratory simulations to assess the likelihood of survival of multiple paternal lineages in the history of the Ashkenazi Cohanim. The probability of survival of more than a single haplogroup depends mainly on the population size and to a lesser extent, on the number of haplogroups that are assumed to have founded the initial Cohanim group. For example, if we begin with an initial population of 50 Cohanim carrying a total of 10 haplogroups, we find that there is a very low probability of survival of more than a single haplogroup after 120 generations. We obtain a similar result if we begin the simulation with 50 males each carrying a unique haplogroup (Figure S6). However, if we begin with 100 males carrying 10 haplogroups the mean number of haplogroups surviving for 120 generations is >1 (Figure S7). Thus, there would be a reasonably high probability that more than a single Cohen haplogroup could have survived in the Ashkenazi population since the initial founding of the priesthood ~3,000 years ago (Thomas et al. 1998) if we would be willing to accept an initial founding population size of >50 priests. However, our simulation results also suggest that it is highly unlikely that as many haplogroups as we actually observe (e.g. Fig. 2) would persist under this simple model. Another model that deserves consideration is a metapopulation (Wakeley 2004) in which semi-isolated communities maintain multiple Cohen lineages, each with a certain probability of extinction and replacement. In this model, multiple Cohanim lineages would then persist in the entire population, and new lineages would be expected to accrue among Cohanim over time. The presence of several founding lineages among the Cohanim of this survey—both shared between or specific to the Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi communities, as well as highly variable frequencies of these lineages among sub-populations within Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi communities (data not shown), may lend support to a metapopulation model. Mutation alone does not provide an explanation for the multiplicity of Cohanim haplogroups, because the ages of most of these haplogroups predate the foundation of the Jewish people (Cruciani et al. 2006; Karafet et al. 2008; Semino et al. 2004). Indeed, our divergence time estimates for the J-P58*, J-M410*, J-M12 lineages based on variation at the set of 9 STRs in our Israelite population sample are 19.0 ± 5.6, 22.6 ± 2.9, and 15.1 ± 3.1 kyears, respectively (data not shown).
1173
1174In conclusion, we demonstrate that 46.1% (95% CI = 39–53%) of Cohanim carry Y chromosomes belonging to a single paternal lineage (J-P58*) that likely originated in the Near East well before the dispersal of Jewish groups in the Diaspora. Support for a Near Eastern origin of this lineage comes from its high frequency in our sample of Bedouins, Yemenis (67%), and Jordanians (55%) and its precipitous drop in frequency as one moves away from Saudi Arabia and the Near East (Fig. 4). Moreover, there is a striking contrast between the relatively high frequency of J-58* in Jewish populations (~20%) and Cohanim (~46%) and its vanishingly low frequency in our sample of non-Jewish populations that hosted Jewish diaspora communities outside of the Near East. An extended Cohen Modal Haplotype accounts for 64.6% of chromosomes with the J-P58* background, and 29.8% (95% CI = 23–36%) of Cohanim Y chromosomes surveyed here. These results also confirm that lineages characterized by the 6 Y-STRs used to define the original CMH are associated with two divergent sub-clades within haplogroup J and, thus, cannot be assumed to represent a single recently expanding paternal lineage. By combining information from a sufficient number of SNPs and STRs in a large sample of Jewish and non-Jewish populations we are able to resolve the phylogenetic position of the CMH, and pinpoint its geographic distribution. Our estimates of the coalescence time also lend support to the hypothesis that the extended CMH represents a unique founding lineage of the ancient Hebrews that has been paternally inherited along with the Jewish priesthood. However, the sharing of several less frequent haplogroups (and modal haplotypes within these haplogroups) between Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi communities, as well as evidence for the persistence of population-specific Cohanim haplogroups, supports the formulation that males from other remote lineages also contributed to the Jewish priesthood, both before and after the separation of Jewish populations in the Diaspora. Genotyping a larger sample of Cohanim Y chromosomes from other divergent haplogroups may further elucidate the complex paternal history of Jewish priests, and aid in the identification of lost tribes claiming ancient Hebrew ancestry."
