Homo Erectus Walks Amongst Us

Index Page 1 of 5
<<<<<<>>>>>>
ErectusWalks
Amongst Us
The evolution of modern humans
http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/index.html 07/09/2009
Index Page 2 of 5
by
Richard D. Fuerle
Spooner Press, NY
Copyright © 2008
ISBN 978-1-60458-121-8
Printed in the United States by Lightning Source
<<<<<<>>>>>>
Table of Contents
Preface v
Acknowledgments vi
Introduction vii
Section I WHAT EVERY PALEOANTHROPOLOGIST SHOULD KNOW 1
Chapter 1 A Story of the Origin of Humans 2
Chapter 2 Early Humans 6
Chapter 3 DNA 12
Chapter 4 Evolution 16
Chapter 5 Selectors 30
Chapter 6 Neoteny 37
Chapter 7 Genetic Distance 41
Chapter 8 Evolutionary Psychology 49
Section II TRAITS OF LIVING POPULATIONS 56

Chapter 9 Hard Tissue 58
Chapter 10 Soft Tissue 72
Chapter 11 Reproductive Strategy 84
Chapter 12 Behavior 89
Chapter 13 Genes 100
Chapter 14 Intelligence 106
Chapter 15 Civilizations and Achievements 123
Chapter 16 Primitive Traits 134
Section III THE OUT-OF-AFRICA THEORY 141
Index Page 3 of 5
Chapter 17 Fossil Skulls 144

Chapter 18 Modern Behavior 152
Chapter 19 MtDNA 155
Chapter 20 Population Differences in MtDNA 160
Chapter 21 Nuclear DNA 168
Chapter 22 Replacement 172
Section IV THE OUT-OF-EURASIA THEORY 180

Chapter 23 The Bipedal Apes 186
Chapter 24 The Origin of the Eurasians 196
Chapter 25 The Neanderthals 208
Chapter 26 The Origin of Africans 218
Chapter 27 The Origin of Asian Aborigines 230
Section V POLICY 235

Chapter 28 Homo africanus 236
Chapter 29 Miscegenation 240
Chapter 30 Hybrid Vigor 247
Chapter 31 Segregation 256
Chapter 32 Eugenics 260
Chapter 33 Re-Classifying the Left 266
Chapter 34 Egalitarianism 272
Chapter 35 Individualism 277
Chapter 36 Morality 282
Chapter 37 Which Way Western Man? 288
Appendix (DNA) 292

Glossary 295
Recommended Reading 299
References 300
Index 338
<<<<<<>>>>>>
This book may be purchased at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other
online stores.
<<<<<<>>>>>>
Other works by the author
Index Page 4 of 5
Home Page Some articles and poems
The Pure Logic of Choice The basis of Austrian Economics
A New Theory of Natural

A theory of natural rights deduced from free will
Rights
A light opera about the Whiskey Rebellion and a few

Musical Compositions
other compositions.
On the Steppes of Central

A libertarian novel about a student in Mongolia
Asia
<<<<<<>>>>>>
Contact the author
This HTML version contains updates and corrections made to the original
printed version. Some of the pictures did not transfer well and will be
improved later.
Uploaded July 26, 2008.
<<<<<<>>>>>>
[Back Cover]
TAKE THIS TEST!

True False
1. Race does not exist - a black person is just a white person with a suntan
and wooly hair. □ □
2. All the races are equally intelligent. □ □
3. White racism is responsible for black failures. □ □
4. Africans were the first modern humans. □ □
5. Humans evolved in Africa from an African ape. □ □
6. The people living today who are most closely related to apes live in the
Amazon jungle. □ □
7. A woman is always more closely related to her own child than she is to
any other child. □ □
If you answered “True” to these questions, when you read this book drink a
Index Page 5 of 5
glass of wine while listening to a recording of the ocean surf.
The author is a retired patent attorney who lives on a small wildlife refuge on an
island in upstate of New York. A perpetual student, he has degrees in math (BS), law
(JD), economics (MA), physics (BA), and chemistry (BA). He is an amateur composer
(www.whiskeyrebellion.us) and has written books on Austrian economics
(www.purelogic.us), natural rights (www.naturalrights.us), and anarchy
(www.anarchism.net/steppes.htm).
Preface Page 1 of 1
Preface
“If you make up your mind about a contentious issue without having heard all sides, you will be
wrong at least half the time." 1
Every person is a product of the times he lives in. We all believe that our values are
objective and moral, but that cannot be true because every generation believes that, yet they have
vastly conflicting values. Only a few hundred years ago our ancestors found nothing objectionable
about owning and selling other people, and some millenniums prior to that the main course at
dinner might be a member of a neighboring tribe. Had we lived then, there is little doubt we would
not have objected. Several hundred years from now a future generation is likely to consider our
values to be as ignorant and barbaric as we consider those of our predecessors.
I mention this to encourage the reader to jettison, or at least rein in, the opinions, attitudes,
and beliefs that he has picked up during his life, because in this book many of them will be
disputed. Step out of your times, as though you had just arrived on this planet, and weigh the
evidence and reasoning presented. It is nearly impossible to arrive at the truth by listening to only
one side of the story, and you are about to hear another side.
Much of what people are told in schools and in the media today just isn’t so. There are
knowledgeable people who know it isn’t so, but they dare not say anything. The rest of us live in
this sea of misinformation. Since almost everyone believes the prevailing misinformation, we
assume it must be true. So we act on it, making important decisions about our lives, decisions that
all too often are disastrous.
Now, in my waning years, I can see no contribution I could make to the next generation
more important than to challenge what I believe to be at least some of these erroneous beliefs. To
encourage the dissemination of this book, it is being published without royalties and may be
copied, with attribution, without liability to the author. I hope to make it available on the internet
without charge, as I have done with my other books.
Very little is held back in this book. 2 An effort was made to avoid unnecessary insensitivity,
but shocking facts, even facts that some will find offensive, are displayed right out in the open
where they cannot be missed. I have tried to be as accurate as possible, though I would be
amazed if there were no mistakes, as so much ground is covered and speculation was required to
fill in gaps in the evidence. Technical language is avoided where possible and explained where
used. Large amounts of additional material could have been included, but after working on this
almost full time for about four years, I’ve decided it’s time to call it quits.
Acknowledgments
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. (1) Whenever there is a conflict, there are (at least) two versions. (2) Each side will promote its
version and suppress the other versions. (3) The version of the winning side will become the
establishment version that most people will accept. (4) If you knew the other versions, in a
significant number of cases you would not accept the version of the winning side. (5) Therefore, in
order to avoid promoting versions that are against your own interests, you should examine all
versions of a conflict before deciding which version to accept.
2. Some information that is highly controversial, but off-subject or difficult to verify, even if it is
probably true, was omitted. Back
http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/Preface.html 07/09/2009
Acknowledgments Page 1 of 2
Acknowledgments
A number of people made suggestions and provided information that was incorporated
into this book. Dr. Willard W. Olson deserves thanks for his keen observations and original
ideas on the evolution of man. His vast knowledge of biology, and of fossil skulls in particular,
was immensely helpful and his blunt and honest opinions are appreciated.
A number of people on the “e-l” and “ARlist” Yahoo Groups also made sagacious
comments and brought information to my attention. The book had its origin with posts by a
self-educated ex-Marine, Ronald A. Fonda, on those two Yahoo Groups, where he repeatedly
explained why he believed that the Out-of-Africa theory of human origins was wrong. Although
he maintains a web site on that subject which documents his position in detail, I thought it was
in rather technical language and difficult for a layman to comprehend. Convinced that he was
on to something, though, I encouraged him, and others who agreed with him, to write a book
that would make his ideas clear to an ordinary person. When, after several months, I realized
that no one was going to start writing that book, I offered to be the editor. I saw myself as
making sure that the writing was easy to understand and did not leave any gaps that could
undermine the arguments. But still no one produced anything for me to edit, so I began
researching and writing myself, first as “editor” then, when I was doing almost all the writing, as
co-author with Ron.
Ron and I were already sticking our necks out by arguing that modern man did not
arise in Africa, but only in Eurasia. That was contrary to both scientific theories of human
evolution, the Out-of-Africa (“OoA”) theory and the Multiregional theory. As the book
progressed, Ron, somewhat reluctantly, and I agreed that there were good reasons for
believing that man’s evolution from a primitive mammal did not occur in Africa either, and that
man had descended from a lineage that was closer to the Asian orangutan than to the African
chimpanzee. But that was Ron’s limit on taking speculative positions.
By the time Chapter 24 was seriously discussed, I had become convinced that biology
was not that different from physics in that it, too, was constrained by laws or rules. Genetic and
fossil data gave dates for the origin of the races of only about 65,000 years ago (“ya”), but
those rules implied that the races began more than 2 million years ago (“mya”). Since Ron and
I could not agree on how to resolve these and other difficulties, we amicably parted ways.
This book contains material I find absolutely fascinating, especially since one is unlikely
to easily find it elsewhere, particularly in a single book. To put it together, widely different
specialties had to be studied (e.g., genetics, physical anthropology, sociology, fossils,
psychology), digging through controversial and contradictory information, some of it mistaken
or even fraudulent. Making sense of it all was so overwhelming a task that many times I was
tempted to give up. Fortunately, Ron had already acquired a good knowledge of these
disciplines, had thought through the implications of all the information he had gathered, and
was able to keep me on track.
To Ronald Fonda therefore belongs not only credit for being the impetus of the book,
but for many of the ideas scattered throughout the book. Section III is almost entirely based on
his web site and he is responsible for many of the ideas in Section IV as well.
I am not oblivious to the fact that the theory of human origins proposed in this book
contradicts a vast literature supporting the Out-of-Africa (“OoA”) theory. However, there are
good reasons for believing that OoA is not correct and that modern man did not evolve in
Africa. I hope the reader will impartially judge the case presented while I anxiously remain in
the dock, awaiting the verdict.
As always, any errors or misstatements are mine. Comments and corrections,
http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/Acknowledgments.html 07/09/2009
Acknowledgments Page 2 of 2
preferably without cuss words, may be sent to me HERE.
Introduction
Table of Contents
http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/Acknowledgments.html 07/09/2009
Section I Page 1 of 1
SECTION I
What Every Paleoanthropologist
Should Know
In order to understand our origins, you are going to have to be familiar with some of the
fossil humans that have been found and how evolution “works” to change living things 1 to best
fit their environment. Definitions of technical terms can be found in the Glossary; here are a few
shorcuts that will be used:
Africans or s-S Africans = sub-Saharan Africans.

LCA = last common ancestor – the most recent ancestor from which two
individuals or groups descended.
yr = year.
yrs = years.
myrs = million years.
ya = years ago.
kya = thousand years ago.
mya = million years ago.
BP = before present, taken as 1950.
Hs = Homo sapiens – our immediate archaic predecessors.

Hss = Homo sapiens sapiens – modern man, us.
He = Homo erectus – the species of man just prior to Hs.
Hn = Neanderthals.
OoA = Out of Africa, the dominant theory of the origin of modern humans.
OoE = Out of Eurasia, a theory of human origins put forth in this book.
Early man = Homo, but not Homo sapiens.

Archaic man = Homo sapiens, but not Homo sapiens sapiens. Modern man =
Homo sapiens sapiens.
Chapter 1
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTE
1. Broadly, a “living thing” could be defined as a mechanism that uses matter and energy from its
environment to make copies of itself, e.g. (Lin, 2006). Also see Chemoton Theory.
Back
http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/SecI.html 07/09/2009
Chapter 1 Page 1 of 5
Chapter 1 - A Story of the Origin of Humans

Just so you know where this book is going, here is a short story of the origin of man
propounded in this book. Much of it is, admittedly, speculative, but it provides a more-or-less
complete story, even if it involves some guesswork, a better read than isolated facts separated
by chasms of mystery. I will not endlessly repeat, “according to the author,” and the reader
should realize that deductions and explanations are the author’s opinion, supported by the
quotations and citations that are given.
The story begins about 60 mya in the tropics of SE Asia. Early primates (“prosimians”)
chatter in the trees where they are safe from most predators. Some of the prosimians cling to
trees vertically and have a vertical posture. They support themselves and climb with their strong
back legs and use their front legs to grasp branches and food.
Some primates become larger, making it more difficult to walk on top of the branches, so
they begin to move by hanging from the branches by their feet and arms, then just by their
arms; they are “brachiators.” Arms become longer as those with longer arms can move more
efficiently with larger swings, just as longer legs make walking more efficient. Tails are no
longer needed for balance and are a waste of the body’s resources, so the brachiators who
have shorter tails now have an advantage and tails decrease in size, then disappear entirely.
Less mobile in the trees and too heavy to reach fruit on the end of small branches, the
tailless brachiators spend more time on the ground, where their size eliminates the threat of
small predators and enables them to eat foods, such as underground tubers, unavailable to
their tree-bound predecessors. They have not evolved the anatomy needed for efficient walking
on two feet so they walked partly bent over supported by palms in Eurasia and knuckles in
Africa. The environment on the ground is more complex, giving a survival advantage to those
who have larger brains and are more intelligent. It is about 25 mya and the tailless brachiators
have become apes.
Some of the Eurasian apes live in swampy areas, near lakes or the sea, or in forests
near rivers, where they feed on plants and aquatic animals. When they are in the water, they
walk on two feet (“bipedalism”). Over time, they become more and more anatomically adapted
to bipedalism and venture farther away from the safety of shallow water and nearby trees. This
is the first “giant step for mankind” because bipedalism was the single most important
adaptation in the evolution of man; man is the only habitually bipedal mammal. It is about 10
million years ago and bipedal apes have arrived.
The Eurasian bipedal apes follow the fruiting of trees and bushes and the herds of
animals that predators feed on, scavenging the remains. Walking on two feet lets them travel
farther and faster and with less energy than the quadrupedal apes, 1 and there are many other
significant advantages as well. Their hands are free to carry food and rocks 2 and sticks for
weapons, 3 standing upright presented less surface area to the sun, keeping them cooler and
able to forage longer 4 and, by standing, they could better spot predators. 5 Weapons and tools
improve, as they can now be carried with them instead of being made only when needed, then
discarded. Larger brains enabled them to plan better hunting strategies, thereby obtaining more
meat to fuel their growing brains, creating a feedback loop of bigger brain → better tools and
weapons → more meat → bigger brain (where “→” means “makes possible” or “goes to”). 6
Because the bipedal apes move about on the ground so much, they are constantly in
different environments. They must remember where to go, when to go there, and what dangers
and food sources to look for in all the many different locations they visit. A larger brain, despite
its high energy requirements and additional weight, becomes worth its high cost.
Moving around on two feet means that a mother can hold her baby with one hand and
gather food with the other while it nurses. 7 Walking uses less energy if the legs are close
http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap1.html 07/09/2009
together (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 92), and women with a narrower birth canal, and therefore closer
legs, survive better. But a narrower birth canal means that babies must be born less developed
so their brains and skulls can fit through the narrower canal during birth; the growth of the brain
is delayed and it has its greatest growth after birth. 8 While that solves one problem, it creates
new problems, for now the less-developed baby requires longer care in order to survive. 1 The
bipedal ape’s numbers increase rapidly and like his predecessors he, too, migrates into Africa,
where he drives all the other great apes to extinction, except for the chimpanzee and the gorilla,
who retreat to more isolated and less desirable territories. It is about 4 mya; the bipedal ape has
become Australopithecus, the last bipedal ape.
While Australopithecus ventured into the subtropics, man could go farther north, into a
seasonal and colder climate. Had Australopithecus remained in the tropics, there would today
be no men, Homo. But when the tropics were full, some Australopithecines, the losers in the
competition for the best territories, were pushed into less desirable territories, one of which was
the colder north.
A seasonal climate is vastly more mentally challenging than a tropical climate. In the
tropics, different types of plant food are available all year long, but in a more seasonal climate,
plants begin to limit their edible portions to only the warmer seasons, which also limits the
biomass of the animals who eat them. Thus, more skill and intelligence are required than in the
tropics. While some species of Australopithecines partially adapted to a cooler climate, they
could not go as far north as man, and hibernation was not an option. 9
The seasonal climate strongly selected for the greater intelligence needed to survive in
this more mentally challenging environment. Individuals who had it survived and passed their
particular genes on to their children; those who lacked it did not. Gradually, they extended their
northern range. By about 2½ mya, the combination of efficient bipedal walking, free use of
hands, and greater intelligence had paid off big time and the ape had become man. Sometime
around 2 mya, a dramatic change began in these more northern Australopithecines – their
brains enlarged dramatically, as must have their intelligence. This was the birth of the genus
Homo, the first men.
For early man, struggling to survive as seasonal differences became ever more severe
with each extension to the north, his larger brain, and greater intelligence, was the key to the
completely different mindset needed in this environment. Impulsiveness and immediate
gratification was out; saving for the future was in. Ignoring the future consequences of actions
was out; careful planning became a necessity. Nature’s price for becoming man was high, no
more tropical Garden of Eden, but desperate preparation for the trials of winter. The hukana
matata (“no worries”) grasshopper, 10 happily singing his days away in the sun, becomes
Homo, the hard-working, struggling ant.
The relationship between the sexes also changed. In the north, where hunting was a
more important source of food, women could no longer gather the provisions needed to sustain
themselves and their children throughout the year. Without a man to provide for them, they died
and their children died. 11 Men who committed to a single woman and cared for her, the “dads,”
passed on their pair-bonding genes; fewer “cads” passed on their philandering genes.
An early species of man, Homo erectus, spread into the warmer areas of Africa, Europe,
and Asia, as far north as his naked body could tolerate the cold, driving his predecessor,
Australopithecus, to extinction. 12 When he had filled all the territory he could, his great
expansion stopped. Any further migrations meant moving into territory already occupied by
other erectus and fighting and defeating them. That was not easy to do because the resident
erectus knew the land, the food sources, and the dangers, and he fiercely defended his
homeland. 13
In widely separated and different environments, erectus continued to evolve, each
population becoming better adapted to its unique environment; erectus, like Australopithecus
before him, becomes distinct and genetically different races. 14 In the northern range of Asian
erectus, the climate was much colder, so those individuals who had traits that made them better
able to endure the cold survived there while others did not.
In Europe and western Asia, early erectus eventually evolved into Neanderthals (also
spelled “Neandertals”) about 350,000 ya. In East Asia, cold-adapted erectus acquires control of
fire, 15 moves still farther north, and evolves into Homo sapiens (Hs), archaic man, about
200,000 ya. Similar changes occurred in West Asia, but without cold adaptations. The last stage
before becoming modern, Hs further improved his skills and increased his intelligence,
extending his range still further north. By about 150,000 ya, archaic man became Homo sapiens
sapiens (Hss), modern man. Where this happened is a major contention that is the subject of
much of the rest of this book, but the author believes it happened in East and West Asia.
Like his predecessors, the new-found tools, weapon, and intelligence of Hss were an
advantage not only in the north, but also in the south, still occupied by Hs and even by some
erectus in the tropics. So, when his numbers increased and the climate became colder and
winters so severe that the snow no longer melted, he moved south, invading Hs and erectus
territory, driving them to extinction, but sometimes interbreeding with them along the way,
creating hybrids. The glaciation of the north lowered sea levels and migration to Pacific islands
and Australia became feasible. When the ice finally began to melt thousands of years later and
the cold retreated, Hss moved north once again. West Asian Hss spread into Europe, where he
bred to a limited extent with the Neanderthals, becoming today’s Caucasians.
About 50,000 ya, one or more mutations occurred in a Eurasian population that affect
the functioning of man’s brain. These mutations were so favorable that they rapidly spread
through to Eurasians. Man created an elaborate culture, acquired religious beliefs, and crafts,
art, and tools that had to be visualized in his mind. Agriculture and the domestication of animals
followed about 10,000 ya and the rest, as they say, is history.
This is our origin, according to the author of this book. Those who favor a divine origin for man
will not agree, nor will most scientists who believe man’s origins were in Africa. Nevertheless, I
hope the reader will carefully consider the evidence that supports this story before making up
his mind.
Chapter 2
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. (Richmond, 2001). Longer legs use less energy; leg length increased about 2 mya. (Pontzer,
2007). Back
2. Later bipeds carried round rocks (“manuports”) left over from chipping off cutting stones.
These were ideal for throwing at predators and scavengers to drive them away from carcasses.
Individuals who could throw the manuports hard and accurately, due to a superior brain that
could precisely calculate the instant to release the rock, were more reproductively successful.
Back
3. A significant advantage as big cats found them quite tasty. (Eppinger, 2006). Back
4. Compared to walking on four limbs, standing upright exposes only 40% of the body to direct
sunlight (Haywood, 2000, p. 23). Also, standing reduces the exposure to heat radiating from the
ground, and exposes the body to cooler breezes, keeping the brain from overheating and
shutting down. (Wheeler, 1988). Back
5. Meerkats and other mammals also stand on two feet to watch for predators in the grasses.
Back
6. Without meat, it is doubtful that man’s brain could have increased to its present size. (Taylor,
2007). Back
7. This simple act of carrying the baby with one arm may have profoundly affected man’s brain.
Because the left ventricle of the heart makes the loudest sound and babies are quieter when
they hear the heartbeat they heard in the womb, most women, even today, carry their babies on
their left side. Women, like men, used their free right arm to throw stones at prey and predators
and those whose left side of the brain (which controls the right arm) was more adept at accurate
throwing had an advantage. Thus, man became predominately right handed and his brain
became more asymmetrical, making the brain more specialized and sophisticated. (Calvin,
1991). Also, (Donohoe, 2003). Humans are the only primate that is predominately right-handed.
(Corballis, 1991). Back
8. The infant brain is about a quarter of the size of the adult brain and grows most after birth,
not stopping until about age 30. (Allman, 1994, p. 56; Schwartz, 1999, p. 122). A newborn
chimpanzee brain is about 60% of its adult weight and grows 30% to puberty, while a newborn
human brain is 24% of adult weight and grows 60% to puberty. (Corballis, 1991, pp. 69-70).
Back
9. Even if man could have evolved to hibernate, because of his size he would be competing for
suitable quarters with other animals, such as the powerful cave bear. Hibernation can be
induced in man, but in nature he would die from hyperthermia. (Stone, A., "Suspended
Animation," Discover magazine, May, 2007, p. 43). Back
10. “The Dobe !Kung people of the Kalahari desert, for instance, are able to provide all the
basics of life for themselves by about two to three hours work a day, depending on the season.
The rest of their time is to be spent at leisure, either gossiping and socializing, telling stories,
playing games, or resting.” (Haywood, 2000, p. 82). “In tropical environments where food is
available all year round, hunter-gatherers rarely store food even overnight…” (Haywood, 2000,
p. 90). Back
11. “…from birth to belated maturity it takes six times as many calories of food per kilogram of
adult weight to build a man as to nurture any ordinary mammal to adulthood.” (Coon, 1962, p.
172) Without that greater intelligence, man could not have acquired that amount of food. Back
12. Not only did the brain of erectus jump in size in proportion to his body weight (Boaz, 1997,
p. 141), but unlike Australopithecus, erectus could run! Two million year old erectus developed
a delicate ridge at the base of his skull where a tendon (the nuchal ligament) was attached to
keep his skull steady during running. Erectus may have been able to run down prey, especially
in hot weather, giving him a food source unavailable to Australopithecus. (Bramble, 2004).
Running down prey is a successful strategy only in high temperatures because, for it to be
successful, the prey’s temperature must reach about 105° F, which shuts down its ability to run.
Back
13. A successful invasion of occupied territory typically requires at least a 2 to 1 numerical
superiority or a highly superior technology. Back
14. The large jump in brain size was due to a genetic change, though as yet it has not yet been
attributed to any particular gene or genes. It is interesting, though, that chimps, gorillas, and
orangutans have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46 chromosomes, due to the fusion of the
two chromosomes into Chromosome 2 (Williams, 1999). It is not known, of course, how many
chromosomes the Australopithecines had, so this may not have been the change that divided
ape and man. The tarsier, an early primate, has 80 chromosomes, suggesting that as primates
evolved, chromosomes fused. Back
15. Dragon Bone Hill, China, between 620,000 and 410,000 BP. Back
Chapter 2 - Early Humans

Very briefly, we will take a look at a few early humans, just to see the traits that they possessed and how those traits
progressively evolved. Keep in mind that the classification of these fossils is somewhat arbitrary as species change gradually and most
species live for tens of thousands of years after some of their members have evolved into other species. Nor can early human fossils be
placed in the order in which they evolved by relying only on their cranial capacities because cranial capacities vary among individuals
and the sexes (males skulls are larger and it is not always possible to determine sex). And the locations where the fossils were found
are not proof that they evolved there.
Homo habilis
The first known member of the Homo genus is Homo habilis ("handy man"), 1 so named
because pebble tools were found with his remains. Habilis lived between 2.5 and 1.8 mya. The skull
shown in Figure 2-1 was found in Tanzania, East Africa.2 The face is primitive, but the jaw projects
forward less than in his simian predecessors, though his arms were long. There are no external nose
bones, the eye sockets are large, and the teeth are considerably larger than in modern humans.
Cranial capacity varied between 500 and 800 cc (with an average of 650 cc), which is small,
considering that habilis was about 127 cm (5'0") tall and weighed about 45 kg (100 lb). Internal
markings on the skull indicate that his brain had a humanlike shape. A bulge in the area used for
speech on the left side of the brain (Broca's area), suggests that habilis may have been capable of
rudimentary speech. He was also “the first hominid to add meat to its vegetarian diet.” (Arsuaga,
2001, p. 157; Haywood, 2000, p. 26). He probably descended from a gracile bipedal ape, such as
Australopithecus afarensis or africanus. (Conroy, 1990). Figure 2-1
Homo ergaster
Figure 2-2 3 shows an early Homo erectus from Africa that is now called Homo ergaster and Figure 2-3 4 is a drawing of what
ergaster may have looked like.
Ergaster had a cranial capacity of 700 to 880 cc, lived about 1.9 to
about 0.6 mya in Africa, and may have used fire. 5 Hand axes and cleavers
were found with the fossils, but for a million years his tools did not improve.
There is some doubt that ergaster originated in Africa as it does not seem
to have an immediate ancestor there. (Dennell, 2005).
A nearly complete ergaster skeleton, "Nariokotome Boy," (also
called “Turkana Boy”) was found in Nariokotome, Kenya, Africa. He lived
about 1.8 mya. Only about 10 years old when he died, he was already
about five feet tall and would have been over six feet at maturity. Unlike
earlier hominids, he could swing his arms when walking or running.
Homo erectus
Homo erectus, who lived in most of Africa, southern Europe, SW Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3
Asia (the Middle East), SE Asia, Japan, and even some Pacific islands, had
fire and systematically made tools. His earliest bones are almost 2 million years old and he did not become extinct until 27,000 ya on
the isolated Indonesian island of Java (and perhaps even more recently, as we shall see below).
The term “Homo erectus” (“upright man”) is used somewhat broadly and once included some of the prior species, which
may be considered to be early erectus. Like habilis, the face has a protruding jaw with large molars, no
chin, thick brow ridges, and a long, low, and thick (½ inch in places) skull. But erectus was taller than his
predecessors and had a larger brain (750 – 1225 cc), 6 smaller canine teeth, a smaller and less protruding
jaw, shorter arms, and an external nose. The cover of this book, minus the suit, tie, and glasses, of
course, shows what a tropical erectus may have looked like and Figure 2-4 (by Russell Clochon) depicts a
northern >I?erectus. 7.
The OoA theory says that it was the African erectus that became modern man, then came the
races, so the species Hs (and the subspecies Hss) arose before the races; the Multiregional theory says
that there was an Asian erectus race and an African erectus race and they both became modern man, so
the races came before the species Hs. And this book says the races arose before erectus, with
Australopithecus, so the races came before the genus Homo.
Homo georgicus Figure 2-4

Figure 2-5 shows front and side views of an early European erectus, classified as Homo
georgicus. 8 The fossils, about 1.8 million years old and consisting of three partial skulls and three lower jaws, were found in Dmanisi,
Georgia, of the former Soviet Union. 9 Georgicus has
similarities to the habilis, ergaster, and erectus types
found in Africa, though he was somewhat more
gracile.
The brain sizes of the georgicus skulls vary
from 600 to 800 cc. The height, as estimated from a
foot bone, would have been about 1.5 m (4'11") and
the weight about 50 kg (110 lbs), shorter but heavier
than the preceding African specimens because he
lived in a cooler climate. 10 Note the large teeth
(especially the large canines, which are very
primitive), the sloping forehead, the heavy brow

ridges, the projecting jaw, the absence of a projecting
nose, and the bulge (“occipital bun”) at the back of the
head. Georgicus may have been an ancestor to the
African and Asian erectus (Lordkipanidze, 2006) and a
predecessor of georgicus may have been an ancestor
of the African ergaster and habilis.
Homo antecessor
Homo antecessor was found in Atapuerca,
northern Spain, along with tools; it is dated at about
780,000 to 857,000 ya (Bermúdez de Castro, 1997).
The fossils are fragmentary but similar to Nariokotome
Boy (Fig. 2-2 & 2-3). The bones show definite signs of
cannibalism. Antecessor was robust with an occipital
bun, a low forehead, no chin, and a cranial capacity of
about 1000 to 1150 cc. He stood 5½ to 6 feet tall, and
males weighed roughly 200 pounds. Antecessor’s Figure 2-5 Side View Figure 2-5 Front View
lineage is unclear, but he may have been on, or a branch of, the lineage that lead to Heidelberg man and the Neanderthals.
Homo heidelbergensis
Scientists had trouble classifying many fossils from between about 800,000 and about 200,000 ya because they were not as
primitive as Homo erectus, but yet were not really modern either, though somehow they still managed to get to northern England
700,000 ya. 12 Eventually, they were given the name Homo heidelbergensis, 13 aka “Heidi.” The skull capacity of Heidi is larger than
erectus but still smaller than most living
humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the
skull is more rounded than in erectus. The
skeleton and teeth are usually less robust
than erectus, but more robust than modern
humans. Many still have large brow ridges
and receding foreheads and lack chins.
Figure 2-6 shows a 450,000 year old skull
found in Arago Cave, Tautavel, France. 14
This was a young adult about 1.65
m (5’5”) tall, with a cranial capacity of 1150
cc. Note the receding forehead and the
rectangular eye sockets. Heidi has many
features that are similar to Neanderthals,
such as a wide face, a heavy brow ridge,
and a projecting jaw, suggesting that
Neanderthals evolved from a European
Heidi who, in turn, may have been a
descendant of georgicus.
Neanderthals
Neanderthals, 14 Homo
neanderthalensis, lived between 350,000
and 24,500 ya (Finlayson, 2006)
throughout Europe and the Middle East
but, unlike Heidi, no Neanderthals fossils Figure 2-6
have yet been found in Africa.
Neanderthals lived primarily in the cold north; they migrated to lower latitudes (e.g., Portugal, Israel) only during the ice age. Figures 2-7
15 and 2-8 16 show two variations.
Figure 2-7 Figure 2-8
Note the larger and rounder eye sockets in Figure 2-7. The Neanderthals had an average skull capacity of about 1450 cc,
slightly greater than that of modern humans, 17 but this may be due to their greater bulk rather than to their greater intelligence. 18 The
skull is longer and lower than that of modern humans, with a marked bulge (“occipital bun”) at the back. Like erectus, Neanderthals had
a receding forehead and a protruding jaw. The middle of the face also protrudes, a feature that is not found in erectus or sapiens, a
feature that may be an adaptation to cold weather or, more likely, a partial retention of simian prognathism. There is a brow ridge
without a gap in the middle, giving them a beetle-browed appearance; a chin is just beginning to appear.
Their barrel chests and short, stubby hands, fingers, and feet were adaptations for the cold 19 and, because of the lack of
sunlight in the north, they would have had white skin (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 75), though they may have also been hairy. Men averaged
about 168 cm (5'6") in height. Their bones were thick and heavy, and show signs that powerful muscles were attached to them, so they
would have been extraordinarily strong by modern standards. Western European Neanderthals (sometimes called "classic
Neanderthals") were usually more robust than those found elsewhere. 20A large number of tools and weapons have been found with
them that are more advanced than those of Homo erectus. Animal bones suggest that Neanderthals were formidable hunters. They are
the first people known to have buried their dead, with the oldest known burial site about 100,000 ya. We will return to Neanderthals in
Chapter 25.
Archaic Man and Modern Man

Archaic man, Hs, first appeared about 200,000 ya and modern man, Hss, appeared about 160,000 ya. Modern humans have an
average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is
prominent with a cleft in the middle, the teeth are small, and the skeleton is gracile (light bones). Even within the last 100,000 yrs, the
long-term trends towards smaller molars and decreased robustness can be discerned. Compared to modern Eurasians, humans about
30,000 ya were about 20 to 30% more robust and until about 10,000 ya were about 10% more robust; populations that have used food-
processing techniques (e.g., cooking) the longest have the smallest teeth. (Brace, 2000).
Cro-Magnons
The Cro-Magnons were the immediate predecessors of modern
Caucasians. They lived in Europe about 40,000 to about 10,000 ya. They
were slightly more robust than modern Caucasians and, like
Neanderthals, they had brains that were larger (about 4%) than modern
Caucasians, 21 though their skulls were thicker and brow ridges heavier.
(Howells, 1948, p. 186). With the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture,
tool kits started to become markedly more sophisticated. A wider variety
of raw materials, such as bone and antler, were used and specialized
tools were made for producing clothing, engraving, and sculpturing. Fine
artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans
and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave
paintings (Fig. 15-1a, 15-1b, & 25-3) appeared. (Leakey 1994).
Figure 2-9 shows a Cro-Magnon skull. 22 This 30,000 year old,
fully modern, Cro-Magnon skull was found in Les-Eyzies, France. The
skull shows traits that are unique to modern humans, including the high
rounded cranial vault, and a nearly vertical forehead. There are no large
brow ridges, nor a protruding jaw. Note how the eye sockets are slightly
sloped and are flattened far more than in the other fossil skulls, possibly
an adaptation to protect the eyes from the cold. 23 The flattened eye
sockets that are observed in some North African skulls may be the result
of Cro-Magnons migrating there during the worst of the last ice age.
Figure 2-10 is a graph that will give the reader some perspective
on the known life spans of these species. 24
Figure 2-10
Chapter 3
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
Figure 2-9
1. There are no sharp skeletal differences separating early humans from
their Australopithecine predecessors. “Whether habilis is in fact man or an advanced australopithecine is a matter of scientific dispute,
and largely one of semantics.” (Ardrey, 1966, p. 259). For convenience, early humans can be lumped as stages of Homo erectus. Back
2. (KNM ER 1813). Photo from Wesleyan University Archeology & Anthropology Collections. Back
3. (KNM ER 3733) Picture from Museums Choice Fossils. Back
4. From Transvaal Museum, South Africa. Back
5. Ashes were found in a cave, but could have been carried there by moving mud or earth, or brush that had grown into the cave may
have burned. (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 269). Back
6. Early erectus averaged about 900 cc, while late erectus averaged about 1100 cc. Back
7. A parody of a drawing from the University of Minnesota, Duluth, “Prehistoric Cultures.” Back
8. Skull D2700. Back
9. Skull D2282. Back
10. An example of Bergmann’s Rule. Back
11. (Parfitt, 2005). Boxgrove Man, a Heidi found near Chichester in Sussex, England with flint tools, was dated at about 500,000 ya.
Back
12. The name is from Heidelberg, Germany, where one specimen was found, but Heidi has also been found in Spain and Africa. Heidi
is also classified as Homo erectus heidelbergensis to indicate that it is a sub-species of Homo erectus. Back
13. Photo from the World Museum of Man. (Also see Figure 17-5). Back
14. Named for discoverer Joachim Neumann, who preferred his name in Greek, Neander (“new man”) plus “tal,” which is “valley” in
German. Back
15. La Forressie (reconstructed), France. World Museum of Man Back
16. Chapelle-aux-Saints (reconstructed), France. World Museum of Man, a “classic” Neanderthal. Back
17. Wolpoff give a cranial capacity of 1525 cc for a 50,000 year old Neanderthal. (Lee, 2003, Table 1). Back
18. Neanderthals had a brain 4.8 times larger than expected for a mammal of their size, but our brains are 5.3 times larger, i.e., relative
to body size, our brains are larger. (Ruff, 1997). Back
19. Bergmann’s Rule and Allen’s Rule, respectively. Back
20. (Trinkaus, 1979). Primates that eat mostly vegetables are robust (e.g., the gorilla) and those that eat mostly meat are gracile, but
that does not apply to Neanderthals. (Corballis, 1991, p. 306). Back
21. The probable reason why we have smaller brains than our immediate ancestors is the change, about 12,000 ya, from hunting and
gathering to farming, which selected against a large and costly brain as it was less needed. Back
22. Picture (now deleted) from Pleistocene”). See Figure 17-11 for H. floresiensis skull. Back
Chapter 3 - DNA
In addition to figuring out “Who Done It” on TV crime shows, DNA is also useful in
figuring out “Who Begot Whom.” It works like this. All humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes,
making the total number of chromosomes equal to 46. One set of 23 chromosomes came from
the mother and the other set of 23 chromosomes came from the father. Each of the father’s 23
chromosomes is paired up with the corresponding chromosome from the mother. Each
chromosome consists of a long string of DNA entwined with proteins called “histones.”
Histones unwind to permit the DNA to be read; the histones are inherited along with the
chromosomes. (Segal, 2006).
DNA is a chain of chemical units called “nucleotides.” It is like a computer code (…
011000101…), but instead of using only zeroes and ones, each nucleotide uses one of four
different chemical bases, which are known by their first letters, A, C, G, and T (…
ATTGCATCCA…). A “gene” is a string of DNA that “codes for” a polypeptide, which is just a
string of chemically linked amino acids. The order of those A, C, G, and T bases in the coding
portion (“exon”) of the DNA sequence of a gene determines which polypeptide is made, and
stringing different polypeptides together produces different proteins. 1 (See Appendix).
Proteins and other substances are assembled to give various traits, the “phenotype.” Less than
2% of our genome is required to make all the proteins we need to live.
All humans have the same genes, 2 but not the same form of those genes. To clarify,
we all have the EYC3 gene for eye color, but one A-C-G-T sequence of that gene makes eyes
blue and another A-C-G-T sequence of that gene makes eyes brown. Each different A-C-G-T
sequence of a gene is called an “allele.” In some populations, a gene may come in only a
single allele, so everyone in that population has the same A-C-G-T sequence for that gene and
has the same trait, i.e., the allele is “fixed”; genes in other populations come in many alleles,
some of which only very few people have. Some alleles are very beneficial and give an
individual a highly desirable trait, such as greater intelligence, athletic ability, or good looks,
and other alleles may be lethal or debilitating. There is an average of 14 different alleles for
each gene.
In addition, regulators (the “epigenome”) determine whether or not a string of DNA is
3
read. The epigenome also differs between people and is inherited with the chromosomes.
Putting all this together, it is obvious that unless two people are identical twins, it is extremely
unlikely that they will be genetically identical, and even “identical” twins, i.e., twins with the
same DNA sequences, may differ slightly due to differences in their epigenomes. 4
And, hang on, it gets even more complicated. If two alleles have different A-C-G-T
sequences they can nevertheless still code for the same polypeptide (i.e., the two alleles are
“synonymous”), or they can code for different polypeptides (“non-synonymous”). 5 Each A-C-
G-T difference, e.g., a “T” instead of an “A,” is called a “single nucleotide
polymorphism” (SNP). The difference between an “A” and a “T” may be only in how difficult it is
for a cell to obtain and assemble an “A” instead of a “T,” or the difference may be
advantageous, disadvantageous, or even deadly.
New
alleles Very occasionally, there is a throwback (“atavism”), a
can
person whose gene regulators have turned on genes that were
arise
turned off a long time ago in the rest of us. (LePage, 2007).
within Figure 3-1 is a picture of Azzo Bassou. Bassou was living
ain the Valley of Dades, near the town of Skoura in Morocco in
population
1936, where the original white population has mixed with blacks.
by
If he is a throwback, he should express some primitive white
mutation
and/or African traits, along with his mulatto traits. Some experts
or
believe that Bassou was a microcephalic (e.g., had a genetic
they
defect that left him with a small brain), but he was not a drwarf, as
can
many microcephalics are. (The villagers would not permit an
be
examination of his body when he died.) His behavior, aside from
acquired
its primitiveness, was also not that of most microcephalics.
by
“With arms so long his fingers hang below his knees when
interbreeding
he stands upright; with massive, bony ridges above his eyes and
with
a sharply receding forehead; with jaws, teeth, chin, and
another
cheekbones all showing pronounced ape-like characteristics. He
population
sleeps in the trees there and subsists on dates, berries, and
that
insects. He wears no clothes (although he was persuaded to don
already
a burlap sack for the photograph which appears here), uses no
has
tools, and speaks only in grunts.” (National Vanguard, Issue No.
them.
44, 1976).
If Figure 3-1
a
new allele increases reproductive success it will spread throughout the population and, if it is
reduces reproductive success, it will disappear along with those who had it. 6 Almost all new
alleles are detrimental because, after millions of years, almost all the alleles that are possible
have already entered the population’s gene pool at one time or another. Since beneficial
alleles usually remain in the gene pool once they arise, there are very few new beneficial
alleles that could arise and enter the gene pool. But detrimental alleles are eliminated from the
gene pool, so they can arise and re-enter it over and over again. (And alleles that are
detrimental in one environment may be beneficial years later when a population faces a
different environment or has evolved in other ways.)
Expanding populations acquire alleles (because there are more people in whom
mutations can occur) and contracting populations lose them (because people who have unique
alleles, even if they are not detrimental alleles, die without progeny) – an example is the loss of
alleles that occurred in Eurasians after vast numbers died during ice ages. Barring such
disasters, an allele that increases reproductive success is unlikely to be lost. Indeed, if an
allele is widely expressed in a population, one can safely conclude that the allele has
increased the reproductive success of that population in its present environment. However, an
allele that, for some period of time, has been only sparsely expressed either does not increase
reproductive success or increases it only when it is sparsely expressed and is detrimental
when it becomes widespread.
Because populations can gain and lose alleles, and alleles that are advantageous in
one environment can be detrimental in a different environment, determining descent by
studying the alleles of different populations can be tricky. Suppose population A has a large
number of alleles, such as an average of 20 alleles per gene, while population B has only a
few alleles per gene, perhaps an average of only 5, and those 5 are also in population A. Does
that mean that population A is older? Not necessarily, because population A may have
acquired many of those alleles by interbreeding with other populations, not by mutations
occurring over a longer period of time. Also, population B may be older, but may have suffered
a catastrophic drop in its numbers, wiping out most of the alleles it had accumulated.
Similarly, if population A has old alleles that population B lacks, it is not possible to
conclude that population B descended from population A and lost the old alleles. Population A
may have old alleles simply because it has stayed in the same, fairly constant, environment
and has not evolved as much as population B, which has moved to a very different
environment. Also, the old alleles may have entered population A because members of
population A interbred with population C, which had the old alleles.
All DNA in every plant and every animal has the same basic structure. (See Appendix).
In all animals with a nucleus (“eukaryotes,” e.g., every living thing other than bacteria, blue-
green algae, and viruses), there are two kinds of DNA in its cells – the DNA in the nucleus
(“nuclear DNA”) and the DNA in mitochondria (“mitochondrial DNA” or “mtDNA”). 7
Mitochondria, remnants of bacteria that were captured by cells over three billion years ago,
provide energy for the cell. The captured bacteria helped the cells survive and that is why their
DNA is still there. Later, some of that mtDNA moved into the nucleus and became nuclear
DNA. 8
There are some dramatic differences between nuclear DNA and mtDNA. Nuclear DNA
is in the form of a double helix, a twisted ladder whose rungs are an A base on one side
weakly bound to a T base on the other side, or a C base weakly bound to a G base. One
strand is the “sense” strand that is read to make a polypeptide and the other strand is the “anti-
sense” strand that is a complementary backup copy. Nuclear DNA is a two-strand string with
two ends; mtDNA is a one-strand (usually) ring (a “plasmid”) with no ends, except that when it
is being read the ring opens. In each cell, there are only two copies of each strand of nuclear
DNA, one from the mother and one from the father; 9 there are usually thousands of copies of
mtDNA in each cell, almost always only from the mother. 10 There are over 3 billion base pairs
(i.e., A, C, G, or T) 11 in 20,488 genes in nuclear DNA, but only 16,569 base pairs in 37 genes
in mtDNA. Nuclear DNA is located in 23 pairs of chromosomes; mtDNA has no chromosomes.
Nuclear DNA has a number of DNA repair molecules 12 that move along it and correct errors;
mtDNA has no way to correct errors, so errors accumulate at about 20 times the rate for
nuclear DNA. (Sykes, 2001, p. 55). Nuclear DNA mutates at the rate of once per billion cell
divisions; mtDNA mutates about 10 times as fast as nuclear DNA. (Patterson, 1999, p. 152).
Nuclear DNA comes in two types – exons, DNA that codes for polypeptides (“genes”), and
introns (“junk DNA”) – DNA that does not code for polypeptides; 13 mtDNA has no introns and
it codes for RNA as well as for proteins. (RNA is the same as DNA but “U”s replace the “T”s
and ribose replaces deoxyribose – see Appendix.) Almost all racial traits are coded for in
nuclear DNA; mtDNA only rarely has an effect on racial traits, e.g., respiration at high altitudes
and during long distance running and metabolic advantages in the Arctic.
A major difference for the purpose of deciphering human origins, however, is that
mtDNA is in the sperm’s tail and nuclear DNA is in its head. What does that have to do with
human origins, you ask? Well, during fertilization, only the head of the sperm normally enters
the egg (Schwartz, 2005, p. 194) and any sperm mtDNA that slips in is tagged and destroyed;
therefore, the father’s mtDNA does not normally contribute to the genome of the fertilized egg.
14 (Occasionally, some of the father’s mtDNA slips by (Schwartz, 2002), thereby giving the
fertilized egg both the mother’s mtDNA and the father’s mtDNA, confusing the geneticists. 15)
This means that a person’s mtDNA, whether that person is male or female, is (almost always)
inherited only from the mother. Your mtDNA, even if you are male, came from your mother,
hers from her mother, and so on.
But there is some DNA that comes only from the father. Normally, the father and the
mother each contribute half of their child’s chromosomes. Females have a pair of X
chromosomes (XX), so the mother can contribute only an X to her child. Males have an X
chromosome and a Y chromosome (XY). If the father contributes an X, the child will have two
X chromosomes and will be female (XX). If he contributes a Y, the child will have an X and a Y
chromosome and will be male (XY). Thus, (almost always 16) Y chromosomes are inherited
only from fathers and are inherited only by sons. This means that the DNA in the Y
chromosome of a male alive today came from his father, who got it from his father, and so on
all the way back.
This information is useful in forensics, since a person’s mtDNA will be the same as his
mother’s and her other children, and a man will have the same Y chromosomal DNA as his
father and his father’s other sons, but it is also useful in paleoanthropology, as we shall see.
Chapter 4
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. Because polypeptides can be assembled different ways, humans have over 500,000
proteins but only 20,488 genes, though more genes may be found. Exons are only 1.5% of the
human genome. (Carroll, S.B., “Regulating Evolution,” Scientific American, May, 2008). Back
2. There may be a few exceptions. (Miller, 2006; also see gene APOE). Back
3. Epigenetics is an exciting new science with much promise of important discoveries.

(Watters, 2006, p. 33; Cropley, 2006). Back
4. (Fraga, 2005). The number of copies of an allele may differ in identical twins. (Bruder,
2008). Back
5. See the Appendix for an explanation. Until recently, it was assumed that synonymous alleles
produced exactly the same biological product. Although they do produce the same string of
polypeptides, it has been found that they can cause the resulting protein to have different
shapes. (Soares, C. “Codon Spell Check,” Scientific American, May, 2007). Back
6. Because reproductive success is a sine qua non for all life, with large numbers of individuals
over long time periods, reproductive success determines even the finest details of a species’
traits. (Miller, 2007). Back
7. DNA is also found in the chloroplasts of plants. Inherited RNA is found in centrosomes,
which oversee cell division. (Alliegro, 2006; Wikipedia, Extranuclear Inheritance). Back
8. Some other parts of cells (e.g., cilia, flagella, and centrioles) are also believed to be the
remnants of captured microbes. (Patterson, 1999, pp. 133-134). In addition to the incorporation
of microbe DNA into our own DNA, we have 10 times as many microbial cells in our body as
our own cells. Back
9. One parent may contribute more copies of a gene than the other, resulting in greater genetic
differences between people, including racial differences. (Redon, 2006). Back
10. The last two sentences explain why it is much easier to find mtDNA than nuclear DNA in
fossils. Bones and teeth are made of a hard, calcium-based mineral, hydroxyapatite, that helps
preserve DNA by keeping out bacteria and fungi. Although strongly acidic soil can kill the
microbes, acid also attacks both the calcium and DNA; heat and temperature fluctuations also
destroy DNA. (Sykes, 2001, pp. 171-172). Back
11. That may seem like a huge number, but the single-celled amoeba, Amoeba dubia, has
over 670 billion base pairs. (Wikipedia, “Gene”). Back
12. An example is the UDG (“uracil DNA glycosylase”) enzyme, which latches on to DNA
blocks that are the wrong size. (Parker, 2007). (Wikipedia “DNA Repair”). Back
13. Genes account for only 1.2% of our genome's three billion base pairs. (Birney, 2007). Junk
DNA can regulate the expression of a gene, e.g., how exons are spliced and folded to make
them active. Humans have more junk DNA than other vertebrates. Back
14. Also, the human egg has about 250,000 mitochondria, while the sperm has only a few, just
enough to create the energy needed to swim the last few millimeters to the egg. (Sykes, 2001,
p. 54). Back
15. Even more confusing, it has just been found that, at least in mice, RNA in the sperm can
also enter the egg and affect traits. (Rassoulzadegan, 2006). A similar phenomenon may occur
with crosses between wild Mallards and White Pekin ducks, where the color of the duckling is
determined by which species lays the egg. Back
16. A female may occasionally have an XY (androgen insensitivity syndrome, "AIS") or three
sex chromosomes, an XXY. Thus, if the female gives her male child a Y chromosome and the
normal (XY) father gives the male child an X chromosome, then the assumption that the Y
came from the father will be false. (A male could also have three sex chromosomes, an YYX,
or extremely rarely, even an XX, but that is not important here.) Back
Chapter 4 - Evolution
“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
Geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky
Although about half of all Americans 1 and Britons do not believe in evolution and, in
particular, that man and the great apes living today evolved from an ape common ancestor who
probably lived between about 4.5 and 8 mya, 2 all of the scientific theories of the origin of man
postulate that beginning. It is not the purpose of this book to dispute Creationism or Intelligent
Design, but simply to present evolution as scientists understand it.
Since that epic separation, the human and ape lineages have diverged genetically,
culturally, and intellectually to such an extent that the chasm between us has grown so vast that
one could question whether we were ever once the same species. But we were. There are
about 3 billion genetic units (base pairs) in the genetic blueprints for chimps and for man and,
when they are matched up, only 40 million of them are different. We are therefore genetically
1.3% “not-chimpanzee,” but 98.7% “chimpanzee,” 3 and men and women differ by more than
that. 4 Small genetic differences in genetic blueprints (the “genotype”), however, can result in
huge differences in the traits (the “phenotype”) of living creatures made using those blueprints,
as we shall see. 5
Biologists apply the word “evolution” to two different questions: (1) “Have species
changed over time?” and (2) “If they have changed, what caused them to change?” The first
question is a question of fact. There is so much evidence that species have changed over time,
that scientists say the answer to that question is “Yes, evolution has occurred,” without any
doubt. 6 The second question asks for an explanation, a theory that describes the mechanisms
that caused those changes. The only theory that scientists believe is valid, however, is Darwin’s
theory of evolution, which is today called “neo-Darwinism” because it is confirmed and
supported by genetics.
As the Creationists love to point out, theories can always be disproved, and certainly
neo-Darwinism can be disproved. Indeed, there are all kinds of potential evidence that could
refute neo-Darwinism, e.g., dinosaur bones that are only a few thousand years old or fossils
organisms in an older rock stratum than their progenitors. But, so far, there is no evidence that
refutes the theory and mountains of evidence that is consistent with it.
Darwin’s theory can be expressed as a syllogism:
Premises: If an individuals in a population have traits that

(1) are heritable;
(2) and are different;
(3) and result in a difference in reproductive success between individuals who have
them and individuals who do not have them, then:
Conclusion: the frequency of the traits that result in greater reproductive success will
increase in that population.
There are only two ways that the syllogism can be “wrong”: (1) by showing that it is not
relevant because the premises do not apply to a particular population, i.e., in that population all
individuals have the same traits or, if their traits are different, the traits are not heritable or, if
they are different and heritable, possessing them does not result in differences in reproductive
success, or (2) by showing that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. But, given
that individuals in a population have such traits, which all populations do, except possibly
laboratory organisms (e.g., clones, and animals with medical conditions), the conclusion must
follow. 7
Traits that increase reproductive success pass on the alleles that code for those traits.
Reproductive success alone determines whose lineage continues and whose becomes extinct.
Note that the syllogism requires a population from which individuals who have heritable
traits that differ in their contribution to reproductive success can be selected, 8 which means
that evolution cannot occur if all the individuals in the population have the same heritable traits.
9 In other words genetic equality, egalitarianism, makes evolution impossible. And, without the
possibility of evolving, a species can only go extinct when its environment changes, as it
inevitably does.
Generalized Versus Specialized

In this book, generalized and specialized survival strategies play a critical role in
deciphering human evolution. A species, individual, or portion of an individual is more
generalized if it can perform more functions, and is more specialized if it is limited to a smaller
number of functions. A species is more specialized if it has evolved the anatomy (and/or
physiology) needed to better exploit a particular niche, e.g., a food source, territory, or
reproductive strategy.
A generalist is an opportunist, ready to exploit any niche that it happens upon before the
specialists find it. Raccoons, rats, and cockroaches are generalized species; the koala eats only
eucalyptus leaves and many parasites live off only a single host species, so they are
specialized.
Humans, omnivores eating a
variety of plants and animals and
living everywhere on the planet,
including under the water, in the air, at
the poles, and even in spaceships and
on the moon, are by far the most
generalized species. Our feet,
however, have become specialized, Figure 4-1
since they have lost the ability to
grasp things (though I have an ex wife who picks things up with her big toe), but are excellent
for bipedal walking, unlike the feet of the great apes, which can also grasp branches, but are
poorly constructed for bipedal walking.(Fig. 4-1). 10
The human hand, however, is so generalized that it can thread a needle, swing a bat, or
play a piano concerto. Compare your hands to the specialized hands of the baby aye-aye in
Figure 4-2. Aye-ayes, an early primate, stick the middle finger of their hand into termite mounds,
then withdraw it and eat the disgusting termites clinging to it. 11
Like so much else in
biology, there are tradeoffs
between generalizing and
specializing. A generalized
species is like a Swiss army
knife – it can do a lot of
things, but none of them as
well as a tool made to do just
one thing. A species that is
anatomically more
generalized is less
vulnerable to changes in its
environment because it can
function in a variety of
environments. Specialized
species, on the other hand,
can exploit a particular
environment to the fullest,
but when that environment
goes, it goes with it. Should a
disease kill off the termites,
the aye-aye in Figure 4-2 will
be hampered by his long,
weak fingers. A specialized
species bets all its resources
on one niche; a generalized
species diversifies its
investments.
Humans are not
exempt from the same
tradeoffs that other animals
face – we, too, could not be
both specialized and Figure 4-2
generalized and, for the most part, we stayed generalized. But unlike all other animals, we
discovered a way to nevertheless become much more effective at performing almost any task.
We lack the anatomy (and physiology) for running as fast as a cheetah, swimming as efficiently
as a dolphin, jumping as high as a grasshopper, or flying as acrobatically as a hummingbird, but
we can nevertheless out-perform almost any animal at almost any task by means of our
technology – we are anatomically generalized, but can be technologically highly specialized.
Perhaps counterintuitively, the more adept we become at using technology to enhance our
natural abilities, the more “human” we become, as that is a major difference between us and all
other species. And, unlike anatomically more specialized animals, our technological
specializations have made us less vulnerable to extinction when our environment changes.
Rules of Evolution
Unraveling the story of man’s evolution is like trying to put together a thousand piece
puzzle with only 10 of the pieces. But because certain rules apply as to where the pieces can or
cannot be placed, it is still possible to position them, by their straight edges and colors, even
when there are no contiguous pieces. Similarly, there are rules that constrain evolution,
including the evolution of man.
Evolution, because it occurs over great periods of time and large numbers of individuals,
is less of a hit-and-miss or random process (“genetic drift”) than it is usually portrayed. 12
Accidents and good and bad luck do happen, of course, but as the amount of time and the
number of individuals increase, their importance diminishes. The result is that evolution follows
rules as logical as the evolution syllogism itself, not in every instance, of course, but often
enough that the rules can usually be relied upon. Here are few rules that will be used to explain
the evolution of humans:
(1) Evolution is cumulative. The genome of a population, altered by mutations,

deaths, and individual differences in reproductive success, is passed on to the next generation,
where it is then subjected to additional changes, and so on. (Barkow, 1991, p. 83). Thus,
evolution proceeds by changing what is already there; evolution is not God and does not, and
cannot, re-design species from scratch. If the environment changes, individuals can evolve only
by changing what they already have; if that cannot be done to meet the demands of a new
environment, they go extinct. For that reason, genomes will more and more come to resemble
Rube Goldberg inventions rather than masterpieces of intelligent design. That is one reason
why biochemistry is so complicated.
MacLean’s triune theory of the human brain is a good
example of the additive nature of evolution. To a 500 million year
old reptilian brain (midbrain – the interior of the cerebellum), was
added the 200 million year old limbic system of lower mammals
(amygdala, and hippocampus), then the 500 thousand year old
neocortex (outer portion of cerebrum) of higher mammals. (Fig. 4-
3). 13
Another good example of this rule is the Biogenetic Law,
originally stated as “ontogeny [fetal stages] recapitulates [repeats]
phylogeny [evolutionary stages],” but more accurately stated as
“fetal stages repeat evolutionary fetal stages.” 14 In other words, Figure 4-3
later fetal stages are the result of adding additional stages to
earlier fetal stages.
The additive nature of evolution implies that organisms will almost always become more
complex, and that is indeed the case. (Adamowicz, 2008). It also implies that organisms at each
step of the way must have traits that enable them to be reproductively successful. In other
words A cannot evolve into B unless organisms at all the stages in between A and B survive
and reproduce. 15 It also means, to paraphrase the “Law of Storage,” that useless genetic
material accumulates to fill space in the genome and is cleaned out only when those who have
it die without issue; no icon has been discovered in the genome that is labeled “Empty Spam
Folder.”
(2) Addition is easier than subtraction. Like a government bureaucracy, the

evolution of new traits is more likely to occur by adding alleles, copies, and regulations to an
existing genome than by removing them. A new trait can arise either when a new allele is
expressed, copied, or gene regulators change the expression of alleles. If the new trait
increases reproductive success, it spreads through the population.
Losing a trait, on the other hand, implies that a trait that was an asset has become a
liability, i.e., the niche made more exploitable by having that trait has disappeared. Fish that get
trapped in a cave can no longer exploit a sun-lit niche, so eyes become an unnecessary cost
and fish that invest fewer resources in their eyes now have the advantage; eventually cave fish
become blind.
New traits arise by tinkering with an organism’s alleles, e.g., a DNA mutation or
adjusting regulators bit by bit, with each tiny change usually making only a small improvement,
if any. But getting rid of that trait means undoing all that tinkering and each step back must also
make a small improvement in order to be selected, and it may not. Turning off a key allele may
end the trait it coded for, but other alleles and regulators probably changed and were selected
because they facilitated the expression of the key allele, and they will be left unchanged,
perhaps producing unnecessary, and now deleterious, polypeptides.
When a daughter population splits from its parent population to exploits a new niche it
will usually acquire new traits that facilitates that exploitation of that new niche. Meanwhile, the
parent population does not acquire those new traits, but instead acquires other traits useful in
the old niche that the daughter population does not acquire. If the new niche disappears, the
new traits become liabilities and the daughter population cannot successfully compete with its
parent population in the old niche. Once a fish becomes a land-walker, it cannot again become
the fish it evolved from if the land disappears.
(3) Generalized → specialized → extinction. Generalized populations tend to

evolve into specialized populations, not the reverse. 16 A population becomes more specialized
if its traits evolve anatomically (or physiologically) to better perform a function they already
perform. Thus, specialization requires changing what is already present, not returning to a
previous state and, by Rule 2, it is easier to add an allele or the regulation of an allele, which
could produce a new phenotype (the expression of a gene), than it is to lose or change the
regulation of an allele to re-acquire a previous phenotype. 17 This rule implies that evolution
goes mostly in one direction and ends in extinction when the environment changes and the
specializations become liabilities. While specialized populations can evolve from specialized
populations and generalized populations can evolve from generalized populations, the dominant
generalized-to-specialized directionality of evolution suggests that generalized populations will
be the source of most evolutionary changes.
If the environment changes, and it always does sooner or later, one of the many
functions that the traits of a generalized species can perform, but the specialized species
cannot perform as well, is likely to be useful in the new environment; the specialized species,
however, is stuck with traits that enable it to perform only one or a few functions well. If the
niche the species became specialized to exploit becomes less available, the species can
become more generalized only by becoming less efficient at exploiting that niche, which only
brings about its extinction sooner.
There are several ways a population can avoid this rule and become more generalized.
A fetus has less structure than an adult so, if the adults in a species retain their juvenile traits
(“neoteny,” Chapter 6), the species can become more generalized. 18 Neoteny played an
important role in making man more generalized and thereby more capable of migrating out of
the warmer climates. Also, a population could acquire more generalized traits by interbreeding
with a more generalized population, thereby becoming more generalized than one of its parent
populations.
A specialized species can become more generalized by partially changing its behavior
and use its existing structure for a different purpose (“exaptation”), e.g., a fish can walk on its
fins and still use them to swim, and evolve to walk better on its fins while still retaining the
usefulness of the fins for swimming, though it will do neither as well as a fish that can only walk
or only swim.
Similarly, a portion of an existing structure may remain unchanged, performing its usual
function, while another portion of the same structure evolves to perform a different function,
e.g., a retina that has only rods for seeing in black and white retains some of those rods while
other rods evolve into cones that see in color. Fewer rods mean less definition in black and
white, but that was the price for seeing in color; now the retina is more generalized than it was
initially. 19
(4) Specialized populations evolve in a stable environment; generalized

populations evolve in a changing environment. If the environment is stable, then a
population that specializes to exploit a niche in that environment has an advantage over a
population that remains more generalized, at least as to that niche, because individuals will be
selected for traits that make the exploitation of that niche more efficient. The individuals in any
population will vary in their degree of specialization and a plot of degree of specialization versus
number of individuals will approximate a normal curve. The average of that curve will be higher
for a more specialized population and its standard deviation will be less (Rule 5).
The longer an environment is stable (and the more time populations have had to evolve
towards equilibrium, Rule 10), the greater will be the ratio of specialized populations to
generalized populations in that environment. Conversely, in a changing environment, e.g., a
seasonal climate, generalized species will be more likely to evolve. (New Scientist, Apr. 21,
2007, p. 21). Since tropical and polar climates are more stable than seasonal climates,
populations that live in the tropics and at the poles will be more specialized than populations
that live in a seasonal climate. 20 A species whose territory encompasses both a changing
environment and a stable environment may split, with the more generalized individuals living in
the changing environment and the more specialized individuals living in the stable environment,
so that two species evolve.
In accordance with Rule 3, it is more likely that a generalized population will evolve from
another generalized population in a temperate zone than that a specialized population will
evolve into generalized population in the tropics or in a polar region, then migrate into a
temperate zone and become generalized; and the greater the evolutionary change is, the truer
that statement is.
(5) Specialized populations have less genetic variation than generalized

populations. Individuals who deviate from the most efficient traits in a specialized population
are more likely to be selected against than individuals who deviate from the most efficient traits
in a generalized population because the specialized population lives in a more stable and less
variable environment (Rule 4). 21 Thus, the evolution of a more generalized species, such as
man, is more likely to occur in a more variable temperate zone than in the tropics. Although
humans are often described as a tropical species because, for example, they sweat to keep
cool and cannot survive (naked) in cold weather, the fact that they are so generalized compared
to other species suggests that although their lineage began in a warm climate, they either were
generalized or became more generalized at some stage in their evolution. 22
(6) Specialized populations evolve less and more slowly than generalized
populations. Since a specialized population has less genetic variation than a generalized
population (Rule 5), there are fewer alleles and traits that can be selected. Thus, when the
environment changes, a specialized population cannot evolve quickly through the selection of
alleles that are already present in its gene pool, but must wait until mutations occur. As a result,
populations will change more slowly in a stable environment, though a stable environment may
still end up with more species (Rule 8). 23 Since man is a relatively generalized species, and
generalized species are more likely to arise in a changing climate (Rule 4), man is more likely to
have evolved, at least in his later stages, in a temperate zone, not in the tropics. This is
especially true of Caucasians, who are more generalized than Africans and Asians.
(7) Specialization increases carrying capacity. The carrying capacity (maximum

possible biomass or numbers) in a stable environment is greater when populations specialize to
exploit slightly different niches, because specialized individuals are more efficient at extracting
useable energy; a more generalized population is less efficient at exploiting a niche in a stable
environment. Thus, by specializing, a population can increase its numbers and therefore the
rate at which mutations enter the population, which may enable it to evolve faster.
Here, a caveat is needed. Man, unlike almost all other forms of life, can specialize by
using technology instead of by evolving (except the extent needed to create and use the
technology). Thus, by creating technology to perform special tasks instead of evolving
specialized traits to perform them, e.g., building a sailboat or an airplane instead of evolving
flippers or wings, he can increase the carrying capacity of his territory even though he physically
remains generalized. Although there is a physical limit to the amount of useful energy that can
be extracted from a territory, the carrying capacity of a territory will increase as evolves the
traits needed to create and use it; the carrying capacity of a given territory will then depend
upon the population living there, and will be greater for some populations than for others.
(8) More useable energy → more biomass and more species. The greater the
amount of energy available for life per unit area (or volume), the greater will be the biomass 24
and (usually) the number of species in that area. 25 There is a minimum number of individuals
needed to sustain a population (175 to 475 individuals for modern hunter-gatherers; Hoffecker,
2002, p. 10) and, when more individuals can live in the same territory, more populations having
that minimum number are possible and, if niches are different so that specialization can occur,
those populations will evolve into more species. The tropics receive the most energy as
sunlight, so the tropics have the most biomass and, because the tropics are more stable, the
greatest number of species (again, per unit area or volume). Although specialization, which
evolves in a stable environment (Rule 4), increases the population size of a species by
extracting more energy (Rule 7), that effect may be overwhelmed by the splitting of populations
into more species (Rule 8), which reduces population size. The number of individuals within
northern species tends to be greater than the number within tropical species, probably because
they are less concentrated (i.e., their numbers are less per unit area) and they spend less time
in any one niche because they migrate more, and therefore specialization is less selected.
Note that Rules 7 and 8 somewhat mitigate against Rule 6. That is, specialization
reduces evolution due to less variation (Rule 6), but increased carrying capacity (Rule 7) and
more useable energy (Rule 8) increase variation, due to the extraction of more energy and the
availability of more energy, respectively, and all three are more likely in a stable environment,
e.g., the tropics.
(9) More biomass → a more “r” reproductive strategy. A population that lives in
the tropics has more offspring and cares for them less (a more “r” reproductive strategy, Chap.
11) than a population of the same species that lives in a colder climate. The reason is that, due
to greater energy and biomass per unit area in the tropics, less care is required in order to raise
the young to maturity, so individuals who expend their resources having more offspring with
less care on each have greater reproductive success than individuals who expend their
resources on extra care for fewer offspring. This would suggest, for example, that mammoth
calves received more parental resources than elephant calves, though both receive lots of care
compared to other species.
(10) A trait evolves until it reaches its optimum, and a population evolves until it
reaches equilibrium. The amount of each trait a population has gradually (i.e.,
asymptotically, because, on average, the additional benefit from each succeeding genetic
change decreases) optimizes for that population in that environment. 26 Of course, as a
population evolves or its environment changes, the optimums for its traits can also change. All
the traits an individual has must work together to ensure its reproductive success, and too much
or too little of any one trait will reduce its reproductive success, i.e., plotting reproductive
success against amount of a trait will produce a bell-shaped curve. A change in one trait has
subtle effects on other traits, as the change may free up or use up resources needed for other
traits, facilitate or interfere with reactions, etc. (That is another reason why biochemistry is so
complicated.) Thus, the optimum for each trait will change as other traits move towards their
optimums; when each trait in each individual is at its optimum, the population is in equilibrium
with that environment, a condition that will hardly ever exist.
A first important corollary is that the farther a species is away from its optimum, the
faster it evolves or the sooner it goes extinct. This is, of course, an approximation as the
desperate need for a genetic change does not produce one, but it does spread it around much
faster. This corollary suggests that the magnitude of the gap between the traits a species’
genome codes for before the environmental change and the amount the genome must change
is achieve equilibrium once again will be somewhat proportional to the rate at which the species
evolves. Thus, after an environmental change, evolution will be rapid, then will gradually slow
down as equilibrium is approached.
A second important corollary is that the amount of a trait that a population has,
especially if the environment has been the same for a long time (stable or constantly seasonal),
is likely to be close to optimum for that population in that environment. 27
(11) The origin of a trait is where it is found. Unless a population has migrated
away from the source of a trait, 28 that trait is most likely to have originated in the population
that has the highest percentage of it. Over time, the same mutation may occur in individuals
living in many different territories, but it is likely to become established only in that territory
where it confers a significant reproductive advantage, e.g., if traits adaptive in the tropics arise
in the Eskimos, they simply disappear. Interbreeding can, and does, transfer traits, but a
population is more likely to acquire a trait by mutation than by interbreeding. 29
(12) Behavior changes before the genome changes. Behavior changes to take
advantage of changes in the environment, then individuals who have or acquire the traits that
best facilitate that behavior have more reproductive success and the genome changes. First,
apes struggled to walk on two feet, then they evolved to walk more facilely. 30
Since reproductive success occurs only when an individual acquires resources and
breeds, 31 evolution is driven by changes in the environment and changes in the behavior of
individuals in response to those environmental changes. Similarly, individuals can change their
behavior to better acquire resources and more and better mates then, if those individuals are
more reproductively successful, a sub-set of them who have the anatomy and physiology that
best facilitates the new behavior will be selected.
(13) Time and population size increases the genetic variability of a population and
disasters decrease it. Because mutations occur constantly, the longer a species is around,
the more variation, i.e., non-lethal new alleles, it accumulates. Also, populations tend to
increase their numbers with time and the larger a population is, the greater is the number of
mutations that occur and accumulate.
On the other hand, disasters, e.g., accidents, disease, predators, bad luck, etc., remove
alleles from the gene pool and reduce variation. Thus, a population with less variability may
actually be older, if disasters have reduced its numbers.
(14) The longer a population has not interbred with other populations, the more
homozygous (inbred) it becomes and the percentage of its alleles that are recessive
increases. The more closely two persons are related, the more alleles they share, so the
likelihood that they each have a copy of a recessive allele increases with relatedness. Thus,
increased inbreeding increases the expression of recessive alleles, whether the recessive
alleles are advantageous, disadvantageous, or neutral. If they are advantageous, they spread
throughout the population. If they are disadvantageous, they are lost when the individual in
whom they are expressed dies before he can breed. Thus, the longer a population has been
isolated, the more it will be free of disadvantageous recessive alleles and the greater will be the
percentage of its expressed alleles that are recessive; also, the percentage of those expressed
recessive alleles that are advantageous or neutral, and not disadvantageous, will be greater.
(See Chap. 30). As a corollary, the greater the percentage of a population’s expressed genes
that are recessive, the longer a population has been isolated. (And Caucasians may win the
prize for having the most expressed recessive alleles.)
Note that Rules (13) and (14) work against each other in isolated populations. Over
time, mutations occur and an isolated population picks up and retains alleles that do not reduce
its reproductive success, adding to the variability of the population (Rule 13). On the other hand,
the longer a population is isolated, the more likely it is that less advantageous alleles will be
lost; even beneficial alleles will be lost if still more beneficial alleles arise (Rule 14). The net
result of these two effects is that any increase in variation due to Rule (13) will not be random,
but will be an increase in beneficial alleles.
There are (at least) six ways that the genome of individuals in a population can be
altered (i.e., so that the genome of their descendants is different than it otherwise would have
been): mutation, epigenetics, isolation, hybridization, recombination, and selection, but nature
has made only one of them fun.
Mutation
Populations change genetically when their DNA changes. A heritable change occurs
only if the DNA in a germline cell (an egg or sperm, or a cell that makes eggs or sperm)
changes. 32 Genetic material in sperm and eggs can be changed by, e.g., cosmic rays, high
temperatures, misreading the DNA code when sperm and eggs are made, and mutagens, such
as certain pollutants.
It has recently been discovered that non-coding nuclear DNA (“junk” DNA), which can
itself be mutated, can become coding DNA, thus changing the traits of the next generation if it
occurs in a germline cell. 33 Additionally, DNA can be altered when a germline cell is invaded by
a virus or bacteria and its genetic material is incorporated into the nuclear DNA of that cell. The
occasional movement of sections of DNA within a gene, or even between genes, also alters the
DNA code. (Patterson, 1999, Chap. 6). The DNA code can also be changed if germline DNA is
duplicated not once, but multiple times; it has been estimated that at least 12% of the human
genome (about 20,500 genes) differs in the number of copies that people have. (Redon, 2006).
Over time, DNA that is least vital accumulates the most mutations, as one would expect.
This includes some non-coding DNA (“introns”), 34 genes that have been silenced
(“pseudogenes”), and often DNA that codes for the same amino acid (“synonymous DNA”).
Epigenetics
Since access to the DNA blueprint is controlled by means of gene regulators, if the
environment changes the regulators in germ cells (“epigenetic changes”), those changes can be
passed on the next generation (Wikipedia, “Epigenetics”), 35 though most are not and
epigenetic changes may be lost after a few generations. Regulators determine whether or not
DNA is read, what portion of a string of DNA is read, when it is read, how many times it is read,
and which sections are spliced together to be read. 36 There are quite a few gene regulators
and more are being discovered all the time. Best known are the histones, the proteins that
entwine the DNA strands in chromosomes and uncoil to permit DNA to be read. Various
chemical groups, such as methyl, phosphate, and acetyl, can be attached to a DNA strand to
prevent it from being read. When DNA is being copied, the number of copies made is regulated
and differences in copy number can affect susceptibility to disease as well as racial differences.
Gene regulators are inherited along with the DNA they are attached to. 37 Regulators
are estimated to evolve about 10 times as fast as DNA, so most evolution results from changes
in the regulators rather than from changes in DNA itself, 38 though changes in DNA are more
fundamental. Changes in the regulators occur more easily because there are no error repair
mechanisms for regulators, as there are for DNA, and environmental influences change
regulators more readily than they change DNA. 39
The gene regulators of the races are likely to differ by a far greater percentage than the
DNA of the races. However, this is a new area, and the study of racial differences in gene
regulators is still in its infancy.
Isolation
Isolation changes the genome of populations by increasing inbreeding (Rule 14), which
makes it easier for advantageous, but rare, combinations of alleles, especially recessive alleles,
to spread through a population when they arise. Since inbreeding enhances the likelihood that
an individual will inherit two copies of the same allele, inbreeding can also more quickly
eliminate from the gene pool alleles that code for traits that are lethal prior to maturity or that
otherwise impair reproductive success. Isolation requires only no interbreeding, not physical
separation. People on different Melanesian islands have become genetically different because,
despite the closeness of their islands, they were reproductively isolated from each other.
(Friedlaender, 2007).
Hybridization
Hybridization occurs whenever (genetically different) populations interbred. After a
population has become isolated from its parent population and genetically different from it, its
males, females, or both can interbreed with another population, even its parent population,
thereby infusing different alleles into the resulting hybrid population. This can occur when an
isolated population simply increases in numbers and expands into the territory of another
population or is driven there by climate changes or other factors. Caucasian men were
explorers and typically bred with women in the other lands they went to. Africans captured as
slaves were brought to other territories in Africa, as well as to India, the Middle East, southern
Europe, and the Americas, 40 where they interbred with the populations already there. Early
man lived in groups of about 150 people (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 295) and the males in these groups
would raid the territory of other groups, killing off the males and taking the women, 41 thus
hybridizing their own group.
The individuals in the hybrid population will have various combinations of the alleles they
received from the two parent populations, with some individuals being better adapted, and
others worse adapted, than either parent population. If there is natural selection of the hybrid
population (there is little natural selection in the welfare state, where even the poorly adapted
can survive and reproduce), the best adapted hybrid individuals form a new population. This is
called “adaptive introgression” because new alleles are introduced into the two parent
populations and the individuals having the most adaptive combination of alleles in the hybrids
are more reproductively successful. Chapter 30 covers hybridization in more detail.
Recombination
Sex, which has been enjoyed for 1.2 billion years, 42
changes populations genetically in
two ways. First, when an egg is made, some of the nuclear DNA in each of a woman’s 23
chromosomes that came from her mother (other than the X chromosome) is exchanged with the
corresponding nuclear DNA in each of the 23 chromosomes that came from her father. (Ditto for
making sperm, except for the Y chromosome.) This means that the DNA in each chromosome
is no longer all from the women’s father or all from her mother, but contains a mixture of DNA
from each of her parents; this is called “crossover.”
Each egg and each sperm then receives 23 of these mixed chromosomes, not 23 pairs
of unmixed chromosomes, as other cells do. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, its unpaired 23
mixed chromosomes pair up with the egg’s corresponding unpaired 23 mixed chromosomes,
resulting in 23 pairs once again, a process called “recombination.” Because of crossover, the
fertilized egg has DNA from each of the 4 grandparents, rather than from only two of them.
Recombination and crossover ensure that the mixture of DNA is different, not only between
generations, but also between siblings. 43 Sexual reproduction scrambles alleles so much that
everyone except identical twins and clones has a different DNA blueprint, and very likely a
unique combination of traits. If the new mixture results in greater reproductive success, the
population changes genetically with each birth. 44
Why did this elaborate scheme to mix up DNA, and thereby make siblings genetically
different, evolve? Because it avoids putting all the parents’ fertilized eggs in one basket. If all
their offspring were genetically identical they would all have the same vulnerabilities and none
might survive. If the environment changes, e.g., a different climate, different predator, different
food source, different parasites, etc., that would be the end of their lineage, but if their progeny
are different, some might survive. (Zuk, 2007).
A trait may not be controlled by a single gene, but by the interactions of several different
genes. Many traits, including high intelligence, require the presence in a single individual of
particular alleles of a number of different genes. (Lykken,1992). Thus, each time alleles are
mixed there is a different collection of alleles for that trait, which can result in more or less of the
trait or even in an entirely new trait.
Selection
Traits that are helpful in achieving reproductive success are “positively selected” 45) or
“selected for,” 46 traits that reduce reproductive success are “negatively selected” or “selected
against,” and some traits may do neither and be neutral. 47 Traits that are positively selected in
one population, or in one environment, may be more or less positively selected, or even
negatively selected or neutral, in another population or environment. When the sun is almost
directly overhead, dark skin is a life saver as it protects the body from receiving too much
ultraviolet light but, if there is little sunlight, it prevents the absorption of enough ultraviolet light
to make enough foliate and vitamin D. 48 As selection works its magic, a population becomes
more and more adapted to the environment it finds itself in, whether it migrated to that
environment or it stayed put while its environment changed. Thus, over time, selection pushes
the individuals towards optimal mixes of alleles and traits for their particular environment (Rule
10). If a costly trait (a trait that requires the expenditure of extra resources, e.g., high
intelligence) has been present (or absent) in a population for a considerable time, that trait is
very likely an advantage (or disadvantage) for that population in that environment (Rule 10
second corollary).
And, because traits are not “free,” but must be “paid for” with the body’s resources, more
of one trait means less of others, and the others that will be sacrificed are those whose loss
reduces reproductive success the least. Some tradeoffs are obvious, e.g., more speed (fast
twitch muscles) means less endurance (slow twitch muscles), and other tradeoffs are obscure,
e.g., larger testicles means a smaller brain (Note 4 of Table 12-1, p. 90). As in economics,
where no voluntary exchange occurs unless both parties believe they will gain from it, so in
evolution, sacrificing some of one trait to acquire more of another does not occur unless it
increases reproductive success, and trades and tradeoffs will be made until values and
reproductive success, respectively, are maximized. More of every desirable trait is not an
option.
Nor is it true that it is always better to have more of even the most desirable traits – even
for those traits, there is an optimal amount at which reproductive success is maximized. Too
much brain and too little brain will both bring less reproductive success than somewhere in
between. Nor is the optimal amount of a trait the same in every environment. A small brain may
be optimal when one is living in technologically simple times, but may not be optimal once the
technology becomes complex.
Traits need not become more and more complex – they can become simpler and
simpler, as a bird, such as the ostrich, that still has wings, but can no longer fly or a snake that
still has (vestigial) legs, but can no longer walk. Traits are “lost” when they are no longer
positively selected – individuals who lack them reproduce at least as successfully as those who
have them – the traits are no longer “reproductively profitable,” i.e., they contribute less to
reproductive success than do other traits that could be “bought” with those resources.
Nietzsche said, “That which does not kill me makes me stronger.” That may or may not
be true, but evolution’s version, “Selection that does not kill off an entire population, accelerates
its evolution,” is true. And the greater the number of individuals that don’t reproduce, the faster
the population will evolve (provided at least the minimum number of individuals required to
sustain the population are left). 49 The more that having a particular trait increases the chances
of an individual successfully reproducing (or not having it decreases the chances), the faster
that trait will spread through the population (or the faster that trait will disappear). Nature has no
soft feelings, no empathy for the weak and helpless, and is not trying to make any particular
type of individual. The end product is whatever succeeded in reproducing, regardless of how
despicable, degrading, or degenerate we find it to be. Reproduce more than others and you
stay in the game; otherwise, you’re out. Permanently.
Another way to more rapidly evolve is to increase the rate of “turnover,” the replacement
of one generation by the next. Aging is a waste of breeding adults and is not a biological
necessity as some species live for hundreds or even thousands of years (e.g., bristlecone pines
– 5000 yrs). 50 But if individuals do not age and die, freeing up territory and resources for the
next generation, there will be less turnover and the species will not be able to evolve quickly
should its environment change; that problem is avoided if there is a genetic clock that causes
individuals to age. 51
Faster evolution leads to the concept of “selection pressure,” an indication of the
magnitude of the “gap” between how successful a population is in its environment and how
successful it would be if it could evolve a new trait or traits. A population can be said to have
been under great selection pressure when, after acquiring a new trait, the number of its
members having that trait increases rapidly.
An important consequence of selection pressure is that if an environment is stable and
the population has reached, or nearly reached, equilibrium in that environment, it will be under
little or no selection pressure and is unlikely to evolve (Rule 10). On the other hand, if the
environment changes, the population will be farther away from equilibrium and will be more
likely to evolve. Compared to a population that stays put, a population that moves from one
climate zone to another, as man’s predecessors did when they migrated north (Section IV),
enters a new environment and faces stronger selection pressures, which accelerate its
evolution. 52
Selection pressure therefore helps determine where evolution is most likely to occur.
Except for occasional drastic changes in the amount of precipitation in Africa, 53 the African and
Asian tropics and the Arctic and Antarctic polar regions have a more stable environment than
the temperate zones in between, which not only have wide yearly changes in seasons, but have
also suffered through several ice ages that lasted thousands of years. As a consequence,
selection pressures are greater in the temperate zones, and species, including man’s
predecessors, were more likely to have evolved there than in the tropics or the polar regions. 54
Chapter 5
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. Only about 40% of US adults accept the basic idea of evolution, lower than any European
country and second only to Turkey. (Michigan State University Press Release, Feb. 15, 2007).
About half: (“Who Believes in Evolution,” Half Sigma, Jan. 25, 2008). Back
2. “It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man.” (H. L.
Mencken). A recent article says the split occurred 4.1 mya ± 400,000 ya. (Hobolth, 2007). Back
3. (Curnoe, 2003) would even classify chimpanzees in the same genus as man, Homo. A more
recent study, however, found only 86.7% genetic similarity, when indels (insertions/deletions), in
addition to substitutions, were counted. (Anzai, 2003). Another recent study showed 96%
consistency (Mikkelsen, 2005; Redon, 2006) and the most recent “at least 6%”
difference” (Demuth, 2006), when the number of copies of genes are included. Also see
(Watanabe, 2004). Chimpanzees are genetically closer to humans than they are to gorillas.
www.bonobo.org Back
4. Because the male Y chromosome is much smaller than the X chromosome, men and women
differ in their DNA by about 1.5%, but one cannot conclude that men and women are more
closely related to chimps than they are to each other. Differences in how strings of DNA are
read and assembled have a greater effect than differences in the DNA itself. (Schwartz, 2005,
p. 241-242). Back
5. “Genetic blueprint” means any inherited information and “DNA blueprint” means just DNA.
Back
6. One can actually watch evolution occurring in a Petri dish as mutant bacteria with favorable
traits increase in numbers. (Hittinger, 2007; Griffin, 2004; Losos, 2006; Holmes, B. "Bacteria
make major evolutionary shift in the lab," New Scientist, June 9, 2008; and Ariza, L.M,
"Evolution in a Petri Dish," Scientific American," Nov., 2007, for worms.). Particularly convincing
evidence for evolution is that way that single-celled organisms can cooperate, suggesting how
even the great leap from single-celled to multi-celled organisms, 600 mya, could have been
bridged. (Wingreen, 2006). Also see (Herring, 2006) and the behavior of slime molds. (Ardrey,
1966, p. 202; Navas, 2007). Back
7. “In this sense, natural selection is not a scientific theory but a truism, something that is
proven to be true, like one of Euclid’s theorems.” (Patterson, 1999, p. 118). Back
8. “Mutation provides the raw material, but selection will propagate a new mutation only if it is
favoured by the environment, and this is most likely in a changed or changing
environment.” (Patterson, 1999, p. 78). Back
9. Evolution has been aptly described as “blind variation and selective retention.” (Campbell,
cited in Barkow, 1991, pp. 23, 112). In other words, mindlessly create and try a multitude of
different solutions, keep whichever one works and throw the rest away. Evolution can also be
applied to ideas. A “meme” (Dawkins, 1976) is an idea that is like a germ, e.g., a cold virus that
makes a person sneeze and cough to propagate itself, except that a meme is not a physical
thing but an idea that gets into people’s minds, then alters their thinking and behavior to make
them try to put that idea into the minds of others. The meme evolves because it is modified from
time to time, with the more “reproductively successful” memes controlling more minds.
Successful religious memes, e.g., Islam, require keeping women subservient and pregnant,
justify the forced conversion or death of non-believers (i.e., those not infected with the meme),
and make promises of rewards for adhering to the meme and punishment for not doing so, to
be redeemed only after death. The free market is also analogous to evolution, with old firms
(species) that do not change with the times (evolve) dying (going extinct), releasing their
resources (territories, energy sources) to new firms (species), who may grow (achieve
reproductive success), change (evolve) according to selections made by their customers (the
environment), while competing with other firms (species) for profits (stores of energy). Back
10. The human foot has only an arch to remind us that it was once good for something other
than walking on. (Howells, 1959, p. 94). Back
11. Picture from National Geographic News, Apr. 20, 2005. Man, no doubt, would find other
uses for such a finger. Back
12. There is probably too much reliance upon genetic drift (random changes) to explain
evolution. (Kiontke, 2007). Although mutations cannot be made to occur as needed, they do not
occur randomly because some are far more likely to occur than others. And, once they do
occur, the number of mutations that are truly neutral (and therefore cannot be selected, but
proliferate randomly) is likely to be very small. Only a few mutations have a dramatic effect, and
those that appear to have no effect may have such a small effect that it is concealed by “noise,”
chance events in the environment. A “noiseless” laboratory environment may be required to
measure the effect. Even then a great deal of time may be needed before the effect becomes
statistically significant. Moreover, in a natural environment there will be infrequent events (e.g.,
floods, drought) that only then cause selection. There are very few “clean” chemical reactions,
where only a single product, and no byproducts, is made; that may be especially true inside a
living organism, which would explain why virtually all drugs have side effects. Thus, many
seemingly neutral mutations will have subtle effects that are difficult to detect. In math, it is very
difficult to generate numbers that are truly random; it is probably even more difficult to generate
random or neutral mutations in biology. The egalitarians have exaggerated the role of drift and
neutral alleles because those concepts suggest that racial differences are accidental and of little
importance, instead of having been selected because they made the difference between
reproductive success and failure. Back
13. Illustration from “The Reptilian Brain” by David Icke. Back
14. (Schwartz, 2005, pp. 55-56). A bit of the earlier evolutionary stages can be seen not in the
fetus, but in the still-developing infant. "... the newborn infant concords very well with 20 million
years ago in the Miocene epoch, when our ancestors were apes of some sort. Newborn infants
can often grasp and suspend themselves and even swing enough to suggest brachiation. Their
hallux or big toe is often highly movable and the rest of their feet (showing a slope of their
curled toes that is virtually tranverse) are apelike." (Swan, 1990). Back
15. It is possible, however, for an organism at a particular stage to do rather poorly, but to still
hang on until another mutation occurs that enables it to do better. Back
16. (Howells, 1948, pp. 11-15). Rule 3 is intended to apply to changes in the alleles present in
the population’s gene pool, not to their frequency. That is, a population will include both
individuals who are more generalized and are more specialized than the average for that
population and, depending upon which individuals have more reproductive success, the ratio of
more generalized to more specialized individuals can change, thereby changing the average
amount of specialization in that population without changing any alleles. Back
17. Even with the selection being made by man instead of by nature, it is doubtful that one
could breed a (generalized) wolf from a (specialized) Chihuahua in the same amount of time it
took to breed a Chihuahua from a wolf. Another reason for the rule may be “environmental
heterogeneity.” In a seasonally-changing environment, a (specialized) population who has traits
advantageous in only one season may be at a disadvantage relative to a (generalized)