1175
1176You: Take some time out of raping women and read that
1177
1178Stranger: Also i don't know who got y this info
1179
1180You: Ok I'll link you even though you can't open them
1181
1182You: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2771134/
1183
1184You: These are all the references
1185
1186Stranger: They have white dna in this text even
1187
1188You: Arredi B, Poloni ES, Paracchini S, Zerjal T, Fathallah DM, Makrelouf M, Pascali VL, Novelletto A, Tyler-Smith C (2004) A predominantly neolithic origin for Y-chromosomal DNA variation in North Africa. Am J Hum Genet 75:338–345 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
1189
1190Bandelt HJ, Forster P, Sykes BC, Richards MB (1995) Mitochondrial portraits of human populations using median networks. Genetics 141:743–753 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
1191
1192Behar DM, Garrigan D, Kaplan ME, Mobasher Z, Rosengarten D, Karafet TM, Quintana-Murci L, Ostrer H, Skorecki K, Hammer MF (2004) Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome variation in Ashkenazi Jewish and host non-Jewish European populations. Hum Genet 114:354–365 [PubMed]
1193
1194Behar DM, Metspalu E, Kivisild T, Achilli A, Hadid Y, Tzur S, Pereira L, Amorim A, Quintana-Murci L, Majamaa K, Herrnstadt C, Howell N, Balanovsky O, Kutuev I, Pshenichnov A, Gurwitz D, Bonne-Tamir B, Torroni A, Villems R, Skorecki K (2006) The matrilineal ancestry of Ashkenazi Jewry: portrait of a recent founder event. Am J Hum Genet 78:487–497 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
1195
1196Bonne-Tamir B, Korostishevsky M, Redd AJ, Pel-Or Y, Kaplan ME, Hammer MF (2003) Maternal and paternal lineages of the Samaritan isolate: mutation rates and time to most recent common male ancestor. Ann Hum Genet 67:153–164 [PubMed]
1197
1198Cadenas AM, Zhivotovsky LA, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Underhill PA, Herrera RJ (2008) Y-chromosome diversity characterizes the Gulf of Oman. Eur J Hum Genet 16:374–386 [PubMed]
1199
1200Cinnioglu C, King R, Kivisild T, Kalfoglu E, Atasoy S, Cavalleri GL, Lillie AS, Roseman CC, Lin AA, Prince K, Oefner PJ, Shen P, Semino O, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Underhill PA (2004) Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia. Hum Genet 114:127–148 [PubMed]
1201
1202Cruciani F, La Fratta R, Torroni A, Underhill PA, Scozzari R (2006) Molecular dissection of the Y chromosome haplogroup E-M78 (E3b1a): a posteriori evaluation of a microsatellite-network-based approach through six new biallelic markers. Hum Mutat 27:831–832 [PubMed]
1203
1204Karafet TM, Mendez FL, Meilerman MB, Underhill PA, Zegura SL, Hammer MF (2008) New binary polymorphisms reshape and increase resolution of the human Y chromosomal haplogroup tree. Genome Res 18:830–838 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
1205
1206Kayser M, Kittler R, Erler A, Hedman M, Lee AC, Mohyuddin A, Mehdi SQ, Rosser Z, Stoneking M, Jobling MA, Sajantila A, Tyler-Smith C (2004) A comprehensive survey of human Y-chromosomal microsatellites. Am J Hum Genet 74:1183–1197 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
1207
1208Lim SK, Xue Y, Parkin EJ, Tyler-Smith C (2007) Variation of 52 new Y-STR loci in the Y Chromosome Consortium worldwide panel of 76 diverse individuals. Int J Legal Med 121:124–127 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
1209
1210Nebel A, Filon D, Brinkmann B, Majumder PP, Faerman M, Oppenheim A (2001) The Y chromosome pool of Jews as part of the genetic landscape of the Middle East. Am J Hum Genet 69:1095–1112 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
1211
1212Niederstatter H, Berger B, Oberacher H, Brandstatter A, Huber CG, Parson W (2005) Separate analysis of DYS385a and b versus conventional DYS385 typing: is there forensic relevance? Int J Legal Med 119:1–9 [PubMed]
1213
1214Redd AJ, Agellon AB, Kearney VA, Contreras VA, Karafet T, Park H, de Knijff P, Butler JM, Hammer MF (2002) Forensic value of 14 novel STRs on the human Y chromosome. Forensic Sci Int 130:97–111 [PubMed]
1215
1216Robino C, Crobu F, Di Gaetano C, Bekada A, Benhamamouch S, Cerutti N, Piazza A, Inturri S, Torre C (2008) Analysis of Y-chromosomal SNP haplogroups and STR haplotypes in an Algerian population sample. Int J Legal Med 122:251–255 [PubMed]
1217
1218Semino O, Magri C, Benuzzi G, Lin AA, Al-Zahery N, Battaglia V, Maccioni L, Triantaphyllidis C, Shen P, Oefner PJ, Zhivotovsky LA, King R, Torroni A, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Underhill PA, Santachiara-Benerecetti AS (2004) Origin, diffusion, and differentiation of Y-chromosome haplogroups E and J: inferences on the neolithization of Europe and later migratory events in the Mediterranean area. Am J Hum Genet 74:1023–1034 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
1219
1220Shen P, Lavi T, Kivisild T, Chou V, Sengun D, Gefel D, Shpirer I, Woolf E, Hillel J, Feldman MW, Oefner PJ (2004) Reconstruction of patrilineages and matrilineages of Samaritans and other Israeli populations from Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA sequence variation. Hum Mutat 24:248–260 [PubMed]
1221
1222Skorecki K, Selig S, Blazer S, Bradman R, Bradman N, Waburton PJ, Ismajlowicz M, Hammer MF (1997) Y chromosomes of Jewish priests. Nature 385:32 [PubMed]
1223
1224Tessler MA, Hawkins LL (1980) The political culture of Jews in Tunisia and Morocco. Int J Middle East Stud 11:59–86
1225
1226Thomas MG, Skorecki K, Ben-Ami H, Parfitt T, Bradman N, Goldstein DB (1998) Origins of Old Testament priests. Nature 394:138–140 [PubMed]
1227Tofanelli S, Ferri G, Bulayeva K, Caciagli L, Onofri V, Taglioli L, Bulayev O, Boschi I, Alu M, Berti A, Rapone C, Beduschi G, Luiselli D, Cadenas AM, Awadelkarim KD, Mariani-Costantini R, Elwali NE, Verginelli F, Pilli E, Herrera RJ, Gusmao L, Paoli G, Capelli C (2009) J1-M267 Y lineage marks climate-driven pre-historical human displacements. Eur J Hum Genet. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.58 (advance online publication 15 April 2009) [PMC free article] [PubMed]
1228
1229Wakeley J (2004) Metapopulation models for historical inference. Mol Ecol 13:865–875 [PubMed]
1230
1231Wilson IJ, Weale ME, Balding DJ (2003) Inferences from DNA data: population histories, evolutionary processes and forensic match probabilities. J R Stat Soc Series A (Stat Soc) 166:155–188
1232
1233Zalloua PA, Xue Y, Khalife J, Makhoul N, Debiane L, Platt DE, Royyuru AK, Herrera RJ, Hernanz DF, Blue-Smith J, Wells RS, Comas D, Bertranpetit J, Tyler-Smith C (2008) Y-chromosomal diversity in Lebanon is structured by recent historical events. Am J Hum Genet 82:873–882 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
1234
1235Zhivotovsky LA, Underhill PA, Cinnioglu C, Kayser M, Morar B, Kivisild T, Scozzari R, Cruciani F, Destro-Bisol G, Spedini G, Chambers GK, Herrera RJ, Yong KK, Gresham D, Tournev I, Feldman MW, Kalaydjieva L (2004) The effective mutation rate at Y chromosome short tandem repeats, with application to human population-divergence time. Am J Hum Genet 74:50–61 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
1236
1237Stranger: You idiot
1238
1239Stranger: Greek is white dna
1240
1241You: So are you telling me you read all of that and came to that conclusion
1242
1243Stranger: There is many white dna in that
1244
1245Stranger: This just proves my point
1246
1247You: When does it say that
1248
1249Stranger: If you mix this people with black people there race will die out
1250
1251Stranger: All this is extremly related to resesive white dna
1252
1253You: It mentions white once
1254
1255Stranger: No many races in there dna is white
1256
1257You: Mixed individuals are an abomination to nature anyway
1258
1259You: Says white once
1260
1261Stranger: No white people is
1262
1263You: How
1264
1265Stranger: In evolution
1266
1267Stranger: Whites are mixed with non homosapiens
1268
1269You: You don't quite seem to understand the term recessive do you?
1270
1271Stranger: That's a freak
1272
1273You: "they are not genetically superior. they are simply better adapted for collective enterprises, more adventurous [they come from the ones who left africa to begin with] and they inhabited an area full of geographical advantages. such as: water everywhere, pastures, seasons [which lead to forced industriousness and organization]. also is a "land archipelago". many pockets of land close enough to trade but separated enough by natural barriers to sustain differentiated communities that constantly challenged and enriched each other accelerating the access to technology, knowledge, military development etc. also the mediterranean. most african "empires" where land powers. except Carthage. most european powers were naval powers. which obviously is an incredible advantage. china was like that fo centuries until the han controlled the entire territory and became complacent. meanwhile europe was pushing as hard as ever."
1274
1275You: As in blacks are not genetically superior
1276
1277Stranger: They are superior in dna
1278
1279Stranger: Black dna is more dominate compared to white dna
1280
1281Stranger: Dna is not based on intelligence you don't know what dominate dna is
1282
1283You: I literally just showed you the evidence that you're wrong. Doesn't mean the dominant genes in blacks are better, plus every race has recessive genes
1284
1285You: Well niggers aren't great in the intelligence field either
1286
1287You: As it shows
1288
1289Stranger: This is not proof this is bais traits on white people
1290
1291Stranger: There dna is still inferior
1292
1293You: Define "inferior"
1294
1295Stranger: Black people have other intelligence white people don't have
1296
1297You: HAHAHA give me a break
1298
1299You: Prove it
1300
1301Stranger: Also just saying white people are superior based on bais traits don't prove whites are superior
1302
1303You: How are they "biased" traits?
1304
1305You: Besides, if niggers left america, the Average IQ would go up by 7 points
1306
1307You: SAT scores would go up by about 100 points
1308
1309Stranger: This was not proof in dna you said
1310
1311Stranger: It was just history
1312
1313You: I'm talking about intelligence here
1314
1315You: What did I say?