population who has traits less advantageous in that season, but more advantageous over the
entire year; to become generalized, the specialized population has to acquire the allele(s) of the
generalized population but, to become specialized, the generalized population only has to turn
off one or more alleles. Back
18. A fetus has some specializations for survival as a baby, e.g., short limbs, subcutaneous fat,
epicanthic folds, and round heads, which are lost in Caucasian and African babies when they
become adults, but are not lost in East Asians. Thus, neoteny can generalize an adult if the
adult remains at a stage after fetal specializations have been lost, but prior to a stage where
later specializations were acquired. Back
19. Similarly, a monkey’s tail, used for balance, can evolve to become prehensile, becoming
heavier and sluggish, and therefore less useful for balance. Going from specialized to
generalized may seem similar to going from a more ordered state to a less ordered state, which
should occur spontaneously according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, the
generalized state is not necessarily less ordered and may actually be more ordered. Back
20. A good example is the bear. The tropical giant panda bear’s diet is 99% bamboo shoots, the
polar bear eats almost entirely marine mammals and, although the American black bear prefers
picnic baskets, it will eat a wide variety of foods. However, although polar regions are stable,
they support less life and that may limit the niches for specialized species. Back
21. This is not true of Africans, who have more variation, but that will be explained in
subsequent chapters. Back
22. That change is believed to have occurred when man became more neotenic. Man’s neoteny
can be seen in the loss of primitive features in fossil skulls (Chap. 2), which began slowly with
the first Homo species, then gradually accelerated. Back
23. Until recently, biologists have believed that most evolution occurred in the tropics because
the tropics had the most species. Now there is support for the idea that not only did man evolve
at higher latitudes, so did most other animals. (Weir, 2007). The New Zealand Tuatara is the
fastest evolving animal. (Hay, 2008). Back
24. There is more biomass in the tropics (tropical rain forest = 2299 g/m2yr, temperate
deciduous forest and grassland = 600 – 1200 g/m2yr.; Hoffecker, 2002, p. 6). Back
25. The amount of energy needed to create a new species is 1023 joules. (Discover, Sept.,
2006, p. 14). Back
26. There may be multiple optimums for a species, each for a different combination of traits,
even in a single environment. Individuals in a species may even have different optimums for a
particular trait, depending upon the other traits they possess. There can also be an optimal
percentage of individuals in the population that have a trait. Since catching and repairing all
DNA errors would not only be very costly, but would also reduce variability, there will even be
an optimal amount of DNA repairing, with the optimum being lower in a more variable
environment. (Sniegowski, 2000). Back
27. “… any adaptation exists because it increases the reproduction of the genes encoding it,
relative to that of the alleles for alternative characters.” (Ridley, 1996, p. 334). Back
28. Some migrants to the Americas were more successful than those they left behind in Asia.
(Green in Fig. 21-1). Back
29. Individuals in a population who do not or can not interbreed with individuals in other
populations preserve their collection of alleles, which have been selected to work well together
in that environment. On the other hand, by not interbreeding they forego the possibility of
picking up beneficial alleles that may have arisen in other populations. Thus, even the amount
of interbreeding will optimize. But, since beneficial alleles arise rarely, the optimal amount of
interbreeding will be low. Back
30. “A bird does not fly because it has wings; it has wings because it flies.” (Ardrey, 1966, pp. 7,
9). Back
31. Up to the Industrial Revolution, the rich had more surviving children than the poor, as one
would expect. (Clark, 2007). Also see (Wikipedia, “Baldwin Effect”). Back
32. (Sykes, 2001, p. 55). Even if a mutation occurs in the DNA of a germline cell that makes an
egg or sperm, none of the eggs or sperm produced may be fertilized and produce breeding
offspring. And, even if a mutation occurs in the mitochondria of a germline cell that makes an
egg, the mutated mtDNA may not be part of the mtDNA that ends up in the egg or, if it does,
that egg may not be fertilized. On the other hand, the germline divides 24 times between
generations. (id., p. 157), increasing the chances that a mutated mitochondria will end up in an
egg that is fertilized. Back
33. (Cheng, 2006). “Junk” DNA also performs other useful functions. (Lowe, 2007). Back
34. “We now know that more than 98 per cent of our DNA is of the non-coding variety.” Only
1.2% of our DNA codes for proteins. (New Scientist, July 14-20, 2007, pp. 43, 3). Back
35. (Pray, 2004; Carroll, S.B., “Regulating Evolution,” Scientific American, May, 2008). Here is
an excellent four-part video on epigenetics. Note that epigenetic change, i.e., changing
regulators, is not the same thing as the inheritance of acquired characteristics, “Lamarckism,”
because acquired characteristics do not necessarily change the regulators, i.e., there is no
mechanism for an acquired characteristic to change an individual’s genome. “Imprinting” is due
to a regulator that silences either the allele from the mother or the allele from the father, so that
the sex of the parent determines whether or not a gene is read. (Montgomery, 2005; Goos,
2006; Bereczkei, 2004). A genetic defect inherited from the father causes Prader-Willi
syndrome, where the infant eats litte, then becomes voracious when a few years old; the same
genetic defect inherited from the mother causes Angelman syndrome, where the child
perpetually smiles and laughs, but also has symptoms found in severe autism. (Zimmer, C.,
"The Brain," Discover, Dec., 2008). Back
36. That is why even though the same DNA is in all the cells, the cells can nevertheless grow
into brain cells, liver cells, and so on – the regulators cause different genes to be read; different
portions of a gene are read, depending upon the tissue that gene is in at the time. (Wang,
2008). The DNA code for the polypeptides that are assembled into proteins can be in different
locations, even on different chromosomes. Back
37. We inherit chromosomes from our parents, not naked DNA. The DNA is only 50% of the
chromosomes. Back
38. (Choi, “Regulators Evolve Faster Than Genes,” The Scientist, Aug. 9, 2007). Back
39. That is why our DNA can be so similar to chimp DNA, yet we are so different from chimps.
(Schwartz, 2005, p. 242). Back
40. “[The] Arabs are known to have taken slaves from Africa to south Arabia, Persia, the Far
East, China, and Japan …” Some were even found in Russia. (Eribo, F., In Search of
Greatness, 2001, Chapter 1). Back
41. “How could Moses prohibit murder and then, in Numbers 31, fly into a rage because a
returning Israelite war party has slaughtered only the adult male Midianites? ‘Now kill all the
boys,’ he tells them when he calms down. ‘And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but
save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.’ [Numbers 31:17]” (Lazare,
2002). A study of 500 skeletons massacred in North and South Dakota about 1325 A.D.
showed “a striking absence of young women.” (Buss, 2005, p. 10). Most murders are by men in
their years of reproductive competition. (Buss, 2005, p. 23). Back
42. It’s hard to believe that anyone would give up sex, but some entire species have.
(Patterson, 1999, pp. 136-137; "...bdeloid rotifers abandoned sex about 100 million years
ago...," Zimmer, C., "What Is A Species?," Scientific American, June, 2008 ). Back
43. Although the progeny have some of the same alleles as each of their parents, crossover
may alter traits. Alleles can also move to a different chromosome which may affect traits so
much that the species splits. (Masly, 2006). Back
44. On the other hand, “The cost of sex, in terms of fitness, is enormous.” (Patterson, 1999, p.
136). In asexual reproduction 100% of the alleles are passed on; in sexual reproduction, each
parent passes on only half of his alleles. Sexual reproduction requires two individuals to
produce one offspring; asexual requires only a single individual. Sexual displays also make
males more vulnerable, and both sexes are more vulnerable during sex. Back
45. Alleles are inherited in large blocks (“haplogroups,” Chap. 20). If an advantage allele arises,
those who have it will have more progeny. Many years later, as mutations accumulate, there will
be more variation in other blocks than in the block with the new allele because that block has
not been around as long as the other blocks. So, less variation in a block means that the block
contains an allele that was positively selected. Back
46. Culture, although it is not inherited behavior, is also subject to selection and can lead to the
selection of alleles that accommodate it. (Rogers, 2008; Chap. 4, Rule 12). Anything that can be
affected by the genome can be selected and anything that changes the genome can select.
Lawnmowers have selected dandelions for low leaves and fast-growing stalks. Back
47. (FN 88, p. 19). Note that traits are selected, not the alleles responsible for the traits. Even
synonymous alleles can affect the function of the encoded protein by altering its structure
(Goymer, 2007) and “neutral” DNA strings may be lumped with non-neutral strings during cross-
over, making the combination non-neutral. Back
48. Polar bears’ fur appears white but consists of transparent hollow hairs that conduct light to
their heat-absorbing black skin; they also obtain sufficient vitamin D from their food. Back 49. “
… selection at the rate of .01 can increase a gene’s frequency from 1% to 99% in 1000
generations …” (Levin, 1997, p. 123). Back
50. There is some evidence that women do not die soon after menopause because they help
care for their grandchildren, thus increasing the number of them who survive. (Wikipedia,
“Grandmother Hypothesis”). Back
51. (Fuerle, 1986, p. 133). This can be accomplished by losing telomeres at the end of
chromosomes; when all the telomeres are gone, the chromosome can no longer replicate.
Dietary restriction extends life (Bishop, 2007), which reduces the likelihood of extinction during
scarcity; this suggests that aging and death are programmed. Back
52. Environmental change, and the resulting increase in selection pressure, can result in
“bursts” of evolution separated by periods of little genetic change. “Although each species must
have passed through numerous transitional stages, it is probable that the periods, during which
each underwent modification, though many and long as measured by years, have been short in
comparison with the periods during which each remained in an unchanged condition.” (Darwin,
1859). Back
53. (Lippsett, 1998). The longer the time in between the recurrence of an event, and the faster
its effects dissipate, the less alleles for traits that are advantageous during the event will be
selected. Back
54. There is evidence that people living in different geographical locations, and therefore usually
in different climates, are under different selection pressures, as one would expect. (Voight,
2006). Alleles selected in one racial group were therefore quite different from those selected in
other racial groups. Back
Chapter 5 - Selectors
A “selector” is whatever increases or decreases the reproductive success of an
individual because he has (or does not have) a particular combination of traits. With modern
science and international aid, humans today don’t need to worry too much about selectors other
than occasional germs and the whims of the opposite sex, but early humans were mercilessly
brutalized by selectors far beyond their control. We should be grateful to them because without
the terrible suffering and death they endured from these selectors, we would not have the traits
we do today.
A selector can be a cold climate that kills off those who lose heat too easily, a warm
climate that kills off those who cannot lose heat fast enough, a predator that kills off slow
runners, a bacteria that kills off those with weak immune systems, a competitor (perhaps even
an individual in the same population) who is better adapted, and so on. If there are two sexes,
the selector may be one or both of those sexes, who selects beautiful feathers, lovely songs, or
weird appendages in the other sex. Even culture, if it alters reproductive success, can be a
selector. Indeed, anything in the environment that affects reproductive success can be a
selector, and that includes man, who may select for traits that he finds useful, “cute,” or
otherwise attractive.
Climate
Climate is the strongest selector, not only for humans, but for almost all living things, for
the simple reason that it directly affects the amount of food available, which directly affects the
number of progeny that can survive. Climate includes temperature, rainfall, sunlight, air
pressure, oxygen and carbon dioxide content of the air, and how different the seasons are, all of
which, in turn, determine the type and quantity of food that is available, when and where it is
available, and how easy it is to obtain it.
Humidity, rainfall, and the presence of predators and prey can change for a variety of
reasons, but changes in the amount of energy useable by organisms, e.g. as sunlight, food, or
heat, is critical. Temperature is a good surrogate for available energy. Temperature is affected
by altitude (it decreases about 1°F for every 275 feet you go up) and warm ocean currents (it
decreases about 1°F for every 5½° longitude you go east in Europe), 1 but the amount of
sunlight striking the earth’s surface has the greatest effect on temperature. The difference in the
distance from the sun to the earth between the winter (91,700,000 miles) and the summer
(94,800,000 miles) has less effect on the amount of sunlight than does the angle between the
sunlight and the earth’s surface. The equator, which is more directly under the sun, receives
much more sunlight than the poles, where the sunlight is at a small angle to the surface, if the
sun rises at all.
The point on the surface of the earth that is perpendicular to the sunlight traces a
somewhat sinusoidal path across the surface of the earth that moves from the equator to 23°
26’ 22” north latitude (Tropic of Cancer, Figure 17-6, p. 147) in the northern summer, then back
across the equator to the same south latitude (Tropic of Capricorn) in the northern winter.
Except for rare catastrophes, the amount of sunlight striking any particular part of the earth has
not changed greatly since the beginning of life on this planet, about 3.8 billion ya (Haywood,
2000, p. 13), but migrations from one latitude to another change the amount of sunlight a
population receives.
The average amount of sunlight over a year decreases with latitude away from the
equator (reducing the average temperature about 1°F for every 70 miles you go north in
Eurasia). More importantly, however, is the fact that as one moves from the equator to the
poles, the difference between summer and winter temperatures increases to a maximum, then
decreases again. In the temperate zones, where that maximum difference occurs, food comes
in abundance at the end of the growing season, but during the winter edible vegetation is hard
to find, though herds of large mammals may still be available.
Catastrophic climate changes have occurred throughout the history of the Earth, from
ice ages to impacts by comets to volcanic eruptions. 2 Most occurred long before humans
appeared and some affected only small areas. There were no major disasters due to comets or
asteroids during man’s time on Earth, 3 but there were ice ages, glaciers, and rising and falling
sea levels that affected the areas our ancestors inhabited.
Mount Toba or “Toba,” as it is affectionately known, is a volcano in Sumatra, Indonesia.
Today, it is peaceful and shows no inclination to devastate the planet, but 73,000 ya it was an
angry beast, blasting 2800 km3 (671 cubic miles) of material into the sky, along with millions of
tons of poisonous sulfurous gases, blackening the skies across the northern latitudes of the
earth. The ash dropped in a northwest path across India, in places 18 feet deep. (Savino,
2007). Analysis of ice cores indicated the temperature dropped 61 Fahrenheit degrees in
Greenland for about six years.4 Since Toba lies only 3 degrees north of the equator, the amount
of energy reaching the earth for warmth and photosynthesis was drastically reduced. The
resulting “volcanic winter” blotted out the sun, killing vegetation, then herbivores, then
carnivores and humans. The effects were more severe in the northern latitudes, where winters
already made survival difficult, but Toba did not have much affect on Africa. Some of the people
affected by Toba were better able to cope with its effects than others, so Toba not only killed
people, it altered the genome of the surviving populations, as we shall see in Chapter 20.
There were two ice ages that affected the evolution of modern man, together referred to
as the Würm glaciation period. The first ice age began about 73,000 ya, when Toba erupted,
and lasted until about 55,000 ya. Although ice ages are attributed to changes in the Earth’s orbit
(Hayes, 1976), it is quite likely that Toba triggered or accentuated that ice age by increasing
albedo, the reflection of sunlight back into space from snow and ice. Temperatures fell and
snow stayed on the ground longer before it melted, until it did not melt at all, but accumulated
as thick glaciers that covered the land and inched south, wiping out most of the evidence that
man had once lived there. The entire area north of India and most of West Asia north of the
Caucasus Mountains was under a sheet of ice, but some of central China remained ice-free,
giving East Asians a head start on Caucasians. Water evaporated from the oceans and fell as
snow, no longer flowing back into the oceans, so sea levels fell, creating more shoreline and
land bridges between continents and former islands. In Africa, however, there was no
continental glaciation, 5 even near the southernmost tip of Africa, just “moderate fluctuations in
climate” (Howells, 1959, p. 120), though there was drought.
The movement of cold air and glaciers down from the north forced Europeans and West
Asians to migrate farther south (less so in East Asia), no doubt creating conflicts with the
humans already there. The Eurasian population fell drastically 6 and the selection pressure for
cold adaptation was severe. 7 Those Eurasians who were better adapted for a colder climate
had to migrate less, suffered fewer losses, and passed on their alleles for cold-adaptive traits.
When warmer temperatures returned, the glaciers melted and the seas rose. The Bering
Strait again separated North America from Asia. Shorelines and low areas were flooded,
concealing evidence that man once lived there, and higher grounds again became isolated
islands. Eurasians followed the receding ice north, increased their numbers once again, and re-
colonized Eurasia.
The second ice age occurred from about 30,000 ya to about 12,000 ya. It was more
severe, but had less effect on man’s physical evolution because by that time man had culturally
evolved (e.g., garments, constructed shelters) and was better able to cope with the cold. Sea
levels fell again, 130 meters (427 feet) lower than today, giving Eurasians easy access to North
America, Australia, 8 Japan, and Africa. The English “Channel” was dry land and one could walk
from France to England and Ireland. (Sykes, 2001, p. 9). Although both ice ages severely
reduced Eurasian populations, when temperatures rose again populations expanded greatly,
and the coming of agriculture, about 12,000 ya, produced an even greater population
expansion.
Figure 5-1 shows volume of ice for the last 450,000 yrs. Note that from about 120,000
ya until about 10,000 ya the temperatures were much colder than they are now; the peaks of
the first and second ice ages are indicated by the two arrows.
Figure 5-1
Sexual Selection
After climate, sexual selection is the next strongest selector for humans. 9 Sexual
selection means that the sexes do not mate indiscriminately, but preferentially select individuals
who have certain traits. Because populations that have a more “K” orientated reproductive
strategy (fewer children, more child care) pair bond more, they have more stringent
requirements for their mates and therefore have more sexual selection than populations that
have a more “r” orientated reproductive strategy (more children, less child care).
Although both sexes do some selecting, especially in modern times, if the sexes are free
to make a selection it will be the sex that has the most to lose by a poor choice that will select
most cautiously, and that is usually females. 10 Because women need food not only for
themselves, but also for their fetus and then their child, sex, at least until contraceptives came
along, was very costly for them.
Thus, the balance between male selection and female selection shifts according to how
much of the food and other resources each sex provides. In Africa, the women, even today,
farm and gather food, so they have more selection power, 11 but in the colder climates more of
the food was meat, especially in the winter, and hunting was done by men, shifting some
selection power to men. (Miller, 1994a). As a result of selection by men, Eurasian women have
become more beautiful 12 and, as a result of selection by women, Eurasian men have become
workaholics and slightly more intelligent than Eurasian women (more intelligence = a better
provider in Eurasia). African women have become slightly more intelligent than African men,
however, who have become the more physically attractive sex. 13
The sex that has evolved a lot of superfluous traits, traits that are not useful in obtaining
food, evading predators, and the like, but do appeal to the opposite sex, is certainly being
sexually selected. For birds, it is almost always the male that has superfluous traits, as the male
often has bright, colorful plumage and lovely songs that attract both females and predators; the
superfluous traits tell females that the males must be of really high quality to be able to present
such a display and not get eaten. Although the difference in beauty between men and woman is
not as stark as between male birds and female birds, it is fair to say that, at least for Eurasians,
the ladies have the edge in beauty, suggesting that men are doing some selecting of women,
though women still do most of it. As (Coon 1962, p. 86) put it, “all females receive sexual
attention. Among primates, [in order to reproduce] it is easier to be a female than to acquire
one.” However, once meat became an important component of the human diet, the “meat for
sex” trade 14 began to play a greater role and selection by men increased.
Selection by Women
If a woman and her children don’t need a man to survive, she can choose a man who is
handsome and charming, but likely to leave after copulation. In other words, she can choose a
“cad” and, if she can do so without diminishing the survival chances of herself and her children,
she is more likely to do so. The handsome, charming cads then have more offspring and pass
their alleles for cad-like behavior on to their sons. 15
On the other hand, if she is not capable of providing for herself and her children, she will
have to be more practical and chose a man who is likely to stick around after sex and take care
of her and her children, a “dad.” (Chu, 2007). Clark Gable for thrills, Joe Sixpack for bills. Of
course, it would be nice if Joe Sixpack were also young, healthy, romantic, and had good
genes, 16 but those qualities mean nothing if he does not provide for her and her children.
Today, a woman can choose a man who can not, or will not, help her survive and the welfare
state will force that man and other people (taxpayers) to provide for her and her children, but
before the welfare state a woman who unwisely chose such a man would have a life of poverty
and an early death.
It has been suggested that women select men for intelligence (Ananthaswamy, 2002),
17 and that may have played a significant role in man’s evolution towards higher intelligence.
Intelligence, as we shall see (Chap. 14), correlates well with wealth, so intelligence is a way to
identify men who have, or are likely to acquire, the resources needed to care for a woman and
her children. 18 High status men are also likely to have access to more resources, and so high
status is a strong magnet for the ladies. (Pollet, 2007). But since women today have less need
for the resources of men, many women define “high status” less as having money and power 19
and more as being “cool,” i.e., having currently-fashionable clothes, language, and behavior.
Selection by Men
A man can impregnate many women and have far more children than can a woman, so
a reproductively successful man can have a greater effect on the traits of future generations
than can a reproductively successful woman. 20 Although a man can rape a woman, thereby
eliminating any selection on her part, in most societies rape is not a good reproductive strategy
as pregnancy is hit or miss and the penalties for rape may be severe. 21 But for a man with low
status and few resources, rape can be worth the risk. 22 Other male strategies include paying
for sex (prostitution) and sincere or deceitful courtship. (Shields, 1983, pp. 117-119; Wrangham,
1996, pp. 131-146).
If sex is going to cost a man little beyond an ejaculation he won’t be very selective. But if
it is going to cost him a lifetime of support for a wife and children and possibly deter him from
having sex with other women, 23 he will select much more carefully. (Power, 2006).
Since the better providers are desired by more women, but may not be able to support
more than one, those men will select the woman they will provide for, and they will make that
selection based on which woman they think will make a good wife and mother. 24 If they do not
select on that basis, their children are less likely to survive and men who lack alleles for careful
selection will be replaced by men who have them. A good future wife and mother must have a
pleasant, caring personality, be young (i.e., many years of child-bearing), 25 healthy (i.e.,
capable of bearing and raising children), likely to be faithful (i.e., his children), and have “good
genes.” Since good genes are required to make a face and body that are symmetrical and are
not deformed or diseased, physical attractiveness is a good indication not only of health, but
also of high quality genes. 26 Paradoxically, Eurasian women owe their beauty not to the
choices made by their mothers, but to the choices made by their fathers, grandfathers, etc. 27
Group Selection
A “group animal” is a species whose members live in groups, usually cooperating to
obtain food. Wolves are the archetypical group animal, but probably from the first primates and
for millions of years thereafter the animals in man’s lineage have been group animals at least as
much as those in the wolf lineage. Group behavior is still deeply ingrained in our genes and we
see it today in how readily we form groups and how important it is for us to be accepted by
others in our groups. Allegiance to a group arose because individuals who acted in concert with
their associates for their mutual benefit, especially in conflicts with others, were more
reproductively successful than those who did not.
For a group animal, and especially for males, high status within the group is the trait
most worth having because it is the high-status individuals who mate the most. The importance
of status to humans is obvious from the amount of money we spend on clothes, cars, homes,
parties, and generally “keeping up with the neighbors.” And, conversely, low status, and
expulsion from the group is most feared. 28
Since group animals usually breed more among themselves than with outsiders, 29 they
are more closely related to each other and share many of the same alleles and traits. This
inbreeding not only enhances the cohesiveness of the group, it also makes the group
genetically different from other groups and, if one group is better adapted, its members will have
more reproductive success than the members of other groups. Although a group can therefore
be selected, 30 it is individuals that biologically reproduce, not groups, and it is the individuals
within the group that is positively selected who have greater reproductive success, passing on
the traits that enabled their group to be selected. (Levin, 1997, p.167). Even if a member does
not himself reproduce, since he is more related to others in his group than he is to outsiders,
and his fellow group members therefore carry more of his alleles than do outsiders, he
nevertheless also achieves reproductive success because others in his group pass on many of
the same alleles that he would pass on. (See Chap. 8). A more reproductively successful group
will grow in numbers and will more frequently split into two groups than other groups do, a
process somewhat analogous to asexual reproduction.
Individuals within a group are permitted to remain in the group provided they can be
expected to make a net contribution to the reproductive success of those individuals within the
group that produce the next generation. The likelihood of a male successfully reproducing after
he is forced out of the group is low, so low status males do their best not to anger the leader. By
expelling a member, the remaining members alter the gene pool of the group and, when groups
compete against other groups of the same species, those other groups become part of the
environment that selects whether a group is successful. 31
If an individual’s alleles cause him to act only for his own reproductive success, even
when it is damaging to the reproductive success of his group, and those alleles spread
throughout his group, eventually both his group and his own lineage will go extinct. The result is
that each individual in a group will carry some “altruism alleles” that code for behavior that
increases the group’s fitness, even though that behavior reduces his individual fitness, such as
alleles for deferring to the leader for breeding and for caring for the leader’s offspring.
Both man and other group animals are normally innately capable of suffering social
control emotions, such as guilt, shame, embarrassment, depression, and remorse, in response
to communications from others of approval or disapproval of their behavior. 32 These social
control emotions are detrimental to the individual, but essential to the successful functioning of
the group. 33 Individuals quickly pick up the meaning of facial expressions and other signs of
disapproval, and usually end up following the rules to avoid having to endure the unpleasant
emotion. 34
The intra-group rules need not be the same for different groups, and behavior that
produces a devastating social control emotion in an individual in one group may create no
emotion or even the opposite emotion in an individual in a different group. 35 The group’s
culture (i.e., information that is not inherited) programs and activates these emotions, inducing
an individual to alter his behavior so that he benefits others in his group, even though that may
reduce his personal fitness. 36 Nevertheless, he accepts, and often vehemently defends, the
culture of his group because an attack on his culture threatens his acceptance as a member of
the group. 37 If particular cultural rules enable a population to better compete with others
populations, then individuals in that population who do not feel guilt, shame, or remorse when
they break those rules (i.e., sociopaths) will be eliminated from that population, and the only
individuals who remain in that population will be those that inherit the propensity to feel the
emotions that induce them to follow the rules. Since survival in the colder north depended more
on following rules than in the tropics, individuals in northern populations should have more of
those social control emotions. There is some evidence that Africans are less controlled by those
emotions, which may contribute to their higher crime rate.
Chapter 6
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. The formation of the Isthmus of Panama 3 to 3.5 mya, isolating the Pacific and Atlantic
Oceans, changed ocean currents, cooling Europe. (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 115). Back
2. Catastrophes other than climatic catastrophes also changed man’s evolution. A

contemporary example is a mutation, the delta 32 deletion of the CCR5 receptor gene, that
occurred in some northern Europeans, which enabled them to survive the bubonic plague
during the Middle Ages, when hundreds of thousands of their countrymen died; more recently, it
offers some protection against AIDS. (Guilherme, 2002). Back
3. The only major one occurred in Siberia in 1908 and it had little effect on humans. Back
4. Temperatures are estimated to have dropped about 30°C (54°F) for weeks or months in the
Northern Hemisphere. (Rampino, 1988). During the Ice Age of 30,000 to 12,000 ya, the climate
in Germany was quite cold and the Mediterranean Sea had the climate the Baltic Sea has now.
Back
5. There were limited glaciers around Kilimanjaro and Mount Kenya. (Hasterath, S., The
Glaciers of Equatorial East Africa, 1984). Back
6. (Ambrose, 1998). "The scarcity of artifacts in the loess bed that overlies the [central Asian
plain] suggests that much of the plain was abandoned between 73,000-55,000 years
ago." (Hoffecker, 2002, p. 19). Back
7. In Asia, the cold selected for neoteny. (Chap. 6). Back
8. Even when sea levels were lowest, there was still at least 50 km (31 miles) of open ocean
between Australia and Asia. (Sykes, 2001, p. 285). Back
9. (Weston, 2007). An excellent book on sexual dynamics is The Woman Racket, by Steve
Moxon. Back
10. The general rule is that the sex that invests less in raising the offspring, usually the male,
will pursue the opposite sex, who will do more of the selecting. In some species of seahorses,
however, the male incubates the young, a costly investment, and he is pursued by the females
and he does the selecting. (Allman, 1994, p. 114). Similarly, female phalaropes (ducks) pursue
males because the males brood the eggs. (Rising, G. “Nature Watch,” Buffalo News, Oct. 21,
2007). A man who must spend a lifetime caring for a wife and his children will be more pursued
by women, and will do more selecting than a man who incurs no such obligation. Back
11. (Lynn, 2006a, p. 224). “Women perform 80 percent of daily work” in Africa. (Wax, 2003).
Polygyny is also common in Africa, with the best men having the most women, but this is mostly
economic as the wives do the work and are self-supporting and have access to many other
men. “In Africa, feminist groups don't protest that men don't let them do work, they protest that
men leave them most of the work.” (Sailer, S. Oct. 9, 2007 comment on Megan McArdle, The
Atlantic.com, “Why is Africa So Screwed Up?”). Agriculture made women more self-sufficient,
making additional wives affordable, which lead to polygeny. That left many men without women,
increasing the selective power of women, resulting in the enhanced physical attractiveness of
African men and the diminished attractiveness of African women. "The traditional Zulu does not
make physical beauty a first priority or even an important qualification in a wife…" (Vilakazi,
1962, p. 59). Back
12. Women would not spend billions of dollars on clothes and cosmetics if men were not
selecting them for beauty. Back
13. "There is some ambivalence in societies where women do most of the agricultural labor. In
such a context, wives tend to be chosen for their ability to work outdoors, especially in the sun,
and less weight is given to other criteria, like physical beauty. This is true in most agricultural
societies of sub-Saharan Africa and in New Guinea." (Frost, 2005). “Among the Nigerian
Wodaabes, the women hold economic power and the tribe is obsessed with male beauty;
Wodaabe men spend hours together in elaborate makeup sessions, and compete -
provocatively painted and dressed, with swaying hips, and seductive expressions in beauty
contests judged by women.” (Wolf, 1991; also Hunt, 1864, p. 20). Now that white women are
becoming financially independent, they are also placing more emphasis on male appearance.
(Moore, 2006). In time, if whites survive, white men will also become better looking and white
women less attractive. Back
14. In addition to meat, males also provided protection from predators and other males. This
implied pair-bonding contract is strongest when women are least capable of acquiring food for
themselves, i.e., in the northern climates. When a population is starving, there is a widespread
trading of sex for food. (e.g., Keeling, 1947, pp. 57-59). Back
15. Any man besieged by women is likely to find the temptation to be a cad irresistible since the
more women he impregnates, the more reproductively successful he is likely to be. Women are
enthralled by cads because they seem to be genetically superior, as evidenced by the quality of
the music they can create, their athleticism, their looks, confidence, etc. And, if other women
want cads, the sons they have with a cad may also be more reproductively successful. Wealth,
in addition to providing assurance of support, can be used to create an effective “bluff,” so a
man can present himself as being of better genetic quality than he is. Ditto for a woman and her
makeup, clothing, and grooming. Back
16. (Buss, 2008). She can obtain all those qualities in a man and still keep Joe Sixpack’s pay
check by successfully cheating, so men select for faithfulness in long term relationships. (Salter,
1996). Back
17. Actually, both sexes select for intelligence, though women more so. (Rosenberg, 2008).
That brains increased in size from the beginning of hunting means that the possessors of larger
brains were more successful with the ladies, probably because of the additional meat that more
intelligent men were able to acquire and trade for sex. (Coon, 1962, pp. 78, 86). Women often
say they want a man with a good sense of humor, and humor also correlates well with
intelligence. Back
18. It also correlates well with a lower crime rate, less psychopathy, and other traits desired by
most females. Back
19. “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” (Henry Kissinger). The drive for status is hard wired into
the human brain. (Zink, 2008). Back
20. (Coon, 1962, p. 93). By conquest, Genghis Khan had about 800,000 times the reproductive
success of the average man of his age; about 8% of the men (16 million men, 0.5% of all the
men in the world) in a large area of Asia carry his Y chromosome. (Zerjal, 2003). Back
21. During war and occupation, there is often no penalty and rape is common. (Keeling, 1947,
pp. 49-57). Back
22. The more polygynous a society is, the more men there will be who cannot find a woman.
Almost all suicide bombers are single Muslim men because Islam permits polygyny and
promises 72 virgins if a believer dies for the faith. The dearth of women caused by polygyny
also led to the importation of female African slaves. Back
23. Both sexes may be able to achieve more reproduction success by not putting all their germ
cells in one basket, so to speak, but that is usually easier for a man to do. With the courts
favoring women much more than they used to (“Why get married? Just find a woman who hates
you and give her your house.”), the cost to a man has increased, perhaps discouraging
marriage. Back
24. This suggests that the more selective the sexes are, the higher the quality of the population
will be and, conversely, the more indiscriminate sexual relations are, the faster the population
will degenerate. Back
25. And beauty correlates well with fertility, both tending to maximize at age 24.8. (Johnston,
2006). Since younger women are more fertile and more capable of raising children, men prefer
youthful women and most marriages are younger woman – older man. Women are more
neotenic than men because men have selected them for youthfulness. Light skin is also
associated with youth (and dark skin) with masculinity. In one study, the skin of white women
was 15.2% lighter than the skin of white males, and the skin of black women 11.1% lighter than
the skin of black men. (Bauman, 2004). Back
26. Good looks are less important to women, provided they need men to provide food and other
resources, because their reproductive success is limited if they don’t have access to resources;
male reproductive success, however, is limited by access to females. (Lewin, 1998, p. 162;
McNulty, 2008). Also see (Etcoff, 1999; Barash, 1997; Small, 1995; Botting, 1995). Fifty-six cell
divisions are required to go from a human egg to an adult and good genes are required to
accomplish that with a minimum number of errors. (Schwartz, 1999). Back
27. (Frost, 2006). Beautiful people have more female children. (Kanazawa, 2007). Why?
Because people who carry alleles for both beauty and more female children have greater
reproductive success than people who carry alleles for only beauty or only more female
children. Women pass on their beauty to their daughters, but men don't pass on their good
looks to their sons. Why? Because women select men more for traits other than good looks.
(Cornwell, 2008). Back
28. Groups develop rituals, beliefs, customs, language, and apparel to induce individuals to
identify with their group and to discourage desertion. Back
29. In group animals, even though the loss of members weakens a group, one or both of the
sexes often leaves the group at sexual maturity and joins a different group. This may be to
reduce inbreeding, to spread the group’s alleles, or to acquire new alleles that may have arisen
in other groups. In most primates that live in groups, it is the adolescent males that leave. Since
males compete for females, males leaving reduces intra-group strife, though it means that many
young males will never find mates. The absence of a male does not reduce the reproductive
success of the group much because a single remaining male can impregnate many females. In
gorilla, chimpanzee, and human groups, however, it is the females who leave the group
(Allman, 1994, p. 124; Wrangham, 1996, p. 24; Arsuaga, 2001, p. 164; Also see (Bonobo
Initiative and De Waal, 1997, p. 60), sometimes by being captured by males from other groups.
About 70% of human societies are “patrilocal” (male stays, as opposed to “matrilocal,” female
stays). (Burton, 1996). (The fact that humans are patrilocal may help explain the higher
miscegenation rate of white females.) The most obvious reason for this difference is that
gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans engage in more intense inter-group competition (Van Vugt,
2007), i.e., war, and males are required to defend the group’s territory. Groups without adult
males would simply have their females and territory taken by males in other groups. Thus, the
success of the group is so important to the survival of humans that the advantages of retaining
females in the group are sacrificed to achieve it. (A pecking order (“dominance hierarchy”)
reduces male-male competition for females within a patrilocal group; also, males in the group
are related and carry many of the same alleles; see Chap. 8). Back
30. (Wikipedia, “Group selection”; Wilson, 2007 & 2008). Groups exist only because they are
adaptive (Chapter 4, Rule 10, corollary 1) and, if they are adaptive, they must be selected. Also
see “Dual Morality,” p. 284. Back
31. (Levin, 1997, p. 74). Here is a remarkable example of the power of selection on groups: In
North America there are southern cicadas that emerge from the ground every 13 years and
northern cicadas that emerge every 17 years. Why such weird numbers? Well, they are both
prime numbers, which means the southern and northern cicadas will emerge the same year
only in once every 221 years (13 x 17 = 221). Thus, any predator that relies upon eating
cicadas for survival will have great difficulty increasing its numbers at the same time that the
cicadas emerge. (Patterson, 1999, p. 82). In other words, initially there were many cicada
groups with many different cycles. Over time, only those groups that had long cycles that did
not frequently coincide with the cycles of other groups were able to avoid predators and survive.
Back
32. For example, 200 years ago, calling someone a "racist" would have generated no emotional
response. Today, the name-caller knows he is being verbally agressive and the other person
knows he is under attack; their amydalae respond by jacking up their adrenalin. An individual
who lacks the capacity for these social control emotions, i.e., a sociopath, can nevertheless
pretend to have them and, at the same time, not have his actions impeded by them. (Stout,
2005). Back
33. In addition to reducing intra-group conflict and increasing intra-group cooperation, they also
reduce the “tragedy of the commons,” where individuals within a group exploit resources
beyond the level at which the resources are self-sustaining, which is detrimental to the group as
a whole. (Wilson, 2007). Although Wilson (2007) states, “Selfishness beats altruism within
single groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups,” this is not always true as other members of
the group can and do punish selfish members. Back
34. Guilt is self-punishment for not following the group’s rules and shame induces submission to
those rules. See various papers by Robert Trivers. Both are genetically-predisposed emotions.
Sociopaths do not feel these emotions, because they lack alleles for them or those alleles have
been turned off. Back
35. For example, in “respectable” society, getting drunk is disgraceful, but sailors may take
pride in it. Back
36. (Plutchik, 1980). Another group animal, the dog, is also said to have some of those
emotions. Back
37. We are the product of our place and time, “imprinted” with the beliefs of those around us.
We fear contradictory views because they threaten our acceptance within our group. To avoid
expulsion, we sacrifice our objectivity and fervently believe and rationalize obvious falsehoods.
Back
Chapter 6 - Neoteny
Biologically, an organism becomes “sexually mature” or an “adult” when it is capable of
reproducing. And it becomes “physically mature” when it acquires its adult form. The rate at
which an organism matures physically and the rate at which it matures sexually are
independently controlled by different genes. 1 A population can evolve so that individuals
physically mature faster or slower, while keeping their rate of sexual maturation constant, or it
can evolve so that individuals mature sexually faster or slower, while keeping their rate of
physical maturation constant, or both can change.
A population can evolve so that individuals remain childlike in their adult form
(“paedomorphism”) in two ways. It can evolve to speed up physical and sexual maturation so
that individuals become both physically and sexually mature while they are still infants
(“progenesis,” e.g., newts), or it can evolve to slow down or stop physical maturation so that
the age of sexual maturation stays about the same, but individuals are childlike when they
reach sexual maturity (“neoteny”). “Neoteny” (new-stretch) refers to a gene-controlled change
in the way individuals mature, where they mature sexually at about a normal rate but, although
the body grows in size as they become sexually mature, their juvenile features (and their
ancestors’ juvenile features) are retained into adulthood and are not replaced by distinctively
different adult features; in other words, a child becomes a larger, but sexually-mature, child.
The
evolution
of man
was
accomplished
by a
number of
genetic
changes,
but one of
the most
important
was
neoteny.
Humans
are the
most
neotenic Figure 6-1
of all
primates. Notice, in Figure 6-1, 2 the remarkable and important comparison of an adult and
baby chimpanzee. The adult chimpanzee did not retain his babyish face, but instead replaced
it with a very different face. The more human-looking face of the baby chimp is much flatter,
while the adult has a very protruding jaw. 3 Because the adult did not retain the baby’s face,
the chimpanzee is not neotenic. Now imagine that the baby chimpanzee grew up to become
sexually mature, but his face did not change; then the chimpanzee would be neotenic and
would look much more human.
Now that you know what neoteny is, it should not be difficult to see that man is
neotenic. In fact, man is so neotenic that he has been described as a “sexually mature fetus.” 4
Many of our neotenic traits were vital to our evolution. As in most fetal mammals, including
humans, the foramen magnum (the opening through which the spinal chord exits the skull) is
more in the center of the base of the skull. As quadrupedal animals mature it moves to the rear
(Table 9-2), but in humans, who are bipedal, it remains in its infant position (so the eyes are
directed perpendicularly to the spine).In embryonic mammals, the vaginal opening is more to
the front, and remains so in adult human females (for front-to-front intercourse) and does not
move to the rear (for front-to-back intercourse), as in other mammals. Our big toe remains
parallel to our other toes (for walking) and does not move to a 90° angle to them (for grasping)
as in the great apes. Man’s neotenic traits also include a more gracile (i.e., less robust)
skeleton, a skull that is larger (in proportion to body size), rounder, and more spherical with
thinner bones, a flatter face with a less protruding jaw (“prognathism”) 5 and smaller teeth, little
body hair, smaller arms, legs, fingers, and feet, and more fat under the skin, all traits found in
primate babies. 6
Flesh-colored skin may also be neotenic in humans. Newborns of dark-skinned parents
are lighter-skinned (Abner, 1998), then their skin darkens as they grow older. 7 It is interesting
to note that young chimpanzees have flesh-colored skin which becomes blackish or black
between ages 10 and 12 (Baker, 1974, p. 112); that suggests that our last common ancestor
(LCA) with chimpanzees may also have had light skin when young. 8 There is some genetic
evidence that “the common ancestors of all humans on earth had white skin under dark hair –
similar to the skin and hair color pattern of today’s [young] chimpanzees.” 9
The hair of newborns is also straighter, even of African babies, and fetuses have an epicanthic
fold (a fatty fold of skin that partially covers and protects the eyes, Figure 10-3), 10 so those
traits are also neotenic. A white sclera (eyeball) may be neotenic as “most animals have sclera
that darken with age, [but] humans retain white sclera all of their lives.” (Etcoff, 1999, p. 33).
What caused man’s neoteny? The obvious answer is that before man became
neotenic, individuals differed slightly in how neotenic they were, just as they differ in nearly all
traits; man would have stayed non-neotenic forever, but his environment changed. After that
change, those individuals who were more neotenic had more reproductive success than those
who lacked alleles for neoteny, and the entire population became more neotenic.
The next question is, “What environmental changes would make neotenic traits more
advantageous?” A smaller, non-protruding jaw and less robustness (smaller bones and
muscles) would be a major disadvantage in a fight. But, if man had advanced enough to
develop tools and weapons, those traits would be unnecessary, a waste of the body’s
resources and energy, and would reduce speed and agility. What other traits do babies have
that, if an adult had them, would make that adult more likely to survive?
Another possibility is a larger brain. In proportion to body size, babies have larger
brains than adults, 11 and more neotenic adults usually have larger brains than less neotenic
adults. It is also true that there is a moderate 12 correlation (r = 0.44, Lynn, 2006a, p. 214)
between intelligence and brain size. 13 It is not a perfect correlation – people with large brains
can still be stupid – but it is still a significant correlation. So it is possible that if the change in
the environment required more intelligence to survive, then individuals who were more
neotenic and therefore had larger brains and greater intelligence, would be selected. 14 If a
population migrated from the tropics, where there is little seasonal change, to the north where
there are four distinct seasons, including a long, cold, winter, more intelligence would be an
asset in planning for the winter and provisioning food. Thus, seasonal differences in climate
would select for more intelligence and therefore for more neotenic individuals.
How severe the selection for intelligence would be is hard to estimate. Small brains are,
after all, capable of provisioning for the winter – squirrels do it all the time and, in proportion to
body size, their brains are far smaller than man’s were. Moreover, the brain is the body’s most
costly organ, as it requires more energy (per unit weight) than any other organ. 15 An adult
brain is about 2% (Leakey, 1994, p. 54) or 3% (Foley, 1995, p 170) of body weight but uses
20% of the body’s energy 16 and the average newborn’s brain consumes an amazing 75% of
an infant’s daily energy needs. 17 A bigger brain may help solve more problems, but it is extra
weight to carry around and requires extra food to keep it functioning. To see which way the
assets and liabilities shifted, it is necessary to see how much intelligence in the north actually
increased, which we will examine later in this book.
Babies almost anywhere, except possibly in the tropics, must be kept warm to prevent
death by hypothermia. Because of their small size (high surface area to mass ratio) they need
to conserve heat and minimize the burning of calories. They have many traits that help them
do this, which would be useful to adults who migrated north, one of which is baby fat. Babies
have extra fat under their skin evenly distributed over their bodies which stores energy for their
rapidly-growing brains, provides some protection against bumps, and keeps them warm. Other
neotenic traits useful in colder climates include an epicanthic fold and traits that reduce surface
area, 18 e.g., a flatter face, small hands and feet (Baker, 1974, p. 307), and a thick trunk, all of
which are characteristic of northern Asian populations. This suggests that neoteny could be
strongly selected for in a population that migrated into a colder climate.
The most neotenic people on the planet are the East Asians and the most neotenic
East Asians are the Koreans, who have the most subcutaneous fat, 19 followed closely by the
Han Chinese and other Mongoloids. 20 Just like babies, East Asians have a round head with a
flat chubby face, a small nose, short arms and legs, very little body hair, and extra fat evenly
distributed over their entire body. Their “third eyelid” (epicanthic fold) and smaller eye sockets
help to protect their eyes from the cold. Clearly, these people evolved to live in a cold climate
and, since they became so neotenic, that suggests that neoteny was advantageous in that
climate. (Chap. 4, Rule 11).
The European lineage became neotenic as well, but much less so than the Asians.
Europeans have longer heads, more hair, longer limbs, and the fat under their skin is less
uniformly distributed; instead, it accumulates in unsightly bunches around the abdomen, hips,
and thighs, providing a good source of income for the weight-loss industry. Most Africans are
still less neotenic, but their lineage is more complicated, giving different African populations
some very different traits. (Chap. 26).
Chapter 7
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. Sexual and physical maturation rates are controlled by only a few Hox (homeobox) genes,
genes that turn on or off a host of other genes, in this case genes that regulate physical and
sexual maturation, so genetically changing the physical or sexual maturation rate does not
necessarily require a large number of mutations in order to occur. Neoteny may “work” by
halting the additive process (Chap. 4, Rule 1) that occurs in the fetus. Back
2. From (Naturwissenschaften, Vol. 14, 1926, pp. 447-448). Figure 6-1 shows common
chimpanzees. The differences are less striking for the more-neotenic bonobo chimpanzee.
When the smaller baby chimp grew into the larger adult chimp, its skull cap did not enlarge;
unlike humans, the chimp brain stops growing at a much earlier age. The difference between
the young and adult orangutan is so great that an early naturalist (Saint-Hilaire, in 1836)
thought they were not even in the same genus. Back
3. The protruding jaw appears by the age of sexual maturity, when males fight for access to
females. The absence of this menacing jaw in the baby makes it appear harmless and arouses
caring emotions. Back
4. “If I wished to express the basic principle of my ideas in a somewhat strongly worded
sentence, I would say that man, in his bodily development, is a primate fetus that has become
sexually mature.” Bolk,L.; Bolk, 1926). Back
5. “Young monkeys and young negroes, however, are not prognathous like their parents, but
become so as they grow older.” (Cartwright, 1857, p. 45). Back
6. Baker (1974, p. 312) implies that wide-apart eyes are neotenic, though bonobos are
neotenic and have eyes close together. (id, p. 113). Back
7. "Negro children and white children are alike at birth in one remarkable particular – they are
both born white, … “ (Cartwright, 1857, p. 45). "Apes when new born have very much lighter
skins than adults; additional pigment becomes deposited during later development, and the
same is true of the Negro. In this respect the white races are neotenous, for they retain the
embryonic conditions of other forms. (de Beer, 1951, pp. 58-59). Back
8. "It is likely, then, that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees had light skin
covered with dark hair, ..." (Jablonski, 2006, p. 26). "Skin color of the infant langur, baboon,
and macaque is pink, in contrast to the almost black skin of the older infant or adult." (Frost, P.
"Parental Selection, Human Hairlessness, and Skin Color," Evo and Proud, Apr. 1, 2007).
Back
9. (Rogers, 2004). “[Chimpanzees] are extraordinarily variable in skin color, running from a
grayish pink that is almost white to black, with several yellowish shades between. Their color
range is essentially the same as in the races of man …” (Coon, 1962, p. 145). Back
10. Epicanthic folds develop in fetuses of all races during the third to sixth month but disappear
in Caucasians. Children with Down syndrome also have them. (Wikipedia, “Down Syndrome”).
Back
11. At birth, a baby’s brain is 24% of its adult weight, while its body is only 5% of its adult
weight (Coon, 1962, p. 78). Back
12. A “weak” correlation is less than 0.4, a “moderate” correlation is between 0.4 and 0.6, and
a “strong” correlation is greater than 0.6. The correlation squared times 100 gives the
percentage explained, e.g., a correlation of 0.6 explains 36% of the effect. Back
13. (Witelson, 2006; McDaniel, 2005). Back
14. Genius today is often associated with youthfulness. (Charlton, 2006). Back
15. “Grey matter is the gas-hog of our bodies.” (Sloan, C.P., National Geographic, Nov., 2006,
p. 159). Back
16. Compared to 9% for a chimpanzee. (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 38). Back
17. The acquisition and loss of traits, e.g., brain size, tails, ability to run, behavior (agriculture,
seasonal migrations), and reproductive strategy (number, size, and frequency of offspring),
can often be best explained in terms of energy expended and energy acquired. (Foley, 1995,
p. 171, 176). Back
18. A sphere has the least amount of surface area (for the volume contained) of any three-
dimensional shape, hence a rounder head retains more heat. Minimizing projections, such as
the arms, legs, fingers, and toes, makes a body more spherical and therefore helps to retain
heat. (Allen’s Rule). Back
19. From 1910 to 1945, the Japanese used completely naked Korean women, well-insulated
by subcutaneous fat, as pearl divers. (Rennie, 1962). Back
20. “…the yellow races are nearest to the infantile condition.” Havelock Ellis. Han Chinese
males lack hair on their arms, legs, and chest and also lack beards, having only head hair and
some auxiliary and pubic hair. They don’t even have "peach fuzz" on the arms and legs. Most
pure Han women have only sparse hair on the mons pubis. Koreans are nearly as hairless.
Back
Chapter 7 - Genetic Distance

Populations that are reproductively isolated, usually because they are separated geographically, gradually become genetically
different. The principal reason for the differences is that the selectors in different environments (or the selection pressures of those selectors)
are different. Also, if a portion of a population moves to a different territory, or becomes isolated from the rest of the population due to waters
rising, rivers shifting, glaciers and deserts forming, or other reasons and, if some of those isolated people just happen to be a little genetically
different from the remainder of the population, which is probable, the entire isolated population is likely to become even more genetically
different, which is called the “Founder Effect.” Chance mutations may also arise in one population that do not arise in another population, or
only one of the populations may interbreed with a third population.
“Genetic distance” is a way of numerically expressing how genetically different two individuals or two populations are. As explained in
Chapter 3, everyone has the same genes, e.g., we all have a gene for eye color, but each gene comes in an average of 14 different A-C-G-T
sequences, called “alleles.” To determine the genetic distance between two individuals, the number of alleles that differ between them can be
counted; 1 for populations, the number of people in each population who have a particular allele is counted (preferably using a large number
of alleles to increase precision), and the results are expressed mathematically. 2 If the other person is your identical twin, all of your alleles
and your twin’s alleles will be the same and the genetic distance between you will be zero. 3 If the other person is your child, at least half will
be the same. (If his other parent has some of the same alleles that you do, more than half will be the same.) If a mating is incestuous, the
number of the child’s alleles that are the same as a parent’s would be higher than if the
parents were unrelated. The number of alleles in common is lower between cousins, still
lower for people of your own ethny and race, 4 still lower for different races and, for
different species, it continues to decrease as the age of the LCA between humans and
the other species increases.
If we plot your genetic distance (assuming you are Caucasian) from all the other
people on the planet, it might look something like Figure 7-1. Figure 7-1 shows, very
approximately, how genetic distance increases quickly as one moves away from one’s
close relatives. Then a large increase in genetic distance occurs between you and
Asians and a much larger increase between you and Africans. 5
It is not yet possible to completely analyze the DNA of every person on the planet
6 and compare any person’s DNA to any other person’s DNA in order to determine how
many alleles are identical, but there are some shortcuts that give approximately the same
results. The genetic distance (the “variance,” FST) between people and populations can
Figure 7-1
be calculated from DNA sampling. 7 By collecting DNA samples from individuals around
the world and counting SNPs, scientists have determined the genetic distances between various populations, ethnies, races, and species.
The numbers at the top of Figure 7-2 (Cavalli-Sforza, 1991) give the percentage genetic distances (multiplied by 10,000) between various
human populations using a modified Nei method of calculating genetic distance.
Figure 7-2
As to the three major races, Figure 7-2 shows that s-S Africans and everyone else are the most unrelated, and North Eurasians and
Southeast Asians are the second most unrelated. Note that “Caucasoids” includes North Africans (i.e., around the Mediterranean Sea), S.W.
Asians (Middle East), and Indians (from India). Also note that N.E. Asians and American Indians are more closely related to Caucasians than
they are to Southeast Asians.
Figure 7-3
Figure 7-3 is a graph that positions 42 human populations along two axes that measure differences between two highly variable
sections of mtDNA. (Cavalli-Sforza, 1994, p. 82). The First PC (Principal Component) and Second PC divide the data into the two halves that
have the greatest and second greatest variance, respectively (Wikipedia “Principal Components Analysis”); Africans are on one side of the
two PC axes and everyone else is on the other side because Africans differ genetically the most from everyone else. Since some populations
(Eurasians) have evolved more than others (Africans), the point where the First and Second PC axes cross is not necessarily at or close to
the LCA for the populations on the graph.
Mongol: Nomadic people of Mongolia. Sardinian: Sardinia, an island west of Italy.

Tibetan: People of Tibet. Thai: A people of Thailand.
Eskimo: People inhabiting the Arctic coastal regions of North Polynesian: A division of Oceania including scattered islands of the
America, central
Greenland, and northeast Siberia. and southern Pacific Ocean roughly between New Zealand,
Na-Dene: North American Indian language. Hawaii, and Easter Island.
Uralic: Language family that comprises the Finno-Uric and Melanesian: Islands northeast of Australia and south of the equator.
Samoyedic Khmer: A people of Cambodia.
subfamilies [named after the Ural Mountains]. Micronesian: A division of Oceania in the western Pacific Ocean
North Turkic: Turkey. comprising
Ainu: A separate indigenous people that live in Japan. [See p. islands east of the Philippines and north of the equator.
206]. Malaysian: Southern Malay Peninsula and the northern part of the
South Dravidian: A language spoken by peoples in southern island of
India and Borneo.
northern Sri Lanka. Berber: North Africa.
Chukchi: Northeast Siberia. San: Nomadic hunting people of southwest Africa.
Lapp: Nomadic herding people in northern Scandinavian Mbuti: African pygmies.
countries. Bantu: linguistically related central and southern Africans.
Basque: A people inhabiting north central Spain [said to be Nilo-Saharan: linguistically related sub-Saharan Africans from
the most Nigeria to Kenya
homogeneous racial group found by Cavalli-Sforza, regions of North America, Greenland and northeast Siberia.
early
Europeans, with their own unique language].
As you can see in Figure 7-3, Europeans are

in the top right corner, Africans are in the lower right
corner, 8 and Asians are on the left side. The Nguni,
Sotho, and Tsonga are South Africans, the Blaka
(Figure 7-4) are pygmies in Niger, and the Mbuti are
pygmies in the NE Congo. Note that the center of the
graph is relatively empty, even though it represents
the average of these measurements. This is because,
although all these populations were once a single
population, they have been becoming increasingly
genetically different, on their way to becoming
different species.
Figure 7-4 Figure 7-5 is a map from the same work and
shows populations grouped according to genetic
Figure 7-5
similarity. Africans are yellow, Caucasoids green, Mongoloids dark blue, and Australian Aborigines
brownish-red. There is a Caucasoid component in the people of northern Africa, which does not show up well in the map. The map clearly
shows that people who are genetically similar occupy the same geographical area, just as one would expect; 9 in other words, race is real.
Figure 7-6 compares the genetic distance (numbers at the bottom) between African (blue in A and B and green in C) and European
populations (red in A and B and yellow in C). 10 The vertical black lines at the top are the means and the horizontal black lines at the top are
the standard deviations. In Figure 7-6, note that when alleles that are common in Africa are compared to alleles that are common in Europe
(graph C) the two populations can be separated with close
to 100% accuracy. The means are farther apart and the
genetic distances are greater in graph C. In graphs A and
B the means are close together, the genetic distances are
smaller, and there is much more overlapping because far
fewer alleles that are unique to those populations were
used in the comparison.
Returning to numerical genetic distances, Cavalli-
Sforza’s team (1994) compiled tables that give the genetic
distance separating 2,000 different racial groups from each
other. Table 7-1 gives the genetic distance (using the FST
method of calculation) between a few selected populations
in percent (multiplied by 10,000), e.g., Bantu-Australian
aborigine FST = 0.3272%. 11
Figure 7-6
Ban E.Af. W.Af. San Ind. N.E. Kor. S.C. Eng. Aus.
Bantu 0
E. Africa 658 0
W. Africa 188 697 0
San 94 776 885 0
India 2202 1078 1748 1246 0
Near East 1779 709 1454 880 229 0
Korea 2668 1475 1807 1950 681 933 0
S. China 2963 1664 1958 2231 847 983 498 0
English 2288 1163 1487 1197 280 236 982 1152 0
Australia 3272 2131 2694 2705 1176 1408 850 1081 1534 0
Table 7-1
Note that, of the Africans, the Bantu and San, who live in South Africa, are genetically close. The East Africans, who live in the Horn of
Africa, where the Eurasians entered Africa, are closer to non-Africans than any other Africans and are the population that is the most
genetically distant from other Africans. Also note that the most unrelated people are the Bantu and the Australian aborigines.
Once numerical genetic distance data had been collected, it became possible to calculate other results, some of which are quite
startling. For example, we all assume that a mother is more closely related to her own child than she is to anyone else’s child, but that is not
always true. For most Asians, and a large (but less than half) percentage of white Europeans, a mulatto child with a Bantu African would be
less closely related to them than a randomly-selected child of their own race! 12 The explanation for that strange result is simple – the
isolation of the Bantus from the Eurasians has resulted in the two populations becoming so genetically different from each other that, because
Eurasians have interbred among themselves for at least tens of thousands of years, the neighbor’s child has more alleles in common with the
Eurasian than the Eurasian does to his or her own mulatto child. 13
Compared to all the human genetic variation in the world, people in the same ethnic group can be almost as related to each other as a
parent is to his child. (Salter, 2003, pp. 42, 67, 124, 327, 329). “… in most situations individuals have a larger genetic stake in their ethnic
groups than in their families.” (Salter, 2003, p. 37). Thus, racism is in everyone’s genetic interest.
Genetic distances are useful in trying to figure out man’s genetic tree, which shows how people evolved into their present populations.
The less the genetic distance between populations, the more recently they were a single population or, at least, the more recently they
interbred. A theory of human origins has to be consistent with, at least approximately, the genetic distances between different populations.
The concept of genetic distance has, however, been distorted by the egalitarians to show that everyone is genetically about the same.
14 For example, in his January, 2000, State of the Union address, then President Bill Clinton stated, “We are all, regardless of race, 99.9
percent the same.” The implication is that the remaining 0.1% will produce only trivial differences and can be ignored, but “one-tenth of 1
percent of 3 billion is a heck of a large number -- 3 million nucleotide differences between two random genomes.” (Anthropologist John
Hawks ). 15 On the other hand, …
“We share 98.4 percent of our genes with chimpanzees, 95 percent with dogs, and 74 percent with microscopic roundworms. Only
one chromosome determines if one is born male or female. There is no discernible difference in the DNA of a wolf and a Labrador
retriever, [16] yet their inbred behavioral differences are immense. [17] Clearly, what’s meaningful is which genes differ and how
they are patterned, not the percent of genes. A tiny number of genes can translate into huge functional differences.” 18
The fact that the percentage difference between populations is small is not the whole story. Although some genes code for very
specific traits that are not even easily detected, other genes, such as Hox genes, 19 can turn on or off large collections of genes and thereby
have an immense effect on an individual’s traits. (Zimmer, 1996).
Another distortion that has been repeated many times in the media is known as “Lewontin’s Fallacy.” (Edwards, 2003; Sarich, 2004, p.
169). Richard Lewontin stated, “nearly 85 per cent of humanity’s genetic diversity occurs among individuals within a single population.” 20 “In
other words, two individuals are different because they are individuals, not because they belong to different races.” 21 Therefore, the
egalitarians gleefully concluded (e.g., Zimmer, 2001, p. 81), that it is meaningless to classify people in races – biologically, there is no such
thing as “race.” 22 Unfortunately, Lewontin made a statistical error because he was comparing differences in the alleles of single genes
instead of groups of genes that are unique to each race. If you are told that Al has dark skin, Bob has very curly hair, Carl has short hair,
Dave has black hair, Earl has long arms, Frank has a protruding jaw, Garth has a broad flat nose, and Harvey has small ears, you could not
correctly identity the race of those people because those traits occasionally appear in people of all races. 23 Lewontin and the egalitarians
would yell, “See, there is no such thing as race!” But suppose you are also told that those eight people are all the same person. Now you can
easily correctly identify his race because having a collection of certain traits, or the alleles that code for those traits, is how we identify a race.
(Figure 7-5). Some people become immortal for their discoveries, others for their mistakes. 24
Figure 7-7
Similarities between the original languages spoken in different geographical areas coincide well with genetic similarities, 25 suggesting
common ancestral populations. Figure 7-7 presents the results of an analysis of language similarities. In Figure 7-7, the small solid round
circles are the locations of the Y chromosomes of populations relative to the two principal coordinate axes and the dotted ellipses enclose
populations with similar languages. Note that language similarities coincide well (but not perfectly) with genetic similarities, as one would
expect. The “Khoisan” cluster is the Bushmen and Hottentots (pp. 224-226), the “Niger-Congo” cluster is the western s-S Africans, the “Afro-
Asiatic” cluster is the North Africans, Middle Easterners, and Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews, and the “Indo-European” cluster is the people
from India, the Australian aborigines, and the Europeans.
Chapter 8
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. More accurately, the number of differences in the A-C-G-T bases on each allele (the number of SNPs) is counted. If the bases are
different, but synonymous (see Appendix), that is still a SNP. However, SNPs are not the whole story. One SNP may make its allele 100%
compatible with all the other alleles, while another SNP may make its allele incompatible; counting SNPs does not capture that information,
which is relevant to the concept of “genetic distance.” Besides counting SNPs, the number of generations to an LCA could be counted; if you
are Caucasian, there are more generations between your LCA with an African than between your LCA with another Caucasian. The number
of paths of descent per generation (preferably weighted by relatedness) from you to your LCA with another person also provides an indication
of genetic distance; if the other person is the same race as you, that number will be greater than 1, its magnitude increasing with the amount
of inbreeding. All races are inbred, and inbreeding reduces the number of ancestors because more ancestors are the same individual,
thereby increasing the number of paths of descent. (Sailer, S., “’Pedigree Collapse’ Due to Inbreeding,” iSteve Blog, March 17, 2006). Back
2. The numerical result will depend upon the equations used, but the same relationships are obtained for the major methods. Back
3. Although identical twins have the same alleles, their environment may have altered the expression of those alleles in a way that is heritable
so, in that case, one might say that they differ genetically. Also, a process called “random monoallelic expression” causes individual cells to
switch off an allele received from one of the parents. (Gimelbrant, 2007). Back
4. “[O]n average, people are as closely related to other members of their subracial "ethnic" group (e.g., Japanese or Italian) versus the rest of
the world as they are related to their grandchildren or nephews and nieces versus the rest of their ethnic group.” (Sailer, 2007a). A race is “a
partly inbred extended family.” (Sailer, 2002). A race is “a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.” (Webster’s College
Dictionary, Random House). Back
5. Within the last 60,000 yrs, the genetic distance between the races has increased due to their more rapid evolution in different directions.
(Hawks, 2007; Barreiro, 2008). Back
6. The complete genomes of 2 Caucasians, 1 Asian, and 1 African (Nigerian) have now been sequenced, but only the two Caucasian
sequences have been released to the public. (“Illumina unveils genome sequence of African male,” Nature News, Feb. 13, 2008). Back
7. (Salter, 2003; the mathematics of doing this will be omitted). Genetic distance data can be mitochondrial or autosomal; it is not always clear
which are being used, but the mitochondrial values are much higher. (John Goodwin, "The Race FAQ"). Back
8. The genetic difference between Africans and Europeans is so distinct that the proportion of European admixture in African Americans can
be determined with a margin of error of only 0.02. (Destro-Bisol, 1999). Back
9. This is to be expected because people in the same geographical area face the same selectors and share alleles due to interbreeding.
“Racial categorizations have never been based on skin pigment, but on indigenous continent of origin.” (Risch, 2002). Back
10. (Witherspoon, 2007; graph A compares individual Africans to individual Europeans, graph B compares each individual to the centroid of
its population, and graph C compares alleles common in Africa to alleles common in Europe; also see "Italians," excerpted from Rosenberg,
2005). Back
11. Taken from (Salter, 2003, p. 64, based on Cavalli-Sforza, 1994). Comparisons can be made between populations, such as that the South
Chinese are about six times as closely related to the Koreans as they are to the Bantu (2963/498 = ~6). Back
12. The statement will therefore be true of any population where the genetic distance, “FST,” between it and Bantus is greater than 0.25%;
even if the “FST” of the population is less than 0.25%, the statement will still be true of a percentage of the population, which will increase with
its “FST” to the Bantus. (Salter, 2003, pp. 38, 45, 46, 64). Relatedness, r, = (½)n, where “n” is the number of generations between two related
people. (Salter, 2003, p. 38). For a parent and his child, n=1 so r = ½. Kinship, f = r/2 (Salter, p. 45), so your kinship to your child is ¼. The
local kinship coefficient, fo = FST + (1 – FST)[ –1/(2N – 1)], where “FST” is the genetic distance or variance and “N” is the number of people in
the population. (Salter, p. 46). If the population, N, is large, then – 1/(2N – 1) will be close to zero and fo ≈ FST. Back
13. In fact, people tend to choose mates who look like their parent of the opposite sex, thereby ensuring that their children will have more of
their alleles and that favorable traits will be passed on to their own children. (Bereczkei, 2004). Back
14. Craig Ventor, the “star” of the Human Genome Project, reported the 99.9% figure in 2001, but now admits that it is wrong and the true
figure is over 7 times greater. (World Science, “Finding said to show ‘race isn’t real’ scrapped,” Sept. 3, 2007). Back
15. (Tang, 2005) showed that self-described race coincides almost perfectly with genetically-identified race. (Korbel, 2007) found that
rearrangement of large chunks of DNA made the differences 2 to 5 times larger than the widely-quoted 0.1%. In addition, large strings of DNA
are duplicated, missing, or inverted, and that may be even more important for explaining racial differences. (Lucito, 2003; Eichler, 2006;
Nguyen, 2006; Redon, 2006). When those differences are included, people can differ genetically by at least 12%. (Redon, 2006; Komura,
2006). In addition to racial differences in alleles, there are also racial differences in the expression of those alleles. (Spielman, 2007). “The
genetic differences between continentally defined groups are sufficiently large that one can accurately predict ancestral continent of origin
using only a minute, randomly selected fraction of the genetic variation present in the human genome.” (Allocco, 2007; also see Newsome,
M., “The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA Profiling,” Wired, Oct. 5, 2007). Back
16. Breeds of dogs are vastly more different in appearance than races of people, yet they are so genetically similar that until 2003 geneticists
could not distinguish between them using DNA. (Sarich, 2004, p. 185). Back
17. Since behavioral changes drive genetic changes (Chap. 4, Rule 12), one can expect behavior to be vital to reproductive success and
therefore to be largely genetically controlled. Back
18. Entine, J., “Demystifying Genetics: What Sydney Can Teach Us About Science,” San Francisco Examiner, Sept. 20, 2000). (“Tiny genetic
differences have huge consequences,” PHYSORG.com, Jan. 19, 2008). Back
19. Hox genes are highly conserved, i.e., they don’t mutate much. “It is mind-boggling to realize that, for all intents and purposes, many
differences between a fruit fly and a human may lie pretty much in where and when certain homeobox genes are activated.” (Schwartz, 1999,
p. 13). “Geneticists believe that just one regulatory gene, the testis determining factor on the Y chromosome, is responsible for all sex
differences.” (Salter, 2003, p. 90). Back
20. “Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups.
Conventional geographic ‘racial’ groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes.” American Anthropological Association
Statement on “Race.” Similarly, "Greater mtDNA differences appeared within the single breeds of Doberman pinscher or poodle than between
dogs and wolves." (The 85% truism, Evo and Proud, Jan. 4, 2008). Back
21. In a 1972 paper, "The apportionment of human diversity," and again in a 1974 book, The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. Back
22. The popular science magazine, Discover, published (Jan., 2004, No. 25) an article, “Our Genes Prove It: We Are Family,” which asserted
“Humans are all so closely related that our entire population shows less genetic diversity than that of a small group of chimpanzees,” a
version of Lewontin’s Fallacy. Also see (Jared Diamond, “Race Without Color,” Discover, Nov., 1994). New Scientist (Buchanan, M., "Are we
born prejudiced?" Mar. 17-23, 2007) informs us that “… what we recognize as racial markers are biologically next to meaningless,” and
Scientific American ( Dec. 2003), published “Does Race Exist?” which denied that genetic information can be used to distinguish human
groups that have a common heritage and assign individuals to those groups, even though for about $100 you can have a DNA test done that
will do exactly that, though they will tell you it is the “geographical area” your ancestors came from, not your racial makeup; the origin of
Europeans can sometimes be determined from DNA to within a few hundred kilometers. None of these magazines apologized to their readers
for misleading them. “Repeatable, independent academic research has established that with 100 genetic markers, it is possible to sort people
whose known ancestors are from Africa, Europe, Asia, or the Americas with almost 100 percent accuracy.” (Sarich, 2004, p. 21; also,
Witherspoon, 2007). Other scientists determined the continent people came with “perfect intercontinental differentiation” using only 14 SNPs;
only 50 SNPs were needed to assign people to 9 different populations. (Paschou, 2007). Indeed, in some cases, "DNA could reveal your
surname" and, if you are European, your geographic origin "within a few hundred kilometers" of where you were born. (Novembre, 2008 Back
23. See (Witherspoon, 2001, 2007) for a detailed explanation of Lewontin's Fallacy. Actually, for some traits, such as Gm blood type, you
could fairly accurately determine a person’s race. A person who is fb1b3 is almost certainly white or who is ab1b3 is almost certainly s-S
African. Back
24. To be fair, Lewontin has made important contributions to biology, e.g., the mathematics of population genetics. On the other hand, he has
also denied that humans have genetic interests in their ethnies, again revealing his allegiance to politics over science. (Dobzhansky et al.,
ed., Evolutionary Biology, 1972, Vol. 6., pp. 381-98). Here is another example of Lewontin’s Fallacy by a group that should know better:
“Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups.
Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation
within "racial" groups than between them.” American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (May 17, 1998). Back
25. (Poloni, 1997). “Mex” is Mexican Indians, “Pol” is Polynesians, “Bas” is Basque, and “Chi” is Chinese. Lack of data prevented inclusion of
much of Asia in the graph. Back
Chapter 8 - Evolutionary Psychology 1

“Blood is thicker than water." 2
Heinrich der Glichezaere
Where you end up depends upon where you start. In other words, the conclusions
reached by correct reasoning are determined by one’s premises. Certainly, someone whose
premise is that all people are genetically equal will reach vastly different conclusions than a
person who believes there are significant genetic differences. In this chapter, the premise,
which is supported by evolution (Chap. 4), selection (Chap. 5), and genetic differences (Chap.
7), is that the alleles, and therefore the traits, that are passed on to and survive in future
generations, are those that code for traits that aid in putting those alleles into future
generations. That is so obvious, it may seem like a tautology, but it is not. The successful
alleles could be those that code for goodness, love, and universal brotherhood, but they are not,
because alleles get into the next generation not as a reward for virtue, but as a result of the
reproductive success that results from the traits they code for. That premise has profound
implications, as the remainder of this book will demonstrate.
Not only are there genetic differences between individuals but, as we saw in the
previous chapter, entire populations are, on average, genetically different from other
populations. In this chapter, we answer the questions, “Are people able to, at least roughly,
discern the genetic distance between themselves and others, i.e., whether others carry more of
the same alleles that they have?” and, “Do they act on that information to further their own
reproductive success?” In other words, are our alleles influencing our behavior to make us favor
our own alleles? 3 In this chapter, we examine the evolutionary rationality of inherited behavior;
we do not consider learned behavior, i.e., “culture.”
Shared Alleles
Genes are the unit of inheritance. Other than women nursing infants and organ
transplants, we don’t pass our flesh on to our descendants, as an amoeba does when it divides
into two amoebae. We don’t even pass on our traits – you cannot “give” your children your red
hair or high IQ. What we pass on is a copy of one of our two blueprints, i.e., half our
chromosomes, our gene regulators, and our mtDNA if we are female. Each of our 23 pairs of
chromosomes contains the same genes that everyone else has, but we will frequently have
alleles of those genes that are not the same as the alleles that many other people have. One
half of the father’s genes (23 chromosomes) become part of his sperm and one half of the
mother’s genes (23 chromosomes) become part of her egg, and the corresponding
chromosomes pair up again after fertilization. 4 Since portions of chromosomes are mixed up in
forming the 23 chromosomes for each sperm and for each egg (“cross-over,” p. 26), two
siblings, other than identical twins, could, theoretically, receive completely different alleles or
exactly the same alleles, depending upon luck during crossover and whether the mother and
father had no alleles that the other had or had all the same alleles that the other had (both very
unlikely). If the parents are 100% heterozygous their two siblings will, on average receive half of
the same alleles 5 but, since parents are likely to have some of the same alleles, siblings are
likely to have more than half their alleles in common.
When the father’s copy and the mother’s copy pair up in their child, only one allele in
each pair may be expressed, or each allele may be partly expressed. But alleles that aren’t
there cannot be expressed, i.e., you cannot have a heritable trait unless you have the particular
alleles that code for that trait. And, even if your child has the alleles for a trait, unless some of
his other alleles motivate and enable him to survive and reproduce, all of the alleles in his body
die when he does. Conversely, if the child does have alleles that motivate and enable him to
reproduce, each parent’s alleles in their child have at least a 50% chance of being passed on to
the child’s progeny. (If he receives the same allele of a gene from both parents, one of those
two alleles is certain to be passed on if he has progeny.) Alleles don’t “want” to survive
and get passed on. They are, after all,
just strings of DNA in a chromosome.
But if they code for traits that motivate
and enable the individual to pass them
on (alleles A in Figure 8-1), they may be
passed on; otherwise, they are not
passed on (alleles B in Fig. 8-1).
So, as Samuel Butler insightfully
put it (Life and Habit, 1877, p. 134), “A
hen is only an egg’s way of making
another egg.” That is, an individual, with
his collection of allele-expressed traits
that motivate him to reproduce, can be
thought of as his alleles’ way of making
more of those same alleles (in other Figure 8-1
individuals). This means that every
living thing must be “selfish,” in the sense of placing its own reproductive success first, or it is
simply out of the game. A unique collection of alleles in an “unselfish” organism, that makes no
effort to achieve reproductive success, lasts only a single generation. To put it more abstractly,
a fertilized egg contains a set of instructions that, given the appropriate environment, causes
another fertilized egg to be made that contains a copy of at least half of those same
instructions.
But alleles have another way of getting a copy of themselves into the next generation of
eggs, besides making the egg they are presently in become a reproducing hen (or rooster) that
makes more eggs. Since alleles are instructions written in DNA, animals don’t need to
reproduce the normal way, by putting copies of their DNA into an egg; they are just as
reproductively successful if the DNA that is put into the egg is identical to their DNA. Who puts
that DNA into the egg is of no biological importance because the next generation is the same
either way though, of course, having someone do the putting isn’t nearly as much fun. Thus, if
animals don’t reproduce at all, but instead help others of their species to put the same
instructions that they have into the eggs, they are just as reproductively successful as if they
themselves put a copy of their own DNA into those eggs.
Social insects, such as honeybees, are a good example of the “helping-others-
reproduce-who-have-my-alleles” reproductive strategy, i.e., “altruism.” 6) The worker bees are
females and do not reproduce, but they spend their lives helping the queen, their mother, to
reproduce. The resulting siblings carry, on average, three-fourths of the workers’ alleles. 7 Thus,
when the workers die of exhaustion without ever reproducing, they still pass on most their
alleles to the next generation through the siblings they fed and cared for, any one of which can
be fed royal jelly to turn it into another queen with three-fourths of their alleles.
Here is an amazing discovery about the relatedness of alleles: if a population is isolated
and its members breed among themselves, the relatedness among them can rise to as high as
½, the same as between parents and their children or between siblings! 8 Thus, if that maximum
were to be reached, the members of that group could help pass on their unique alleles as much
by helping another member of their group as they could by helping their own brother or sister.
Indeed, if another member of their group is better positioned to reproduce (younger, healthier,
better traits), a member could increase his reproductive success more by helping him than by
helping his own siblings. 9 Every person therefore has a genetic interest in the welfare of his
own group, ethny, and race, and favoring them over others is rational and adaptive. 10
Alleles that code for altruistic behavior are more advantageous in populations where
individuals are able to identify and help those who carry their alleles, e.g., where relatives don’t
scatter, individuals differ genetically in their appearance, odor, or behavior (so that those having
similar traits can be identified), and pair bonding reduces promiscuity (so that men know who
their children are). Racial differences in altruism have not yet been quantified, 11 but northern
populations, which pair bond more and are more “K” orientated reproductively, should be more
genetically altruistic.
Like all traits, there is an optimal amount of altruism. Too little or too much means
resources are not being used to maximize reproductive success and, as with other traits,
populations will tend to evolve towards the optimal amount of altruism. A population that is
reproductively isolated, and therefore inbreed and less diverse, will have a higher optimal
amount of altruism because the likelihood that others carry the same alleles is higher. If two
reproductively isolated populations, one high in altruism and the other low in altruism, are
intermixed, they will each continue expressing their differing degrees of altruism, the low
altruism population taking advantage of the generosity of the high altruism population. This is
the situation that now exists in the multicultural western nations, where genetically different
immigrants from the warmer climates, who are less altruistic, have been allowed to move into
northern wealthier nations whose populations are genetically closely related and who have a
higher optimal amount of altruism.
Now that you know the behavior predicted by the logic of our genes, let’s see if real
people actually behave that way. Altruism is most commonly seen in animals that live in inbreed
groups, such as humans, especially if they care for their young. 12 We make our greatest
sacrifices for our children 13) because, unless we have an identical twin, our children carry more
of our alleles than any of our other relatives (your parents may carry about the same number as
your children but, since they are older, they may be less likely to reproduce and less in need).
Your child has at least half of your alleles, 14 so if you help him survive (so that he can
reproduce), you are helping at least half of your alleles to survive and, hopefully, make you a
happy grandparent. The more related you are to another person, the greater the number of your
alleles he is likely to carry, and the more your sacrifice for him increases your fitness, your
likelihood of reproductive success. 15 Alleles in common, and therefore altruism, decreases with
increasing genetic distance, i.e., from blood family members to blood relatives to ethny to race
to species to genus, etc. 16 If you have a will and your wealth goes mostly to your relatives in
approximately the order they are related to you, then you behave as predicted.
If you have ever been to a funeral, you have probably observed that the amount of grief
that you and other mourners feel is proportional to how closely you and they are related to the
deceased. Indeed, that is so obvious and normal that people would be puzzled if it were not so.
Grandparents grieve more for their daughter’s children than their son’s children, because they
are more certain they are related (Littlefield, 1986), i.e., their son’s wife may have cheated on
him. And identical twins grieve more for their dead co-twin than do fraternal twins, who sharer
fewer alleles. (Rushton, 2005a; Segal, 2002). In general, people grieve more for someone who
has more of his alleles (e.g., a child of the same race), as that is a greater genetic loss. 17
Unrelated people living together are more likely to kill each other than are related
people. (Daly, 1988). Children in the U.S. are about 100 times as likely to be abused or
murdered by a parent if one of the parents is a stepparent. (Schnitzer, 2005; Daly, 1988). We
care more about our own children than the children of strangers, we practice nepotism, our
charity is greater when we give to our own ethny, and we even care more about how we treat
gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans than we do about mice, which aren’t as closely related.
A man will help his sister’s children more than his brother’s children because his brother’s wife
may have cuckolded him, but he knows his sister’s children are related to him and carry his
alleles. 18 For the same reason, we help our mother’s sister’s children more than our other
cousins (Jeon, 2007) and maternal grandparents are more willing to travel to see their
grandchildren than paternal grandparents. (Pollet, 2007). “Blood is thicker than water” because
our alleles are pulling the strings, and those persons who did not have alleles pulling their
strings to induce them to pass on their alleles have long since departed without progeny. 19
And how do we know how closely related another person is to us? It was only recently in
man’s history that he kept records of who his relatives were, but there are two methods that can
be, and are, used, even by animals: (1) Location – if it is in your nest, it is probably yours. That
is why, when cowbirds lay their eggs in the nests of other species, the non-parents feed them
even when the rapidly growing cowbird chicks push their own chicks out onto the ground. (2)
Traits – the more it looks like you, smells like you, and behaves like you, the more of your
alleles it is likely to have. Although humans do smell and behave differently, appearance is
more telling. (Rushton, 2005b). A woman knows for certain who her children are, but until DNA
analysis came along, a man could never be sure. That is why the first words a new mother says
to her mate are, “He looks just like you.” 20 She is reassuring him that he is, indeed, the father,
so that he will make sacrifices that will enhance her baby’s chances of surviving.
Amazingly, people pick not only spouses (Bereczkei, 2008) and friends (Rushton, 1989)
who have similar traits, and are therefore more genetically similar, but even pick pets that look
similar to themselves. 21 And the more heritable a trait is, the more it is used to determine how
closely related someone is. (Rushton, 2005a).
In other words, we are attracted to our own traits in others. 22 We do not have to be
consciously aware that we are doing this because our alleles provide us with stimulation to the
pleasure centers of our brain if we do it. All we have to do is “act normally” and not consciously
resist our desire for that pleasure. 23 Even though we try to treat all our children equally, it is
hard to resist favoring those who are most similar to us.
And how could it be otherwise? People who favor carriers of dissimilar alleles over
carriers of similar alleles are killing off their own alleles. Before a population can be moral,
creative, productive, or anything else, it must first survive and pass on its alleles.
Inter-Ethny Dynamics
Now let us apply the findings of evolutionary psychology to the behavior between
ethnies, which are groups of people who are not necessarily close relatives, but are more
genetically-related to each other than to people in another group. Nations were first formed from
ethnies to reduce internal conflicts and to protect and advance interests of the ethny vis-à-vis
other ethnies, just as individuals act to advance their individual interests. Thus, “nations” were,
at least in part, founded on genetic similarity. 24 Today, egalitarians promote “concept nations”
– politically organized groups of mixtures of ethnies who supposedly share common values,
e.g., democracy, Western standards of behavior and justice, etc. Concept nations can not be
stable (i.e., long lasting), however, because the individuals within them can advance their own
genetic interests more by helping individuals of their own ethny than by helping individuals of
other ethnies, and that is exactly what they do, for the simple reason that those who do not do
that will have less reproductive success and will eventually go extinct; favoring one’s own ethny
can be avoided only if the nation comprises a single ethny, i.e., multiculturalism is not stable.
Moreover, the more inbred (i.e., genetically related) people within the ethnies in a mixed ethny
concept nation are, the more ethnocentric they will be and the more they will act to advance the
interests of their own ethny vis-à-vis other ethnies.
When ethnies are in the same territory, they will compete for resources and there will be
ethnic conflicts, the severity of which will be roughly proportional to their ethnocentrism and the
genetic distance between them. 25 A mutually beneficial relationship (“mutualism”) between

ethnies living in the same territory is not stable because the carrying capacity of all territories is
limited and each ethny either expands its own population or eventually goes extinct. 26 Only if
ethnies live in different territories and meet only to trade are stable, mutually beneficial
relationships between them possible, 27 and that is the only stable relationship between
ethnies.
When ethnies live in the same territory, their relationship will not for long be a mutually
beneficial one. Instead, one ethny will be a predator and the other its prey, or one ethny will be
a parasite and the other its host. In both cases, the prey or host does not consent and therefore
neither relationship is stable. In a predator-prey relationship, the predator ethny uses open
violence against the prey ethny, e.g., colonialism, slavery, war, local gangs. In a parasite-host
relationship, however, open violence by the parasitic ethny is not possible as the host ethny is
more numerous and is militarily dominant. 28 Moreover, the host ethny regards the parasitic
activities of the parasitic ethny as unfair, unethical, immoral, illegal, or criminal, making it
necessary for the parasitic ethny to either (1) conceal its parasitism so that the host ethny is not
aware that it is being parasitized or (2) incapacitate its host ethny 29 so that even though its
host ethny is aware that it is being parasitized, it is unable to free itself. Both require controlling
the media 30 and the government - a “covert coup.” These tactics are major and expensive
operations requiring years to put into place. They are therefore available only to a parasitic
ethny that has access to a great deal of wealth. When the host ethny discovers that it is being
parasitized, and it is able to free itself, the parasite-host relationship ends, perhaps not
pleasantly for those in the parasitic ethny. Neither a predator-prey relationship nor a parasite-
host relationship is likely to last indefinitely because conflict is inherent in both relationships.
There are two possible resolutions of ethnic conflict over territory: (1) one ethny wins and
destroys or expels the other or (2) the ethnies interbreed and become a single ethny. Expelling
the parasitic ethny preserves the genetic uniqueness both ethnies; interbreeding destroys it.
Individuals within the parasitic ethny develop a set of values, even a religion, that
justifies their parasitism, simply because those individuals who feel their behavior is their right
and feel no remorse, shame, or guilt are more effective parasites and are therefore
reproductively more successful. Individuals in the parasitic ethny are therefore selected for a
lack of empathy, i.e., for sociopathy; such individuals differ genetically from everyone else in
that their mirror neurons, which enable people to empathize with the feelings of others, are
absent or turned off. The parasitic ethny will rather quickly achieve a high percentage of
sociopaths, people who are charismatic, charming, and often well-liked, but whose only goal in
life is winning, i.e., defeating those outside their ethny. 31 The parasitic ethny cannot become
less virulent, as microbial parasites do,32 because they are too invested – genetically, socially,
religiously, and culturally – in their parasitic lifestyle and less parasitic individuals within their
ethny are selected against even by others in their own ethny, i.e., they do not rise to positions of
influence within their ethny. Like all parasites, they are specialized and cannot easily become
more generalized. 33 Host and parasite ethnies are on a collision course and neither can back
down.
– – – o0o – – –
The evidence that human behavior is so strongly influenced by our genes is disturbing
news to the egalitarians, who want man to be brain-washable, 34 so that his behavior can be
controlled, which is difficult or impossible if behavior is in our genes, even if the genetic
influence is subtle. Now the findings in evolutionary psychology have become even more
controversial and abhorrent to the egalitarians because, as we saw in the preceding chapter,
geneticists have found that individuals of the same ethnicity and/or race share more of the
same alleles than do others and, as described in the last few paragraphs, sharing alleles can
strongly affect the behavior of genetically cohesive groups as well as individuals. To those of us
whose minds are not self-censored, this may seem obvious, but it is an unwelcome truth to the
egalitarians, for whom everyone must be genetically the same in order to be genetically equal.
And not only are people genetically different, but they are genetically programmed to favor
others who are genetically similar 35 – horror of horrors, racism is not only genetic, but it serves
our most important biological purpose – the survival of our alleles! 36
Section II
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. Scientists who studied the relationship between behavior towards others and possession of
similar alleles were initially called “sociobiologists” (Wilson, 1975), but they were so vilified by
the egalitarians that they changed the name of their science to “evolutionary
psychology.” (Barkow, 1992). Genetic similarity theory (Rushton, 2000a, pp. 69-90), i.e., "birds
of a feather flock together," and population genetics are subsets of evolutionary psychology.
Back
2. "Verwandschaftsblut wird nicht durch Wasser verdünnt." (c. 1130, “Reynald the Fox”) Back
3. The premise of evolutionary psychology is that inherited behavior, like all inherited traits, is
present (barring abnormalities) because it enhanced reproductive success. Back
4. Just to be clear, each parent contributes half of his (or her) child’s chromosomes and
therefore half of the child’s alleles, i.e., two alleles for each gene, one from each parent. That
does not mean that only half of the child’s alleles are identical to that parent’s alleles. The more
of one parent’s alleles that are the same as the other parent’s alleles, the more alleles the child
will have that are the same as that parent’s, if the other parent donated the corresponding allele
for that gene that is in the chromosome he did not donate (and the probability that he or she will
do so is ½). Thus, a person can pass on more of his alleles if he chooses a mate who is
genetically more similar to himself and therefore who has more of the same alleles that he has.
A child could have 100% of one parent’s alleles if one parent has a set A of alleles in one
chromosome and a set B in the other chromosome, the other parent has sets B and C, and the
child receives set B from one parent and set C from the other. "Sexually interacting couples
who produced a child together are more genetically similar than either randomly paired
individuals or sexually interacting couples in which the male is excluded from paternity. The two
sexually interacting groups combined share about 50% of measured genetic markers [on
average], part way between the mothers and their offspring who share 73%, and the randomly
generated dyads [couples] who share 43%. Thus these results demonstrate that successful
human mating follows lines of genetic similarity." (Rushton, 1988). Back
5. Each child of 100% heterozygous parents will, on average, share half his alleles with each of
his siblings because the probability that any allele he receives from one of his parents will be
the same allele that his sibling receives from that parent is ½. It is likely, however, that he will
have more alleles in common with some siblings than he will have with other siblings.
(Patterson, 1999, p. 59). We feel closer to some of our children, siblings, cousins, etc. than to
others, perhaps because we share more than the average number of alleles with them for that
relationship. It is theoretically possible to list every person on the planet in order according to
the number of alleles they have in common with you. Generally, the order would be family at the
top, then relatives, ethny, and race. Some children, siblings, etc. would be tied with other
children, siblings, etc., but many would not be. Back
6. (Dawkins, 1976). Altruism as a reproductive strategy requires individuals to recognize in

others the same traits that they have (and therefore probably the same alleles that they have,
though the same traits may be coded for by different alleles that they do not have) and give
those others preferential treatment, thereby assisting in the reproduction of copies of their own
alleles. An allele may cause not only a noticeable trait but also a predisposition to be favorable
to others having that trait, or an allele may be linked to another allele that causes such a
predisposition. (Wikipedia, “Green-Beard Effect”; Hamilton, 1964; Dawkins, 1976, p. 89).
Altruism, in the sense of putting the values of others ahead of one’s own values, is not possible,
since every action we take is to achieve values that we have made our own. Back
7. Since “normal” reproduction passes on only ½ of one’s alleles, not ¾, the worker bees’
altruistic strategy is actually more reproductively successful than normal. The reason it is ¾ for
the workers and not ½ is that when a queen lays an egg she can fertilize it, so that it has a full
set of 32 chromosomes and become a worker, or she can leave it unfertilized so that it has only
16 chromosomes and becoming a drone. The drone then makes millions of genetically identical
sperm, each with the same 16 chromosomes, and mates with a queen from another hive. When
that queen uses that sperm to lay a batch of fertilized eggs, all the resulting workers in that
batch will receive identical 16 chromosomes from that drone plus 16 chromosomes from their
queen, which are only ½ identical (due to crossover). So, of the 32 chromosomes in the eggs
that will become workers, three fourths are identical (½ + ¼ = ¾), a strong motivation for their
altruistic behavior towards siblings. Even some plants recognize their relatives and act to
benefit them. (Yoon, C.K., "Loyal To Its Roots," New York Times, June 10, 2008). Back
8. (Hamilton, 1975; cited in Salter, 2003, p. 54). “Relatedness,” is not the same as “kinship” or
“FST genetic distance.” (See Chap. 12, FN 12). Also, since kinship is ½ of relatedness, the
kinship between two random persons in the same ethnic group can be greater than the kinship
between one of those persons and his grandparent or grandchild. Back
9. Not only that, but if a person is altruistic, then related people are also likely to have his
altruistic alleles and may well reciprocate any sacrifices he makes for them. (Gardner, 2007).
Back
10. In other words, Mother Nature is a racist! This is bad news for egalitarians but the blow can
be softened by seeing genetically-based altruism as creating close, caring, and unselfish
relationships with the genetically similar, instead of as hostility towards the genetically distant.
Back
11. (Nedelcu, 2006). The genes responsible for altruism are just beginning to be identified.
(Knafo, 2007). Back
12. Even microbes, e.g., bacteria, act cooperatively according to relatedness. (West, 2007;
Griffin, 2004). Marmoset fraternal twins can be chimeras, each twin having some alleles of the
other. Thus, when a chimeric mother has children “her” egg may have been made with the
alleles of her twin. If that happens, somehow the parents know it, and the non-chimeric father of
her children cares for them more, but the chimeric mother cares for them less as they have
fewer of her alleles. (Ross, 2007). Back
> 13. “Raising Your $290,000 Dollar Baby,” MSN Money, Aug. 10, 2007. Back
14. Your spouse may have given your child other alleles that you also have but did not pass on
to your child. Back
15. If you help a person who is genetically distant from you, you may decrease your
reproductive success if persons who do share your alleles have to compete with the person you
help, e.g., you help genetically-distant immigrants enter the country. Similarly, if you mate with a
genetically-distant person, your child may carry fewer of your alleles than a person your child
competes with; in that case, you would be more reproductively successful if you had not had the
child. Back
16. That ordering suggests a preference in the opposite direction, i.e., for one’s own species
over other species, one’s own race over other races, etc. This is the basis for nepotism,
favoring relatives over non-relatives. For the same reason, one favors those of his own ethny
and race over those of other ethnies and races. Back
17. (Littlefield, 1986). One sees this even in the news and television crime shows, where white
victims, especially children and women, draw more interest from white viewers than shows with
black victims. Back
18. The extent of a male’s inborn cuckold-preventing behavior is surprising. It includes jealous
rage and deeper thrusts during intercourse after a long absence to “vacuum out” the sperm of
other men. (Shackelford, 2007; Baker, 2006). It is so important to a male that his alleles be
passed on, even versus those of a closely related male, that even circumcision (Wilson, 2008)
and infanticide (DeWaal, 1997, pp. 118-123) have been attributed to it. Back
19. Another good example is the Moslem countries in the Middle East, such as Iraq, where
nearly half of the married couples are first or second cousins. This creates an intense genetic
interest in members of one’s own clan, as they share so many of a person’s alleles, which
makes democracy difficult (Sailer, 2003) because democracy is clan against clan for the spoils
of the state. Back
20. Because of this “parental uncertainty,” men are much more concerned that their children
look like them, which may be one reason why there is more miscegenation by white women
than by white men. It is a common belief that children do look more like their fathers, especiallly
when the the children are very young; evolutionary psychology implies that children who look
like their fathers would receive more support from their fathers and would therefore have
greater reproductive success. Back
21. (Rushton, 2005a & 2005b). Rushton has a hilarious collection of slides of people and their
very similarly-appearing pets. Men are attracted to women who look like their mother, and
women to men who are similar to their father (Bereczkei, 2008), thereby increasing the number
of their own alleles in their children. Back
22. A person rates his own face, morphed into the opposite sex, as most attractive, even when
he doesn’t know it is his morphed face. (Penton-Voak, 1999). Back
23. The nucleus accumbens in our brain gives us pleasure to induce us to increase our fitness,
e.g., at the prospect of obtaining sex or money; conversely, we feel discomfort at the prospect
of our fitness being reduced. (Knutson, 2008). Of course, sometimes maladaptive culture or
psychopathology interferes with our programming, and we act contrary to our programming.
Back
24. A “nation” was originally synonymous with an ethny; American Indian “nations” are good
examples. Indeed, the word "nation" comes from the Latin "nationem," which meant an ethny or
race. People in an ethny are not only genetically related, but are culturally similar, e.g., in
language, religion, and traditions. “[A people constitute] a nation because they are conscious of
being ‘members one of another’ and of being different from the peoples of other lands. They
are, and always have been, an inbreeding people. They have a particular affection for their
native land. . . . If their country or its people are in jeopardy . . . they rally to its defense; they
would give their lives freely to preserve the integrity of the land and the liberty of its people...
They are sharers in a common interest and in a common destiny; they hope and believe that
their stock will never die out. They inhabit a sharply delimited territory and claim to own
it.” (Salter, 2002a, quoting Keith, A., A New Theory of Human Evolution, 1968/1947, pp. 316–
17). Note that countries whose boundaries were not ethnically demarcated, e.g., the U.S.S.R.,
Yugoslavia, Iraq, and many African countries, are mired in violent conflicts. The genetic
distance between races is greater than the genetic distance between ethnies within a race, so
much of what applies to ethnies will also apply to races. Back
25. The reader who is interested in the evolutionary psychology of ethnic conflict dynamics is
referred to the trilogy of Kevin MacDonald, his magnum opus, A People That Shall Dwell Alone
(1994), Separation and Its Discontents (1998), and especially The Culture of Critique (1998).
Back
26. See the discussion of Gause’s Law of Competitive Exclusion. Back
27. In a symbiotic relationship, individuals of different species cooperate for their mutual benefit,
e.g., a clown fish and an anemone or us and the bacteria in our gut, but that occurs only
because each species supplies to the other something that it cannot provide for itself. But within
the same species, e.g., two human ethnies, it is difficult to think of a needed good that each
ethny can supply to the other, but cannot make itself. The closest approximation might be
manual labor, supplied by blacks, and intellectual labor, supplied by whites, but that was tried in
slavery and apartheid and was not stable. Back
28. (William Engdahl) calls Great Britain a parasitic country because, when it was an empire, it
exploited other countries (e.g., India, China, South Africa, the Middle East, and the United
States), but it was militarily dominant and did not have to conceal its exploitation, so it was
mostly a predator. Because a parasitic ethny has interests that conflict with the interests of its
host ethny, a parasitic ethny-host ethny relationship can be considered to be "a nation within a
nation." Although the parasitic ethny is a net parasite, not every individual in a parasitic ethny is
parasitic; indeed, since there is a range of traits within an ethny, some members of a parasitic
ethny may be very productive and beneficial to the host ethny. Nevertheless, productive
members will sympathize and usually support parasitic members because they are more closely
related to them than they are to members of the host ethny.
Parasitic ethnies will also differ in their degree of parasitism. The degree of parasitism
could be determined by the net transfer of wealth, in dollars, between the two populations, but
dollars do not capture the entirety of what individuals value (Fuerle, 1986, 2003) and the harm
done to the host ethny by parasitism can far exceed the benefit to the parasitic ethny. That is
why stopping the parasitism can cause an economic boom for the host ethny, e.g., Germany
and Japan in the 1930’s. Like a thief who steals $100 worth of copper piping from a house,
causing $40,000 in damage, the "parasite load" can cost the host ethny much more than the
benefit the parasitic ethny obtains. That is why, when the parasite is removed, the recovery of
the host can be dramatic. Germany and Japan boomed after they freed themselves of the
Jewish-controlled usury banking system (i.e., a central bank creates money out of thin air, then
loans it to the government, charging the government interest on their debt).
The degree of parasitism could also be determined by exposing all the activities of the
parasitic ethny, including wealth transfers, then observing the extent of the action by the host
ethny against them. Gypsies are usually expelled, though Great Britain has foolishly welcomed
them. And if Jews were assets, they would not have been expelled from almost all European
countries, sometimes more than once. (F. Roderich-Stoltheim, The Riddle of the Jews Success,
pp. 25-28, translated from German in 1927 by C. Pownall). Blacks have so far been expelled
only from England (edicts by Queen Elizabeth I in 1596 and 1601), though Lincoln wanted to
send them back to Africa (Peoria, Illinois, Oct. 16, 1854), as did Francis Scott Key, John
Randolph, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, and Henry Clay. (Putnam, 1961, p. 62). Wealth
transfers and “white flight” clearly show that the white-black relationship is host-parasite. It is not
the white population as a whole that desires the presence of other ethnies in its midst, but
individuals within the white population who benefit at the expense of the remainder of the white
population. In the U.S., businesses benefit from low wage workers and the federal government
has created a “refugee industry” that profits from subsidies for refugees. (Allen, T., “Time to Cap
the Refugee Industry,” VDARE.com, May 6, 2003). Back
29. A parasitic ethny gaining control of the government and media of the host ethny is
analogous to animal parasites that gain control of nervous system of its host and cause the host
to behave in ways that benefit the parasite, but are detrimental to the host. Here are a few
examples: the Lancet liver fluke in ants; the Toxoplasma protozoa in rats and mice; "brain-
jacking" in crustaceans by the thorny-headed worm; and a parasitic wasp that turns its host into
a bodyguard. Back
30. The uncontrolled internet is now the primarily source of what is really going on, while the
controlled media (TV, movies, big newspapers, magazines, and book publishers) is like a
magician's beautiful assistant, distracting you so you don't look behind the curtain. Back
31. (Stout, 2005). Nor do sociopaths have any compunctions about defeating those within their
own ethny, but sociopaths are intelligent enough to realize that they need their co-ethnics.
Worse, although frustration creates anger in all of us, in a sociopath, whose goal is winning over
and defeating others, frustration creates an intense need for revenge against and humiliation of
the host ethny – it is not enough to just defeat the enemy. (Keeling, 1947). Conversely, a host
ethny is selected by the parasitic ethny for the opposite qualities – wealth creating, trusting,
altruistic, welcoming, and decent. Back
32. While a natural parasite that needs its host to infect another host usually become less
deadly, because deadly parasites perish with their host (Ewald, 1996), for a parasitic ethnic
group that would require restraint from their most sociopathic members out of concern for
others in their ethny, behavior that requires the empathy they lack. Back
33. (Chap. 4, Rule 3). Virtually all large species have parasites that are specialized to that
species, and there are even some species of parasites are specialized to live off another
species of parasite. One may well expect that, like other parasites, a parasitic ethny will be too
specialized to be successful once it is separated from its host ethny and, indeed, that is the
case; all black-run territories are economic and political disasters (Chapter 15) and Israel
requires massive military and economic aid from the U.S. and Europe to stay afloat. Back
> 34. The Student Accountability in Community (SAC) program at Michigan State University
forced students to pay for, attend, and “pass” brainwashing sessions if they make “sexist,
homophobic, or racist remarks at a meeting” or else be kicked out of the University. (Lukianoff,
G., "Thought Reform and Compelled Speech at Michigan State, Foundation for Individual
Rights in Education, Dec. 14, 2006). In 2007, the University of Delaware had a “treatment”
program for students with “incorrect” beliefs. A "racist" was defined as "one who is both
privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term
applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States. . . . By
this definition, people of color cannot be racists,..." and two of the requirements were: "Students
will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society." and "Students will recognize the
benefits of dismantling systems of oppression." (Unruh, B., “University defends teaching
students all whites ‘racist’,” World Net Daily, Nov. 1, 2007). Back
35. Even different areas of the brain are used for people who are different and who are similar.
(Mitchell, 2006). Back
36. Xenophobia and the avoidance of people outside one’s own group may be an instinctual
disease-avoidance mechanism as a person is likely to have antibodies to the diseases in his
own population, but not to the diseases of other populations. (Navarrete, 2006; Fincher, 2008;
Faulkner, 2004). Note how Native Americans in both North and South America were decimated
by diseases brought over by the Europeans. (The reverse did not happen because the Indians
were less concentrated and more migratory, making it more difficult for contagious diseases to
become established.) Nevertheless, the most compelling reason for zenophobia and racism is
that the "other" is a competitor who carries fewer of one's alleles than those in one's own ethny.
Back
Section II Page 1 of 3
SECTION II
Traits of Living Populations
“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes."
Chico Marx, in Duck Soup
This section presents the case for race-realism, that there are real and important racial
differences. The race-deniers insist that we believe “there is no such thing as ‘race’,” but in this
section we examine what our lying eyes tell us. 1 Sergeant Friday, on the old TV show
“Dragnet,” always wanted “Just the facts, ma’am,” so let us examine the facts, as best they can
be found, about living human populations, particularly the three major races. 2 Egalitarians do
not take kindly to this information, but no progress can be made without facing the facts and
dealing with them. 3
Racial differences arise for the same reasons that different species do – populations
become isolated and gradually change, and there is little or no inflow of alleles from other
populations. Although it is widely taught and accepted that “’race’ is just a social construct,” 4
the scientific evidence tells a different story. 5 The egalitarians may insists that a black person is
no different than a white person with nappy hair and a sun tan 6 but, as this Section will
document, there are actually hundreds (if not thousands) of racial differences besides skin color
and hair and, to a scientist who studies racial differences, those are not even the most
important differences. The focus of the race-deniers solely on skin color is an attempt to
trivialize racial differences. Of far greater importance than skin color are differences in bone and
tooth shape and structure, muscle size, brain size and intelligence, and behavior. All of the traits
discussed in this section are heritable, which means that they are largely controlled by genes,
not the environment.
Since any theory of human origins must account for the presence of living ethnic and
racial groups and the differences between them, it is important to know exactly what those
differences are. First, we will examine the three principal populations (races) indigenous to
Africa, Europe, and Asia. Since races have mixed somewhat almost everywhere, we will limit
the discussion primarily to those populations that have mixed less and better epitomize the
three major races.
There are genetically different populations within each
of those three races, 7 but the populations in s-S Africa
(“Negroids”) differ the most. For example, in the s-S Africans,
8 there are Capoids (Bushmen and Hottentots, who live
around the Cape), Nilotids, who live around the Nile River
basin, and the Congoids, who live around the Congo and
Niger River basins (West Africa). The Capoids and Nilotids
have some Asian and Caucasian features due to
interbreeding, but the Congoids are less hybridized so they
will be used as the prototypical s-S Africans (Fig. II-1; Coon,
1962, plate IV). Most African Americans came from the Slave
Coast of West Africa 9 and their African ancestors were
Congoids. Africans living north of the Sahara Desert will be
“North Africans.” Figure II-1
http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/SecII.html 07/09/2009
“Blacks” will mean people of noticeable African heritage (e.g., tightly curled black hair,
broad nose, large lips), regardless of where they are living or their degree of admixture with
other races. “Europeans” or “whites” will mean Caucasoids who are of European heritage and
have no obvious mixed heritage. “Mongoloids” or “East Asians” will refer to NE Asians who are
at least somewhat cold-adapted.
Chapter 9
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. “[T]he various [human] races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each
other,—as in the texture of hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of
the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even the convolutions of the brain. But it would
be an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference. The races differ also in
constitution, in acclimatization and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics
are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their
intellectual faculties.” (Darwin, 1871, pp. 461-474). “[T]he people in 'race denial' are in 'reality
denial' as well. … Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits,
and so on are over 80 percent accurate alone [in determining race], and in combination produce
very high levels of accuracy. … I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains
than from looking at living people standing before me. …The idea that race is 'only skin deep' is
simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.” (Gill, G.W., “Does Race
Exist?,” 2000). “In the context of forensic anthropology, the term race is unambiguous.” (Rhine,
S. "Forensic Anthropology"). Back
2. The egalitarians, who insist that we “celebrate diversity,” have done their best to prevent
anyone from determining just what that diversity is so that it can be celebrated. Thus, the reader
will find that for many traits older data had to be used, if any data at all could be found. Back
3. Physical anthropology, the science which initially studied racial differences, has surrendered
to the Equality Police and abdicated that role. Fortunately, the egalitarians have not yet
persuaded the public that murderers should go free rather than admit that bones and other
remains can be identified by race, and forensic science has filled in some of the gap. Forensic
manuals and journals (e.g., The Journal of Forensic Sciences) provide techniques for
determining what egalitarians insist does not exist – race. Back
4. One might wonder how adults can think race is just a social construct when babies as young
as 3 months old prefer faces of their own race (Bar-Heim, 2006; Kelly, 2005), genetic analysis
can identify the (self-identified) race of people with nearly 100% accuracy (Tang, 2005), and
pathologists and forensic anthropologists can easily tell the race of a person from examining
only a fleshless skull. Some egalitarians are even farther from reality: “Many social scientists
have gone so far as to claim that kinship is a social construction with no connection to
biology." (Steven Pinker, “The Genealogy Craze in America: Strangled by Roots,” The New
Republic, Aug. 6, 2007). Back
5. “Races differ in the extent and manner in which the fine subcutaneous muscles of the lips
and cheeks have become differentiated from the parent mammalian muscle body; in the
chemical composition of hair and of bodily secretions, including milk; in the ways in which
different muscles are attached to bones; in the sizes and probably secretion rates of different
endocrines; in certain details of the nervous system, as, for example, how far down in the
lumbar vertebrae the neural canal extends; and in the capacity of individuals to tolerate
crowding and stress.” (Coon, 1962, p. 662). Back
6. The fact that many whites want darker skin, but do not want to be black, shows that race is
not skin deep. Back
7. Europeans are sometimes divided into Nordic (northwestern Europe), Alpine (central and
eastern Europe), and Mediterranean (southern Europe and northern Africa). (Boyd, 1955). Back
8. North Africans (north of the Sahara) have so much Caucasian heritage that they are usually
classified separately from the s-S Africans. Back
9. See “Forest Negroes” in Figure 26-2. The Slave Coast is present day Togo, Benin, and
western Nigeria. Slavery began on the east Coast of Africa, where Arabs went deep into the
continent capturing mostly female slaves. On the Slave Coast, Europeans traded goods for
slaves captured by other Africans and wanted workers, not concubines. (Wikipedia, “History of
Slavery”). Back
Chapter 9 - Hard Tissue

First, let’s look at skulls from different races of man. Although no two skulls are identical, here are skulls that are typical of the races;
first an Asian skull (Figure 9-1) and a Caucasian skull. (Figure 9-2). 1
Overall, the dome of the Asian skull is round and the face is flat. 2 Although the Caucasian
skull is a bit longer (top to bottom), it is very similar to the Asian skull, indicating that the Asians and
Caucasians did not separate into two races all that long ago, or that there was interbreeding
between their lineages.
Figure 9-3 shows a male African-American skull. 3 Although this skull is described as being
of an African-American, it has many African features. (The drawing of the “Negro” skull in Figure 9-9
may better epitomize the Congoid skull.)
The African skull is quite different from the Asian and Caucasian skulls, indicating a much
greater genetic distance between Eurasians and Africans than between Europeans and Asians.
Compared to Asian and Caucasian skulls, the African skull is narrower. The bones of the skull (and
the rest of the body) are denser and thicker. The eye sockets are rounder and proportionately larger
and the distance between them is greater. The slight bump at the top of the head suggests a
“saggital keel,” a ridge along the top of the head from the forehead to the back of the skull for
attaching chewing muscles and strengthening the skull from blows received in fighting. 4 The
opening for the nose is wider, the nose bones protrude less, and the teeth more massive, with the
incisors meeting at an angle (also see Figure 26-11).
The most noticeable difference, however, is the protruding jaw, a condition known as
“prognathism,” a trait found in apes and in ancient human fossil skulls, even those not from Africa.
The considerable gap between the cheekbones (“zygomatic arches”) and the indentation on the
sides behind the eye sockets (“post-orbital constriction”) indicate that the more massive jaw was
serviced by powerful chewing muscles that passed through the gap. Figures 9-4 and 9-5 provide a Figure 9-3
side-by side comparison of the skulls of an African of the Manbettu tribe in the northern Congo basin
and an Englishman. 5 The African skull has less prominent nose bones and chin, a deeper jaw and the bone that supports the jaw (the
“ascending ramus”) is wider; the shape of the skulls is also different.
Table 9-1 lists a number of the more significant hard tissue traits that differ between the races, including a few in Australian aborigines
(AA), Homo erectus (He), Neanderthals (Hn), chimpanzees (C), and gorillas (G). A hyphen indicates no data and the notes after the table
explain the differences more fully.
Trait Asians Europeans Africans AA, He, Hn, C, & G
Skull
AA: 1290 cc
Endocranial Volume 6 1491 cc 1441 cc 1338 cc He: 1000-1200 cc
C: 500 cc
Thinner and lighter Thin and light (less AA&He: Thickest and
Cranial bones (1) Thick and dense (robust)
(gracile) gracile) densest
Cranial sutures (2) Complex Complex Simpler He: Simpler
Permanently
1/13 1/7 1/52 -
unclosed sutures (3)
Skull shape <80 & >75
>80 (brachycephalic) <75 (dolichocephalic) AA: 71 – 71.5
(Cephalic Index) (4) (mesocephalic)
Saggital keel (5) Usually absent Usually absent Sometimes present AA&He: Present
Hn: Present
Occipital bun (6) Absent Some individuals Some tribes
AA: Present
Post-orbital
Average Average Larger AA & He: Pronounced
constriction (7)
Cheek bones (8) Projecting Average Slightly projecting -
Foramen magnum (9) Center Center Farther back -
Face
AA&E: Sloped
Forehead High High Less high
C&G: very sloped
Small (except some AA: Prominent
Brow ridge (10) Medium Small
Japanese men) He: Prominent
slightly sloped, Rectangular, slightly sloped, small Square AA: Rectangular
Eye sockets (11) Almost round,
small or rectangular, larger, and farther apart C: Round and large
Nasal Index & shape
48-53 Oval <48 Tear-shaped >53 Rounded, wide He: Rounded, wide
(12)
He: Less
Nasal Prominence
Average More Less C: None
(13)
G: None
G: Joined (Duckworth,
Two nose bones - Not joined Sometimes joined
1895, p. 338).
AA & He: More
Prognathism (14) Little Little Pronounced
pronounced
Facial angle (15) - 80-82° 68-70° G: 50°
AA: Receding
Prominent and
Chin (16) Slightly projecting Slight and rounded He: Smaller and
projecting
rounded
Mouth
C & G: Yes
Simian shelf (17) No Rare Vestige Hn: Half size
He: Little or none
Parabolic or horseshoe-
Palate shape Triangular Rectangular He: Rectangular
shaped
Teeth (18) Medium Smaller Larger, wider apart He: Large, wide apart
In Asian He and a few
Shoveled upper
Present Rare Only Bushmen African He
incisors (19)
Hn: Present
Skeleton
Spine shape (20) Three curves Three curves Less curved C: One curve
Shorter;
Spine length Long Long -
chest rounder
Pelvic girth (21) - 33 inches 26½ inches -
Male: 102.9 Male: 91.4 C: 77
Sacral Index (22) -
Female: 112.4 Female: 103.6 G: 72
Arms: shorter Arms: longer
Arms and legs (23) Average -
Legs: shorter Legs: longer
Heel Bone (24) Short Medium Long -
Table 9-1
(1) At birth, Africans have fewer cranial bones than Eurasians. 7 The skull bones (and other bones) in Africans (Schnitzler, 1993) and
erectus are thicker and denser (higher mineral content; Ettinger, 1997; Hui, 2003; Pollitizer, 1989), even in the fetus, making them more
difficult to break, which is an aid in head butting and fighting as blows to the head can easily be fatal. (Broca, 1858, cited in Rushton, 2000a,
p. 106). Some anthropologists believe skulls got thicker about 1.6 to 1.8 million ya when erectus developed clubs as weapons, resulting in
more cracked skulls. (Wrangham, 1996; Schulting, 2002). “Herodotus … described how easily, in comparison to an Egyptian’s skull, a
Persian’s skull cracked.” (Schwartz, 1999, p. 48; Egyptians had interbred with Africans by that time.) Denser bones (and less fat) make
Africans less buoyant and less capable swimmers, 8 but reduce their susceptibility to osteoporosis. Female bones are lighter than male
bones.
(2) (Cull, 1850). The cranial sutures are the zigzag lines where the bones that form the skull cap join together. Less complex sutures
may be due to an earlier fusion of the cranial bones.
(3) The unclosed sutures are the proportion of the total number of intersecting sutures at
the top of the skull that are permanently unclosed. Unclosed sutures permit growth of the brain.
An example is the retention of the metopic suture in adult Caucasians, but not adult Africans.
(Figure 9-6).
(4) The numbers are the cephalic index, which is equal to 100
times the width of the head divided by its length. (Baker, 1974). The
long, narrow skull of the Africans (dolichocephalic) loses heat the
fastest and the more spherical skull of the Asians (brachycephalic)
better retains heat. (Boyd, 1955). Compare these black, white, and Black White Mongol
Northeast Asian (Mongol) skulls (Figure 9-7) drawn by (Morton, Figure 9-7
1839). The black skull is more simian as it is long and narrow. The white and Mongol skulls are Figure 9-6
rounder and about the same size, but the cheek bones flair out more on the Mongol skull. There is
a correlation of 0.37 between cranial capacity and the cephalic index, i.e., the long, narrow skulls of Africans have a smaller cranial capacity.
(Beals, 1984).
Figure 9-8 is a tree showing the linkage between living human populations based on 57 measurements of male skulls. (DeAnza
College, CA). The African skulls are very different from the skulls of all the other populations, even the Australian aborigines. Figure 9-9 show
a Negro skull profile superimposed upon a European skull profile. 9) The Negro skull is smaller, with less space in the forehead, but
proportionately more at the back. (Hunt, 1864, p. 8).
Figure 9-8 Figure 9-9 Figure 9-10 Figure 9-11
(5) Notice the slight saggital keel (or crest) at the top of the head in the Homo habilis skull (Figure 9-10, 10) and in the picture of killer
James Ealy (Figure 9-11). (Also see Fig. 9-17, 10-7, & 16-6.)
(6) The occipital bun (Figure 9-12) 11 is a bulge at the back of the skull,
where the brain processes visual information. Georgicus, antecessor, Peking man
(Figure 17-7b), Junniushan (Figure 17-9), and the Neanderthals had occipital buns
and Heidi, too, may have had it. “They [occipital buns] do however occur fairly often
among Australids [Australian aborigines], Khoisanids [Hottentots, Bushmen - see
Chap. 26], and Lappids [Lapps (Sami) in Finland], and, interestingly, among
inhabitants of Lancashire, UK.” 12 Although the purpose of the occipital bun is not
clear, it is associated most with the Neanderthals.
Some African skulls are also characterized by a “dent” (“post bregmatic
depression”) in the top of the skull visible from the side. (Figure 9-13). 13 This “dent”
is also seen the Hobbit skull, Figure 17-11 and some erectus skulls; note that even Figure 9-12 Figure 9-13
the otherwise-modern English skull in Figure 9-5 has a dent. It is a primitive feature
that may be tied to important changes in the growth of the brain. (Coqueugniot, 2004; Figure 14-2) .
(7) A post-orbital constriction is a pinching of the skull just behind the eye sockets. It allows more room for large chewing muscles, but
indicates a smaller forebrain, the center of planning and abstract thought. Figure 9-14 shows a chimpanzee skull, and Figures 9-15 and 9-16
show, respectively, the skulls of a recently-deceased Australian aborigine and a Caucasian. (Also see Fig., 17-2, p. 145).
Chimp Australian Caucasian

Figure 9-17
Figure 9-14 Figure 9-15 Figure 9-16
(8) Referring to Figure 9-17, the cheek bones (“zygomatic arches”) extend outward the least in Caucasians, the most in Asians, and in
between in Africans. (Beyers, 2007).
(9) The foramen magnum (“big hole,” aka “occipital foramen”) is the opening in the base of the skull through which the spinal chord
exits the skull. The head is positioned on the spinal chord so that the eyes see horizontally to the ground. Because we walk upright, our spinal
cord is vertical so it enters directly underneath the skull.
Chimpanzees and gorillas walk on knuckles with long arms and short legs, and their spinal cord is at an angle and enters farther to the
back of the skull. Monkeys walk on four legs and their spinal cord is nearly horizontal and enters at the rear of the skull. In Figure 9-18, the
foramen magnum is the large black hole. 14
Table 9-2 gives the results of measurements of the position of the foramen magnum in primates: 15
Number Range
Primate Maximum (%) Mean (%) Minimum (%)
examined (Max. – Min.)
White 20 50.0 45.6 41.7 8.3
Tsuktchi (Japan) 5 47.2 45.3 44 3.2
Negro 17 48.7 44.4 38.7 10.0
South Islanders 28 47.5 41.8 36.1 11.4
Hindoos (India) 19 45.3 41.4 5.6 9.8
N. Am. Indians 45 47.8 40.9 34.8 13.0
Adult gorillas 3 26.8 22.7 17.7 -
Young gorilla 1 - 40 - -
Adult chimpanzee 1 - 21 - -
Young chimpanzee 3 39 35.3 32 - Figure 9-18
Table 9-2
Table 9-2 shows that the foramen magnum is farthest to the front in whites and farthest to the back in adult chimpanzees. The foramen
magnum in Australopithecus is “located near the center of the skull base [i.e., not including the jaw], as far from the rear as in some human
races” (Coon, 1962, p. 258); it is even farther to the front in erectus and, in living people, it is farthest to the front in the “Romano-British.” 16
Note that in the young gorilla and chimpanzees the foramen magnum is closer to the human range; thus, neoteny assists bipedalism by
moving the foramen magnum towards the front. (Luboga, 1990) Although the Neanderthal is not listed Table 9-2, their foramen magnum is
also “a little to the back.” (Howells, 1948, p. 167). In Table 9-2 the Negro foramen magnum is only slightly farther to the rear. 17
(10) The brow ridges (“supraorbital ridges”) are boney ridges over the eyes which strengthen the skull and protect the eyes during
fighting. They are needed when the teeth are large, the jaws heavy, and the chewing muscles strong, characteristics of populations that eat
mostly vegetable matter. Once man learned to hunt, control fire, and cook his food, large chewing muscles were no longer needed and brow
ridges diminished. (See photos in Chap. 2).
(11) East Asians have the roundest eye sockets and Australian aborigines have the most rectangular.18 Neanderthal orbits are also
round (Fig. 2-6 & 2-7) but African and European orbits are square or rectangular; European orbits slope more. Racial differences in eye
sockets are not large and overlap due to intermixing. Except for the Neanderthals, the size of eye sockets, and therefore the size of the eyes,
decreases slightly in the colder climates, which may be an adaptation to cold weather to help reduce exposure of the eyes. The eyes of
blacks are also farther apart, as can be seen by comparing a “Black” skull (Figure 9-19, probably African American) to the front view of a
Caucasian skull in Figure 9-20.
Figure 9-19 ("Black") Figure 9-20 (Caucasian)
(12) Nasal prominence is a measurement of how far the nasal bones

extend from the face. Figure 9-21 shows the distribution of nasal prominences
in African and European skulls. (Howells, 1989). The curves that connects the
bars show that Africans and Europeans have different means, with the
European nasal bones being more prominent (Figure 9-21). The nostrils in
Africans open higher on the face, closer to the eyes, but not as far as in apes.
(Cartwright, 1857, p. 46). S-S Africans have “very flat nasal bones.” (Hanihara,
2000).
(13) The nasal index is 100 times the width of the nasal cavity divided by
its breadth. The nasal cavity is short and wide in Africans and long and narrow
in Asians and Caucasians, but larger in Caucasians. The shape of the nasal
cavity also differs between the races (Figure 9-17).
The difference between Eurasians and Africans in their nasal spines is
dramatic. The anterior nasal spine is a small bone that extends outward from
the middle of the base of the nasal cavity; it supports a nose that protrudes. The
nasal spine is prominent in Caucasians (Figures 9-2, 9-5, 9-20, & 9-22), less so
in Asians (Figure 9-1) and small or absent in Africans and African Americans
(Figures 9-4 & 9-23). (Beyers, 2007). The race of a skull can be determined by
placing a pen across the base of the nasal cavity. If the pen is held in place by
Figure 9-21
the nasal spine, the skull is Caucasian; if it rolls off, the skull is African;
chimpanzees and gorillas also lack a true anterior nasal spine. (Mooney, 2005, & Duckworth, 1895, p. 338).
In addition to the nasal spine, the base of the front of the nasal cavity
also differs between the races. Referring to the arrows, in Caucasians (Figure
9-22), there is a sharp ridge along the edge of the base, in Asians the top of the
ridge is rounded, and in Africans (Figure 9-23) there is no ridge. (Also see
Figure 9-19, “Guttered Nasal Border.”)
(14) Simian prognathism (a protruding jaw with a recessed nose) is a

very primitive trait that is characteristic of apes. A jutting jaw is needed if the
teeth are large, plus it is an advantage in fighting as it permits a bigger bite and
Figure 9-22 (Caucasian) Figure 9-23 (African)
makes the eyes less vulnerable. (Howells, 1959, p. 125). One is reminded of
the 1997 title fight in Los Vegas where Mike Tyson bit a piece out of the ear of WBA champ Evander Holyfield.
Figure 9-24 (Nature, Vol. 228) shows a comparison of the lower jaw
(mandible) of an orangutan, a Negro, and a white. The rectangles illustrate the
width and length of the jaws. The numbers are the percentages of the length to
the width. When there is simian prognathism the jaw is long and narrow, as in
the orangutan, and when the face is flat, as the white jaw is, the length is
actually less than the width; as expected, the Negro jaw is in between the jaw
of the orangutan and the jaw of the white.
Figure 9-25 shows a subtle difference between Caucasian and African
jaws. Looking outward from inside the mouth, the upward-directed bone that
holds the jaw in place (“ascending ramus”) shows an inward protrusion
(inversion) on the ramus of the African jaw that is absent in the Caucasian
jaws. There are many small racial differences like this that can be used to help Figure 9-24
determine race.
Figure 9-25
(15) Prognathism, the absence of “facial flatness” (Hanihara, 2000), can be

measured by means of the facial angle, the slope of the face from the forehead to the
jaws. Figure 9-26 is by Camper, who first used the concept. In his drawings, Camper
gives the facial angle as 70° for the “Negro” (i.e., Congoids); H. habilis and H. erectus
also have a facial angle of about 70°. 19 An angle of 60° has been given for the
Hottentots and Bushmen, and 66.6° for the Australian aborigines below the nose. (Baker,
1974, p. 281); orangutans have a facial angle of 58°. 20 Camper regarded a facial angle
of 100° as the epitome of beauty (Etcoff, 1999, pp. 42-43); s-S Africans have “remarkable Figure 9-26
prognathism.” (Hanihara, 2000). Figure 9-27.
A protruding jaw is usually associated with a sloping forehead (Figures 9-9 & 9-26), which indicates a smaller
prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain that handles planning, inhibition, and self control. 21 Thus, the absence of
prognathism is seen as less bestial and an indication of higher intelligence. The owl, for example, with its perfectly vertical
facial line, was the emblem of Athena, the goddess of wisdom. Other characteristics of the jaw can also be used to
identify race. (Buck, 2004).
(16) The purpose of a chin is to strengthen the jaw. When the jaw is massive, there is no need for a chin, but a
more modern gracile jaw requires a chin to prevent debilitating jaw fractures. Only Hss fossils have chins (but not all
modern humans have prominent chins). European males have the most prominent chins.
Figure 9-27
(17) The lower jaw (“mandible”) can be strengthened to withstand the stresses of chewing by making it thick and heavy, by adding a
chin on the outside, or by adding a simian shelf (a bony horizontal ridge in the mouth behind the lower incisors) on the inside of the jaw. (Fig.
9-27). A simian shelf is found in all apes, Neanderthals, and archaic man, but is absent in erectus (Coon, 1962, p. 349) and most modern
men. As jaws became less massive, the simian shelf appeared, then was later replaced by the chin. Africans may have a vestige of a simian
shelf (Fig. 9-25).
(18) In Eurasians, the upper teeth usually overlap the lower incisors, but in Africans the upper incisors
are mounted in the jaw at an angle and project forward so that they meet the lower at an angle. (Figures 9-3 &
9-4; in Figure 9-27, the gorilla’s teeth meet at an even greater angle.) African teeth are more primitive than
Eurasian teeth and there are many other differences in their structures. (Irish, 1998 & 2003; Edgar, 2005;
Chap. 16, FN 9). Figure 9-28
(19) A “shoveled” incisor (Figure 9-29) is an upper front tooth that has ridges reinforcing its two back
vertical edges to resist back-to-front forces. This means that shoveled incisors were once used for another
purpose in addition to cutting food, such as scraping objects (see wear in Figure 9-30).
The scraping must have been vital to survival and broken incisors must have made survival less likely.
Otherwise, shelved incisors would not be so widespread among Asians today. Northern Europeans also
frequently have moderate shoveling, possibly derived from the Neanderthal lineage. (Chap. 25). Because
shoveled incisors first appeared about 2 mya, whatever the activity was, it was done by erectus or an earlier
hominoid, and later generations are only gradually losing the trait as tools are used instead of teeth. Shoveled
incisors may have initially been used in the Asian tropics to form points on bamboo spears, 22 then later Figure 9-29
proved useful in the north for scraping and softening animal skins. 23 Asians also have single-rooted upper
first premolars and triple-rooted lower first molars.
(20) The neck of Africans (i.e., Congoids) is described as shorter and thicker, but some Africans from
other parts of Africa have long, slender necks. 24
(21) A larger diameter pelvis will be selected for if baby head size, and therefore brain size, increases.
Africans, with the smallest skulls, also have the smallest pelvis and give birth more easily. Pelvic
measurements can be used not only to distinguish males from females, but even American white males from
American black males, with about 75% accuracy. (Iscan, 1983). Figure 9-30
(22) The sacral index is the breadth of the sacrum (the five fused vertebrae that are connected to the pelvis) as a percentage of its
length. (Hanson, 1998). Walking upright increased the sacral index, enabling the sacrum to better support the internal organs, so a low sacral
index is more primitive and a high sacral index is more modern. Table 9-3 gives sacral indices from Turner and Borst.
As usual, the Negroes are closest to the apes. Note (Borst, 1986,
that the Negroes and the Andamenese are close together, Sexual
(Turner, 1886, 42 -26)
especially for the females. As we shall see in Chapter 26, this Primate Dimorphism
p. 317-323)
may be due to early (perhaps pre-Homo) migration from India Male Female (F minus M)**
into Africa. The Egyptians are close to the Negroes because Gorillas 72
of significant admixture with Africans. The Australian
aborigines are close to Europeans in both sacral index and the Chimpanzees 77
sexual dimorphism of the sacral index because both
descended from a generalized archaic human that lived in Orangutans 87
West Asia (Chap. 24 & 27). The hips of blacks are also Negroes 91.4 103.6 12.2
narrower, which makes walking and running more efficient for Egyptians 94.3 99.1 4.8
them. (Himes, 1988). While Borst found a higher sexual
dimorphism for blacks in the sacral index, overall Europeans Andamenese* 94.8 103 8.2
have the highest sexual dimorphism, even before birth (Choi, Australian aborigines 98.5 100.2 110.0 9.8
1970), and Asians the lowest. Japanese 101.5 107.1 5.6
Vertebrae can also be used to help determine race.
(Marino, 1997). Baker, 1974, pp 300-301) refers to a “simian Europeans 112 (males) 102.9 112.4 9.5
notch,” a much narrower second sacral vertebra, that is much *Asian aborigines from the Andaman Islands, east of India in the Bengal Sea.
narrower laterally than the first or third vertebrae, ** Female value minus male value.
“characteristic of pongids [apes].” “It occurs in nearly one-third Table 9-3
of all Australid and Europid sacra, but is much more frequent
in Negrids, among whom it appears to be a primary character.”
(23) As primates went from swinging by their arms to walking on their legs, their arms grew shorter and their legs longer (Wikipedia,
Craniometry," Figure. 9-31).
The “reach” is the distance between the fingertips when the arms are extended
horizontally. Of the first 50 Heavyweight Champions, the 17 white fighters had an average reach
of 76.13 inches and the 33 black fighters had an average reach of 78.23 inches. 25 The
increased reach of the black fighters is due to a longer forearm and longer fingers. Africans also
have longer legs than Caucasians; Asians have the shortest legs.
The brachial index is the percentage that one of the lower arm bones (the radius) is of
the upper arm bone (the humerus). (Aiello, 1990, pp. 249; Holliday, 1999). The crural index is
the percentage that one of the lower leg bones (the tibia) is of the upper leg bone (the femur).
The humerofemoral index is the percentage that the arm bones (humerus plus radius) are of the Gibbon Gorilla Chimpanzee Orangutan Man
leg bones (femur plus tibia). A high brachial and humerofemoral index indicates adaptation for Figure 9-31
swinging by the arms and a low index indicates adaptation for walking. 26 The brachial, crural,
and humerofemoral indices of Africans are closer to those of apes. 27 From the length of only the femur, the height can be estimated using
different equations for black and white males and females. (Trotter, 1970, pp. 71–83; Trudell, 1999). Blacks have longer legs but shorter
torsos, i.e., a greater skelic index (length of legs x 100/length of trunk; Meredith, 1976).
African hands are larger and longer (Hunt, 1864, pp. 7-8), and the fingers of blacks differ from those of whites in a subtle and peculiar
way. In the womb, the female sex hormone, estrogen, increases the growth of the verbal areas of the brain as well as length of the index
finger (the second digit, “2D”) and the male sex hormone, testosterone, increases the growth of the numerical area of the brain as well as the
length of the ring finger (“4D”). 28 Thus, more testosterone in the womb results in a lower index/ring finger length (the “2D:4D” ratio); in males,
the ring finger (“4D”) is usually longer, but in females the ring and index fingers are usually about equal. However, males who have a 2D:4D
ratio that is higher than the average for males (and is therefore closer to the higher female 2D:4D ratio) have better numeracy, and males with
smaller ratio than the male average have better literacy. (Brosnan, 2006). And, “In common with adults, the 2D:4D ratio of children shows sex
and ethnic differences with low values found in a Black group [i.e., the male and female ratios are below the male and female
averages].” (Manning, 2004). This is consistent with data showing that both male and female blacks have higher levels of testosterone (Chap.
10) and perform poorer at numerical tasks than they do at verbal tasks. Since there is less need for numeracy in the tropics, this is not
unexpected.
(24) The heel bone projects more in Africans and differs in length, breadth, shape, and position, giving Africans a greater ability to
sprint and jump. (Johnston, 1910). This is one reason why “White Men Can’t Jump” and West Africans excel in sports that require jumping.
African feet are flatter and there is more separation between the first and second toes.29
Chapter 10
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. Figure 9-2 is a picture of a skull sold by Fossils.com. Back
2. A “flat face” means that the center of the face does not extend much farther forward than the cheekbones. (Coon, 1962, pp. 364-369). A
simple test to see if a skull is Asian is to place it face down on a table. If it rests on the cheekbones and doesn’t rock because the nose
doesn’t touch the table, it is probably an Asian. East Asians have very flat faces. (Hanihara, 2000). Back
3. The replica shown in Figure 9-3 is sold by France Castings. Back
4. “Early Neolithic Britons had a one in 20 chance of suffering a skull fracture at the hands of someone else and a one in 50 chance of dying
from their injuries. “ (Young, 2006). That was probably true elsewhere on the planet as well and even more true at earlier times. Back
5. (Johnston, 1910, pp. 13 & 15). The skulls have been rotated so that a line passes between their back molars to the base of their skulls.
Back
6. Male only, home continent and U.S., not corrected for body size. (Rushton, 2000a, p. 283, from Beals, 1984: AA from (Baker, 1974), p.
279). White children have larger heads than black children, even though black children are taller. (Rushton, 2000a, pp. 40-41). Back
7. “The white infant comes into the world with its brain enclosed by fifteen disunited bony plates – the occipital bone being divided into four
parts, the sphenoid into three, the frontal into two, each of the two temporals into two, which, with the two parietals, make fifteen plates in all –
the vomer and ethmoid not being ossified at birth. … The negro infant, however, is born with a small, hard, smooth, round head like a gourd.
Instead of the frontal and temporal bones being divided into six plates, as in the white child, they form but one bone in the negro
infant.” (Cartwright, 1857, p. 45). Back
8. (Ama, 1997). “Black children are 2½ times more likely to drown than white kids.” (Park, D., Chicago Sun Times, June 22, 2007). Fewer
blacks are in the Navy SEALs or win medals in Olympic swimming and diving events. Back
9. From (Pierce, R.V., The People's Common Sense Medical Adviser in Plain English: or, Medicine Simplified, 1895). Back
10. Figure 9-10 is a reproduction of KNM-ER 1813, available from The Evolution Store, NYC, NY. Saggital keels can be found in herbivores
that require powerful muscles to grind up plant matter, e.g., the gorilla, and carnivores that need a powerful bite to kill larger prey, e.g., the
bobcat. (Nickens, T.E., "Survivor," National Wildlife, Aug.-Sept., 2008). Back
11. (“An Introduction to and anatomical evidence supporting Neanderthal introgression (Part 1),” Anthropology.net, Nov. 14, 2006). Back
12. (SNPA Glossary of Physical Anthropological Terms [http://www.snpa.nordish.net/glossary.htm (no longer available)]; also Baker, 1974, p.
279). Back
13. From (Rhine, 1990). Back
14. (McKie, 2000, p. 19). Back
15. (Wyman, 1896). The distance from the front of the foramen magnum to the back of the head was divided by the distance from the front of
the head to the back of the head, and expressed as a percentage in Table 9-2. The “front of the head” was a hole (“alveoli”) in the upper jaw,
not the end of the jaw. This may be why the North American Indian’s foramen magnum is farther to the back than is the Negro’s. Had the
“front” been the front of the jaw, the position would have been farthest back in the Africans. Also, “Negro” is probably African American, not
African. (Broca, 1858, cited by (Rushton, 2000a, p. 106; Coon, 1962, p. 258; Cartwright, 1857, p. 46; Johnson, D.R., "Retardation and
neoteny in human evolution"; Burmeister, 1853). Back
16. (Luboga, 1990). Later in this book, it is suggested that man may have had no quadrupedal ancestors; if true, the position of the foremen
magnum would be in the center for all human populations, except for populations whose ancestors had interbred with a quadrupedal ape.
There was interbreeding between the chimpanzee lineage and the human lineage and although today chimpanzees live only in Africa, their
ancestors may have lived in Eurasia and the interbreeding may have occurred there instead of in Africa. (Patterson, 2006; Arnold, 2006).
“The close resemblance in DNA structure between humans and chimpanzees even suggests that a hybrid species would be viable – a
chastening thought.” (Corballis, 1991, p. 35, citing Lovejoy, 1981). Back
17. “The occipital foremen [foramen magnum], giving exit to the spinal cord, is a third longer [in the African] says Cuvier, in proportion to its
breadth, than in the Caucasian, and is so oblique as to form an angle of 30°with the horizon, yet not so oblique as in the simiadiae [apes],
…” (Cartwright, 1857). Back
18. Note the small nasal spine in the African American skull (Figure 9-3), which is absent in the African skull (Figure 9-4). Back
19. (Ferguson, 1989; Curnoe, 2006). “… the Negro thus has a facial angle generally between 70 and 75 degrees, occasionally only 65
degrees.” (Hunt, 1865). Back
20. (O’Flaherty, B. & Shapiro, J.S., “Apes, Essences, and Races: What Natural Scientists Believed about Human Variation, 1700 – 1900,”
Columbia University, Mar., 2002). Back
21. “This angle is now understood to be primarily related to the development of the frontal part of the brain …” (Ferguson, 1989). Back
22. Chimpanzees have been found to make spears and sharpen them with their teeth. (New Scientist, Mar. 3-9, p. 16). Back
23. “Neandertals had unusually robust anterior [front] teeth that were worn down in a distinctive manner, suggestive of their use in the
preparation of hides.” “The Cultural Modification of Teeth.” Also (Hoffecker, 2002, p. 60). Back
24. (Burmeister, 1853; Hunt, 1864, p. 7). A more muscular neck is consistent with a foramen magnum that is farther to the back. (Johnson,
D.R., "Retardation and neoteny in human evolution"). Back
25. “… some races seem more arboreally constituted than others.” (Coon, 1962, p. 154). Back
26. Referring to H. habilis: “Moreover, the arms are long relative to the legs, a characteristic that is more ape-like than human.” (Corballis,
1991, pp. 39-40). Back
27. The explanation is probably Allen’s Rule, that shorter limbs are selected in colder climates; legs in humans, however, got longer than ape
legs due to our bipedalism. Back
28. The reason for this peculiarity is that Hox genes, which control differentiation of the digits, are expressed more in the gonads. Back
29. (Burmeister, 1853; see Fig. 4-1). “Darwin pointed to the foot of some ‘savages’ as still retaining some of the prehensility [grasping]
characteristic of the ape foot.” (Schwartz, 1999, p. 160). Back
Chapter 10 - Soft Tissue

In this chapter, we look at soft tissue (Table 10-1). Since soft tissue is not preserved in
fossils, the last column in Table 10-1 uses Australian aborigines (AA), male chimpanzees (C),
and male gorillas (G) for comparison.
Trait Asians Caucasians Africans AA, C, & G

Brain
AA: 122
1 1282
Volume (cc) (1) 1416 1369 C: 400
1270 (Bush-men)
G: 469
Degree of fissuring
High High Moderate C: Less
(2)
Size of frontal Larger, more Larger, more Smaller, less
lobes (abstract fissured, and fissured, and more fissured, and less -
reasoning) (3) more complex complex complex
Organs
Testicles (4) Small Medium Large C: Larger
Apocrine glands (5) Small and few Medium and more Large and most -
Body odor Very little Medium Strong -
Face and Neck
Absent, except C: Absent
Epicanthic fold (6) Present Absent
Bushmen G: Absent
AA: Dark
Dark brown, Blue, green, hazel,
Eye color (iris) (7) Dark brown, black brown, black
black brown
C & G: Black
White, but
Eye color (sclera) C: Dark
White White sometimes
(8) G: yellow
yellowish
Medium, thin in Large, thick, AA: Medium
Lips (9) Medium
north everted C & G: Thin
Small, round, thick,
2 Large, rectangular, C: large
Ears - high; small
thin G: small
earlobes
Dry, brittle, grey
Ear wax Sticky, wet, brown Sticky, wet, brown -
or beige
AA: Large,
Long, thin, and Short, flat, and broad
Nose (10) Low
narrow wide C & G: Flat
and broad
Usually small,
Mouth (11) Small Large C: Large
some large
M=117 Hz M=110 Hz
Voice pitch (12) - -
F= 217 Hz F=193 Hz
Skin and Hair
Thicker, outer
Skin thickness (13) - Thin -
horny layer
Concentrates
Concentrates
Fat distribution (14) Uniform (buttocks, -
(buttocks)
abdomen, etc.)
C: Flesh
Skin color (15) Yellowish Flesh colored Dark until 10-12,
then dark
Less than
More than Africans, AA: Medium
Body hair (16) Little body hair Caucasians, more
especially in south C: High
than Asians
AA: Dark
Head hair, color Dark brown, Blond, red, brown,
Dark brown, black brown, black
(17) black black
C: Black
Straight or wavy, AA: Curly
Head hair, form (18) Straight, long Wooly, short.
long C: Straight
Head hair, Flat, no central
Circular, thick Oval, thin -
microscopic (19) duct 3
Little, except
Beard Very little Heavy AA: Heavy
Pygmies 4
Muscles
Muscles
(proportion of total Low Medium High C: Higher
body weight) (20)
Calf muscle (21) - Large and low Small and high -
Buttocks (22) Flat Medium Large
Blood
Male testosterone 19% higher than
Low Intermediate -
level (23) whites 5
Lower than
Serotonin level (24) - - -
Eurasians
AA: CDe
Blood Type (25) - Fblb3 Ablb3
(R1)
Table 10-1
(1) Converting brain volume into the number of neurons, Mongoloids average more than
half a billion more neurons than Negroids. 6 The East Asians (Chinese, Koreans, and
Japanese) have the highest ratio of brain to body mass, but the record for brain size goes to
Russian writer Ivan Turgenev, at 2012 gms. (Corballis, 1991, p. 66). The heritability of brain
size is about 0.9 (Lynn, 2006a, p. 67).

Until recently, when cranial capacity and brain volume could be measured by magnetic
imaging, cranial capacity was determined by plugging the holes in a skull and filling it with small
pellets and brain volume was determined by weighing the brain and dividing by its density. 7
Due to the thickness of the membranes that surround the brain, brain volume is less than
cranial capacity. (Fig. 14-8).
(2) The ridges (“gyri”) between the groves (“sulci”) at the surface of the brain greatly
increase the surface area of the cerebral cortex, the outer layer of the cerebrum. Since the
cerebral cortex processes information, increased brain fissures increases the percentage of the
brain that is cerebral cortex and should increase intelligence without increasing the volume of
the brain, although this is difficult to establish quantitatively. (Baker, 1974, p. 432).
Notice (Fig. 10-1) the fissures
(and frontal lobes) in the brains
of an orangutan, an African
bushman, and the great German
physicist and J.C.F. Gauss, the
great German mathematician. 8
Africans and some Figure 10-1
retarded people (Friend, T.,
"Brains of mice enlarged to help research," USA Today, July 19, 2002, citing Chenn, 2002)
have fewer convolutions (“fissures”) in the cerebral cortex of their brains, where abstract
thought is performed. 9 Australian aborigines also have smaller and less complex brains. Figure
10-2 shows the back of the brains of an orangutan, an Australian aborigine, and a European.
(Baker, 1974, p 293).
In
size and
complexity,
the
Australian
aborigine
brain is
intermediate
between the
orangutan
and
European
brain. Figure 10-2
There
are many other physical properties of the brain that are also associated with greater
intelligence. 10 The thickness of the three outer layers (the supragranular layer) of the cerebral
cortex (the six outer layers), increases from lower animals to man. 11 “The supragranular layers
in the dog are one-half the thickness of those in the ape, and the thickness of the ape’s only
three-fourths the thickness in man.” 12 The supragranular layer is 15% thinner in blacks than in
whites. (Vint, 1934). Also see (Poynter, 191513 The nerves in blacks are reported to be larger.
(Burmeister, 1853). Many other comparative brain studies of blacks and whites can be found in
(Putnam, 1967, footnote 17).
(3) “… the prefrontal area … constitutes 3.4 percent of the cat brain, … 16.9 percent of
the chimpanzee’s and 29 percent of man’s.” (Herrick, 1956, p. 385). The human neocortex is
over three times as large as expected for a primate matched for body size. 14 Compared to
Eurasians, in Africans the back of the brain is more developed and the front less developed. 15
This is noticeable in the more sloping forehead of Africans and the length of their skull (Fig. 9-
3). Vision is processed in the back of the brain, hearing at the side, and planning and abstract
thought at the front. Thus, a brain that is more devoted to one of these functions than to others
will have a greater mass of brain tissue in that area and the skull shape will be expanded in that
area. 16
Racial differences in the relative sizes of different areas of the brain are suggested by
the way smoking affects the races. Compared to white smokers, American black smokers
absorb 30% more nicotine per cigarette and take longer to rid their bodies of the drug. 17 Since
different neurotransmitters in the brain take up nicotine at different rates, this implies that blacks
and whites have significant differences in the relative sizes of different areas of the brain. 18
Thus, in our journey to become human, our brain not only increased in size, but certain
portions, such as the frontal lobes, the cerebral cortex, and its supragranular layer, increased
disproportionately. Also, the sulci and gyri increased and deepened. Other parts, such as the
olfactory bulb, devoted to smell, have increased less than proportionately. These changes were
greater in Eurasians than in Africans.
(4) Large testicles indicate that females mate with more than one man. 19 When there is
more promiscuity, men who have larger testicles, who produce more sperm in their ejaculates,
are more likely to fertilize the egg and pass on their alleles for large testicles to their sons. 20 All
the sex organs (e.g., testicles, penis, clitoris, vagina, ovaries) are larger in Africans. 21
(5) Apocrine glands are scent glands in areas such as the armpits and groin. They
produce secretions that, after they are degraded by bacteria, produce pheromones, chemicals
that have sexually 22 and racially-distinctive odors. Not only are the secretions themselves
racially different, but the species of bacteria that degrade them to produce the odors are also
racially different. Thus, there is a distinct difference in body odor between the major racial
groups, detectible by dogs 23 and by some people. 24 Asians have the least amount of body
odor and find the odor of the other races, particularly blacks, objectionable. 25 Odor may seem
like a trivial matter, but odor is very important, both in identifying genetic similarity between
individuals and, between the sexes, receptability towards mating, the suppression of
menstruation, and even the identification of mothers and their babies. 26 There is some
evidence that women tend to be attracted to men whose odor indicates that they are genetically
similar to theirs, but not too similar; a slight difference in odor indicates that the man’s immune
system is different from hers, thereby possibly giving their children a stronger immune system.
On the other hand, (Roberts, 2005). 27
Sweat glands and other glands also differ
according with race, with black sweat containing
more chloride than white sweat. “Races also differ in
the size and weight of endocrine glands, and in the
substances carried in the urine.” (Coon, 1962, p.
116).
(6) The epicanthic fold, a fat-insulated upper

eyelid, protects the eye from the cold. All children
Figure 10-3
have them in the womb, which suggests that it was
the greater neoteny of the Asians that caused them to be retained in Asian adults. (Fig. 10-3;
Baker, 1974, pp. 208-209).
(7) Dark irises exclude more light than light irises, thereby making a sharper image in
bright light. (Howells, 1959, p. 271). Blue, green, and hazel eyes are recessive, meaning that
both parents have alleles for light eye color. Men are said to prefer women with blue eyes
because blue eyes are recessive and if any of “his” children have brown eyes, he will know he
is not the father (Laeng, 2007), though it is possible for blue-eyed parents to have a brown-eyed
child; 28 also, blue eyes are associated with youth and fertility (though lighter eye colors have
an increased risk of macular degeneration).
It is easier to see the size of the pupil if the iris is light colored. Since dilated pupils
signal happiness, which is attractive, happiness is easier to detect in blue-eyed people. (Belkin,
2006). The incidence of blue eyes is 3 to 5% greater in boys, and blue-eyed people are more
intelligent. 29
(8) A remarkable, but little remarked upon, difference between humans and apes is that
humans have a white sclera (eyeball or cornea), but in other primates it is dark. Compare a
chimpanzee’s eyes with a human’s. (Figure 10-4). 30 Other animals hide their eyes and their
gaze from prey and predators; we expose ours to our fellow humans.
A white sclera
means that it is easier tell
where a human is looking
and know at whom
speech or a facial
expression is directed, Figure 10-4
thereby facilitating communications and cooperation, particularly of subtle and personal
information. 31 A white sclera suggests more complex social relationships and a larger brain
that is capable of interpreting this additional information. It also indicates living among people
trusted enough to reveal what one is thinking about and what actions one may take. 32 The
slightly yellowish sclera that has been reported in some Australian aborigines (Baker, 1974, p.
298) and adult male Africans may be due to the presence of melanin in their sclera and a less
complete conversion to a white sclera. 33
The need to inform others of one’s
emotional state, and the need for others to
know it, may have affected not just the sclera,
but also the cones in the eyes. In man, there
are three types of cones in the eye, one that
detects blue light, peaking at 440 nm, a second
that detects green light, peaking at slightly less
than 550 nm, and a third that detects red light,
peaking at slightly more than 550 nm. (Fig. 10-
5). 34 In animals that can see colors, it is
unusual to have two cones that detect light at
wavelengths that are so close together. The
reason for this in humans may be that the
wavelength of 550 nm is where skin color
changes according to the amount of blood Figure 10-5
underneath it. Thus, the almost-identical
wavelengths enable the cones to more easily detect blushing and anger by means of small
changes in skin color. If that explanation is correct, 35 close-together wavelengths would be less
useful for detecting changes in blood flow in the very dark skin of Africans; as yet no data has
been published showing that the wavelengths in African cones are not so close together or that
Africans make less use of these changes in skin color. 36
(9) Table 10-2 gives the height norms for the red part of the lip of African Americans and
American Caucasians. (Table 10-2; Farkas, 1981). Since African Americans are about 25%
Caucasian, lips would be larger in Africans, particularly the Congoids (Fig. II-1) from which
African Americans came. It has been suggested (Dr. Julian O’Dea) that the everted lips that
most Africans have were Male Female
selected for as a signal of good
health, a sexual attractant, Upper Lower Upper Lower
since facial color cannot be African Americans 13.3 mm 13.2 mm 13.6 mm 13.8 mm
used for that purpose due to
Caucasian Americans 8.0 mm 9.3 mm 8.7 mm 9.4 mm
their dark skin. Many white
female Hollywood stars have Table 10-2
collagen injected into their lips to make them larger, so large lips are a sexual attractant in
women. But usually traits that are sexual attractants in woman are seen as feminine and
undesirable in men. Another explanation is that the increased surface area of the lips helps to
cool the brain. (Irmak, 2004). Still another possibility is that large everted lips are a retained
simian trait that enabled the lips to be flipped backwards to expose the teeth when the mouth is
opened wide, thereby intimidating male rivals.
Nasal
(10)
Population
Index
In
S. African Bushmen
Figure 103.9
10Mbuti Pygmies 103.8
- Aborigines
6(Australia) 99.6
and
Eskimo 68.5
Figure
10European 66.0
- Iran 63.7
7, Table 10-3
notice
that
the Figure 10-6 Figure 10-7
nose of Paris Hilton is narrower, longer (eyes to bottom of nose), and protudes more than the
nose of the African woman. Those differences in shape produce vertical ovals for the nostril
openings of Caucasians and horizontal ovals for the nostril openings of Africans. Also, the tip of
the nose over the septum between the nostrils extends farther down in Caucasians than in
Africans.
Narrow noses warm and moisten the air, and evolve where the air is cold or dry, and
broad noses evolve where the air is warm or moist. (Coon, 1962, p. 62). It may be the brain,
more than the
lungs, that
requires cooling
(Irmak, 2004) or
warming. (Coon,
1962, p. 533).
Large nasal
openings can
take in more air
when bursts of
energy are
needed.
(Howells, 1959,
pp. 92, 212),
which may help
explain the large
noses of
Neanderthals.
(Chap. 25). Table
10-3 (from
DeAnza College,
CA) gives the
nasal index
(width of nasal
opening divided Figure 10-8
by its length,
multiplied by
100).
Figure 10-8 (DeAnza College, CA) is a map of nasal indices; note that narrow noses are
generally found in cool or dry climates and broader noses in warm or moist climates. In Section
IV, we will see that northerners migrated south and pushed the southerners farther south. The
distribution of nasal indices in Figure 10-8 can then be interpreted as early hominids, once living
near the equator and having broad noses, being pushed south into Australia and southern and
western Africa by the thinner-nosed northerners, who replaced them just north of the equator.
(11) Africans have larger mouths, but racial differences in mouth size have not been
measured and published. Figure 10-9 shows an African with an exceptionally large mouth.
There are also racial differences in the shape of the palate (roof of the mouth). (Byers, 1997).
(12) (Hudson, 1982). The lower pitch of black voices

compared to white voices is probably due to higher testosterone
levels in both black males and black females. (Note 23, which
follows).
(13) Negro skin is “more resistant to infection from a variety of

skin afflictions, including some skin-related or skin-implanted
diseases like scarlet fever or diphtheria.” 37
(14) Subcutaneous fat benefits people in cold climates by Figure 10-9

retaining heat in the body. It is especially beneficial for new babies as
they have a higher ratio of surface area to volume than do adults. Uniform fat would retain too
much heat in the tropics, but fat concentrated in the buttocks lowers the body’s center of gravity
and does not add to the weight of the legs when they swing forward, thus providing a way to
store energy internally without impeding movement much (pp 222-223). Blacks have less body
fat and more muscle than whites. (Wagner, 2000).
(15) Melanin is a pigment that darkens the skin, eyes, and hair; it comes in two varieties,
phenomelanin, which is blond, and eumelanin, which is dark. African dark skin is due to an
African-specific allele for eumelanin. (Harding, 2000). The conventional view is that too little
melanin lets in so much UV light that the skin burns, cancer may occur, 38 the synthesis of DNA
is disrupted, and folic acid may be destroyed, resulting in birth defects. Too much melanin lets
in insufficient UV light for the body to make enough vitamin D, which is essential for building
and maintaining bones. 39 Thus, skin color evolves according to the amount of UV light that the
skin is exposed to. (Jablonski, 2000). A more recent view is that melanin is a fungicide and
bactericide, and therefore its amount correlates better with warmth and moisture, which is why it
is found in tissues other than skin. (Mackintosh, 2001; see Gloger’s rule in Glossary). The
melanin in Africans can also be found inside the mouth and, to a lesser extent, throughout the
body, except in the bones. (Cartwright, 1857, p. 47). Blacks are more resistant to skin diseases
than whites. 40 The heritability of skin color is estimated to be 63 to 72%. (Harrison, G.A.,
1964). The yellowish color of Asian skin is due to the presence of more fat under their skin.
(16) Caucasians have the most body hair, Asians the least, with
Africans in between, but closer to Asians. It is probable that our northern
predecessors once had “fur,” thick body hair for warmth, 41 but today fur
appears only as an occasional atavism (i.e., “generalized congenital
hypertrichosis”), where the turned-off allele that codes for it is turned on again,
resulting in a “werewolf.” (See KRT41P gene, p. 103.)
Figure 10-10
(17) Some Australian aborigines have blond hair (Fig. 22-5, p. 177 & 27-4, p. 232) which
may be more of an ash blond (Fig. 10-10). Unlike the golden blond hair of Europeans, ash
blond hair lacks both the reddish (phenomelanin) pigment and the dark (eumelanin) pigment. 42
African hair is black, except certain diseases can make it reddish.
(18) African hair grows more slowly and is

more fragile than European hair. Asian hair grows
the fastest and has the greatest elasticity. Africans
have the shortest hair, 43 Asians the longest.
African males, and even more so European males,
are more prone to balding than Asian males. 44
Some Africans, especially females (Fig. 10-11),
have a receding hairline over the forehead, a
characteristic of the bonobo chimpanzee and the Figure 10-11 Figure 10-12
orangutan. (Fig. 10-12). 45 (Also see Fig. 25-8, p.
215 & 26-8, p. 226).
(19) The wooly hair of Africans is believed to be a specialized trait that evolved in their
tropical bipedal ancestors to facilitate the evaporation of sweat, thereby keeping the brain cool.
Similarly, pubic hair, which is curly in all the races, may serve to facilitate the evaporation of
pheromones. Figures 10-13a, 10-13b, and 10-13c are transverse cross-sections (top) and
longitudinal views (bottom) of the head hair of Caucasians,
Negroids, and Mongoloids. 46
Asian hair is coarser and thicker than
Caucasian hair. “If the hair follicles of a
Chinaman, a European, and a Negro are cut
across transversely, it will be found that the
diameter of the first is 100 by 77 to 85, the
second 100 by 62 to 72, but that of the Negro
is 100 by 40 to 60. This elliptical form of the

Negro's hair causes it to curl more or less
tightly.” “… the crispest, most closely curled
hair [“peppercorn”] is found among the yellow
Hottentots and Bushmen.” (DuBois, 1915).
“According to Professors Brown, Seidy and
Gibbs, the negro's hair is not tubular like the
white man's, but it is eccentrically elliptical Caucasian Negroid Mongoloid
with flattened edges, the coloring matter
residing in the epidermis and not in tubes. In
the place of a tube, the shaft of each hair is
surrounded with a scaly covering like sheep's
wool, and, like wool, is capable of being
felled.” (Cartwright, 1857, p. 47). The pigment
granules are “sparse to moderately dense
with fairly even distribution” in Caucasian Figure 10-13a Figure 10-13b Figure 10-13c
hair, “densely distributed (hair shaft may be opaque) and arranged in prominent clumps” in
Negroid hair and “densely distributed and often arranged in large patchy areas or streaks” in
Mongoloid hair. (Deedrick, 2004).
African hair exits perpendicular to the scalp, at random angles to their elliptical axes so
that each strand curls independently. Eurasian hair exists at the same angle as adjacent hairs,
so that strands curl together. (Howells, 1959, p. 271). Figure 10-14 (DeAnza College, CA) is a
map of hair type, which
coincides well with the three major races. The curly hair indicated on some of the South Pacific
Islands
north of Australia is for Negritos.
(20)
(Ama,
1986).
Slow
twitch
red
muscle
fibers
(Type
I)
resist
fatigue,
but
lack
strength;
fast
twitch Figure 10-14
muscle
fibers (Types IIA - pink and IIB – white, almost all IIB in humans) tire quickly, but contract more
rapidly. East Africans (e.g., the Nandi district in western Kenya; Entine, 2000, pp. 39-41) have
more Type I red fibers and excel in marathons; West Africans (and most African Americans; id,
p. 34) have more Type IIB white fibers, 47 and excel in sprinting and jumping, which is why
African Americans dominate the running back and cornerback positions in football and all but
six of the 500 fastest times for the 100-metre dash have come from sprinters of West African
descent. West African sprinters have heavier fast-twitch muscles, as well as denser bones,
narrower hips, thicker thighs, longer legs and lighter calves, all helpful in running. 48 Eurasians
have less fast twitch muscle fiber than Africans, suggesting a greater reliance upon tools and
weapons, and the intelligence needed to make and use them, and less reliance on athletic
ability. 49
(21) Africans have slenderer calves with longer tendons. 50 Kenyans (from East Africa)
dominate world records in long distance races. They have birdlike legs (400 grams less flesh on
each calf), so they need less energy to swing their legs.
(22) The gluteal (buttocks) muscles in Africans and Caucasians are “stacked,” but they
are “offset” in Asians, making Asian buttocks flatter. These muscles are thicker in blacks.
(23) Higher testosterone levels correlate with a more masculine body, an earlier sexual
maturity, a higher fertility, manual labor instead of intellectual labor, a higher crime rate, 51 a
higher sexually transmitted disease rate, a shorter lifespan, and lower intelligence. 52 There is
convincing scientific evidence suggesting that testosterone is the primary hormonal element of
aggression in both sexes. 53 The severity and violence of the crime for which female prison
inmates were incarcerated is in direct proportion to their plasma (blood) levels of testosterone.
(Dabbs, 1997). Asians have lower testosterone levels, but the level in females is closer to the
level of males (i.e., less sexual dimorphism). Other hormone levels also differ between blacks
and whites. (Wright, 1995). Testosterone levels decline when a male pair bonds, suggesting
that such males had greater reproductive success. (Shur, 2008).
(24) Low levels of serotonin, a neurotransmitter, have been linked to impulsive violence,
suicide, alcoholism, and depression. (Brown, 1982). Serotonin levels are 20 to 30% lower in
men than in women, and men are more prone to impulsive violence. Serotonin levels are high in
newborns, low in adolescents (who are more prone to impulsive violence), then rise again with
age. Blacks have lower levels of serotonin, but if socioeconomic status (SES) is controlled for
there is no correlation between race and serotonin level; 54 low serotonin levels are genetic as
they have been tied to specific alleles. 55 However, the egalitarians fear that the races may
differ genetically in their propensity towards violence (they do) and have stifled research in this
area.
(25) Blood types overlap quite a bit between the races, though most of the world is Rh
positive while about half of Europe is Rh negative. (Sykes, 2001, p. 41). The races differ
significantly in the percentage of their populations that fall into the different categories of the
various systems for classifying blood. (Baker, 1974, pp. 185-187). Some blacks have rare blood
types found only in blacks and, to avoid incompatibility, they may be advised to receive blood
transfusions from blacks having the same type. Treating a person of one race as though he
were a member of a different race can lead to serious medical problems or even death. “The
number of red corpuscles and the amount of haemoglobin in the blood [Nicklas, 1987], the
pulse-rate, the vital capacity [lung capacity], the muscular strength, the amount of urea in the
urine, are different in different races.” 56. "Most populations below the Sahara average 60
percent of the Rho subtype found in only 2 percent of whites. Absence of the Duffy factor (Fy) in
blacks, common in other people, is responsible for their immunity to vivax malaria." (Pollitzer,
W.S., The Gullah People and their African Heritage, 1999, p. 15).
There are scores of different tissue types that have a genetic component and differ
among the races. (Sykes, 2001, p. 91). The races have different bacteria in their bodies
(Caufield, 2007), e.g., different vagina flora and fauna, and different parasites, e.g., a different
species of body mite inhabits the bodies of East Asians and Europeans.
There are racial differences in reactions to foods, drugs (Bailey, 2005), and other
substances. In June of 2005, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the sale of
BiDilTM, a drug that reduces damage to the heart in African Americans, but has little effect on
Eurasians. (Liggett, 2008). The FDA specifically permitted its sale to be directed at blacks.
GenSpec Labs, LLC is even marketing race-tailored vitamins, specially designed to meet the
needs of African Americans, Hispanics, and Caucasians.
There are racial differences in susceptibility to various diseases, even neuroses and
psychoses, but especially debilitating diseases, such as cancer, and genetic diseases.
(Holloway, A., 1996). For example, whites have much more melanoma (skin cancer) than
blacks, but far more blacks have a deadlier form of it. (Hu, 2006). African Americans are more
than twice as susceptible as whites to developing prostate cancer by age 55, and that is due, at
least in part, to a gene variant in chromosome-8. (Freedman, M.L., 2006). Blacks are also more
susceptible to tuberculosis. (Stead, 1990). Northern Europeans, on the other hand, are more
susceptible to cystic fibrosis. Two well-known racial genetic diseases are sickle-cell anemia in
Africans and Tay-Sachs disease in European Jews, 57 but there are many others.
In fact, the number of medical differences between the races is so great that it would
take an entire book just to describe them all. A black medicine specialty is arising and there is
even a journal, Ethnicity and Health, devoted to medical differences between the races. Blacks
at Howard University have started a program to identify genes unique to blacks so that medical
treatment can be specifically tailored for blacks. To argue that “race” is just a social concept
when the human body reacts differently to chemical and biological substances and infectious
organisms depending upon race, illustrates perfectly how nonsensical that position is.
Chapter 11
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. (Lynn, 2006a, pp. 210 – 211) for human data and (Aiello, 1990, p. 193) for chimpanzee and
gorilla data. Different measuring techniques give somewhat different data. (Rushton, 2000a, pp.
130, 133) gives a brain volume of 1364 cc for Mongoloids, 1347 cc for Caucasoids, and 1267
for Negroids. Back
2. Blacks have better hearing than other races. (Murphy, 2006). Back
3. (1911 Encyclopedia Britannica; Baker, 1974, p. 308). Back
4. The Pygmies live in forests around the villages of the Congoids. Unlike the Congoids, they
“sometimes have beards and body hair, especially on the back…” (Howells, 1948, p. 277). Back
5. (Ross, 1986). Back
6. (Rushton, 2000a, p. 133; Broom, 1918, p. 63-79; Howells, 1948, p. 118; Galloway, 2005, pp
31-47). Back
7. Brain volume in cc = 1.038 x (brain weight in grams). (Rushton, 2000a, p. 126). Back
8. Drawings by Pierre Louis Gratiolet. The drawings are not to the same scale. The front of the
brains is to the left. See (Connolly, 1950). “With regard to convolutions there is unanimous
testimony that the convolutions of the brain of the Negro are less numerous and more massive
than the brain of the European.” (Hunt, 1864, p. 10). Back
9. (Broca, 1858, cited by Rushton, 2000a, p. 106). The brain of the Hottentot Venus, Fig. 26-5,
and the brain of another Sanid were examined and found to have simpler sulci. (Baker, 1974,
pp 319, 321; Tiedemann, 1836; Bean, 1906; Connolly, 1950, pp. 146, 203-204, 360). Back
10. “More intelligent brains show faster nerve conduction, less glucose utilization in positron
emission tomography [PET scans], faster reaction times, faster inspection times, faster speeds
in general, greater circumference and volume, smaller standard deviation in reaction times,
greater variability in EEG [electroencephalogram] measures, shorter white matter T2 relaxation
times, and higher gray-white matter contrast with magnetic resonance imaging [MRI].” (Miller,
1994d). Back
11. As a percentage of the brain, the cerebral cortex is about 80% in man, about 74% in apes,
about 68% in monkeys, and about 50% in prosimians. (Corballis, 1991, p. 67). It develops some
time after birth. Back
12. (Putnam, 1967, p. 51, quoting Bolton, 1914). Back
13. (Simpson, 2003, p. 712). “ … the grey substance of the brain of a Negro is of a darker color
than that of the European, that the whole brain is of a smokey tint, and that the pia mater [the
innermost membrane covering the brain] contains brown spots, which are never found in the
brain of a European.” (Hunt, 1865, p. 10). Back
14. (Passingham, 1982). “… imaging studies have shown the prefrontal cortex to be activated
when subjects plan or solve the sorts of problems that make demands on general intelligence.
Furthermore, there is a significant correlation between the volume of frontal grey matter and
intelligence as measured on such tests.” (Passingham, 2002). Back
15. (Broca, 1858, cited by Rushton, 2000a, p. 106; Bean, 1906; Levin, 1997, p. 105). Back
16. A frontal lobotomy, which removes the anterior frontal area of the brain, leaves a person
conscious and seemingly normal, but unable to plan and take initiative. (Penfield, 1957, p. 226).
That is why Africans have been compared to lobotomized Europeans. (Simpson, 2003, p. 705).
Back
17. (Dr. Nora Volkow, "News Release," National Institute on Drug Abuse, Jan., 20, 2006).
"Numerous studies have demonstrated significant racial differences in the metabolism of
tobacco-related products.” (Wilson, S.E., "Study Examines Racial Differences Among Children
To Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure Cincinnati Children's Center for Environmental
Health," Mar. 15, 2005). Back
18. African Americans have much lower slow wave brain activity during sleep than do
Caucasians, which also suggests structural differences in the brain. ("Slow Wave Activity During
Sleep Is Lower In African-Americans Than Caucasians," Science Daily, June 13, 2007). Back
19. When female chimps come into heat, they are “famously promiscuous” and mate with a
large number of males, who have the largest testicles of any primate. Back
20. Females may then choose men with larger sex organs so that their sons will have more
offspring. Back
21. (Library of Excerpts, “Menopause and Menstruation,” neoteny.org). The sperm of

promiscuous primates also swim faster (Nascimento, 2007), and one would expect that to also
be true of Africans. Back
22. (Matchock, 2006). “Dancers made about $70 an hour [in tips from lap dancing] during their
peak period of fertility, versus about $35 while menstruating and $50 in between.” (Hutson, M.,
“The Stripper’s Secret,” Psychology Today, Oct. 2, 2007, online). Back
23. (Baker, 1974, pp. 174, 176; White, S. & Tieken, T., (1999), “Scent – K9’s Reason For
Being”). Back
24. (Prichard, 1836, p. 292). Chemical analysis can already identify individuals and their sex
just from their odor. (Penn, 2007). Back
25. (Baker, 1974, pp 173-177; Hall, 1960). Back
26. The retention of arm pit hair, even among very hairless humans, is believed to be for the
dissemination of pheromones (odors to attract the opposite sex) - until modern times, people
did not bathe regularly and some of us still don’t. (Baker, 1974, p. 165). The scent glands of the
genital region become functional only at puberty. (Baker, 1974, p 169). “Mothers can recognize
their babies by smell alone within six hours after birth, and within days babies can recognize
their mothers’ distinct smells.” (Etcoff, 1999, p. 241). Individual mice, and probably individual
humans as well, can be identified by their genetically controlled odor. (Kwak, 2008). There is
evidence that the odors (pheromones) that women living together emit cause them to
menstruate at about the same time of the month. (Weller, 1993). Back
27. (Jacob, 2002; Wedekind, 1995). Women may be unfaithful or may mate with men of a
different race for this reason. (Garver-Apgar, 2006). Back
28. (New Scientist, “The Color Code,” Mar. 10-16, 2007). Back
29. Blue eyes are associated with strategic thinking and achievement, which would be more
selected for in men. (“Blue-eyed people better off, say scientists,” News.com.au, Aug. 20, 2007;
Clerkin, B., “Why blue-eyed boys (and girls) are so brilliant,” London Daily Mail, Aug. 20,2007).
Also see (Worthy, M. "Eye Color, Sex, and Race, 1974). Since light pigmentation is neotenic
and blue eyes are less pigmented, neoteny may also play a role: “Most [human] babies have
blue eyes but they usually darken as the pigment melanin builds up in the iris.” (Id). “Negro
infants at birth and for a short time afterwards have not infrequently a dark, grayish-blue
iris." (Johnston, 1910). Puma kittens have blue eyes, which later become brown. (MSN Encarta
Encyclopedia). Blue eyes, blond hair, and light skin are produced by the HERC2 gene (p. 102);
all three traits are associated with youth, which suggests that the neoteny that occurred in the
Caucasian lineage was not the same as the neoteny that occurred in the Asian lineage. Blue
eyes can transmit up to 100 times as much light as dark eyes. (Mogk, 2003). While this may
lead to macular degeneration, the additional light may have stimulated the pineal gland, giving
blue-eyed people a fertility advantage. Back
30. (Kobayashi, 2001). Unlike anywhere else on the body, muscles on the face are attached
directly to the skin. (Etcoff, 1999; Schmidt, 2001). Back
31. High intelligence is selected for in animals that have complex social interactions; the
smartest animals are also the most social. Even consciousness may be a social adaptation, so
that we are aware of how others see us and can behave accordingly. Back
32. (Tomasello, M., “For Human Eyes Only,” New York Times, Jan. 13, 2007). Back
33. “Their [Pygmies of central Africa] eyes are dark brown, but the sclera is white, not flecked
with melanin patches as it is among many Negroes and Australian aborigines.” (Coon, 1962, p.
654). “The white of the eye has, in all negroes, a yellowish tinge.” (Burmeister, 1853). “… the
sclera [of Australian aborigines is] somewhat yellowish.” (Baker, 1974, p. 298). Referring to the
Nilotids (Africans near the Nile River), “The cornea of the eye is somewhat brownish …” (Baker,
1974, p. 329). The eleventh edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911, p. 344) reports that
the Negritos of the Pacific (aborigines) have “eyes dark brown with yellowish cornea.” (It is
unfortunate that such an old edition of that encyclopedia must be cited, but the Equality Police
do not permit frankness on racial matters.) Back
34. (Wikipedia, “Color vision”). The peaks of the detectors are in the center of the blue, green,
and red ranges. Back
35. (Changizi, 2006). Here is another explanation. Vertebrates have cones in their retinas for
seeing in color and rods for seeing in black and white, but with more detail. The progenitors of
mammals had four types of cones, enabling them to distinguish subtle differences in color.
When the dinosaurs ruled the earth, early mammals became nocturnal. They lost two types of
cones, which were replaced by more rods, enabling them to see better at night. When, 65 mya,
the dinosaurs were wiped out, most mammals became diurnal (active in daylight), but still had
only 2 types of cones. Birds, however, evolved from dinosaurs and retained the four types of
cones. The early primates, from which man evolved, had a mutation that gave them a third
cone, which helped them find ripe fruit, and humans today have those 3 types of cones.
(Goldsmith, 2006). Back
36. If the wavelengths for the cones in the eyes of Africans are the same (and they very likely
are) that would suggest that Africans acquired alleles for those wavelengths from Eurasians,
and therefore man migrated into Africa, not out of Africa. Back
37. (Howells, 1959, p. 267). “The skin is also much thicker, especially on the skull, the palm of
the hand, and the sole of the foot.” (Hunt, 1864, p. 10). Back
38. Whites with less melanin are several times more likely to develop skin cancer than darker
whites. (Dwyer, 2002). Back
39. Eskimos and the Inuit, who eat mostly vitamin D-rich foods such as seal, walrus, and fish,
don’t need vitamin D made from sunshine, and their darker skin protects them from the
increased cosmic radiation in the Arctic and from ultraviolet light reflected off snow and ice in
the summer. Back
40. Gloger’s Rule states that the more humid the environment, the darker the skin. The reason
is that eumelanin is more difficult for bacteria and fungi to attack than phenomelanin. Back
41. Although human babies are hairless, as fetuses they have a fine body hair, “lanugo,”
suggesting the fetuses of their long-ago ancestors were hairy; see “Biogenetic Law.” Back
42. Of the two main hair pigments, eumelanin and phenomelanin, both yellow blonds and ash
blondes have very little eumelanin pigment in their hair, but yellow blonds have more
phenomelanin. (Birdsell, 1993). Some people in Melanesia (Brouganville, the Aita) have very
dark skin and hair that looks ash blond, but their features are more Negroid and less Caucasian
than the Australian aborigine blonds. (Razib, “Blondism in Melanesia, Gene Expression, Oct.
12, 2007). Back
43. “It [Negro hair] is rarely more than three inches long and, generally not nearly so long.
(Hunt, 1864, p. 10). (Emma Freeman, London’s Natural History Museum). Back
44. (Emma Freedman, London's Natural History Museum). 45. “The superfices of the face
[forehead] at puberty exceeds that of the hairy scalp both in the negro and the monkey, while it
is always less in the white man.” (Cartwright, 1857, p. 45). Orangutan picture from Aravind B.
Dev’s Animal Talks. Back
46. (Houck, M.M., “Forensic Hair Comparisons,”>). The Caucasian cross-section is enlarged.
East Asian cross-sectional area is about 30% greater than African hair and about 50% greater
than European hair. Back
47. And, compared to whites, they have 30 to 40% more of the enzymes needed to activate fast
twitch muscles. (Ama, 1986). Back
48. The psoas major muscle, which lifts the legs, “is markedly larger in black than in white
subjects.” (Hanson, 1999). Back
49. The earliest European modern humans were nearly as robust as Neanderthals. About
30,000 ya they began to lose muscle and bone mass. Modern oarsmen could not power a
Greek trireme as fast or as long as Greeks did in 500 BC. (Pain, S., "Histories: When men were
gods," New Scientist, Issue 2590, Feb. 10, 2007). Back
50. (Cartwright, 1857, p. 46). Back
51. (“High Testosterone Linked to Crimes of Sex, Violence,” Crime Times. 1(2): 2). Back
52. (Nyborg, 1987; Rushton, 2000a, p. 272; Dabbs, 2001). Gifted children have lower salivy
testosterone levels. (Ostatnikova, 2000). Back
53. (Potischman, 2005; Harris, J.A., 1996). “… the same hyperaggressive monkeys that kill
each other are also hypersexual …” (Casual remark by Frederick Goodwin, director of the
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, at the Feb., 1992 meeting of the Mental
Health Advisory Council; the Congressional Black Caucas was offended and had him fired).
Back
54. Here is an example of academic deception. Since SES (socioeconomic status) correlates
with race, by “controlling for” SES, i.e., comparing whites and blacks of the same SES, the
researchers removed the correlation between serotonin level and race. The fact remains that a
black is more likely to have low serotonin than a white. Back
55. (Williams, 1994). The levels are not completely genetic – abusing a child may lower his
serotonin level, even after he becomes an adult. (Maestripieri, 2006). Back
56. (Seal, B. “Meaning of Race, Tribe, Nation,” in Papers on Inter-Racial Problems, First
Universal Races Congress, 1911). Back
57. ("Natural Genius?" The Economist, June 2, 2005). Back
Chapter 11 - Reproductive Strategy

“Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy."
Henry A. Kissinger
There are two strategies that living things can use to create the next generation with the limited amount of
energy they have available for reproduction: (1) They can invest that energy in a large number of progeny, putting
only a little energy into each one so that, although most will not survive, there will be so many of them that a few
will survive (an “r” strategy), or (2) they can invest that energy in only a few progeny, putting more energy into
each one (e.g., as food in an egg, larger size at birth, body fat, milk, or care after birth), so that each one has a
better chance of surviving (a “K” strategy). 1 Salmon, for example, have an “r” strategy, laying millions of eggs that
are then abandoned; most die, but enough survive to make the next generation. An elephant, on the other hand,
has a “K” strategy, having only a single 170 to 250 pound baby after 22 months of pregnancy, which is then
nursed by the mother for three to five years. Most living things are in between the extreme “r” and the extreme “K”
strategies. All humans have a very “K” strategy, but the races differ considerably in how “K” they are. 2
J. Philippe Rushton has done a superb job of documenting racial differences in reproductive strategy
(Rushton, 2000a), concluding that blacks are the least “K,” Asians the most “K,” and Caucasians in between, but
close to Asians. 3 This racial order of reproductive strategy is a direct consequence of our evolution from a more
“r” orientated ape. All the races descended from an ape; Asians evolved the most away from that ancestor,
Africans the least, and Caucasians in between, but close to Asians. Table 11-1 presents a few of the traits that
demonstrate racial differences in reproductive strategy. 4
Trait Northeast Asians White Europeans African- A: Africans

Americans C: Chimp
Cranial sutures (1) Close late Close late Close earlier C: Still earlier
Eruption of wisdom teeth 1-2 yrs late
5 Average Earlier A: 1-2 yrs early
(Japanese)
Pubic hair: 10.5 Pubic hair: 9.5
Mean age of puberty (2) Later Breasts: 10.3 Breasts: 9.5 -
Menarche: 12.7 Menarche: 12.1
Week 39: 33%
born Week 39: 51% born
Gestation period (3) - -
Week 40: 55% Week 40 70% born
born
A: >16 (e.g., 57)
Twins (per 1000 births) 6 <4 8 - 7
Triplets (per million) 10 100 - A: 1700

Quadruplets (per million) 0 1 - A: 60
1.5 (Can., all
Total fertility rate 8 1.6 (China)
races)
- A: 5.5
Table 11-1
(1) The sutures are where the bones of the skull meet. In a child, they are open and moveable but by
adulthood they have fused. The sutures of Africans close earlier. 9 Late fusing sutures indicate greater neoteny
(Schwartz, 2005, p. 131) and a more prolonged period of brain growth; sutures that close early indicate faster
maturation. The sutures in Africans close earlier than in Eurasians. (Broca, 1858). The cessation of brain growth is
consistent with IQ testing that shows increases in the intelligence of Negro children until about age 3, when they
begin to lose ground (Chapter 14, FN 37 & FN 12, below); 2 year old Africans have an average IQ of 92, but it falls
to 67 as they mature. (Lynn, 2006a, p 45).
(2) (Wu, 2002). By age nine, 49.4% of African American girls start developing pubic hair or breasts, but
only 15.8% of Caucasian girls. (Wu, 2002). Environment can affect the onset of menstruation; for example,
vigorous exercise can delay it and obesity can accelerate it. (Kaplowitz, 2001). Growing up in a stressful home
(e.g., no father, 10 violence, abuse) can lower the age of puberty and make girls more promiscuous. (Allman,
1994, p. 120).
(3) (Rushton, 2000a, p 147). This is a large difference and is strong evidence that blacks have a less K-
orientated reproductive strategy than whites. Black women have 3 times as many premature births as white
women, even after adjusting for SES, and their median gestation period is two weeks earlier (31 vs. 33). (Kistka,
2007).
In Table 11-2, the age of mother at birth is based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics.
Race Age under 18 Births Under 19 Rate

(2000) (1999)
(A) % of Population % of Race Number (B)% (B)/(A)
White 44.0 60.9 214,971 44.3 0.9
Black 11.4 15.8 122,175 25.2 2.2
Hispanic 12.4 17.2 127,402 26.2 2.1
Other 4.5 6.2 20,556 4.2 0.9
Table 11-2
The last column shows that white and “other” teenagers have slightly fewer births than do adults of those races
(0.9), but black and Hispanic teenagers have more than twice as many births as do black and Hispanic adults (2.2
and 2.1, respectively).
Accomplishment African European
Table babies babies
11-
3 Being drawn up into a sitting position, able to prevent the head from falling backwards 9 hours old 6 weeks
showsWith head held firmly, looking at the face of the examiner 2 days old 8 weeks
that
Supporting herself in a sitting position and watching her reflection in a mirror 7 weeks 20 weeks
right
fromHolding herself upright 5 months 9 months
birth,Taking the round block out of its hole in the form board 5 months 11 months
African
Standing against the mirror
babies 5 months 9 months
are Walking to the Gesell box to look inside 7 months 15 months
much
Climbing the steps alone 11 months 15 months
more
mature Table 11-3
than
European babies. 11 Although the author of Table 11-3 was attempting to show that blacks are superior because
they mature faster, all of the activities in the table show faster maturation of the brain, which is associated with
lower intelligence at maturity. 12
Figure 11-1 (Geber, 1958, p 185-195) shows two of the tests:
Faster maturation is also associated with faster population growth, and Africans have the highest
population growth in the world, 13 now that Eurasians provide them with food and medical care. Despite wars,
famines, AIDS, and the theft and waste of hundreds of billions of dollars, the population of Africa continues to
explode. “In the United States the average woman will be a source of 14 children, grandchildren, and great-
grandchildren; the comparable figure for an African woman is 258.” (Rushton, 2000a, p 161). This is exactly what
one would expect from an examination of African reproductive traits.
African men have a stronger sex
drive due to higher testosterone levels, a
higher sperm count due to larger testicles,
and behaviorally they have well-honed
and fairly indiscriminate seduction skills.
African women have a shorter gestation
period, produce more multiple births,
have fewer complications giving birth (due
to fetus’ smaller head size and elongated
skull), and African children become
sexually mature at an earlier age and

thereafter are considerably more sexually
active than other races. Nigeria’s
population, for example, doubled in just
25 yrs from 65 million in 1980 to 144.4
million in the middle of 2007 and is
projected to reach 281.6 million by 2050,
a 95% increase; only 4% of married
women in Nigeria in 2003 with 2 living
children said they did not want any more.
(Population Reference Bureau, 2007
World Population Data Sheet 7). In the
West, educated women have fewer
children, 14 but educated women in
Kenya who have already had 12 children
have a 50% chance of having a 13th
child. (Popp, 2000). The two global fertility Nine hours old, head doesn’t fall Two days old, holds head and looks
winners are Somalia at 6.91 children per backwards (white child, six weeks) at adult (white child, eight weeks)
woman and Niger at 6.83. Meanwhile, the Figure 11-1
United States is just below replacement
level (2.1) with 2.07, and a large proportion of those are not white. Figure 11-2 (Wikipedia, “Total Fertility Rate")
shows the fertility rates around the world. The rate is clearly highest in Africa, which is consistent with the more “r”
reproductive strategy of Africans.
Figure 11-2
Chapter 12
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. (Rushton, 2000a, p 203; Levin, 1997, pp. 136-137). Back
2. While the reproductive strategy is genetically determined, culture, the availability of food, and other factors can
cause individuals to choose a more “r” or a more “K” strategy. For example, in the West, people are making a
greater investment in their children (e.g., braces, medical treatment, college, keeping up with peers), necessitating
a reduction in the number of children they have, a more “K” reproductive strategy. (“Increased Life Expectancy
May Mean Lower Fertility,” ScienceDaily, Feb. 17, 2008). Although individuals will vary in how "r" or "K" they are,
the mean "r-K" strategy of a population will tend to move towards the optimum for its environment. (Chapter 4,
Rule 10). Back
3. An “r” strategy correlates with low IQ, tropical adaptations, poverty, and other traits, and a “K” strategy
correlates with their opposites. (Andreev, 2004). Back
4. Data from (Rushton, 2000a, pp. 147-152) and elsewhere, as indicated. Back
5. (Olze, 2004). Also see (Harris, E.F., 1990; Davidson, 2001). Back
6. Normal fertilization, not implanted fetuses or hormonally-induced multiple births. It is the mother’s race, not the
father’s, that largely determines the rate of twinning. (Rushton, 2000a, p. 165). Back
7. (Rushton, 2000a, p. 165) citing (Bulmer, 1970). (Allen, 1987; Nylander, 1975). Back
8. Average number of children born to a woman during her lifetime. (Population Reference Bureau, 2006 World
Population Data Sheet, "Demographic Data and Estimates for the Countries and Regions of the World"). The
European rate includes a significant number of non-European immigrants. In most countries, fertility peaks among
women between ages 20 to 24, but in nearly half of the surveyed countries of sub-Saharan Africa the peak
extended to age 29 and sub-Saharan African women continue to have children at older ages than elsewhere.
(INFO Project, Center for Communication Programs, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public
Health, Volume XXXI, Number 2, Spring, 2003). Back
9. “The bones of the head are not only disunited, but are more or less overlapped at birth, in consequence of the
largeness of the Caucasian child’s head and the smallness of its mother’s pelvis, giving the head an elongated
form, and an irregular, knotty feel to the touch. The negro infant, however, is born with a small, hard, smooth,
round head like a gourd. Instead of the frontal and temporal bones being divided into six plates, as in the white
child, they form but one bone in the negro infant. The head is not only smaller than that of the white child, but the
pelvis of the negress is wider than that of the white woman – its greater obliquity also favors parturition [childbirth]
and prevents miscarriage.” (Cartright, 1857, p. 45). The large number of bones and their overlapping permit more
growth after birth. (Broca, 1858, cited in Rushton, 2000a, p. 106; also see Chap. 11). Back
10. The absence of a father can lower the age of puberty by 3 months, perhaps due to the absence of the father’s
pheromones, but the onset of puberty in African Americans is not affected by the presence or absence of a father,
possibly because the presence of fathers was not common in Africa. (Matchock, 2006). Back
11. (Wilson, 1978). Also see (Levin, 1997, p. 113; Freedman, 1969). “… the kinesthetic maturation rate [control of
bodily movements] of native African infants was two or three times that of European children.” (Simpson, 2003, pp.
712-713). Faster maturation goes along with a shorter life span; both are a more of an “r” reproductive strategy. In
2002, African-Americans had 40.5% more deaths than they would have had with the white mortality rate. (A 2005
report by former U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher). The bodies of blacks mature faster. (İşcan, 1987). Back
12. (Shaw, 2006). Blacks are born shorter, lighter, and with smaller head perimeters; by age 7 they have caught
up, but not in head perimeter. (Rushton, 1995). On the other hand, Chinese babies are also born with smaller
brains, as Chinese women are petite, but the brain grows rapidly after birth, though the baby matures slowly. The
gap in performance between Negro and white children increases with chronological age; the gap is largest at high
school and college levels. (Shuey, 1966). “Young monkeys and young negroes are superior to white children of
the same age in memory and other intellectual faculties.” (Cartwright, 1857, p. 45). “Young Negro children are
nearly as intelligent as European children; but the older they grow the less intelligent they become.” (Hunt, 1864).
“The monkey infant is better than the ape, and the ape better than the human, on such skills as grasping an
object, reaching for an object, or sitting up unassisted. After 10 or 11 months, the superiority of the human infant
begins to assert itself.” (Corballis, 1991, p. 69, citing Premack, 1988). “The intellectual progress of the Negro is
rapid during the first ten or twelve years, next it slows down, becomes stationary, then proceeds slowly,
diminishing during some fifteen years. Finally a rapid enfeeblement occurs.” (Professor H.V. Vallois, quoted in
(Putnam, 1961, p. 52)). Quotes from (Hunt, 1864, p. 17): “Up to fourteen years of age black children advance as
fast as whites.” (Sir C. Lyell). “[W]hen young, he [the modern Egyptian] is remarkably precocious in intellect, and
learns with facility. As he grows up, his intellect seems to be dulled or diminished.” (Elliot Warburton). “[Africans]
have a quick apprehension of the ridiculous, often surpassing the intelligence of the whites, and only drop behind
them about the twelfth year, when the reflective powers being to have their assendency.” (Colonel Hamilton
Smith). It’s not how fast you can go, it’s how far you can go. Back
13. For sub-Sahara Africa, there are 40 births, but only 16 deaths, per 1000 people per year. (Population
Reference Bureau, 2006 World Population Data Sheet, "Demographic Data and Estimates for the Countries and
Regions of the World"). Back
14. Because educated women earn more, the amount of money they lose by having children, their “opportunity
cost,” is greater. Back
Chapter 12 - Behavior
“Man is man because he has no instincts, because everything he is and has become he has
learned, acquired, from his culture, from the man-made part of the environment, from other
human beings."
Anthropologist Ashley Montagu 1
The subject of this chapter is genetically-induced (inherited) racial differences in

behavior. Some (above quote) may question whether behavior is inherited in humans, 2 though
it is clearly inherited in other mammals as well as birds, insects, crustaceans, fish, etc., 3 and
even plants. Indeed, the argument has been made that without inherited emotions that motivate
at least some behavior, a living thing would have no motivation to do anything. (Damasio,
1994).
We humans do not find ourselves just doing something that we did not intend to do, but
rather we feel an urge to behave in a certain way, then give in to the urge when it is convenient
to do so or it is so intense that it is hard to resist. Throughout the day we have urges to eat,
urinate, sneeze, etc., all of which are genetically-caused feelings that induce us to engage in
certain behavior. We may feel horny, nauseous, or tired, inducing us to seek sex, throw up, or
take a nap. Feelings of pain and pleasure induce us to move away from heat or to take drugs. 4
Not only do we inherit most of the urges that guide our behavior, but those urges did not arise
with the first man – they arose many millions of years before Homo was here.
Even very specific urges can be genetically-induced in humans. A pregnant woman’s
craving for odd foods, perhaps needed for the health of her fetus, has provided laughs for many
sitcoms. 5 Normal human children are born with a fear of snakes and spiders. 6 Women are
attracted to high status men and men are attracted to young, healthy women. The similar
idiosyncrasies of identical twins, even when they have been raised apart in different
environments, can be explained only as inherited behavior. 7 Our environment may accentuate
or diminish the extent to which we give in to our innate urges, but it may never entirely remove
them.
When we deal with other people it is more difficult to determine whether our behavior is
environmentally-acquired or genetically induced. The behaviors compared in Table 12-1,
however, are so universal, both in location and time, that there should be a significant genetic
component to them.
African-
Trait Asian Caucasian Africans
Americans
Self-esteem (1) Average Average High -
Preparing for the future
High High Low Very Low
(2)
Work ethic (3) High High Low Low
High school non-dropout
79% 72% 51% -
rate 8
Promiscuity (number of
Low Medium High High
sexual partners) (4)
Pair bonding (5) High High Low Low
Most face- Most face-to-

Intercourse position (6) ? ?
to-face face
Sexually transmitted
Low Norm High High
diseases (STD) (7)
Illegitimate births <10% 23% 66% High
Father involvement (8) Norm Norm Low -
4½ times greater
Welfare dependency Low Norm -
than whites
Altruism (9) High Very high Lower -
Social conformity (10) Higher High Lower -
Not since 1865 Not since 1865 in
Full chattel slavery (11) Rare Still reported
in US US
Incidents still
Cannibalism (12) No No No
reported
CRIME (13)
13 times higher
Murder Low Norm High
than whites
10 times higher
Rape Low Norm High
than whites
3 times higher than
White collar crimes Low Norm High
whites
Table 12-1
(1) In their opinion of their own attractiveness and competency in reading, science, and
social studies (but not math), blacks score higher than whites and Asians, despite their actual
lower scores. 9 Ethnic pride, prohibited to whites by the Equality Police, increases happiness
and, presumably, self-esteem. (Kiang, 2006).
(2) Forethought, the ability to plan and prepare for the future (preferring increased future
benefits to immediate gratification), is closely related to the absence of impulsiveness. 10 The
savings rate among Asians is high, indicating increased planning and willingness to defer
gratification. 11 Drug addicts, children, low IQ people, and blacks prefer pleasures now rather
than later, 12 and typically have little or no savings. 13 In a classic experiment, children were
offered a small candy bar now or a large one later; most whites chose the large one later and
most blacks chose the small one now. 14 A number of observers of Africans have commented
that their behavior is “child-like” – that they are similar to children. 15
The inability to defer gratification leads to renting instead of saving and buying, theft
rather than working and waiting, and rape instead of courting and seduction. The ability to plan
ahead and defer gratification is critical to creating and maintaining a civilization, where the rights
of others must be respected even if it means not getting something immediately when you want
it.
(3) Asians students are known for the extra hours of study they put in, Caucasians less
so, and African-Americans still less. Eurasians become self-motivated as they mature, Africans
less so. Black unemployment is typically significantly higher than for Eurasians, even when jobs
are available. “Hard work pays off in the future; indolence pays off now.” 16
All populations of all living things all over the planet, animal or plant, expand their
numbers to meet the resources available. (Populations that failed to do this simply went extinct
long ago as the inevitable drops in numbers in bad times would not have been compensated for
by increases in good times.) This means that, a great deal of the time, every population bumps
up against the limits of the carrying capacity of its territory and, during those difficult times, there
will be intense competition, physical conflicts, and starvation. 17 Only those individuals who are
prepared for the bad times will survive them.
In the colder north, the bad times come every winter when food is difficult or impossible
to find. Man is not made to hibernate, 18 so he must store enough food to survive the winter,
either as provisions or by fattening up. His body fat will not feed his children and children cannot
store enough fat on their own bodies to make it through the winter, so there is no alternative but
to store provisions; fortunately, the cold weather helps preserve food. The amount that a family
needs to store will depend upon the severity of the winter and, since that cannot be predicted,
man will, like squirrels, store an excess of food if he can.
In contrast, an African in the tropics has no winter to worry about, but he does have
changes in rainfall and other factors that affect his food supply. Unlike winter, however, these
changes are unpredictable and preparing for them is likely to be a waste of time and resources.
And, even if he acquires extra food, it is nearly impossible to store it for long at the high
temperatures of the tropics. 19 Hunting for extra food that cannot be easily stored not only
wastes his future food supplies, but could result in injury and death; he is better off doing
nothing until he must. 20
(4) Blacks have the most sexual partners. 21 The sex drive of non-Hispanic blacks is
1.19 standard deviations (SDs) or 37% greater than whites, but that of Asian/Pacific Islanders is
0.124 SDs or 4% lower. 22 The proportion of adults who first had sex before age 15 was highest
for non-Hispanic blacks (28%), compared to 14% for both Mexican-Americans and non-
Hispanic whites. Only 6% of blacks abstained from sex until age 21 or older, fewer than
Mexican-Americans (17%) or non-Hispanic whites (15%); 46% of black men and 13% of black
women reported having at least 15 partners in a lifetime, more than other racial or ethnic
groups. 23 According to the CDC (National Statistics Reports, Preliminary 2006, Table 1),
70.7% of the births of non-Hispanic blacks were out of wedlock, compared to 26.6% for non-
Hispanic white mothers. Africans have a high frequency of fraternal twins (up to 49 per 1000
births) 24 which indicates high promiscuity and low pair bonding.
Promiscuity in a population correlates with larger testicles because females have sex
with many males and the male that produces the most sperm is more likely to fertilize the egg.
25 There is a tradeoff between testicle size and brain size because both are costly organs – if
more resources are invested in larger testicles, then there are fewer resources available for a
larger brain. Also, brains and testicles support different strategies for the male to pass on his
alleles; large testicles rely on sperm competition and a large brain relies on “meat for sex,” i.e.,
supplying the female with the resources she needs to reproduce and support her offspring. 26 If
females need male resources, big brains beat big balls. Of the three major races, blacks have
the largest testicles and the smallest brains. (Chap. 10).
(5) (Jaynes, 1989). Pair bonding is related to monogamy, the extent to which men and
women limit their sexual activity to a single partner. 27 Pair bonding supports a family structure
for raising children, a more “K” reproductive strategy. Since the burden of provisioning fell more
heavily upon men in the cold north than in the warm tropics, where women gathered most of the
food for themselves and their children, it was more difficult for a man in the north to support
more than one wife. Monogamy is more typical of the colder climates, while polygamy is more
typical of the tropics. 28 In sub-Saharan Africa, a woman is more likely to have children by
different fathers, and the children are raised, not by a family, but by the village. 29 Monogamy
was induced by females when they evolved to hide obvious indications that they were fertile
(e.g., bright red genitalia or rumps), so that males stayed around for sex all the time and helped
raise the kids instead of chasing after other females. (Rodriguez-Girones, 2001). Unlike female
apes, who give obvious signals when they are in estrus (i.e., capable of conceiving), it is not
obvious when a human female is ovulating. Concealed ovulation in females leads to “copulatory
vigilance” in males, i.e., males had to stay close to the female as much as possible to keep
other males away and be certain that other males did not father her children; that would also
promote pair bonding. (Lovejoy, 1981). Pair bonding was an important step toward becoming
human (Chapais, 2008) and, since there is less of it in Africa, that suggests (Chapter 4, Rule
11) that it did not originate in Africa and that man's lineage became human outside of Africa.
The hormone-driven feeling of falling in love is clearly an adaptation that induces pair
bonding. 30 Thus, the feeling should have been absent prior to pair bonding and should be
diminished in Africans, who pair bond less. Male deception can be expected when females rely
upon their mates being in love with them in order to ensure long-term pair bonding. Men, even
those who pair bond, seek sex with other women to maximize their fitness because having sex
a thousand times with one woman will produce fewer progeny than having sex once with a
thousand women. Each sex tries to maximize its fitness, only because those individuals whose
alleles did not induce maximizing behavior did not leave descendants.
Prior to agriculture (about 12,000 ya) our hunter-gatherer ancestors pair bonded only as
long as it took to wean a child, 4 or 5 yrs. After that, the couple would find other mates if they
wished to. (Fisher, 1992). However, when the hunter-gatherer lifestyle gave way to agriculture,
splitting up was no longer feasible because survival was tied to farming a particular piece of
land. As the percentage of farmers in the U.S. has declined from about 97% to less than 3%,
couples have reverted to man’s original lifestyle of short term pair bonding (Allman, 1994, p.
130), aka “serial monogamy.”
(6) “Most animals [female primates] have brightly colored and fleshy rumps, and they
mate from behind.” (Etcoff, 1999, p. 188). Only man, orangutans (usually), bonobos (commonly;
De Waal, 1997, p. 102; Coppens, 2004, p. 13; though Schwartz, 2005, p. 155, says it is mostly
during homosexual encounters), Japanese macaques (30% of the time, Wolfe, 1984), gorillas
(“sometimes”) 31 and porcupines (wisely) mate front-to-front. When man shifted to front-to-front
mating, women’s breasts and nipples became a more prominent visual display to the male.
(Morris, 1967). The large fleshy rumps of Andaman Islanders, Hottentots, and Bushmen (Fig.
26-4, 26-5, & 26-6), suggest front-to-back mating, but data on the sexual positions of Africans is
hard to come by. “We travel in packs and we do it from the back.” (Lyric from the album
“Doggystyle” by African American rapper “Snoop Dogg.”) The popularity of “down low” (anal
homosexuality) in African American men, which has been responsible for the spread of AIDS to
African American women, 32 also suggests front-to-back mating, as does the high level of AIDS
in Africa. Unprotected receptive anal intercourse is 20 to 500 times more infectious than vaginal
intercourse (Leynaert, 1998) and people frequently lie about their sexual activities. (Brody,
1997). While the female genitals in Orientals are “front and high,” in Africans they are “back and
low”; erections in Orientals are “parallel to the body and stiff” but in blacks are “at right angles to
body and flexible,” which also suggests front-to-back mating. 33
(7) Blacks have the highest incidence of sexually transmitted
diseases (STDs), a consequence of their promiscuity and impulsiveness.

Of the roughly 1 million people estimated to be living with HIV in the
United States, 47% are African-American (CDC, 2005) and they were
56% of the newly diagnosed HIV cases in 2005. African Americans
represent about 12.8% of the U.S. population (U.S. Census, 2005), but
black men are diagnosed with HIV at more than seven times the rate of
white men, and black women at 20 times the rate of white women. (Kalb,
2006; Hall, 2008). The prevalence of the AIDS virus doubled from 1% to
2% of American blacks while white rates held steady at 0.2 percent. 34
Non-Hispanic blacks between 19 and 24 yrs of age are 20 times more
likely to be infected with HIV than young adults in any other racial or Figure 12-1
ethnic group in the U.S. Figure 12-1 gives the percentage of HIV/AIDS cases in Washington,
D.C. (60% black) by race. 35 All the top 15 countries for HIV/AIDS in 2005 were African. 36
Blacks have higher rates for other sexually transmitted diseases as well, which can also
be attributed to their promiscuity and failure to practice safe sex (which requires anticipating
future consequences of current acts). In 2006, the U.S. African American chlamydia rate was 8
times the white rate, the African American gonorrhea rate was 18 times the white rate; the black
congenital syphilis rate in 2005 was 15.1 times the white rate. 37 About 40% of U.S. black
adults have genital herpes, compared to 14% of whites. (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Aug., 2006). Nearly half of black girls age 14 to 19 have at least one STD,
compared to 20% for white girls. (CDC, 2003-2004 data).
(8) Africans are more likely to be cads than dads (more “r” orientated, see previous
chapter). Low father involvement (e.g., illegitimacy, divorce) is tied to promiscuity in girls and
aggression in boys (Blain, 1988; Heatherton, 1972), both of which are higher in African
Americans. Africans and African Americans have similar family structures, suggesting it is
genetic. (Wilson, 2002).
(9) A desire to help other people, even strangers (“altruism”) appears to be a genetically-
induced behavior as it has been observed in children as young as 18 months. 38 No studies of
racial differences in altruism have been found but, in terms of donations of money, blood, and
human organs, Caucasians are far more generous than other races, and they do so less in
accordance with kinship.
(10) (Allik, 2004; Lynn, 2002c & 2003). Social conformity and less deviancy may
contribute to a lower Asian level of achievement, despite a higher IQ. (Chap. 14.)
(11) Full chattel slavery (the buying and selling of people as though they were animals),
either legally or tolerated, has been practiced by all three races against members of their own
race and other races, 39 but it is practiced openly today only by Africans. 40 In the U.S. prior to
1865, some black slaves who had been freed even purchased their own black slaves. (Grooms,
1995, pp. 17-21; Robson, 2006; Koger, 1985). Had whites not purchased African slaves from
Africans, the slaves would most likely have been slain and eaten because they were enemies
and had little value unless they could be sold as slaves. Thus, being purchased by non-Africans
was a successful reproductive “strategy” for African slaves. 41
(12) Cannibalism occurs under a number of very different circumstances. In its least
unacceptable form people find the behavior abhorrent, but the choice is eat or die. "Desperation
cannibalism" occurred, for example, when the Donner Party was trapped in the Rocky
Mountains in 1846, when a plane crashed in the Andes Mountains in 1972, and when the Allies
starved the German people after WWII. (Keeling, 1947, p. 65). Next, there is cannibalism that is
not necessary to live, but it is part of the culture. "Cultural cannibalism" occurred on Papua New
Guinea in the South Pacific, kuru, a brain disease caused by prions, was passed on to people
who ate the brains of dead relatives. It has also been reported in China. (Chong, K.R.,
Cannibalism in China, Longwood Academic, 1990, excerpted Dienekes'Anthropology Blog, Feb.
9, 2004).
Last, there is "homicidal cannibalism," deliberately killing people for the pleasure of
eating them, either in secret by psychopathic individuals or in the open by groups of seemingly-
normal people. From cut marks on fossilized human bones, cannibalism is believed to have
been widespread among early man, 42 but it is difficult to determine the circumstances from
fossils. However, given that man competed group-against-group, with groups expanding in
times of plenty and starving the rest of the time, killing people in other groups for food would not
be surprising. Before contact with the outside world, killing people for food was common in
Africa and there are still occasional reports of it today. 43 It was also practiced by indigenous
natives in Ecuador as recently as the 1970's and is still being reported in New Guinea.
(Raffaele, 2006).
Homicidal cannibalism is a good indicator of psychopathy because it requires the
complete absence of empathy for the victim. It is likely that early men were homicidal cannibals
and would be judged pychopathic today. When man moved north, cooperation, trust, and honor
were required for survival. Since psychopaths lacked the empathy needed for those qualities
psychopathy would have become maladaptive and would have been selected against and
minimized. Thus, we should expect tropical primitive populations to have a higher percentage of
psychopathic individuals. (Lynn, 2002c).
(13) The crime ratios in Table 12-1 are for African Americans living in the U.S., 44 but
similar ratios are found in other countries that have a high percentage of blacks, such as Great
Britain, 45 France, and Canada. Indeed, go to any city or country in the world that has a
significant black population, and blacks will be overrepresented in the criminal population. 46 In
Great Britain, 3 out of 4 black men are in the DNA criminal database (i.e., they were arrested;
Telegraph, Nov. 5, 2006). Using data from international surveys of crime, (Rushton, 2000a), pp.
158-160) found that violent crime was twice as common in Africa and the Caribbean as in
predominantly white countries. In the U.S., the crime rate of black high school dropouts
between ages 26 and 30 is so high that more are institutionalized (34%) than are employed
(30%). 47 Although blacks are only about 12.8% of the U.S. population (U.S. Census, 2005),
“Among the 1.4 million inmates sentenced to more than one year at year-end 2003, an
estimated 44 percent were black, 35 percent white, 19 percent Hispanic and 2 percent of other
races.” (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Nov. 7, 2004, on About.com).
African American crime has long been a fixture in the U.S. In 1954, for example, the
Negro/white ratio was 16:1 for murder, 13:1 for robbery, and 6:1 for rape, despite Negroes
being only about 10% of the population at that time. (Dept. of Justice, Vol. 25, No. 2). More
recently, the death from murder rate in 2003 per 100,000 for non-Hispanic males aged 20 to 24
was 6.5 for whites but 10 times higher, 64.5, for blacks. (National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol.
55, No. 10, Mar. 15, 2007). Compared to non-blacks, blacks are seven times more likely to
commit murder, 48 eight times more likely to commit robbery, and three times more likely to use
a gun in a crime. 49 In the United States, 18.71 blacks were killed per 100,000 blacks and 2.97
whites were killed per 100,000 whites. 50 During the 10 year period from 1975 to 1985, spousal
homicide among blacks was 8.4 times higher than that of whites. 51 Since blacks discourage
blacks from cooperating with the police (“Don’t Snitch”) and black juries frequently refuse to
convict black defendants, even when they are obviously guilty, e.g., O.J. Simpson, the real
black crime rates are higher than the reported rates.

Blacks and white egalitarians may say that higher black crime rates are just a
stereotype, but even they are betrayed by their amygdala, a part of the brain that serves as an
“alarm” that activates a cascade of other biological systems to protect the body in times of
danger. The amygdala alarm “goes off” in about two-thirds of both blacks and whites, even
egalitarian whites, who are shown pictures of black faces, but not when shown pictures of white
faces. (NCF, 2005). As the statistics show, people, e.g., Barack Obama’s white grandmother,
correctly believe that the primitive features of blacks indicate a more violent and dangerous
person. African American male murderers of whites who have “black-looking” features are more
than twice as likely to be executed as those who look less ‘black,” i.e., less primitive and
therefore less dangerous. (Eberhardt, 2006). Other primitive people also have a high crime rate.
52
A tendency towards criminal behavior is heritable (Wright, 1997, p. 23). A 1999 Justice
Department survey found that 46% of jail inmates had at least one sibling, parent, or child who
had been incarcerated at some point. “Research consistently places the average IQ of
convicted lawbreakers at 92, some 8 points below the population average and 10 points below
the average for law-abiding folks. Available data also suggest that offenders who get away with
their crimes fare no better on intelligence tests than those who get nabbed and convicted. IQ
scores often dip most sharply for serious, repeat offenders, a small set of primarily young men
who commit a majority of all crimes.” (Bower, B., “Criminal Intellects,” Science News, Apr. 15,
1995).
Crime increases as IQ decreases in both whites and blacks, but blacks commit more
crime than whites who have the same IQ. Lynn suggests that this is because blacks are more
likely to have a psychopathic personality, as evidenced, for example, by their inability to work
consistently, unlawful behaviors, aggressiveness, failure to pay debts, impulsiveness,
deception, recklessness, poor parenting, absence of remorse, and disruptive childhood
behavior. 53 The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is used to measure
psychopathic personality. Blacks and American Indians have the highest psychopathic scores,
then Hispanics, followed by whites, then ethnic Japanese and Chinese, who have the lowest
scores. 54 Consciousness and character are concentrated in the frontal lobe of the brain, which
is a recent evolutionary development and therefore not yet completely stable. Europeans have
the most developed frontal lobe and Africans the least. 55
Black on White Crime

There is so much more
black-against-white crime than
white-against-black crime (Figure
12-2), despite blacks having more
contact with other blacks and blacks
constituting a smaller percentage of
the population, that it is clear that
blacks are targeting whites. 56
Between 1964 and 1994 there were
over 25 million violent interracial
crimes, overwhelmingly black
offenders and white victims. (Justice
Department and FBI statistics).
“Black Americans have committed at
least 170 million crimes against
white Americans in the past 30
years.” 57 “Blacks commit more

violent crime against whites than
against blacks,” and are “an
estimated 39 times more likely to
commit violent crime against a white
person than vice versa, and 136
times more likely to commit
robbery,” despite whites doing their
best to stay away from blacks.
(NCF, 2005). This is clearly seen in
Figure 12-2 (La Griffe du Lion,
1999a), which explains “white flight.”
In Figure 12-3, the probability (“Φ,”
left vertical axis) that a white is
violently victimized within a year
increases exponentially as the
proportion of blacks in a
neighborhood increases, i.e., blacks
target whites as soon as they start to
Figure 12-2
outnumber whites. 58
Black rap “music” and black leaders encourage
blacks to commit crimes against whites. At least one
prominent black leader, Khallid Muhammad (a
personal assistant of Louis Farrakhan and an event
organizer with Al Sharpton), has openly called for
blacks to kill whites, even women and babies. 59
Not only is the black-on-white crime rate much
higher than the white-on-black crime rate, but it differs
from white crime in that it is more impulsive, more
savage, 60 and often involves more attackers, 61
sometimes even black females, who are more-or-less
Figure 12-3 “normal.” 62 Examples, typically ignored by the mass
media, 63 include the December, 2000, “Wichita
Massacre,” where the Carr brothers raped, sodomized, and murdered five young whites (three
men and two women), and the January, 2007, Knoxville, Tennessee, torture, sexual mutilations,
rapes, and murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom – five blacks, including one
female, were charged. 64
Rape
African men have a high crime rate for rape, regardless of what country they are in. 65
There is little punishment for rape in Africa and therefore, it would be maladaptive not to rape. It
is a good reproductive strategy for a male who is unable to obtain a female any other way. 66
In a 2005 survey on “rape and sexual assault” in the United States, 67 37,460 white
women were victims of blacks, but white-on-black rape was too low to show up in the statistics.
68 “What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are
raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.” 69

Between 2001 and 2003, there were, on average, 15,400 black-on-white rapes per year,
while whites averaged only 900 white-on-black rapes per year, a black-white ratio of 17.1:1.
(U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS)). Since there are five-
and-one-half times as many whites as blacks in America, that means that blacks rape whites
over ninety times as frequently as whites rape blacks. The actual difference is much higher
because the “white“ figure (900) includes Hispanics, who are counted as white. Thus, the real
black-white ratio is likely 200:1 or higher. (NCF, 2005). The number of white men raped by
blacks in prison may be even greater than the number of white women raped by blacks. (Taylor,
J., "Hard Time," American Renaissance, Apr., 2002, 13(4), a review of Mariner, J. No Escape:
Male Rape in U.S. Prisons, Human Rights Watch, 2001).
Although “blacks committed 10,000 gang-rapes against whites between 2001 and 2003,
the NCVS samples did not pick up a single ‘white’ [includes some Hispanics]-on-black gang
rape.” (NCF, 2005). Blacks also have a higher rate than whites for child molestation. 70
Chapter 13
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. “Ashley Montagu” was born as Israel Ehrenberg. He corrupted anthropology for political
goals, but his 1989 book on neoteny, "Growing Young" has many good ideas in it. (Putnam
1967, pp. 24-27). Back
2. (Pinker, 2002). For saying that genes influenced human behavior, E.O. Wilson, the father of
sociobiology, was picketed with placards bearing swastikas, and a woman poured cold water
over his head. But, as we saw in Chapter 8, humans do inherit behavior. Children’s behavioral
problems are largely genetic (Harden, 2007), and there is evidence that even facial expressions
are inherited. (Peleg, 2006). Back
3. There are basic structural and functional similarities between the brains of all animals,
including even insects so, since they inherit behavior we might expect humans to also do so.
Back
4. Our brains have evolved to give us pleasure when we engage in behavior that increases our
fitness, e.g., sex. Recreational drugs short-circuit the brain so that we receive pleasure even if
we reduce our fitness; using contraceptives also lets us have pleasure without increasing
fitness. Back
5. Morning sickness and disgust at certain foods is inherited behavior that keeps a fetus
protected from infection during the first trimester, when it is most vulnerable. (Holland, 2003).
Back
6. (“Built-in brain templates may clue tots to threats,” World Science, Sept. 18, 2007; LoBue,
2008). Back
7. (Rushton, 2000a, p. 46; Bouchard, 1990; Martin, 1986; Hamilton, 1964; Segal, 1999; “Square
Peg in a Round Hole,” The Realist (internet), Jan. 1, 2007). Emotions, such as falling in love,
lust, and sexual jealousy, serve a reproductive purpose. Emotions such as gratitude and the
desire for revenge ensure that others will know that we will reciprocate their kindnesses and
punish them for perceived misdeeds. (Barkow, 1991, pp. 122-123). Back
8. (Greene, 2003). "Blacks nearing the end of their high school education perform a little worse
than white eighth-graders in both reading and U.S. history, and a lot worse in math and
geography. In math and geography, indeed, they know no more than whites in the seventh
grade.” (Thernstrom, 2003). Back
9. (Rushton, 2000a, p. 154-155) citing (Tashakkori,1993). Also (Levin, 1997, pp. 74-76). The
self-esteem of blacks is fragile and insecure and must be constantly defended; this is the
reason that perceived “dissing” so often triggers a violent response. Back
10. (Levin, 1997, pp. 77-78, 116-119; Hunt, 1865, p. 18). Back
11. Of 500 Blacks and 500 Whites earning more than $50,000 annually, blacks saved less than
half the median amount that Whites saved. (Tenth Annual Black Investor Survey by
Ariel/Schwab). An interesting example of planning is the summer solstice fertility ritual on June
21, practiced by Europeans in northern latitudes to ensure that most babies are born in the
Spring when food is plentiful and the weather is mild; this ritual survives today as June
weddings. Back
12. Much of man’s progress is due to his ability to visualize the future and act now to ensure a
better future, “temporealization.” Asians do it the most, Africans the least, and Caucasians in
between, but close to Asians, with overlapping bell-shaped curves describing individuals within
those races. Like all traits, there is an optimal amount of temporealization; having too much of it
means one does not live to see the future, while too little means one makes no progress. In
Rhodesia and South Africa, white farmers taught Africans farming and herding for four years;
the black farmers produced 10 times as much as before. The whites left and returned two years
later to find the farmers had reverted to their previous behavior. (Mes, 1964 & 1965). Back
13. Impulsiveness is related to criminality and drug addiction. Addicts have fewer D2/3
receptors in their brain, though information on racial differences in the number of these
receptors is not yet available. (Dalley, 2007). Back
14. (Mischel, 1961, p. 6), who said, “Negroes are impulsive, indulge themselves, settle for next
to nothing if they can get it right away, do not work or wait for bigger things in the future.” Back
15. E.g., “…the Negro is a child…” (Albert Schweitzer, On the Edge of the Primeval Forest).
“[M]entally the African Negro is childlike, normally affable and cheerful, but subject to fits of
fierce passion.” (East, E., Harvard geneticist). Kenyan pathologist (F. W. Vint, 1934) described
the cortex of an adult African brain as equivalent to the brain of a European child of 7 or 8. Back
16. "Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the
European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir [African], whose occupation is
hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and
then pass his life in indolence and nakedness." Gandhi. (Ahmedabad, The Collected Works of
Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. II, p. 74, 1963). “[Negroes] hold labor as an evil inferior only to
death.” (Consul Burton, in Hunt, 1864, p. 18). “There is abundant evidence to show that the
Negro will not work without a considerable amount of persuasion.” (Id., p. 25). Back
17. Females reduce their fertility in times of famine and increase it and accelerate their
maturation rate in times of plenty, but changes in the abundance of food can easily overwhelm
those measures. Back
18. Man did not evolve to hibernate, perhaps because he would have to compete for caves
with more powerful animals, such as the cave bear, though hibernation can be induced in man.
(Discover magazine, May, 2007, p. 43). Back
19. “In tropical environments where food is available all year round, hunter-gatherers rarely
store food even overnight…” (Haywood, 2000, p. 90). Back
20. The metabolic rate of resting black women is lower than resting white women, which
conserves their energy. (Albu, 1997). A lower metabolic rate generally means a longer life span,
but blacks have a shorter life span, suggesting that they are even more “r” orientated than
indicated by their life span. (Conti, 2006). Back
21. (Rushton, 2000a, Chapter 8). Back
22. (La Griffe du Lion, 2000e; “La Griffe du Lion” is the pseudonym of Dr. Robert Gordon of
Johns Hopkins). Back
23. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data collected from 1999 to 2002 for the
National Center for Health Statistics, a branch of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. In 1991, basketball player Wilt Chamberlin estimated that he had had sex with
18,000 different women over the previous forty years (an average of 1.2 per day). Back
24. (Diamond, 1986, pp 488-489), quoted in Variation in Library of Excerpts, “Sexual Organs
and Heterocronic Theory. Back
25. However, just as more children means less investment per child, more sperm means less
investment per sperm, and quality decreases. (Blumenstiel, 2007). Back
26. (Pitnick, 2006). Increased brain size and intelligence advanced along with acquiring higher
energy foods, e.g., meat, and cooking, which permitted a large decrease in the size of the gut.
(Aiello, 1995; Pennisi, 1999). Back
27. Usually, the most monogamous primates have the most devoted fathers. Even when the
females mate with multiple males, a male will take special care of a baby if he can identify it as
his own, as baboons do by odor. Monogamy is also tied to brain size. “…the largest relative
brain sizes among primate species are associated with monogamous mating systems
…” (Schillaci, 2006). Back
28. "The question, as it presents itself in practice to a woman, is whether it is better to have,
say, a whole share in a tenth-rate man or a tenth share in a first-rate man." (George Bernard
Shaw). Back
29. (Rushton, 2000a, p 156). “It takes a village to raise a child.” (First Lady Hillary Clinton,
speech to Democratic Convention, Aug. 27, 1996, and book title). The pattern of men having
children by several women, married to none of them, and women raising the children is
common in all African and mulatto populations. (e.g., “Cape Verde,” eDiplomat.com, Feb. 16,
2008). An African American woman tells a census taker that her five boys are all named
“Jamal.” Astounded, he asks how they know who she is talking to. “It’s easy,” she says. “I call
them by their last names.” Back
30. Falling in love causes pair bonding and reduces the attractiveness of others. (Gonzaga,
2008). Back
31. (“Unique Mating Photos of Wild Gorillas Face To Face,” Science Daily, Feb. 13, 2008). Back
32. According to the Center for Disease Control, 64% of the women with HIV/AIDS in the U.S.
are black. Back
33. Library of Excerpts. (Also, Baker, 1974, p. 311). Africans are less neotenic than Eurasians;
"... the frontally oriented vulva [of the bonobo] is considered a neotenous characteristic, also
present in our own species." (De Waal, 1997, p. 27). Back
34. (National Health and Nutrition Examinations Surveys, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Comparing 1988-1994 data to 1999-2002 data). Back
35. (Levine, S. “Study Calls HIV in D.C. A 'Modern Epidemic’,” Washington Post, Nov. 26,
2007). Nationally, in 2005, 66% of diagnoses of HIV/AIDS in women were African Americans
and 17% white, despite the much greater number of whites. (CDC HIV/AIDS Fact Sheet). Back
36. (Population Reference Bureau, 2006 World Population Data Sheet, "The Top 15 HIV/AIDS
Prevalence Countries (2005)"). Back
37. (“Trends in Reportable Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the United States, 2006,” and
“Serveillance, 2006,” CDC). Back
38. (Warneken, 2006). Empathy for the suffering of others activates the pain centers of the
brain, motivating people to help others to relieve the discomfort. (Jackson, P.L., 2005;
Tankersley, 2007). Back
39. The British forced men to labor on ships (“impressment”), the Allies enslaved Germans after
WWII (Keeling, 1947), and the slavery of the Russian concentration camps in the 1920’s and
1930’s was far worse than any black slavery in the United States. (Greife, 1999). Also see
(Hoffman, M.A., They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the
Enslavement of Whites in Early America, 1993; Davis, R., Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters:
White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800, 2003). Back
40. ("Scale of African Slavery Revealed," BBC News, April 23, 2004). Some American black
slaves were permitted to work for others, paying their master a portion of what they earned. If a
“slave” is someone whose earnings are seized for the benefit of his master then, due to
government redistribution (e.g., taxes and welfare), today more white Americans are slaves of
African Americans than the reverse. Back
41. (Cartwright, 1857, p. 47-48). “Unlike other tribes, the Fang had few slaves, partly because
they were accustomed to eat prisoners taken in war; but they bought the bodies of slaves from
other tribes for eating, paying ivory for them.” (Baker, 1974, p. 391). The demand for slaves by
non-Africans no doubt increased the number of Africans that were enslaved by other Africans.
Back
42. (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 58). Cannibalism has been reported in chimpanzees (Goodall, 1977) and
the presence of 500,000 year old alleles in modern humans of genes that give protection
against diseases caused by prions, such as Creutzfeld Jacob disease and kuru, which can be
caused by eating human brains, suggests that early humans were cannibals. (Pennisi, 2003).
Cannibalism may have accelerated man’s evolution as it nourished the more capable at the
expense of the less capable. Back
43. (Baker, 1974, pp. 364-365). “Cannibalism is found in its simplest form in Africa. In that
continent the majority of cannibal tribes eat human flesh because they like it, and not from any
magical motive or from lack of other animal food. In fact it is noticeable that the tribes most
addicted to this practice inhabit just those districts where game is most plentiful.” (1911
Encyclopedia Britannica, p. 345). "This phase began on 26 June 1952 when Dr. Mary Quinlan,
a White Sister who for many years had worked among the poorest Blacks in the port of East
London [South Africa], emerged from a hovel where she had been tending a mother just
confined in childbirth, and ran into a raving mob of several hundreds who tore her to pieces and
ate her in the street." (Reed, D., "The Siege of Southern Africa," Chapter 7, 1974). Also,
(Onyango-Obbo, 2003). (www.YouTube.com, “Founded by Americans, Liberia was once the
shining star of Sub-Saharan Africa. Now cannibals rule the streets”). Other YouTube videos
show cannibalism in Liberia and New Guinea. Cannibalism of slaves in Africa may have
functioned as a substitute for the domestication of animals as a source of fresh meat. For ritual
killing in Africa, see (Oke, I., Blood Secrets, 1991). Back
44. (Rushton, 2000a, p 157-160). Also see (NCF, 2005). Back
45. Britain is 2% black, but about 1/3 of the shooting victims are black. (Thompson, T., “The
truth about black on black crime,” Independent, Apr. 15, 2007). Back
46. “Interestingly, of all the foreign groups living in Japan, Africans are the most crime prone,
…” (Jared Taylor, “In Praise of Homogeneity,” American Renaissance, Aug., 2007, Vol. 18, No.
8, p. 3). Back
47. (Raphael, 2004, based on the 2000 U.S. Census). And, in case you’re wondering, the high
black incarceration rate is not due to discrimination. (MacDonald, H., “Is the Criminal-Justice
System Racist?” City Journal, 2008, 18(2)). The high crime rate of blacks is partly responsible
for the poverty of black neighborhoods as crime lowers property values and increases living
costs, i.e., crime causes poverty, rather than the reverse. Also, people usually do what they
have an incentive to do. Black disfunctionality is rewarded by more white guilt and capitulation,
a wonderful incentive for more disfunctionality. Back
48. Between 1976, when the Feds began keeping track, and 2005, blacks committed 52.2% of
the homicides in the U.S., despite being less than 12.5% of the population. (Sailer, 2008a,
Bureau of Justice Statistics). By under-reporting black crime, the media has led the public to
believe that most serial killers are white, but between 1945 and 2004, “African Americans were
overrepresented in the ranks of serial killers by a factor of about 2.” (Walsh, 2005). That is less
than their over-representation in all homicides, but since serial killers have an average IQ of
110, that is understandable. (Bourgouin, 1993). Back
49. (NCF, 2005). Back
50. (“Black Homicide Victimization in the United States: An Analysis of 2004 Homicide Data,”
Violence Policy Center). Back
51. (Mercy, 1989). Spousal killings are discussed from the viewpoint of evolutionary psychology
in (Buss, 2005). The killer, if caught, reduces his reproductive success because he ends up in
jail or dead. However, his anger leads to killing his wife as a way of enhancing his reproductive
success. If his wife leaves him, for example, it is a sign of disrespect, which lowers his status
and tells other women that he is undesirable, reducing his chances of mating with them. That is
why, especially among blacks and Hispanics, fighting and even dying over
“dissing” (disrespecting) happen so frequently. A man who is “dissed” and does not retaliate will
not get the women. Somewhat counterintuitively, white women are the most desirable women
and yet they are more likely to be killed by a black spouse than is a black wife. Because
possessing a white woman increases a black’s status more, if she rejects him it is a greater
threat to his status, e.g., O.J. Simpson. (Mercy, 1989). Back
52. The remote Australian aborigine community of Wadeye was racked by sexual abuse, gang
wars, crime, and poverty. (“Aboriginal township clean-up urged,” Taipei Times, May 24, 2006, p.
4). The Maori, the New Zealand aborigines, have a high rate of child abuse. (" Suffer the Little
Children," American Renaissance, Oct., 2007, 18(10):15). Back
53. (Lynn, 2002c & 2003; Lynn, 2002e; Levin, 1997, p. 74). “… the criminality of Negroes in the
northern states is considerably higher than in the sourthern states, actually three to
one.”(Bonger, 1948, p. 44). That is true despite northern blacks having a higher IQ (Chapter 14,
FN 43), perhaps due to stronger social controls in the South. Back
54. Jews, particularly Zionists, may have the highest psychopathic score, but data is not
available. Also see (Stout, 2005). Back
55. (Viding, 2005). “African Negro mentality is comparable to that of the lobotomized European,”
i.e., a European with his frontal lobes removed. Quoted in (Simpson, 2003, p. 705). Attributed to
J.C. Carothers. (Putnam, 1961, p. 53). Back
56. “In 2005, there were more than 645,000 victims of cross-racial violent crimes between
blacks and whites in the U.S. In 90 percent of those crimes, black offenders attacked white
victims.” (Witt, H., Chicago Tribune, “What Is a Hate Crime?” Aug. 24, 2007). Black leader
Jesse Jackson admitted that when he worked as a waiter in a Greenville, South Carolina hotel
he spat into the soups and salads of white customers. (Pekkanen, J., "Jesse Jackson? Black
Hope, White Hope: His Style is Militant but Nonviolent," Life Magazine, Nov. 21, 1969, p. 67).
Blacks also target cops. From 1994 to 2005, 40% of the cop killers were black. (MacDonald, H.
“Cop Killers in High Places,” Front Page Magazine, July 23, 2007). Back
57. (Sheehan, P., “The Race War Of Black Against White,” The Sydney Morning Herald, May
20, 1995). On the other hand, one might wonder why blacks are 20 times as likely to be a victim
of a hate crime as a white. Part of the explanation is that when Hispanics commit a hate crime
they are classified as “white,” and when they are the victim of a hate crime they are classified as
“Hispanic.” Also, there are about 6 times as many whites as blacks (La Griffe du Lion, 2000b),
but the best explanation is that authorities relish prosecuting whites for hate crimes, but are very
reluctant to prosecute blacks for them. Thus, if the perpetrator is white and he said anything
derogatory about the black race, even in anger, or there is any evidence that he does not like
blacks, it is a hate crime, but in the reverse situation, unless there is overwhelming evidence of
hate, it is not a hate crime. Back
58. (La Griffe du Lion, 1999a). The right vertical axis gives the number of times a white person’s
risk of being violently victimized increases over what it would have been had the neighborhood
remained all white. Note that if blacks were not targeting whites, the blue curve in Figure 12-2
would be a straight diagonal line from the lower left to the upper right and, if the black crime rate
was also the same as the white crime rate, the blue line would a straight horizontal line that
coincided with the red line. “ … houses in districts with mostly white and Asian students often
sell for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars more than in districts populated mostly by
black and Hispanic students.” (Sailer, 2007d). Back
59. (“Banned From YouTube,”) Also see (Wikipedia, “Yaweh Ben Yaweh” in Robert Rozier).
“The death of over 120 white people is a very beautiful thing.” (Speech by Malcolm X in Los
Angeles on June 3, 1962, upon learning of a plane crash). “We have to exterminate white
people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.” (Dr. Kamau Kambon, former NC State
visiting professor of African Studies, speaking to a forum at Howard University; see Adams,
M.S., Townhall.com, Oct. 21, 2005). “… why not have a week and kill white people?” (Rapper
Sister Souljah, Washington Post, 1992). In the red-black-green “pan-African flag,” the green is
for “our land,” the black is for blacks, and the red is for the blood of whites. Back
60. “Is it conceivable that human beings actually ran other humans through rotary
saws?” (James Burnham, an editor of National Review, "The Seige of Southern Africa,".) Also,
(Levin, 1997, pp. 178-179, 291-332; citations in Simpson, 2003, pp. 722-724). Another
difference: during natural disasters and the collapse of civil authority, whites tend to come
together to help each other; blacks see it as an opportunity for looting and rape. ("Rape
'Epidemic' in African conflict zones: UNICEF,” Reuters, Feb. 13, 2008). Back
61. Comparing the “Jena Six,” i.e., six black teenagers who kicked and stomped an
unconscious white teenager, with her brother, who was killed by five black teenagers in the
same manner, black author Carol Swain said, “Do people of other races behave in this way?
No. This sort of murderous pack savagery is characteristic of blacks and blacks only.” (“When
teens aren’t taught value of life, it can have deadly consequences,” Tennessean.com, Sept. 28,
2007). (Wikipedia, “Sarah Kraeger”). Back
62. When the percentage of blacks in schools reaches 10-15%, blacks become a problem.
(Putnam, 1967, p. 129). Horrendous white criminals, e.g., Jeffrey Dahlmer, have severe mental
problems, but most of the blacks that commit such crimes are ordinary people, sometimes
picking up friends or acquaintances on the spur of the moment to participate in their crimes.
(Francis, S. “Diversity Disaster: The Censored Truth about the 'Fat Tuesday' Riots,”
VDARE.com, Mar. 20, 2001). Also, (Wikipedia, “Los Angeles riots of 1992”). Back
63. Although these were among the most horrifying crimes ever committed in the United States,
the media have almost completely ignored them; had the races been reversed, they would be
described in high school history books and Congress would pass stronger “hate” crime laws.
(Buchanan, P.J., “The Jena Six – and Other ‘Hoax’ Crimes,” VDARE.com, Feb. 14, 2008). Back
64. (Stix, N., “The Knoxville Horror: The Crime and the Media Blackout,” American
Renaissance, Vol. 18, No. 7, July, 2007). There are many other examples of black “gang”
attacks on one or a few white victims, e.g., 1999 in North Charleston, S.C. where seven blacks
attacked two white bicyclists, leaving one permanently disabled, the Halloween, 2006, attack in
Long Beach, CA, where 11 black teenagers severely beat three young white women, and the
April, 2005, attack on 4 white girls by 30 blacks in Marine Park, Brooklyn, NY. Gang attacks by
blacks on white females often include black females, who resent white females taking the
diminishing number of black men who are not in prison. (Manzer, T. “Victim Describes Beating,”
Press Telegram, Dec., 1, 2006; Hernandez, M. “Non Bias Attack,” Brooklyn Skyline, Apr. 11,
2005). There are many more EXAMPLES. Back
65. The Union of South Africa is the rape capital of the world. (News 24,” Nov. 22, 2005). The
South African rape rate is estimated at at least 1.69 million females per year, 40% of which are
of children; more than 65% are gang rapes. (Clayton, J. Anti-rape device must be banned, say
women," Times Online, June 8, 2005). Also, (Gettleman, J., “Rape Epidemic Raises Trauma of
Congo War,” The New York Times, Oct. 7, 2007). Back
66. A high black rape rate is to be expected because women in Africa are self-supporting. Thus,
rape is likely to result in living children, so a rapist passes on his genetic predisposition to rape.
In the cold north, women were not self-supoprting and the children of rape were not likely to
survive; men who supported a woman and did not resort to rape were more reproductively
successful. Rape is a good example of how behavior that was once adaptive (in the tropics) can
become maladaptive when the environment changes (people migrate north); culture becomes
more compatible with the requirements of new environment. Back
67. (Department of Justice, Criminal Victimization in the United States, Table 42, 2005). Back
68. Black-on-white rape is 115 times more common than white-on-black rape. (NCF, 2005).
When white-on-black rape is reported, it is trumpeted in the media, though the most prominent
cases have turned out to be fake, e.g., the 1987 Tawana Brawley hoax and the 2006 non-rape
of a black stripper by white members of the Duke University Lacrosse Team. Back
69. (Auster, L., “The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States.” Front Page Magazine, May
3, 2007). “I became a rapist. To refine my technique and ‘modus operandi,’ I started out by
practicing on black girls in the ghetto – in the black ghetto where dark and vicious deeds appear
not as aberrations or deviations from the norm, but as part of the sufficiency of the Evil of the
day – and when I considered myself smooth enough, I crossed the tracks and sought out white
prey.” (Eldridge Cleaver, Soul on Ice, 1968). Back
70. (“Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released From Prison in 1994,” Table 2, U.S. Department of
Justice). Some prominent blacks now argue that black behavior, including misbehaving in class,
failing to learn from books, and even crime, is authentic black behavior and should be accepted.
(MacDonald, H., “Poisonous ‘Authenticity’,” City Journal, Apr. 29, 2008). Back
Chapter 13 - Genes
“Whatever advantage these genes [ASPM and MCPH1] give, some groups have it and some
don’t. This has to be the worst nightmare for people who believe strongly there are no
differences in brain function between groups."
Anthropologist John Hawks
The race-deniers, who say there is no such thing as “race,” have a difficult time
explaining why, when genetic differences of native populations across the world are mapped,
the result is almost exactly the same as a map of the races. (Fig. 7-4). Thus, there is little doubt
that genes differ among different populations.
All of the traits discussed in the previous chapters are caused, at least in part, by genes
and, to that extent, “biology is destiny.” (Sigmund Freud). Only recently has genetics advanced
to where some of the genes responsible for those traits have been identified, and only still more
recently have racial differences in some of those identified genes been published. Although all
humans have the same genes, the percentage of each population that has any given allele of a
gene can vary from 0 (no one in the population has that allele) to 100% (everyone in the
population has that allele, i.e., it is “fixed”).
It would be enlightening to present a table giving the world wide frequency of every
important human allele that differs significantly between different populations, but that
information is not yet available. Here are some genes for brain size and intelligence (Weiss,
1992; Plomin, 2004), behavior, skin, hair, and eyes, and diseases that are either already known
to differ between populations or are very likely to differ.
The Brain and Intelligence

NBPF15 (“neuroblastoma breakpoint family, member 15,” aka MGC8902), Chromosome
1. This gene encodes multiple copies of the protein DUF1220, which is expressed in brain
regions associated with higher cognitive function. Moreover, sequences of the gene are specific
to different primates and, as the species become closer to humans, the number of duplicate
copies increases to 212. (Popesco, 2006). Individual and racial differences in the number of
copies have not yet been published.
DAB1 (“disabled-1”), Chromosome 1. This gene is involved in organizing the layers of
cells in the cerebral cortex, the site of higher cognitive functions. A version of the gene has
become universal in the Chinese, but not in other populations. (Williamson, 2007).
ASPM (“abnormal spindle homolog, microcephaly associated”), Chromosome 1. Its
alleles affect the size of the brain; defects in the ASPM gene lead to small brains and low IQ.
(Evans, 2004). A new ASPM allele arose about 5800 ya in Eurasia and that allele has been
suspected of increasing intelligence in Eurasia; it is common in Eurasians but absent in Africans
and chimpanzees. People who speak tonal languages (e.g., Chinese) are more likely to carry
two newer alleles of ASPM and MCPH1 than people in non-tonal regions. (Dediu, 2007; Mekel-
Bobrov, 2005).
SSADH ("NAD(+)-dependent succinic semialdehyde dehydrogenase"), Chromosome 6.
The C form increases intelligence and lifespan; the T form is 20% less efficient. (Plomin, 2004;
Binghom, J., "Clever people could live 15 years longer," Telegraph (UK), Aug. 23, 2008).
MCPH1 (“microcephaly, primary autosomal recessive 1”), Chromosome 8. The alleles of
this gene, commonly called “microcephalin,” at least partly determine brain size and/or
organization. (Wang, 2004). A new allele of this gene that increases intelligence arose about
37,000 ya (the confidence limit is very wide -- 60,000 - 14,000 BP; Evans, 2005). This allele is
common in Eurasians but rare in Africans and absent in chimpanzees.
Both the newly-discovered ASPM and microcephalin alleles were strongly selected for
and spread rapidly through the Eurasian populations. These genes have been associated
chronologically with two of the most revolutionary changes in human affairs - an explosion of
hand-crafts in the Upper Paleolithic era (40,000 ya), and the development of sophisticated cities
and the beginning of major trade routes. 1 However, so far a correlation between IQ and the
presence of these alleles has not been found. (Woods, 2006; Rushton, 2007a).
DCDC2 (“double cortin domain containing 2”), Chromosome 6. This gene affects the
formation of brain circuits that make it possible to read. (Weiss, 2005). One allele can result in
dyslexia. 2
NQO2 (“Homo sapiens quinone oxidoreductase2”), Chromosome 6. This gene clearly
has effects on brain activity and might affect IQ, but that information and its population
distribution are not yet published. 3
IGF2R (“insulin-like growth factor 2 receptor”), Chromosome 6. This was the first gene
discovered for intelligence; possession of one of the alleles of this gene increases IQ by about 4
points. (Chorney, 1998).
DTNBP1 (“dystrobrevin binding protein 1”), Chromosome 6. It is associated with
schizophrenia and has recently been linked to intelligence. (Burdick, 2006).
CHRM2 (“cholinergic receptor, muscarinic 2”), Chromosome 7, activates signaling
pathways in the brain; some alleles can increase IQ 15 to 20 points. (Dick, 2007; Gosso, 2006).
FoxP2 (“forkhead box P2”), Chromosome 7. This gene affects language skills, including
grammar, as well as IQ. Although many animals also have the gene, humans acquired an allele
within the last 200,000 yrs that was strongly selected because the superior communications and
creativity it made possible were a major advantage.
EMX2 (“Empty spiracles-like protein”), Chromosome 10, codes for the development of
the cortex into specialized areas. Mismatched areas lower performance. (Leingärtner, 2007).
FADS2 (“fatty acid desaturase 2”), Chromosome 11, is involved in processing omega 3
fatty acids to produce nutrients for the brain. An allele of this gene raises the IQ of children by
about 6 to 10 IQ points if they are breast-fed. (Caspi, 2007).
DARPP-32 (“dopamine- and cyclic AMP-regulated phosphoprotein”), Chromosome 17.
One allele of this gene optimizes the brain's thinking circuitry, but increases the risk of
schizophrenia. (Meyer-Lindenberg, 2007).
MAPT (“microtubule-associated protein tau”), Chromosome 17. Mutations in this gene
can cause neurodegenerative disorders. The H2 haplotype of this gene may have come from
the Neanderthals. (Hardy, 2005). Also, physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose proposed
that consciousness is a quantum effect that arises in these microtubules. (Shadows of the Mind,
1996).
PDYN (“prodynorphin”), Chromosome 20. It codes for a precursor molecule for
neuropeptides, which affects perception, behavior, and memory. (Balter, 2005).
HAR1 RNA (“human accelerated region 1”), Chromosome 20. This gene codes for an
RNA protein that develops neurons in the neocortex of the brain. This gene is different in the
brains of humans and chimpanzees and is rapidly evolving in humans. (Pollard, 2006). Also see
HAR1F, which is active in special cells that appear early in embryonic development and help
form the human cerebral cortex; HAR1 produces RNA that does not produce protein. (Smith,
K., 2006; Pollard, 2006).
EST00083 (“expressed sequence tag”) is an mtDNA polymorphism found more often in
high IQ groups. It is particularly common in Europe (less so in Asia), where it is associated with
a lineage that dates back 35,000 yrs. (Thomas, 1998).
Behavior
PER2 (period homolog 2, Dosophila), Chromosome 2, "is a key component of the
mammalian circadian clock machinery." "[A] high and significant difference in the geographic
distribution of PER2 polymorphisms was observed between Africans and non-

Africans." (Cruciani, 2008)
ADH (“alcohol dehydrogenase”), Chromosome 4. Mutations in this gene cause Asians to
have a more intense response to alcohol, including facial flushing. (Duranceaux, 2006).
PAX6 (“paired box gene 6”), Chromosome 11, controls development of the iris. A
mutation of this gene is linked to impulsiveness and poor social skills, which is discernable by
the appearance of the iris. (Larsson, 2007).
DRD4 (“dopamine receptor D4”), Chromosome 11, controls sex drive. (Zion, 2006).
Some studies found that an allele is associated with novelty-seeking personality traits in two
European populations (Benjamin, 1996), but other studies did not confirm this.
ACTN3 (“alpha-actinin-3”), Chromosome 11, codes for fast twitch muscle fibers. The R
allele encodes a functional copy of the protein but the X allele does not produce the protein;
25% of Asian populations are deficient, 18% of Europeans, but less than 1% of the African
Bantu population. (Yang, 2003).
AVPR1a (arginine vasopressin 1a receptor), Chromosome 12, influences social bonding
and altruism in humans and some animals. People with a long promoter of the RS3 allele are
more altruistic than persons with a short promoter. (Knafo, 2007).
ACE (“angiotensin I-converting enzyme”), Chromosome 17. It converts angiotensin I to
angiotensin II, but is also involved in athletic ability. Racial differences are not yet known.
MAOA (“monoamine oxidase A”), X Chromosome. This gene codes for an enzyme
which sits on mitochondrial membranes in neurons and degrades several important
neurotransmitters, including several believed to be important in the regulation of aggression and
impulsivity. (Moran, 2006). People with the short version of MAOA were found to be more
violent and generally more antisocial than those with the long version. Also, people with low
levels of the enzyme who were mistreated as children have significantly higher crime rates.
(Moffitt, 2005; Meyer-Lindenberg, 2006). Different ethnic groups have different alleles.
(Wikipedia, “Monoamine Oxidase”).
Skin, Hair,& Eyes

EDAR (“ectodysplasin A receptor”), Chromosome 2, controls hair thickness. East Asians
have two copies of an allele that gives them thick hair. (Am. Soc. of Human Gen., Annual
Meeting, Oct. 23-27, 2007).
MATP (“melanoma antigen transporter protein”), Chromosome 5, affects skin color. “The
L374F mutation was present at an allele frequency as high as 0.96 in the German population,
whereas it was completely absent in the Japanese population.” (Yuasa, 2004). There are at
least 118 genes associated with skin pigmentation (Lao, 2007).
AIM1 (“absent in melanoma 1”), Chromosome 6, influences skin color. The 272K allele
is common in Asian populations, such as Chinese (43.4%), Sinhalese (20.4%), and Tamils
(12.1%), but is rare in Europeans (2.5%), Xhosans (Bushmen, 3.4%), and Ghanaians (4.1%).
The 374F allele is exclusively found in Europeans (91.6%), but not in the other five populations
(0%–1.9%). (Soejima, 2006).
TYR (“Tyrosinase”), Chromosome 11. This gene and the MATP gene have a
predominant role in the evolution of light skin in Europeans but not in East Asians, who evolved
light skin independently. (Norton, 2006).
KITLG (“KIT legand”), Chromosome 12. About 20% of the differences in pigmentation
between people of African and northern European descent is due to different alleles of this
gene. (Miller, 2007).
OCA2 (“oculocutaneous albinism II”), Chromosome 15. This gene can cause albinism,
but the genetics are different in Caucasians and African Americans. (Lee, 1994). It also affects
eye color. (Duffy, 2007).
HERC2, (“HECT domain and RCC1-like domain-containing protein 2”), Chromosome
15, can reduce the production of dark pigment (melanin) by adjacent gene OCA2, resulting in
blue eyes, blond hair, and light skin; 97% of blue-eyed people have the same allele. The high
frequency of the blue-eyed allele in Scandinavia implies that allele significantly increased
reproductive success. (Eiberg, 2008).
SLC24A5 (“solute carrier family 24, member 5,” aka the “golden pigmentation gene”),
Chromosome 15. An allele of this gene that changes a single amino acid in a protein plays a
major role in giving Eurasians lighter skin than Africans. (Lamason, 2005). The European allele
is not the same as the Asian allele. (Norton, 2006). This gene is also expressed in the brain. 4
MC1R (“melanocortin-1 receptor”), Chromosome 16. There are over thirty alleles for this
gene. The gene helps determine hair and skin color, but not eye color. (Mueller, 2006). Africans
(and tropical indigenous people in general) have an ancestral allele for this gene and only
synonymous alleles (i.e., alleles that code for the same amino acids) of this gene; the alleles
are ancient and code for eumelanin, which results in black skin and hair. (Harding, 2000).
Europeans have alleles for blond, red, brown, and black hair.
KRT41P, aka KRTHAP1 (“keratin 41 pseudogene”), 5 Chromosome 17. This gene is
present in chimpanzees, gorillas, and man, and codes for body hair. It was turned off in man
about 240,000 ya. (Klein, 2002, p. 203).
EYCL1 (“eye color 1” aka “gey”), Chromosome 19, codes for green and blue eye color;
EYCL2 (“bey1”), Chromosome 15, codes for brown eyes, and EYC3 (“bey2”), Chromosome 15,
codes for brown and blue eyes. (Wikipedia, "Eye Color"). Five to ten genes may be involved in
eye color.
ASIP (“agouti signaling protein”), Chromosome 20. The 8818G allele is associated with
darker skin color in Africans and African Americans; since the allele also is found in African
apes, it is “ancestral” in Africans. (Norton, 2006,).
Health & Disease

LCT (“lactase gene”), Chromosome 2, codes for lactase, an enzyme that catalyzes the
digestion of lactose, milk sugar. An allele that enables adults to digest milk sugar arose in
northern Europe only recently, between 5480 BC and 5000 BC. The allele was strongly
selected and its possession by over 90% of northern Europeans may help explain how Indo-
Europeans were able to spread so suddenly about 4000 ya. The vast majority of Asians and
Africans do not have it, but the Tutsis more recently independently evolved a lactose-tolerant
allele. (Burger, 2007). Since all children are lactose-tolerant and most adults are not, “lactose
tolerance may be considered a form of neoteny.” (Wikipedia, “Lactose Intolerance”).
CCR5 (“chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 5”), Chromosome 3. The delta 32 deletion of
this gene appeared more than 5,000 ya in southern Finland and may have provided some
protection against smallpox. Today, only a small percentage of Europeans have this deletion
(1%, though 10% of European Jews have it), but it protects them from the AIDS virus (Zimmer,
2001, p. 222-225), though it increases their risk of illness from flaviviruses, such as West Nile
virus; it is not found in Asians or Africans. (Smith, 1997; Stephens, 1998).
PDE4 (“pyridoxine-dependent epilepsy”), Chromosome 5. An allele of this gene is
involved in cardiovascular disease and lung cancer susceptibility. Blacks who smoke up to a
pack a day are far more likely to develop lung cancer than whites who smoke similar amounts.
Blacks may have less protection against lung cancer because they were subjected to less
smoke, as fire is not needed as much in the tropics. (Garte, 2001).
CYP3A5 (“cytochrome”), Chromosome 7, acts to retain salt in the kidneys. It is common
in Africans, who live in a hot climate where salt is lost through sweat and is not easily available.
The CYP3A5*3 allele, which is non-functional, is far more common in Eurasians (96% for the
Basques in the Pyrenees Mountains) than in Africans (6% in Nigeria). Thus, Africans who live in
white civilizations retain too much salt, leading to cardiovascular problems. Another gene, AGT
M235, which is also involved in salt retention, has a similar distribution. (Thompson, 2004; Roy,
2005).
CASP12 (“cysteinyl aspartate proteinase”), Chromosome 9. Having the non-functional
version of this gene better prevents sepsis (infection of the blood and tissues by bacteria). The
loss of function occurred 51,000 to 74,000 ya. (Wang, X., 2006). This gene HBB (“hemoglobin
beta chain”) on Chromosome 11, codes for the beta strand of hemoglobin. A single copy of an
allele of this gene protects against malaria, but two copies cause sickle cell anemia; 6 it is found
mostly in people living in malarial regions of Africa and India.
CD4 (“cell development”), Chromosome 12. The 7R allele was probably very ancient in
Neanderthals, but may be only 30,000 yrs old in Hss. It is a receptor for HIV. (Hanna, 1989).
BRCA1 (“breast cancer”), Chromosome 17. This gene has an allele that is involved in
breast cancer. Of Ashkenazi Jewish women, 1 in 40 carries alleles of the BRCA1 and the
BRCA2 gene that give them a 4 out of 5 chance of having breast cancer.
LTA4H (“leukotriene A4 hydrolase”), Chromosome 17. An allele of this gene increases
the risk of a heart attack in African Americans by more than 250%, but only by 16% in whites
and Asians. The gene boosts inflammation as a way to fight infections and is generally not
found in Africans. Although 30% of whites have the allele, they have evolved other genes to
counteract it, but the 6% of the African Americans, who acquired it by breeding with whites,
have not. (Helgadottir, 2006).
APOH (“apolipoprotein H”), Chromosome 17. This gene is a major autoantigen for the
production of antiphospholipid antibodies (APA) in autoimmune diseases. The APOH*3B allele
is present only in blacks and is identical to the wild type APOH in chimpanzees. (Kamboh,
2004).
NOS2 (“nitric oxide synthase”), Chromosome 17, encodes an enzyme that produces
nitric oxide. An allele possessed by Africans in malaria areas causes increased production of
nitric oxide, which protects against the symptoms of the disease. Caucasians do not have that
allele. (Keller, 2004).
CNDP1 (“carnosine dipeptidase 1”), Chromosome 18. A trinucleotide repeat sequence
on this gene protects Caucasian Europeans, white Americans, and Arabs, but not blacks, from
diabetic end-stage kidney failure. (Freedman, B.I., 2007).
APOE (“apolipoprotein E”), Chromosome 19. This gene plays a role in transporting
cholesterol and is involved in Alzheimer’s disease. It is possible that some people may not have
this gene at all which, if true, would raise some interesting questions. (Miller, 2006).
PDHA1 ("pyruvate dehydrogenase (lipoamide) alpha 1"), X Chromosome. The tree for
this gene is estimated as 1.86 mya and the split between Africans and non-Africans as 200,000
yrs. There are no haplotypes shared between the Africans and the non-Africans and one site
(544) is fixed in the non-African lineage (i.e., every non-African tested has the same allele,
which suggests it is advantageous and ancient). (Harris, 1999.).
The reader may have noticed that genes that code for one trait may affect other,
seemingly unrelated traits (e.g., PAX6, CCR5, and PAX6) and that some alleles (“ancestral”
alleles) are found in blacks and chimpanzees, but not other races (NQ02, ASIP, APOH*3B,
MC1R) or, vice versa, (ASPM, MCPH1).
Men and
women differ by only a
single chromosome (Y
in men, X in women),
yet the differences in
that chromosome
extensively affect their
anatomy, physiology,
and behavior. Figure
13-1 (Yang, 2006)

shows how genes are
expressed in the livers
of female (top) versus
male mice. Red
corresponds to more
gene expression,
green to less. Even
though one might think
that the differences
between males and
females would be
limited to reproduction-
related differences on
the X and Y
chromosomes, this
map shows that the
differences have a
large effect on genes
that are expressed in
the liver, which has
little to do with
reproduction. Thus, we Figure 13-1
should not be
surprised if racial differences in genes affect much more in the body than the obvious
differences in appearance.
At the present time, studies of racial genetic differ-ences have been mostly limited to
mtDNA and coding nuclear DNA. Yet humans have more “junk” DNA than any other animal,
and the functions of junk DNA are just beginning be discovered. Important racial differences can
also be expected to be found in it as well, in the number of copies of genes, and in the gene
regulators, the genetically-inherited “switches” that determine whether and when a gene is read.
Chapter 14
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. See (Evans, 2005) for Microcephalin and (Mekel-Bobrov, 2005) for ASPM. Back
2. (Meng, 2005). “The allele frequency of the A allele rs2274305 of the dyslexia-gene DCDC2
is about 0.28 among Eurasians and 0.99 among Yorubas from Nigeria, about 0.80 among
African-Americans.” (Weiss, 2005). Back
3. “If we align the genetic code of Homo sapiens and the chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes, in both
species NQO2 is coded by 231 amino acids. However, at the position 47 of rs2756081 [a
particular allele] human Blacks are coding FF (phenylalanine) [the same] as chimps and a
number of other mammals, and Eurasians with an above average IQ are coding LF or LL
(leucine), [and] below IQ 100 FF.” “The allele frequency of the C allele rs2756081 of NQO2 is
about 0.25 among Eurasians (0.41 in Tokyo in a sample, which is not in Hardy-Weinberg
equilibrium) and 0.00 among Yorubas from Nigeria, about 0.02 among African-
Americans.” (Strassburg, 2002). Back
4. (GeneCard for protein coding SLC24A5 GC15P046200). Back
5. A pseudogene is an inactivated gene. Back
6. When having two copies of the same allele, “AA” or “BB,” is disadvantageous compared to
having one of each, “AB,” it is called “heterozygote advantage.” Right-handedness may be
another example. (Corballis, 1991, p. 95). Back
Chapter 14 - Intelligence
“There is absolutely no question of any genetic differential: Intelligence potential is distributed among Negro
infants in the same proportion and pattern as among Icelanders or Chinese or any other group."
U.S. Moynihan Report, Department of Labor (March, 1965)
The single most important trait that man

has is his intelligence and therefore its absence
is the single most important primitive trait. A
population could have primitive bodies, but if
they have a high average intelligence they can
nevertheless build a great civilization and have
a relatively high standard of living. It is anyone’s
guess what the minimum average intelligence
required today for a population to create and
maintain a modern civilization might be, but it
can be safely said that 67, the average for
today’s sub-Saharan Africans (Lynn, 2006a, p
37), is way too low. 1 In Figure 14-1 (Lynn,
2006b) plots national IQ against PPP-GNI
(purchasing power parity – gross national
income). The “UAE” (United Arab Emirates) has
a higher GNI due to oil income and China has a
lower GNI due to socialism. National IQ does
not begin to really “pay off” in terms of living
standards until it is at least in the mid 80s. 2 Figure 14-1
Chimps have fingers with an opposing
thumb, can walk on two legs (poorly, and for only short distances), are omnivores, have a social organization, can
make simple tools and weapons, 3 have culture, communicate by hand signals (Pollick, 2007), and can even
understand language and teach it to their children, 4 but no other animal can engage in abstract thought to the
extent that man can. We dominate all the other animals on the planet and alter not only the planet Earth
(drastically), but have made contact with its moon, asteroids, comets, many of the planets, and even the sun!
None of man’s great accomplishments would have been possible without his intelligence, particularly his ability to
engage in abstract reasoning.
Size Matters
Paleoanthropologists
have long conceded that from
monkey to ape to archaic man
to modern man, both brain size
(Lee, 2003, Fig. 2) and
intelligence increased. 5 The
correlation is so strong that no
one disputes that, in the context
of different animals, more brain
(in proportion to body size)
equals more intelligence. In
proportion to his size, man has
the largest brain of any large
animal. 6 Figure 14-2 shows the
increase in man’s brain size as
he evolved. 7 Note the two
sharp increases in intelligence
that began at about 2 million
and 500,000 ya, suggesting
mutations and/or strong
selection.
There is also Figure 14-2
considerable evidence that brain size and intelligence correlate strongly between human populations, as both
increase from Bushmen to Australian aborigines to s-S Africans to Caucasians to NE Asians. 8 But some of the
same people who think the brain size-intelligence correlation is obvious in animals will vigorously argue that it is
not true of different human populations or of different individuals. 9 And, indeed, it is not difficult to find people with
average-sized brains who are unusually intelligent, and it is even easier to find people with large brains who are
not intelligent at all. After all, by injury, disease, or genetic defect, you can always take a person with the brain of a
genius and turn him into a dummy, but there is no way you can take a person with the brain of a dummy and turn
him into a genius. 10 At any rate, there is a correlation of 0.44 (Lynn, 2006a, p 214) between human brain size and
intelligence for individuals, as measured by IQ. 11
Figure 14-3 12 shows this
relationship for the major races, where
the “ecological” correlation between
cranial capacity and IQ for the three
major races is an extremely high 0.998.
(Jensen, 1998).
Heritability
Intelligence is determined by
multiple genes and also by the
environment. The heritability of
intelligence is approximately 42% for 4 to
6 year olds and 55% for the age group 6
to 20, but increases to 80% for adult
Europeans 13 and 72% for adult African
Americans. 14
As environments become more
equal, the “remaining differences in Figure 14-3
intelligence are increasingly determined by differences in genes” (Herrnstein, 1994, p. 91) and the heritability of
intelligence increases. Thus, as the egalitarians make the environments of blacks and whites more equal, the
remaining IQ differences between blacks and whites will become more controlled by genes and therefore more
intractable.15
If people “sort” themselves according to their IQ, so that more intelligent people go to one place (i.e.,
college, technical occupations) and less intelligent go to another (i.e., inexpensive housing or manual labor jobs),
then the heritability of intelligence will increase since people tend to marry those they associate with (“assortative
mating”), who are then similar in intelligence. There is a correlation between the IQs of men and women who mate
of about 0.45, higher than for any personality traits, 16 so if the heritability of IQ is initially low, it will increase in
magnitude over several generations. The correlation between the IQs of spouses is 0.4. (Wikipedia, “IQ”).
Researchers have found that certain regions of the brain responsible for intelligence are highly heritable,
including language areas (Broca's and Wernicke's areas) and the frontal region, which plays a large role in
abstract reasoning. 17 In identical twins, these areas showed a 95 to 100% correlation between one twin and the
other, a correlation as high as for fingerprints (identical twins have similar, but not identical, fingerprints). Fraternal
twins were nearly identical in Wernicke's area of the brain (language comprehension), but less similar in other
areas, with about a 60 to 70% correlation. (Thompson, 2001).
The correlation of the IQs of identical twins is a high 0.86, even when they have been reared apart (Crew,
F.A.E., 1927), while fraternal twins and siblings correlate only 0.6. (Wikipedia, “IQ”). When the same IQ test was
given to the same people at ages 11 and 77 (Deary, 2000), the correlation between the two test results was a
strong 0.73, showing little environmental influence on intelligence during the intervening 66 yrs. A test for the
intelligence of babies predicts their later intelligence, further indicating its heritability. 18 “In other words, the odds
are 2 to 1 that an individual’s adult IQ will fall within 3 points of his IQ at age 8.” (Levin, 1997, p. 62).
Measuring Intelligence
General intelligence, the ability to comprehend, understand, catch on, make sense of, or figure out
(Gottfredson (1997a), is known as “g,” and “g” is what IQ tests strive to measure. 19 But IQ tests today are so
suspect in some quarters that they are no longer given to school children unless specifically requested. 20
Although it might seem obvious that knowing what a child is capable of learning would be highly useful in deciding
what to try to teach him, egalitarianism trumps reason; determining children’s IQ and, even worse, making use of
that information to decide whether they are learning up to their capabilities, would expose the lower intelligence of
blacks, so that information ist verboten.
All innovations, including IQ tests, are improved as their usefulness becomes apparent; early IQ tests were
inaccurate in determining intelligence, and some even obviously biased. (Blacks actually do better on tests that
are culturally biased. 21) Today, however, psychologists go to great lengths to make their IQ tests as accurate and
unbiased as possible. (Levin, 1997, pp. 62-73; Jensen, 1980). They know full well that their work will not be
accepted, and may even be ridiculed, unless the tests meet the strictest possible standards.
Moreover, modern science has just about eliminated any bias by using Raven Matrices to determine IQ.
(Penrose, 1936). In a Raven Standard Progressive Matrices test, a person sits in front of a monitor screen. As
quickly as he can, he is required to extract a pattern implied by a set of geometric pictures, which become
increasingly more complicated; the faster he reacts, the higher is his IQ and a computer, not a person, calculates
his score. 22 One might reasonably ask what ‘how fast a decision is made’ could possibly have to do with
intelligence, especially since not much abstract reasoning is involved other than examining drawings for
similarities and differences. Before answering that question, let us note that it works – these tests have
correlations with conventional IQ tests that “reach 0.50 and higher.” 23 They work because high intelligence
requires a brain that can perform certain physiological functions well, one of which is the rapid transmission of
information across synapses in the part of the brain that makes decisions.
At any rate, children quickly learn how to take a Raven test, whether they are literate or illiterate, educated
or uneducated, poor or rich, white or black. And, since the tests are typically given to school children, and children
who go to school, especially in Third World countries, tend to be more intelligent than those who do not, any bias
will result in IQ scores being higher than they would have been had all children been tested.
While IQ scores are information that the people who run our schools don’t want to know, the U.S. Army,
whose generals apparently value winning wars more than obeisance to egalitarianism, has been testing
prospective recruits for IQ since 1950 (Armed Services Qualification Test) and continues to do so because it is so
valuable in determining what jobs soldiers are capable of learning to do. Needless to say, mistakes made by
unintelligent soldiers can cost lives and lose battles. In or out of the military, there is no other indicator that
predicts success as well as IQ.
Correlations
“The Bell Curve” (Herrnstein, 1994) catalogued intelligence and a variety of other indicia, such as
education and socioeconomic status, to determine how well they positively correlate with socially desirable
outcomes (Shurkin, 1992), such as job success and income, and negatively correlate with socially undesirable
outcomes, such as welfare dependency, illegitimacy, and crime; none correlated as highly, positively or negatively,
as IQ.
Higher IQ correlates well with job performance (r = 0.54), 24 increased wealth, 25 increased income, 26
economic growth, 27 livability in a U.S. state (0.80), 28 cooperation, 29 and even life expectancy (0.85) and infant
mortality (-0.84), 30 so one might reasonably expect that average IQ will determine economic success for an entire
population. And, indeed, that is the case. Nations whose citizens have a high average IQ usually also have a high
average living standard; 31 the correlation is strong, 0.73. (Fig. 14-4). 32
Figure 14-4
As Figure 14-4 shows, high IQ usually equals a high living standard. For example, the United States
(average IQ = 98) has a GDP that is 58 times that of s-S Africa (average IQ = 67). 33 It is not wealth that makes
people intelligent, as the egalitarians sometimes claim, but intelligence that enables people to better acquire their
material desires, just as one would expect. Each 10 point increase in IQ approximately doubles economic growth,
provided the country has a market economy – socialism has strangled the economies of China and Eastern
Europe.
The IQ results Table 14-1 (Lynn, 2006a) were “normed” so that an IQ of 100 is set at the average for
Britain. Note the drastic drop in IQ that occurs for s-S Africans, Australian aborigines, and the Bushmen. This drop
suggests significant genetic differences and that those populations are much more primitive. Also note that the
worldwide average IQ is 90 and that all the average IQs over 90 are in northern populations. Lynn (2002a, Table
4) gives IQs for 185 countries.
The Mysterious Black- Equivalent Age Page