1316
1317Stranger: I just read that bullshit
1318
1319You: Good for you nig nog
1320
1321Stranger: What you said is based on history it don't prove whites to be superior over the fact being superior is subjective so you jerry pick traits you find whites did
1322
1323Stranger: And negative traits blacks did
1324
1325You: Whites are on average smarter and create more successful civilizations
1326
1327Stranger: This is not proof this is called being close minded and you make up whats superior
1328
1329Stranger: If you go for iq china is superior
1330
1331Stranger: Not white people
1332
1333Stranger: Also many traits like this is also in arab and china culture they did same things
1334
1335Stranger: Also with out arab culture whites would never know math
1336
1337You: Hey I love the Chinese, and plus without whites you'd be living in a damn hut
1338
1339Stranger: So really you proven yourself to be low in intelligence or extremly bias
1340
1341You: Niggers are the only people who have done nothing of importance
1342
1343Stranger: So you don't understand black history and you assume i'm black
1344
1345Stranger: That's extremly low intelligence
1346
1347You: I mean from everything you said it certainly appears that you're a nigger
1348
1349You: Unless you're a self hating white
1350
1351Stranger: Blacks made many things and not just small homes
1352
1353Stranger: This is just being ignorant
1354
1355You: Wow black culture, limited to rap music, broken english and tribal dancing
1356
1357You: Then you have to go and steal another culture because you don't have a successful one of your own
1358
1359You: WE WUZ KANGZ
1360
1361Stranger: English is not some th people always talk in all lands so again low intelligence or being ignorant
1362
1363Stranger: Also in the past they made beautiful towns
1364
1365Stranger: But whites burned it down
1366
1367You: I am referring to broken english in English speaking societies
1368
1369You: What, your huts?
1370
1371You: OH NOOO
1372
1373You: Evil whitey bloo bloo
1374
1375Stranger: It was whole towns not huts
1376
1377Stranger: Why do you say mine
1378
1379You: Whole TOWNS of HUTS? Jesus the humanity
1380
1381You: What race actually are you then?
1382
1383Stranger: You seem to be ignorant that in one time they did have water toilets and towns similar to rome
1384
1385You: WE WUZ ROMANS N SHIEET
1386
1387Stranger: No not that
1388
1389You: Yeah, years later than the fall of Rome maybe
1390
1391You: Cute
1392
1393Stranger: You mix romans with black cultures i said it was similar
1394
1395Stranger: Again you have low intelligence
1396
1397You: I was making a joke, can you not understand that?
1398
1399You: Wew lord
1400
1401Stranger: Well to be honest everything i said was true but you reject proof and attack black people
1402
1403Stranger: I all ready proven white genes is resesive and inferior to black genes that's why they die out
1404
1405You: I'm the one rejecting proof? Thats sweet, says the person who rejects proof on the mentality of rape victims
1406
1407You: Recessive /= inferior
1408
1409You: Gee wizz
1410
1411Stranger: So i'm happy with evolution morality while you say racist dogma
1412
1413You: You still haven't answered me, what race ARE you?
1414
1415Stranger: Makes me feel superior to you in morality and logic while you spew subjective dogma
1416
1417Stranger: You have proven that rape is ok
1418
1419You: But I thought you said everything was subjective
1420
1421You: Have the proof for that claim?
1422
1423You: Link the evidence
1424
1425Stranger: You litrealy proven my argument for me in morality
1426
1427You: Can you link that claim for me
1428
1429You: I'm really enjoying this convo mate
1430
1431You: You got discord?:
1432
1433Stranger: Morality is not based on proof but you just proven evolution morality matters and in evolution rape is natrule
1434
1435Stranger: So thank you
1436
1437You: But you said there is proof that rape is ok?
1438
1439You: So where is it?
1440
1441You: I'm looking around...
1442
1443You: Can't see it...
1444
1445You: HMMMM
1446
1447Stranger: You proved rape is ok
1448
1449You: Need a link for that claim
1450
1451You: Link me up, lil niggy
1452
1453Stranger: The only morality that's not subjective is evolution and you said morality have to be proven
1454
1455Stranger: So you think rape is ok
1456
1457You: When did I say that?
1458
1459You: False equivalence there
1460
1461You: Do you lack critical thinking?
1462
1463You: Wouldn't surprise me
1464
1465Stranger: The fact you care for biological morality compared to subjective morality in soical norms means rape is ok
1466
1467You: LIL NIGGY POST THE LINK THAT SAYS RAPE IS OK THOT
1468
1469You: But you've shown me no proof that rape is biological morality
1470
1471Stranger: You cleary lack that right now i just said how you proved it
1472
1473You: Prove it with a link
1474
1475You: Smack that link down bb
1476
1477Stranger: I can prove rape is natrule for humans
1478
1479You: Prove it with that hot link babes
1480
1481Stranger: You suffer from deppresion but i will link you it
1482
1483You: Aww
1484
1485You: Cute
1486
1487You: Please do
1488
1489Stranger: https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiological_theories_of_rape&ved=0ahUKEwjQjZWbl_HXAhVGIJoKHR4qAdwQFggnMAA&usg=AOvVaw0GDFMlKlM-yAqkuDuDazRP
1490
1491You: Theories = evidence
1492
1493You: AHAHAHA
1494
1495You: Do you know what a theory means?
1496
1497You: >nigger intelligence
1498
1499You: WEW
1500
1501Stranger: You think your big even evolution is some theorie
1502
1503You: But there's a shit ton of evidence for evolution not for rape my friend
1504
1505Stranger: Its proven rape happens in nature and that's its natrule
1506
1507You: So are you saying that if it happens to animals, it should happen with humans?