White Gap Population Median IQ
of White Child (Lynn, 2006a)
Trillions of dollars have been spent
on programs to erase the gap between Jews (1) 107-115 94
white and black academic achievements. East Asia (2) 105 173
36 All have failed. 37 After each program
Europeans (all races) 98 16 173
fails, the egalitarian chattering classes get Inuit (Eskimos) 91 151
together to see what can be done about
this Mysterious Gap. IQ differences are Worldwide 90 14 (Lynn, 2002a)
never mentioned, and another program South East Asians (3) 87 98
costing even more money is started, only Native Americans (4) 86 159
to fail several years down the road, and the
Mysterious Gap remains, or even Pacific Islanders (5) 85 168
increases. 38 “Insanity is doing the same African Americans 34 85 44
thing over and over again and expecting South Asians (6) 84 80
different results.” (Albert Einstein).
As discussed in Chapter 13, North Africans (7) 84 80
geneticists are identifying the genes s-S Africans 67 11 37
responsible for intelligence and are finding Australian Aborigines 62 10 104
the incidence of those genes in people
around the world. To no one’s surprise, the Kalahari Bushmen 54 8 76
incidence in Africa is much less than in
Europe or Asia. It is difficult to argue that Homo erectus (est.) 50 204

blacks fail to achieve for lack of education
or because of white racism when they do Table 14-1
not have the genes required for learning. (1) European Jews in the United States and Great Britain. 35
39
(2) China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and
Figure 14-5 shows the IQ frequency Taiwan.
distributions of Africans, blacks (African
Americans) and whites (European (3) Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and
Thailand.
Americans). 40 The distributions of blacks
and whites are of equal population size. (4) North and South America.
The African distribution is a normal bell (5) Pacific Islands and New Zealand.
curve having a population approximately (6) India, Iran, Iraq, Israel-Arabs, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon,
equal to the black curve. The mean of the Nepal,
African distribution is 67 (Lynn, 2006a, p Pakistan, Qatar, Sri Lanka, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen.
37) and “the black mean is commonly
(7) North Africa and Egypt.
given as 85, the white mean as 100 …” 41
The IQ difference between blacks
and whites is observable by age 3,
indicating that it is genetic. (Levin, 1997, p.
103). At age 8 months to 12 months
blacks, due to their faster maturation
(Chap. 11) have IQ scores that are almost
identical to whites, while Asian scores are
slightly lower due to their slower
maturation; as blacks become older, their
IQ gap with whites increases and, with
Asians, increases even more. 42
The egalitarians argued that the IQ
scores of Africa Americans were Figure 14-5
depressed by slavery and therefore the IQ
scores of Africans would prove to be much higher than the scores of African Americans; instead, they were much
lower. (Herrnstein, 1994, p.565). In Figure 14-5, the black curve would be much closer to the African curve had
whites not interbred with African slaves and given their children genes for higher intelligence. 43
Note that in Figure 14-5, the peak of the black distribution is higher and the left end 44 is less spread out
than the ends of white curve, even though both curves include the same number of people; the narrower black
curve means that the black standard deviation (SD) is less than the white SD. Although the SD “is commonly
given … as 15” for everyone (Herrnstein, 1994, p. 276), the black SD for the data used in Figure 14-5 was 12.4.
According to Jensen, the SD for whites is 16 (18 for males and 14 for females) but is 10 or 11 (some say 14) for
NE Asians and about 12 for blacks. 45 A group that has a larger SD will have both more geniuses and more
dummies than another group that has the same mean but a smaller SD; white males have the largest SD, which
may explain their greater achievements (see next chapter).
In Figure 14-5, people with IQs below the left vertical yellow line (IQ<70) are considered to be retarded and
people with IQs above the right vertical yellow line (IQ>130) are considered to be gifted. As Figure 14-5 shows,
over half of S-s Africans are in the retarded range. About 37% of American blacks have an IQ below 80, just
above retarded, but only about 9% of whites do, 46 but blacks are 6.1 times as likely to be retarded (IQ<70) as
whites (i.e., about 12% of African Americans and 2% of non-Hispanic whites have an IQ less than 70; La Griffe du
Lion, 2000d).
Even though the percentage of blacks with IQs under 70 is about 6 times the percentage of whites, in one
study only 4% of those blacks were actually classified as “retarded,” i.e., as behaviorally impaired, while 15% of
the whites were! 47 The reason is not that whites are being discriminated against, but that in whites a low IQ is
usually due to a genetic abnormality such as Down’s syndrome, which causes obvious physical deformities, but
low IQ blacks usually do not have a genetic defect and are normal in behavior and appearance; in Africans and
aborigines these low scores are normal. 48 “Black children of IQ 70 routinely learn to speak, to play games, learn
names, and act friendly with playmates and teachers. They appear quite normal, whereas White children with
similar IQs ‘look’ abnormal.” 49
Referring now to the right tail “gifted” region of Figure 14-5, we see that the lower average IQ of blacks
means not only that the left tail “retarded” region has disproportionately more blacks, but also that the right tail
“gifted” region has disproportionately fewer blacks; 50 a much greater percentage of whites have high IQs than
blacks. Although half of all whites have an IQ over the white average, only 16% of African Americans do (i.e., 5 out
of 6 blacks have an IQ below the white average) and only 1.3% of Africans would be expected to have an IQ
above the white average. 51 The higher the IQ, the greater is the difference between the percentage of blacks and
the percentage of whites. Only 1% of the black (African American) population has an IQ over 120, but 9% of the
white population does. 52 About 2.3% of whites have an IQ of at least 130 (gifted), 20 times greater than the
percentage of blacks who do; 53 only 0.00044% of Africans would be expected to have an IQ over 130. (Id.).
The large differences in the percentages of blacks and whites IQs in the right tail of the curves account for
the small number of blacks in high-IQ professions, such as physicians and attorneys. 54 Note in Figure 14-6
(Gottfredson, 2004a) how IQ relates to occupation and how the lower IQ of blacks limits them to less well-paying
occupations (U.S. in 1981).
Figure 14-6
The black-white gap will increase as more and more African refugees, with an average IQ of only 67, are
brought into the United States and are counted as part of the black population.
For African Americans, skin color, which is a surrogate for European ancestry, correlates highly (r = 0.92)
with intelligence 55 so the blacks at the right tail of the black IQ curve (Fig. 14-5 & 14-6) have lighter skin (and
more of other Caucasian features) than those in the left tail. The IQ of Africans is estimated to increase by 0.2 IQ
points for every 1% of Caucasian heritage. (Lynn, 2006a, p 70).
The latest attack on the massive amount of data that shows that blacks are less intelligent is the
“stereotype threat,” which asserts that blacks do worse on IQ tests because they fear that they will confirm the
white stereotype 56 of them – that they are less intelligent; this fear makes them so nervous that they don’t do well
on the tests. (Steele, 1995). Steele demonstrated experimentally that blacks perform worse on a test when it is
called an “IQ test” than when it is described as a “research tool.” The egalitarians were, of course, overjoyed at
this news and both academics and the popular press exulted in the Tinker Bell Theory of Intelligence, that blacks
would be just as smart as whites if only they believed they were. Belief may increase motivation, but our belief
does not create reality. Steele’s experiment disguised racial differences in IQ, but did not eliminate them, i.e., the
gap between white and black IQ scores remained. (Sackett, 2004; Sailer, 2004a; Murray, 2005; La Griffe du Lion,
2003). Nor does the “stereotype threat” explain how stereotypes get started in the first place. 57
The very fact that Africans were so extensively enslaved for centuries, not only by other Africans, but also
by people from many other countries, and were unable to stop their own exploitation, despite their often superior
physical abilities, strongly suggests that mentally they were, and are, incapable of competing with other races.
The Male-Female Gap
Another “gap” is between the

accomplishments of white men and white
women, which also suggests a difference in
intelligence. (Lynn, 2006a, p. 219) gives white
men about a 5 point IQ advantage over white
women and (Jackson, 2006) gives a 3.63 point
IQ advantage to men. 58 This is consistent with
men having a brain that is about 100 cc larger,
even adjusting for body weight. 59 Although this
difference is only a few IQ points, because of the
difference in male and female means and the
greater SD of white men, the small difference in
IQ makes a large difference between the number
of white men and white women at the higher IQ
levels. 60 Figure 14-7 clearly shows both the Figure 14-7
higher average IQ of males and their greater SD,
and how much those differences affect the male/female ratio at higher IQs (dotted line). 61
Among Africans, however, the women may have an IQ advantage over men, 62 probably because African
women are less dependent on men and therefore need not select males who are good providers (and good
providers are typically more intelligent, see Chap. 5).
The Flynn Effect

A major anomaly in IQ research, the Flynn Effect, was discovered by Richard Lynn (Lynn, 1982), but was
named for James R. Flynn (1984, 1987), who gathered a great deal of data to support it. The Flynn Effect is a
world-wide increase in IQ scores of about 3 IQ points every ten years since about 1950. Some researchers
(Rushton, 2000a, p. 284; Lynn, 2006a, p. 6) believe that >U>real (i.e., genetic) intelligence has increased and
suggest that it may be due to improved nutrition. (With all the junk food eaten today, one wonders whether
nutrition has really improved.) The author believes, 63 however, that the increase in scores is not an increase in
real intelligence, but is because the IQ test score comparisons are made between people of the same
chronological age, but of different maturities. To give an example, if you give the same IQ test that 10 year olds
took 50 ya to today’s 10 year olds, you will find that today’s 10 year olds do much better on the test. But children
today mature at an earlier age (probably due to increased calories, which accelerates maturation), and therefore
are actually, perhaps, 12 yrs old in terms of maturity. Thus, the Flynn Effect is due to comparing years-ago
children who were 10 yrs old in maturity to today’s children who are 12 yrs old in maturity (but 10 yrs old
chronologically) and, of course, the more mature children do better.
It was always unbelievable that people are becoming more intelligent, given all the welfare subsidies for
lower IQ people to have more children and the immigration of low IQ people into the West from Mexico, Africa,
and the Middle East. 64 “Literacy among college graduates declined between 1992 and 2003, with less than one-
third of all graduates at the highest ‘proficient’ level in 2003, and less than half of all graduates with advanced
degrees at this level.” 65 If real intelligence (i.e., the genetic potential for high intelligence) were increasing, we
would not see grade inflation, falling SAT scores, a dumbing down of SAT tests, 66 courses, textbooks, and our
culture, the publication of studies such as “A Nation at Risk,” 67 the Darwin Awards, 68 and the series, “[insert
almost any subject] for Dummies.” 69 American “music” consists of endless repetition and pounding drums and
less and less Beethoven and Prokofiev, or even Richard Rodgers and George Gershwin, and art is urination and
feces rather than Rembrandt and Michelangelo. New research in England has confirmed common sense, finding,
"The intelligence of 11-year-olds has fallen by three years' worth in the past two decades." 70
There is evidence not only for declining intelligence in the United States, but that the intelligence of blacks
is declining faster than the intelligence of whites. 71 This conclusion is based on data showing that for both whites
and blacks, the less intelligent are more fecund, and that is truer of blacks than whites. (Chap. 11 and Table 32-1,
p. 262).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, International Data Base (2005), the world population, which was at
a little over 6 billion in 2000, is expected to grow to 7 billion by 2013 and to surpass 9 billion by 2050. The U.S.
population is also growing, from about 280 million in 2000, to a projected 310 million in 2010, to a little under 400
million by 2040. Given that high IQ white and East Asian population numbers are falling while low IQ population
numbers are increasing, world-wide average intelligence has to be declining.
Selecting for Intelligence

Intelligence increases significantly with distance from the equator. 72 Although high intelligence appears to
be an adaptation to the cold, it is not cold weather, per se, that selects for intelligence, as the Arctic people have
an average IQ of 91 and they would be expected to have an IQ significantly higher than that if cold weather alone
selected for intelligence. The real selector for intelligence is a mentally challenging environment, where survival
(and therefore reproductive success) depends more on intelligence than on other traits. 73 The Arctic may be
colder, but the people who live there depend upon the same food source - sea animals - the entire year. Thus,
obtaining and storing food for the winter is unnecessary and the same skills can be used to obtain food the entire
year. In contrast, the large seasonal variations in northern territories south of the Artic and far from the sea, where
vegetation must be relied upon as a major food source, make those environments more mentally challenging. 74
A highly seasonal climate is more mentally challenging because of the many additional problems that must
be solved in order to survive. These included keeping warm, of course, but also the absence of food in the winter,
the need to hunt and kill large mammals, cut them up, and carry the meat back to women and children and store
the excess when the temperature is above freezing. (Lynn, 2006a, pp. 227-228). These problems were not faced
by people in the tropics, 75 and solving these problems required careful planning, cooperation, and the crafting of
weapons and tools, i.e. intelligence.
The center of the Chinese Han population is between the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers and extends from
modern Wuhan, Nanjing, and Chengdu. This is in an officially-designated “hot summer/cold winter zone” where
the average temperature in the hottest month is 25 to 30°C (77 to 86°F) and the average temperature in the
coldest month is 0 to 10°C (32 to 50°F). 76 It is no coincidence that the Chinese, coping with such wide swings in
temperature, have an average IQ of 103. (Lynn, 2006a, p. 173). Now contrast China with equatorial Africa, where
the annual temperature variation is between 17 and 32°C (63 and 90°F) and the average IQ is only 67. (Lynn,
2006a, p. 224).
Since northern women, until modern times, needed men to provide for them and men capable of doing so
typically had status and wealth, which correlate highly with intelligence, northern women directly or indirectly
selected more intelligent men. There is some evidence that beautiful women are of higher intelligence (Kanazawa,
2004), perhaps because their mothers were beautiful and their mothers selected intelligent men 77 so, since men
prefer beautiful women, they are also selecting for higher intelligence. As a consequence of these sexual
selections, white women are only slightly less intelligent than white men. 78
Like all traits, if average intelligence rises it is because people who are more intelligent are more
reproductively successful. Since the brain is man’s most expensive organ, 79 intelligence quickly falls again when
the less intelligent are just as, or more, reproductively successful than the more intelligent. By vastly increasing the
number of people who could survive and by reducing the intelligence needed to do so, agriculture produced the
first big drop in intelligence and the Industrial Revolution and the welfare state produced the second. 80
Intelligence as a Liability
The greatest blind spot that anthropologists have is their unexamined assumption that more intelligence, at
least in man, is always advantageous. This is a natural assumption for them to make because in their field more
intelligence equals more success, but intelligence is not a unique (“sui generis”) trait that is exempt from the
selection pressures that apply to all other traits and all other living things.
In economics, “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” (“TANSTAAFL”) and that is also true in evolution.
If an individual puts more of his resources into a larger, more intelligent brain, he has fewer resources available for
his other organs. (Zimmer, 2008). Why are there no super-intelligent lions or gazelles? Because any gazelle that
invested more resources in a larger brain would have fewer resources to devote to the muscles and bones that
enable it to escape lions, nor could a slower, but bigger-brained lion catch enough of even the stupider gazelles to
survive. That is, an animal’s brain increases in size only as long as the additional grey matter increases his
reproductive success; after he reaches his optimal brain size, any additional brain lowers his reproductive
success. Since we humans have already invested so much in our brains (about 25% of our metabolism is devoted
to brain function) going past our optimal brain size will rapidly lower reproductive success. (Isler, 2006).
Remember, too, that each additional cubic centimeter of brain will probably require more than an additional cubic
centimeter of the body’s other organs to support it. Unless individuals cannot reproduce without solving problems
that require a lot of grey matter, large brains will be strongly selected against. Today, even though more intelligent
people have the means to be more reproductively successful, they lack the motivation to do it, so their fitness, and
the average intelligence of the population has declined.
The optimal amount of intelligence depends upon the other traits the organism has and the environment it
is in. More intelligence is a waste of resources if an organism does not possess the means to make use of high
intelligence, i.e., it lacks arms, fingers, or tentacles for manipulating its environment, or it can obtain all the energy
it needs from its environment without solving mentally challenging problems (e.g., a sponge).
That the optimal amount of intelligence is less in Africa is demonstrated by the lower IQ of Africans (Chap.
4, Rule 10, second corollary) and is supported by the correlation between IQ and distance from the equator (-0.68,
Templer, 2006, 121–139). The extinction of large-brained Africans, such as Herto (Fig. 17-1), Boskop (Fig. 26-9),
and Grimaldi (Fig. 26-11), the (presumably) considerable lowering of the intelligence of the Bushmen as they
moved from northern Africa to central and southern Africa, and the low IQ of the Africans in the horn of Africa
(e.g., Somalia = 68), who clearly have some white heritage (Fig. 26-8), also suggest that the optimal amount of
intelligence is lower in Africa. 81
The difference between the 105 average IQ of NE Asians (China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South
Korea, and Taiwan) and the SE Asians, who are related to the NE Asians, but have an average of only 87 (Lynn,
2006a, pp. 173, 100) support the conclusion that the optimal IQ in tropical climates is likely to be low. Although the
Incas and Mayans, living in the tropics of Mexico and the Amazon, built civilizations that had writing, a calendar,
and mathematics, and therefore must have had a reasonably high IQ, the Native Americans today of North and
Latin America have an average IQ of only 86. (Lynn, 2006a, pp. 130, 166). However, the Mayans and Incas may
have come from a higher IQ founding population and may have been in the process of undergoing a reduction in
IQ as it no longer paid off in reproductive success.
Brain size, and presumably intelligence,
also fell outside of the tropics when it became
less needed for reproductive success. (Fig. 14-
8).82 Both the Cro-Magnons, who became the
Europeans (Chap. 24), and the Neanderthals
(Chap. 25) initially had larger brains than today’s
Europeans. It is possible that a mutation about
50,000 ya (the beginning of the Cultural
Revolution) enabled the brain to become more
efficient (Chap. 13), so that greater intelligence
could be achieved even with a smaller brain
(Lynn, 2006a, pp. 150-153), but it is more likely
that the domestication of animals and agriculture
reduced the reproductive pay-off from
intelligence.
The vast expansion in the food supply
made possible by agriculture and the
domestication of animals meant less selection Figure 14-8
for high intelligence because a person who was
not intelligent enough to survive as a hunter could nevertheless survive as a farmer. (The adage that 95% of the
fish are caught by 5% of the fishermen illustrates the importance of intelligence in hunting.) 83 Also, although
agriculture meant more food, it initially meant a lower quality food than meat, and did not provide the nutrition
needed to support a large brain. In fact, if food is plentiful and high intelligence is not needed to acquire it, then it is
a disadvantage to have a large brain instead of, say, a better immune system, which would be more
advantageous in the more crowded conditions made possible by agriculture. For a hunter, more intelligence meant
killing more game, thereby reducing the amount of food available, so human population growth was self-limiting.
But once the knowledge of how to farm had been discovered, population growth was much less limited and
depended more on hard, steady work than on outwitting game, 84 i.e., the optimal brain size for a farmer was less
than for a hunter-gatherer.
Chapter 15
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. “It seems there is an IQ threshold to be reached before a country can get off the ground economically. None of
the black nations has yet reached this threshold.” (La Griffe du Lion, 2002); La Griffe argues that it is the fraction
of a nation's population that has an IQ greater than 108 that determines per capita GDP. A country with a national
IQ below about 85 is likely to be an economic failure. (Lynn, 2006b, regression plot of national IQ). A civilization
can be achieved and maintained with a somewhat below average (100) IQ if it is homogeneous, as the corruptions
of ethny-against-ethny are avoided. The decline of the civilizations of the US, Europe, Canada, and Australia with
the immigration of large numbers of ethnically and racially different groups shows that even an average IQ of 100
may not be sufficient under the burden of ethnic competition. Also see Table 32-2. Back
2. Also see Table 32-2, where the average IQ in South America is low, but not nearly as low as in Africa, yet their
attainments in math and science are almost as sparse as Africans. Back
3. However, chimpanzees do not make stone tools (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 30) nor, when they obtain a useful stone,
do they keep it for later use. (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 33). They use sticks to dig up tubers and bulbs, and to beat other
chimps; they make points on wooden spears with their teeth to impale bush babies in hollow trees. Even crows
make tools; a New Caledonia crow named “Betty” spontaneously bent a wire to make a meat hook and used it to
retrieve some meat. (Emery, 2004). But so far only man has been found to use a tool to make a tool. Back
4. They also “pat each other on the hand to show affection, or kiss each other, or embrace. …[and] develop
lifelong friendships, and grieve for their dead babies by carrying them for days or weeks. [They can] do sums like 5
plus 4 or communicate with hand signs.” (Wrangham, 1996, pp. 23-24; see the documentary, “Ape Genius.”).
Adolescent chimps outperformed human college students in remembering numbers. (Hooper, R. “Chimps
outperform humans at memory task,” New Scientist, Dec. 3, 2007). Back
5. The correlation between brain size and the g factor (general intelligence, i.e., abstract reasoning) across 25
primate genre is 0.77, which is a strong correlation. (Lee, 2005). "No one, I presume, doubts that the large
proportion which the size of man's brain bears to his body, compared to the same proportion in the gorilla or
orang, is closely connected with his mental powers." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871). Back
6. Very small animals can have disproportionately large brains. Animals that are socially complex, e.g., dolphins,
elephants, and humans, also tend to have larger brains. (Marino, L., “Cetacean brains: How aquatic are they?”
The Anatomical Record Online, May 21, 2007). Back
7. Data from Kambiz Kamrani. Some of that increase is due to an increase in body size, but body size may have
increased to accommodate a larger brain, so absolute brain size may correlate more highly with intelligence.
(Deaner, 2007; the increase in brain size may have been due to a longer period of brain growth as a result of
neoteny; Coqueugniot, 2004). About 30,000 ya, the increasing brain size reversed and started decreasing
(Wiercinski, 1979), but and man began to live much longer. (Caspari, 2004). This was sometime after the Cultural
Revolution took hold; the use of abstract thinking (e.g., astronomy, complex languages,) would have produced a
population increase that enabled more of those who were less intelligent (and had smaller brains) to survive and
reproduce; the coming of agriculture about 12,000 ya also made it possible for more of the less intelligent to
survive. The trend seems to be continuing. (Fig. 14-8). Back
8. East Asians have about 17 cc (1 in3) larger brains than Europeans, and Europeans have about 80 cc (5 in3)
larger brains than Africans. (Jensen, 1998). Back
9. See the 2005 study by Michael McDaniel, an industrial and organizational psychologist at Virginia
Commonwealth University, which found a direct correlation between intelligence and brain size. Also, (Posthuma,
2002; Thompson, 2001). "I can predict full-scale IQ from the amount of gray matter in a small number of
areas." (Haier, R.J., quoted in Zimmer, C., "The Search for Intelligence," Scientific American, Oct., 2008, p. 73).
Back
10. (Gale, 2006). As comedian Ron White put it, “You can’t fix stupid.” By day 166 of the 277 days of human
intrauterine development the total number of cells capable of differentiating into neurons has been produced.
Though most brain growth is before adulthood, neurons can regenerate to a limited extent in adults. (Lindvall,
2003). Back
11. (McDaniel, 2005; Rushton, 2000a, pp. 36-41, 113-146). The correlation with head circumference is an even
greater 0.8. (Brandt, 1978). This correlation indicates that although brain size is important, other factors are also
important. Artic people have the largest brains of any living people (1444 cc), but an average IQ of only 91,
perhaps because more of their brains is devoted to visual memory and they may not have acquired mutations that
other Eurasians did. (Lynn, 2006a, pp. 150-153). It is probable that at some stage in man’s evolution, mutations
occurred that made the brain more efficient (probably about 2 mya), so that the same intelligence could be
achieved with a smaller brain. (Shaw, 2006). Intelligent brains are more efficient than less intelligent brains.
(Seligman, 1992, p. 62). Back
12. Redrawn from (Jensen, 1998). “Negroid” is African American. Back
13. (Rushton 2005c & 2005d). In the US, for non-Hispanic white mothers, the percentage of their children who are
in the bottom 10% of IQ scores is 39% if the mother’s IQ is <75, 17% if the mother’s IQ is 75 – 90, 6% if the
mother’s IQ is 90 – 110, 7% if the mother’s IQ is 110 – 125, and <1% if the mother’s IQ is >125. (Wikipedia, “IQ”).
Back
14. (Lynn, 2006a, pp 26, 65). The high heritability of intelligence is evident in studies that show that black children
from high socioeconomic homes have a lower IQ than white children from low socioeconomic homes. (Jensen,
1974a). Back
15. Those who wish to minimize the importance of IQ often say, “IQ is what is measured by an IQ test,” and that is
true if it is a valid test. The heritability of IQ is not 100%, which means that environment does affect IQ. (Lynn,
2006a, p. 70) estimates what the IQ would be if people lived in a “perfect” environment (Lynn, email to author),
which he calls the “genotypic IQ.” Lynn estimates the genotypic IQ of African Americans as 85, the same as their
measured IQ, and of s-S Africans as 80, much higher than their measured IQ of 67 (Lynn, 2006a, pp. 69-71), but
estimating the genotypic IQs of different populations is largely guesswork. The concept of genotypic IQ should not
embolden the IQ-deniers because much of that “environment” is beyond our control, at least at the present time.
That is, education is only a small part of the environment that affects IQ, most of the environment being the womb,
family and friends, accidents, pollution, and events that are difficult or impossible to control. It is hard to specify
exactly what a “perfect” environment is for maximizing IQ, and it is even more difficult to determine how perfect a
child’s environment was for that purpose. Back
16. The correlation of mating couples is 0.6 for educational background, and educational background correlates
0.6 with IQ. Thus, assortative mating for education increases the heritability of IQ within a family because the
children are more likely to receive more alleles for intelligence than if they were the children of two random people
in that population. (Mare, 2006). Back
17. “We were stunned to see that the amount of gray matter in frontal brain regions was strongly inherited, and
also predicted an individual’s IQ score.” Paul Thompson, the chief investigator for a study on that subject and an
assistant professor of neurology at the UCLA Laboratory of Neuro Imaging. (Thompson, 2001). Back
18. (Bornstein, 2006). Also see the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study and the National Educational Longitudinal
Study. Back
19. (Brody, 1992). There are a number of very useful talents that are not included in “g” such as spatial
visualization, musical composition, the visual arts, and higher mathematics. However, there seems to be a
synergistic effect between “g” and these talents, so that having both is disproportionately beneficial. Back
20. In California, blacks got low scores on IQ tests and were placed in with the “educable mentally retarded” so, in
1979, a judge banned giving the tests, but just to blacks. (Larry P. v. Riles, 793 F.2d, 1984). In 2005, University of
California President Richard Atkinson proposed not using SAT scores (which correlate 0.8 with IQ; Seligman,
1991) for admissions because blacks do so poorly on them. "In 1997, black students from families with incomes
between $80,000 and $100,000 scored lower on the SAT than did white students from families with incomes of
less than $10,000." (Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Summer 1998, p. 6). Back
21. (Rushton, 2000a, p. 50; Levin, 1997, p. 67). The correlation between the “g” loading of a test and the
difference between black and white scores on that test is a high 0.78, so the more a test measures culture and not
“g,” the smaller will be the black-white gap. (Rushton, 2000a, p. 139). Back
22. (Rushton, 2000a, pp. 34-36; Seligman, 1992, pp. 60-63). “Inspection time,” e.g., deciding which of two lines is
longer, is another IQ test that depends on speed. Back
23. (Rushton, 2000a, p. 281). Even reaction time, simply pushing a button after a stimulus, has a correlation with
IQ of 0.2 to 0.3. (Lynn, 2006a, p. 57). Back
24. (Hunter, 1984). Intelligence is the best predictor of job performance. (Gottfredson, 1997b; the correlation is
over 0.90 for scores that are averaged, Schmidt, 2004). Back
25. (Herrnstein, 1994). Most wealth resides in the civilizations people create, not in their physical assets.
(Hamilton, K., Where Is The Wealth Of Nations?: Measuring Capital for the 21st Century, World Bank, 2005). Back
26. In one study, each point increase in IQ score was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.
(Zagorsky, 2007). A study by the Census Bureau of veterans in their early thirties showed that a 15 point higher IQ
corresponded to 11% more earnings. Similarly, a 15 point higher IQ between brothers in the sixth grade
(Kalamazoo, MI) was associated with a 14% increase in annual earnings between ages 35 and 59. (Olneck,
1979). The percentage of non-Hispanic whites living in poverty is 30% for IQ <75, 16% for IQ = 75 – 90, 6% for IQ
= 90 – 110, 3% for IQ = 110 – 125, and 2% for IQ >125. “People who work sitting down get paid more than people
who work standing up.” (Ogden Nash). Many high IQ people, however, choose doing what they enjoy rather than
maximizing their income. Back
27. “In growth regressions that include only robust control variables, IQ is statistically significant in 99.8% of these
1330 regressions, and the IQ coefficient is always positive. A strong relationship persists even when OECD
countries [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development – most of the major industrialized countries]
are excluded from the sample. A 1 point increase in a nation’s average IQ is associated with a persistent 0.11%
annual increase in GDP per capita.” (Jones, 2006b). Back
28. (“The Audacious Epigone,” Aug. 15, 2007; Kanazawa, 2006). Back
29. “A meta-study of repeated prisoner’s dilemma experiments run at numerous universities suggests that
students cooperate 5% more often for every 100 point increase in the school’s average SAT score.” (Jones,
2006b). SAT scores correlate 0.8 with IQ. (Seligman, 1991). Back
30. (“The Audacious Epigone,” May 31, 2006; Hemmingsson, 2006; Gottfredson, 2004b; Lynn, 2006b). As one
would expect, a higher IQ usually equals a higher living standard within a country as well as between countries.
(Lynn, 2008). See (Levin, 1997, pp. 54-59) for other correlations. Back
31. Gross Domestic Product [GDP] per person, i.e., per capita income in British pounds per year. “… the Nobel
Prize-winning economist Robert Lucas declared the multiplier effects that stem from talent clustering (i.e., talented
people interacting) to be the primary determinant of growth.” (Florida, 2006, p. 35). Also see (Lynn, 2006b). Back
32. (Lynn, 2002a). In Fig. 14-4, Great Britain is set at IQ = 100. Back
33. Lowered from 70 in Lynn’s latest book (2006a, p. 37). “One of the great paradoxes of Africa is that its people
are for the most part desperately poor while its land is extraordinarily rich. East Asia is the opposite: a region
mostly poor in resources that over the last few decades has enjoyed the greatest economic boom in human
history.” (Arthur Hu, “Asian Americans: Arthur Hu’s Index of Diversity”). Back
34. The percentage of European ancestry in African Americans has been given as 25 to 28% (Putnam, 1961, p.
92), among other figures; a 1998 study of genetic markers of 1022 self-identified African Americans from nine big
cities showed they were only 16.4% European, or about 5/6 African and 1/6 European. (Parra, 1998; also,
Rosenberg, 2002). (Shriver, 2003) found that African Americans have ~80% African ancestry. Back
35. The high IQ of European Jews is due to selection for intelligence (e.g., encouraging the most intelligent boys
to become rabbis and the daughters of wealthier, and more intelligent Jews, to marry rabbis (Seligman, 1992, p.
135, the Christian priests, also more intelligent were, however, celibate), and exclusion from occupations, such as
farming, that required manual labor. The average intelligence of the Oriental Jews of North Africa and the Middle
East is nearly 15 IQ points lower. (David, H., 2007). European Jews are stronger in verbal reasoning than in
visual-spatial, the reverse of Asians. (Nyborg, 2003). Both are high in math, but Jews use algebraic reasoning
while Asians use geometric reasoning. (Seligman, 1992, p. 133). Back
36. “… public schools now spend more per capita on black children than on white.” (Levin, 1997, p. 127). Back
37. (Rushton, 2006; Seligman, 1992, pp. 39-40). “Contrary to environmentalist predictions, intervention beginning
at age three makes no difference to the intellectual development of blacks. Perhaps surprisingly, intervention for
whites does, indicating a possible nonsocial race difference in receptiveness to stimulation.” (Levin, 1997, p. 112).
Even the adoption of black children by white parents did not improve their IQ. (Lynn, 1994; Levin, 1994). “With the
Negro, as with some other races of man, it has been found that the children are precocious, but that no advance in
education can be made after they arrive at the age of maturity; they still continue mentally [as] children.” (Hunt,
1864, p. 12). Back
38. Since 1988, the Mysterious Gap has increased. ("Trends in Average Reading Scale Scores by Race/Ethnicity:
White-Black Gap," U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Ed. Statistics). Also see (Table 32-1); Abramson,
2006). On the other hand, see (Murray, 2007; Seligman, 1992, p. 163). The “Black-White IQ difference in the
United States is about 80% heritable.” (Rushton, 2006). Back
39. Black children adopted in infancy by white middle-class families showed no significant improvement in IQ over
other black children, further evidence that low IQ in blacks is genetic. (Scarr, 1993). For a point-by-point refutation
of the environmental explanation for lower black IQ see (Hart, 2007, Chap. 16). Back
40. (Herrnstein, 1994, p. 279); the African curve was added. The black and white distributions are from Version II
of The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1990. Back
41. (Herrnstein, 1994, p. 276). Black and white IQs and SDs depend upon the test and who is considered to be
“black” or “white.” In Fig. 14-5, the black IQ was 86.7 and the difference between the black and white means was
1.2 SD (18 IQ points). (Roth, 2001) says the African American mean of 85 is about 16.5 IQ points (1.1 SD) lower
than the white mean of 102, which may exclude Hispanics. Jensen (1998) also says the black-white IQ difference
is about 1.2 SD. Back
42. (Jensen, 1974b; Lynn, 1998 and 2006a, p. 45; Rushton, 2000a, pp. 147-150; Fryer, 2006; Also see FN 362, p.
86). “Psychologists who study chimpanzees observe a certain parallelism between their learning process and ours
up to the age of about two and a half years. After that the gap between us becomes wider and wider until it is a
yawning abyss.” (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 277). The U.S. black-white IQ gap increases from 0.70 SDs in early childhood,
to 1.00 SDs in middle childhood, and to 1.20 SDs in early adulthood, which is consistent with brain growth
terminating early in blacks. (Jensen, 1998). Back
43. Black school children in rural Georgia had an average IQ of only 71. (Jensen, 1977). This was attributed to a
poor environment, but less white heritage is a better explanation because the whites did not have a comparable IQ
lowering. See FN 396 on p. 116). Southern blacks have less white heritage (10%) and lower IQs (80.5) than
northern blacks (25% & 87.6). (Shuey, 1966; Levin, 1997, pp. 20, 135, citing Reed, 1969). The slaves in Africa
who were selected to be transported to the Americas, and who survived the trip, may have been above average in
health, and health correlates positively with intelligence. (Richards, 2006). On the other hand, others contend that
only the worst Africans were captured and sold as slaves. (Hunt, 1864, pp. 25-27). Back
44. The right end is more spread out, making the black distribution asymmetrical (“skewed”). The right tail are
mulattoes who are more intelligent because they have a substantial amount of white heritage. Back
45. (Jensen, 1998, p. 353). (La Griffe du Lion, 2000c) gives an SD for African Americans of 13.5 when the IQ of
non-Hispanic whites is normalized to a mean of 100 and a SD of 15. (La Griffe du Lion, 2007) also gives a white-
black difference in “g” of 1.09 SD (16 IQ points), with a variance ratio ([B SD]/[W SD]) of 0.888. Back
46. "Adults in the bottom 5% of the IQ distribution (below 75) are very difficult to train and are not competitive for
any occupation on the basis of ability. Serious problems in training low-IQ military recruits during World War II led
Congress to ban enlistment from the lowest 10% (below 80) of the population, and no civilian occupation in
modern economies routinely recruits its workers from that below-80 range. [This partly explains why companies do
not put manufacturing plants in s-S Africa to take advantage of the low wages.] Current military enlistment
standards exclude any individual whose IQ is below about 85." (Gottfredson, 1999). Of course, selecting the most
intelligent people for the risks of military service is a good way to lower the national average IQ. Back
47. (La Griffe du Lion, 2000d). Back
48. The African average IQ of 67 is within the “mild retardation” range of 50 to 69. “Moderate and mild retardation,
contrary to the more severe forms, are typically not caused by brain damage but [are] part of the normal variance
of intelligence, and therefore largely genetic and inherited. This is important with regard to the question whether or
not retarded persons should be allowed to have children; for especially the moderate and mild forms of
retardation, wherewith it physically is possible to have children, are the most likely to be inherited.” (Paul
Cooijmans, “IQ and Real-life Functioning”). Back
49. (Rushton, 2000a, p. 5). Chimpanzees function quite well with an adult IQ just over 40. (Paul Cooijmans, “IQ
and Real-life Functioning”). “More than Asia, Europe, and other areas of the world, the accuracy of such a low IQ
for Africa is popularly questioned, but more with reflexive incredulity than adequate methodology. A typical
comment is that it is hard to believe that half of Africa is mentally retarded. It is also hard to believe that 16% of
African-Americans are ‘mentally retarded,’ but 16% of African-Americans do have IQs below 70, and the APA
[American Psychological Association] recognizes this as an accurate and factual reflection of ability – IQ tests are
not biased against African-Americans (the criticism is fairly ignorant to begin with since diagnosing mental
retardation is mostly orthogonal to [independent of] the intelligence test, See Mackintosh 1998, p. 177. Although
this is not controversial now, among scientists, it certainly was as shocking to believe for many back in the 1970s
as the 2 SD [30 IQ point] difference is to many today.” (Malloy, J., "A World of Difference: Richard Lynn Maps
World Intelligence," Gene Expression, Feb. 1, 2006). Since the optimal intelligence for a population depends in
part upon the culture, the average IQ in Africa was likely even lower prior to the introduction of some Western
cultural practices. Back
50. Similarly, East Asians have a higher average IQ than whites, but their smaller SD means that they have fewer
people in the tails of the bell curves; people with “IQs of over 130 are 7 times more likely to be found in European
populations than in East Asian populations.” (Arthur Hu, “Asian Americans: Arthur Hu’s Index of Diversity”). This
helps to explain why Europeans have accomplished much more than Asians despite a higher Asian IQ. Back
51. Calculated using an African IQ of 70 and a normal IQ curve. (La Griffe du Lion, in “Scary Stuff about Black IQ:
Blacks & Whites with IQ>130,” From the News Archives of: WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org, Aug. 6, 2006). Back
52. The proportion of blacks in an occupation decreases as the intelligence required to practice that occupation
increases. (Rushton, 2000a, p 145). The average black high school graduate has the academic proficiency of the
average white 8th grader. (The National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2006). “Black children from the
wealthiest families have mean SAT scores lower than white children from families below the poverty line.” “Black
children of parents with graduate degrees have lower SAT scores than white children of parents with a high-school
diploma or less.” (La Griffe du Lion, 2000a). A good example of this right tail effect is steroid use in baseball; it
increases bat speed by about 5% but home runs (at the right tail of hits) by about 50%. (Tobin, 2008). Another
example: African Americans are 12.5% of the population, but only 1.1% scored at least 700 on the 2005 math SAT
and the percentage dropped even lower, to 0.7%, for scoring over 750. (“The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the
SAT College Admissions Test,” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Mar. 9, 2008). Back
53. (Taylor, J. “Race/IQ Explanation Gap at ‘Achievement Gap Summit’,” VDARE.com, Nov. 13, 2007). “… in the
NLSY, a person with the black mean was at the 11th percentile of the white distribution [i.e., he is more intelligent
than 11% of the whites], and a person with the white mean was at the 91st percentile of the black distribution [i.e.,
he is more intelligent than 91% of the blacks].” (Herrnstein, 1994, p. 278). A black is 53 times less likely to be
gifted than a white. (La Griffe du Lion, 2000d). Back
54. (Hernnstein, 1994, p 456-457). If admission to medical school were determined by MCAT score, only seven
blacks in the entire United States would probably be admitted to the top ten medical schools and there would be
almost no black physicians. (Cross, 1997, p. 17; Dawson, 1994). Also see (La Griffe du Lion, 2000c; Gawande,
2004). The odds ratio favoring black applicants to medical schools over whites was 21 to 1 in 2005. (Clegg, R.,
“Discrimination Continues,” Center for Equal Opportunity, Oct. 17, 2006). Male physicians are recruited from
people with an IQ of at least 114 (U.S. Dept. of Labor), which is 1.1% of the black population and 23% of the white
population, so there should be 4.8 black physicians for every 100 white physicians. In 1970, there were actually 23
black physicians for every 100 white physicians and, in 1980, it had increased to 30. This means that of those 30
black physicians, 25.2 had IQs less than 114. (30 – 4.8 = 25.2). If we take 114 as the minimum IQ for competency,
then 84% (25.2/30 = 0.84) of the black physicians are incompetent. (Levin, 1997, pp. 264-265; Ree, 1992). Since
the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which permitted racial
discrimination in favor of blacks in medical school admissions, the percentage of whites in medical schools
between 1986 and 2005 has dropped 27% while the percentage of blacks has increased 23.8%. (Association of
American Medical Colleges). Moreover, basing admissions on standard tests actually results in over-
representation of blacks; for the SAT test (Harvard data), 240 points would have to be subtracted from the black
combined verbal and math scores to accurately predict black college performance. (Klitgaard, 1985). See (Miller,
1994b) for a proof.
The same is true of law schools. (Heriot, G., “Affirmative Action Backfires,” The Wall St. Journal, Aug. 24,
2007). Only sixteen blacks had a GPA of 3.50 or better and an LSAT score at or above the 92.3 percentile in the
1996/1997 tests, and those scores are below the median for elite law schools (Graglia, 1998), so Affirmative
Action has also produced less competent black lawyers. (Kirsanow, 2006). First-attempt law exam pass rates
were 31.1% for blacks and 73.1% for whites. (Law School Admission Council, 1998). "More than 20,000 adult
blacks [out of a total adult (over 18) black population of 214,700,000 in 2004 (U.S. Census, Table 1)] in the U.S.
have an IQ of 130 or more, but because of affirmative action, the chance that your black lawyer will be one of
them is vanishingly small." (La Griffe du Lion, 2000a). "Currently only about one in three African-Americans who
goes to an American law school passes the bar on the first attempt and a majority never become lawyers at
all." (UCLA law professor Richard Sander, Fox News, Oct.15, 2007). (Lin, A. “Judge Rejects Race Bias Suit
Against DLA Piper,” The New York Law Journal, Dec. 7, 2007). Black police (Levin, 1997, pp. 81-82) and firemen
are also less competent, again sacrificing lives for egalitarianism. (La Griffe du Lion, 2000c; Batz, R. “Quotas in
the San Francisco Fire Department,” American Renaissance, Vol. 9, No. 9, Sept. 1998). For every 1% increase in
black officers in a police department, property crime goes up 4% and violent crime goes up 4.8%." (Lott, 2000);
also, "How Whites Stack Up," American Renaissance, Vol. 18, No. 8, Aug., 2007, p. 11). Corruption also
increases. (McGowan, 2001). Black teachers fail competency exams at more than twice the rate of white teachers.
(Herrnstein, 1994, p. 393). In other higher level occupations, African Americans also have lower IQs than whites.
(Jensen, 1998, pp. 565-569). Far more black than white employees (44% versus 25%) work in grossly overpaid
government jobs, where politics trumps competency. (The ninth annual Black Investor survey by Ariel/Schwab).
Blacks are over-hired in Federal government departments by as much as 808% more than their proportion in the
civilian labor force. (“Equal Opportunity vs. Equal Results,” Adversity.Net, July 23, 2007). On TV and in the
movies, blacks are portrayed as highly competent professionals, but the reality is the opposite. In the military,
which is disproportionately black, “White recruits are more likely to end up in highly technical fields; black recruits
are more likely to end up in clerical work or the supply services.” (Seligman, 1992, p. 202). Since the low IQ of
blacks makes it impossible to find enough qualified blacks, women were given "minority status" for the purposes of
Affirmative Action, though women are actually a majority. Back
55. (Lynn, 2006a, p. 213, citing Templer, 2006, p 121–139; Lynn, 2002b). Back
56. Philosopher Michael Levin has a good discussion of racial stereotyping. (Levin, 1997; pp. 32-34). Back
57. It is hard to believe that the “stereotype threat” has much effect when even black researchers acknowledge
that blacks have higher self-esteem than whites. (Gray-Little, 2000). Besides, K-12 IQ tests are presented as tests
of knowledge, not IQ. Back
58. (La Griffe du Lion, 2007) gives a male-female difference in “g” of 0.162 SD (2.43 IQ points) with a variance
ratio ([F SD]/[M SD]) of 0.916. Back
59. (Rushton, 2000a, p. 132). A higher male IQ is consistent with a faster and earlier maturation of females. Male
brains can continue growing to about age 24, but female brains stop growing by age 18. Blacks also mature faster
than whites and have smaller brains and lower intelligence. ( Chapter 11, FN 12 and this chapter, FN 37). Back
60. One or more of the genes for intelligence is on the X chromosome. Since women are XX and men are XY,
higher intelligence is more likely to come from the mother. Also, an X from the mother may be expressed over an
X from the father. Because two Xs average out, that may make the standard deviation for intelligence less for
women than for men. Back
61. (Nyborg, 2005). The left vertical axis is the portion of men or women, the right vertical axis is the ratio of the
number of men to women, and the horizontal axis is SD. There are twice as many men as women with IQs above
120 and 30 times as many with IQs over 170. (Jackson, N., Interview with Paul Irwing, The Independent, Nov. 30,
2006). Note the similarity of Fig. 14-7 & 14-5. A similar dotted line could be drawn in Fig. 14-5. Back
62. (Sternberg, 1994). Black males scored 88.4 and black females scored of 90.8 on the 1997 renormed Armed
Forces Qualification Test. Back
63. See the author’s article,"A Possible Explanation for the Flynn Effect," (Jan. 11, 2008). Back
64. Genetic IQ in the developed world has declined about one point per generation; in Britain, it declined 6.2
points from 1890 to 1980. (Lynn, 1996). Also (Herrnstein, 1994, Chapter 15; La Griffe du Lion, 2005; Sailer, 2004b
& 2005c; Murray, 2003, Chap. 21). Back
65. (Wikipedia, "Literacy"). In Washington, D.C., which is 57% black (2005 U.S. Census), 36% of the residents are
illiterate. (Eberhart, D., "Washington, D.C.: Home to the Elite and the Illiterate," NewsMax, Apr. 17, 2007). Back
66. SAT scores are periodically “normed down,” i.e., scores are raised to keep the numerical results the same.
(Levin, 1997, p. 233). “SAT scales got easier during 1963 to 1967 by about 8 to 13 points on the Verbal and
perhaps 10 to 17 points on the Math.” (Herrnstein, 1994, p. 773). Back
67. (National Commission on Excellence in Education, April, 1983.) Back
68. The Darwin Awards are given to people who improve the human gene pool by removing themselves from it,
i.e., by dying when they do something that is hilariously stupid. Back
69. Although there is not yet a Quantum Mechanics for Dummies, there is an Einstein for Dummies. Back
70. (Michael Shayer, professor of applied psychology, and Philip Adey, a professor of education, at King’s
College, University of London; research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)). Back
71. (Vining, 1982, 1995) gives a decline of 1.6 IQ points per generation for whites and 2.4 for blacks. (Lynn, 2004)
gives a total decline of 0.9 IQ points per generation and 0.75 for just whites. (Van Court, 1985; Sailer, 2006). Back
72. The correlation between national average IQ and distance from the equator is 0.67. ("Intelligence and Lattitude
in US," The Audacious Epigone, Apr. 13, 2007) and the correlation between IQ and mean high winter temperature
is -0.68. (Templer, 2006). Back
73. Although high average IQ in a population will still depend on reproductive success, today a mentally
challenging environment may no longer be a significant selector. Back
74. Richard Lynn (by email) confirmed that this is “very likely.” In this regard, the Northern Hemisphere has more
land and the Southern Hemisphere has more ocean, which means that there is a greater seasonal change, and
more storms, in the Northern Hemisphere, making the north more mentally challenging than the south. (Coon,
1962, p. 46). Another selector for intelligence in Europe was probably the plagues, caused by Yersinia pestis,
bacteria that lived on the fleas of rats that infested towns and cities. When Christians, believing cats were evil,
killed the cats, the rats took over. The plagues wiped out the poorer (and less intelligent) people, who were
crowded together in cities (and, in London, were forbidden to leave), while sparing the better off, and more
intelligent, who did not live so close together (and fled the cities). In the 1300s the Black Plague killed 20 million
people, nearly a third of the population of Europe. Twenty-three year old Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist ever,
left London for Lincolnshire, where he invented calculus and worked on the nature of gravity, while his much less
intelligent countrymen died in London; unfortunately, Newton left no progeny. Back
75. “…women go gathering plant foods about one day in three, and men go on hunting expeditions for about one
week in three. This is sufficient to provide food for the whole group, including infants, children and the old. The rest
of the time can be spent relaxing about the camp.” (Lynn, 1991, citing Lee, 1968). Also see FN 32, p. 4. Back
76. (Hogan, 2001). This zone would extend all across Asia and Europe, though the difference between summer
and winter temperatures would be less in Europe due to the moderating influence of the Gulf Stream. Back
77. Women do not give suitors IQ tests, but many choose mates who are knowledgeable, wealthy, musically
talented, and have a good sense of humor, all of which correlate with intelligence. And, although most men do not
want a woman who is more intelligent than they are, neither do they want an unintelligent woman. Back
78. An interesting consequence of modern times is that since white women no longer need men to provide for
them, they can select more for attractiveness and less for intelligence, as self-sufficient African women have done
for thousands of years, so men will become better looking, but not as intelligent. Back
79. “[B]rain tissue requires 22 times the energy of skeletal muscle.” (Gorman, R.M., "Cooking Up Bigger
Brains,"Scientific American, Dec., 2007). Back
80. Agriculture greatly increased man’s numbers, while decreasing his quality. (Diamond, J., “The Worst Mistake
in the History of the Human Race,” Discover, May, 1987, pp. 64-66). “Farming brought a population explosion,
protein and vitamin deficiency, new diseases and deforestation. Human height actually shrank by nearly six inches
after the first adoption of crops in the Near East.” (“Noble or savage? The Economist, Dec. 19, 2007). Back
81. Cranial capacity has fallen in sub-Saharan Africa by 95 to 165 cm3 in males and 74 to 106 cm3 in females
“between the Late Stone Age (30-2 ka BP) and modern times (last 200 years).” (Henneberg, 2005). The decrease
in African brain size may be due to a long-ago infusion of larger-brained Eurasians into Africa who interbred with
the natives, followed by a gradual decrease in brain size to the optimum for Africa. Note that African Bushmen
have small brains and the world’s lowest IQ (54; Lynn, 2006a, p 167), despite their apparent East Asian ancestry.
The de-evolution of intelligence is most likely due to the selection of alleles that reduce brain size, which were
retained in a portion of the population. Those alleles would spread throughout the population if the body’s
resources could be more reproductively successfully “spent” on traits other than intelligence. Back
82. (Chart from Keiio University, “Basic Neuroscience: Evolution of the Brain,” citing “Henneberg, 1998”). Body
size and nutrition also fell. “Early farmers in Greece and Turkey averaged 5 feet 3 inches tall for men, 5 feet 1 inch
for women: Their Paleolithic hunter-gatherer ancestors had averaged 5 feet 10 inches and 5 feet 6 inches
respectively, taller even than the well-nourished modern inhabitants of those countries.” (Haywood, 2000, pp 104-
106). Agriculture may have begun at least about 23,000 ya. (Allaby, 2008). Agriculture greatly changed the
selection pressures on man, selecting for hard, constant labor (i.e., slow twitch red muscle fibers), pair bonding
and monogamy (as couples were tied to the land), diversity of skills (the increased output per person permitted
more specialization), a lower optimal intelligence, and individual interests over group interests (working a piece of
land – private property vs. owning little and sharing whatever was food was killed or found). The bounties of
agriculture freed up people for other occupations and, when they concentrated in one area, it made civilizations
possible. Back
83. Predators have a higher intelligence than comparable non-predators and domesticated animals are less
intelligent than their wild counterparts. “Domestication is little more than the survival of the dumbest – under the
guiding hand of humans.” (Birkhead, 2003, p. 91-92). Domesticated animals typically have smaller brains and are
not as intelligent as wild animals. (Howells, 1948, pp. 79-80). “On average, domestic dog, cat, sheep and pig
brains weigh 25 per cent less than those of wild animals.” (Kealey, 2006; Jerison, 1983). When domestic cats
become feral, larger brains reappear. (Coon, 1962, p. 117). These changes in brain size suggest strong selection
pressures for optimizing intelligence which, given its high cost, is to be expected.
Agriculture is a sort of domestication of man: “of all living beings the most domesticated” (I.F.
Blumenbach); “the first domesticated animal” (Howells, 1948, p. 125); “man domesticated himself” resulting in
“progressive shrinkage and weakening, and reduction in tooth size” (Leach, 2003); “… [human] brains have been
getting smaller for 20,000 to 30,000 years.” (Cochran, G., "Human evolution, radically reappraised," World
Science, Mar. 20, 27, 2007). But once populations had expanded to the greater carrying capacity made possible
by agriculture and private property made brains pay off again, higher intelligence was once more selected. Back
84. It is interesting that the domestication of animals (e.g., the wolf) is a selection for docility and, since the very
young are more docile, it also selects for neoteny (wolf pups bark like dogs; adult wolves howl). Agriculture, in
some ways, also seems to be a selection for docility and neoteny (gracile, less primitive, tame), a sort of
domestication of humans. Thus, agriculture not only vastly increased carrying capacity, it also selected traits.
When the Russian breeder Budiansky domesticated a species of wild fox by selecting for tameness, the foxes
became more neotenic, retaining into adulthood the droopy ears that pups have. (Budiansky, 1992; Trut, 1999).
“Not a single domestic animal can be named which has not in some country drooping ears.” (Darwin, 1859).
Women in the northern climates have been selected for both neoteny (youthful appearance) and tameness
(smiling, good disposition) but, thank goodness, sparing them droopy ears. Back
Chapter 15 Civilizations and Achievements Page 1 of 11
Chapter 15 - Civilizations and Achievements

“It will be seen that when we classify mankind by colour the only one of the primary races, given by this
classification, which has not made a creative contribution to any one of our twenty-one civilizations is the
Black race."
Arnold Toynbee, The Study of History
For the purpose of describing the evolution of modern man, the last three stages have been
divided into (1) early man, i.e., Homo erectus and his Homo predecessors, (2) archaic man, Homo
sapiens (Hs), who was anatomically and behaviorally not yet fully modern, and (3) modern man, Homo
sapiens sapiens (Hss), us. The dates generally given in the literature are that Hs arose about 200,000 ya
and Hss arose about 160,000 ya. (Smith, 2007). But even though anatomically modern man arose about
160,000 ya, he did not begin to create civilizations or make notable achievements until about 50,000 ya.
(Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 1, 12). The major anatomical difference between archaic man and modern man
was that modern man was more gracile, i.e., fewer of the body’s resources were expended on bone and
muscle.
Here is a place where the general principles of evolution lead us to a conclusion that may conflict
with the fossil evidence. Since evolution follows behavior (Chap. 4, Rule 12), and evidence that man’s
behavior changed drastically is dated at about 50,000 ya, either the anatomical changes that facilitated
that behavior did not begin until about 50,000 ya or, if they began about 160,000, the behavior began
changing prior to that date. The problem could be resolved, however, if the anatomical changes were in
soft tissue, e.g., the brain, and a more gracile skeleton was not strongly selected for.
Before the Cultural Revolution 50,000 ya, man’s progress was painfully slow – tens of thousands
of years passing with little or no improvement in his tools and weapons. After the Cultural Revolution,
tools and weapons became better designed and were made of better materials. Man no longer left his
dead to rot and be eaten by animals, but he buried them, often with valued possessions, because now
his mind could imagine a life after death. His carvings and drawings also showed evidence of abstract
thought. Figures 15-1a and 1b shows two of the gorgeous cave drawings made by early Europeans.
Figure 15-1a Figure 15-1b
What happened? No one knows, but (perhaps not coincidentally), a newly-discovered allele of the
microcephalin gene, which affects brain size and intelligence, arose by about 37,000 ya and spread
throughout the Eurasian population. (Chap. 13). This allele, together with another, similar allele of the
ASPM gene, that arose much more recently, is still rare among Africans, and that may explain some of
the difference between Eurasian and African IQs and capacities for civilized behavior. The ASPM allele
may have produced a more fissured brain, but since we don’t have the brains of archaic man, we cannot
know how fissured his brain was, except by the marks the brain left on the inside of the skull, and they
are not definitive. Perhaps it was a change in the organization of the brain, the way it was “wired,” such
as an asymmetry between the left and right sides of the brain that enabled areas of the brain to specialize
(Corballis, 1991), or it may have been an increase in the prefrontal cortex. At any rate, a civilization is an
expression of the gene pool of its builders.
Civilizations
Baker, in his book Race (1974), argues that a society originates a “civilization” if, prior to influence
from outsiders, 1 most of its members met most of the 21 requirements given in Table 15-1 (id., p 507-
508), where, as usual, “Africans” means sub-Saharan Africans.
Indicia of Civilization Asians Caucasians Africans
1. In the ordinary circumstances of life in public places, they cover the
Yes Yes No
external genital organs and the greater part of the trunk with clothes.
2. They keep the body clean and take care to dispose of its waste
Yes Yes No
products.
3. They do not practice severe mutilation or deformation of the body,
except for medical reasons.
Yes Yes No 2
4. They have knowledge of building in brick or stone, if the necessary
Yes Yes No
materials are available in their territory.
5. Many of them live in towns or cities, which are linked by roads. Yes Yes No
Probably
6. They cultivate food-plants. Yes Yes
not
7. They domesticate animals and use some of the larger ones for
transport (or have in the past so used them), if suitable species are Yes Yes No 3
available.
8. They have a knowledge of the use of metals, if these are available. Yes Yes No
No (id., p.
9. They use wheels. Yes Yes
373)
10. They exchange property by the use of money. Yes Yes No
11. They order their society by a system of laws, which are enforced in
such a way that they ordinarily go about their various concerns in Yes Yes No
times of peace without danger of attack or arbitrary arrest.
12. They permit accused persons to defend themselves and to bring
Yes Yes No
witnesses for their defense.
13. They do not use torture to extract information or for punishment. Yes Yes No
14. They do not practice cannibalism. Yes Yes No
15. Their religious systems include ethical elements and are not purely
Yes Yes No
or grossly superstitious
16. They use a script (not simply a succession of pictures) to No (id., p.
Yes Yes
communicate ideas. 394)
17. There is some facility in the abstract use of numbers, without
consideration of actual objects (or in other words, at least a start has Yes Yes No
been made in mathematics).
18. A calendar is in use, accurate to within a few days in the year. Yes Yes No
19. Arrangements are made for the instruction of the young in
Yes Yes No
intellectual subjects.
20. There is some appreciation of the fine arts. Yes Yes No
21. Knowledge and understanding are valued as ends in themselves. Yes Yes No
Table 15-1
A few comments on these items:

Item 3. Although there is currently a mania of tattooing and body piercing sweeping US youth, this
is not considered “severe” mutilation or deformation of the body and is, hopefully, a phase that will quickly
pass.
Item 4. African huts were built with vegetation and mud, never more than one story.
Item 7. Domesticating animals requires not only foregoing the instant gratification of eating them,
but also caring for them until they have reproduced. Even then, one must plan still farther ahead by
eating only the worst animals, saving the best for reproduction. Such long-term planning is not
characteristic of Africans. (Chap. 12).
Item 9. Africans had no wheeled vehicles or devises that employed a wheel, not even a compass.
Item 10. Africans never rose above a barter system.
Item 13. This should be interpreted as open, publicly-accepted torture against common people,
and not during a war.
Item 14. Again, this means openly killing people in order to eat them.
Item 15. On January 9, 2001 a lunar eclipse caused rioting in Nigeria; evil people were blamed.
(“Eclipse Triggers Nigeria Riot,” BBC News, Jan. 10, 2001). Children have been banned by their own
parents in the belief that they are witches. (“DR Congo’s Unhappy Child ‘Witches’,” BBC News, Jan. 13,
2003). Albinos are killed for their body parts, which are used in witchcraft. ("Living in Fear: Tanzania's
Albinos," BBC News, July 21, 2008). "Police in Congo have arrested suspected sorcerers accused of
using black magic to steal or shrink men's private parts. There has been a wave of panic and attempted
lynchings triggered by the alleged witchcraft." (The Case of the Penis Snatchers, Now Public, Apr. 23,
2008).
Item 16. Writing arose independently in at least three places: Mesopotamia, China, and
Mesoamerica, and probably also Egypt and India, but did not spread to sub-Saharan Africa.
Item 18. Africans lacked even a sun dial for determining the time of day.
Baker (1974, pp. 506-529) concluded that Caucasians met all 21 criteria in Sumeria (Iraq), Crete,
India, and Egypt, and the Asians met them all in China. Africans and Australian aborigines met virtually
none of the 21 criteria. The list is, of course, open to much dispute, both as to the requirements on it and
as to whether or not the three listed races have met those requirements.
Since the civilization that a people have created is a good indication of their intelligence and
advancement from archaic man, the grandeur of their civilization should be consistent with the traits they
have, as previously described, especially brain size and complexity, and this is indeed the case. 4
Figure 15-2 shows a portion of Stonehenge, built about 4300 ya in England. Notice how well the
huge stones fit together. The capstones are secured to the upright stones by means of stone balls in
between them inserted into pits. The circular structure was aligned with the midsummer sunrise, the
midwinter sunset, and the most southerly rising and northerly setting of the moon, suggesting possession
of a knowledge of astronomy for perhaps thousands of years prior to its construction. In 2150 BC, a thirty-
five ton ‘Heel Stone’ was erected outside the circle. Eighty bluestones, some weighing as much as four
tons, were transported from the Prescelly Mountains in Wales, 240 miles away. In 2075 BC, the
bluestones were taken down and enormous Sarsen stones, averaging eighteen feet in height and
weighing twenty-five tons, were transported from near another stone ring at Avebury, twenty miles to the
north. 5
Now compare Stonehenge with another stone structure, Great Zimbabwe (Fig. 15-3), the largest
ruins in sub-Saharan Africa. It consists of plain stone block walls without mortar and dates to less than
1000 ya, about 3300 yrs after Stonehenge was built and long after non-Africans had arrived. Although
Africans probably supplied the labor, it is doubtful that they designed it or instigated its construction as it
is not representative of any past Zimbabwean culture or architectural tradition, and Africans do not make
use of stone construction. It may have been built by Islamic slave traders as a fortress and slave holding
area or as a storage area for goods to be shipped out of Africa. 6
The most advanced civilizations have been created by whites and East Asians. Perhaps the
reader believes that the failure of Africans to create civilizations in the past is not due to genes, but to an
environment that was not encountered by Caucasians and Asians. It does seem that not only does
intelligence increase with distance away from the tropics, but so does civilization. 7 Southern Asia is also
tropical and its people also have a lower level of both intelligence and civilization, but not nearly as low as
in Africa.
Africa is a huge and diverse continent, with the southern tip having a temperate climate. If there
were something unique about the continent itself that prevented the creation of civilizations, then one
would expect blacks living elsewhere, such as in Haiti 8 or Detroit, 9 to build civilizations, but instead they
have destroyed the civilizations that whites had already built there. Figure 15-4 shows the second floor of
the Detroit Public Schools Book Depository, 10 where thousands of books have been destroyed.
Figure 15-4
“[T]hey [Africans] will destroy and devour him [whites] and they will destroy all his work.” (Albert Schweitzer)
One might expect that whites who immigrated to Africa to also fail at building successful
civilizations on that continent, but instead they built first world countries; those countries, now taken over
by Africans, are descending into chaos. Rhodesia, as it was called when run by whites, was the
breadbasket of Africa and exported grain; Zimbabwe, as it was renamed after Africans took over, cannot
feed even half its own people. 11 Even Liberia, founded by repatriated American slaves, is dissolving into
chaos and cannibalism, despite the infusion of African Americans who had lived in a white country. 12
If Africans were even capable of keeping a white-created civilization going, one would expect
them to be much better off when Apartheid and the economic boycotts of South Africa ended in 1994 and
the reins of this first world country were turned over to them. But the National Bureau of Economic
Research found that the average income of all races in South Africa dropped 40% between 1995 and
2000. The UN 2006 Human Development Report found that over the last 3 decades Africa has had a
“virtual reversal” of human development; South Africa dropped 38 places on the Human Development
Index since 1994. (UN Development Programme, 2007). The country of the world’s first heart transplant
(Christian Barnard, Dec., 1967), the Union of South Africa, is now the rape 13 and murder 14 capital of the
world. 15 The deterioration of South Africa since the end of Apartheid refutes egalitarianism. 16
No country ruled by blacks has escaped self-inflicted devastation; it is fair to conclude that blacks
are incapable of achieving or maintaining a modern civilization when left to themselves. 17 Figure 15-5
shows the Grande Hotel in Beira, Mozambique in 1975, when the country became independent of white
rule.
Figure 15-5
Figure 15-6 shows the same hotel in 2007, after 32 years of black rule.
Figure 15-6
Accomplishments
Charles Murray catalogued man’s
accomplishments according to the number of times they
were cited by others. (Murray, 2003). Over 97% of the
most important scientists and 74% of the most important
artists and authors were white, almost all males, and
most from only four countries, Great Britain, Germany,
France, and Italy (Fig. 15-7); the remainder were mostly
Asian, and none were African. The red hexagon encloses
the “European Core,” where 80% of the European
significant figures in human accomplishment grew up.
Note that southern and far northern Europe are outside
the core and that Germany is at its center. The
Chronology of Science and Discovery (Asimov, 1989)
lists about 1500 of the most important scientific
discoveries. Virtually all were made by Caucasians and
Asians and none by Africans. Similarly, although Asians
appear in American Men and Women of Science at six
times their proportion of the U S. population, African- Figure 15-7
American representation is negligible. (Weyl, 1989). Prior
to contact with other races, Africans never invented the wheel and axle (Baker, 1974, pp 372-373), never
smelted metals, never domesticated a plant or animal, 18 never constructed buildings other than out of
plant products and mud (Baker, 1974, pp 368-371), never developed a written language, and could not
count beyond their fingers and toes. (Baker, 1974, pp 395-396). Blacks who do make significant
contributions, or at least rise to prominence (other than in sports and entertainment), are almost always
mulattos with a large percentage of white heritage. (e.g., Colin Powell, Barack Obama). 19
Life expectancy is a good indication of how advanced a civilization is. The world’s shortest life
expectancies are in Africa. Sierra Leone has the record lowest for males at 37 yrs, and Swaziland has the
record lowest for females, also at 37 yrs. (World Health Statistics, 2007).
Mandated and voluntary affirmative action 20 programs in the West (and even in the Union of
South Africa for black Africans, although blacks are overwhelmingly in the majority) and political
correctness have exaggerated even the meager achievements of blacks. 21 While at one time qualified
blacks were excluded from certain occupations, by law or by unions controlled by whites, today the
situation is 180° reversed and unqualified blacks are promoted over more qualified whites. Racial
discrimination against whites is mandated by law in many predominately white countries. 22 Other
predominately white countries, such as the United States, rely upon anti-discrimination laws that
employers must interpret as requiring the hiring and promotion of minimum numbers of non-whites
(quotas) in order to avoid “bad” publicity, lawsuits, fines, and damages for discriminating. 23 Political
appointments of blacks are made to obtain support for the appointing politicians. Since the pool of
qualified blacks is much smaller than the pool of qualified whites (Chap. 14), blacks are either appointed
to showcase positions or their decision-making authority is limited. The media is reluctant to criticize
prominent blacks, especially for incompetence, and colleges and universities offer large amounts of
scholarship aid to blacks. 24 All these factors give blacks a huge advantage, yet they still fail to
accomplish much.
No black has ever won a Nobel Prize in any of the arts or sciences. 25 The importance of many of
the alleged inventions made by blacks has been greatly inflated. 26 This is true even of the most
prominent black inventor, George Washington Carver, 27 yet every schoolchild knows his name, though
none know the names of the white men who invented plastics, television, the computer, or the internet
(hint: it wasn’t Al Gore), all far more important than some uses for the peanut. High school students were
found to know more about Harriet Tubman than about who commanded the American army in the
Revolutionary War or who wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. 28 When a classical radio station plays
a rag, it is almost always one by Scott Joplin, a black composer, though rags are not exactly classical
music and many were written by whites. 29
Killing off all the large mammals on an
entire continent is probably not something to brag

about, but it is worth noting that they had
disappeared from Australia by about 45,000 ya
(Prideaux, 2007), from northern Asia and Europe
by about 10,000 ya, and from North America by
about 11,000 ya 30 all, coincidentally, about the
same time as the arrival of Eurasians. Thankfully,
the large mammals in Africa – e.g., elephants,
giraffes, rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, lions, and
gorillas - were not killed off by Africans, at least not
yet. (Fig. 15-8). 31 Since Africans have no
compunctions about killing these animals, a fair
conclusion is that the animals were not previously
killed off because Africans had not invented the
means to do so.
Conquest is another very un-PC area of Figure 15-8
accomplishment. Caucasians hold the record for
conquering other peoples, much to the dismay and shame of Caucasian egalitarians. Portions of all the
continents, arguably excepting Antarctica, have been conquered and seized by Caucasians. Other than
Genghis Khan, who had a huge advantage in numbers (and red hair, Chapter 24, FN 22), this is much
less true of Asians and conquest by Africans of non-Africans is unknown. There was, of course, Hannibal,
but he was Caucasian, he was not from sub-Saharan Africa, and his attempt at conquest failed. 32
Although most people today think of conquest and war as grave faults, there are good reasons for
believing that they were an important positive selector for modern behavior. Predation is a powerful
selecting force. The prey becomes faster and better able to evade the predator because the predator kills
the slow and inept first. Similarly, the predator becomes faster and more skilled because slow and inept
predators do not eat. Now, what happens when groups of men prey upon other groups of men, not
necessarily for food, but to defend and obtain territory? Man also advances, both as predator and prey.
Those groups that communicate the best, devise the best weapons and tools, and develop a culture that
binds them together, survive and prosper, and those who do not, perish. Conquest has not only
accelerated man’s evolution, it has at the same time selected for ethnocentrism – loyalty to one’s own
group; man is a natural born racist. 33
One might think that Caucasians, as the most accomplished race, would increase in numbers
while the numbers of the less accomplished races declined. After all, doesn’t accomplishment equal
better adaptation, which equals more reproductive success? Not necessarily, because exactly the
reverse is occurring. The white race, which was 25% of the world’s population in 1900, was only about 8
to 10% in 2005, and the percentage of whites has continued to decline. 34 Ironically, it is the
accomplishments and sacrifices of whites that have made the vast expansion of the other races possible.
Evolution, however, does not imply that those who are the most accomplished in the arts and
sciences will have more reproductive success, and reproductive success is not included in the
achievements that Murray describes in Human Accomplishment. Caucasians may be good at making
discoveries in math and science and at creating great works of art, but they aren’t so good at making
more Caucasians which, as far as evolution is concerned, is all that counts.
In other words, success in accomplishments implies that Caucasians have a necessary condition
for reproductive success – control of the resources and technology needed to support an expanding
population, but lack the most important sufficient condition – the will to increase their numbers. Until the
widespread use of effective contraception, their lack of will would have had little effect, but now people
can choose whether to have children or do something else with their lives, and so many whites are
choosing to do something else that the number of white births is less than the number of white deaths.
Chapter 16
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. (Hart, 2007, p. 313). Africa was visited by Europeans, Indians, and Arabs thousands of years prior to
recorded history. This is known because crops and animals not indigenous to Africa are nevertheless
found there. Also, visitors left many remains of their own civilizations, such as stone structures, pottery,
and metals. (Baker, 1974). Back
2. Even today, in formerly-civilized South Africa, Africans practice "severe mutilation" for "medical
reasons," though probably not in the way that Baker had in mind. (Tibbetts, G., "Machete gangs bring
fear to South Africa as they carry out mutilations for traditional medicine," Telegraph, Oct. 18, 2008).
Back
3. Some say the guinea fowl was domesticated in s-S Africa, but (Baker, 1974, p. 375) denies it. It is easy
to domesticate as it does not have to be penned. The failure of Africans to domesticate mammals is
consistent with their high rate of lactose intolerance. Dr Steinman (Milk Allergy and Lactose Intolerance,
May, 2002) gives the following figures for lactose intolerance for children over 5 years old: "90-95% of
black individuals and 20-25% of white individuals throughout the world." However, most Asian
populations, especially people from Far East, are also very lactose intolerant (close to 100%). Asians did
domesticate herds, but did not use them for milk. A few African tribes, such as the Fulani, have low rates
of lactose intolerance (around 20-25 percent), but the Fulani are an Islamic people who likely have an
Arabic heritage. Back
4. An “emergent” property is property that is expressed in an interacting group of units, but is not
expressed in the individual units that comprise that group. For example, molecules have properties very
different from the properties of the atoms that comprise them, and so do organisms compared to their
cells. An emergent property is possible only if the units have a property that enables the emergent
property to be expressed when the units interact. A civilization is an emergent property of the individuals
who create and maintain it, and that civilization requires those individuals in order to be created and
maintained. And, because the traits of individuals in different populations differ (Section II), their
civilizations will be unique to those individuals, i.e., different populations will create and maintain different
civilizations, or perhaps no civilization. (Kemp, 2006). Back
5. Oxford University engineer Professor Alexander Thom and the astronomer Gerald Hawkins pioneered
the new field of archaeoastronomy - the study of the astronomies of ancient civilizations. They showed
that 2000 years before Euclid, and at least 3000 years before the sixth century AD sage Arya Bhata
discovered pi, the Pythagorean Theorem and pi were used in the construction of Stonehenge. A 4000
year old temple, the Temple of the Fox in Peru, also had astronomical features. (Benfer, 2006). Another
example: a bronze analogue navigational computer dated at 80 BC was found off a Greek island. See
(Wikipedia, “Antikythera Mechanism”; Freeth, 2006). The higher sea level after the last ice age may have
left other Eurasian structures, such as the Yanaguni Monument off Japan, under the ocean. Back
6. (Childe, 1965, pp. 212-243). A more modern comparison may be the tiny Netherlands, much of it
reclaimed from the sea, whose economic product is greater than all of Africa’s. (Dalrymple, T., “How the
West Was Lost,” The American Conservative, June 18, 2007). Back
7. “Tropical rainforests are not generally favorable to the development of civilizations.” (Haywood, 2000,
p. 150). Back
8. “Between 1844 and 1915 only one Haitian President completed his term of office. Fourteen were
ousted by armed uprisings, one was blown up, one was poisoned and another was hacked to pieces by a
mob. Between 1908 and 1915 the revolutions and assassinations increased so rapidly that a United
States military occupation was needed to restore order. This lasted from 1915 to 1934. Thereafter
followed twelve years of rule by a mulatto elite which ended in the resumption of control by the black
military in 1946. Since then wholesale corruption and political murder have been the rule.” (Putnam,
1967). Back
9. Detroit looks like a bombed out city; so much vegetation is reclaiming it that it is now one of the
greenest cities in the country. (“The Ruins of Detroit”). In 2007, Detroit won the “Most Dangerous City in
America” award (CQ Press); Detroit’s population is 81.6% black (2000 US Census). Back
10. “A mind is a terrible thing to waste,” (United Negro College Fund). Back
11. Yet whites turn the worst land into an oasis. In July, 2005, President Robert Mugabe said there would
be "not a single white on the farms" under his land reform policy. As the whites were driven away, the
country soon faced “starvation and economic collapse.” (C. Thompson, “Zimbabwe poised to welcome
back white farmers,” Guardian Unlimited, Jan. 3, 2007). Also, (Berger, S., “Zimbabwe’s Hospital System
‘Beyond Help’,” Feb. 8, 2007, Telegraph, UK ). For details on the waste, corruption, stupidity, and
savagery in post-colonial Africa, the reader is referred to (Meredith, M., The Fate of Africa: From the
Hopes of Freedom to the Heart of Despair, Public Affairs Press, 2005). “[Zimbabwe] has the world’s
highest inflation and fastest-shrinking peacetime economy … with the lowest life expectancy anywhere –
just 34 for women and 37 for men – and the highest percentage of orphans.” (Christina Lamb, The
Australian, Mar., 2007; also, Kemp, 2006, Chap. 57). To put this another way, the carrying capacity of
Africa depends on the people living there; it is much higher in a white Africa than in a black Africa. The
presence of whites in Africa enables black Africans to proliferate far in excess of the black carrying
capacity. (Chapter 4, caveat to Rule 7) See (Salter, 2002a, p. 61-63) for a discussion of carrying capacity.
Back
12. (www.YouTube.com, “Founded by Americans, Liberia was once the shining star of Sub-Saharan
Africa. Now cannibals rule the streets”). “Even Christianity, of more than three centuries’ duration in
Congo, has scarcely excited a progressive civilization.” (Hunt, 1864, p. 19). Back
13. In South Africa “a woman is sexually assaulted every 40 seconds.” (“Big Brother Horror Show,” The
First Post, Nov. 1, 2007). "Is it not horrendous for an adult man to rape a nine-month-old baby?” Nobel
Peace Prize winner archbishop Desmond Tutu, referring to the belief among South African blacks that
raping a baby cures AIDS. (“One Child Raped Every 24 Minutes,” News 24, South Africa, Nov. 4, 2007).
File this under “Ouch!”: A white South African woman invented a "female condom"; it has small hooks
that attach to an attacker's penis. ("Anti-Rape Device Must Be Banned, Say Women ." Times (England),
June 8, 2005). Swedish women are raped so much by African immigrants that some have designed and
are selling a chastity belt. (“Swedish Girls Design Anti-Rape Belt,” The Local, Nov. 22, 2005). Back
14. (Mercer, I., “The ugly truth about democratic South Africa,” World Net Daily, Dec. 15, 2006). Back
15. The black-white income gap shrank up to 1994, when Apartheid ended, then grew from 98% more
income for whites to 118% more. (Leibbrandt, 2005). The number of South Africans living on less than
$1/day has more than doubled in the decade after Apartheid ended. (South Africa Institute of Race
Relations). Also, (“Has the Penny Finally Dropped?” South African Bulletin, Transvaal Agricultural Union).
Google has censored the "Why South Africa Is Crap" blog, and its successors, "South Africa Sucks" and
"South African Hell," but the "South Africa Sucks" blog has re-appeared. Also see "African Crisis" and
(Kemp, 2006, Chapter 56). Back
16. Black economist Walter Williams stated, “[O]rdinary Africans were better off under
colonialism.” (Jewish World Review, Jan. 9, 2001). The Belgium Congo is another example: "The
atrocities perpetrated by these armed groups are of an unimaginable brutality that goes far beyond rape.
Women are brutally gang raped, often in front of their families and communities. In numerous cases,
male relatives are forced at gun point to rape their own daughters, mothers or sisters. Frequently women
are shot or stabbed in their genital organs, after they are raped. Women, who survived months of
enslavement, told me that their tormentors had forced them to eat excrement or the human flesh of
murdered relatives." (Yakin Erturk, U.N. human rights expert; Klapper, B.S., “Attacks On Women In
Congo Go 'Far Beyond Rape',” Associated Press, July 30, 2007). Back
17. “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.” (John Milton, Paradise Lost). “The still largely primitive
Africans have not as yet acquired the necessary skill merely to maintain the legacy left by the Whites, let
alone to organize further developments.” (Schumann, 1960, p. 91). Also see (Kaplan, R.D., "The Coming
Anarchy," Atlantic Monthly, 1994). Back
18. (Baker, 1974, pp 373-377). However, “[donkeys were] the only important domestic animal known to
come from Africa.” (Hecht, 2005). Hecht adds that the domestication was only 5000 to 6000 ya in Egypt,
so it was not in sub-Saharan Africa and would have been by Caucasians. Back
19. Notice (p.113) how Caucasian-looking these prominent blacks are. Light-skinned blacks are more
intelligent (Lynn, 2006a, p 65) and accomplished (Baker, 1974, pp 503-505) than darker blacks. Also see
(Simpson, 2003, p. 719). (If female, they are also favored by black males and hated by blacker females;
Marroquin, C.A., “The Face of Colorism,” Student Web, University of Oklahoma). Back
20. The 1964 Civil Rights Act, which explicitly prohibited quotas, has now been interpreted as requiring
quotas. Griggs v. Duke Power (401 US 424, 1971), created the concept of “disparate impact,” that, even
in the absence of any intent to discriminate, any job requirement not met by a proportional number of
protected minorities is illegal, unless the requirement is “job related.” (But if a company is not
discriminating why would it have a requirement unless it was job related?). The result has been to
construct requirements in such a way that the requirements are incapable of distinguishing between
qualified white males and unqualified, but protected, minorities. (Meyer, B., “Federal rule blocks recruiting
police officers from outside Buffalo,” The Buffalo News, Oct. 26, 2007). Back
21. Blacks who are below the 40th percentile of “g” distribution for IQ, have slightly less income than
whites, but blacks in higher IQ levels earn increasingly greater amounts more than whites because the
number of blacks drops rapidly at higher IQs (p. 114), while the demand for them increases due to
affirmative action. (Nyborg, 2001). "[B]lack college-educated females currently earn 125 percent of what
white college educated females earn.” (Reiland, 1995). “This means that white professionals would be
paid more if they were black, another transfer of wealth from whites to blacks. The result is a shift of
whites to fields where discrimination against them is more difficult, such as self-employment and
consulting work. White males are also less likely to pursue professional degrees. Companies, forced to
pay more for less competent employees, transfer operations overseas or farm out work to people in
foreign countries.” (Nyborg, 2001). “It is shown that on average a black worker, between the ages of 25
and 64, earns an extra $9,400 a year because of affirmative action. Hispanics also benefit to the tune of
almost $4,000 a year. However, being a zero-sum game, white workers pay an average of about $1,900
annually to foot the bill.” (La Griffe du Lion, 1999b). Back
22. One may wonder why whites would pass laws that sacrifice the interests of whites to benefit non-
whites, which is surely suicidal and maladaptive; that is discussed in Chapter 33. Back
23. In December, 2005, it was announced that Walmart's general counsel told its top 100 law firms that at
least one person of color and one woman must be among the top five relationship attorneys that handle
its business. (Hobbs, M., "Wal-Mart Demands Diversity in Law Firms ," Law.Com, July 6, 2005). It is very
common for large businesses to require their white management to hire and promote blacks into
management, then make sure they do not fail; they are threatened with the loss of bonuses and
promotions, and even being fired, if they are do not. Also see (Cardwell, 2006). Since there are not
enough competent black managers to meet the demand, competent black managers are paid a
significantly greater salary for being black, and incompetent blacks must be hired to make up the
difference, practices which make American businesses less competitive. Back
24. In violation of the Fourteenth Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws. (Thomas, 1995). Back
25. Nobel Peace Prizes, however, are often given to blacks (at least five) for vague and dubious
accomplishments. Kenyan ecologist Wangari Maathai, (the 2004 winner) claims that the AIDS virus was
invented in some laboratory in the West as “a biological weapon aimed at wiping out the black race.”
Another recipient was Martin Luther King. (Epstein, M., “Myths of Martin Luther King,” LewRockwell.com,
Jan. 18, 2003). Back
26. See “Black Invention Myths.” Also (Gayre, 1967, pp. 131-143; Nevin, 1967, p. 233). Jenkem is an
actual black invention. Back
27. (Mackintoch, 1976). Mr. Mackintoch is an historian with the National Park Service in Washington,
D.C. Carver had so much white heritage that his eyes were blue. (Putnam, 1961, p. 92). Back
28. A 1987 study, quoted in Samuel Huntington’s book, “Who Are We.” Back
29. Musical ability is associated with intelligence, but African Americans do poorer than Europeans on
tests of pitch, tone, and musical memory, and are about the same only on tests of rhythm. (Lynn, 2006a,
p 55-57). I un-humbly cite my own essay on this subject. Back
30. For a list, see (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 194; Haywood, 2000, p. 64). Horses were actually native to North
America, but they had been hunted to extinction by the Indians 10,000 years before the Spaniards
arrived; the Spaniards re-introduced them in the 1500’s. (Allman, 1994, p. 207). That Eurasians killed off
large mammals has been disputed. (Guthrie, 2006). A comet in the Great Lakes region may have killed
off the North American large mammals. (Dalton, R., “Blast in the Past?,” Nature, May 16, 2007, Vol. 447,
pp. 256-257). Back
31. Picture of gorilla head is from (The Sunday Telegraph, Sept. 5, 2004). Also, see (Discovery Channel
News, “Silverback Gorillas Eaten By Rebels,” Jan. 18, 2007). Now that Africans have white man’s guns,
these and smaller animals are disappearing. (See the powerful documentary movie, “Africa Addio.”) The
bonobo chimp is being killed as bush meat, and so are many other animals that Africans could not have
killed without white technology. The chimpanzee and the gorilla did get some revenge – Africans who ate
them picked up the virus that causes AIDS. ("Aids started by humans eating chimps," Telegraph
(England), Feb., 1999). Van Heuverswyn, 2006). Back
32. General Butt Naked was a contemporary African general in Liberia. (“Ex-warlord confesses to 20,000
deaths,” CNN.com, Jan. 21, 2008). Back
33. (Barkow, 1991, pp. 148-149). And, surprisingly, the Western population that is the most opposed to
racism, the Jews, is the most ethnocentric. (Review by S. Hornbeck of (MacDonald, 2002b)). “[T]he
original motivation of many of the early Zionists was that Israel would ensure racial purity.” (MacDonald,
K., on his blog, “Outside the Jewish Mainstream: Robert Weissberg and Philip Weiss”). Ethnocentrism,
war, and other behaviors found in humans is also seen in the most successful monkey species, the
rhesus macaques. (Maestripieri, 2007). Back
34. “By 2010, whites will account for only about 9% of the world’s population, compared with 17% in
1997, according to demographer Harold Hodgkinson; whites will then be the world’s smallest
minority.” (Rubenstein, 2006). In 1959 whites were 27.98% of the world’s population and blacks were
8.97%; by 2060 whites will be 9.76% and blacks will be 25.38%. (“Global White Population to Plummet to
Single Digit—Black Population to Double,” National Policy Institute, Apr. 14, 2008). Back
Chapter 16 - Primitive Traits

“There are none so blind as they who will not see."
John Heywood 1
A living population is more primitive than another living population if it has more of the
same traits that the LCA of the two populations had. If the LCA is extinct (e.g. erectus) and all
we have of it are teeth, bones, and a few stone tools (“stones and bones,” the proof of man’s
presence), then traits of the two populations (other than their hard-tissue traits) are compared,
either to the traits of chimpanzees, who are assumed to have not evolved drastically away from
the chimp-human LCA, or to the traits of living populations of humans who are otherwise known
to be primitive. Thus, “primitive” traits are “simian” (ape-like) because they are similar to traits
possessed by our LCA with living apes. Many simian traits (e.g., long skull, brow ridges,
prognathism, small ears, flat nose) are illustrated in
Figure 16-1, which shows a computer reconstruction
of a bipedal ape (minus the hair) that has some
human features. 2 Any human population that has
significantly more primitive traits than another
population has evolved less away from our ape
common ancestor and is therefore more simian and
more primitive. 3
It is not possible to conclude, however, that a
less primitive living population evolved from a more
primitive living population and is in the same lineage
as that more primitive population. Indeed, it is more
likely that it is not, but simply that they both had a
common ancestor. Of the three major races, Africans
are by far the most primitive, but at least some Asian
aborigines are more primitive than Africans. Figure 16-1
Ideally, a trait that is primitive will be
possessed by all of the large anthropoid apes, will be less pronounced in Homo erectus, and
still less so in most humans, so that the prominence of the trait diminishes as genetic distance
from apes increases, but evolution is seldom so tidy. Nor will all of the traits of one population
necessarily be more primitive than all the traits of another population. There will inevitably be a
few primitive traits in otherwise modern populations, and vice-versa; these are traits that were
strongly selected for or against in one of the two populations or that were adaptive, then
maladaptive, then adaptive again. Hairiness, for example, is a primitive trait because
chimpanzees, gorillas, and some Asian aborigines are hairier than most humans. Africans,
however, who are primitive in most other ways, are not as hairy as Caucasians. The
explanation is that body hair reduces the cooling efficiency of sweating (only humans and
horses sweat), so it is selected against in the tropics and, before garments, was selected for in
the cold north. 4
Primitive traits can also be acquired by interbreeding with a more primitive population.
For example, many Japanese males, who are otherwise completely modern, have significant
brow ridges. This unusual primitive feature is believed to be the result of the invasion of Japan
by modern Koreans between about 1500 BC to about 400 BC, who then interbred with the more
primitive, and hairy, Jomon people already there, producing the Japanese.
Primitive traits correlate highly with tropical traits, which is to be expected because our
ancestors lived in warmer climates before they evolved traits that enabled them to live in colder
climates. Thus, living descendants of those tropical ancestors will tend to retain those tropical
primitive traits even when they are no longer as useful for their original purpose, but can now
serve another purpose. Long arms, for example, useful to apes for swinging through the trees,
may be retained by their tropical descendants, although they no longer swing through the trees,
since long arms are also useful in dissipating heat and throwing objects. Not every tropical trait
is primitive, however, since some traits, such as resistance to diseases unique to humans in the
tropics (e.g., sickle cell anemia), were probably not possessed by long-ago tropical ancestors.
Although some tropical populations are neotenic, the most primitive traits are not
neotenic, which suggests that neoteny occurred early in man’s lineage, but did not reach all
primitive populations. The reason may be that neoteny occurred and was retained when man
moved into cooler climates (see Chap. 6) where it was advantageous and, when populations of
neotenic man later migrated back into the tropics, they did not interbreed with all the tropical
populations. Neoteny includes a large number of traits and, if a population becomes more
neotenic then, on balance, it is fair to conclude that neotenic traits are advantageous in that
population (Chap. 4, Rule 10 second corollary), even if some neotenic traits are neutral or even
disadvantageous. The disadvantageous traits will be selected against and gradually lost (or
“turned off”) and the population will then be left with a mixture of advantageous and neutral
neotenic traits plus advantageous non-neotenic traits. This is especially likely to happen when a
neotenic population migrates to a new environment where some of its previously advantageous
neotenic traits are now disadvantageous and are therefore selected against. For example, a
larger brain is an advantageous neotenic trait in a mentally challenging colder environment, but
its high energy cost makes it a disadvantageous trait if the environment is not as mentally
challenging. Thus, there are some tropical populations (Bushmen, Negritos) that are noticeably
neotenic, but have small brains.
Sexual dimorphism (greater differences between male and female) has been declining
from Australopithecus to humans. 5 Sexual selection can greatly affect sexual dimorphism.
Selecting mates for their masculinity and femininity increases sexual dimorphism and selecting
mates who will pair bond reduces it; 6 neoteny also reduces sexual dimorphism. Of the three
major races, Asians are the least sexually dimorphic. As to particular traits, Africans and
Europeans vary as to which race is more sexually dimorphic, but overall it seems to be
Europeans, probably due to greater selection by both sexes. Thus, determining the
primitiveness of a race based on sexual dimorphism should probably be based on particular
traits that are conserved but are not noticeable, which has not yet been done.
Technological advancement can also reduce some primitive traits. A person who is
more “robust” (i.e., heavier bones and stronger muscles) is more primitive than a person who is
more “gracile” (i.e., lighter bones and less muscular) because apes are more robust and so was
early man. A population that is more technologically advanced (e.g., has spears and other long-
distance weapons) relies less on physical strength, giving an advantage to more gracile
individuals who invest resources in brains instead of strong muscles and bones. (Lewin, 1998).
Eating more meat (caught with better weapons) and cooking food (i.e., controlling fire) to soften
it reduced the need for primitive traits such as powerful chewing muscles, large teeth, a
supraorbital ridge, a saggital keel, and thick, heavy skull bones.
Both blacks and whites regard black facial characteristics (i.e., primitive traits) as
threatening (Lieberman, M.D., 2005; Eberhardt, 2006). However, some primitive traits (e.g.,
large jaw, heavy bones and muscles) are also regarded as more masculine (Fink, 2007). The
masculinity of primitive traits may, in part, account for why most black-white miscegenation is
black man-white woman, and much less is white man-black woman, 7 and why women find
Asian men, with their neotenic, baby-like features, less attractive. Conversely, the absence of
primitive traits (e.g., gracile body, neotenic face) is regarded as more feminine and may explain,
in part, why white men are attracted to Asian women.
Hard Tissue Traits (Chapter 9)

Some of the hard tissue primitive traits found more often in the skulls of Africans include
a thicker 8 and narrower skull with less cranial capacity, a more sloping forehead, a more
massive protruding jaw, 9 and larger teeth. 10 Figure 16-2 compares the skull of an ape with a
European skull to illustrate these differences. (Howells, 1948, p. 130). Now, in Figure 16-3 (also
see Figures 9-4 & 9-5, and Figure 9-9), compare a European skull (left) with an African
(Sudanese) skull (right). The eye sockets and nasal openings have been aligned. Although it
looks like the two skull halves in Figure 16-3 are misaligned, they are not; the smaller brain and
larger jaw of the African skull just makes it appear that way.
Less
prominent
external
nose
bones
are a
primitive
trait as
early
hominoids
had no
external
nose
bones; Figure 16-2 Figure 16-3
the
African nose is “very flat.” (Hanihara, 2000). A less prominent chin and the percentage of skull
bones that join on the side of the head 11 are also primitive traits, but they are of less use in
distinguishing living populations. Tables 9-1, 2, and 3 list other primitive hard tissue traits that
Africans have.
Soft Tissue Traits (Chapter 10)

Primitive soft tissue traits include larger muscles, larger scent glands, and a smaller, and
less fissured brain 12 with a smaller front-to-back ratio (a smaller forebrain), and a thinner
supragranular layer in the brain. Note that dark skin is not listed as a primitive soft tissue trait
because lighter or darker skin is selected according the amount of sunlight and, since there is
no fossil skin and chimpanzees are light-skinned when young and dark-skinned when older (De
Waal, 1997, p. 21), it is hard to say which color is more primitive. 13 As to hair curliness, again
there is no fossil hair. Chimpanzees have straight hair, but the most primitive Asian Negritos
have wooly hair, suggesting that tropical erectus (or even Australopithecus) had wooly hair and
that straight hair arose later with northern migration. If that is true, then wooly hair would also be
a primitive trait. Also, straight hair may be neotenic. 14
There is some indication in the literature that the African hair type differs in fundamental
ways (Figure 10-13) from Eurasian hair in that, among other things, it lacks a central duct. Since
Africans and some Asian Negritos have very curly hair, it would be interesting to know if Negrito
hair also lacks a central duct. If it did, a reasonable conclusion would be that tropical erectus
had hair that lacked a central duct and that such hair is primitive.
Another primitive soft tissue trait that might be mentioned is a sclera (cornea) that is
yellowish rather than completely white, usually in only adult males. (Figure 10-4). The
primitiveness of this trait is shown by its presence in the gorilla, some Africans, and some of the
aborigines of the Pacific. 15

In apes, the larynx is higher in the throat and, as a result, the number of different sounds
they can make, and the ease with which they can control the sounds they make, is diminished.
16 The ability to make more varied sounds means superior communications between people so
that they can transfer information more easily and more accurately. This would, of course, be a
great advantage in hunting 17 and in battle, as well as in passing knowledge on to the next
generation. Gibbs (1865) says the larynx of Africans differs from that of whites, but does not
describe its position.
An unusually large mouth (Figure 10-9) is a primitive trait, as it is a characteristic of apes
(required for fully opening the mouth to expose the teeth and bite), and most Africans do have
large mouths. Most also have large everted lips, but some Africans, perhaps with Caucasian or
Asian ancestry (Chapter 26), do not. Chimpanzees have a large mouth, but with thin lips, and
the lips of primitive Asian aborigines are not as large as some Africans.
Ear size is another problematic soft tissue trait because, although Africans (Figure 26-7)
and gorillas have small ears, Caucasians and chimpanzees (Figure 6-1) have large ears; apes
generally have small ears (Figure 16-1). To add to the confusion, large ears may be more
vulnerable to frost bite in cold climates, but may help radiate heat in the tropics (e.g., elephants’
ears); on the other hand, sound carries farther in the more-open and colder north than in the
tropics, making large ears more advantageous in the north. Identifying the age of the allele
responsible for ear size may shed some light on which ear size, if either, is more primitive.
The flat nose of Africans is primitive, because apes have very flat noses and external
nose bones (needed for a more protruding nose) are absent in apes and early man. The nose
only gradually became more prominent, most likely when man moved into colder climates
where a longer nasal passage was advantageous in warming inhaled air.
Large buttocks is a primitive African trait as it is found in the most primitive people
(Andaman Islanders, Hottentots, and Bushmen, Chapter 26), and prominent buttocks are a
feature of some female primates, particularly when in heat (e.g., the baboon).
Reproductive Strategy (Chapter 11)

Reproductive strategy is a very fundamental trait as it determines the solution to the all-
important problem of how best to create the next generation, which then influences a large
number of other traits. A more “r” orientated reproductive strategy is definitely more primitive as
man has a more “K” reproductive strategy than any other primate. There is extensive evidence
(Rushton, 2000a) that Africans are more “r” orientated. The faster maturation of blacks also
applies to the development of their intelligence, which develops close to whites until about age
2, then begins to stagnate. (Chapter 11, FN 12 & Chapter 14, FN 37).
Behavioral Traits (Chapter 12)

A propensity for violence is a primitive behavioral trait because, as intelligence
increased and man became more civilized, intra-populational violence became more disruptive.
A propensity for violence correlates with physical traits such as a protruding jaw and large
mouth (for biting), strong, dense bones and larger muscles, as well as behavioral traits, such as
impulsiveness and the inability to plan for the future, all of which are higher in blacks.
Cannibalism was, and still is, a primitive behavioral trait in Africans, despite the best efforts of
foolish, but tasty, missionaries to put a stop to it.
Genes (Chapter 13)

The “smoking gun” that proves primitiveness beyond question is genes. If a population
has the same alleles that the great apes have, and other populations do not have those alleles,
then that population is more primitive. Genetics has just begun to determine the distribution of
different alleles among people across the Earth, but the use of chimpanzee and gorilla alleles to
identify Africans as the “ancestral” population (i.e., Africans have alleles that chimps and gorillas
have, but Eurasians do not have) is widespread. 18
More recent work is identifying the genes responsible for important traits, such as
intelligence and the propensity towards violence. So far, it is known that a few of the alleles
thought to be responsible for high intelligence, of the genes microcephalin ("MCPH1") and
ASPM, are rare or absent in Africans. Eventually, all of the alleles responsible for the racial
differences in traits will be identified, and their distribution is expected to coincide with the racial
distribution of those traits.
Intelligence (Chapter 14)

Low average intelligence in a population is the most important primitive trait as
intelligence has increased over millions of years and it is the defining trait of humans. It is now
well-accepted by psychologists that blacks have a lower intelligence. 19
Civilizations and Accomplishments

(Chapter 15
The inability to create and maintain a civilization or to accomplish much of any note are
primitive traits, as earlier hominoids were capable of neither; nor are today’s Africans.
It should be obvious from the preceding that Africans possess a large number of
primitive traits, but some South Pacific aborigines possess even more, though they do not
necessarily have the same primitive traits that Africans do. Some Asian aborigines are so
primitive that they might even be classified as late Homo erectus instead of Homo sapiens. The
number of South Pacific aborigines are not great as the number of Africans, however, and they
are concentrated in Australia and the South Pacific Islands and do not present all the social
problems that the large numbers of blacks in the West do.
To summarize, Section II provides overwhelming evidence that race is real and that
blacks are the most primitive 20 of the major races, though only a small proportion of the known
racial differences is presented. Because research on racial differences, except where they are
medically important, has been effectively outlawed for at least the last 50 yrs, there are no
doubt thousands of other racial differences that have not been discovered or published. In
reading comparisons between different types of animals, one is struck by the immense number
of small differences in anatomy, physiology, protein structure, and development. Surely, there
are also a large number of differences between the races.
The fact is that virtually all of the racial differences between Africans and Eurasians are
in traits that are primitive; there are few, if any, African traits that are more modern than
Eurasian traits. The evidence comes from a large variety of very different traits, hard tissue, soft
tissue, physiology, behavior, intelligence, accomplishments, and genes. And, most importantly,
all of the evidence is consistent. It is not the case that genes are saying blacks are modern and
bones are saying they are primitive. All of the evidence is saying the same thing – they are
primitive, less evolved, and closer to our ape ancestors.
That is
the source of
the title of this
book, not that
Homo erectus
is alive today
as the species
that lived from
nearly 2 mya
until as
recently as a
few tens of
thousand ya,
but that
erectine
alleles long
lost by
Eurasians are
still active in
Africans and
some Figure 16-4 Figure 16-5 Figure 16-6
aborigine
populations, expressing themselves in primitive traits of body and behavior. These traits are
readily discernable at a glance, though people are indoctrinated and warned not to notice such
things and to deny them if they are mentioned. In Fig. 16-4, 16-5, & 16-6, note the erectine
features of these black athletes (left to right): the prominent brow ridges and receding forehead
of Jerry Stackhouse, the protruding jaw of Shaquille O’Neal, and the slight saggital keel of
former NBA player Karl Malone.
Whites have romanticized
primitive people as “noble
savages” and, in movies and on
television, they are usually
portrayed as competent, wise,
and kind-hearted towards whites.
Real life data, however, does not
support that portrayal. (Keeley,
1996; Wade, 2006; Lablanc,
2003). European soccer fans,
who make ape-like hooting
noises and throw bananas to Figure 16-7
taunt black players may be boorish, but biologically, they have a point. 21 Blacks, biologically,
have traits that man had hundreds of thousands of years ago. In Figure 16-7 the horizontal
length of the lines is proportional to genetic distance; the short length of the horizontal line going
to “African” indicates that Africans have not evolved much, and the long length of the horizontal
line labeled “non-African” indicates that non-Africans have evolved a long way away from
Africans. 22
In the next two sections, the OoA and OoE theories of the evolution of modern humans
are examined.
Section III
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. “Who is so deafe, or so blynde, as is hee, That wilfully will nother hear nor see?” (Heywood,
Dialogue of Proverbs, 1546). Back
2. The image is of 6.8 to 7.2 mya Sahelanthropus tchadensis (“Toumaï”), from Mission
Paléoanthropologique Franco-Tchadienne (M.P.F.T.). Toumai, found in Chad, Africa, was about
4 feet tall and is believed to have been bipedal.; he may have been in the human lineage. Back
3. Primitive traits can be re-acquired by a population when they are selected for. Good
examples are the sexually-selected child-like traits of some Eurasian women, such as the large,
wide-apart eyes that our nocturnal prosimians ancestors had. Back
4. Body hair went from adaptive in early apes to maladaptive in bipedal apes, to adaptive in
northern man, to maladaptive again once northern man had garments. (Chap. 24). Back
5. Nevertheless, the bonobo is the least sexually dimorphic of all primates, including humans.
(Tanner, N. M. (1981) On Becoming Human, p. 202). Back
6. Greater promiscuity and less pair bonding increases sexual dimorphism because males
have to compete for females; this is most evident in birds, where the males of the most
promiscuous species (e.g., peacocks) are brightly colored and the females drab, but in pair-
bonded species (e.g., swans) males and females are difficult to tell apart. Back
7. (Getahun, 2005). Ten times more single white women than single white men reported that
their most recent sex partner was black. (Sex in America, 1992). Back
8. Note in Figure 14-8, how skull thickness, which is reflected in the difference between cranial
capacity and brain size, has declined over the last 35,000 yrs. Back
9. A 2.4 million year old genetic mutation for a size reduction in chewing muscles may have
lead to a smaller, weaker jaw and separated man from his ape-like ancestors by shifting man
towards more reliance on brains and less on muscles. (Stedman, 2004). Man compensated for
not being able to tear hides with his teeth, or to gnaw the tough parts of an animal, by banging
rocks together to knock off sharp-edged cutting chips. In time, the importance of tool-making
became such a powerful selective influence for intelligence and creative skills that weak jaw
muscles can be said to have led to a bigger, better brain. Back
10. “Indeed, … Adolf Schultz had found a supposed Pithecanthropus-like gap between the
upper permanent second incisor and the upper permanent canine in a ‘modern negress,’ and
Abbie himself had stumbled upon something similar in a ‘living Aborigine.’” (Schwartz, 1999, p.
157). Africans have more rapid dental development, similar to fossil hominids. (Tompkins,
1996). “Sub-Saharan Africans are characterized by a collection of unique, mass-additive crown
and root traits relative to these other world groups. Recent work found that the most ubiquitous
of these traits are also present in dentitions of earlier hominids, as well as extinct and extant
[living] non-human primates [e.g., chimpanzees and gorillas]; other ancestral dental features are
also common in these forms.” (Irish, 1998). The teeth of Australian aborigines are even larger
(Hanihara, 2005) and the age of eruption of permanent teeth is earlier and the likely presence of
a third molar is greater. Back
11. The percentage of skulls with a fronto-temporal pterion (juncture) on one or both sides is
much higher in Australids, Negrids, gorillas, and some other apes. (Baker, 1974, pp. 191, 298-
299). Back
12. In primitive primates, such as lemurs, the cerebral cortex is small and smooth. (Howells,
1948, p. 48). Back
13. (Coon, 1962, p. 112). "... the Old World monkeys and apes, have lightly pigmented skin
covered with dark hair, …” (Jablonski, 2006, p. 64). When body hair was lost, dark skin was
strongly selected for in the tropics, but not in the temperate zones. Producing melanin (which
makes skin dark) is costly but necessary for survival in the tropics, but in the north incurring that
cost is unnecessary, a waste of resources (Rogers, 2004), and reduces the body’s production
of vitamin D. The fact that the palms and the bottom of the feet of Africans are white also
suggests the absence of dark pigmentation when it is not needed. Africans are lighter in color
immediately after birth, as dark skin is not needed in the womb, but soon darken. (Cartwright,
1857, p. 45). Back
14. “The hair of the infant negro is neither crisp and curly, nor black; it has a chestnut-brown
color and is of a silky fineness. However, as it grows longer it becomes darker and more curly,
and by the time the child begins to walk it appears completely woolly.” (Burmeister, 1853). The
younger Ainu in Chapter 24, Figure 8 seems to have straighter hair. Back
15. “…the ‘white’ or sclerotic [of the Negro eye] is often (as in apes) pigmented – a dull reddish
yellow.” (Johnston, 1910). Back
16. Part of the larynx is a valve (the epiglottis) that blocks food and liquids from going into the
lungs. In most animals, the larynx is high in the throat so that they can breathe and swallow at
the same time. Human infants start out that way, but then the larynx moves down to about the
Adam’s apple, which enables us to make a greater variety of sounds for speech, at the cost of
choking if we swallow while breathing. (Allman, 1994, p. 165). Back
17. The more that hunting is required for survival, the more important it is for males to
cooperate, as hunting requires more cooperation than gathering; in the cold north, hunting was
needed to survive the winters. (Levin, 1997, p. 165). Back
18. (Deka, 1995). Many other references could also be cited: (Supplementary Notes: Human
Population Genetics (2005-03-03208); Weber, 2002; Watkins, 2001; etc.). Africans may also
have alleles that neither chimpanzees nor gorillas nor Eurasians have that were acquired after
the LCA with chimps, then lost in Eurasians. Back
19. (“Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” The Wall Street Journal, December 13, 1994). Back
20. “In addition, as Darwin saw it, the Africans were primitive humans and served as a link
between his concept of an apelike human ancestor and truly civilized humans.” (Schwartz,
1999, p. 127). This is not just a conclusion of modern Europeans. Throughout the ages, Arabs
and Asians who have encountered Africans have also reached similar conclusions. (Davis,
2006, pp. 62-63; Rushton, 2000a, Chap. 5). If one accepts that man evolved from an ape, then
it is to be expected that not all men evolved equally far away from that ape. Back
21. The older anthropological literature is replete with comparisons between Negroes and apes
(Hunt, 1864; “U.S. citizens implicitly associate Blacks and apes.” (Black psychologist J.
Eberhardt; Goff, 2008). Back
22. (Salter, 2003, p. 68; drawn from Cavalli-Sforza, 1994, p. 79). Back
Section III Page 1 of 4
SECTION III
The Out-of-Africa Theory
“We share a common ancestor -- a man who lived in Africa around 60,000 years ago. That's
only about 2,000 generations... We're all effectively members of an extended family."
Spencer Wells, Genographic Project director
In this Section, 1 we examine the Out-of-Africa 2 (“OoA”) answer to the question,

“When and where did man become modern?” About 2 mya Homo erectus inhabited Africa,
Europe, and Asia. In one of those locations he evolved into an archaic form of our species,
Homo sapiens (Hs), then into modern man, Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss) and the people living
today.
We will call the promoters of OoA, the dominant theory of our time, “afrocentrists.” They
believe that it was the African erectus that evolved into Hs and that Hs evolved into Hss in
Africa, then those modern African Hss migrated out of Africa “replacing” all the more primitive
people who were then living in Europe (Neanderthals) and Asia (Homo erectus). Once those
modern Africans moved into Eurasia, they lost all the African traits described in Section II and
evolved all the Eurasian racial traits we see in today’s Asians and Europeans. That theory is
consistent with egalitarianism because OoA holds that not very long ago all modern humans
were Africans, so recently, in fact, that everyone is still virtually genetically the same, and
therefore equal, particularly in behavior, intelligence, and the capacity for learning, but
excepting “very superficial features like skin color and hair form.” 3 Genetic differences
between populations are of no biological importance, however, only if they are neutral, i.e.,
they have no effect on the reproductive success of those populations. But, as Section II shows,
genetic differences between races, including skin color and hair form, were the result of natural
or sexual selection, which means that they did affect reproductive success. 4
The principal competing theory, the Multiregional theory, 5 is out of favor and is clung to
by only a few die-hard scientists. And last, there is the theory presented in this book, which
holds that Hs and Hss evolved in Eurasia (Out of Eurasia, “OoE”), not Africa. That theory will
be presented in Section IV.
Figure III-1 is a tree that shows the OoA theory, where “LCA” is the last common
ancestor of man (Homo) and chimpanzees (Pan).
The tree shows that all modern
humans (Hss) evolved in Africa from
an African Homo erectus. The tree
also shows that Africans migrated out
of Africa and into Asia 65,000 ya and
Asians migrated into Europe 46,000
ya, becoming Caucasians. (Mellars,
2006). According to OoA, the LCA in
the tree lived in Africa; most scientists
believe that all the hominoids in the
human lineage, going back to a
primitive mammal, lived in Africa.
The date of the proposed
migration out of Africa is critical, as
http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/SecIII.html 07/09/2009
that date must be consistent with fossil

and genetic data. A date prior to
50,000 ya is needed to provide
enough time for Africans to go to Asia
before the earliest date of the modern
cultural sites in Asia, 6 and then on to
Europe and Australia before the date
of Hss fossils discovered there.
On the other hand, since OoA
holds that Hss, modern humans, arose
160,000 ya in Africa, the migration of
Hss out of Africa must have occurred
tens of thousands of years after that
(Lewin, 1993, p. 98), which raises the
question of what took them so long to
leave? Also, the afrocentrists want to
claim that the M and N
macrohaplogroups coalesced
(explained in Chap. 20) in Africa,
before the migration out of Africa
because those are the groups that
modern Eurasians fall into. (If the
coalescence occurred in Eurasia then,
because M and N are modern, modern
man arose in Eurasia, not Africa.)
Since that coalescence occurred
about 65,000 ya, the supposed Figure III-1
migration must have occurred more
recently than about 65,000 ya. The March, 2006, issue of National Geographic magazine
(Shreeve, 2006) states that it is “virtually certain” that the date was between 50,000 and
70,000 ya, 7 so a date of 65,000 ya will be used. 8
With that tree in mind, let’s take up the story of man again with the OoA version and
see how well OoA explains the facts. But first, let’s clarify what “Africa” means. OoA deals with
the migration of “Africans” 65,000 ya, who are presumed to have had traits similar to the
people living south of the Sahara Desert in Africa today. (“Africans,” in this book means those
people living in sub-Sahara Africa, particularly the Congoids). Most of the fossils the
afrocentrists cite in support of their theory, however, come from NE Africa, which is part of sub-
Saharan Africa, but very close to the Middle East. Moreover, as we shall see in Chapter 26,
the territory north of the Sahara, at least until several thousand years ago, was occupied by
whites. So, for these reasons, “Africa” will refer to sub-Saharan Africa.
The OoA story is that all species of Homo, including even Heidi and the Neanderthals,
evolved in Africa. Early man, e.g., erectus, migrated out of Africa, but did not evolve into
modern man outside of Africa. The evolution of erectus into sapiens happened only in Africa,
by about 160,000 ya, most likely in NE Africa. That raises the immediate questions, “If modern
man was in Africa 160,000 ya why are today’s Africans still primitive according to all the traits
discussed in Section II?” Did present day Africans de-evolve from more advanced ancestors
and become more primitive?
Another question that pops to mind is, “Why would tropically-adapted Africans leave
Africa 65,000 ya when that was right in the middle of the first ice age (about 73,000 to 55,000
ya, pp 31-32), and large numbers of cold-adapted Eurasian hominids were moving south?”
And, one last question, “Why did African erectus become sapiens, rather than Asian or
European erectus, especially since the environment in Eurasia was more selective for modern
traits and the pay-off for becoming Hss was greater there?” The OoA answer to that question
is that evolving into Hss was a chance event and Africa just got lucky. However, as discussed
previously (Chapter 4, FN 12), chance is overrated as an explanation for biological
phenomenon.
In the next chapter, we examine the fossil skulls that the afrocentrists cite to show that
modern man was in Africa before he was anywhere else.
Chapter 17
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. Most of the ideas and references in Section III came from Ronald A. Fonda and are
described in (Fonda, 2001) and on his web site. Back
2. Aka, Recent African Origin (“RAO”), Recent Single Origin Hypothesis (“RSOH”), and
Replacement Hypothesis. (Wikipedia, “Recent Single Origin Hypothesis”). Back
3. “It looks as though all non-African diversity is a product of the second migration of Homo
sapiens out of Africa - a migration so recent that there just hasn't been time for the
development of much genetic variation except that which regulates some very superficial
features like skin color and hair form.” (“Race: The Power of an Illusion,” PBS television series,
interview with Stephen Jay Gould, 2003). Back
4. An egalitarian can argue that modern civilization has made at least some of those
differences neutral, but it is difficult to prove a negative (no effect) and some effects may be
subtle and hard to detect. Back
5. The Multiregional Theory (aka “Regional Continuity”) holds that man evolved in Africa, left
Africa about 2 mya for Eurasia and independently evolved on Africa, Australia, Asia, and
Europe, with significant interbreeding. It is supported by Dr. Alan Thorne, a visiting fellow at the
Australian National University's research school of Pacific and Asian studies, along with
Professor Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan; also, Fred Smith and David Frayer in
the U.S. and Wu Xinzhi in China. Also see (Coon, 1962) and (Weidenreich, 1947).
“Unfortunately the implications of these rival theories have not been lost on either racists or
anti-racists and there is a danger that the debate could become politicized.” (Haywood, 2000,
p. 42). Back
6. Modern humans were living in India prior to the explosion of Mt. Toba, 73,000 ya. (Petraglia,
2007). Back
7. The same issue states that an earlier migration of modern humans made it to Israel, but
died out about 90,000 ya. Back
8. However, a new study states, of the European-African split, “… we find a lower bound at
120,000 yrs and no upper bound.” (Plagnol, 2006). Others believe there were at least two
major population expansions out of Africa; one about 600,000 ya and another about 95,000 ya
(Cann, 2002) and that a much earlier expansion of Homo erectus from Africa occurred 1.7
mya. (Templeton, 2002). Back
Chapter 17 - Fossil Skulls

“In my hands, an ancient bone,
hard and bare and long alone,
‘Neath the ground, so very old,
With a story to be told.”
A fossil skull tells us what its long-ago possessor looked like, how intelligent he was, what he
used his brain for, and even what he ate. It may also tell us who were his likely ancestors as well as his
possible descendants, which is the evidence we are looking for in this book.
The afrocentrists argue that Africa has the oldest archaic (Hs) and modern (Hss) skulls and
therefore modern man arose in Africa. But, as the character “Sporting Life” sang in Gershwin’s Porgy
and Bess, “It ain’t necessarily so.” Afrocentrists claim that several African fossil skulls are “modern” even
though they are in some ways more primitive than some of the skulls of early man, shown in Chapter 2,
and are more primitive than some European and East Asian skulls of about the same age. This is not
surprising as living Africans are also more primitive than Eurasians, as described in Chapter 16.
Human fossils are rare because the conditions needed to preserve them are rare. 1 Early
humans did not bury their dead, so animals, decomposition, and the weather soon erased all traces of
them. To be preserved, a body must be buried soon (hours, days, or months, depending on
circumstances) after death in a way that excludes oxygen. This can happen if a catastrophic event, such
as a volcanic eruption, a landslide, or a flash flood caused the death, or the person dies in a river that is
depositing silt. So, if non-Africans were the first moderns, but did not die in areas where preservation
was likely, an early African skull may not be from the first modern humans. Also, northern Africa is, and
was, quite accessible to Eurasians and, as we shall see in Section IV, it is likely that modern humans
arose outside of Africa, then migrated in to Africa, where they and their descendants died.
Even if the African skulls are modern and some of the humans from those populations did
migrate out of Africa, that does not mean that all of today’s modern humans came from those African
modern humans; modern humans could also have arisen both inside and outside of Africa, as the
Multiregional theory holds – independent evolution is very common. Flight, for example, independently
evolved in insects, birds, and mammals and sight independently evolved in insects, mollusks, and
vertebrates. If becoming “modern” required a series of changes in many different genes, man becoming
modern is unlikely to have occurred independently on two different continents. But if it required only a
single change in a single gene, such as a Hox gene that turns a host of other genes on or off, then
independent evolution may not be unlikely at all.
Let us look at the most prominent skulls offered by the afrocentrists to prove that Hss arose in
Africa.
Herto
As evidence for their contention that the
oldest modern human skulls are found in Africa, the
afrocentrists offer the Herto skulls, of two adults and
one child. (Clark, 2003) However, these skulls are
now assigned to the sub-species Homo sapiens
idaltu, which indicates that they are Hs, not Hss,
and therefore not “modern.” The skulls were found
near the village of Herto, in the Afar region of
eastern Ethiopia in northeast Africa. Radiometric
dating places the remains at between 160,000 and
154,000 ya. Figure 17-1 is a side view of one of the
adult skulls.
This skull is of an
almost complete adult
cranium. It has a number of
primitive features, such as
large eye sockets, prominent
brow ridges, sloping Figure 17-1

forehead, large teeth, and a
severe post-orbital constriction, which is a very primitive characteristic. The
reader may compare the post-orbital constriction in the superior view of the skull
(Fig. 17-2) with the skulls in Figures 9-7 and 9-14 to 9-16.
The adult Herto skull is also wider at the cheek bones, another erectus
trait, and is much thicker and more robust than a modern, fully Hss skull. It lacks
a saggital keel, but it does have an occipital bun, as in the Neanderthals.
Although the jaw protrudes, it is not as much as it does in some living Africans. A
further puzzlement is its cranial capacity of about 1450 cc, the average for
Neanderthals, but larger than most living Caucasians (1441 cc) and significantly
Figure 17-2 larger than most living Africans (1338 cc), though it is smaller than the average
for Asians (1491 cc,). If present day Africans evolved from a Herto population, the
afrocentrists cannot explain how their brains shrank. Since
Africans today have a significantly smaller cranial capacity
than Herto, if Herto did evolve in Africa and today’s Africans
evolved from Herto, then large skulls, and therefore large
brains and greater intelligence, must be a disadvantage in
Africa, a conclusion that afrocentrists would find
embarrassing. The patterns on the inside of the skull do not
specifically match those of any contemporary group of
modern humans, which suggests that Africans did not de-
evolve from Herto and that the Herto population was a dead
end.
Moreover, Herto does not have features that are
clearly African, but does have some non-African features,
particularly the large cranial capacity. So what is this un-
African skull doing in Africa? One clue may be the location
where the Herto skulls were found. The village of Herto is in
the famous Rift Valley, where Richard Leakey and other
paleoanthropologists have found many human fossils. The Figure 17-3
village is only about 200 miles from the narrow strait that separates the Red Sea from the Gulf of Aden.
The country of Yemen in the Middle East is on the other side of the strait. (Fig. 17-3).
Herto lived during an ice age (Fig. 5-1) when sea water was locked up in ice; sea levels were
well over a hundred feet lower than today. 2 Thus, the passage of people across the strait from the
Middle East into Africa could be expected. 3 Eurasian Hs, escaping the cold, could easily have crossed
from the Middle East into Africa. Interbreeding with African erectus would produce hybrids like Herto,
who have a sapiens cranial capacity in a skull with some erectine features. This is likely the reason that
afrocentrists have classified Herto as Homo sapiens idaltu instead of as Hss, despite their claims that
Herto is modern. Thus, it cannot be concluded that Herto evolved in Africa.
Omo
The Omo skulls are also cited by
afrocentrists as support for OoA. (McDougall,
2005). Like Herto, which was found near the
Awash River in Ethiopia, Omo was also found
near a river in Ethiopia, the Omo River near
the village of Kibish (in Fig. 17-3, it’s in SW
Ethiopia near the top of the long blue lake).
Omo is a bit older than Herto, dating to
195,000 ya. There are two partial adult
craniums, Omo 1 and Omo 2 (Fig. 17-4), with Omo 1 Omo 2
Omo 2 being described as more primitive.
Omo 1 is only a skull cap, so not much Figure 17-4
information can be obtained from it, but its upturned front and back ends indicate that it is very primitive.
Omo 2 has a cranial capacity of over 1400 cc and seems to be another Herto-type hybrid of Eurasian
sapiens with an African erectus. Omo, like Herto can, at best, be Hs, but certainly not Hss, nor do the
afrocentrists claim that these skulls are Hss; nevertheless, they claim these skulls are “modern.”
Figures 17-5a and 17-5b show an African erectus skull, Kabwe, aka “Rhodesian Man” or
“Broken Hill”). This male (Kennedy, 1984) skull is from the Broken Hill 1 site, near Kabwe, Zambia, in
Africa. It is classified as a Heidi (Fig. 2-5) and is dated at 125,000 to 300,000 BP. It is very primitive but
the capacity of the skull is between 1280 and 1300 cc, only slightly less than living Africans (1338 cc).
Note the prominent ridges above the eyes, the extreme slope of the forehead, the saggital keel, and the
protruding upper jaw (“maxilla”).
Now, one might wonder, why does this 125,000 to 300,000 year old African skull look so much
more primitive than the 160,000 to 154,000 year old Herto skull and the 195,000 year old Omo skull
when it might actually be younger? Surely, the primitive Kabwe skull should have a much older date?
Yes, it should, especially since it was found on the same continent. The answer to that question may
come from looking at a map of Africa (Fig. 17-6).
Figure 17-6
Ethiopia, where Herto and Omo were found, is almost touching Yemen in the Middle East, but
Zambia, where Kabwe was found, is deep in the interior of southern Africa. Zambia would have been a
more difficult place for people from the Middle East to reach 125,000 to 300,000 ya. Any inconsistency
between the age and primitiveness of the Kabwe and the Herto and Omo skulls is easily resolved by the
hypothesis that Herto and Omo were the descendants of Hs or Hss Eurasians who had migrated into
Africa and had interbred with indigenous African erectus, such as Kabwe. If that simple hypothesis is
correct, then modern man did not evolve in Africa. 4
Eurasian Fossils
Now let’s look at some Chinese skulls, starting with a gruesome, but happy, Chinese erectus,
reconstructed by Franz Weidenreich. (Figures 17-7).

This skull is known as Peking Man (aka “Beijing Man”), pieced together from the fossil remains
of several different individuals found at the Dragon Bone Hill site, Zhoukoutien, near Beijing, China.
Note the prominent brow ridges, the sagittal keel, occipital bun, and protruding jaw with no chin.
Although it has primitive features, its cranial capacity is about 1075 cc and, aside from being larger, its
teeth and arm bones are indistinguishable from those of modern man. It is estimated to be between
300,000 and 500,000 yrs old, older than Kabwe. Unfortunately, the original of the skull was lost in WWII,
so it cannot be accurately dated. Animal remains and evidence of fire and the manufacturing and use of
tools were found nearby. The flaking of his stone tools shows that Peking Man had already developed
handedness, and was right-handed. (Howells, 1948, p. 49).
Figure 17-8 is a particularly interesting skull from China, known as “Dali.” It has a mixture of
erectine traits (saggital keel, heavy brow ridges) and sapiens traits (delicate cheek bones, flat face). The
endocranial volume is about 1120 cc (Encyclopedia Britannica) and, although uranium series dating of
ox teeth from the site gave a date of 209,000 ±23,000 yrs, other testing gives a date of about 270,000
yrs. (Xiao, 2002).
Next compare 125,000 to 300,000 year old Kabwe (Fig. 17-5) to the 260,000 year old skull in
Figure 17-9 from Jinniushan, China. (Rosenberg, 2006). Although Jinniushan and Kabwe both date from
about the same time, Jinniushan is classified as an Hs, while Kabwe is classified as an erectus. Also,
the cranial capacity of Kabwe is 1280 to 1300 cc, but the cranial capacity of Jinniushan is about 1330 cc
(Rosenberg, 2006), comparable to the average of today’s Africans (1338 cc), and Jinniushan is the skull
of a woman. Although women have smaller skulls than men, this woman is estimated to have been 5’ 5
½” tall and weighed 173 pounds. (Bower, 2006). If the Chinese archaics were so much farther evolved
than the African archaics, just as today’s Chinese are far more advanced than today’s Africans, isn’t it
more reasonable to conclude that modern man evolved in Asia rather than Africa?
Figure 17-10 shows a skull found in
Liujiang County, China. It is unequivocally
modern (Shen, 2002) and should be classified
as Hss. The top of the skull is smooth and
evenly domed and shows not even a hint of a
thickening or a saggital keel. There are no
brow ridges and the face is refined with small
teeth. The Liujiang skull was initially dated at
87,000 BP 5 but it was found in sediment
dated at 110,000 to 138,000 yrs old 6 and
some experts believe it is over 150,000 yrs
old. 7 Its skull capacity is a remarkable 1480
cc (Wu, 1995), higher than today’s

Caucasians (1441 cc), much higher than
today’s Africans (1338 cc), and only slightly
less than today’s Asians (1491 cc). The
Liujiang skull proves that modern man was in
China long before 65,000 ya, when the
afrocentrists say he left Africa.
Another difference between the Kabwe
skull and the four Chinese skulls (Peking Man,
Dali, Jinniushan, and Liujiang), that is not as
easily seen, is that the Chinese skulls have
“shoveled” incisors. Shoveled incisors (Fig. 9-
28) are seen only rarely in living Caucasians
and almost never in living Africans (except for
Bushmen), but they are common in living
Asians and Native Americans that came from
Asia. 8 But where did the Asians get them
from?
All of the Chinese fossils (that have
incisors) have shoveled incisors, dating back
to the earliest Asian Homo erectus (Java Man)
about 1.8 mya. 9 Hmmm. Now if the Chinese
H. erectus had shoveled incisors, Peking Man,
Dali, Jinniushan, and Liujiang had shoveled
incisors, and many of the Chinese alive today
have shoveled incisors, and a significant
percentage of no other living population Figure 17-10
outside of Asia commonly has them, it doesn’t
take a Sherlock Holmes to figure out what’s going on here. Modern Chinese evolved from an Asian
erectus that was already different from erectus in Africa and Europe! 10 The OoA position, that the Asian
erectus with its shoveled incisors was replaced by modern Africans without shoveled incisors 65,000 ya,
who then evolved shoveled incisors a second time in Asia, is simply incredible.
In addition to shoveled incisors, all Chinese skulls from erectus to the present show a
remarkable similarity in head shape and facial characteristics, as well as a gradual change in features.
(Pope, 1992).
Table 17-1 summarizes the skulls presented in this chapter; Java Man is from Indonesia, but
hominin fossils of about the same date have been found in China (Zhu, 2008).
Skull Classified as Cranial Capacity (cc) Age (ya)

Java H. erectus 940 1,700,000
Peking H. erectus 1075 500,000 – 300,000
Dali Erectus-sapiens 1120 270,000
Jinniushan Hs. 1330 260,000
Liujiang Hss 1480 150,000
Living Asians Hss. 1491 0
Table 17-1
Table 17-1 shows an almost continuous increase in cranial capacity from H. erectus to modern
Chinese, excellent evidence that modern Chinese evolved in China. (Etler, 1996). And, while we are on
this subject, take a look at the Chinese “firsts” in Table 17-2. 11
Reference (see Morton,

First Date Place in China
2002)
2.25 Renzidong Cave,
Occupation of China 12 mya Anhui
(Hotz, 2000)
Occupation in Asia north of 40° 1.36

Nihewan Basin (Zhu, 2001, p. 413)
latitude 13 mya
Rezidong Cave,
Asian hand ax 14 800 kya
Anhui
(Hotz, 2000, p. 24)
Asian fire 15 500 kya Zhoukoudian (Barnouw, 1982, p. 141)

Association of men with dogs 16 500 kya Zhoukoudian (Serpell, 1995, pp. 8-10)
Oldest writing 8600 ya Jiahu (Senner, 1989)
Table 17-2
(All “firsts” are by erectus except writing, which is by Hss.) Are these tables consistent with the
OoA theory, which asserts that there were no modern men in China until modern Africans left Africa
65,000 ya and migrated there thousands of years later? 17
The Hobbit
In 2003, an 18,000 year old skull of a 32 year
old (age approximated from worn teeth and fused
skull bones) female was discovered on the Indonesian
island of Flores ("Homo floresiensis"). She was about
1 meter tall (3’ 4”) and had a cranial capacity of only
417 cc, 18 smaller than a chimpanzee’s, though the
frontal part of her brain would have been “well-wired.”
The skull appeared to be a dwarf form of an early
erectus, earning it the nickname, the “Hobbit.” 19 The
Hobbits were fully bipedal, used stone tools and fire,
and hunted dwarf elephants also found on the island.
The skull (Fig. 17-11) had a protruding jaw, large
teeth, brow ridges, and the sloping forehead; both a
chin and an external nose are absent. The skeletons
are also reported to have “shoulders … hunched
slightly more forward than in modern humans, and …
extraordinarily short legs ended in long feet.” 20 Note
that the ape skeletons (Fig. 9-30) have shoulders
hunched forward and short legs. The feet of apes are Figure 17-11
also long in proportion to their height. (Coon, 1962, p.
248). The Hobbits show similarities to Homo habilis above the neck and to Australopithecus below the
neck. 21
Since the current population of Flores is also of very small stature and the Hobbits were living
there from at least 94,000 ya to at least as recently as 13,000 ya, 22 they may have been ancestors of
the current population on the island. The afrocentrists take the position that all living people are modern,
but the Hobbit skull (Fig. 17-11) clearly is not modern, so either the Hobbits evolved into modern
humans in only 13,000 yrs (extremely unlikely) or the present population is not modern (no, the
afrocentrists insist that every living person is modern, and if they are modern, the Hobbits must have
been modern). The only other possibility is that OoA is wrong and modern humans either did not arise
only in Africa and leave only 65,000 ya, or they did not evolve in Africa at all.
Chapter 18
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. (Schwartz, 2005, p. 90). Most African fossils have been found in the Rift Valley of East Africa, which
once had volcanoes. Volcanic ash quickly killed, buried, and preserved hominids, a blessing for
paleoanthropologists that Eurasia did not have. Consequently, that’s where they look for hominid fossils
and, if you don’t look, you don’t find. Back
2. The Cosquer cave on the Mediterranean, where Cro-Magnon paintings were found, is now 120 feet
below sea level, an indication of how much water was tied up in glaciers during ice ages. Back
3. Note, in the discussion of Chapter 26, Figure 2, that the area where these fossils were found was
mixed Negro and white in 1492; if migration was into Africa, instead of out of Africa, the area would have
been all white at the time the fossils lived. Back
4. If modern man had evolved in Africa and migrated out of Africa through NE Africa 65,000 ya, one
would expect there to be racial continuity between prehistoric NE African skulls and the skulls of today’s
NE Africans. However, none was found. (Howells, 1989, citing: Skull shapes and the map: craniometric
analyses in the dispersion of modern Homo. (1989) and Who's Who in skulls: ethnic identification of
crania from measurements (1995), Peabody Museum Papers 79:1-189 and 82:1-108, respectively).
Back
5. Teeth from the site were dated at 95 kya by uranium dating. Back
6. There were two mudstone layers in the unexcavated cave deposits and there were two
corresponding layers in the internal cranial deposits of the skull; the oldest layer has been dated at 110
kyr. (Zhao, 2004). Back
7. “TIMS U-series [thermal ionization mass spectrometry, uranium series] dates for another hominid
fossil from Liujiang, that is an anatomically modern Homo sapiens fossil show that the Liujiang hominid
is probably older than 150 ka. This exceeds the age estimate the oldest anatomically modern hominid in
Africa.” Advanced Centre for Queensland University Isotope Research Excellence. Also see (Shen,
2002). Back
8. American Indians, Eskimos, , Mongolians, and part of the Japanese and Chinese populations have
the highest incidence of shoveled incisors, followed by Hawaiian aborigines, most of the Japanese and
Chinese, then the Indonesians, Polynesians, Micronesians and Ainu; American Negroes, Bantu, Fijians,
American whites, and Finns have the lowest incidence. (Suzuki, M. & Sakai, T., "Morphological analysis
of the shovel-shaped teeth," J. Anthrop. Soc. Nippon, 74:202-218). Back
9. (Swisher III, 2001). Java Man is similar to Peking Man but is the only hominid with a gap (“diastema”)
in its upper jaw to provide space for the lower canines. (Howells, 1959, p. 157). “… the shovel shape of
the incisor teeth, can be seen in fossils 750,000 years old; in the famous Peking Man fossils, which are
a quarter of a million years old; and in modern Chinese populations.” (Leakey, 1994, p. 88). Living
Chinese people also have flatter frontal bones and wider and more prominent cheekbones than other
modern humans (Chap. 9, Fig. 17), and so do many Homo erectus, archaic, and human fossils skulls
found in China. Erectus and Hs from other regions also show racial characteristics, which indicates that
the races of man are ancient and arose even before the species of man. (Coon, 1962, p. 351). Back
10. (Chap. 4, Rule 10; Wolpoff, 1991). An examination of over 5000 fossil teeth going back to
Australopithecus showed that African teeth differ from Eurasian teeth. (Martinón-Torres, 2007). Back
11. (Morton, 2002). To the list, one can add earliest death ritual, 500 kya. (Corballis, 1991, p. 42, citing
Clark, 1969). Back
12. Two million year old worked stones have been found in China and Indonesia. (Coppens, 2004, p.
99). Back
13. “Stone tools found,” BBC News, Sept. 27, 2001. Also, THIS Back
14. Tools may have been used earlier in Asia than in Africa or Europe, but if they were bamboo tools
rather than stone tools, there would be no trace of them today. Back
15. “Sinanthropus [Chinese erectus] had fire.” (Coon, 1962, p. 436; Howells, 1948, p. 148). At Dragon
Bone Hill, the Chinese erectus had fire in a cave between 620,000 and 410,000 ya, long before Hss
allegedly arose in Africa 160,000 ya. (Boaz, 2004). Fire use was recently reported in Africa up to 1.5
million ya but evidence for control of the fire may not be decisive. “Only in Africa is there evidence that
fire arrived late, as late as 40,000 years ago.” (Coon, 1962, p. 332). The higher vulnerability of blacks to
lung cancer may be because they did not possess fire as early as other races. (See PDE4 gene in
Chap. 13.) Back
16. This should probably be “wolves,” instead of “dogs.” (Olsen, 1977). Back
17. “In my opinion, the Sinanthropus [Chinese erectus] remains show that as early as 360,000 years
ago some peoples had attained a level of social organization in which men of fifty, who had passed their
physical prime, were tolerated, if not fed, by their juniors.” (Coon, 1962, p. 103). Back
18. Note the dent in the top of the head, similar to some African skulls (Chap. 9, Fig. 13), perhaps
suggesting an ancient erectus common ancestor. Back
19. Some scientists believed the Hobbit was not a new species of humans, but a modern human who
had microcephaly, a (usually) genetic disease that produces a small head and brain. Later, two
mandibles and the bones of at least 9 similar individuals were found, and they could not all be
microcephalic. Unlike modern humans, the mandibles had some twin-rooted molars, which also
suggested a new species. (Gordon, 2008). Back
20. (Brown, 2004; Morwood, 2004, 2005; Lahr, 2004; also see footnote on page 112 of Coon, 1962).
Back
21. (Tocheri, 2007). Also see (Berger, 2008) for similar findings on Palau in Micronesia. Back
22. Bones of other individuals and stone tools support those dates. Powledge (2006) says Hobbits lived
only 12,000 ya and they may have lived as recently as 250 ya. The small people now living on Flores
say the Hobbits stole and scavenged from their villages. They chattered, were naked, and lived in
caves. (Davies, 2004). When they took an infant, the villagers killed every Hobbit they found. (Wikipedia,
“Ebu Gogo”). Back
Chapter 18 - Modern Behavior

“Historical and sociological studies support the view that genetic differences are not of
importance in determining the social and cultural differences between different groups of Homo
sapiens."
United Nations, Unesco, 1950
Paleoanthropologists make a connection between “modern” (Hss) anatomy, which they

say arose 160,000 ya, and “modern” behavior. If a population is (or was) anatomically modern,
it should be (or should have been) capable of modern behavior and there should be some
evidence of such behavior. Conversely, if there is no evidence that a population engaged in
modern behavior, then doubt is cast on whether the anatomy of a population has been correctly
categorized as “modern.”
“Modern” humans, i.e., Hss, did not just make functional tools and weapons, as did
erectus and Hs, but had a culture – drawings, musical instruments, burying their dead with
artifacts. The first definite evidence of human culture is beads over 100,000 yrs old found in
Israel. 1 Thus, if Omo has a modern skull, as the afrocentrists assert, then modern man in Africa
went about 60,000 yrs without modern culture, even though he was supposedly capable of
creating it. 2
Did any Africans engage in modern behavior before recent incursions of modern
Eurasians into Africa? As we saw in Chapter 15, Africans did not come any where near creating
civilizations, which would certainly have constituted modern behavior.
Traveling farther across water than one can swim, which requires, at the minimum, only
a few logs secured together, is certainly modern behavior. If Africans became modern 160,000
ya, this is one modern behavior they could easily have engaged in. But there are many large
islands just off the coast of Africa that were not visited or settled by Africans. Off the Western
coast lies the seven Canary Islands, only 108 km (67 miles) away, with the highest peak visible
from Morocco; they were first settled by white Berbers. Howells, 1948, p. 272). Zanzibar is only
32 km (20 miles) off the eastern coast, but was visited by Egyptians (2500 BC) and Phoenicians
(600 BC) long before Africans (Bantu, 100 AD). The fourth largest island in the world,
Madagascar, lies just 370 km (229 miles) off the eastern coast of Africa, with the smaller
Comoros islands in between, yet the islands were first settled by Indonesians, not Africans. (If
the reader will refer to the map of Africa (Fig. 17-6) he can identify these and other islands off
the coast.)
Meanwhile, stone tools found on the island of Flores indicate that Asian erectus was
using boats 800,000 to 900,000 ya. (Morwood, 1998; O’Sullivan, 2001). How is that possible
when supposedly modern man in Africa could not even reach islands just off the African coast a
few thousand years ago? To have not explored and settled islands, even some that are visible
from Africa, strongly suggests that Africans, even recently, had not become modern, so to
suppose they were modern when they allegedly migrated out of Africa 65,000 ya is ludicrous.
How could supposedly modern Africans not only leave Africa and travel throughout Europe,
Asia, and even to Australia and South Pacific islands, but never reach islands just off their own
coast?
Domesticating an animal is behavior that is clearly modern. Domestication requires
keeping an animal within a limited space so that it can be located and easily captured, feeding,
watering, and protecting it, and selectively breeding it for traits that are useful to man. The
domestication of a wild animal, particularly a dangerous wild animal, unlike making simple tools,
which even chimpanzees and some birds can do (FN 444, p. 106), requires a modern mind that
can plan for the future 3 and can engage in complicated behavior. There is no evidence that any
animal was domesticated in sub-Saharan Africa. Some tribes (Zulus, Masaï, Tutsis) do herd
cattle, but those tribes have interacted with Arabs, who did have domesticated cattle. 4
The NE Asian wolf was the first animal to be domesticated, between 100,000 and
130,000 ya. 5 Now, can you guess where the NE Asian wolf lived? If you guessed in NE Asia,
you win an honorary paleoanthropologist merit badge. And, one more guess, where did the
people live who domesticated it? If you guessed “Africa,” go back to Chapter 1. So, again, the
OoA theory fails because modern man must have lived within the range of the NE Asian wolf,
which does not include Africa, long before the afrocentrists say he left Africa.
There is other evidence that people outside of Africa engaged in modern behavior
before 65,000 ya, the date that the afrocentrists say the first modern man left Africa. Heidi was
killing elephants, twice the size of today’s elephants, with wooden spears and butchering them
with flint tools 400,000 ya in Great Britain. 6 In Germany, seven balanced throwing spears, over
400,000 yrs old, were found with stone tools and the butchered remains of more than 15
horses; these are “the world's oldest wooden throwing spears – so far the oldest complete
hunting weapons of humankind.” (Thieme, 1997). This find strongly suggests that systematic
hunting, involving foresight, planning, and appropriate technology – all modern behavior –
occurred in Europe long before modern man allegedly even arose in Africa. The BBC News,
June 20, 2006, reported that a 250,000 year old cleaver and “giant flint hand axes” of “exquisite,
almost flamboyant, workmanship” were found in Britain, which is also modern behavior. People
were living as far north as Finland, where tools were found in and below layers dated at
340,000 to 300,000 ya. (Schulz, 1998). In southern France, 73,000 year old prehistoric man
was burning coal for fuel. (Thery, 1996). Neanderthals (at least 60,000 ya, Kebara, Israel) and
pre-historic man in Europe were burying their dead before Africans.
In the Northern Territory of Australia, stone tools and other artifacts, including a large
piece of hematite that had been used as a red pigment, were dated by archeologist Rhys Jones
at about 53,000 to 60,000 BP, with the latter date more likely (Roberts, 1993); that date would
allow only 5000 yrs to migrate there from Africa.
The control of fire, i.e., keeping a fire burning in one location (and probably also being
able to start a fire), is one of the most important modern behaviors because control of fire vastly
extends to the north the territory that could be occupied. Fire breaks down meat for easier
chewing and digestion, leads to metallurgy, and is a powerful defense against predators (e.g.,
the cave bear in the north, which competed for living space). The earliest hearths are in Israel
790,000 ya (Goren-Inbar, 2004), Vétesszöllös in Hungary, and Choukoutien near Peking, dated
at 400,000 to 500,000 ya (Chap. 17, Table 2). In Africa, clear evidence of controlled fire is not
found until about 60,000 ya, at Kalambo Falls, Zambia, although many earlier living sites have
been found in Africa. 7 The much earlier controlled use of fire by the Eurasians strongly implies
that the selection pressures for advanced technology were greater in the north and that
Eurasians responded to those pressures, again suggesting that modern man did not arise in
Africa.
In one of “the coldest, driest places in Europe," on the Don River in Russia some 250
miles south of Moscow, scientists found 45,000 to 42,000 year old stone, bone and ivory tools,
as well as perforated shell ornaments and a carved piece of mammoth ivory that appears to be
the head of a small human figurine. (Anikovich, 2007). Could Africans, in only the 20,000 yrs
since they allegedly left Africa 65,000 ya, have traveled and lived that far north?
In the next two chapters, we look at mtDNA evidence that the afrocentrists cite to prove
their case.
Chapter 19
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. (Vanhaeren, 2006). Simple items of personal adornment, e.g., beads, carnivore teeth with
holes drilled through them, were probably the first cultural items, especially in populated areas,
as they enhanced status. Small stone blades and a pigment associated with body painting,
dated about 164 kya (±12 kyrs), were found in a cave at Pinnacle Point on the south coast of
South Africa. The pigment could have been used to draw symbols. (Marean, 2007). This was
during an ice age (Chap. 5, Fig. 1), when Africa was cool and dry and, since human fossils were
not found with the artifacts, it is not clear which human made them. Back
2. A possible explanation is that there is no point in creating culture unless there is a social
organization that it can influence, and such social organizations did not arise until environmental
conditions forced an intensification of social relations. (Allman, 1994, p. 199). However, man’s
brain grew to about modern size about 100,000 ya and that growth is often attributed to more
complex social relations. Back
3. Chimpanzees do not plan for the future. (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 28). Back
4. “[C]attle-keeping … is not strictly typical of negro culture at all.” ("Negro." 1911 Encyclopedia
Britannica). Also see (Baker, 1974, pp. 357-360). Back
5. (Wayne, 1993) Wayne's research, which is based on complete nuclear DNA (rather than
segments of only mtDNA), shows that dogs are over 100,000 years old. The oldest known
remains of a dog, however, date to only about 14,000 ya in Russia (Sablin, 2002), with another
14,000 ya find in Germany, where a dog was buried with two people. (Olsen, 1985). The range
of the NE Asian wolf extended into Eastern Europe. The bones of wolves have been found with
hominoid bones in China, dated 500,000 ya. (Olsen, 1977). The cat started living with humans
as early as 130,000 ya in the Middle East, protecting stores of grain from rodents. (Driscoll,
2007). Back
6. (Wenban-Smith, 2006). A 500,000 year old fossilized rhinoceros shoulder blade with a
projectile wound in it was found at Boxgrove, England. (Pitts, M. & Roberts, M., Fairweather
Eden, 1997). Back
7. Burnt bones at the Swartkrans site in South Africa dated at 1.5 million years (Brain, 1988)
and baked clay at the Chesowanja site in Kenya at 1.4 million years (Gowlett, 1981, 1982) may
show earlier use in Africa, but fires are started by lightning, especially during drought, though
man may have made use of them; the extremely early dates in an environment where warmth is
not critical arouses skepticism. Back
Chapter 19 - MtDNA
“… it is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they have been
confirmed by theory."
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, British astronomer and physicist
“Eve” is a metaphor that the afrocentrists have given to our ancestral mother, who they believe lived in Africa about
150,000 ya (Shreeve, 2006), and from whom all living humans derived their mtDNA. “Eve” was not a single woman, however,
since at least a thousand breeding pairs would be needed for a viable population. 1 According to the afrocentrists, all the
women in that founding population either had the same mtDNA or, if they had different mtDNA, did not have daughters.
As support for Eve living in Africa, and for her date of 150,000 ya, afrocentrists point to studies of mtDNA in living
people. Cells were collected from people all over the planet and were analyzed to determine the A-C-G-T base sequences
(see Appendix) in their mtDNA; people within each geographically separated population tend to have many of the same A-C-
G-T sequences, but those sequences are different in other populations. 2 For example, at a particular location (“locus”) on an
mtDNA string, Europeans may have an A while Asians have a T. Differences in the A-C-G-T bases at a locus are called
“SNPs” (single nucleotide polymorphisms). 3 Now the scientists had to decide what was the original base (A, T, C, or G) at
each locus and which base (A, T, C, or G) is the mutation; the population with the original base was then be presumed to be
the older, ancestral population from which all other populations descended. However, as we shall see, that reasoning may not
be valid.
So the scientists programmed a computer that created millions of “trees,” with different populations at the bottom and
on the various branches, based on “A’s” changing to “T’s” and “T’s” changing to “A’s” and so on. The assumption was made
that the “correct” tree, that showed the actual changes that occurred in the bases over at least tens of thousands of years,
would be the simplest tree, the most “parsimonious” tree. 4 The computer compared all these different trees and picked out the
simplest tree and, low and behold, it was the tree with the Africans at the bottom, just as OoA had predicted.
Figure 19-1
The tree in Figure 19-1 (from Wikipedia) is imposed on a map of the world to show human migrations (black arrows)
under the OoA theory. The blue lines represent the boundaries of areas covered in ice or tundra during the last ice age. The
colors in the list on the right of the map are for the circles and the numbers for the colors in that list give the number of
thousand years BP, i.e., before 1950. The letters and numbers inside the small white circles are for the groups of mtDNA
alleles (“haplogroups,” see next chapter) that people living in those areas have. 5
The tree begins with an upside-down Africa in the tail of this weird-looking bird, then spreads to Asia (body) and
Europe (left wing – orange circle), down to Australia (foot – red circle) and across the Bering Strait to North America (neck-
blue circle) and South America (head – green circle). Unfortunately, the bird didn’t fly because the biologists who did the
calculations were not mathematicians and, when a mathematician checked their work, he flunked them. The OoA tree was not
the simplest tree. In fact, there were over a billion parsimonious trees. 6
So the mtDNA analysis does not show that Eve was an African. Can it at least tell us how long ago Eve lived? Since
scientists now have all these mtDNA sequences and know how many SNPs there are, if they can assume that (1) every
mutation that has occurred in Eve’s mtDNA is represented by a SNP in the data they have and (2) the mutation rate is
constant (i.e., one mutation every X years), then they can easily calculate how long ago Eve lived, the “coalescence” date. 7
But are those two assumptions reasonable?
As to the first assumption, there are several reasons why the number of SNPs observed may be greater than the
number of mutations that have actually occurred. Occasionally, during fertilization, the tail of a sperm will enter the egg along
with its head, thereby adding the father’s mtDNA to the mother’s and possibly ending up in her daughter. (Hagelberg, 2003). If
the father’s mtDNA is different from the mother’s, the scientists may count those differences as additional mutations, making
the coalescence date seem farther in the past than it really was. Also, some of our male ancestors may have interbred with a
female of another subspecies of Hs. If the daughters were accepted into our lineage, the scientists would count these
additional SNPs as mutations and conclude that the coalescence date occurred much farther in the past than it did.
The number of SNPs may also be less than the number of mutations that have actually occurred. A mutation may
occur, then later a second mutation may occur at the same location that reverses the first mutation, for example, A→T, then
later T→A. The scientists don’t see any SNP at that location and they count no mutation, when really two mutations occurred,
and therefore the coalescence date is older than they think it is. Also, two or more mutations may have occurred at the same
site. Suppose A→T→G. All the scientists see is an A→G, so they count only a single mutation when there were really two
mutations, and they again think that the coalescence date is more recent than it actually was.
Scientists have obtained ancient animal mtDNA 8 from fossil bones and teeth and date those bones by chemical and
physical means. They can compare that mtDNA to mtDNA obtained from living descendants of those animals and count the
number of SNPs. After adjusting as best they can for all the possible sources of error mentioned above, they divide the
number of mutations by the number of years, which gives them the mutation rate, the number of mutations per year. They can
then take the number of mutations in all living humans (as estimated from the number of SNPs), divide by the animal mutation
rate and determine when all those humans started out with the same mtDNA (i.e., the coalescence date, the date that Eve
lived).
But even if the number of SNPs is correctly adjusted for all the possible sources of error described above, the second
assumption, that mtDNA mutates at a constant rate, must still be made. If, for example, hundreds of thousands of years go by
and the mtDNA does not mutate at all and then there is a shower of cosmic rays or a volcano spews mutagens into the
atmosphere, causing a large number of mutations, the mtDNA clock is not going to be accurate because it will be slowing
down and speeding up. 9 And, when fossil bones are used to determine the mutation rate, additional assumptions must be
made. The humans who lived at the time of the fossils and those who lived today were not genetically the same and may not
have had the same resistance to mutations. After the Industrial Revolution, thousands of additional mutagens that never
before existed were spewed into the atmosphere and the drinking water, so since about 1750 there may have been a higher
number of mutations, making the date for Eve appear older than it was.
For these reasons, until technical problems are overcome, the mtDNA data cannot be relied upon for either the location
of Eve or her date. 10 If the computer-generated tree made by afrocentrists does not prove that Eve lived in Africa, or even
reliably when she lived, is it nevertheless possible to use the mtDNA data in another way to find out where she lived?
The OoA proponents claim the Founder Effect supports OoA. The Founder Effect means that as
a genetically diverse group spreads into new territories, the new territories are settled by only small
portions of the original group. Each of the smaller groups is genetically less diverse than the original
group so, if we look at living populations, the less diverse groups must have descended from the more
diverse founding group. Since Africans have the most genetically diverse mtDNA, Asians and
Europeans must have come from Africans. Figure 19-2 (Long, 2003, p. 15) shows the amount of
genetic variation for the three major races.
Note in Figure 19-2 that the variations found in Africans include almost all the variations found in
Europeans and Asians. The OoA explanation for this is that only a portion of the Africans, i.e., those
within the red and green circles, left Africa and became the Europeans and the Asians. Another Figure 19-2
possible explanation, discussed in Section IV, however, is that the Africans who are outside the green
and red circles are the descendents of very early Eurasian hominoids who migrated into Africa a long time ago, but became
extinct in Eurasia, due to Toba, the ice ages, plagues, the inability to compete with more advanced populations, etc.
To explain in more detail, at some SNPs some Africans might have an “A,” others a “T,” and still others a “G,” while all
Eurasians have a “T.” There are many SNPs like that, where Africans have more variation than do Eurasians. (Eurasians also
have some SNPs that Africans do not have, but not as many.) This means that, although some alleles are specific to each of
the races, there are more African-specific alleles than European, Asian, or Eurasian-specific alleles. 11 Since DNA (both
nuclear and mtDNA) gradually mutates, a population will gradually accumulate more variation as it ages. Because Africans
have more variation in their SNPs than do Eurasians, the afrocentrists argue that Africans must be older than Eurasians.
Given the fact that Africans have more variation in their DNA than Eurasians, does that prove they are older? No,
because they may have gotten some of those additional variations by interbreeding with non-Africans, especially non-sapiens
non-Africans, who migrated into Africa but died out elsewhere. 12
Next, the afrocentrists argue that since the greater diversity of Africans shows that they are older, Eurasians must have
evolved from Africans. But the fact that one population is older than another population does not imply that they are related as
progenitors and descendants; a young insect did not descend from an old reptile. The afrocentrists assume that either Africans
came from Eurasians or Eurasians came from Africans, then argue that since one descended from the other, the younger
Eurasians came from the older Africans. 13 In other words, the afrocentrists have to assume descent in order to argue for their
order of that descent! The afrocentrists’ assumption that either Africans evolved into Eurasians or Eurasians evolved into
Africans fails to consider the possibility that neither descended from the other and that both descended from one or more
common ancestors.
Figure 19-3 is a simplified tree of what the afrocentrists are proposing, where “LCA” is the last common ancestor of
chimps and humans, and Figure 19-4 is a simplified alternative tree that is consistent with Africans having greater genetic
variation.
If both of the assumptions made by the afrocentrists (i.e., Eurasians and Africans are in the same lineage and more
variation = older) are wrong and Eurasians did not evolve from Africans, but from a common ancestor with Africans (LCA), and
the greater variation in African alleles is not due to their greater age, but to the infusion of DNA into Africa from multiple non-
African hominoids who migrated there, 14 then the tree would look like Figure 19-4 (omitting intermediates). In Figure 19-4, the
Eurasians did not descend from Africans and are not younger than Africans; Eurasians just gave Africans some alleles from
time to time, adding to the variation in Africa.
As we shall see in Section IV, the tree of Figure 19-4 is more complicated, but it explains much more than does the
OoA tree.
Chapter 20
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. (Harpending, 1998a). There is also a “50/500” rule of thumb, that at least 50 individuals are needed to begin a new
population and at least 500 to keep it going for a long time. Back
2. OoA postulates that racial differences began only 65,000 ya, but some mtDNA differences between today’s Africans and
Eurasians are older than that, as we shall see, which is not consistent with OoA. Back
3. SNPs that occur in less than 1% of a population are ignored for the purpose of establishing descent as they are considered
random. About 90% of human genetic variations are SNPs; they occur every 100 to 300 nucleotides. (Human Genome Project
Information, “SNP Fact Sheet”). Back
4. That assumption has been questioned because evolution does not always proceed straightforwardly. Also, there are many
problems defining “parsimony” because the time between A-C-G-T changes is not known or considered and changes that took
a very long time or a very short time may be incompatible with some trees. Also, the geographical locations where the A-C-G-
T changes occurred is not known or considered and some of those locations may be too far away from the next step in the
tree; the parsimony techniques gives equal weight to all changes, but some changes were no doubt much more important than
others and critical changes must be in the right place on the tree, even if the tree is not parsimonious. (Schwartz, 2005, pp.
179-181). Back
5. Individuals who have the same haplogroup have interbred and are related. Thus, people in the M haplogroup in Australia
are genetically close to the people in the M haplogroup in India. The Asians in the A, B, C, and D haplogroups are related to
the Amerindians; the Ainu in Japan are also in haplogroup B. The X haplogroup in both Europe and in some Amerindians
shows a relationship between them. Back
6. Henry Gee, a member of the editorial staff for the journal, Nature, described the studies as "garbage." Gee calculated that
the total number of potentially correct parsimonious trees is somewhere in excess of one billion. (Gee, 1992). In a letter to
Science, Mark Stoneking (one of the original researchers) acknowledged that the theory of an "African Eve" had been
invalidated. ("African Eve theory takes a step back," New Scientist, Feb. 15, 1992). Back
7. The coalescence date is not necessarily the date that our species, Hss, began, however, though it may be. Back
8. There are thousands of copies of mtDNA in a cell and only one copy of nuclear DNA, so the chances of finding mtDNA
preserved in old bones is much greater. Back
9. For example, a mutation may occur that is almost neutral and survives for thousands of years with few variations occurring
in it. If the environment changes, e.g., a new disease, a different climate, that mutation may become vital and spread rapidly
throughout the population, greatly increasing the number of people who have it and the number of variations in it. Back
10. “We call into question the use of mtDNA for studies of human evolution.” (Curnoe, 2003). Back
11. “... the gene pool in Africa contains more variation than elsewhere, and the genetic variation found outside of Africa
represents only a subset of that found within the African continent. From a genetic perspective, all humans are therefore
Africans, either residing in Africa or in recent exile.” (Pääbo, 2001). Back
12. “A surprising prediction of introgression [introducing new alleles by interbreeding] is that many genes may have a higher
allelic diversity attributable to archaic introgression in Africa, not Eurasia.” (Hawkes, J., 2006). Also, “mtDNA diversity is
essentially unpredictable and will, in many instances, reflect the time since the last event of selective sweep, rather than
population history and demography.” (Bazin, 2006). I.e., when a mutation is positively selected, nearby alleles “hitchhike”
along with it, so that as the mutation spreads, so do the hitchhiking alleles, thereby reducing variation in the genes of those
alleles.
There is evidence besides greater diversity that afrocentrists could use to support their conclusion that Africans are
older than Eurasians, but the afrocentrists do not rely on it, probably because it is a great embarrassment to them. Living
Africans have alleles that chimpanzees and gorillas have, but Eurasians do not have. (Deka, 1995). This fact may, however,
show not that Africans are older than Eurasians, but that they did not evolve as much as Eurasians – a population that begins
in the tropics and stays there will not evolve as much as a population that begins in the tropics and slowly moves north into a
temperate zone. Back
13. But if Eurasians did not come from a sub-population of Africans and are older, why do Eurasians have less variation? The
answer is given in the next chapter. Back
14. “In Africa three races have intermingled to a certain extent with the negro; the Libyans (Berbers: q.v.) in the Western
Sudan; and the Hamitic races (q.v.) and Arabs (q.v.) in the east.” ("Negro," 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.) There has been so
much infusion of non-Africans into Africa that non-African traits can be found even in fossils in southern Africa. (Chap. 26).
Back
Chapter 20 - Population Differences in MtDNA

“Things are seldom what they seem; skim milk masquerades as cream."
W.S. Gilbert, “A Many Years Ago,” H.M.S. Pinafore
Some of the strongest evidence that the afrocentrists are wrong comes from DNA studies of living people
across the globe. As explained in Chapter 3, most genes have a number of different alleles. Although all the alleles of
a gene are different in their A-C-G-T sequences, several of those alleles may nevertheless code for the same trait
(e.g., several different alleles may code for the same eye color).
Certain alleles are more common in some populations than in others. For example, the allele for blue eyes is
common in Europe, but absent in Africa and Asia. 1 As one would expect, scientists have found that particular alleles
from different genes tend to group together in different populations. In Europeans, the allele for blue eye color, which is
on one gene, is often found with alleles for blond hair, on a different gene. A group of alleles that are inherited together
is a “haplotype,” a group of haplotypes is a “haplogroup,” and a group of haplogroups is a “macrohaplogroup.” 2
There are two mtDNA macrohaplogroups, known as M and N, which include all Eurasians, but very few
Africans. The M macrohaplogroup includes people from India 3 and SE Asia and the N macrohaplogroup includes
Europeans and northern Asians, as well as (extinct) Cro-Magnons. Figure 20-1 answers the question left over from
Footnote 14 in the last chapter, “If Europeans did not come from Africans, why is their mtDNA less varied than
Africans?”
Figure 20-1
In Figure 20-1, time goes from left to right and the number of people alive in Eurasia increases from the bottom
to the top, but population size is very approximate. The arrows entering from the left symbolize the many lineages of
mtDNA haplogroups that different populations living in Eurasia had prior to the eruption of Mt. Toba and the first ice
age. 4 The two population crashes (dips in the curve) were caused by Toba and the two ice ages when large numbers
of Eurasians starved to death. Some people in the M and N macrohaplogroups made it through the ice ages, but
people in other haplogroups did not, resulting in a population “bottleneck” in the trough of the first ice age (and possibly
the second, as well) and leaving the survivors with less variation.
The “coalescence date,” the date that the populations who have the alleles in the M and N macrohaplogroups
began to diverge, has been determined to be about 65,000 ya. 5 The fact that both the M and the N macrohaplogroups
are dated near the trough in the first ice age supports the explanation that the M and N coalescence was the result of
the extinguishment of most mtDNA haplogroups due to Toba and the first ice age. 6
When the ice eventually receded, the survivors, who were in a haplogroup within the M or N
macrohaplogroups, repopulated Asia and Europe. As the populations expanded, mutations occurred, producing other
haplogroups within the M and N macrohaplogroups. 7 The mtDNA of today’s Eurasians has less variation than African
mtDNA not because Eurasians are younger than Africans, but because female Eurasians who had mtDNA that was
not in the M and N macrohaplogroups did not survive the ice ages. 8
The ice age bottlenecks that the Eurasians suffered through 9 had very little affect on tropical Africa. 10 Before
agriculture (about 12,000 ya), the tropics (African and Asian) supported populations that were much greater (per unit
area) than the temperate Eurasian populations, 11 more than enough to account for the higher variations in Africans.
Although there was a severe drought in East Africa from 135 to 75 kya, after about 70 kya Africa became much more
humid and stable, as shown in Figure 20-2. (Scholz, 2007,).
Figure 20-2
The African droughts, however, could not be predicted by the Africans (as Fig. 20-2 suggests, they may have
been caused by eccentricities in the precession of the earth’s orbit), so they could not be planned for as winters could
be in the north, even if the Africans were capable of such planning.
Figure 20-3 is a wonderful tree 12 that shows the evolution of populations inside and outside the M and N
macrohaplogroups.
Figure 20-3
In the tree, “NG” is New Guinea. Note that all of the Europeans are in the N macrohaplogroup. Note that some
of the South Indians, perhaps descended from the Aryans who invaded India, are in proximity to the Southeast Asians,
some of the Pacific Islanders, and some of the Australian aborigines. There are several lineages of Australians in both
the M and N macrohaplogroups, suggesting multiple migrations into Australia by widely-separated populations. (Chap.
27).
No Africans are in either the M or N macrohaplogroup. The lowest branch of Africans (61) is tied directly to the
common ancestor with the chimpanzee at the very bottom of the tree; Africans are the race most closely related to
chimpanzees and the Nigerians (“Ibo,” “Hausa”) are the closest Africans to chimpanzees. 13 Thus, if OoA is correct,
once Africans evolved from an ape into modern humans, they ceased to evolve any further, while Eurasians continued
to evolve farther away from those modern Africans and from our ape ancestor. That would explain how Africans can
be, at the same time, the most primitive, simian race, yet also the first, and only, race to evolve directly all the way
from an ape into a modern human. Section IV, however, presents another explanation that, hopefully, makes more
sense.
Since an individual who is in the M or N macrohaplogroup is modern and those macrohaplogroups originated
(coalesced) about 65,000 ya, long after man became modern 160,000 ya, anyone who was in those groups 65,000 ya
was modern. Therefore, in order for OoA to be correct, the M and N macrohaplogroups must have originated in Africa
where the first modern humans allegedly arose, then were carried out of Africa when those modern Africans left Africa
65,000 ya. If M and N did not originate in Africa, then modern man did not originate in Africa or, at least, only in Africa,
and there was no migration of modern man out of Africa into Eurasia, i.e., OoA collapses.
If M and N originated in Africa, one would expect most of the haplogroups in the M and N macrohaplogroups to
be found in Africans, but there are, in fact, almost none, and those that are found in Africans are in NE Africans (e.g.,
Ethiopia), which is easily accessible from Eurasia. As the fossil skull photos in Chapter 17 (and other evidence to be
presented in Chap. 26) show, there were very likely multiple incursions of Eurasians into NE Africa. The small amount
of alleles in the haplogroups included within M and N that were found in NE Africans is easily explained as being due
to Eurasians crossing over into Africa from the Middle East or from North Africa (the first Egyptians were Caucasian)
and interbreeding with Africans.
Since very few Africans are in macrohaplogroups M and N, it is likely that these macro-haplogroups did not
originate in Africa (Chap. 4, Rule 11), but in Eurasia, which means that modern man was in Eurasia at least 65,000 ya.
In fact, at least one publication claims that most of the haplogroups, and the oldest ones, in the M macrohaplogroup
originated in India, not Africa. “The deep roots [i.e., old age] of M phylogeny [i.e., the evolution of the M
macrohaplogroup] clearly establish the antiquity of Indian lineages, especially M2, as compared to Ethiopian [i.e.,
African] M1 lineage and hence, support an Asian origin of M majorhaplogroup [i.e., macrohaplogroup].” 14 If the M
macrohaplogroup originated in India and some NE Africans are in the M macrohaplogroup, then that is evidence that
the migration was in to Africa (Section IV), not out of Africa.
The afrocentrists’ explanation for the absence of Africans in the M and N macrohaplogroups is that any
Africans who had M or N alleles “lost” them, i.e., they died without living descendants. But if M and N arose in Africa
and the Africans had them, they were very probably beneficial or, at the very least, not harmful, so why would the
Africans who had them die out? Africa was little affected by Toba and there were no disasters in Africa that could have
wiped out populations in the M and N macro-haplogroups, but left populations in other haplogroups intact. The
environment in Africa did not change drastically so as to turn harmless or beneficial alleles in the haplogroups of M
and N into deadly liabilities. Rather than say that those alleles were so advantageous in Eurasia that the people having
them were able to repopulate those two continents, but so deadly that in Africa that anyone having them died, it is far
more likely that no one in Africa had the alleles in M and N until a few Eurasians brought them there.
Furthermore, why is it only in NE Africa, where Eurasians entered Africa multiple times, that traces of M and N
in Africa are found? Under OoA, the fact that different populations fall into different haplogroups is explained as being
due to the Founder Effect, where the first migrants from Africa into a new territory all belong to one tribe in the same
haplogroup. However, this model is difficult to reconcile with the fact that northeastern Africa harbors all of the African-
specific mtDNA lineages. Why, when NE Africa has all the other African-specific mtDNA lineages, did only the Africans
who had M and N lineages, the least common lineages in Africa, allegedly leave Africa and replace all the Eurasians?
15
Also, in going from West Asia to Siberia, haplogroups A, C, D, and G do not gradually merge, but sharply
change, even though the land has no sharp dividers, such as water, deserts, or mountains. That is better explained by
invasion and conquest than by a gradual expansion of founder populations. (Mishmar, 2003).
LM3
Mungo Man (Figure 20-4, a reconstruction) was an “anatomically modern
human” fossil found near Lake Mungo, NSW, Australia. (Adcock, 2001). He was
buried with his hands interlocked and positioned over his crotch, covered in red
ochre.
MtDNA was recovered from Mungo Man (“LM3”), but it did not match the
mtDNA of any living person and differed from modern human mtDNA as much as
Neanderthal mtDNA. 16 (That fact establishes that at least some mitochondrial
variation has been lost from the Eurasian gene pool, which is consistent with Fig.
20-1.) Since Mungo Man is dated at at least 40,000 ya, 17 his mtDNA is the oldest
known mtDNA in the Hss lineage. If every Hss came from Africa, how did the
oldest Hss mtDNA get into a modern Australian who lived 40,000 ya? How did
modern Africans leave Africa 65,000 ya and arrive in Australia only 25,000 yrs
later, and probably sooner, since it is unlikely that Mungo Man was the first
person in Australia who had the LM3 mtDNA? Figure 20-4
The LM3 mtDNA found in 40,000 year old Mungo Man is so similar to an
“insertion” of nuclear DNA on chromosome 11 that is found in some people living today that scientists have concluded
that the nuclear DNA insertion at one time must have been mtDNA. In other words, Mungo Man is descended from an
archaic population that had LM3 mtDNA in it and, in one of the individuals in that population, a highly unique event
occurred – some LM3 mtDNA migrated into the nucleus in an egg that became a reproducing human. Because that
insertion was so unusual, it must have happened to only a single person in that population.
As the years passed, that individual had descendants, some of whom are the people living today who have that
insertion. Other individuals in that same archaic population, who did not have the insertion, also had descendants, 18
some of whom are also still living today alongside those who have the insertion. The insertion is not known to confer
any advantage on those who have it, so it was not positively selected, but just gradually spread from that single
individual through subsequent populations. Today, over half of the Eurasians have it. 19 Although the size of the
archaic population the insertion arose in is not known, it would have had to have been in the thousands in order to be
sustaining, so the insertion went from being in only one person in thousands to being in over half of the Eurasians,
which would have required hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. 20 In other words, the date of the insertion
was long before 65,000 ya, the date that supposedly modern Africans supposedly left Africa.
Mungo Man was Asian and the populations living today in which the majority of people have the insertion are
Eurasian, so it is almost certain that the archaic population in which the insertion occurred was Eurasian, not African
(Chapter 4, Rule 11). And, if that is true, it must also be true that Eurasians did not descend from Africans.
Because Mungo Man’s LM3 mtDNA is unlike any other known mtDNA, afrocentrists claim that it does not
belong to any known macrohaplogroup. However, the mtDNA of most of the people living today who have that nuclear
LM3 insertion are in the N macrohaplogroup, including the living descendants of the original inhabitants of Australia,
e.g., Mungo Man. The only reasonable conclusion is that LM3 is, and always has been, part of the N
macrohaplogroup, which is, and always has been, Eurasian.
Haplogroup X
Mitochondrial haplogroups A, B, C, and D are shared by 95% of Native Americans. Haplogroups A, C, and D
are found in 58% of the Siberians who migrated into the Americas across the Bering Strait. 21 Haplogroup B is found in
people living along the Asian coast who may have come to the Americas later, using boats that followed the coast.
However, a fifth haplogroup, called X, is 21,6000 ± 6000 yrs old (for the X2 version; Reidla, 2003) and is
present in about 20,000 Native Americans living mostly in north central North America; it has also been found in
several pre-Columbian populations. Haplogroup X is also present in European populations (Figure 19-1), but absent in
Asians, except people in southern Siberia (Altaia) who are believed to have come from an area just north of Turkey
and Iran, i.e. Georgia, where georgicus was found (Chap. 24). This suggests that Europeans brought haplogroup X to
the Americas. 22
There is a variety of other evidence that consistently points to the Europeans as the first Americans. At least
one linguist (Swadesh) believes that the Na-Dene Indian language (Algonquian) and the Basque language (between
Spain and France) are related. The native domesticated America dog did not descend from the N. American wolf, but
from the European or Asian wolf.
Radiocarbon tests of carbonized plant sediments in South Carolina (Topper site) showed that artifacts found in
the sediments were at least 50,000 yrs old. (Goodyear, 2004). The artifacts were not the same as more recent (13,000
ya) Clovis artifacts 23 that were made by Asians who crossed the Bering Strait, 24 but were very similar to Solutrean
artifacts. (Bradley, 2004). The Solutreans were hunters and craftsmen who lived along the shores of France and Spain
at a time of maximum glaciation, when the sea level was about 425 feet lower. 25 Boats of hides and other materials
were used, and travel along the northern ice to North America would have been possible. (See migration route in
Figure 19-1, dotted line from (X) in France to (X) in N. America). Figure 20-5 shows the skull and a facial
reconstruction of 10,630 year old Spirit Cave Man found in Nevada, and Figure 20-6 shows the skull and facial
reconstruction of 9300 year old Kennewick Man found in the state of Washington, both of whom are definitely
Caucasian. 26
How likely is it that “modern” Africans left Africa only 65,000 ya, migrated to what is now France, then traveled
across the Atlantic Ocean to what is now South Carolina at least 50,000 ya, when only a few thousand years ago
Africans could not even build boats that would take them to islands just off Africa?
Chapter 21
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. The only other blue-eyed primate is the blue-eyed black lemur in Madagascar. Back
2. There are mitochondrial haplogroups, autosomal (not on the X or Y chromosome) nuclear haplogroups, and Y
chromosome haplogroups, all using some of the same letters. Back
3. (Rajkumar, 2006). The oldest mtDNA in the M macrohaplogroup is found in India and, in the absence of evidence
that it was brought into India, it is reasonable to assume that it arose there (Chap. 4, Rule 11). Since it is in living non-
African Hss, if it did arise in India, the Hss from which those living non-Africans descended were not from Africa, which
refutes OoA. Back
4. Artifacts have been found in India immediately above and below a 2.4 meter thick layer of Toba ash, showing
modern man was in India prior to Toba and survived it. (Petraglia, 2007). Back
5. (Mishmar, 2003), ±12,000 years. Ingman (2003) gives a coalescence date for the N macrohaplogroup of 71,000 ya
and for the M macrohaplogroup of 78,000 ya (both ±12,000 years). Back
6. (Mishmar, 2003). “Collapse into a population bottleneck is one interpretation of positive values of Tajima's D [a
statistical test], reported for some, mostly non-African, populations, on the basis of analyses of autosomal [i.e., not X or
Y chromosome] loci …, with the strongest signature found for eastern Asian populations.” (Harding, 2000). Indeed,
since there was no coalescence of M and N, but a purging of other mtDNA lineages, Eurasians could have had the M
and N macrohaplogroups hundreds of thousands of years before 65,000 ya. Back
7. The migrations due to the first ice age would have brought diverse populations into contact. Interbreeding followed
by selection of the most fit would have also reduced the number of haplogroups. Back
8. (Marth, 2003). The second ice age may have also wiped out some haplogroups. Also, some mtDNA haplogroups
may have died out due to “lineage sorting,” the failure of Eurasian women within those haplogroups to have daughters,
but this loss is less significant. Back
9. Since the populations at that time were less migratory and therefore more inbred than today, the bottleneck may
have had a very disproportionate effect on different populations, killing most or all of some populations and few of
others, thereby significantly reducing variability. A decrease in population size will increase the average IQ of the
surviving population, at least for a time, if more intelligent people can better overcome the selector that is responsible
for the decrease. Back
10. “Analyses of sub-Saharan African populations provide little evidence for a history of population bottlenecks
…” (Garrigan, 2007). Back
11. (Chapter 4, Rule 8). “… long-term effective [population] size was greatest in Sub-Saharan Africa. (Relethford,
1995). Back
12. (Ingman, 2003), reproduced from (Saito, 1987). Back
13. (Deka, 1995). Using Nei's standard genetic distance method, the Nigerian-chimp genetic distance was 1.334 +/-
0.375, by far the closest value. Using the Cavalli-Sforza method, the Sokoto Nigerians were again the closest to
chimps (0.539) by a large margin. Back
14. (Rajkumar, 2006). Although no direct reference claims that the N macrohaplogroup is of Asian origin, its highest
incidence is in Asia. Back
15. “… Northeastern Africa harbors all of the African-specific mtDNA lineages as well as the progenitors of the Eurasia
radiation, yet only two mtDNA lineages (macrohaplogroups M and N) left northeastern Africa to colonize all of
Eurasia…” (Mishmar, 2003). Back
16. “If genuine,… the sequence of Lake Mungo 3 is among the most divergent modern human mtDNAs …” (Caramelli,
2003). Back
17. The age is in dispute (Wikipedia, “Mungo Man”), with one study (Adcock, 2001) giving an age of 62,000 ya. Back
18. Mungo Man’s nuclear DNA has not been analyzed to determine whether or not he had the insertion. Back
19. It is found in 78% of an Amerindian tribe, 68% of Melanesians, 65% of Japanese, and 54% of Europeans, but only
10 to 25% of Africans. (Zischler, 1995). That distribution is consistent with its origination somewhere in Eurasia, with
migration gradually carrying it outward. Back
20. Although the insertion is believed to be ancient, determining its date is not easy. Ronald A. Fonda discusses its
date on his web site under “Australian Ancestry.” Back
21. There was a continuous land bridge between Siberia and Alaska between about 50 and about 38 kya and a
second one between about 25 and 13 kya. (Sykes, 2001, p. 280; Goebel, 2008). Language also ties Siberians to
Amerindians. (Ruhlen, 1998). Back
22. (Brown, 1998; Derenko, 2001; Newman, 1950). Y chromosome data supports a connection between people living
in the Americas and people living in India, who were possibly invaders from Europe. (Underhill, 2001). When later
arrivals are more numerous (or more advanced) they push earlier arrivals away from the entry point. If the later arrivals
entered the Americas across the Bering Strait they would push the earlier arrivals east. Since the Amerindians in
eastern US are more Caucasian in appearance, they either were pushed east or they came from Europe. Also see
http://www.vimeo.com/user331557/videos/sort:date Back
23. Sites in Meadowcroft, Pennsylvania, Cactus Hill, Virginia,, and Monte Verde, Chile also indicate settlements
thousands of years older than Clovis. Also see the DVD documentary, “Ice Age Columbus: Who Were the First
Americans.” Mummies at least 600 years old of the Chachapoyas, "a tall, fairhaired, light-skinned race that some
researchers believe may have come from Europe" were found in a cave in northern Peru. (“Moment 600 years ago
that terror came to the mummies of the Amazon,” Jan. 10, 2007). A virus found in one of those mummies is most
similar to viruses found in today’s Japanese. (Sonada, 2000; Coulthart, 2006). Back
24. Howells (1948, p. 296) describes American Indians as unspecialized Mongoloids, suggesting they either left Asia
prior to the Asian specializations for the cold or, more likely, were not pure Mongoloids but Caucasian-Mongoloid
hybrids; the Eskimos, who are specialized for the cold, left Asian later. Back
25. “The extinction [of the Neanderthals] coincides with the rise of the Solutrean culture.” (Jiménez-Espejo, 2007).
Back
26. (Wikipedia, “Forensic Facial Reconstruction,” BBC News; "Indian Giver,"American Renaissance, Nov., 2004, 15
(11)). “The Indians of New England seem to have been the least mongoloid and most European-looking of any in
appearance, and are fairly well represented by the head on the buffalo nickel.” (Howells, 1948, p. 257; also see
Leonard, R.C., "Atlantians in America"). Back
Chapter 21 - Nuclear DNA