1508
1509Stranger: It also happens in human nature
1510
1511Stranger: All through history
1512
1513You: The 2003 book Evolution, Gender, and Rape, written in response to A Natural History of Rape, compiles the views of twenty-eight scholars in opposition to sociobiological theories of rape. One contributor, Michael Kimmel, criticizes Thornhill and Palmer's argument that female rape victims tend to be sexually attractive young women, rather than children or older women, contrary to what would be expected if rapists selected victims based on inability to resist. Kimmel argues that younger women are the least likely to be married and the most likely to be out on dates with men, and therefore are the most likely to be raped because of opportunity arising from social exposure and marital status.[9] Palmer and Thornhill responded to these critics in an article in the journal Evolutionary Psychology.[10]
1514
1515Smith et al. (2001) criticized Thornhill and Palmer's hypothesis that a predisposition to rape in certain circumstances is an evolved psychological adaptation. They developed a fitness cost/benefit mathematical model and populated it with estimates of certain parameters (some parameter estimates were based on studies of the Aché in Paraguay). Their model suggested that generally that only men with a future reproductive value of 1/10th or less of a typical 25-year-old man would have a net positive cost/benefit fitness ratio from committing rape. On the basis of their model and parameter estimates, they suggested that this would make it unlikely that rape generally would have net fitness benefits for most men.[11][12]
1516
1517While defending the evolutionary psychology theory of rape against its more vehement critics, Vandermassen (2010) provides a critique of some aspects of the view. She characterises the view of Thornhill and Palmer as "extreme" (p. 736), as they fail to allow for the influence of any non-sexual motivations in the crime of rape. Vandermassen also notes two problems with the data cited by Thornhill and Palmer regarding the psychological trauma caused by the violence associated with rape: firstly, the data is inaccurately and confusingly presented in the book, often obscuring the fact that they do not support Thornhill and Palmer's "counterintuitive hypothesis" (p. 744) that more physical violence during rape is associated with less psychological pain. Secondly, more recent research has failed to support this hypothesis. A more moderate position, integrating the evolutionary psychology and feminist theories on rape, is presented by Vandermassen, based in part on the work of feminist evolutionary researcher Barbara Smuts.[13]
1518
1519Hamilton (2008) has criticized Thornhill and Palmer's definition of rape as the coerced vaginal penetration of women of reproductive age. He has suggested that the exclusion of male rape, rape of women outside the reproductive age range, murderous rape, and non-vaginal forms of rape virtually guaranteed the confirmation of their hypothesis that rape is an evolved reproductive strategy and not a crime of violence. Hamilton has argued that evolutionary psychology fails to explain rape because, by evolutionary psychology's own criteria, an adaptation to rape children or men, or non-vaginal rape, would have been eliminated in the course of evolution because it did not confer reproductive advantage on our ancestors.[14]
1520
1521You: Your link provided its own argument against it
1522
1523You: AHAHA
1524
1525Stranger: So you spam info and think that's some argument
1526
1527You: Sorry thats the info in the link YOU sent ME
1528
1529You: Nice
1530
1531Stranger: That's called being dishonest
1532
1533You: How so, lil niggy?
1534
1535Stranger: You spam info and don't give the other person to respond over the fact i could take days to go through all this info
1536
1537Stranger: Pathetic tactic
1538
1539You: Days to read a few paragraphs?
1540
1541You: Aww
1542
1543You: That exact logic could be applied to my case
1544
1545You: Yet I'm not that pathetic
1546
1547Stranger: You spam info and hope i can't respond to it all
1548
1549You: >can't handle proof
1550
1551You: How ironic
1552
1553You: Don't worry I'm not going anywhere
1554
1555You: Take your time
1556
1557Stranger: That's some very retarded logic that's like i spam so called subjective facts and give you no chance for you to look through it
1558
1559You: I'm not giving you no chance
1560
1561You: Take your time go ahead
1562
1563You: I will wait
1564
1565Stranger: You proven to be dishonest the way you spam things that is really subjective like saying white dna is superior
1566
1567Stranger: And you spam subjective things
1568
1569You: Shhh no tears. Just read and I'll be hear waiting. Your ADHD is playing up
1570
1571You: here*
1572
1573You: Also how is what I have just sent subjective its literally from the same article you sent me. From that logic what you sent is subjective too
1574
1575Stranger: So you don't understand the very word superior in it self is subjective when you relate it to dna
1576
1577You: Changing the subject I see?