In this chapter, we look at what nuclear DNA has to tell us about human origins.
Humans have about 25,000 genes, each with an average of 14 alleles, so that makes about
350,000 different nuclear DNA alleles. Most alleles occur in more than one population, but the
percentage of individuals in those populations who have them differs. But some alleles are
found only in Europeans, others only in Africans and still others only in Asians. It is highly
unlikely that alleles that are today found only in Europeans, or only in Asians, arose in
Africans. 1 For an allele to have arisen in Africans, be carried by Africans into Europe or Asia,
then die out back in Africa would mean that the allele was initially beneficial in Africa, then
became harmful (or at least neutral) in Africa while still being beneficial in Eurasia, despite
Africa providing a more stable environment.
If a person has a “population-specific” allele, he most likely acquired it from someone in
that population, either because he is a member of that population or because one of his
ancestors was (Chapter 4, Rule 11). There can be entire groups of alleles, some from the
same gene, and others from different genes, that are population-specific. 2
Harding (2000) and others studied the MC1R gene, which influences the pigmentation
of skin and hair, and therefore its color. The allele for red hair and the allele for blond hair are
both found only in Europeans, and Europeans have more alleles for the MC1R gene than do
Africans. Africans have only synonymous alleles 3 of MC1R that all code for eumelanin, a
pigment that produces dark skin and hair. Although Eurasians also have alleles that code for
eumelanin, they don’t have the same alleles for it that the Africans do, plus they also have
many alleles for phenomelanin, a red-gold pigment that produces light skin and hair colors.
Africans lack alleles for phenomelanin because light skin and hair are disadvantageous in
Africa and an African who may have acquired them would have been less likely to survive and
leave progeny.
Thus, the alleles for light skin and hair could not have gotten a foothold in Africa, but
only in a population that had lived in Eurasia, and that had lived there long enough for all the
various alleles that code for light skin and hair to arise. Since the Eurasian alleles were not
strongly positively selected, 4 once those mutations occurred in Eurasia, an additional long
time would have been required for the alleles to spread throughout the population to their
present high frequency. 5 The 65,000 yrs allowed by OoA for these mutations and their spread
to occur is not nearly long enough and afrocentrists exclude the possibility that those mutations
were acquired by interbreeding with indigenous Eurasians who already had them. The number
of different alleles (“polymorphisms”) in the nuclear DNA of present day non-African
populations shows “great time depths,” i.e., they are too many to have resulted from mutations
over a period of only 65,000 yrs. (Eswaran, 2005).
The LCA of Africans and non-Africans for the MC1R gene is about 1 mya, 6 which
means that Africans and non-Africans split into two separate populations at least that long ago,
not 65,000 ya, as held by OoA. Several Eurasian MC1R alleles are 250,000 to 100,000 yrs old,
and the allele for red hair is about 80,000 yrs old, 7 so a Eurasian population must have
existed that had those alleles that long ago. Harding (2000) concludes that, “…an
incompatibility arises between estimated ages in the range of 250,000 – 100,000 years, for
non-African MC1R allelic variation, and ages, from fossil evidence, of ≤100,000 years for the
dispersal of modern humans outside Africa and the Middle East.”
For OoA to be correct, not only must all of the African-specific alleles disappear from all
the Eurasian populations in 65,000 yrs, but a whole new collection of Eurasian-specific alleles
must arise within that time. Although some individual European-specific and Asian-specific
alleles might appear in the huge numbers of people who have those alleles today in less than
65,000 yrs, that is not possible for the entire collection of European and Asian specific alleles.
Thus, either some of those alleles evolved in another species of Homo, such as the
Neanderthals, then entered the Hss lineage by interbreeding less than 65,000 ya or there was
no replacement of Eurasians by Africans and OoA is wrong. There is no evidence that some of
the traits coded for by those alleles were even useful in Eurasians, so there would not have
been strong selection for them 8 and, without strong selection, much more time would have
been required for them to spread throughout the Eurasian population. 9
In fact, there is no plausible model for the conversion of African nuclear DNA into
European and Asian nuclear DNA, and there is no evidence that there ever were Eurasians
who had any African-specific alleles. For example, European and Asian skulls do not show
traits that are unique to African skulls, 10 and traces of African-specific alleles, such as wooly
hair, are not found in modern Eurasians whose ancestors have not interbred with Africans.
Many, even most, of the nuclear alleles that have been globally surveyed arose prior to
even 200,000 ya, before Hs allegedly even arose in Africa. 11 This strongly suggests either
that Eurasians got those alleles by interbreeding with archaic humans or, more likely, that Hss
did not arise in Africa, but in Eurasia.
Haplotypes
Not only are there mtDNA haplotypes, there are also nuclear DNA haplotypes. During
the formation of the egg and sperm, chromosome pairs (one from the father and one from the
mother) are broken up into small pieces, some of the pieces from each parent are
interchanged, then the pieces are recombined to re-form the chromosomes, a process called
“crossover” (p. 26). Small chunks of this nuclear DNA, however, are not broken up into pieces,
but are inherited as chunks, called “haplotypes”; a group of these haplotypes is called a
“haplogroup.” Thus, in this way haplotypes and haplogroups maintain their integrity from
generation to generation the same way that mtDNA from the mother and the Y-chromosome
from the father do, though they all gradually accumulate mutations. There are about 100,000
haplogroups in each individual’s genome and, since haplogroups of different populations
accumulate different mutations, an individual’s race can be determined by checking only the
locations on the DNA where these mutations have occurred.
By comparing similarities and differences in the haplogroups of different populations it
is possible to determine which haplotype is the oldest and estimate how old it is. For example,
there were several versions of a haplotype within the gene PDHA1. The different versions fell
into a tree that branched 1.8 mya, one branch of which branched again 200,000 ya. (Harris,
E.E., 1999; Harding, 1999). But if all humans were a single group in Africa 65,000 ya, as OoA
holds, it would not be possible for there to be humans alive today who have versions of a
haplotype that branched twice before that date, but there are. And this haplotype is only one of
many that contradict OoA. The only way to explain these haplotypes and still retain the basis of
OoA, that man originated in Africa, is to say that the ancient variations were picked up by
interbreeding with other, older species of man, such as Neanderthals in Europe and erectus in
East Asia. However, any significant interbreeding with other species of man would invalidate
an exclusively African origin for modern man.
Haplogroup D
Nuclear haplogroup D is another haplogroup that is a problem for OoA. Haplogroup D,
one of the haplogroups in nuclear macrohaplogroup M, is found in Caucasians and Asians, but
is rare or absent in Africans. The gene microcephalin (MCPH1) on Chromosome 8, which
regulates brain size during development, is one of the genes within this haplogroup.
Haplogroup D is believed to have arisen about 1.1 mya, possibly in the ancestors of
Neanderthals, who may have mated with Hss about 37,000 ya. (Evans, 2006). It is so
advantageous that about 70% of the Eurasians living today have it. 12
Y Chromosome Haplogroups
Before we leave nuclear DNA, let’s look at the nuclear DNA on the Y chromosome.
Since mtDNA is transmitted through the female line, mapping the variations in it in people
across the globe tells us the geographical journeys of women. Similarly, Y chromosome DNA
is transmitted through the male line and tells us where men went. It does not tell the same
story that mtDNA tells because men did much more exploring than women. Men frequently
went to new lands without their women, then mated with native women, so that their
descendants had native mtDNA and the explorers’ Y chromosome DNA. Figure 21-1
(Underhill, 2001) shows the world-wide distribution of different variations of the Y chromosome.
Figure 21-1
The amount of each color in the circles is proportional to the number of men in that
location who had the variation indicated by that color. Note that olive, the major color in Africa,
appears outside of Africa only around the Mediterranean, suggesting that Africans did not
migrate out of Africa, except as slaves taken to those areas. 13 Bright red and dark blue are
unique to Africa, which also suggests that there were no migrations out of Africa; those
variations may have been brought in to Africa by primitive hominoids (Section IV) who died out
elsewhere but whose Y-DNA still continues in Africa.
The orange and yellow European colors indicates that European men lived in the
Middle East, North Africa, Georgia of the former U.S.S.R., 14 India, southeast Asia, Australia,
and North America; where they originated will be discussed in Chapter 24. (The orange and
yellow men may have been members of a single population.) Green is the dominant color in
the Americas, and the small amounts of green in the Old World suggest its origins in Western
Asia, then migrating into northern India and southern Siberia, and possibly the Ainu in Japan.
From the large amounts of pink in eastern Asia one might expect substantial amounts of pink
in the Americas, but it is not there; this suggests that the pink Asians were not inclined to
explore much and that less evolution occurred in the pink Asians than in the orange and yellow
Europeans.
Chapter 22
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. “Subsequent data from the nuclear genome not only fail to support this model [Out-of-
Africa], they do not support any simple model of human demographic history.” (Eswaran,
2005). Back
2. A few examples: The Duffy antigen Fy (a-b-) is very rare among whites, but is found in
nearly all Africans; an allele, 35delG, of the gene GJB2, occurs only in Europeans and Jews;
alleles of genes that provide lactose tolerance and HIV resistance are rare outside Europe
(Libert, 1998); certain alleles that cause a number of diseases are found almost exclusively
among Ashkenazi Jews. Also see (Hinds, 2006). Back
3. I.e., the alleles have different A-C-G-T sequences, but code for the same polypeptide. See
Appendix. Back
4. The afrocentrists argue that the Eurasian alleles spread quickly throughout the Eurasian
population because they were strongly selected, but no evidence for strong selection was
found. “For many European and Asian individuals, variant MC1R alleles contribute to both
lighter skin color and sun sensitivity. However, we found no statistical evidence that MC1R
diversity [i.e., the large number of alleles in Eurasians] has been enhanced by selection, either
in its apparently high levels or in its haplotype frequency distribution patterns.” That is, there
was no evidence that having those alleles was advantageous. Back
5. Harding (2000) calculates that it took at least a hundred thousand years, and possibly more
than twice that long, for just one of these alleles to reach its current frequency. Back
6. “Both African and non-African data suggest that the time to the most recent common
ancestor is ~1 million years …” (Harding, 2000). Back
7. “These estimates suggest that the MC1R variants Val60Leu, Val92Met, and Arg163Gln may
trace back to ancestors in Eurasian populations existing 250,000 - 100,000 years ago. … For
the European red hair-associated Arg151cys and Arg160Trp variants, we estimate an age of
~80,000 years;” (Harding, 2000). Back
8. The traditional test for selection (Tajima’s D statistics; Tajima, 1989) does not show strong
selection. (Harding, 2000). Other tests for selection have not been useful as they show too
many other alleles being strongly selected. Back
9. The 7R allele of the CG4 gene is a good example. It appeared in the Hss lineage perhaps
only 50,000 ya, but it would have taken many times as long for its ancestral allele to evolve,
step by step, through all of its several intermediate forms and become the 7R form. Back
10. Except the Grimaldi skeletons, discussed in Chapter 26. Back
11. E.g., b-globin, MC1R, PDHA1, Dys44, Y-chromosome haplotypes, etc. Back
12. Percentages are likely higher in Europe and north Asia and lower in southern Asia. Back
13. A small number of Africans were even brought into India as slaves; they were later freed
and are now called “Sidis.” Back
14. Note the great diversity of Y-DNA in Georgia, which suggests considerable evolution took
place there, which will be discussed in Chapter 24. Back
Chapter 22 - Replacement
“According to this model [OoA], as modern populations migrated out of Africa and grew in
numbers, they completely replaced existing premodern populations."
(Leakey, 1994, p. 96)
The idea of replacement is that more adapted populations replace less adapted
populations. That is entirely reasonable, and replacement in that sense has undoubtedly
occurred for billions of years. However, the longer a population lives in an environment, the
more adapted it becomes to that environment and the more superior the adaptations of
another population have to be in order to replace it.
The OoA theory of the origin of modern man holds that modern man (Hss) arose in
Africa, then migrated into Europe and Asian, “replacing” all the more primitive Eurasian
species of man, e.g., erectus, who had lived there for well over a million years, and the
Neanderthals, who had lived there for about 350,000 yrs. But erectus was different in different
territories, and those same differences appear in the modern men in those territories who
supposedly came from Africa and “replaced” erectus. Thus, for example, the improbable OoA
scenario requires the Asian erectus, with his shoveled incisors, to be forced into extinction by
modern Africans, who lacked shoveled incisors, but managed to evolve them once they arrived
in Asia. A better explanation is that the Asian erectus did not go extinct because it was
replaced by modern Africans, it went extinct because it became modern Asians, right where it
was – in Asia – and its descendants kept their shoveled incisors.
According to OoA, the supposedly modern Africans who supposedly migrated into
Eurasia did not, for the most part, interbreed with indigenous Eurasians and absorb them. No,
those primitive indigenous Eurasians just could not compete with the superior modern
Africans, and they starved, died from disease, or those modern Africans killed them off. At any
rate, so the OoA story goes, primitive Eurasians disappeared from Eurasia and modern
Africans appeared, then those modern Africans evolved into today’s modern Asians and
Europeans.
The replacement of Eurasian indigenous species by Africans is an essential part of the
OoA theory because, if there was no replacement, then modern Eurasians must have evolved
somewhere other than in Africa and the whole OoA theory falls apart. The reader may be
wondering how anyone could believe such a story, but that is the dominant view throughout
the sciences and the media. Let’s examine it more closely.
The African Migrants

What would these Africans, who allegedly replaced all of the indigenous Europeans
and Asians 65,000 ya, have been like? Were they already like today’s Asians, neotenic, storing
fat evenly all over their bodies, white skinned, and flat faced? African adults today do not store
fat uniformly over their bodies as babies do, nor is there any need to when one is living in the
tropics and there is little danger from the cold, particularly for an adult. Indeed, the uniform
storage of fat in the tropics would be maladaptive, because in the hot sun of the day it would
prevent the dissipation of heat and lead to hyperthermia, especially during times of great
activity, such as hunting or fighting. Losing traits that are advantageous in Africa before leaving
Africa, is not reasonable, and it is safe to conclude that the African migrants would not have
lost their African traits until many thousands of years after they had settled in to their new
Eurasian home.
How would the first modern men, Hss, who allegedly arose in Africa, have been
different from their immediate African Hs ancestor? The Hs African ancestor of an African Hss
would have been somewhat less primitive than the African erectus, but well adapted to live in
the tropics of Africa. Since these Hss Africans were the first modern humans on the planet,
they would have been superior to all the indigenous Hs Africans and would have replaced
them before they left Africa and started replacing Eurasians. In order for African Hss to be
more successful than his archaic Hs predecessors, so that he could replace them, he would
have had to have retained all of the traits that his Hs predecessors had that were
advantageous in Africa, and he probably retained most of the neutral traits as well. Since he
was still living in the same environment as his predecessor, there were no strong selection
pressures, which means that he would have been very similar to his predecessor.
If we compare a skull of today’s Africans (Figures 9-3 & 9-4), who live in the same
environment, to Kabwe, a 125,000 to 300,000 BP archaic African skull (Figure 17-5), we can
see the direction of any changes. This comparison suggests that if the first modern man, Hss,
arose in Africa, he would fall somewhere in between those two skulls, and would be more
primitive than today’s Africans, having a smaller brain, more sloping forehead, larger teeth, a
more protruding jaw, and more noticeable traces of a saggital keel. Since tropically-adapted
traits (e.g., dark skin, short black wooly hair, little body hair) likely evolved long ago and today’s
Africans have these traits, the first modern Africans probably also had them.
Now, if it can be shown that today’s Africans could not have evolved into today’s
Eurasians in only 65,000 yrs, then all the more so the more primitive Africans of 65,000 ya
could not have done so. Afrocentrists would not want to argue that Africans 65,000 ya were
more modern than today’s Africans, as that would mean that the Africans who drove all the
Eurasians to extinction became even more advanced in Eurasia while some of those same
modern Africans, who stayed behind in African, became less advanced. So, if a significant
number of today’s Africans do not have modern hard and soft tissue, behavioral, and other
traits (especially neutral traits), neither did the first modern Africans who supposedly evolved in
Africa and then replaced everyone in Eurasia. The reader can refer back to Section II,
particularly Chapters 16 and 18, to see just how primitive today’s Africans are. Since today’s
Africans are not modern, Africans 65,000 ya, must have been even less modern and the OoA
position that modern man arose in Africa is false.
In addition to having primitive body features, today’s Africans have failed to build, or
even maintain, working civilizations, even with the example of the West to work from and
hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid. Why? Because they lack the most important trait
required to create civilizations – a brain of high intelligence that plans for the future and does
not demand instant gratification. But, against all reason, OoA supposes that 65,000 ya
Africans, who were even more primitive, were nevertheless more advanced than the people
living in Eurasia at that time, though Eurasian tools and weapons from those times do not
support that contention. Superiority is a necessary supposition because, unless a primitive
population vastly outnumbers a more advanced population, it cannot defeat them in battle,
particularly when they are defending their home territory. For example, in the Rorke’s Drift
battle of the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War in South Africa, 150 to 155 British troops and volunteers
held off 4000 Zulu warriors, hardly what one would expect from a race that supposedly
conquered all of Eurasia. 1
An immigrating population usually does not invade the territory of an indigenous
population by violent conquest, as Genghis Khan’s hordes did, but rather it expands and
bumps up against them for many generations, gradually absorbing some and pushing others
out. Even a gradual takeover is usually possible only if the incoming population is superior at
acquiring food in the new territory. But to replace everyone in Eurasia by that method would
require much longer than 65,000 yrs and, given the traits that Africans 65,000 ya would have
had, it is extremely unlikely that they would be superior at finding food in continents they were
unfamiliar with, even if the Eurasians were more primitive. Moreover, it is very unlikely that
Eurasians would have welcomed Africans into their territory, so a gradual, peaceful
replacement would not have been possible. But for a tribe of Africans to trek all the way from
Africa to SE Asia, then conquer a no doubt more numerous population defending its home
territory, is even more impossible.
Finally, let us not forget that Toba erupted 73,000 ya and that the first ice age lasted
from about 73,000 ya to about 55,000 ya, so 65,000 ya was hardly an opportune time to
invade Eurasia. Large numbers of Eurasians would be migrating south, some into Africa, at the
very time that these dauntless, tropically-adapted Africans were allegedly elbowing past them
in order to reach the now-abandoned land of ice and snow.
Indigenous Eurasians
The OoA story
continues that after African
Hss spread over most of
Africa, they moved into the
Near East 90,000 ya,
Australia by at least 50,000
ya, and Europe by 40,000
ya. 2 All of that territory was
already inhabited, very likely
to its carrying capacity, by
various varieties of Homo.
Erectus had been living in
West Asia since at least 1.8
mya (georgicus) and also
Figure 22-1
about that long ago in SE
Asia (Java Man).
The Neanderthals were living in Europe and western Asia from about 350,000 ya to
about 24,500 ya. Figure 22-1 is a map showing the range of the Neanderthals. 3 Although the
map shows that Neanderthals did not venture into Africa (though their predecessor, Heidi, did),
it would be more accurate to say that no Neanderthal remains have yet been found in Africa.
Since the Neanderthals did not go extinct until 24,500 ya, there were still plenty of
Neanderthals around for those modern Africans to replace 65,000 ya. The Neanderthals in
Europe were large, stocky, highly-muscled, big-brained, well adapted to the environment and
colder weather, in possession of tools and weapons and, no doubt, fierce. Heidi, the
predecessor of the Neanderthals, possessed aerodynamic (forward weighted) spears dating
back to 400,000 ya in Germany (Thieme, 1997), so his Neanderthal descendants would have
had them also.
Figure 22-2 is a comparison of a
Neanderthal skeleton with a modern
Caucasian skeleton. The reader can no
doubt discern which is which. One glance at
those skeletons should be enough to
convince anyone that Africans did not
invade Europe and replace the
4
Neanderthals. And Asia, according to OoA,
was filled with erectus, who would not have
welcomed Africans 65,000 ya any more than
Asians would today. There are no
Neanderthal or Eurasian erectus skeletons
with African spears in them, nor have any
African artifacts been found in Eurasia.

One might also wonder what the
primitive Asians who were replaced by those
modern Africans might have been like. Well,
it was not just the Neanderthals who were
large and strong. Jinniushan, a fossil found
in China (Figure 17-9), was that of a 5’ 5 ½”
tall, 173 pound woman, so you can imagine
the size of the men. And we have a living
example of what some of them may have
been like. Figure 22-3 is Nicolai Valuev, the
7 foot, ¼ inch (214 cm) tall, 330 pound
Russian Heavyweight Champion, known as
“The Beast from the East.”
Note the
heavy brow ridges
that extend
completely across
his forehead, and
how much his
forehead slopes,
both Neanderthal
traits. 5 Valuev is
clearly an atavism
Figure 22-3 (see Bassou on
page 13), which
suggests:
(1) At least a portion of Eurasia was Figure 22-2
previously inhabited by people who had the
primitive traits that Valuev has; and
(2) Those people did not have African traits, such as wooly hair, black skin, or simian
prognathism, i.e., Eurasians are not the descendants of Africans.
The replacement (called a “sweep”) postulated by OoA of indigenous archaic species in
Eurasia by African Hss who migrated into their territory means that the African migrants did not
interbreed with the archaic species and did not pick up genetic material from them (a “clean
sweep”). Given the hypersexuality of today’s Africans (Chapter 11), that alone is hard to
believe. The Africans either were just better adapted to their new Eurasian environment than
the indigenous Eurasians who had lived there for at least 1.8 million years (e.g., georgicus), or
they were superior fighters and were able to kill them off, resisting the temptation to mate with
Eurasian women (!!!), despite the indigenous humans having larger brains, superior weapons
and tools, heavier and stronger bodies, intimate knowledge of their own territory, and no doubt
a willingness to defend it to the death. And we know that not all of the indigenous humans
could have been wiped out by Africans because Neanderthals were still living alongside
Caucasians in Europe 24,500 ya. 6 Thus, OoA is wrong in saying that Africans replaced
indigenous Eurasian species of Homo when they migrated out of Africa 65,000 ya, because
they certainly did not replace the Neanderthals.
It is not likely that the Africans could have brought a deadly disease with them that
wiped out indigenous Europeans because many deadly African diseases, such as malaria 7
and sleeping sickness, are caused or carried by parasites (e.g., mosquitoes and the Tsetse fly)
that would have been left behind in tropical Africa. Even the viruses in Africa usually come
from an animal host (e.g., apes and monkeys) that would have been left behind. Besides, at
that time people were not crowded into cities, so it would have been difficult for even a head
cold to spread. And deadly viruses and bacteria usually mutate to become less deadly,
because the deadlier microbes die with their hosts.
Interbreeding with Indigenous Man

Because interbreeding weakens the entire case for Africa being the birthplace of
modern man, the afrocentrists initially insisted that there was no interbreeding between the
newly-arrived Africans and indigenous Eurasians. Indeed, until recently there was not much
evidence of interbreeding between Hss and archaics. Now we know that there was even
successful interbreeding between the Pan (chimpanzee) and Homo (man) lineages.
(Patterson, 2006). The ancient traits that today’s Eurasians have and today’s Africans don’t
have would have to have come from a northern archaic species (e.g., Neanderthals, erectus),
making that species, not Africans, an important ancestor of modern Eurasians.
However, if all modern humans in fact came from Africa, then today’s Eurasians should
be free of non-African archaic mtDNA and nuclear DNA. Since afrocentrists concede that such
DNA would require at least some interbreeding, its discovery in Eurasians (Chap. 20, 21 & 25)
has forced afrocentrists to reluctantly give ground 8 and concede that some interbreeding may
have occurred. Not enough, of course, to refute the essence of OoA, that modern man arose in
Africa, but enough to account for the ancient non-African DNA that has been found in
Eurasians. The publisher of this concession says, however, that “as much as 80% of nuclear
loci have assimilated genetic material from non-African archaic humans,” 9 so it seems that
“some” is a sizable amount. Other papers 10 concede there was never any “replacement” of
Eurasian archaics because archaic Eurasian alleles were found at 80% of the locations along
the DNA chains that were studied, which means that Eurasians must have interbred with the
archaic humans who were already living there. And an afrocentrist said, "I set up a null
hypothesis and the program rejected that hypothesis using the new data with a probability level
of 10 to the minus 17th. In science, you don't get any more conclusive than that. It says that the
hypothesis of no interbreeding is so grossly incompatible with the data, that you can reject
it." (Templeton, 2005). Most of these non-African archaic Eurasian alleles are very old, much
older than 65,000 ya, when replacement supposedly began.
Losing African Alleles

Alleles, especially alleles that are not strongly negatively selected, do not disappear
quickly. 11 The ancestors of snakes stopped walking about 100 mya and the ancestors of
whales left the land about 50 mya, but some snakes and whales still have vestigial legs.
Australian aborigines have characteristics that the 1.8 million year old Java man had. Today’s
East Asians still have the flat face and high cheekbones that Peking Man had ½ mya. Alleles
can be lost rapidly if they code for traits that are a disadvantage, but if they code for a neutral
trait, they may be retained for millions of years. 12 Male nipples, which have very likely been
around since the first mammals about 200 mya, are useless, but are still there. Our ancestors
became bipedal at least 10 mya, but we still have useless toenails. 13 Yet, under OoA,
Africans lost all vestiges of their African traits in only 65,000 yrs.
Had Africans actually evolved into Eurasians, one would expect at least a few
Eurasians to still have at least a few African-specific alleles, but even African alleles that code
for neutral traits, such as hair and eye color, that egalitarians tell us are “trivial,” are absent. 14
“There are no distinct African features in early modern Europeans. We cannot point to specific
features and say these are African features." 15 The only Eurasians who have African alleles
are those whose ancestors imported African slaves. The absence of African-specific alleles in
the Eurasian population is strong evidence that replacement did not occur.
Moreover, many Eurasian alleles, such as blue and green eyes, blond and red hair,
and straight and wavy hair, are recessive to the corresponding dominant African alleles, so
both Eurasian parents must have the allele that codes for the Eurasian recessive trait in order
for it to be expressed. Thus, it would be especially difficult for those recessive alleles to evolve
and spread through the invading African population that, allegedly, replaced the indigenous
European population.
Even if an African loses an African-specific allele, it does not mean that he will be left
with the corresponding Eurasian allele. For example, if an African loses the allele for black
skin, he does not acquire the white skin of a Eurasian, but becomes an albino, because he
does not have the Eurasian allele for white skin – all of the African alleles for skin color code
for black skin color, 16 so losing all those alleles leaves no color at all, not Eurasian white skin.
Similarly, if an African loses the allele for dark eyes he is left with a colorless iris, not blue or
green eyes. The proposed trek out of Africa and into Eurasia would have taken tens of
thousands of years, during which time people who had lost their African-specific traits would
have been at a severe disadvantage until advantageous mutations had occurred that gave
them all the Eurasian-specific alleles.
Surely the Africans who migrated to malaria-
infested India must have retained their African alleles
for sickle cell resistance, as those alleles would be
as beneficial there as in Africa? Nope. (Nagel, 1992).
Only Eurasians whose ancestors imported African
slaves have those Africa alleles. Figure 22-4
(Kulozik, 1986) shows four haplotypes for sickle cell
resistance, three of which (circle, diamond, and
square) are found in Africa (the circle one is also
found in African Americans and Caribbean Africans),
and one (triangle) that is found in India and the
eastern oases of Saudi Arabia, but not in Africa.
When the alleged African migrants stepped
onto Eurasian soil, they would have first moved into
tropical Asia, an area for which they would be most
adapted. There, in an environment similar to their Figure 22-4
African homeland, they would not have evolved much at all. Thus, the indigenous people, the
aborigines, who today occupy the topical areas of Asia, should look very much like the
migrating Africans of 65,000 ya. And, indeed, the Negritos of the South Pacific do have some
African features (Figure 27-7); they have even been called “Oceanic Negroes.” Unfortunately
for OoA, they are actually the people most genetically unrelated to Africans. 17
Australian aborigines have occupied Australia for at least 50,000 yrs. If those African
migrants were anything like today’s east Africans, they would have excelled at long distance
running, but would have been poor swimmers and boat makers. Though it is possible, 18 it
would have been difficult for them to make that long Africa-to-Australia journey following the
Asian coastline, crossing rivers that flowed into the sea, in the 15,000 yrs between 65,000 ya
and 50,000 ya. The Australian aborigines who supposedly descended from those migrating
Africans should look a lot like them. Unfortunately also for OoA, at least some of them look
much more like primitive Caucasians (Fig. 22-5).
The afrocentrists could
say that the aborigines were the
only people not replaced by the
migrating Africans, but then the
aborigines would be un-

egalitarianly un-modern. Maybe
they could say the aborigines
evolved from the African
erectus that left Africa 2 mya
and became modern on their
own (though they are not
modern), without being replaced
by Africans. No, then someone
might wonder why all the other
Eurasian erectus did not do that
as well.
Acquiring Eurasian Alleles

After tens of thousands
of years, as the tropical areas of
Eurasia approached carrying Figure 22-5
capacity, the allegedly modern African migrants would have moved north and would have
begun to evolve cold-adapted traits. This means that, in an impossibly short 65,000 yrs, they
lost all the alleles for the African traits described in Section II and evolved all the alleles for the
European and Asian traits described in Section II. The new nuclear DNA mutations included
not only eye and hair color and type, but also skull shape, skull capacity, and hundreds, if not
thousands, of other traits. Intelligence, as measured by IQ, would have had to have increased
by more than two standard deviations, from 67 (and it may have been still lower 65,000 ya) to
over 100.
To evolve just one trait, a trait that was strongly selected for in the cold north, such as a
stockier body to reduce heat loss, within that time period would be unlikely. But to evolve each
and every one of those traits, even traits for which there was little or no selection, within that
time period, is not possible, even for neutral traits. That would have easily required well over a
million years, and could never have occurred in only 65,000 yrs. 19
Let us not forget that we know from fossils, cave drawings, and artifacts that Eurasians
had at least some of those Eurasian traits for tens of thousands of years, further shortening the
time needed to lose African traits and then evolve Eurasian traits. For example, the Cro-
Magnons, the immediate predecessor of Caucasians, who had a skull almost the same as
today’s Caucasians, were living in Europe 32,000 ya, so if Africans left Africa 65,000 ya, they
had only 33,000 yrs to evolve the African skull (more primitive than Figures 9-3 & 9-4) into the
Cro-Magnon skull (Figure 2-9), which is not believable.
Also, some African traits are specialized for the African environment, but the
corresponding Eurasian trait is generalized. For example, to keep the brain cool, African hair is
specialized by its shortness, cross-sectional flatness, and the absence of a central duct, which
makes it wooly. European and Asian hair is not adapted to serve such a special function and
therefore is more generalized. Evolution usually proceeds from generalized to specialized, not
the reverse (Chapter 4, Rule 3), and therefore Eurasians would not have evolved from
Africans. 20
If OoA is correct and some Africans who evolved into Homo sapiens sapiens left Africa
65,000 ya, then the Africans who remained in Africa should not have any traits that are
adaptive in Eurasia, but are maladaptive or neutral in Africa. But they do. The fact that Africans
have a nose supported by external nose bones suggests migrations of early man into Africa. In
the tropics, where the air is warm, there is no need for nose bones to support a large nose to
warm the air, and apes do not have them. The nose also moistens the air, but Australopithecus
and very early man in Africa walked the savannah when it was dry and managed to do so
without external nose bones. Thus, there would be no positive selection for nose bones in the
tropics, even where it was dry, and Africans today would not have nose bones had the alleles
for nose bones not been brought into Africa by Eurasian hominids who had them. The large
size of Africans also suggests the migration of northerners into Africa because, according to
Bergmann’s Rule, Africans should be small; all pygmies and Negritos are tropical and small
(Figure 27-3 & Figure 27-7) and Australopithecus, from which humans are believed to have
evolved, were small (between 3'6" and 5'0"); the Hobbits were also small. According to
evolution, man did not magically appear on this planet out of nowhere – he descended from a
non-human animal and that animal was an ape. Of all the animals on this planet, living and
extinct, man is most similar, genetically, anatomically, physiologically, and behaviorally, to the
living great apes – chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Therefore, although man probably
has a common ancestor with every living creature on this planet, his common ancestor with the
great apes is more recent than his common ancestor with any other living animal, and
therefore our most recent common ancestor was almost certainly an ape. This means that all
races descended from an ape; every one of us traces our ancestry back to an ape.
During the time between when that ape ancestor lived and today, the lineage of every
population has evolved. Whose lineage has evolved the most away from our ape ancestor?
Would it be the Africans, the people who lived for that entire time in the same environment that
our ape ancestor lived, or would it be the Eurasians, the people who OoA says left that
environment and migrated to a very different environment? Even the afrocentrists have to
concede that people in Eurasia would have evolved more than the people in Africa, and
modern genetics confirms that Africans are mostly closely related to the living apes. This
means that even if the people in Eurasia originally came from Africa, today’s Africans, whose
ancestors did not leave Africa, must have evolved less away from that ape ancestor than those
Africans who left Africa. 21 That, by itself, casts serious doubt on egalitarianism – everyone
cannot be genetically the same when some people are more simian than others.
OoE also says that man evolved from an ape ancestor and, since today’s apes live
mostly in a tropical climate, that ape ancestor most likely lived in a tropical climate, so OoE and
OoA are in agreement that man began in a climate that was at least warm, if not tropical, then
some of our ancestors left that climate for the very different northern Eurasian environment.
Whether that warm climate was in Africa or in Asia (e.g., India) and when that ancestor left it
are the issues. OoA says our ape ancestor lived in Africa; OoE says it lived in Eurasia. OoA
says our ancestors left only after they had evolved into Homo sapiens sapiens, about 65,000
ya. OoE says our ancestors left while they were still apes, over 2 mya (and it is possible that
they never lived in Africa - Chap. 23).
To summarize Section III, OoA fails on every front; it is a testament only to the power of
egalitarianism to corrupt science. Now we examine OoE.
Section IV
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. (Kemp, 2006, pp. 444-445). "Britain is said to have conquered 100-million people in the
Indian sub-continent with 800 soldiers and 2000 Indian auxiliaries." (Roodt, D., "You Can’t
Have Your Banana and Eat It," Barely a Blog, Apr.1, 2005). Back
2. (BBC, Feb. 27, 2007). A Near East date of 90,000 ya is required to account for modern
fossils found in Israel. The date is not consistent with the migration date of 65,000 ya, so the
afrocentrists say that that migration failed. Back
3. (Richard Klein, National Geographic). The range has recently been extended to include
southern Siberia. (Krause, 2007a). Back
4. Figure 22-2 is actually a bit misleading because the average Neanderthal was shorter than
the average modern Caucasian. Neanderthal = 5'6", 142 lbs; human = 5'9", 172 lbs. (Carey,
B., "Scientists Build 'Frankenstein' Neanderthal Skeleton," Live Science, Mar. 10, 2005). The
larger, stocker size of the Neanderthal skeleton is an example of Bergmann's Rule, that a
species is usually larger in a colder climate as a larger body has less surface area per unit
volume, so the body loses less heat per unit volume. Bergmann’s Rule is due to a relationship
known as Kleiber's Law, which holds that as body weight increases, energy requirements
decrease as the 0.75 power of body weight. (Lewin, 1998, p. 152). Invading Africans would
have been significantly smaller and weaker (a greater height/width ratio) than non-tropical
Eurasians. Back
5. OoA proponents would have to take the position that Valuev is a descendant of Africans but,
even though he has primitive traits, he has no distinctly African primitive traits. “[I]f one looked
long and hard enough through the skeletal collections of the world’s natural-history museums,
one could find the occasional present-day human with a Neanderthal … feature.” (Schwartz,
1999, p. 157). Back
6. And Java Man, an erectus in Asia, lived until 27,000 ya. Back
7. Also, the Asian alleles for sickle cell anemia, which confers resistance to malaria, are
different from the African alleles. (See Fig. 22-4). Back
8. (Eswaran, 2005). Others have also proposed models intermediate between the strict OoA
and the Multiregional models. (Smith, 1985; Relethford, 2001; Templeton, 2002). Back
9. (Eswaran, 2005). That is, 80% of the loci may have some archaic admixture, not that the
human genome is 80% archaic. Back
10. (Harpending, 1998b & 2002; Templeton, 2002). Back
11. Alleles that code for primitive traits are usually switched off, not lost, where “lost” means
mutated so that a second mutation is required to reintroduce them (Chap. 3) or lineage sorting,
where those who had them had no descendants. In long term evolution (millions of years) the
loss of alleles is important (Spinney, L., New Scientist, “Evolution: hacking back the tree of
life,” June 13, 2007), but other than the massive number of deaths during the ice ages and the
Black Plague, loss is unlikely to play an important role in the evolution of modern man, as the
time period was too short. And, if African alleles were not “lost,” but turned off, they should
occasionally be turned on again, resulting in Eurasian parents having babies with Negroid
traits, but that does not happen, which is good evidence that Eurasians did not evolve from
Africans. Back
12. “In a large population, a neutral or indifferent mutation will not ordinarily spread rapidly, nor
will it necessarily be lost. It can be expected, all else being equal, to maintain a low frequency
in a large gene pool.” (Coon, 1962, p. 47). Back
13. Other examples in humans include the coccyx (tailbone) and the appendix, though the
appendix may serve as a safe haven for beneficial bacteria. (Science Daily, "Appendix Isn't
Useless At All," Oct. 8, 2007). Back
14. When hairless tropical hominids began moving north out of the tropics, they would be
under selection pressure to lose the melanin in their skin so their bodies could make enough
vitamin D; this would be true whether or not they originated in Africa. (Kappelman, 2008). Back
15. Fred H. Smith, Professor and Chair, Department of Anthropology, Loyola University of
Chicago, personal email to the author. Back
16. “…any diversion from eumelanin production (black pigmentation) appears to be

evolutionarily deleterious” in Africa, but is neutral outside of Africa. (Harding, 2000). Back
17. (Table 7-1). Nevertheless, “the ancestral allele associated with dark pigmentation has a
shared high frequency in sub-Saharan African and Island Melanesians. ” (Norton, 2006). The
African-Negrito connection is discussed in Chapter 26. Back
18. “The migration from southwestern Asia [i.e., India] to Australia would have taken <5,200
years at 95% confidence, assuming a Poisson mutation process.” (Hudjashova, 2007). Back
19. Here is a thought experiment for the reader. It is 65,000 ya and there are no Eurasians.
Could you take a few thousand Congoids, the Africans who today have the least amount of
Eurasian heritage, reproductively isolate them in Eurasia, selectively mate as you wish to,
within 65,000 yrs, produce today’s Asian and European races? If not, then natural selection,
which would have been far less effective, could not have done so either. Back
20. Note in Section II, that as to most traits Caucasians are in between Africans and
Mongoloids, which is expected since whites are more generalized than both tropics-specialized
blacks and cold-specialized Asians; Australian Aborigines are both the most generalized
people and the most primitive people. (Howells, 1948, p. 221). Thus, according to Rule 3
(Chap. 4), that generalized → specialized, all three races could have descended from an
Australian Aborigine type, but whites could not have descended from Africans or Asians. Back
21. An interesting way to illustrate this would be to enter the faces of a Congoid, a European,
and a NE Asian into a computer and count the number of steps required to morph each of
them into the face of an ape (or vice versa). Back
Section IV Page 1 of 8
SECTION IV
The Out-of-Eurasia Theory
Figure IV-1
http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/SecIV.html 07/09/2009
The reader should be convinced that OoA is just plain wrong. An alternative theory, Out-
of-Eurasia (OoE) is proposed; Figure IV-1 gives the OoE tree. 1 Dotted lines indicate that the
genetic contribution was minor; “Hn” is the Neanderthals, “He“ is Homo erectus, and “Aus” is
Australopithecus. Lines are not proportional to time and dates are approximate. 2
If it were possible to draw a tree that showed man’s actual evolution proportional to the
time that had passed, and the names of all known living and fossil primates were pasted onto
that tree, almost all of the names of extinct species would be at the tips of small branches (i.e.,
dead ends), and the trunk and major branches of the tree would be bare (i.e., fossils that lie in
the lineage of later species have not been found). Also, at any given time there would be
several branches in existence, so that several species and races would co-exist, but usually not
in the same location. Thus, the species named in Figure IV-1 are probably on branches that are
not in our lineage, and are just examples of what the species in our lineage may have been like.
The OoE tree is very different from the OoA tree (Figure III-1). In the OoA tree,
beginning with a primitive primate, which probably lived in Africa, there was an early expansion
of erectus out of Africa, then man evolved from erectus into modern man entirely within Africa
until 65,000 ya, when modern Africans left Africa, replaced non-modern Eurasian Homo
species, and evolved into today’s Asians, who then evolved into today’s Europeans.
The OoE tree also begins with a primitive primate, 3 but in Asia, not Africa, and the
African, Neanderthal, Caucasian, and Asian lineages split over 2 mya. 4 In OoA, the Africans
evolved without any contact or help from any Eurasian hominoid, but in OoE Africans evolved
very little on their own, and advanced primarily by receiving multiple infusions of Eurasian
alleles as a result of interbreeding with more evolved Eurasian hominoids who migrated multiple
times in to Africa. Thus, in OoE, there were (at least) four races of Australopithecus before man,
Homo, evolved, and those races evolved into the races we see today. 5 Although OoA holds
that Europeans evolved from Asian migrants into Europe about 46,000 ya, OoE holds that
Europeans and Asians evolved separately all the way back to Australopithecus 6 over 2 mya,
though with significant interbreeding. Also, in OoE there has been some interbreeding between
Europeans and Neanderthals but, at least until recently, OoA held that there was no
interbreeding.
Although OoA takes the egalitarian view that all the people alive today are modern
7
(Hss), under OoE, some s-S Africans and South Pacific aborigines are Hss-erectus hybrids,
archaic Hs, or even late erectus.
Intelligence-Enhancing Processes
Man is distinguished from all other animals by his disproportionately large brain and high
intelligence. Any theory of human origins must explain which environmental factors selected for
greater intelligence, from a primitive primate to modern man, at every major advance towards
becoming a modern human. A theory of human origins must explain why greater intelligence
was selected for at each step of the way, so that more intelligent individuals had greater
reproductive success; one cannot simply assume that greater intelligence is always adaptive; it
is not (Chapter 14, Intelligence as a Liability).
Every population asymptotically approaches a mixture of traits in which there is a
balance of the amount of each trait so that every trait, including intelligence, is at its optimal
amount in that mixture for that population, in that environment. If intelligence in man’s lineage
constantly increased, as it did until recently, then the optimal amount 8 of intelligence must have
constantly increased, which means that the payoff in reproductive success for having greater
intelligence must have constantly increased, which means that the environment must have
constantly become more mentally challenging.
As shown in Figure IV-2, the

ancestors of man were subjected to
a series of environmental changes,
each of which resulted in a more
mentally challenging environment
that required more complex
behavior; as a result, the optimal
intelligence increased. Those
individuals who were more intelligent
were better able to engage in that
complex behavior and obtain the
resources needed for greater
reproductive success, passing their
alleles for greater intelligence on to
the next generation. (Chapter 4,
Rule 12). As the population neared
equilibrium, where each trait was
close to its optimum, selection
Figure IV-2
pressure became less severe and
the population stabilized until the environment changed again, either in the same location or
because the population migrated to a new location. In that way, the optimal amount of
intelligence kept increasing and selection pressures raised the intelligence of the population.
And, once we had started down the path of increased intelligence, rather than some other path,
no other animal, not even those who had just previously branched off from our lineage, could
ever again surpass us in intelligence; that is why, when it comes to intelligence, we have no
peers in the animal world.
What follows is an explanation of how our ancestors repeatedly found themselves in
environments where those individuals who were more intelligent had greater reproductive
success. The process occurred in two stages, the first in the sub-tropics, which took man to a
bipedal ape, and the second farther north, which took man from a bipedal ape to Hss.
When the first mammals evolved from reptiles, the dinosaurs dominated the earth and
most mammals were prey. Some hid in the day and foraged at night, a new environment that
selected for better eyesight. More brain power was needed to process the additional visual
information and those who had it, had more reproductive success. Some of these nocturnal
mammals found safety underground, but others took to the trees. Of the tree climbers, some
clawed the tree and other grasped branches. Of the graspers, those who had hands that better
facilitated grasping had greater reproductive success as they could climb on thinner branches
and reach and grasp food and carry it without using their mouth. By enabling the brain to more
easily manipulate their environment, grasping hands raised the optimal amount of intelligence,
and facile graspers had more reproductive success.
After the dinosaurs went extinct 65 mya, the ground became safer and some of our
larger ancestors, who were less adept at moving through the trees, began spending more of
their time on the ground. There they were more vulnerable to ground-dwelling predators,
especially big cats. Those who had brains capable of communicating and cooperating were
eaten less and had more reproductive success.
Next came habitual bipedalism and facile walking on the ground; it freed the hands, 9
which created another intelligence-enhancing feedback loop. One possible scenario (in
accordance with behavior changing first, Chap. 4, Rule 12) is that the graspers carried things in
one hand, struggling on two feet and the other hand, then more and more on just two feet.
Those most adept at carrying had the advantage in reproductive success. Bipedalism meant
that tools, weapons, and food did not have to be discarded when moving, but could be taken
along. As a consequence, tools and weapons did not have to be made then discarded at each
new location, so they could be made better, and making them better required a better brain and
raised the optimal amount of intelligence. The feedback loop that bipedalism made possible, of
larger brain → better technology → more food → larger brain again, continued until bipedalism
became facile and the optimal amount of intelligence had been reached for warm, mostly non-
seasonal, climates. When those territories had filled to carrying capacity, populations that lived
in the northern fringes continued the same intelligence-enhancing feedback loop, but with the
“technology” including heat conservation, e.g., control of fire, shelters, and body insulation, e.g.,
animal skins. 10
Now, still another intelligence-enhancing feedback cycle began. The optimal brain size
and intelligence was not the same in every environment occupied by the bipedal apes. The
major difference in optimums was between tropical climates that had a more-or-less single
season, and sub-tropical climates that had four distinct seasons. Survival through the winter
required hunting and hunting required more intelligence than gathering. 11 The greater the
difference between summer and winter, the more mentally challenging the environment was,
and the higher was the optimal amount of intelligence. 12 That is why IQ scores increase with
distance from the equator and why the correlation between IQ and mean high winter
temperature is -0.76. 13
Bipedal ape populations, like all populations, expanded to fill up all available territories to
their carrying capacities. 14 The easily-exploitable southern territories were less mentally
challenging and the optimal brain size (and intelligence) was therefore lower than in the more
difficult and mentally challenging northern territories. Higher intelligence was selected for in the
north because it enabled more of the individuals who had it to survive in the winter, giving them
more reproductive success. As northern intelligence increased and body coverings were made,
it kicked in the “larger brain → better technology → more food → larger brain” feedback cycle,
where the additional food was the meat available in the winter. As they migrated farther north
and the environment became increasingly more mentally challenging, the optimal intelligence
needed to survive the cold and acquire food in the winter continued to increase. 15 Winter
hunting also required better communicating, organizing, and cooperating, which also increased
the payoff for more intelligence, raising its optimum.
If the reader will refer to Figure 14-2, he will see that the first large jump in brain size
occurred 2 mya during the transition from Australopithecus to early Homo (Homo habilis and
Homo erectus), when man became a facile biped and a proficient tool-maker during the “larger
brain → better technology → more meat → larger brain” feedback cycle. (Holloway, 1981, pp.
291-292). The second large jump in brain size occurred at about 500,000 ya, when man
increased his northern range by using fire (Table 17-2) and animal skins (>70,000 ya) to keep
warm.
Eventually, the migrating populations reached the latitude where seasonal differences
were at a maximum and, as they moved still farther north past that peak in seasonal
differences, seasonal differences decreased again and, as they did, so did the mental challege
of living there and the optimal intelligence, 16 though the optimum in the Arctic was still higher
than the optimum in the tropics.
Northern populations, now superior to their southern ancestors in technology and
cooperation, expanded back into the south, 17 conquering, displacing, and being absorbed into
their southern ancestors. 18 The northerners who invaded the south had, of course, a higher
than optimal intelligence for that less mentally challenging environment and, because the brain
is costly and there was no longer a payoff in reproductive success for the additional intelligence,
their intelligence began falling, though not necessarily all the way to the lower southern
optimum. 19 Eventually, after all the populations had reached the approximate optimums for
their environments, with the north higher than the south, the north-south differences in
intelligence between contiguous territories 20 were no longer great enough to permit further
conquest of the southerners by the northerners, and the process wound down. 21
Intelligence-enhancing processes ceased and even reversed somewhat when hunting-
gathering gave way to agriculture in the Middle East about 12,000 ya. Although agriculture
greatly increased the carrying capacity of the land, increasing numbers, it lowered populations’
optimal amount of intelligence, temporarily pitting smaller numbers of more intelligent hunter-
gatherers against greater numbers of less intelligent farmers. When the dust settled, almost
everyone was a smaller-brained and less intelligent farmer. 22
An intelligence-enhancing process began again on a smaller scale prior to the Industrial
Revolution in Europe when the more intelligent and entrepreneurial individuals in the north were
able to have and support more children. 23 That, and the Industrial Revolution that followed,
brought the last great north-to-south migrations, to India, Africa, and the Americas. Today the
northerners, thoroughly demoralized, no longer invade and conquer the south, but seek
absolution for their sins by permitting and subsidizing the migration of southerners into northern
territories. And average intelligence continues to fall. 24
It is difficult to make OoA consistent with these intelligence-enhancing processes
because the processes would require much more time than 65,000 yrs. With today’s Africans
having an average IQ of 67, and the Africans who migrated out of Africa 65,000 ya presumably
having an even lower IQ, it is not reasonable to believe that supposedly modern Africans left
Africa 65,000 ya and increased their IQ by more than 2 SDs in that short span, especially when
selection for higher intelligence was not the strongest selector for most of those Africans most
of the time. Moreover, by claiming Africa instead of Eurasia as man’s origin, OoA requires
man’s defining attribute, high intelligence, to have a greater optimum in Africa than in Eurasia,
which clearly contradicts today’s world-wide distribution of intelligence (as well as Rule 10 in
Chap. 4). Thus, the evolution of modern man could not have occurred in Africa. 25
Bipedalism was needed for the south-to-north intelligence-enhancing process to begin,
however, because it was not until bipedalism, when tools and weapons, the products of
intelligence, could be preserved by carrying them, that a larger brain could pay for its high cost.
On land, only bipedal apes have the anatomy, i.e., free hands with opposable thumbs, needed
make use of high intelligence and reap its benefits. Thus, from bipedalism onward, man
became more human in the north and the flow of his humanizing genes was from the north into
the tropics not, as OoA supposes, the reverse.
Chapter 23
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. In 2000, Ronald A. Fonda made the case for the evolution of modern man in Eurasia on his
web site. Also see (Fonda, 2001). Back
2. Dates during which a species lived are often inconsistent in the literature and, for some
species, there is only a single fossil so the duration of the species can not be estimated. Back
3. e.g., Bahinia pondaungensis (Jaeger, 1999) in Asia. The LCA date may be about 57 mya.
Back
4. “Instead, anatomically distinct races capable of interbreeding have evolved over at least the
past 2 million years …” Alan G. Thorne of Australian National University in Canberra, reported
by (Bower, B., “Pruning the Family Tree,” Science News, Vol. 148, No. 10, p. 154, Sept. 2,
1995). “We estimate the divergence time of H. sapiens from 16 genetic distances to be around
1.7 Ma [mya].” (Curnoe, 2003). Back
5. Carleton Coon (1962), also concludes that species came before race, i.e., that a pre-Homo
sapiens species differentiated into races, and then those races evolved into races of Homo
sapiens. Dates from genetic studies are more recent as they do not take interbreeding into
account. Chromosome 22 gives an African-Eurasian LCA date of 634,000 ya (Zhao, 2000),
while chromosome 1 results show an ancestral link at 757,000 to 805,000 ya. (Yu, 2001). The
Neanderthal-Hss LCA is “estimated to be 465,000 years, with confidence limits of 317,000 and
741,000 years.” (Krings, 1999). The Asian-Caucasian LCA estimate is about 46,000 ya.
(Mellars, 2006). When a new species forms it is unlikely to be a clean break with its parent
species. Instead, the two species will interbreed on and off until they can no longer do so, either
because of physical separation or genetic changes. Even after that, the parent species is likely
to linger on for perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of years before it is completely extinct.
Back
6. See (Martinón-Torres, 2007) for dental evidence. Back
7. “Homo sapiens sapiens. All living humans are members of this subspecies.” (“The Long
Foreground: Human Prehistory,” Washington State University, GenEd 110). Back
8. The optimal intelligence for a population is a bell-shaped curve having a mean, standard
deviation, and possible a skew, all of which may change as the population’s environment
changes. Back
9. In the next chapter, it is suggested that from prosimians on there were no quadrupeds in
man’s lineage. Back
10. The first evidence of woven clothing is from about 27,000 ya in Europe (Soffer, 2000),
though animal skins were no doubt used long before that. The human body louse evolved from
the head louse about 72,000 ya ±42,000 yrs, when temperatures were low, suggesting that by
that date humans not only lacked heavy body hair but, at least in cooler climates, had started
wearing animal skins. (Kittler, 2003; Coon, 1962, p. 117). Back
11. "In warm-temperature, sub-tropical, and tropical latitudes, zero to thirty-nine degrees from
the equator, gathering is by far the dominant mode of subsistence ..." More northern societies
relied primarily on hunting and, more recently, fishing. (Lee, 1968, pp. 42-43). Back
12. “…seasonal variation in climate may also have been an important selective force behind the
evolution of human cranial capacity." (Ash, 2007). In computer simulations, a varying
environment speeds up evolution. (Kashtan, 2007). Back
13. IQ correlates 0.67 with distance from the equator, even within the continental U.S.
(“Intelligence and Latitude in the US," The Audacious Epigone, Apr. 13, 2007). The argument
could be made that the multiple droughts suffered by the Africans also made Africa a mentally
challenging environment. The difference, however is that the seasons are highly predictable but
the African droughts are not. Africans could store water, but it could be years before the next
drought came and the energy put into maintaining the storage, and then successfully defending
that resource during the drought, would probably be wasted. Back
14. (Templar, 2006). Man populated all the earth, but changing seasons gave him birth. Back
15. By analogy to one of “Murphy’s Laws” (stuff accumulates to fill the space available) all
populations expand their numbers to fill the territory available to them. But territory is not
available if it is already occupied by an equally fit population. Back
16. This south-to-north intelligence-enhancing cycle can also work in other directions, of course,
provided the migration is into a more mentally challenging territory. For the Neanderthals, this
happened when they moved west to east. Western Europe was warmed and moistened by the
Atlantic Ocean, but Eastern Europe, far from a large body of water, was cold and dry and more
mentally challenging. (Hoffecker, 2002-, pp. 3, 36, 249). Back
17. Note in Table 14-1 that although the Asian IQ averages 105, the Inuit (Eskimo) IQ average
drops to only 91; however, the Eskimo visual memory is better than that of Caucasians.
(Kleinfeld, 1971). Back
18. This process of going north, increasing in size and intelligence, returning south and
interbreeding with the less advanced southerners, followed by selection of the hybrids, occurred
repeatedly. (One can see an example of this with the success of the Chinese in Malaysia.)
However, these migrations by northerners into the south were smaller and more localized than
migrations into the south due to the two ice ages, and were probably more violent because they
occurred over a shorter period. Back
19. Figure 21-1 suggests some of this north-to-south conquest. "Throughout history, most of the
instances of people from one region attacking and conquering substantial portions of another
region have involved 'northerners' invading more southerly lands." (Hart, 2007). “It is noteworthy
that the expansion process was dominated by males, as is shown by a greater contribution to
the Y-chromosome than the mtDNA from northern Hans [Chinese] to southern Hans.” (Wen,
2004). “… the male line of descent (as seen in the Y-chromosome) tends to derive from north of
the homeland of the female line of descent (as seen in the mitochondrial DNA).” (Sailer, 2007b).
The general pattern, repeated over and over again (Kemp, 2006), is that a more advanced
population (MAP), usually from the north, conquers and dominates a less advanced population
(LAP). Interbreeding occurs, weakening the more MAP and strengthening the LAP, which also
picks up the culture, tools, weapons, etc. of the MAP. The LAP has numerical superiority and
gradually absorbs the MAP, with or without violence and, many years later, the process starts
all over again. Back
20. As discussed in Chapter 26, there are some reasons for believing that the intelligence of
northerners who migrated into Africa declined. Interbreeding with previous migrants, who had a
lower intelligence, would produce a hybrid population having an average intelligence in between
that of the previous migrants and the new migrants. The optimal intelligence in the tropics was
likely to increase after a northern invasion, however, because optimal intelligence depends
upon culture, e.g., skills, as well as traits, e.g., grasping hands and good eyesight, and the
optimum for the culture of the new migrants was likely to be higher. The optimal intelligence for
chimps corresponds to their average cranial capacity 390 cc., but the optimal intelligence for
Australopithecus, of about the same size and living in the same territory as chimps,
corresponded to a cranial capacity 375 to 550 cc. Once Australopithecus had acquired the
anatomy for facile walking, its behavior changed and its optimum, and actual, intelligence
increased. (Chapter 4, Rule 10). Similarly, today in the tropics, with modern medicine, tools, and
weapons, the optimal intelligence for man will be higher than it was only a few hundred years
ago, though other African traits (e.g., impulsiveness) may limit its benefits. Back
21. Of course, if the northern and southern territories were not contiguous but were reachable
by boat, the difference in optimums could be high enough to make conquest feasible. Back
22. The defenders of home territories have a large advantage, not only in knowledge of that
territory, but in the will to defend it and, unless the attackers are significantly superior, the
defenders usually win. “…the challenger is almost invariably defeated …” (Ardrey, 1966, p. 3).
Back
23. “Although still rugged by modern standards, Mesolithic heads from Portugal and Brittany
were diminished in size from those of their Paleolithic ancestors somewhat …” “… in this part of
the Near East, skulls seem to have diminished a further stage in size and ruggedness from the
Mesolithic peoples of Europe, essentially if not completely down to a sort of standard
Mediterranean form of more recent times.” (Howells, 1959, p. 276-279). Back
24. The prosperous, i.e., the more intelligent, had many more surviving children than the poor in
medieval and early modern England. (Clark, 2007). Back
25. Another intelligence-enhancing process occurred with the Jews. In Biblical times they were
often the losers in tribal battles for territory, forcing them to migrate constantly, which selected
for verbal skills. Later prohibitions against farming, but not commerce and finance, continued
the selection for verbal and mathematical intelligence, as did other factors. See (“Jewish
Genius,” by Charles Murray, Commentary, Apr., 2007). The Jews are not unique, however, and
any population will increase its intelligence if selection for it is strong, though it may require
thousands of years. Back
26. Note Figure 2-3 of Homo ergaster, who lived for a million years in Africa without improving
his tools. Back
Chapter 23 - The Bipedal Apes

“The primate who first walked bipedally
Perhaps did not do so too steadily.
Using two legs, but not four,
Brought him rewards by the score,
And so now we all do it quite readily.”
David Schildkret
In this chapter, we cover our possible earliest primate ancestors and their possible evolution
into bipedal apes, the seminal step on the road to becoming man. 1 As explained in Chapter 1,
walking on two feet created the opportunity to cash in on a larger brain by making grasping hands,
forward-directed eyes, pair bonding, and cooperation pay off big time.
Although OoE is primarily concerned with the evolution of modern man from the first species
of Homo, there are reasons why the entire evolution of man, from a primitive primate onward, may
have occurred in Eurasia, not Africa. (Begun, 1997).
The First Primates

Before there were any bipedal apes, tree-dwelling mammals were being selected for
increased intelligence in both Africa and Asia. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the Asian tree-
dwelling mammals would be at least as competent as the African tree-dwelling mammals and that
African tree-dwelling mammals could not have left Africa and replaced Asian tree-dwelling mammals.
Figure 23-1 (University of Maryland) shows two
incredibly cute SE Asian tree shrews. 2 Note the more muscular
legs compared to the arms, and the vertical posture. Climbing
trees means that most of the weight is on the legs, resulting in
“the emancipation of the forearms,” which are now free to
grasp, examine, and hold. (Howells, 1959, p. 124). In a
grasping tree mammal, individuals who had smaller claws were
selected because they interfered less with grasping and
touching; eventually these smaller claws became nails in the
primates. (Id., p.123).
The first true primates, Teilhardina, originated in Asia
about 55.5 mya, then spread to Europe and North America; 3
Bahinia, at the base of the OoE tree (Fig. IV-1) lived 40 mya
and is found only in Asia. Another fossil, a 45 million year old
tarsier, similar to the tarsiers that still live today on Madagascar,
was found in China. 4 Some scientists have proposed a “tarsier
theory” of bipedalism, that bipedal hominoids evolved from a
tarsier-like mammal that clung in a vertical position to the trunk
of trees as the tarsier in Figure 23-2 is doing; note its large Figure 23-1
thigh muscles.
The absence of horizontal branches (e.g., bamboo in the Asian tropics) may have favored
animals that were more adept in a vertical position. When those animals moved into trees with
horizontal branches that could support more weight, they could become heavier and move by
hanging from the branches by their arms, still retaining their vertical posture. 5
Note that the eyes of the tarsier (Figure 23-2) are in
the front of the head, both eyes looking forward, as in a
species that is predominantly a predator, rather than on the
side of the head, as in a species that is predominately prey,
e.g., the tree shrews in Figure 23-1. The tarsier has large
eyes because it is nocturnal and a small nose because it

relies more on sight than on smell. The eyes of an animal
that is habitually in a vertical posture are directed at a 90°
angle to its spine, not at a 180° angle as in a quadruped;
thus, the foramen magnum (Fig. 9-18) is already in the
center of the skull and it does not have to migrate there as it
would in a quadruped. 6
Noting
that
the
two
most
primitive
monkey
-
Figure 23-2 like
fossils
were found in Asia (Jaeger, 1999), we
move on to the apes. Although today
there are no apes in Europe (the
Barbary “apes” on Gibraltar are tailless Figure 23-3 Figure 23-4
monkeys) and the orangutans and
gibbons are the only apes in Asia, nevertheless “ ... chimp-like apes [once lived] in Europe and Asia
as well as in Africa; orangs [lived] in China and India…” (Howells, 1959, p. 107). Where the first ape
evolved is not certain, though it may well have been Europe. 7
About 20 to 9 mya, the 2 foot tall Dryopithecus (“woodland ape”) was living in
Africa, Europe, 8 and Asia. It was not bipedal, but it was believed to have been
partially upright (Moya-Sola, 1996). Unlike chimpanzees and gorillas, it did not
develop the anatomy for knuckle-walking. Figure 23-3 shows a Dryopithecus skull and
Figure 23-4 shows a reconstruction. 9 Again, note the large, round, forward-directed
eye sockets. The large canine teeth are primitive, 10 but Dryopithecus did have a “Y-
5” dental pattern (Fig. 23-5), the same as the great apes and humans, 11 as well as
Figure 23-5
thick enamel, which humans and orangutans have, but African apes do not have.
Other aspects of its teeth were also more human than ape-like and its limbs have been described as
orangutan-like. (Schwartz, 2005, pp. 29, 49). Dryopithecus was very similar to Sivapithecus, an ape
that lived 12.5 to 8.5 mya in what is now India and Pakistan, whose cheek teeth also had thick
enamel. 12
After Dryopithecus came Ramapithecus, another human and orangutan-like ape, 13 also with
thick tooth enamel. It is dated about 12 mya and was found in India and East Africa. (Schwartz,
2005, pp. 48-49, 138). Thus, tropical India may be a more likely location for the first human-like apes
than tropical Africa.
The
Cookie Monster
The first (at least partially) 14 bipedal ape
was 3’7” tall Oreopithecus bambolii (“Oreo,” the
Cookie Monster, aka the “Swamp Ape”), who
lived in swamps, the margins of shallow lakes,
and forests near streams and rivers. 15 Oreo’s
bones have been found on the island of
Tuscany-Sardinia in Italy and also in SW Asia
and NE Africa. Oreo, Figure 23-6, 16 lived from

11.2 to 3.4 mya, 17 overlapping with
Australopithecus. Oreo lacked a chin and
external nose bones, and the brow ridges were
heavy, but he was starting to look a little bit
human. (Schwartz, 2005, p. 97).
Oreo had a number of curiously
humanlike traits in its teeth, jaws, skull, and
hipbone, and its hand was human-like. (Moyà-
Solà, 1999). Oreo is also favored as an ancestor
of humans because he lived in West Asia (Iran),
which is not only centrally located and just south
of where georgicus was found, but it is where
other important advances occurred, e.g.,
agriculture, early civilizations.
Feeding on aquatic plants and animals is
dangerous if crocodiles are present, 18 and even
today chimpanzees wisely avoid entering water.
A European primate such as Oreo, however,
may have lived north of the croc range, where
the water was safe and aquatic life provided a Figure 23-6
rich source of the essential fatty acids needed for
growing a larger brain. (Crawford, 2000). Oreo had not yet evolved all of the anatomical changes
needed for easy bipedalism on land, but wading on two feet in the water facilitated the transition to
land because the water reduced the weight on the legs and made it easier to balance. (Kuliukas,
2001). Aquatic bipedalism also kept the head above the water, gave a better view of what was
underneath the water, and permitted feeding in deeper water. 19
Australopithecus
Because Australopithecus
(“southern ape”) was not only fully bipedal,
but also a long lasting and widespread
genus with at least six species, ramidus,
afarensis, 20 garhi, africanus, anamensis,
and robustus, it is Oreo’s logical
descendant; it evolved when Oreo, the
Swamp Ape, left the water. Figure 23-7 Oreo Australopithecus
compares the skulls of 10 mya Oreo and 3
Figure 23-7
mya Australopithecus africanus and shows
how similar they are. (Howells, 1959, pp. 129 and 117). Various species of Australopithecus lived
from 4 to 1.2 mya. (Wikipedia, “Australopithecus”). The jaws of both skulls occupy a large portion of
the face, but Oreo has larger canines and Australopithecus has more prognathism. 21
Australopithecus had more human-like teeth than the chimpanzee, suggesting that the split between
Pan (chimpanzee) and Homo (man) occurred prior to Australopithecus. (Figure IV-1). “…
australopiths are basically oranglike in their teeth and in many aspects of their skulls….” (Schwartz,
2005, p. 215, 245-246). Like Oreo, Australopithecus (Figure 23-8) 22 had heavily enameled teeth
(Howells, 1959, pp 117-118), a trait of humans, but not African apes. The robust form, A. robustus)
had a saggital keel, similar to that of the gorilla. 23
The pelvis and leg bones closely resemble those of modern
man, leaving no doubt that they walked on two feet. They were between
about 107 cm (3'6") and 152 cm (5'0") tall with very strong bones. The
finger and toe bones are curved and proportionally longer than in
humans, but the hands are similar to human hands in most other
details. Females were substantially smaller than males (sexual
dimorphism). Australopithecus left small, knapped stone tools dated at
3.5 mya. (Coppens, 2004, p. 51). Cranial capacity varied from about
375 to 550 cc. The nose is more prominent, the brow ridges less so, but
(minus the hair) the face is not much different from the reconstruction of
Oreo in Figure 23-6.
Although different species of Australopithecus lived in Africa for
2.8 million years, evidence for their presence in Europe and Asia is, as
yet, hard to come by. Their long presence and many species suggest
that the absence of Australopithecus fossils outside of Africa is due to Figure 23-8
our failure to find their remains, rather than to their failure to occupy Eurasia. 24 Their presence in
Africa could easily be due to their migration there. 25
Knuckle-Walkers or Palm-Walkers?
African apes (chimps and gorillas) walk on feet and knuckles (Fig. 23-9). 26 Asian apes (e.g.,
the orangutan) do not knuckle-walk – they walk on their palms. So, determining whether humans are
more similar to African knuckle-walking chimps or to Asian brachiating orangutans should help
answer the question of whether man had an African origin or an Asian origin. 27
Although palm-
walking does
not require any
anatomical
changes,
knuckle-
walking
requires
specialized
changes to the
fingers, wrist,
and forearm
bones so that
the animal can
lock its wrists to
support the Figure 23-10
Figure 23-9 weight of its
upper body. 28 Figure 23-10 is a graph, the purpose of which is to show
whether Australopithecus was closer in wrist bone structure to the knuckle-walking African apes or to
the palm-walking Asian orangs. 29 The two ellipses at the top center cover the wrist characteristics
for the gorilla and “Pan,” the knuckle-walking chimp, the ellipse at the lower left is for the orangutan
(“Pongo”), and the ellipse in the lower center is for man (“Homo”). The graph shows that early
Australopithecus (“ER 20419” and “AL 288-1v and 1g”) were closer to the knuckle-walkers than to
the orangutan, but the later Paranthropus (“SKX 3602,” now considered to be an Australopithecus)
and the later Australopithecus (“Stw 46”) were about equidistant from Pan and Pongo. Note that the
Pongo ellipse overlaps substantially with the Homo ellipse, but there is no overlap between the Pan
or Gorilla ellipses with the Homo ellipse.
The authors of the article that graph is from conclude that man’s predecessors were knuckle-
walkers who lost knuckle-walking adaptations, 30 but concede that “vertical climbing adaptation may
be ‘preadaptive’ to bipedalism.” That is, man’s ancestors may have had a vertical posture in trees,
similar to the tarsier (Fig. 23-2). If, as the authors conclude, humans evolved from a knuckle-walking
African ape, they would have had to have lost the specialized anatomical adaptations that
chimpanzees and gorillas have for knuckle-walking. However, Rule 3 (Chap. 4) says that animals
evolve from a more generalized form to a more specialized form, seldom, if ever, the reverse.
Humans are the most generalized primates, which suggests that they did not evolve from African
apes, who are specialized for knuckle-walking.
No bipedal ape survives today, 31 but additional light can be thrown on the answer to the
question of whether man descended from a bipedal African ape or a bipedal Eurasian ape by
comparing man to African chimpanzees (the common chimp and the bonobo) and to the Asian
orangutan.
Genetic Distance
Most paleoanthropologists have concluded that man descended from an ancestor of the
chimpanzees, rather than from an ancestor of the orangutans, 32 because the genetic distance
between humans and chimpanzees is less than the genetic distance between humans and
orangutans. Genetic distance comparisons suggest the tree shown in Figure 23-11. However, it is
possible that man descended from an Asian ape even though the chimp-human genetic distance is
less than the orangutan-human genetic distance. In Figure 23-11, man and orangutan are in
completely different lineages. In Figure 23-12, however, there is a split (“C/H LCA”) into a chimp
lineage (line C) and a Homo lineage (lines H). 33 Genetic changes in the Homo lineage (line O-H)
that occurred prior to the orang/Homo LCA (“O/H LCA”), ended up in both the subsequent Homo
lineage (line H) and in the orangutan lineage (line O). In other words, the LCA of humans and
orangutans is more recent than the LCA of humans and chimps, but still a very long time ago. (Line
length is not proportional to genetic distance in these trees.)
The reason that the genetic distance between the chimpanzees and humans (Hss) is less
than the genetic distance between the orangutan and humans is that after the orang/Homo LCA, a
population in the Homo lineage migrated into Africa (line I) and interbred with a population in the
chimp lineage. 34 Evidence of interbreeding between the chimp and Homo lineages has recently
been found. 35 Neither of the ancestral species that actually did the interbreeding is living today.
(Since chimps today live only in Africa, it is likely that both the chimp ancestors and the Homo
ancestors that interbred were living in Africa.)

The Homo ancestor that interbred with the chimp ancestor was at least a bipedal ape and
may have even been an Australopithecus. 36 Thus, the chimp lineage received DNA from the Homo
linage, and that DNA would be more recent DNA than the DNA that the human and orangutan
lineages shared at the time of the orang/Homo LCA.
Since it is more often the males of the more advanced population that interbreed with the
females of the less advanced population, the DNA should have flowed mostly from the Homo lineage
to the chimp lineage and not the reverse. 37 After the split in the chimp-Homo lineages, any genetic
changes that occurred in the chimp lineage (line C) never got into the Eurasian Homo lineage (line
H) because, except for slavery, no hominids are known to have left Africa and interbred with the
Eurasian Homo lineage.
Traits
When orangutans come down to the ground, they walk on feet and palms with bent fingers,
but also bipedally (Fig. 23-13), 38 while African apes walk on their feet and knuckles (Fig. 23-9),
though bonobos also walk bipedally for short distances.
The sacral index (Table 9-3) increases to facilitate bipedalism; in the orangutan it is 87,
significantly greater than in the chimpanzee (77), and is closer to humans (Negroes = 91.4),
suggesting that the orangutan is more bipedal and more human-like than the chimpanzee. 39 The
femur of the orangutan is also more human-like than that of the African apes. (Harmon, E.H., 2007).
Take
a
look
at
this
remarkable
picture
(Figure
23
-
14)
of
a
female
bonobo.
Figure 23-14 The
body
of this bonobo looks so human it is difficult to believe that
it is a chimpanzee. 40 Is it unreasonable to suggest that
after the bonobo’s ancestors split from the common
chimpanzee’s ancestors they interbred with a bipedal ape,
perhaps a bipedal swamp ape 41 that had migrated into
Africa? Note the muscular thighs. To paraphrase a Nancy
Sinatra song, “these thighs are made for walking.”
Although the bonobo is a knuckle-walker, like the
common chimpanzee, its legs are longer 42 and it walks
bipedally about a fourth of the time, more easily, with a
straighter back, and for longer distances than the Figure 23-13
common chimp. 43 Bonobos have many human-like traits,
including neoteny, a flatter face, a higher forehead, narrower body, pinker lips, longer hair, and
smaller ears. Unlike common chimps, female bonobos have more prominent breasts and are
sexually receptive throughout most of their estrus cycle. And, unlike the chimp, bonobos “seemed to
learn the symbolic use of words spontaneously, without requiring specific training in the different
uses to which words can be put.” 44
Now let us compare traits that are unique to humans and (common) chimps, but not to
orangutans, and traits that are unique to humans and orangutans, but not to chimps; there are only
about 7 in the first category but about 40 in the second. (Grehan, 2006). This comparison was made
in some detail by Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz, of the Department of Anthropology at the University of
Pittsburgh (Schwartz, 1988; Grehan, 2006). Many of the traits unique to humans and orangutans are
rather abstruse (e.g., extra holes in the base of the skull, rounded rather than bar-like brow ridges;
Randall, 2005), but a few seem quite significant. For example, only humans and orangutans, of all
the great apes (including even the gibbon), have a thick layer of enamel on the teeth, 45 just as
Dryopithecus, Oreo, and Australopithecus did. The structure of teeth is highly conserved (it does not
change much as a species evolves) 46 and, unless there is a reason why thick enamel would be
selected for in humans and orangutans but not chimps, this suggests that humans are closer to
orangutans than to chimps. 47
Like teeth, reproductive traits also do not change easily. In chimpanzees, the female genitals
swell during ovulation (Fig. 23-14), signaling to males that she is ready to copulate, which does not
occur in humans and orangutans (or gorillas Hrdy, 1987). Nipples in humans are farther apart than in
African apes, and even farther apart in orangutans. (Schwartz, 2005, p. 154). Chimps, including
bonobos, mate in a few seconds in public, front-to-back. 48 Orangutan sex is leisurely “with lots of
touching with fingers and lips” (Randall, 2005), usually in private, and most frequently front-to-front.
Like humans, female orangutans copulate when pregnant 49 and any time during the menstrual
cycle; female chimps copulate only when in heat. Compared to chimps, the menstrual cycle is
shorter in humans and orangutans, but the gestation period can be longer. (Table 23-1, Schwartz,
2005, pp. 154, 244).
Female orangutans Primate Bonobo Chimp Gorilla Human Orangutan
play a greater role in
choosing their mate than do Menstrual cycle 47.7 ± 33.5 ± 30.0 ± 28.4 ± 27.3 ± 0.5
female chimps. Male and (days) 4.9 3.9 2.8 1.8
female orangutans pair bond, 230 to 250
mating with the same partner, Gestation - 245 260 270 [225 to 275]
though they separate in period (days) 50
between matings and
Table 23-1
matings can be up to seven
years apart. Orangutans live longer than the other great apes (40-50 yrs in the wild and 50-60 yrs in
captivity) and have the strongest mother-infant bond. The age of weaning is 6.0 yrs for orangutans,
4.8 for chimpanzees, and only 2.8 for modern humans. (Hawkes, K., 1998). (“… orangutans have the
latest age at first birth and are the ‘slowest’ [maturing] of the non-human great ape
species.” (Robson, 2008).
Chimps have brow ridges, but humans and orangutans lack them.
51 Male humans and Sumatran orangutans have beards and moustaches;
chimps don’t. 52 Orangutans and humans have long hair and, like
orangutans (Figure 10-12), some humans have a receding hairline over the
forehead (Figure 10-11); chimps don’t. 53 Next to humans, orangutans
have the greatest amount of left-right asymmetry in their brains, which is
related to the acquisition of language and handedness (orangutans are
predominately right handed; chimps use either hand). 54 And, get this, only
humans and orangutans smile with a closed mouth. 55 (Fig. 23-15). The
caption reads, “Since the birth of her off-spring, Jessica has changed. Her
previous depression has lifted, and she now smiles most of the time.” Figure 23-15
Orangutans have culture (van Schaik, 2003), use human tools,
copy human behavior, and have a mechanical ability that anticipates humans. They are the Houdinis
of the primate world, able to escape cages by tinkering with their locks. 56 Unlike chimpanzees,
orangutans construct shelters with roofs and sometimes even sides.
More evidence of a human-orangutan linkage comes from endogenous retroviruses. A
retrovirus, such as HIV, uses RNA instead of DNA, plus an enzyme, reverse transcriptase. When the
virus infects its host, the reverse transcriptase converts the virus RNA into DNA, which is inserted
into the host’s own nuclear DNA. The host then makes more viruses from the virus’s DNA. If the
DNA that came from the virus was inserted into a non-reproductive (“soma”) cell, it dies with the
animal. But if it was inserted into DNA in an egg or sperm (“germline”), it can become a permanent
part of all the progeny, an “endogenous” retrovirus. Over 8% of our genome consists of broken and
disabled retroviruses.
At least two families of endogenous retroviruses, “PTERV1” (Yohn, 2005) and
“CERV2” (Polavarapu, 2006) are found in the African primates (chimp, gorilla, baboon, and
macaque), but are not found in humans, orangutans, and other Asian apes (siamang and gibbon). 57
Given that the infection occurred many millions of years ago, it is possible that humans and Asian
apes were somehow immune to the virus, but a more plausible explanation is that humans and Asian
apes share a common ancestor that is more recent than the common ancestor that humans share
with African primates. Referring to Figure 23-12, the retrovirus entered the chimpanzee lineage (line
C) after the C/H LCA, so it could not enter the orangutan-human lineage (line O-H). The absence of
these endogenous retroviruses in humans and Asian apes is further evidence that the human
lineage is from an Asian ape, not an African ape. 58
Chapter 24
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. “… man zoologically became man when he first walked erect …” (Howells, 1948, p. 102). Back
2. A recent genetic study shows that the colugo, which glides like a flying squirrel, is closer to
primates. (Janeka, 2007). (Howells, 1958, pp. 65-66; Gebo, 2004). Back
3. (Smith, T., 2006). However, North America could also be the origin of Teilhardina; the oldest
fossils have recently been found there. (Beard, 2008). Back
4. (Rossie, 2006). Fossil tarsiers have been found in Asia, Europe, and N. America but “no
tarsiiforms have ever been found in Africa.” (Paleos: The Vertebrates). The tarsier is so primitive that
it is the only mammal that has reptile-like scales around the nipples and on the tail. (Schwartz, 2005,
p. 117). Back
5. Today’s heavier primates walk bipedally in trees, walking on top of branches while grasping other
branches with their hands to provide additional support, thereby enabling them to reach fruit at the
ends of small branches. (Thorpe, 2007). Back
6. In Table 9-2, note the position of the foramen magnum in the adult and young chimpanzee and
gorilla. The embryonic positions of the foramen magnum, the vagina, and the big toe (Chap. 6)
suggest that the earliest mammals lived in trees and had a vertical posture. It is possible that there
was never a quadruped in man’s lineage. (Filler, 2007a & 2007b). In that case, the farther back
position of the foramen magnum in some of today’s populations may be due to ancient interbreeding
between the chimpanzee and human lineages. Back
7. Millions of years ago Europe was warmer and wetter and many species of ape lived there. "Found
in Germany 20 years ago, this specimen is about 16.5 million years old, some 1.5 million years older
than similar species from East Africa. It suggests that the great ape and human lineage first
appeared in Eurasia and not Africa." (Heizmann, 2001). Back
8. For example, Dryopithecus brancoi was found in a swampy area of Hungary. (Kordos, 2000).
Morotopithecus bishopi, an ape that lived in trees in Uganda 20 mya and walked upright on
branches, may have also been in our lineage. (Gebo, 1997). Back
9. Fig. 23-4 is a reconstruction by John Gurche. (Gurche, J., “Flesh from Stone,” Scientific American,
July, 2003). Back
10. When weapons are used instead of teeth, individuals without prominent canine teeth are at least
as reproductively successful as those who have them. (Ardrey, 1966, pp. 262-263). Back
11. “… here is an ape [Dryopithecus] who lived throughout the Old World and was almost certainly
the ancestor of the chimpanzee and probably of the gorilla and of man as well (and even of the
orang …).” (Howells, 1948, p. 98). Back
12. “The zygomatic possesses [cheek bones] derived characters which reveal that Dryopithecus is
related to the Ponginae [Asian apes] and not to the African apes/humans, as recently
suggested.” (Sola, 1993). “Any one of the species in this genus may have been the ancestor to the
modern orangutans.” (Wikipedia, “Sivapithecus”). Also (Schwartz, 2005, pp. 72-75, 138, 204). Back
13. “… Gregory calls him [Ramapithecus] almost human dentally.” (Howells, 1948, p. 99). Back
14. Oreo was first considered to be bipedal, then not bipedal (Coon, 1962, pp. 209-215), and is now
believed to be bipedal again. (Rook, 1999). Another fossil bipedal ape, Orrorin tugenensis, dated at 6
mya, was found in Kenya. (Richmond, 2008). Back
15. (Kuliukas, 2002). The bamboo lemur, a primate, lives in bamboo forests in Madagascar and one
species of lemur, the Bandro, “spends much of its time in water and can swim well.” (Wikipedia,
“Bamboo Lemur”). This is the type of behavior that can select for the evolution of bipedalism.
Consistent with man’s evolution from Oreo, the Swamp Ape, most early Homo sapiens sites are in
coastal areas, suggesting that seafood was an important part of their diet. Seafood contains omega-
3 fatty-acids, such as docosahexanoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (AA), which are needed for
brain health and intelligence. Back
16. Reconstruction by John Gurche. (Gurche, J., “Flesh from Stone,” Scientific American, July,
2003). Back
17. A number of Oreo fossils were found on an island in Kenya, dated at 15 to 16 mya. (Harrison, T.,
1986). Back
18. If Oreo evolved in a croc-free northern environment, then the Oreo fossils found in Africa
suggest that Oreo migrated into Africa from the north, and did not evolve there. Back
19. (Köhler, 1997). Even baboons walk bipedally when they cross water. Some believe (Wikipedia,
“Aquatic Ape Hypothesis”) that during our evolution, we passed through a stage of living in water,
citing evidence such as our ability to hold our breath. The traits they cite in support of that hypothesis
tend to be neotenic. (Pratt, 2004; Purucker, 1977). Back
20. “Lucy” found in Ethiopia, was an Australopithecus afarensis. Back
21. Note that this is the skull of an African Australopithecus. A Eurasian Australopithecus may look
even more like Oreo, but so far none have been found. Back
22. The painting is of Australopithecus boisei. Back
23. On the basis of bone and muscle similarities, humans and gorillas were found to be the most
closely related of living hominoids. (Schwartz, 2005, pp. 208, 212). This suggests that man evolved
from a robust type of Australopithecus, not a gracile type. Humans may be more closely related to A.
anamensis, a robust Australopithecus, than to other species of Australopithecus. (Coppens, 2004,
pp. 44-47). On the other hand, robust species tend to be primarily plant eaters (e.g., the gorilla),
while gracile species eat more meat. Since man is gracile and eats more meat than other primates,
one might suppose that he descended from a gracile Australopithecus, e.g., A. afarensis. Back
24. The absence of evidence is not evidence of its absence. (Carl Sagan). They did not, as did the
Neanderthals, conveniently bury their dead so that paleoanthropologists, millions of years later,
could find their bones. And, without fire, they were incapable of ousting bears and other critters from
caves, as the Neanderthals did, so that their bones would be protected and preserved for us to find.
Indeed, they were very likely cannibals, as were later hominids, as the smashed bones of their
fossils showed they ate the marrow of their dead and, no doubt, the rest of them as well. The
Chinese, foolishly believing that “dragon teeth” were an aphrodisiac, ground them up and consumed
the powder, thus forever depriving mankind of knowledge of its past. Back
25. The oldest Australopithecus fossils have been found in NE Africa, which suggests that they may
have come from SW Asia. (Coon, 1962, p. 304). Gaps in the African fossil record and the sudden
appearance in Africa of new hominoid species are more consistent with migration into Africa, rather
than to an African genesis. For example, “[The Australopithecines in Africa] are the only primate
family lacking a known, proven ancestor who lived before the Pleistocene.” (Coon, 1962, p. 217).
Back
26. Picture from Origine et évolution de l’Homme on the internet. Back
27. If man evolved from a Eurasian ape similar to Oreo, who presumably became bipedal by wading
in water, orangutans who, unlike chimps, love water, are more likely to be on that branch than
chimps, who fear it. (Kaplan, 2000; Russon, 2004). Back
28. There are also specializations for bipedal walking. “…the orang-utan is the only ape with a knee
joint similar to that of humans. Orang-utans walk by extending their legs and hips to give a straight
posture, whereas chimps waddle on two legs with bent knees and torso bent at the hip.” (Hooper, R.,
New Scientist, "Walking on two legs evolved surprisingly early," June 9, 2007, pp. 18-19; Thorpe,
2007). Back
29. (Richmond, 2001, p. 87; Schwartz, 2005, pp. 82-83). Two species of Australopithecus have a
change in the radius [forearm bone] that suggests a knuckle-walking ancestor, but this could have
been acquired by interbreeding and they lack other knuckle-walking adaptations. (Richmond, 2001).
Also see (Raffaele, 2006). There is some evidence that early Australopithecus in Africa had
adaptations for knuckle-walking, which may indicate cross-breeding with an African knuckle-walker.
(Collard, 2000). Back
30. Another possibility is that a quadrupedal African ape interbred with a bipedal Eurasian ape that
had migrated into Africa; the resulting hybrid population would have had both some quadrupedal
adaptations and some bipedal adaptations and knuckle-walking may have been the best posture for
the mixture. (Figure IV-1). The long arms of a brachiator and extending the wrists during knuckle-
walking shift some weight to the legs and relieve the arms which, compared to the legs; the arms
have better tensile strength, but the legs have better compressive strength. In the jungle, where the
African apes live, bipedalism would be less useful than on the open savanna. Back
31. However, descriptions of bipedal apes can be found in Asian writings. (Coon, 1962, pp. 207-
208). Back
32. The genetic distances from humans to bonobo chimp = 0.017 (1.7%), common chimp = 0.016
(1.6%), gorilla = 0.019 (1.9%), and orangutan = 0.031 (3.1%). (John Steer, Genetic Distances
Among Primates, Evolution Evidence Page). The “sequence identity” between chimpanzees and
humans decreases from 98.6% to 86.7% when insertions/deletions are included; the percent
decrease has not been determined for orangutans. (Anzai, 2003). It has been estimated that humans
have acquired 689 new gene duplicates (i.e., the gene is duplicated) and lost 86 since our LCA with
chimps and gorillas 6 mya, while chimps have lost 729 gene copies that we still have (Demuth,
2006), and the differences may be greater between us and orangutans. There are a number of
cases, however, where human DNA is closer to orangutans than to chimps, such as the “LINE1”
sequence and Alu copies. (Patterson, 1999, p. 76). Back
33. The C/H LCA may have been between prosimians that had a horizontal posture (the chimp
lineage) and those that had a vertical posture (the human lineage); interbreeding between the chimp
and human lineages would make the LCA date more recent. Back
34. Also, orangutans have evolved away from the human lineage and Schwartz (2005, pp. 93-94,
188) argues that line O is long. Back
35. (Patterson, 2006; Arnold, 2006). Chimp-human interbreeding occurred for millions of years,
finally ending 4.1 ± 0.4 mya. (Hobolth, 2007). Back
36. The chimp-gorilla split is dated at 8.4 to 6.2 mya (Chen, 2001) and bipedal apes, such as
Sahelanthropus tchadensis (“Toumai”) were living in Africa at least 7 mya. “Her [the Dikika baby, an
Australopithecus] two complete shoulder blades, the first ever found from an australopith, were
similar to those of a young gorilla —” ("Childhood Origins," National Geographic, Nov., 2006). Back
37. Although there may have been DNA transfer from a chimp ancestor to a Homo ancestor (male
chimps have been sexually attracted to women), it would have been confined to the African Homo
lineage as chimps are African apes. At least one rape of a woman by a chimp has been reported.
(Galdikas, 1995). Also see (Wikipedia, “Humanzee”). Back
38. (New Scientist, June 9-15, 2007, p. 18). Back
39. “No known fossil ape related to the orangutan is adapted for life in the trees, leading researchers
to believe orangutans descended from a ground-dweller.” (Lovgren, 2004; Chaimanee, 2004). On
the other hand, the orangutan’s feet (Fig. 4-1, p. 17) are not well adapted for walking. (Howells,
1948, p. 61). Back
40. Note the external genitalia, which are similar to those of the Hottentot women (p. 224).
“Physically, their [bonobo] anatomy most closely resembles Australopithecus, our early human
ancestor.” www.bonobo.org The ear size of the bonobo is smaller than the chimps’. (Coon, 1962, p.
146; also Zihlman, 1978). The foramen magnum is nearer to the front than it is in the common
chimp. (Luboga, 1990) The many differences between chimp and bonobo suggest a genetic
contribution to the bonobos from a more neotenic lineage and, of the major races, Asians are the
most neotenic, followed by Caucasians, but Bushmen and Negritoes are also neotenic. (Figure 26-
7). The common chimp and the bonobo were separated about 1.3 mya by the Congo River. Back
41. Bonobos live in the swampy rain forest basin of the Zaire River. (De Waals, 1997, p. 12), “They
[bonobos] tend to like swampy areas, where sometimes they dig for grubs or small crustaceons
[sic].” (Bonobo Initiative). Another possibility is that interbreeding with, say, Oreo, occurred before the
chimp/bonobo split and that the bonobo and chimp populations were selected from the resulting
diverse hybrid population. Back
42. Also, its curial, brachial, and humerofemoral indices are closer to humans than are the common
chimps’. (Aiello, 1990). Back
43. The foramen magnum is farther to the front in the bonobo than it is in the chimp, but is still
farther forward in the orangutan, though less horizontal. (Luboga, 1990). The bonobo is closer to
humans in form and behavior. (Coppens, 2004, p. 13; Patterson, 1999, p. 82). Back
44. (Raffaele, “Speaking Bonobo,” Smithsonian.com.; Corballis, 1991, pp. 150, 1001). Bonobos are
also less sexually dimorphic than common chimps. (Luboga, 1990). Back
45. (Schwartz, 2005, p. 68, 204; Schwartz, 2000). So similar are orangutan teeth to human teeth that
many fossil teeth initially identified as hominids, such as erectus, turned out to be orangutan teeth.
Also, when the hoax of the Piltdown Man was concocted, an orangutan jaw was used because it is
so similar to a human’s. (Schwartz, 2005, pp 35-37, 66-67, 72, 138). Back
46. “Our dental pattern emerged at least 60 million years ago.” (Schwartz, 2005, p. 116). Back
47. Wrinkled teeth appear in Mongoloids, especially ancient Mongoloids, orangutans, and
Australopithecines. (Coon, 1962, p. 357; Schwartz, 2005, p. 94). Back
48. (Kaplan, 2000). Bonobos use front-to-front more than common chimps, but front-to-back is still
twice as common. (De Waal, 1997, p. 102). The front-to-front sexual encounters of bonobos are
believed to be mostly homosexual. (Schwartz, 2005, p. 14). Back
49. During pregnancy, both orangutans and humans excrete 4 or 5 times more estriol than the
African apes; estriol may spur fetal brain growth. (Randall, 2005). Back
50. This broader range is from the Center for the Great Apes. Back
51. (Howells, 1948, p. 66). “The head of the infant ourang outang is like that of a well formed
Caucasian child in the projection and height of the forehead and the convexity of the vertea [the
crown of the head].” (Cartwright, 1857, p. 45). Back
52. (Moyà-Solà, 1999). Back
53. (Schultz, 1936). And, of course, there is that intriguing red hair that they share with the Irish.
Back
54. (Brésard, 1983; Schwartz, 2005, pp. 132, 156-157). But also see Hopkins (2003). Back
55. (Kaplan, 2000), courtesy of the author. Back
56. (Russon, 2004). “[O]ne wild orangutan laboriously dismantled his cage when a screwdriver was
accidentally left within reach.” Another “stole a small boat, paddled across a stream, held onto the
rope while he foraged, and then paddled back again …” A female orang even learned “a complex,
multi-step procedure” for lighting fires. (Randall, 2005). “Unlike chimpanzees, who will physically
attempt over and over again to solve a problem, orangutans commonly think through the solution to
a problem.” (Schwartz, 2005, p. 11). Another indication that orangutans have a more advanced
brain: “[There are] anecdotal reports that orang-utans can monitor their own actions – for example,
Rob Shumaker from the Great Ape Trust of Iowa in Des Moines says that orangutans will sometimes
refuse to continue doing a selection task if they think they have made a wrong choice, holding out
until they are allowed to try again.” (“Known Unknowns,” New Scientist, Dec. 16-22, 2006, p. 31).
When orangutans at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology saw a peanut floating in
a plastic tube, they got it out by spitting water into the tube until the peanut came to the top.
(Mendes, 2007). Orangutans are a bit more intelligent than chimpanzees (Deaner, 2006) though very
slightly less in brain size (397cc vs. 400cc). Back
57. That is also true of the type C viral gene. (Benveniste, 1976). Back
58. Since the chimp and human lineages interbred, the absence of these retroviruses in humans
would require the breeding to be between males in the human lineage and females in the chimp
lineage, certainly more likely than the reverse. “No African fossil has ever been found that is related
to chimpanzees or gorillas.” (Lovgren, 2004). “… there are no fossil ancestors assigned to the
African apes for something on the order of 14 million years of geological time …” (Kleindienst, 1975).
The absence of fossils of their ancestors in Africa may suggest that their ancestors did not originate
in Africa, which would mean that man did not descend from an African ape, even if his ancestor with
the chimpanzee is more recent than his ancestor with the orangutan. Back
Chapter 24 - The Origin of the Eurasians