1578
1579You: ADORABLE
1580
1581You: Oh wait
1582
1583You: So by that logic
1584
1585You: Its only SUBJECTIVE that blacks are superior than whites in terms of DNA
1586
1587You: Your SUBJECTIVE viewpoint
1588
1589You: Dawww
1590
1591Stranger: No that's just facts dna is something you can't change if its resesive but intelligence is subjective
1592
1593Stranger: You compare 2 things that's not even close
1594
1595You: "So you don't understand the very word superior in it self is subjective when you relate it to dna" - Lil niggy 2017
1596
1597You: Quite hypocritical
1598
1599Stranger: Resesive and dominate in dna is proof
1600
1601Stranger: You litrealy hate on proof
1602
1603You: Says the person that refuses to read anything I link or have the sources for and has regularly avoided sending proof multiple times
1604
1605You: Poppin
1606
1607Stranger: You spam things that's based on subjective things for exmpale who is to say what's superior in traits
1608
1609You: Thats literally what you said
1610
1611You: Ranch me mulatto
1612
1613Stranger: No stupid cracker i said resesive not humans traits
1614
1615Stranger: Resesive dna is not humans traits
1616
1617You: "Makes me feel superior to you in morality and logic while you spew subjective dogma"
1618"They are superior in dna"
1619
1620You: All direct quotes from you
1621
1622You: BUT MUH SUPERIORITY IS SUBJECTIVE
1623
1624You: Gimme a break
1625
1626Stranger: Yes in dna not human traits
1627
1628Stranger: Learn the differences
1629
1630You: "White dna is inferior and black is dominate" implying blacks are superior in DNA
1631
1632You: YEET
1633
1634You: protip: try not to go back on yourself next time bb
1635
1636Stranger: There dna is superior but that have nothing to do with traits in race
1637
1638You: What are you even saying I feel as though I have lost the will to live speaking with you
1639
1640Stranger: You cleary can't comprehend the differences and think i'm hypocritical
1641
1642You: So whats your argument
1643
1644Stranger: You think resesive dna is the same like personality traits in races
1645
1646Stranger: Learn the differences
1647
1648You: No I dont when did I EVER say that
1649
1650You: Yknow what
1651
1652You: Do you have discord?
1653
1654You: Because if my internet goes down we can continue discussing there
1655
1656Stranger: The fact you mix genes with personality traits in race
1657
1658You: I asked you a question lil niggy
1659
1660Stranger: You know what i raped some kid
1661
1662You: Oh wow
1663
1664You: Thanks for that
1665
1666Stranger: Tiny cracker
1667
1668You: I thought you said thats AGAINST evolution
1669
1670You: Silly niggy!
1671
1672You: Bless
1673
1674Stranger: She was white and joicy
1675
1676You: Me
1677
1678Stranger: I'm just joking tiny cracker
1679
1680Stranger: This is how you act
1681
1682You: Jerry Seinfeld is shook
1683
1684You: Yikes you must be blast
1685
1686Stranger: Well you act like this the whole time no logic only info spam
1687
1688You: "durr hurr info is not facts"
1689
1690You: Iconic
1691
1692Stranger: You spam shit that takes hours to debunke
1693
1694You: Is it becuase you can't read past a sentence
1695
1696You: ICONIC
1697
1698You: because*
1699
1700You: >hours to debunk a paragraph
1701
1702You: The HEIGHT of lil niggy intelligence
1703
1704Stranger: Its called info tactic you spam shit that Would take hours to debunke
1705
1706Stranger: That's not being smart that's called being dishonest
1707
1708You: It really wouldn't, I debunked your links, and you cant debunk the info I found
1709
1710You: Because its "too hard for muh lil niggy brain"
1711
1712Stranger: So you think dishonest bullshit = intelligence and not just being dishonest
1713
1714You: How is it dishonest, I even sent you info from a link you sent me
1715
1716You: NiBBa honestly do you have discord?
1717
1718Stranger: In that logic if i spam we all started from black people in facts is not dishonest
1719
1720Stranger: Even if its extremly long lines that takes hours to debunke
1721
1722You: Actually the oldest human remains were found in the Balkans
1723
1724Stranger: While you act like some racist low iq insecure white guy
1725
1726Stranger: Well in dna you can't get white from black
1727
1728You: >guy
1729also its funny how you say low iq when blacks have an average iq of under 85 whilst whites have an average iq of over 100
1730
1731Stranger: Also there is more proof we all started in africa
1732
1733You: New hypothesis suggests oldest hominin lived in Europe, not Africa
1734Painting of 2 of the earliest pre-humans (Graecopithecus freybergi) sitting in desert at sunset pointing at animals (elephants and rhinos) in the distance
1735
1736El Graeco (Graecopithecus freybergi) lived 7.2 million years ago in the dust-laden savannah of the Athens Basin. This view from El Graeco’s place of discovery, Pyrgos Vassilissis, to the southeast over the plain of Athens and under a reddish cloud of Sahara dust; in the background: Mount Hymettos and Mount Lykabettos. Painting by Chicago-based artist Velizar Simeonovski according to scientific instructions of Madelaine Böhme and Nikolai Spassov.
1737
1738Humans and chimpanzees split from their last common ancestor several hundred thousand years earlier than believed, according to new research regarding pre-humans by an international team that includes University of Toronto’s David Begun.
1739
1740Not only that, their findings indicate that the split ocurred not in Africa — as customarily assumed — but in Europe.
1741
1742“Our discovery outlines a new scenario for the beginning of human history,” said Begun, a paleoanthropologist in the Department of Anthropology in the Faculty of Arts & Science. Begun is co-author of one of two studies reported this week in PLOS ONE. “The findings allow us to move the human-chimpanzee split into the Mediterranean area.”
1743Dental roots give new evidence
1744
1745The researchers analyzed two known fossil specimens of Graecopithecus freybergi using state-of-the-art methods — a lower jaw from Greece and an upper premolar from Bulgaria — and came to the conclusion that they belong to pre-humans. Using computer tomography, they visualized the internal structures of the fossils and demonstrated that the roots of premolars are widely fused.
1746
1747“While great apes typically have two or three separate and diverging roots, the roots of Graecopithecus converge and are partially fused — a feature that is characteristic of modern humans, early humans and several pre-humans including Ardipithecus and Australopithecus”, said Madelaine Böhme from the Senckenberg Centre for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment at the University of Tübingen, who co-led the investigations with Nikolai Spassov from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
1748
1749The lower jaw, nicknamed ‘El Graeco’ by the scientists, has additional dental root features, suggesting that the species Graecopithecus freybergi might belong to the pre-human lineage. The researchers were surprised by their results, as pre-humans were previously known only from sub-Saharan Africa.
1750
1751Furthermore, Graecopithecus is several hundred thousand years older than the oldest potential pre-human from Africa, the six to seven-million-year-old Sahelanthropus from Chad.
1752
1753The research team, which also included scientists from Greece, France and Australia, dated the sedimentary sequence of the Graecopithecus fossil sites in Greece and Bulgaria with physical methods and got a nearly synchronous age for both fossils — 7.24 and 7.175 million years before present.
1754Weakening the out-of-Africa theory
1755Photo of upper premolar (a tooth) of Graecopithecus from Azmaka, Bulgaria.
1756
17577.24 million year old upper premolar of Graecopithecus from Azmaka, Bulgaria. Photo: Wolfgang Gerber, University of Tübingen.
1758
1759“It is at the beginning of the Messinian, an age that ends with the complete desiccation of the Mediterranean Sea,” Böhme said.
1760
1761“These research findings call into question one of the most dogmatic assertions in paleoanthropology since Charles Darwin, which is that the human lineage originated in Africa,” said Begun.
1762
1763Present-day chimpanzees are humans’ nearest living relatives. Where the last chimp-human common ancestor lived, however, is a central and highly debated issue in palaeoanthropology. Researchers have assumed up to now that the lineages diverged five to seven million years ago and that the first pre-humans developed in Eastern Africa. According to the 1994 theory of French palaeoanthropologist Yves Coppens, climate change in the region could have played a crucial role.
1764
1765“It is not a matter of continental bragging rights,” Begun said. “It is critical to know where the human lineage arose so that we can reconstruct the circumstances leading to our divergence from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzees. Not having this information is like having a crime without the crime scene.”
1766Environmental changes the driving force for divergence
1767Photo of lower jaw
1768
1769Lower jaw of the 7.175 million year old Graecopithecus freybergi (El Graeco) from Pyrgos Vassilissis, Greece (today in metropolitan Athens). Photo: Wolfgang Gerber, University of Tübingen.
1770
1771As with many animals, the evolution of pre-humans was driven by dramatic environmental changes. The team led by Böhme demonstrated that the North African Sahara desert originated more than seven million years ago. They concluded this based on geological analyses of the sediments in which the two fossils of Graecopithecus were found. Although geographically distant from the Sahara, the red-coloured silts are very fine-grained and could be classified as desert dust. An analysis of uranium, thorium, and lead isotopes in individual dust particles yields an age between 0.6 and 3 billion years and infers an origin in Northern Africa.
1772
1773Moreover, the dusty sediment has a high content of different salts. The data document for the first time a spreading Sahara 7.2 million years ago, whose desert storms transported red, salty dusts to the north coast of what was then the Mediterranean Sea.
1774
1775This process is also observable today. However, the researchers’ modelling shows that the dust in the past was more than 10 times the amount of recent dust loadings in Southern Europe — comparable to the present-day Sahel zone in Africa that marks the transition between the Sahara and the Sudan region.
1776Fire, grass, and water stress
1777Electron microscope image of a dust particle from the Sahara desert that was found in Greece
1778
1779Electron microscope image of a dust particle rounded by eolian transport. It originated in the Sahara desert and was found in 7.2 million year old sediments in Greece. Photo: Ulf Linnemann, Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Palaeoenvironment, University of Tübingen.
1780
1781The researchers further showed that while the Sahara was developing in North Africa, a savannah biome was formed in Europe. Using a combination of new methodologies, they studied microscopic fragments of charcoal and plant silicate particles, called phytoliths.
1782
1783Many of these phytoliths derive from grasses and particularly from those that use the metabolic pathway of C4-photosynthesis, which is common in today’s tropical grasslands and savannahs. The global spread of C4-grasses began eight million years ago on the Indian subcontinent — their presence in Europe was previously unknown.
1784
1785The record they provide gives evidence of severe droughts, and the charcoal analysis indicates recurring vegetation fires.
1786
1787“In summary, we reconstruct a savannah, which fits with the giraffes, gazelles, antelopes, and rhinoceroses that were found together with Graecopithecus,” said Spassov.
1788
1789“The incipient formation of a desert in North Africa more than seven million years ago and the spread of savannahs in Southern Europe may have played a central role in the splitting of the human and chimpanzee lineages,” said Böhme. She calls this hypothesis the North Side Story, recalling the thesis of Yves Coppens, known as East Side Story.
1790
1791“Researchers need to be more open minded in the quest to uncover the origins of the human lineage. This fossil shows that Europe is just as likely to hold the key to the answer to this eternal question as Africa,” said Begun.
1792
1793The findings are described in two studies published in PLOS ONE titled “Potential hominin affinities of Graecopithecus from the late Miocene of Europe” and “Messinian age and savannah environment of the possible hominin Graecopithecus from Europe.”
1794
1795You: Take your time and read
1796
1797You: I will wait
1798
1799Stranger: What you said is not facts they don't claim white people did not come from black people with facts they just say it may be
1800
1801You: Did you even read it
1802
1803You: Wait so you said it would take you days to evaluate the info I give you, but that conclusion comes almost instantly
1804
1805You: Hmmmmm
1806
1807Stranger: Do i read how you try to aviod the argument with something elses
1808
1809You: Says you babes
1810
1811You: Nibba I need to know if you got Discord bc I really need to send this convo to a mate so we can have a laugh
1812
1813Stranger: So you start to go on about iq when we talked about where the first human come from
1814
1815You: ANSWER ME THOT
1816
1817Stranger: Again being dishonest
1818
1819You: >says I avoid questions
1820>avoids my question
1821
1822Stranger: I don't think you understand how arguments work like
1823
1824You: Ok sweetie answer me thid
1825
1826Stranger: You keep move the goal post
1827
1828You: this
1829
1830You: DO YOU HAVE DISCORD
1831
1832You: Literally just answer that and we can move on
1833
1834Stranger: What i learnt to day is that you have low iq but still go againist it
1835
1836Stranger: Hypocritical
1837
1838You: Nice claim, answer the question lil niggy
1839
1840Stranger: You can't comprehend being dishonest and you relate iq when we talk about the first human
1841
1842You: >avoiding the question AGAIN
1843
1844You: cmon now
1845
1846You: My sweet summer child
1847
1848Stranger: That's low iq
1849
1850You: I literally sent you a whole load of info on the first human
1851
1852You: What are you on about
1853
1854You: Also
1855
1856You: Do you have discord yes or no
1857
1858Stranger: That's not facts they said it may be
1859
1860Stranger: There is more facts on out of africka
1861
1862You: Oh I thought it took you DAYS to evaluate that
1863
1864You: ANSWER ME THOT
1865
1866You: STOP AVOIDING THE QUESTION
1867
1868Stranger: I read that before low iq thot
1869
1870You: Why wont you answer me then?
1871
1872You: Also stealing the names I gave to you?
1873
1874You: Sad!
1875
1876Stranger: I just never realized idiots like you try to claim that's facts
1877
1878Stranger: What's wrong low iq
1879
1880You: There is literal evidence in that
1881
1882You: But I forgot, it takes DAYS to come to a conclusion
1883
1884Stranger: They never claimed there is proof is the first human they just said it may be
1885
1886Stranger: Again dishonest
1887
1888Stranger: I read it before can't you read english
1889
1890You: "This fossil shows that Europe is just as likely to hold the key to the answer to this eternal question as Africa"
1891
1892You: Coming from a professional researcher
1893
1894You: HMMMM
1895
1896You: Cmon mate
1897
1898You: Do you have discord
1899
1900You: Stop avoiding the question lil niggy
1901
1902Stranger: I litrealy waste my time with bullshit
1903
1904You: You can leave at ANY POINT
1905
1906Stranger: Why you prove my points on rape
1907
1908You: >changing the subject when I ask a question
1909
1910You: Do you have discord
1911
1912You: Do you have discord
1913
1914You: Cmon lil niggy
1915
1916You: I know you can answer with a yes or no
1917
1918You: I believe in you
1919
1920Stranger: You said only biological morality matters and rape is biological thoughts human history and nature just like evolution
1921
1922You: Do you have discord
1923
1924You: You are the one changing the subject
1925
1926You: Do you have discord
1927
1928Stranger: Is funny you can't you keep saying that i know your race you don't know my race yet
1929
1930You: >YET AGAIN CHANGING THE SUBJECT
1931
1932You: Do you have discord
1933
1934You: Do you have discord
1935
1936You: Do you have discord
1937
1938You: Do you have discord
1939
1940You: Do you have discord
1941
1942You: Do you have discord
1943
1944You: Do you have discord
1945
1946Stranger: So you rape kids
1947
1948You: ?
1949
1950You: Where the fuck did you get that
1951
1952You: Do you have discord
1953
1954You: Do you have discord
1955
1956You: Do you have discord
1957
1958You: Do you have discord
1959
1960You: Do you have discord
1961
1962You: Do you have discord
1963
1964You: Stop changing the subject and answer me