“If we look, first of all, for that part of the world which was the hothouse of races, we can make only one choice.
All the visible footsteps lead away from Asia."
(Howells, 1948, p. 295)
In this chapter, we move from the bipedal apes (“…pithecus” = ape) to man (“Homo”). 1 Oreo is a good candidate for
a bipedal ape in our lineage and, given their overlapping ranges and durations, Australopithecus is likely to have descended
from Oreo. Oreo lived in the tropics and sub-tropics (i.e., north of the Tropic of Cancer, 22.5° north latitude) and may not
have been specialized for either. Since Australopithecus had so many species and greater numbers, anatomical
specializations for different climates likely began with Australopithecus, rather than with Oreo.
The reason it is necessary to go back to Australopithecus for the origin of the races is the simple principle of evolution
(Chapter 4, Rule 3), that generalized goes to specialized, not the reverse. 2 The LCA of all the hominoid populations who
ever lived, including those living today, must have been at least as generalized as any of those populations.
Living Africans are specialized for the tropics. They not only have large amounts of melanin, but unique hair (Table
10-1, items (15) to (19)). Both of those traits are found in Africa, in the Andaman Islanders off India (Fig. 26-4), and in the
Negritos throughout SE Asia (Figure 27-7). That the most primitive and widely dispersed people (e.g., the Bushmen,
Hottentots, and Andaman Islanders) all have these traits in common suggests that these traits are a very old adaptation to
the tropics. Since georgicus, who lived 1.8 mya much farther to the north, had at least two specializations, shoveled incisors
and an occipital bun, the specializations for the tropics must have occurred prior to 1.8 mya because hominids lived in
warmer climates before they lived in the north where georgicus lived. This means (1) that the tropical specializations of the
African and Negrito lineages began in an Australopithecus prior to about 2 mya, and (2) that the generalized
Australopithecus from which the specialized tropical and northern Australopithecus evolved lived in between them in the sub-
tropics.
Thus, before the tropics-specialized Australopithecus evolved, a generalized Australopithecus (who had evolved from
a generalized Oreo) occupied the sub-tropics as far to the north as his un-clothed, but hairy, body could survive, and very
likely ventured into the tropics as well. 3 After the tropics-specialized Australopithecus had evolved, the generalized
Australopithecus, which was less fit for the tropics, lived only north of the tropics in the sub-tropical regions of Europe and
Asia.
The generalized Australopithecus who lived at the northern limit of their sub-tropical ranges were under strong
selection pressure for anatomical adaptations for the cold, simply because those individuals who could stand the cold had
access to territory and food sources that those who were less tolerant of the cold did not have. Northern Australopithecus
populations living in Europe and West Asia followed the usual evolutionary path for adapting to the cold – a larger and more
compact hairy body that has less surface area per unit weight; they were the beginning of the Neanderthal lineage. 4
The Australopithecus populations living in East Asia, however, took an alternative evolutionary path for adapting for
the cold 5 – they became neotenic. Many neotenic traits (e.g., subcutaneous fat, epicanthic folds, round heads, short legs –
see Chapter 6) offer protection from the cold; these Australopithecus populations were the beginning of the Mongoloid
lineage. 6 That East Asians have so many specializations for the cold strongly suggests that these adaptations are also
ancient. Thus, Australopithecus evolved at least two species that were anatomically adapted for the cooler north. 7
But the original generalized Australopithecus that begot the tropics and cold-specialized species did not go extinct. It
yielded the tropics to its tropics-specialized spawn and settled in the sub-tropics, and it yielded the territory farther to the
north and east and west of it to its two cold-specialized spawn, the Neanderthals and the Mongoloids, but it clung to survival
in between them, 8 where being generalized was still an advantage. 9 It, and its generalized descendants, specialized not
anatomically, but socially, in better communications and organizing, and technologically, in better weapons, tools, and body
coverings.
Remaining more generalized, 10 of course, meant that they could not compete well with tropically-adapted
populations in the lower latitudes, nor with cold-adapted populations in the higher latitudes. The best they could do was to
migrate north and south with the seasons, and inch their way north as their technology and organizational skills improved. 11
Thus, in Eurasia, three lineages progressed from ape to modern man, a Neanderthal lineage to the north and west, a
Mongoloid lineage to the northeast 1 and a West Asian lineage in between. 12 Quite naturally, like a prototype, the
generalized West Asians ended up in the middle, surrounded by specialized populations. The generalized West Asians
eventually became the Cro-Magnons 13 and then the Europeans.
These three non-tropical lineages were not, however, completely genetically isolated. The Neanderthal lineage was
the most isolated as the West Asians could not safely venture into the territory of such large and powerful people (Figure 22-
2), and if the West Asians interbreed with the Neanderthals prior to about 46,000 ya it was probably negligible. After that
date, however, when the West Asians had advanced technologically and socially and the climate changed, decimating the
Neanderthals, there may have been significant interbreeding, as discussed in the next chapter. The West Asians were,
however, able to migrate into East Asian territory from time to time (and vice versa to a much lesser extent), resulting in
much more interbreeding with East Asians. That Mongoloids and West Asians (i.e., Cro-Magnons) had a Cultural Revolution
and the Neanderthals did not, suggests there was much less interbreeding and gene exchange with Neanderthals than
between the Mongoloids and the Cro-Magnons.
Although both the Neanderthals and the Mongoloids had some cold adaptations in common (e.g., shorter arms and
legs, shoveled incisors, and probably increased blood flow to the extremities and more meat eating, with the men doing the
hunting), there were also major differences in their adaptations. The Neanderthals increased in body mass, strength, and
nose size while the Mongoloids retained fetal traits, such as an epicanthic fold and subcutaneous fat. Figure 24-1 shows the
Australopithecus splits into tropics and cold-specialized lineages. 14
Figure 24-1
Europeans, whose lineage originated in West Asia, in between the Neanderthals and the East Asians, are the most
generalized of the three major races. Because they came from a zone in between the hot tropics and the cold north they did
not become anatomically specialized for either. And, because living Africans and Asians, and the extinct Neanderthals, are
all more anatomically specialized than the Europeans, the European lineage must go back to before those specializations
occurred, making Europeans the descendents of the generalized Australopithecus and the most ancient living people. 15
The genetic evidence, however, shows a much more recent LCA for man 16 and suggests that that LCA was in Africa
because Africans have the greatest amount of genetic variation. (Figure 19-2). Genetic dating is based on the amount of
variation in the alleles – a population that has a greater number of different alleles is assumed to have been around longer
because mutations accumulate over time. The assumption that greater variation equals greater age is not always true,
however, because there are other ways of accumulating more variation besides mutations. Africans have more variation
because, over at least hundreds of thousands of years, all sorts of hominoids have migrated into Africa and mated with
populations that were already there, infusing a large variety of different alleles into their gene pool. 17 Asians have more
variation than Europeans not because they are more ancient, but because the Europeans, already smaller in numbers, were
decimated much more by Toba and the ice ages than the Asians and lost much of the variation that they had accumulated.
(Figure 20-1).
The fossil evidence supporting Figures IV-1 and 24-1 is also inadequate, but one cannot assume that man arose in
Africa or China simply because more hominoid fossils have been found in there. 18 China has more erectus, Hs, and Hss
fossils (Figures 17-7 to 17-10 & Table 17-1) and artifacts (Table 17-2) than West Asia, but that may just be due to smaller
populations in West Asia, less obliteration by glaciers, and poorer bone preservation (acidic soil, constructed shelters) than
in East Asia (caves). (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 34, 35, 63).
The East Asians have more of some “human-like” traits than do Caucasians, such as being more “K” orientated
(Chapter 11), more neotenic, and less primitive than the Caucasians, but Cro-Magnon/Neanderthal interbreeding would
account for at least some of that. 19 Neoteny, as the Bushmen show (Chapter 26), is not necessarily associated with greater
intelligence, though East Asians do have a higher average IQ than Caucasians. (Chapter 14). Also, most of the migrations
were west to east, 20 which suggests a western origin for man and the evolution of the more advanced populations in the
west. 21
Although the theory of modern human origins proposed in this book is Out-of Eurasia, most of the early evolution of
Caucasians is believed to have occurred in India, 22 then in SW Asia (Fig. 24-2), and finally in Eastern Europe (Fig. 24-3). 23
SW Asia, which includes the
Fertile Triangle in Anatolia (east of
the Mediterranean Sea) and
Mesopotamia (between the Tigris
and Euphrates Rivers, now Iraq) are
good examples of the type of
territory where the transformation of
a generalized Australopithecus into
a generalized Homo could have
begun. Here there was food and
fresh water, and just enough
seasonal change to provide the
mental challenges needed to begin
the selection for greater intelligence Figure 24-2 Figure 24-3
and behavioral adaptations for the cold. And, when that territory became crowded, some groups would have been pushed
east and west and into more mentally challenging areas to the north, e.g., Turkey and Armenia, then the Republic of
Georgia, where georgicus was found.
All three of the northern populations (Neanderthals, West Asians, and East Asians) were becoming more intelligent
as they moved farther north, and the generalized West Asians were becoming more innovative because they were less
selected for anatomical cold adaptations and therefore had to rely more upon technology to survive in the cold. The
generalized West Asians could not yet compete with the anatomically cold-specialized populations to the northwest
(Neanderthals) and northeast (Mongoloids) of them in hunting the mouth-watering large mammals that lived there but,
because they relied upon a variety of foods, rather than concentrating on large mammals, they were more easily able to
switch to alternative food sources should the numbers of large mammals decline. As circumstances permitted, they spread
west into Europe and east into Asia, as well as south.
Thus, there were somewhat-overlapping belts of differently adapted populations that extended east-to-west from
Europe to Asia, and the boundaries of these belts changed with time, especially when the climate changed. The tropically-
adapted populations inhabited Africa and the lower latitudes of Eurasia, i.e., southern India and southern Asia and the South
Pacific Islands. Next came the sub-tropically-adapted, less-specialized Neanderthals and East Asians with the generalized
West Asians in between, making a belt from southern Europe across the Middle East and northern India and across China.
And, on the top, the cold-adapted populations – the Neanderthal lineage in Europe, NE Europe, and as far east as southern
Siberia (Krause, 2007a), and the Mongoloid lineage in Central and East Asia. 24
North of Turkey and Armenia is the Republic of Georgia, once part of the former U.S.S.R. (Fig. 24-4), where
georgicus lived 1.8 mya. Georgicus (Figure 2-4) is a good example of what an early cold-adapted Homo in the west was
probably like. Georgicus is, in some ways, so similar to both the earlier types of Homo, habilis, and ergaster that were found
in Africa and to the later erectus that some scientists classify georgicus as ergaster, but others lump him in with erectus.
(Dennell, 2005).
The Republic of Georgia has both an Alpine climate in
the mountains (northern border and south-west) and a
subtropical climate on the Black Sea (Wikipedia, “Georgia,
country”), so early man, e.g., georgicus, could forage and hunt
in the mountains during the summer, then retreat to the warmer
lowlands in the winter, gradually evolving into a more
anatomically cold-adapted population. Like other populations
that went north and were selected for greater intelligence by
the more mentally-challenging climate, the Neanderthal lineage
(georgicus, Antecessor, Heidi, and the Neanderthals) became
larger, stronger, and more intelligent than their southern
neighbors and expanded back into the warmer climates,
including Africa, at least to a limited extent. 25 However, the
indigenous tropical populations were better adapted for the
tropics and the northerners were absorbed and went extinct.
After the Cultural Revolution, the generalized West Asians
were able to expand, move north, and eventually displace the
Neanderthals from Georgia and Eastern Europe.
Meanwhile, like the Neanderthal lineage in the west, the
Mongoloid lineage in the east was also becoming cold-adapted, Figure 24-4
but by means of neoteny. In Chapter 17 there is a review of the
some of the Chinese fossils that have been found, which illustrates the continuity of the Mongoloid lineage all the way back
to an erectus. Today’s East Asian populations clearly show a “cline” of greater cold adaptation with increasing latitude, due
to the more northern populations migrating south 26 and interbreeding; some early Asians migrated as far south and west as
Africa, as we shall see in Chapter 26.
Figure 24-5 is a tree that shows proposed population splits and the movements north that higher intelligence, cold-
adaptation, and better technology and communications made possible, and a few of the movements south again with
expanding populations (excluding to Africa). It is difficult to unravel all the populations and migrations involved, so the tree is
an approximation. Most of the southern migrations were small and were absorbed by interbreeding, but a few survive to this
day. (“AA” = Australian Aborigines, “Andaman” = Andaman Islanders).
Figure 24-5
Although northern man initially kept warm by means of heavy body hair (“fur”), by the time of the generalized archaics
(Hs), man had developed sufficient technology to live in the cold (shelters, controlled fire, insulating coverings) without body
fur. 27 In the tropics, less hair enables the body to lose heat more rapidly 28 and reduces external skin parasites. (Rantala,
1999; Pagel, 2003). In the colder climates, thick body hair is an advantage, of course, but it also harbors lice, ticks, and fleas,
which carry deadly diseases; body lice, for example, carry the bacteria responsible for epidemic typhus, trench fever, and
relapsing fever. In addition, hairlessness lets the body receive more sunlight, thereby enabling it to generate more vitamin D.
Thus, once early man began using animal skins, body hair, even in the north, was selected against as those who had it did
not need it for warmth and were more likely to die from diseases carried by skin parasites. 30
Early man probably lost most of his body hair by about 240,000 ya. (Klein, 2002, p. 203), when a genetic change
occurred that stopped the growth of body hair. 31 The change would have initially occurred only in a single person in a small
group, then spread due to the increased health of the hairless and their selection as mates by others. 32 For the more
hairless northern populations, the pay-off in increased reproductive success for developing better clothing and shelter to
keep warm would have been greater than for the more hirsute, thus selecting for greater inventiveness and technological
skills among the hairless. By about 500,000 ya, insulation was covering the feet of northern hominids, but it was not until
between 40,000 and 26,000 ya with the evolution of Hss that shoes were used, as indicated by foot bones becoming more
gracile. (Trinkaus, 2005). Selection for technological skills led to nets for catching fish and traps and snares for catching
small furry mammals that could be skinned for their warm coats. 33
Early man had to migrate south of the Himalayas in order to reach India and SE Asia, 34 but the generalized archaics
(Hs) were better able to survive the cold and could take the more difficult route across the steppes north of the Himalayas, at
least in the warmer months, as well as the southern route, settling in the more northern, erectus-free areas of Asia first. 35
Subsequent expansions of more advanced Hss populations forced these generalized archaics south again, where some of
them hybridized with erectus (Garrigan, 2005) in New Guinea and Australia (Chap. 27). 36
The generalized archaics from West Asia were not anatomically cold-adapted and did not have a uniform layer of fat
or epicanthic folds; in appearance, they looked Caucasian, somewhat similar to Australian desert aborigines (Figures 22-5 &
27-4), but they had control of fire and could live farther north than their erectus predecessors. They may still have had to
move north and south with the seasons, however, eating plants and small animals in the summer and large herbivores in the
winter. Migrating twice a year not only meant abandoning what could not be carried, but abandoning territory. So selection
for ability to live farther north, and stay there all year, continued.
Seasonal migrations could be avoided by acquiring the tools, weapons, and shelter needed to survive in both
summer and winter, by evolving more cold-adapted anatomy, or by doing both. The advantages of avoiding seasonal
migrations was one of the payoffs from the final stage of man’s evolution, going from archaic man (Hs) to modern man (Hss).
In the more northern regions occupied by archaic man, those who had the intelligence to make it through the winter without
seasonally migrating became Hss, modern man. They expanded, took over archaic man’s territory, and pushed him south.
In West Asia, modern man was the Cro-Magnons. They acquired the intelligence needed to avoid seasonal
migrations, but did not acquire much in the way of cold-adapted anatomy, and they remained generalized in appearance.
Instead, they conquered the cold by tailoring and later weaving clothes and constructing shelters. Unfortunately, glaciation
was more severe in West Asia than in East Asia and there are fewer traces of them. Glaciers scoured the earth, grinding up,
scattering, and burying fossils and artifacts. Also, northern forest soils are acidic, and acid solubilizes the calcium in bones
before they can be mineralized. 37
When the second ice age came, the grass-covered steppes north of about Moscow, which fed the large herbivores,
disappeared under ice, while shrubby trees replaced much of the grass in the lower latitudes. (Hoffecker, 2002). With the
grass gone, most of the large herbivores disappeared, and without them the numbers of the Neanderthals and the
Aurignacians (early generalized moderns), who were not as well prepared for the cold, decreased. The generalized moderns
that had developed better technology (the Gravettians), however, were better able to cope with the cold.
New genetic studies of Y chromosomal DNA have shown that there were three major migrations of Hss into Europe
from West Asia (Fig. 24-6). 38 About 80% of the Y chromosomes of Europeans come from the Paleolithic Aurignacians,
which confirm "strikingly similar" findings on mtDNA. 
Figure 24-6
At 30,000 to 35,000 ya (earlier migrations are dated at 46,000 ya; Mellars, 2006), the Aurignacian people moved into
Europe from Asia (green), followed by the Gravettians 25,000 ya from the Middle East (blue). Keep in mind that the second
ice age was from 30,000 to 12,000 ya and peaked at between 21,000 and 18,000 ya. (Hoffecker, 2002, p. 254). Thus, the
Aurignacians moved into Europe just as the ice age was beginning and took refuge in the areas of the green dots. By the
time the Gravettians moved in to Europe the severity of the ice age had increased, but these people, who may have initially
come from southern Russia (Kemp, 2006, p.305), had a more advanced culture and could survive better in the cold.
Although the Cro-Magnon lineage had split from the Neanderthal lineage perhaps over 2 mya, there was still some
interbreeding, but it was probably mostly between 46,000 ya and 24,500 ya, when the Neanderthals went extinct.
Interbreeding between populations in the Cro-Magnon lineage and the Mongoloid lineage, on the other hand, though
intermittent, was over a much longer period of time and more extensive. The result was that in the west the Cro-Magnons
who migrated into Neanderthal territory absorbed the last of the declining Neanderthals, but in the east the Cro-Magnons
who migrated into Mongoloid territory were absorbed and displaced by the Mongoloids, leaving behind only a few traces of
their presence, 39 such as the Jomon in Japan and the Polynesians. (Gates, C.E., 1922). Some northern Mongoloid/Cro-
Magnon hybrids migrated to the Americas, becoming the northern Amerindians. Interbreeding between these populations
made both the European-Neanderthal LCA date (700,000 ya) and the European-Asian LCA date (46,000 ya) seem more
recent than they were.

Individuals in the Mongoloid/Cro-Magnon and Cro-Magnon/Neanderthal hybrid populations had various combinations
of advantageous and disadvantageous traits from their parent populations. Natural selection then picked out for reproductive
success those individuals who had the combination of traits most adapted for all the various Eurasian environments. In the
northeast, it was those who were the most anatomically cold-adapted, e.g., epicanthic fold, fat under the skin (but hairless).
In the more seasonal climates of China and Japan, cold-adapted traits were less important and less selected. 40 (These
migrations and interbreedings show up in the genetic distances between living populations, which are given in Figure 7-2.)
Of all the races, the Caucasians were, and are, the most adventurous and risk-taking and did more migrating into the
territories of other races; 41 most of the early explorers were Caucasian and today it is the Caucasians who dominate the
“extreme sports.”
Figure 24-7
Figure 24-7 (Cavalli-Sforza, 1994, p. 91) is a tree which shows genetic distance. (C.A.R. is Central African Republic).
In Figure 24-7, the lengths of the lines are proportional to the genetic distance between the populations. 42 Thus, because “f”
is much longer than “d,” we can conclude that the Chinese evolved more away from the Hss rootstock than did the
Europeans, consistent with the West Asians remaining generalized while the East Asians evolved from generalized to
specialized. If OoA is correct and the races originated only 65,000 ya from modern Africans, the LCA of the races should be
near the juncture of lines “a,” “b,” and “c”; if OoE is correct and the races originated at least 2 mya from a generalized
Australopithecus, the LCA of the races should be on line c, near its juncture with lines “d” and “e,” 43 placing it closer to the
Europeans than to the Chinese.
Referring again to Figure 24-7, although Europeans and the Chinese are closely related, Europeans are closer to the
African pygmies than are the Chinese. Under OoA, this is hard to explain as the Africans who allegedly migrated out of Africa
went to Asia first and became Asians, and then some of those Asians went to Europe. If that were true, one would expect the
Chinese to be closer to the Africans than the Europeans. Under OoE, however, there was no migration out of Africa and the
Europeans are closer to the Africans because the Europeans remained generalized while the Africans and Asians became
specialized, but in opposite directions, one for the tropics and the other for the cold. Note, in Figure 24-7, that the Europeans
are in between the Africans and the Chinese. In addition, more European hominoids than Asian hominoids migrated into
Africa and interbred with indigenous African hominoids. Had Eurasian-African interbreeding not occurred, line “c” would be
much longer. And, if Eurasians came from Africans only 65,000 ya, as OoA holds, why are Africans so genetically different
from Eurasians in Figure 24-7? 44 The only explanation that OoA has for the length of line “c” is that Africans and Eurasians
did a whole lot of evolving after Africans left Africa and became Eurasians.
Jomon and Ainu

The Ainu are primitive stone age people who live in northern Japan. They are believed to be the remnants of
interbreeding between Koreans and the Jomon, a maritime people who spread around Polynesia (and possibly to the
Americas). The Jomon, in turn, may be the remnants of the generalized Hs West Asians who migrated into Asia. The Ainu
(Fig. 24-8) 45 have prominent brow ridges and large teeth, which are primitive Hs traits, as well as a somewhat wide nose
and epicanthic folds, but their skin is whiter and less yellowish; a few even have grey or blue eyes.
Figure 24-8
The Ainu are among the hairiest people on earth. Their hairiness in relatively mild Japan suggests that their Hs
ancestor was hairy. Other East Asians have very little hair, but the Ainu were mostly isolated from the hairless East Asians.
46 The 9200 year old Kennewick man (Figure 20-6), found in the eastern part of the state of Washington, may have been
genetically close to the Ainu. The Ainu language is strangely similar to the Basque language (Ainu & Basque Language
Correlation); today, the Basques live between France and Spain, but they could easily have been the Solutreans who came
to America. 47
Waves of Koreans invaded stone age Japan in about 1500 B.C. and then again about 400 B.C. The interbreeding of
those Koreans with the more primitive Jomon people then living in Japan also produced the modern Japanese (80% Korean-
20% Jomon – less Jomon than the Ainu) in only about 2500 to 3500 yrs. 48 Modern Japanese have traits picked up from the
Jomon, such as more hair and “squared” canine teeth, and a few Japanese men even have brow ridges.
Chapter 25
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. There is no sharp dividing line between ape and man and it would not be unreasonable to include within the genus
“Homo” an ape that was habitually bipedal, such as Australopithecus or perhaps even Oreo. Back
2. "A comparison of the skeletal and muscular features of living apes and humans shows that apes have developed a more
complex and specialized anatomy, while humans have preserved a primitive mammalian simplicity, with only the
cerebrospinal system, necessary for the manifestation of selfconscious intelligence, being highly developed. If apes and
humans descended from a common ancestor, that ancestor must have had a more generalized anatomical structure than
modern apes." (Anatomy and origins, Pratt, D. Human Origins: The ape-ancestry myth, Feb., 2004). Back
3. Their northernmost territory may have been farther north than one might think. The golden snub-nosed monkey lives in
China in snow at high altitudes and, in winter, the temperature falls to 5°F The northern Japanese Snow Monkey lives in a
climate where the snow can be more than a meter deep (though hot springs are available), so Australopithecus may have
lived in such climates as well. Human artifacts dated at 1.2 mya have been found in China along the Nihewan Basin near
Mongolia. (Deng, 2007). It is also possible that the generalized Australopithecus arose from a tropics-specialized
Australlopithecus that became more generalized by neoteny (Rule 3, Chapter 4, FN 17), but it is more parsimonious to retain
the generalized Australopithecus than to re-evolve it. Back
4. “…the Neandertal sequence is actually further away from either of the two chimpanzee sequences than the modern
human sequences are. My calculations show that every one of the human isolates that I used was “closer” to chimp than
was the Neandertal.” (Australian biochemist John P. Marcus, personal communication). This is consistent with Caucasians
remaining generalized from their LCA with Neanderthals, while the Neanderthals evolved cold specializations that moved
them farther away from that LCA. Back
5. However, the absence of body hair is also neotenic, and East Asians lack body hair. This suggests that they relied less on
body hair to keep warm and more on subcutaneous fat. Also, the loss of body hair may have occurred after animal skins
were used as garments, when it became a net disadvantage because it harbored disease-carrying lice. Back
6. It is likely that before the Neanderthal and Mongoloid cold specializations evolved, a somewhat cold-specialized
Australopithecus had spread across both Europe and Asia. That would account for some of the similarities (e.g., occipital
buns, shoveled incisors) found in both Asian erectus and georgicus. Back
7. Of the Mongoloids: “Everything has been done to flatten the face, to decrease the area of exposure to frostbite, and to pad
it.” (Howells, 1959, p. 288). Back
8. It is difficult to say whether these two species were advanced enough to be called “habilis” or “erectus,” but
Australopithcus seems more likely, given the nearly 3 million years that the genus lived. Back
9. “Central and Eastern Europe was occupied by people who manufactured a crude pebble chopper and flake industry…
These people may have represented a separate Homo population – similar to Asian Homo erectus …” (Hoffecker, 2002, pp.
93, 98). Back
10. “ … the first East European modern humans …came from southern latitudes and warmer climates, and did not represent
a specialized northern variant of Homo.” (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 139–140). Back
11. Some cold specializations still occurred, such as a larger, narrower nose, physiological processes to increase body heat,
and an increase in body size, which was also needed to accommodate a larger brain. Back
12. "The establishment of larger social networks allowed the replacement of Neanderthals [by Hss] in the Caucasus [south of
Russia and north of Iran, between the Black and Caspian Seas]." (Peresani, 2008). Back
13. Because the East Asians were cold-specialized, they were able to move north earlier than the generalized West Asians.
This enabled them to increase their intelligence earlier and expand south again, interbreeding with tropically-adapted
species, resulting in hybrids, some of which eventually migrated into Africa. (Chap. 26). Back
14. “The Whites do not give us any particular trouble. They would seem to have been entrenched in southwest Asia,
perhaps more specifically in Persia [Iran] and Afghanistan, from their beginnings, apparently with the Neanderthals to the
north and west of them.” (Howells, 1948, p. 296). Back
15. All hominid remains of the last 100,000 years belong to one of these two species, i.e., Neanderthals or Hss. (Waechter,
1990, intro. by Roe). Back
16. Note the similarities to the gene-generated Cavalli-Sforza tree of Figure 16-7. Back
17. The large number of different haplogroups in Europe (H, I, J, K, T, U, V, W, X) suggests, by the afrocentrist rule that
more variety equals greater age, that Europeans either have ancient roots or interbred with Neanderthals or both. Back
18. But see the discussion in Chapter 25 about the 3 million yr old inversion. Back
19. Similarly, interbreeding between an ancestor of the chimp and a more advanced Eurasian primate in the human lineage
would give the chimp ancestor advantageous alleles that would be positively selected and would make it appear that African
chimps have evolved more than humans. “… the number of positively selected genes is substantially smaller in humans than
in chimps …” (Bakewell, 2007). Back
20. Unfortunately, there is as yet no good evidence for Australopithecus in Eurasia, though they almost certainly would have
been there, given their large numbers and varieties and the presence of Oreo and other apes in Eurasia. Fossils are usually
not found unless paleoanthropologists look for them and, since most paleoanthropologists believe that all humans arose in
Africa, that is where they look for them. (”It’s amazing what you can see when you look.” Greg Palast, investigative reporter.)
“The best place to look would be in Africa, whence, it is thought, modern humans migrated.” (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 289). Also,
there is more funding for digs in Africa than in most other places. A good territory for the early evolution of man in East Asia
is the Hengduan Mountain region in western China. It is a hotbed of plant evolution due to its multiple climates at different
altitudes (similar to the climate where georgicus was found). Back
21. “The late Neanderthals at Saint Césaire and Vindija are markedly less robust than the early ones, and the early
‘moderns’ such as Dolní Vestonice are markedly more robust than living Europeans.” (C. Loring Brace, Professor of
Anthropology and Curator of Biological Anthropology, Letter to Scientific American dated Mar. 20,2000). Also, (Smith, 2005).
Back
22. (Howells, 1948, pp. 252). Note Fig. 21-1, which suggests west-to-east migrations. That Caucasians are more generalized
and East Asians are more specialized also argues against east to west migration since evolution is almost always
generalized to specialized, not the reverse. (Chap. 4, Rule 3). So great a threat was migration from the NW that the Chinese
built the Great Wall of China, the only man-made structure that is (or was until optics improved) so large it could be seen
from space. Genghis Khan is a significant exception, and even he had red hair. (Wikipedia, “Genghis Khan”). (Attila the Hun
arose in NW Asia, not NE Asia.) Linguists have tried to identify the “mother tongue” of all languages and its location, “proto-
World.” “Until recently, proto-World was located in the Near East [the Middle East] at about 35,000 years ago, …” (Corballis,
1991, p. 161). Back
23. However, after the arrival of agriculture, about 12,000 ya, the East Asians advanced faster technologically than the
Europeans, and got about 1000 years ahead in some areas, such as military technology. Europeans later caught up and
advanced more until very recently; now the East Asians are pushing ahead again. Back
24. (Shishir Arya, “Did early man originate in India?” Times News Network, India, May 30, 2007). Back
25. (Wikipedia, “Southwest Asia” and “Eastern Europe”). “Eastern Europe” is not well-defined, but for the purposes of this
book, it includes areas north of Turkey and Iran, including Kazakhstan, Russia, and Poland in the west. The area around and
north of the Caspian Sea was once Khazaria, possibly the homeland of the European Jews. (Koestler, A., 1976, The
Thirteenth Tribe. Random House). Back
26. North Central Asia was relatively uninhabited because it was not close to either the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, making it
both cold and dry, a hostile environment for man. (Hofffecker, 2002). It was this separation that kept the Neanderthals from
interbreeding with the East Asians and provided the generalized populations in between with a territory to the north where
they did not have to compete with either of those two populations. Back
27. “On anatomical grounds, it is argued that the relatively small-brained and lightly built Dmanisi hominins [georgicus] may
be ancestral to African and Far Eastern branches of H. erectus showing more derived morphology.” (Lordkipanidze, 2006).
The Hobbit on Flores (Fig. 17-11) is most similar to georgicus, suggesting the extent of the migrations of these early
hominids. Back
28. There is now evidence that all three populations, the Neanderthals (Rosas, 2006), the Europeans (Seldin, 2006), and the
East Asians (Xue, 2006; Zhang, 2007), have distinct north and south genetic differences in their populations. Back
29. Counterintuitively, hairiness in both Europe and Asia increases as one goes from north to south, perhaps because hair
was less of a liability in the south as fewer garments would be needed and it would therefore be easier to see and remove
skin parasites. Back
30. Hair is cooler than no hair for an animal that is not sweating (Wikipedia, “Aquatic Ape Hypothesis"), but if an animal is
sweating, hair is warmer. Only man and horses sweat and horses have very short hair. In the tropics, erectus may have lost
his hair when he began to run and sweat and it became a disadvantage. (Jablonski, 2006). Back
31. So important was it to be rid of lice that Egyptians and some Europeans shaved their heads and wore wigs. Large
numbers of people died from typhus carried by lice in English camps in the Boer war in South Africa, Confederate camps in
the War of Northern Aggression, and in Nazi camps in WWII. Back
32. (Klein, 2002, p. 203). The “hair or no-hair” gene (KRT41P) can be switched on or off relatively easily. Our tropical
prosimian ancestors likely had short body hair, our bipedal tropical ancestors had very little body hair, our sub-tropical, but
no-garment ancestors acquired thick body hair, and our temperate, but animal-skin-clad ancestors lost body hair again. Back
33. Many men and most women are disgusted by body hair in the opposite sex, perhaps because it is associated with
harboring disease-carrying parasites. Back
34. The skeletons of small mammals found with human artifacts were often still articulated, indicating that they had been
skinned, not eaten. The archaics also had needles for sewing hides together. Back
35. Like Oreo, they may have been a coastal people, living near lakes, rivers, seas, and oceans. Their reliance upon
seafood would give them the incentive to build rafts and boats, which would eventually enable them to follow coastlines and
reach Africa, India, Japan, and Australia. There are two types of head lice which diverged about 1.2 mya; one lived on He
and the other on Hs and, when Hs interacted with He, Hs got the He head lice. (Reed, 2004). Since Hs lived north of He, this
suggests that Hs migrated south. Back
36. Generalized West Asian Hs migrated east, where he was eventually absorbed and replaced by Mongoloids, though
traces remain to this day. “In the Far East, we first find H. erectus, then a generalized H. sapiens and later H. sapiens
sapiens with Mongoloid features, but no Neanderthal presence.” (Roe in Waechter, 1990). Howells (1948, p. 296) suggests
that the Ainu and the Polynesians were a generalized form of whites who traveled east from West Asia (Howells, 1959, p.
276) through Central Asia into China before the Mongoloids had developed their specializations for the cold. They may have
also contributed to the American Indian gene pool. Back
37. “In the Far East there are two great land funnels, one in the north and one in the south, and we know very well that
peoples have flowed out through them, to America and Oceania respectively.” (Howells, 1948, pp. 295-296. Back
38. However, recently 42 to 45 kya artifacts have been found in Russia, about 250 miles south of Moscow. (Anikovich,
2007). Back
39. (Semino, 2000). Asian traits, such as round heads, can be found in many Slavic populations and in the Middle East. Note
that these Eastern Europeans did not acquire the cold adaptations (e.g., uniform layer of fat, epicanthic fold) that East Asians
have, suggesting that migrations into the west by East Asian populations was minimal. The Finns, however, are one-fourth
Siberian. (Carpelan, C. , “Where Do Finns Come From?”, Free Republic, Sept. 26, 2007).
40. “In fact these earliest modern human inhabitants of China were anatomically similar to the Cro-Magnons of Europe…
“ (Haywood, 2000, p. 49; Wang, 2000). Caucasian mummies were found in China. (Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of
China; Wikipedia, “Tarim Mummies”; Kemp, 2006, pp. 33-35). Also, (“China striving for mummy identification,” Science Daily,
Dec. 24, 2006). Fifteen percent of the population in the SE portion of that NW province are reported to have blue eyes and
wavy or curly hair. (Ch'eng-K'un, 1946). Back
41. “… the best explanation of the strong mongoloid stamp of the whole Far East lies in the expansion of a segment of the
northern population …” (Howells, 1948, p. 289). Scientists have discovered a novelty-seeking area of the brain, but racial
differences in its development are not yet known. (Wittmann, 2008). Back
42. (Kemp, 2006, Chap. 6). A good example is the early migration by the more advanced northern Aryans into India, where
they became the upper caste of Indians, the less advanced southern indigenous people becoming the lower caste, the
untouchables. By prohibiting intermarriage, the caste system in India was able to preserve the genetic integrity of the two
classes in India, though today it is breaking down. Back
43. However, the length of the lines depends upon the method used to calculate them. Also, Fig. 24-7 includes
interbreeding, which can shorten the lines considerably. Back
44. Two types of changes occurred between the OoE LCA and today: (1) evolution from primitive to modern, and (2)
evolution of specializations. Africans did less of (1) than Eurasians and Europeans did less of (2) than Africans and Asians.
Back
45. Note that Melanesians (“black islanders,” i.e., South Pacific negritos) in Fig. 24-7 are the least related to Africans, who
would be located near the Zaire (now “Democratic Republic of the Congo”) Pygmies. Also note that “Pygmies” are used for
the tree rather than a more typical African tribe. One cannot help suspecting that the reason was that, as we shall see in the
Chapter 26, some of the pygmies have substantial white heritage and are closer to Eurasians than other Africans, i.e., had
Congoids been used instead of pygmies, the Africans would be even more distant from the Eurasians. In Fig. 7-3, the “Mbuti
Pygmy” (same as the “Zaire Pygmies” in Fig. 24-7) is also the most genetically different from the Eurasians. Back
46. From the (Frederick Starr collection, by H.C. White Co. of Vermont, 1906). Back
47. The Ainu became isolated from people on continental Asia about 14,000 to 18,000 ya, when sea levels began to rise
again after the second ice age. (Figure 5-1 Back
48. (New Scientist, Aug. 11-17, 2007, p. 41). Although they look a bit Caucasian, genetically they are not Caucasian,
perhaps because their LCA with Caucasians was a long time ago. Back
49. This “rapid evolution” also occurred in Africans (Chap. 26) and African Americans (Lind, 2007; Silva, 2006), when
Eurasian males mated with African women. The reverse, where a numerically superior, but less advanced, population kills
off the males of the more advanced population and takes their women has also occurred, but much less frequently. Back
Chapter 25 - Neanderthals
“There once was a man, not so tall,
Who lived in a valley, a “thal.”
Greet him, he snubs you,
Cross him, he clubs you;
And now he’s around not at all.”
In this chapter the relationship between the Neanderthals and the generalized moderns of West Asia, i.e., the Cro-
Magnons, is examined in more detail. From about 350,000 ya until about 24,500 ya Europe was occupied by Neanderthals,
but about 46,000 ya their numbers began to dwindle and Caucasians appeared in their place.
Contrary to the initial impression of Neanderthals as ignorant
brutes, a better appreciation of their culture and accomplishments has
humanized them. They made ornaments, bone tools (Zilhão, 2006a) and
even a 43,000 to 82,000 year old flute (Fig. 25-1) from the bone of a
cave bear. 1 Their brains were larger than ours (but not when body
weight is taken into account), though the earliest modern humans were
taller and more slender. They had full control of fire and the ability to
flake stone to make the sophisticated weapons, e.g., front-weighted
spears (Thieme, 1997), needed to kill big game, and the tools needed to Figure 25-1
butcher the carcasses to supply their heavily meat-based diets.
Neanderthals took care of their injured and elders and “were the first people known to have buried their own dead,” 2
sometimes with artifacts, ochre (a red iron pigment), or flowers. (Arsuaga, 2001, pp. 272-275). Unlike erectus, who could not
survive in the cold north, the modern behavior (and anatomical cold-adaptations) of the Neanderthals enabled them to survive
there for hundreds of thousands of years. 3
The migration of the Cro-Magnons, the generalized Hss from West Asia, into Europe, discussed in the preceding
chapter, began about 46,000 ya and continued in between the two ice ages, when forests replaced grasses, decimating herds
of large herbivores (e.g., mammoth, horses, bison, and reindeer) and the Neanderthals sustained by them. The newcomers
did not immediately replace the Neanderthals and Neanderthals managed to hang on until at least about 24,500 ya, 4 so the
two very different populations of man occupied contiguous, and possibly overlapping, territories for at least 10,000 yrs. 5 How
was it possible for them to co-exist in the same territory for such a long time?
One explanation is that they had different hunting strategies and therefore did not hunt the same prey at the same time,
that the newcomers followed the herds, picking off the young, the old, and the ill, while the Neanderthals were ambush
hunters, perhaps chasing large herbivores towards hidden hunters, who would suddenly raise massive spears, impaling the
beasts. 6 Neanderthal spears, some with large and heavy stone points, would require thick, heavy wood, 7 but Neanderthals
had strong bones and a heavily-muscled forearm 8 that gave them a powerful grip. (Balbirnie, 2005).
Another suggestion was made by Dr. W.W. Olson (by email), that Neanderthals may have been night hunters.
Although most cold-adapted species, such as the East Asians, have smaller eyes that are less vulnerable to cold,
Neanderthals, though they were well adapted to the cold, 9 had unusually large eyes. Also, one of the defining characteristics
of Neanderthals is their occipital bun, the bulge at the back of their skull, where the brain processes visual information. (Figure
9-12).
Although their bones were thick and dense, they often show signs
of fractures that forensic anthropologists have described as similar to
those suffered by rodeo cowboys who ride bulls and wrestle steers. (Fig.
25-2. 10
Europe was populated by many large herbivores, such as ibex,
fallow deer, and mountain gazelle, some of which, e.g., aurochs (wild
cattle, the bulls weighing over 2200 lbs), mammoth (16 feet at the
shoulder, males over 12 tons), rhinoceros (11 feet long, two horns), and
wild boar (~ 600 lbs, with tusks), were also very dangerous. Putting all
these clues together, Neanderthal men may have surrounded and
stealthily crept up on herds under cover of darkness, then threw or thrust
their spears. The resulting pandemonium would have been a man-to-
beast battle of considerable violence. 11
It must not have been easy for the more gracile Cro-Magnons to
move into the territory of such a formidable adversary. But, although the Figure 25-2
Neanderthal males were larger and stronger than the Cro-Magnon males, the Cro-Magnon males had spears with lighter stone
spear points that could be thrown farther and did not require being as close to prey. (Arsuaga, 2001, pp. 192-193; Shea,
2001). Also, because the Neanderthals’ legs were shorter and their bodies heavier, they used about 30% more energy in
walking than we do, costing them more energy per mile and making it more difficult for them to keep up with migrating herds.
12 Due to different hunting strategies, the Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnons could live off the same food source while rarely
fighting over it. 13 In addition to their greater mobility and superior technology, 14 the Cro-Magnons had dogs, which the
Neanderthals did not have; dogs were a significant advantage in hunting.
Another major advantage was better communications, cooperation, and social
networks, and more trade, giving Cro-Magnons access to information and materials that
could not be found locally. The larynx in the Neanderthals was higher in the throat,
which would have limited the complexity of the sounds they could make (Arsuaga, 2001,
p. 267) and their ability to communicate and exchange information, though they did have
a hyoid bone, which is needed for speech. 15 The Cro-Magnons exhibited symbolic
behavior, such as cave painting (Fig. 25-3) 16 and making jewelry, which is associated
with a show of status or group identity, but the Neanderthals did not. 17
Until the Cro-Magnons had acquired the technology to live in the same territory
as the Neanderthals and compete with them, the Neanderthals had no Homo
competitors but, once the Cro-Magnons had developed the sewn skins and constructed
shelters with a fire inside that enabled them to live in the cold north, they were able to
move into Neanderthal territory and hunt large mammals, the main stable of the
Neanderthals diet, in addition to catching fish and trapping small mammals when large
mammals were scarce. (Purucker, 1977, Chap. 7). Thus, the Neanderthals followed the
usual path to extinction – anatomically specializing to better obtain a particular food
source (large mammals), then dying out when that food source diminished (Chapter 4,
Rule 3). The anatomical specializations of the Neanderthals served them well for
hundreds of thousands of years, but after the climate changed and new competitors
arrived, their specializations became a handicap. It took thousands of years, but
eventually the generalized Cro-Magnons caused the extinction of the specialized
Neanderthals.
Nevertheless, in a very real sense, Neanderthals did not go extinct, but live on
today as part of those of us who are Caucasian. Caucasians can be grateful to the
Neanderthals for giving us some of their genome, though the donation may not have Figure 25-3
been pleasant for the recipients.
Genes
Because Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons lived in the same territory for such a long a time, there surely must have
been some interbreeding. We know that the Hss and Neanderthals were close enough genetically for any mating to result in
fertile progeny; 18 they are, after all, both Hs. Yet when scientists analyzed mtDNA they had extracted from Neanderthal
bones, they found no sign of Neanderthal alleles in the mtDNA of living Caucasians. 19 Similarly, no Y chromosome evidence
of interbreeding has been found. (Krause, 2007b). 20 Nevertheless, there is some other genetic evidence. 21 How is that
possible?
It is a general principle of biology that the males of the more advanced and expanding population mate with the
females of the less advanced and declining population (Sykes, 2001, p. 125), which suggests Cro-Magnon males mating with
female Neanderthals, 22 something easily imaginable when Neanderthal women were hungry and Cro-Magnon males had
some excess food or a confrontation occurred, leaving most of the weakened Neanderthal males dead. 23 The hybrid progeny
would have had Neanderthal mtDNA but no Hss mtDNA and, if they had been raised by their mothers with the remaining
Neanderthal population, no trace of Neanderthal mtDNA or nuclear DNA would have entered the generalized Hss population.
Those first hybrids would have had mixtures of various Neanderthal and Hss traits 24 and much more variety than
either parent population. Only those hybrid individuals who had the best combination of traits for the European environment at
that time would be naturally (and probably sexually) selected to pass on their alleles to the next generation. 25 For example,
hybrid males who had both the generalized Hss cooperative and abstract-thinking mind and some of the Neanderthal strength
and courage may have been more reproductively successful than the males in either of the parent populations. The same may
have been true of female hybrids who had the gracile features of a Cro-Magnon female and (perhaps) the blond or red hair of
a Neanderthal.
After a number of generations, the hybrids would become the more adapted population and would dominate both the
Cro-Magnons and the Neanderthals - the hybrids would expand and both the Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal populations would
contract. Now the tables are turned, and it is the hybrid males who can take the Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal females. Will
they take the few remaining heavy boned and primitive-looking Neanderthal women or the plentiful, delicate, and feminine-
looking Cro-Magnon women? If they prefer the latter, their progeny, the Caucasians, would have Hss mtDNA and no
Neanderthal mtDNA, but will nevertheless have some Neanderthal nuclear DNA. 26 In that way the resulting populations, the
Caucasians, could acquire some Neanderthal nuclear DNA without acquiring Neanderthal mtDNA.
Despite the failure to find Neanderthal mtDNA in Europeans, there is nevertheless some genetic evidence of
interbreeding. Northern Neanderthals differ genetically from southern Neanderthals. (Rosas, 2006) and Europeans north of the
Alps and the Pyrenees Mountains differ genetically from southern or Mediterranean Europeans. 27 Of course, the European
genetic differences may be due to the selection of different traits in northern and southern climates, but another possibility is
that European differences are the result of some Cro-Magnons in the north interbreeding with northern Neanderthals while
other genetically-similar Cro-Magnons in the south interbred with genetically-different southern Neanderthals.
A new study by a group of Icelandic scientists has found a 900,000 base pair inversion (i.e., the DNA string is
backwards) in Chromosome 17 that is at least 3 myrs old. (Stefansson, 2005). The mutation is found in about 20% of the
Caucasoids tested, is almost absent in Mongoloids, and is rare in Negroids; women who have the mutation have more
children.
How did Caucasians get such an old mutation? Under OoA, it would have had to have come from Africans who
supposedly evolved into Asians then into Caucasians, but very few of today’s Africans and Asians have it, so they must have
lost it. But why would Asians have lost it when 20% of the Caucasians did not lose it, and the Asian and Caucasian
environments are similar? A more likely explanation is that the inversion arose before the LCA of Neanderthals, Africans,
Eurasians, and Caucasians in an Australopithecus that was in the Neanderthal lineage and the Cro-Magnons who migrated
into Europe interbred with Neanderthals who had the mutation, giving it to their hybrid children, the Caucasians. Later, some
Caucasians gave it to a few Africans and Asians.
Since the mutation was positively selected for (i.e., it was an advantage to have it), but only if the incidence of it in the
population stayed below 20%, that suggests that the mutation becomes negatively selected (i.e., a disadvantage) when its
incidence exceeds 20%. 28
There are a number of alleles found in Europeans that are not found, or at least are not common, in other races,
including alleles that are involved in the development of the central nervous system. These alleles are so different from the
main cluster of human alleles that they must have been picked up from archaic humans, such as Neanderthals. 29 An allele of
the microcephalin gene appeared in Europeans about 37,000 ya, during the time that Cro-Magnons were moving into
Neanderthal territory. This allele has an effect on brain size, and has been strongly positively selected in the Eurasian
populations. But a haplotype with that allele is so different from the other variations of that haplotype that it must have diverged
from them at least 1 mya. The explanation for this is that that allele first appeared in Neanderthals, not Hss. Then, about
37,000 ya a Neanderthal bred with an Hss, who picked up the old haplotype. 30
Traits
We do not know all the traits that the Neanderthals had, but we can surmise that if Caucasians have traits that are not
found in any other people on the planet from whom Caucasians could have acquired them, then those traits either arose in the
Caucasian lineage or were acquired from the Neanderthals. Although those traits include long faces (Coppens, 2004, p. 109),
as well as a number of skeletal traits (Trinkaus, 2007), the most unique Caucasian traits are red hair, blond hair, blue eyes,
and green eyes.
The origin of a trait is most likely to be where it occurs in the highest percentage (Chapter 4, Rule 11), and light hair
and eyes (Figures 25-4) and the Neanderthal range (Figure 22-1) overlap well. 31
The fact that blond hair and blue eyes are not found in Asians or Africans, despite some Caucasian interbreeding with
them, suggests that those alleles are not ancient in Caucasians. 32 If those traits were ancient in Caucasians it is likely that
they would have spread to enough Asians to be expressed occasionally, even though they are recessive, but that does not
happen. On the other hand, the alleles would have had over 1.8 million years to arise in the Neanderthal lineage (before
georgicus). Then there would have been at least 21,500 yrs (46,000 ya, when Cro-Magnons moved into Europe minus 24,500
ya when the Neanderthals went extinct) for the Cro-Magnons to acquire the alleles by interbreeding with the Neanderthals.
To further complicate matters, some desert Australian aborigines not only have blond hair and other Caucasian
features (Figure 22-5 & Figure 27-4), 33 but at least one had blue eyes! 34 On the other hand, some aborigines have uniquely
Neanderthal traits, such as the occipital bun and beetle-brows, which go back to georgicus (Figure 2-4).35 That may suggest
that they got all the alleles responsible for those traits from the Neanderthal lineage, but some aborigines are not only more
generalized than the Neanderthal lineage, they are more generalized than Caucasians. Chapter 4, Rule 3, that generalized
goes to specialized, not the reverse, tells us that the Neanderthal lineage probably did not produce the Australian aborigine
lineage, though they may have contributed to it. Instead, both lineages came from a generalized Australopithecus and the
uniquely Neanderthal occipital bun and beetle-brows were acquired later by the Australian aborigine lineage, probably from an
ancestor of the Neanderthals, such as georgicus or Heidi. 36 Because blond hair and blue eyes would not be an advantage in
Australia, it is likely that these traits were carried there by early Caucasians.
Limited Cro-Magnon / Neanderthal interbreeding accounts for some of the traits that are common to Neanderthals and
some Caucasians. 37 The Neanderthal occipital bun is also found among some early modern Europeans 38 and can still be
seen today fairly often among Lapps, Finns, and people in southern Lancashire in the north of England (which had been
invaded by the Vikings), the same people who are most likely to have blond hair and blue eyes.
If Dr. Olson is correct and the Neanderthal males did hunt wild cattle at night, an adventurous and highly risky
behavior, it might also explain why Caucasians are more adventurous and take more risks than NE Asians, behavior that may
be responsible for their greater number of discoveries and accomplishments, despite having slightly smaller brains and lower
IQs than NE Asians. 39
The afrocentrists initially denied that the West Asians that became Caucasians had interbred with any archaic species
of man as it was their position that modern Africans replaced all the archaic species of man without interbreeding. However, if
Caucasians evolved from East Asians without interbreeding with Neanderthals, it is difficult to explain why the Caucasian skull
is less neotenic than the East Asian skull since East Asian neoteny was beneficial to the East Asians, and the Caucasians
lived in a similar environment.
Figure 25-5 is a picture of a reconstructed Neanderthal child that is based on the
skull of a Neanderthal child. The child in the picture looks hauntingly different, but she could
easily pass for a European living today. 40
An interesting
feature possessed by
some Neanderthals,
some fossil
Caucasian skulls
(Coon, 1962, p. 504),
and some living
whites is a type of
Figure 25-6 Figure 25-7 Figure 25-8 Figure 25-9
prognathism
(“midfacial”). Compare the nose and jaws of the beautiful unnamed model (Fig. 25-6) with a
profile of a reconstructed Neanderthal man (Fig. 25-7) and the Neanderthal child in Figure
25-5. The midfacial prognathism of Neanderthals can be seen in many Europeans and
some Asians; even cartoons and comics of beautiful Caucasians often have midfacial
prognathism, e.g., Blondie Bumsted.
Figure 25-5 Neanderthal prognathism is in contrast to the simian (“alveolar”) prognathism of
many Australian aborigines (Figure 27-6), Africans (Figure II-1; Figure 9-3; Figure 9-4;
Figure 9-26; Figure 10-11; & Fig. 25-8), 41 and apes (Figure 6-1 & Fig. 25-9, a baby bonobo). 42 In simian prognathism only
the jaw protrudes, but in Neanderthal prognathism both the nose and the jaw protrude and, indeed, the nose protrudes even
more than the jaw.
The Neanderthal and Caucasian nose is also longer and narrower than the African and ape nose, extending downward
closer to the bottom of the upper incisors. (Figures 10-6 & 10-7; Howells, 1948, pp. 167-168). The profiles in Figure 25-10
illustrate the differences in prognathism.
In the European profile, the jaw does not protrude, but the
nose and chin do. In the Neanderthal (Hn) profile, the jaw and nose
protrude, but there is very little chin. If the Neanderthal profile is
crossed with the European profile, the result is a more attractive
Hss/Hn hybrid profile that some Europeans have, with a protruding
jaw, nose, and chin. In the simian profile, only the jaw protrudes and
the nose is short, flat, and broad. Since Africans and most Asians do
not have Neanderthal prognathism, 43 where did those Europeans
who have it get it from, if not from Neanderthals? Figure 25-10
The prominence of the nose, rather than the jaw, in
Neanderthal prognathism suggests the use of weapons in fighting, rather than biting with teeth. Neanderthal prognathism is a
combination of the partial loss of simian prognathism plus a cold-adaptive increase in the size and length of the nose to warm
the cold northern air before it reached the lungs. (Some Caucasians also have large, unusually-shaped noses, e.g., comedian
Jimmy Durante, psychic Pam Coronado.)
Interbreeding with Neanderthals offers a good explanation for how Caucasians obtained traits that are not particularly
advantageous. It is called “selective sweep” or “genetic hitchhiking” and it works like this. Suppose the Neanderthals, who had
lived in Europe for a long time, had only a single allele that was very advantageous for living there. (They probably had many,
but let’s assume the simplest case.) And suppose that there was only very limited interbreeding between the Neanderthals and
the newly-arrived Cro-Magnons. The limited interbreeding would transfer to some of the hybrid progeny not only the very
advantageous allele, but also other nearby alleles that may not have been particularly advantageous at all, perhaps those for
eye and hair color. The individuals who inherited the very advantageous allele were more reproductively successful than those
who did not inherit it so, eventually, most of the expanding hybrid population had it. But those other nearby alleles that came
along for the ride also spread with the advantageous allele. So, even though the other alleles were not particularly
advantageous, most of the hybrids ended up with them as well. Neat, isn’t it? (Schaffner, 2006).
Thus, the hybrid Caucasians have a mixture of Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal traits, 44 but the absence of Neanderthal
mtDNA in Caucasians suggests a much greater contribution to the Caucasian genome from the Cro-Magnons than from
Neanderthals.
H-O Normal
Fossil Evidence of Interbreeding
Neanderthal 53 47 The best fossil evidence for Neanderthal
Australopithecus 0 100 interbreeding 45 is the presence of a different
African Eves 0 100 shape of a hole in the jaw that a nerve goes
Skhūl/Qafzeh (Hn-Cauc. Hybrid) 0 100 through to the teeth, known as the “mandibular
foramen” (“jaw hole”). This hole comes in two
Early U. Paleolithic shapes (Fig. 25-11), “normal,” which almost all
18 82
(> 120 kya) living humans have, and “horizontal-oval” (H-O),
Late U. Paleolithic which is almost entirely limited to Neanderthals
7 93 and fossils of Europeans (Lewin, 1998, p. 404).
(300 – 30 kya)
Mesolithic (< 10 kya) 2 98 Since the shape of the hole has no functional
significance and the H-O shape is very unlikely to
Medieval Europeans (1500 – 400 BP) 1 99 have arisen independently by chance in both the
Table 25-1 Neanderthals and the Europeans, the Europeans
must have gotten it from the Neanderthals. Table
25-1 shows some of the frequencies of the H-O foramen (Wolpoff, 1997; Frayer, 1992, p. 31). Table 25-
1 shows that the H-O foramen was absent in Australopithecus, early Africans, and one hybrid, was most Figure 25-11
frequent in Neanderthals, and decreased in frequency in Europeans from ancient times to the present.
Figure 25-12 is a male skull, about 90,000 yrs old, found at Mt. Carmel in Israel. The Mt. Carmel skull shows features
of both Neanderthals and Caucasians and is thought to be a hybrid or intermediate. 46 That is, if Caucasians are hybrids of
Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals, then Mt. Carmel is a hybrid that had more Neanderthal (Figures 2-6 & 2-7) in it than Cro-
Magnon (Figure 2-8). The skull capacity is 1518 cc, larger than the average of Caucasians (1441 cc), NE Asians (1491cc), and
Neanderthals (1450 cc), but smaller than Cro-Magnons (~1570).
In 1999, a 24,500 year old skeleton of a 4 year old boy (the “Lagar Velho” child), that was
clearly a hybrid between a Neanderthal and a Cro-Magnon, was found in a cave in Lapedo Valley,
north of Lisbon, Portugal. (Duarte, 1999). This skeleton shows that Neanderthals and early modern
humans intermixed and produced children. The child was buried with a pierced shell and red ochre,
which indicates ritual burial, a modern behavior.
Figures 25-13 and 25-14 are two more examples of re-constructed adult Neanderthals. 47
As with the baby-adult
chimpanzee comparison (Figure 6-1),
the adult Neanderthal is less
neotenic than the child (Fig. 25-5).
Figure 25-12 The brow ridges are heavier and the
forehead slopes more than in most
Caucasians, but even today they could “pass” as
Caucasians.
In addition to fossil bones, artifacts have been found
that suggest trading between Neanderthals and (West)
Asians, and possibly even more intimate contact. Personal
ornaments found with older Neanderthal fossils are similar to
those found with fossils of Cro-Magnons, though previously
the two populations were completely unassociated. (Zilhão, Figure 25-13 Figure 25-14
2006b).
In the end, there are just too many traits and unusual alleles in Europeans for them to have all come from mutations.
Moreover, some of the alleles and traits offer no obvious advantage, so it is hard to see how they could become so common in
Europeans just from mutations.
Chapter 26
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. Picture from Zivulovic, S., Reuters. (Fink, 1997). There are also elegant bird-bone flutes as old as 36,000 years from sites in
Germany and France. (Edgar, B., “Standing Up to Dance and Sing,” Scientific American, July, 2006). Back
2. (Howells, 1959, p. 193; Haywood, 2000, p. 41). And they made crayons to draw with. (Jones, D. "Neanderthals wore make-
up and liked to chatNew Scientist, Mar. 27, 2008). Back
3. Although Neanderthal behavior was, in many ways, modern, there is no evidence that it met Baker’s indicia for creating a
civilization. Back
4. That is the date of the most recent Neanderthal fossil, found in Portugal. Neanderthals were still living in Croatia as recently
as 28,000 ya and in southern Spain only 30,000 ya. (Hall, 1999). Back
5. Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted from approximately 40,000 ya to less than 30,000 ya. (Hublin, 1995).
Haywood (2000, p. 41) says until 12,000 ya. Primitive, but modern, human fossils found at Jebel Qafzeh, near Nazareth,
Israel, were 100,000 years old, and Neanderthal remains from the Kebara cave, on Mount Carmel, Israel, were 60,000 years
old (Parker, 1992), suggesting co-existence for a longer time. (Wilson, 1992). Back
6. If so, Neanderthals would have had more fast twitch muscle fibers, making them much stronger, but fewer slow twitch
muscle fibers, which are useful for endurance. Back
7. (Shea, 2002). Eight foot long lances made from a dense wood were used, perhaps from trees that grew slowly on a north
slope that received less sunlight. Back
8. The bones in their forearms were bowed, allowing space for powerful muscles. Back
9. They reached Khotylevo, on the Great Russian Plain, 52°N. latitude, about 120,000 ya, where the average January
temperature is below 14°F; it was even colder back then. (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 301); Hoffecker, 2007. Back
10. Figure 25-2 is from (National Geographic, Jan., 1996). One Neanderthal fossil, “The Old Man of La Chapelle,” (Figure 2-
7), who dates to about 50,000 ya, suffered from severe arthritis in his neck, had a deformed left hip, a crushed toe, a broken
rib, and damaged patella (knee cap), yet he survived, presumably because others cared for him. Back
11. Isotopic analysis of Neanderthal bones shows that they were primarily carnivores feeding on open-ranging herbivores. One
explanation for the sizable nasal opening of the Neanderthals is that it enabled them to inhale large amounts of air during great
physical exertion. Back
12. (Steudel-Numbers, 2004). (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 112, 135, 189-190). “[I]t is estimated that Neandertals required 3,360 to
4,480 kcal [i.e., “Calories”] per day to support strenuous winter foraging and cold resistance costs.” (Steegmann, Jr., 2002).
Neanderthals also had a wider pelvis, which is less efficient for walking (Figure 22-2). A typical, modern, urban American male
requires only 2,600 Calories. Cro-Magnons, like the East Asians, may have relied more on fat and less on muscle. Muscle
requires more energy than fat just to be maintained, and uses still more energy when it is working. Thus, very muscular
creatures tend to be more sedentary (e.g., cats), except during periods of extreme exertion. Fat is cheaper to maintain and
does not require a constant input of energy. Back
13. Even today there are nocturnal primates, such as galagos, tarsiers, lorises, and lemurs. A good example of two closely
related species that are able to co-exist in the same territory are the ocelot (Felix pardalis) and the jaguarondi (Felix
jaguarondi). In Mexico, the jaguarondi hunts primarily during the day and the ocelot primarily at night. (Tangley, 2006). Back
14. Superior technology included not only weapons, but constructed shelters with interior hearths, tailored apparel,
underground food storage, traps, snares, bone needles, and even rotary drills. (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 62, 135, 171, 225, 253).
Back
15. They also had the same allele of the FoxP2 gene that humans have, which is required for speech. (Krause, 2007b). Back
16. The drawing, from a cave near from Valtorta, Spain, is 13,000 years old. Bows and arrows are at least 18,000 years old.
Back
17. (Adler, 2006; Hoffecker, 2002, p. 178). There is little evidence that Neanderthals used symbols or thought symbolically,
which would have given the Cro-Magnons a major advantage. (Hoffecker, 2002, pp. 125-126). Back
18. The genetic distance between Caucasians and sub-Saharan Africans can be as large as 0.2%, yet they can interbreed
with fertile offspring. The genetic distance between Hss and Neanderthals is less, (<0.08%), so they could very likely
interbreed as well. Back
19. (Krings, 1997; Ovchinnikov, 2000; Serre, 2004). However, the analysis of Neanderthal mtDNA has been criticized.
(Lubenow, 1998). Back
20. The absence of this evidence, however, does not exclude interbreeding. (Nordborg, 1998; Serre, 2004; Relethford, 2001).
"These results do not rule out the possibility that Neandertals contributed other genes to modern humans." (Krings, 1997). The
experimentally determined minimal distance between Neanderthals and us is 22 substitutions, i.e., different alleles. (Krings,
1997, p. 24-25). Modern humans can have as many as 24 substitutions among them. We share at least 99.5% of our DNA
with Neanderthals. (Noonan, 2006). Also, some Europeans may have much more Neanderthal heritage than others;
geneticists should obtain positive results if they test Europeans who have Neanderthal traits. Back
21. (Evans, 2006). “We suggest that the H2 haplotype [of the MAPT gene] is derived from Homo neanderthalensis and
entered H. sapiens populations [i.e., Caucasian only] during the co-existence of these species in Europe from approx. 45000
to 18000 years ago.” (Hardy, 2005). Also, “… would indicate that archaic populations such as Neanderthals must have made a
substantial [5%] contribution to the modern gene pool in Europe.” (Plagnol, 2006). Also see the CD4 gene. Back
22. As to the reverse occurring, there are old tales of dwarfs stealing women in the night, and Neanderthals have been
described as “compact, dwarfy-like beings." (Gary Sawyer, anthropologist at the American Natural History Museum in NY).
Back
23. “When wolves encounter dogs, they usually eat them. … When they mate it is almost always the male wolf with the female
dog.” (Whitney, 1999). A Neanderthal man would easily win a one-on-one, hand-to-hand fight, but the Cro-Magnons were
likely more populous, could run faster, and could use spears to avoid contact. Back
24. Howells (1948, p. 172) describes male Neanderthal hybrids from Skhul in Israel as “tall, straight-limbed” and a female
hybrids at Tabun in Israel as “more primitive and less specialized” so, as expected, there were a mixture of traits in the
hybrids. Back
25. (Hawkes, 2006). “The principle is that when a population has been invaded by members of another race the genes that
give it its special adaptation to its local environment retain their selective advantage and eventually come to characterize the
mixed population through the process of natural selection.” (Coon, 1962, p. 34). Back
26. There is some evidence that mental traits are female-linked and are inherited from the mother, which may give the hybrids
more Cro-Magnon mental traits. (Goos, 2006). Back
27. (Seldin, 2006; Tian, 2008; also Figure 20-3). Back
28. A similar “frequency-dependant selection” has been reported for DSC1, a gene that is closely associated with
schizophrenia. (Crespi, 2007). Huntington’s Disease may also involve a balancing. (Spinney, L., "Could Huntington's mutation
make people healthier?New Scientist, Sept. 7, 2007). Another such balancing may occur with the percentage of sociopaths,
which is about 4% in the US. (Stout, 2005, p. 136). Back
29. BRCA1 (breast cancer 1 gene) and the D4 dopamine receptor are examples. (Harpending, 2006). Back
30. (Evans, 2006). Also see the mtDNA polymorphism, EST00083, which increases IQ in Europeans and was acquired 35,000
ya. Back
31. (Beals, 1965). Blue eyes are found in 99% of Estonians and 75% of Germans. The Neanderthals lived as far north as
Finland - stone tools were found in Finland in and below layers dated at 340,000 to 300,000 ya. (Schulz, 1998). Similar finds
were made in Siberia. Back
32. A genetic study (Eiberg, 2008) suggests that blue eyes are only 6000 to 10,000 years old; the most recent Neanderthal
fossil is dated at 24,500, but they could have lived long after that. Also, the genetic study just examined living people; other
blue-eyed people could have lived much earlier, but did not leave descendants. Blue eyes are believed to have originated with
the Indo-Europeans, who lived around the Caucasus Mountains, between the Black and Caspian Seas. (Anitei, S., “How Blue
or Green Eyes Appeared,” Softpedia). Chinese and Muslim sources of the 7th–12th centuries describe the people of
Kyrgyzstan (just west of China), as red or blond-haired with a fair complexion and green or blue eyes. (Wikipedia,
“Kyrgyzstan”). Back
33. The blond hair (Figure 10-10) of some Australian aborigines may be an ash blond that is not the same as European blond
hair. Back
34. Dr. Alex Brown. His mother was European and his father was a full-blooded aborigine, so his father must have had an
allele for blue eyes, which are recessive. Back
35. (Baker, 1974, p. 279). Even some African Bushmen have occipital buns. (Wikipedia, “Occipital Bun”). Since the
Neanderthal lineage, georgicus to the Neanderthals, had occipital buns, a southern expansion by any species in that lineage
would account for the occipital buns in the Bushmen and Australian aborigines. Back
36. In addition, red hair is believed to have arisen only 8000 to 10,000 ya, after the Neanderthals were extinct. (Owen, J.,
“British Have Changed Little Since the Ice Age, Gene Study Says,” National Geographic News, July 19, 2005). And, although
some Neanderthals apparently had red hair, they did not have the same allele for it that modern redheads have. (Culotta,
2007). That does not end the matter, however, as the differences between the Hn and Hss alleles may have been minor, other
Neanderthals not yet found may have had the same allele as Hss, and the allele may have entered the Hss genome
thousands of years before it was expressed and observed. Back
37. (Coon, 1962, pp. 540-541; Bailey, 2002). “… you can still find some Neanderthal features in Europe today.” (University of
Michigan). Back
38. “…Neandertals and early modern Europeans virtually all exhibit a projection of the back of the skull called an occipital
bun…” (Smith, F.H., "The Fate of the Neandertals," Scientific American, Apr., 2000, p.107). Back
39. “Since 2000, Americans have won 53 Nobel Prizes, and all the winners were white. The United Kingdom won 12 Nobel
Prizes in the same period. By contrast, Japan, a country with a population more than double the UK’s, won four Nobel Prizes.
The largest country in the world, China, produced one prize winner, as did South Korea. This means that the white populations
of the US and the UK were more than seven times more likely to produce Nobel Prize winners than Japan, 10 times more
likely than South Korea, and about 300 times more likely than China.” (Jobling, I., “What is the West? Part II,” The Inverted
World, Feb. 8, 2008). An allele, “7R,” on the human dopamine receptor gene DRD4, appeared in Caucasians only 30,000 to
50,000 ya, but is over 300,000 years old, and must have come from “a closely related hominid linkage,” i.e., Neanderthals.
(Ding, 2002). Interestingly, this gene is associated with “the personality trait of novelty seeking,” (and attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)) which may explain why Caucasians explore and discover more than Asians, and have far more
Nobel Prizes (375 to 32). (Kanazawa, 2006). “The 7R allele, for example, has an extremely low incidence in Asian populations
yet a high frequency in the Americas.” (Ding, 2002). The article does not give the incidence of 7R in Africans but it should be
low. Back
40. Reconstructed Gibraltar child by E. Daynès. “Thus, modern Europeans retain some Neandertal genes and they look the
most like Neandertals of any extant [living] human population …” (Boaz, 1997, p. 213). “Despite these adaptive features [i.e.,
features Neanderthals evolved to protect them from the cold], the Neanderthal faces are essentially Caucasoid.” (Coon, 1962,
p. 534). “[An} early modern European (center) shares more features in common with a Neandertal (left) than with a modern
from the Middle East (right).” (Attributed to Milford Wolpoff, “The Modern Human Origins Morass,” Scientific American, Jan. 29,
2001). Back
41. (Coon, 1962, p. xx, a pygmy from the Congo). Back
42. (PBS NOVA, “The Last Great Ape”). Back
43. Some African Americans, who are hybrids of Africans and Caucasians, have it. Back
44. Caucasians have more problems with wisdom teeth than do Asians or Africans (MacGregor, 1985) which may be due to
some incompatibility between larger Neanderthal teeth and smaller Cro-Magnon jaws, a problem discussed in Chapter 30.
Back
45. (Wolpoff, 2004; Soficaru, 2007). Back
46. Skulls at Qafzeh, Tabūn, and Skhūl in Israel, skeletons found in a cave at Shanidar in northern Iraq, at the Cave of the Old
Woman, (Trinkaus, 2003), and the Cave with Bones (Rougier, 2007) in Romania, also show mixtures of Neanderthal and
modern Caucasian traits. Back
47. Figure 25-13 is a wax reconstruction done at L’Atelier Daynes from the 50,000-year-old French Neanderthal skull shown in
the background. The skull in the picture is not aligned at the same angle as the reconstructed face. Figure 25-14 is from the
Rheinische Landesmuseum in Bonn using a 42,000 year old Neanderthal skull. Back
Chapter 26 - The Origin of Africans

“Antiquity in the Congo is almost an utter blank, so that we cannot approach the Negro from
the past. At the same time we cannot find ancient signs of him anywhere else. We know
nothing about the Negroes…."
(Howells, 1948, p. 279, 295, 297)
“In the territory of the Negroes – a major stock of mankind, fully distinguished from Whites or
Mongoloids – we find virtually no history at all."
(Howells, 1959, p. 303)
In OoA, today’s Africans evolved into modern man (Hss) in Africa, left Africa 65,000 ya
and migrated to Asia, replaced all the Asians who were already there without interbreeding with
them, and lost their African alleles and acquired completely new Asian alleles. In OoE, the
Asians and the Caucasians evolved as two separate, but occasionally interbreeding, lineages
from over 2 mya, but the African lineage did not so much evolve as it did acquire.
All humans evolved “up, up, and away” from an ape ancestor, but Africans did not
evolve as far away, for the simple reason that they remained in the same type of environment
that that ape ancestor lived in (i.e., they were close to equilibrium, Chapter 4, Rule 10) and were
not subjected to the harsh selection of a northern climate. Furthermore, only a small part of the
evolution of Africans was due to the selection of traits coded for by mutations that arose in
Africans; instead, Africans mostly received mutations that had occurred in Eurasians when
those Eurasians migrated into Africa and interbred with them. 1 Had no Eurasian hominins ever
entered Africa, there would be no members of the Homo genus in Africa today.
The migrations of primates from Eurasia into Africa may have begun as long ago as the
prosimians, followed by monkeys, quadrupedal apes, bipedal apes, Australopithecus, 2 erectus,
northern Hs, and finally Hss. As time passed, the migrations came from one part of Eurasia,
then another, then perhaps back to the first part again, but this time by a more evolved
hominoid, and so on, off and on for millions of years.
Because the intervals in between migrations into Africa were not long enough for the
newer and older migrants to evolve into different species, interbreeding to produce viable
hybrids was possible and common. 3 As usual, only those hybrids who were best adapted for
Africa survived. The numbers of more evolved migrants entering Africa at any one time was
vastly less than the number of less evolved earlier migrants with whom they could interbreed,
so migrants were absorbed, leaving behind few fossils; the only evidence of their presence is
their alleles in their hybrid offspring. In this way, over millions of years, a huge variety of more
advanced Eurasian alleles entered the genomes of African primates, and that is why Africans
have the most genetic variation (Figure 19-2) 4 but no ancestors (quotes at the beginning of this
chapter). 5
As those more advanced hominoids arrived in Africa from Eurasia they, and their hybrid
offspring, pushed the less advanced hominoids away from their entry point in NE Africa. The
earlier and more primitive arrivals did not go extinct immediately, but retreated to less desirable
territories, dwindling in numbers but clinging on for many, many years before they went extinct.
6
Meanwhile, back in Eurasia, where the alleles were being generated that enabled
hominoids to advance into modern humans, a similar process had already occurred, but
hundreds of thousands of years earlier than in Africa. That is, when a new allele arose in
Eurasia that was more adaptive in Eurasia, perhaps because it gave protection from the cold or
the greater intelligence needed to survive the winters (see “Intelligence Enhancing Processes,”
in Section IV), there was also interbreeding between those who had the alleles and those who
did not, producing hybrids, and only those hybrids who were best adapted survived, just as in
Africa. The difference, however, is that it took hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions of
years, for the new alleles to spread to the individuals who would carry them into Africa. Thus, in
the journey to become modern man, Africa was always hundreds of thousands of years behind
Eurasia.
Now, a fair question is, “Why didn’t those alleles also arise in Africa?” No doubt some of
the African-specific alleles 7 did and others eventually might have. But when the alleles arose in
Africa, they arose as single alleles, so the individual who had them had to succeed or fail on the
basis of that one allele. When the allele was brought in to Africa by the Eurasian migrants, it
came not as a single allele, one with each individual, but as a set of compatible alleles. Those
who had the set succeeded or failed on the basis of the entire set, which would have been
much more beneficial than single alleles. Also, the negative effects of a few alleles in the set
that were maladaptive in Africa may have been swamped by the positive effects of the
remaining adaptive alleles in the package. Gradually, the maladaptive alleles would be lost 8 as
individuals who lacked them, but not the adaptive alleles, were born. As discussed in
"Intelligence as a Liability," in Chapter 14 and later in this chapter, alleles for high intelligence
were probably maladaptive in Africa and were lost as even those Africans in NE Africa now
have low IQs. (Lynn, 2006a).
The migrants did not arrive with only their genes – they also brought their culture; and,
since their culture was more advanced, this gave them a considerable advantage. An allele plus
African culture may be a disadvantage, but an allele plus Eurasian culture may be an
advantage, even in Africa. For example, an allele for digesting milk is of no advantage if people
do not keep herds of herbivorous mammals, i.e., Africa, but is an advantage in Eurasia, where
they do.
Although the early primate migrants into Africa were from the Eurasian tropics and could
adapt easily to Africa, the later hominids were from a more northern climate and, because they
were not adapted to the tropics, e.g., they had no resistance to tropical diseases; most did not
survive for long and left few fossils. 9 Chapter 23 describes some of the earlier hominoids, up to
Australopithecus, that may have migrated into Africa. The first Homo migrant into Africa may
have been an early habilis that was better adapted to Eurasia than to Africa, but it had some
advantages, such as superior tools and weapons, that were also advantageous in Africa.
Georgicus is closely related to African habilis, ergaster, and erectus fossils and fossils of Heidi
have been found in Africa.
The Eurasian hominids interbred with the disease-resistant natives before the migrants
died out, however, producing hybrids with various mixtures of the traits of the parent
populations. 10 The hybrids that had both the disease resistance of earlier migrants and some
of the more advanced traits of the Eurasian hominids were selected and survived, gradually
advancing the Africans, though they were always hundreds of thousands of years behind the
Eurasians. 11 The only trace of all the different migrants who entered Africa over a period of at
least 2 million years is the large variety of alleles that are found in today’s Africans (Figure 19-2)
and the traits they code for. Beginning with quadrupedal apes, the tree in Figure 26-1 shows
how Africans advanced by means of waves of Eurasian hominids migrating there, bringing
alleles for more advanced traits into the African gene pool, assuming a quadrupedal ape
ancestor.
Figure 26-1
Figure 26-2 shows the location of some of the tribes in Africa; 12 the arrows show the
three migratory routes in to (Suez and the Horn) and out of (Gibraltar) Africa.
Figure 26-2
Note that below the “African Whites” zone is a “Zone of Mixture” that extends across the
continent, including the Horn of Africa, and most of southern Africa. The Hottentots and the
Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert are right in the middle of the “Zone of Mixture.” The “Forest
Negro” is the Congoids; they lived in the territory around the Congo and Niger River basins,
where African Americans came from.
The Sahara Desert was “a nearly complete barrier to human movement north or south”
except during the ice ages, when it was “a temperate, watered climate.” (Howells, 1948, p. 270).
Thus, the only time that the Sahara Desert was habitable and easily crossed was the very time
that the ice ages were driving Eurasians south in to Africa.
Note that northern Africa and what is now Egypt were occupied by whites, 13 and that
migration out of Africa across Gibraltar would have been by whites. If Africans were migrating
out of Africa, as OoA asserts, it is hard to explain how so much of northern African could have
been white. Surely, the migrating Africans would not have become whites while still in Ethiopia
and Egypt? One would expect all of Africa to have been black, especially the north, which the
Africans were supposedly moving in to on their way to Eurasia. The fact that northern Africa
was white and that “whiteness” declines as one moves south and west into the Congo suggests
that any migrations were by whites in to Africa, not by blacks out of Africa. 14
Except for unpredictable droughts, African hominoids were in a stable environment, the
same tropical environment that Africa has had for millions of years. The more stable an
environment is, the less its inhabitants evolve (Chapter 4, Rules 4 and 6). That is, any new and
unusual traits that arose in Africa were likely to be less advantageous than the traits African
hominoids already had, traits that had worked well in Africa for millions of years.
Figure 26-3 (World Book Encyclopedia) shows the climate zones in Africa. The white
population in North Africa along the Mediterranean Sea (Fig. 26-2) could have entered Africa
from Gibraltar 15 or Suez (Alexandria) but, once there, moving south was feasible only when the
Sahara was not a desert. By entering at the Horn of Africa into Ethiopia, however, movement
south was possible at any time. Once in Ethiopia, the east coast of Africa could be followed
south around the cape and north again partly up the west coast.
Figure 26-3
There are many very different populations in Africa, 16 but only a few of the most
different ones will be discussed.
Congoids
Because the Congoids are the most simian Africans and live in one of the areas most
inaccessible to Eurasian migrants into Africa, they are likely to be descended from some of the
oldest hominoids that migrated into Africa. The tropically-adapted traits of the Congoids, e.g.,
dark, hairless skin and short, wooly black head hair, were most likely brought into Africa by a
tropics-specialized bipedal ape, probably a species of Australopithecus. Although Hs and Hss
migrated south into both SE Asia and Africa, displacing more primitive hominids, in SE Asia the
primitive hominids were driven onto islands and there was less interbreeding with them. In
Africa, however, Hs and Hss did not survive as well. As a result, fewer Hs and Hss alleles
entered the African genome, especially the more isolated Congoids, who therefore retained
more of the simian traits of their ape ancestors.
The Nigerians are the African tribe that is genetically
closest to the chimpanzee. (Deka, 1995). Nigeria is on the West
Coast of Africa (Figure 17-6), making it difficult to reach from
the Middle East, as Eurasian migrants would either have to
cross the center of Africa or move south along the African
coastline, around the cape, and back up north along the
western coast past the equator. 17 Thus, of the Africans, the
Nigerians either received fewer infusions of Homo genes from
Eurasians or, of the various hybrids that were formed, those
with the more primitive traits were better adapted for that
territory and the other hybrids did not survive there. The area in
which the Nigerians live is “the jungle of the Congo and of the
Slave Coast of West Africa,” (Howells, 1948, p. 270), the home
of chimpanzees and gorillas, suggesting that the known
interbreeding between human and chimpanzee lineages 18
occurred in the Congo in the West African lineage. This would
account for the simian traits of African Americans, who came
from West Africa.
Andaman Islanders Figure 26-4

To understand the origin of the San and the Hottentots,
it is necessary to look briefly at some Asians. As Asian hominids increased their numbers, they
spread west along the coastline, then into Africa. (Olivieri, 2006). One population that did so
was descended from a tropically-adapted Australopithecus that lived in India. Today, a small
remnant of these people still lives on the Andaman Islands (Fig. 26-4; Coon, 1962, p. XVIII), a
string of small islands in the bay of Bengal east of India. About 60,000 ya, during the first ice
age, the Andaman Islands were reachable from mainland India and these people probably lived
in continental India as well. They either expanded their numbers and migrated into Africa or
were driven there by more advanced northern hominids, who moved south to escape the ice
age.
Although the woman’s buttocks are partially concealed in Figure 26-4, it is still obvious
that they are enormous. Steatopygia (“fat ass”) is a highly unusual and very primitive trait as it is
reminiscent of the buttocks of female apes and monkeys that become engorged with blood and
bright red to signal ovulation to males. Although it is fat that is stored, probably to live off during
periods of famine, the enlarged buttocks are attractive to males, just as the swelling of the
buttocks is in other primates. Bustles worn by Victorian ladies in England in the 1800s had a
similar effect on males. 19 Since enlarged buttocks are associated with apes, the presence of
steatopygia in living people 20 suggests that a steatopygous hominid, probably a species of
tropically-adapted Australopithecus in India, was an early migrant into Africa. 21
Hottentots
If ancestors of the Andaman Islanders made it to Africa, there
could be some traces of that population in Africa. The Hottentots (aka
“Khoi”) were a tribe closely related to the Bushmen, both using a
monosyllabic "click" language. Their Y chromosome haplogroup A is
the oldest human lineage (Knight, 2003). The Hottentots lived in
Southern Africa near the Cape of Good Hope. Pure Hottentots no
longer exist, some dying of smallpox and the remainder interbreeding
with other Africans. There were some around in the 1800s, however,
so unlike other extinct populations, we have descriptions and
drawings of them and not just bones. The females were more
unusual than the males; Figure 26-5 shows the most famous female,
the “Hottentot Venus.” 22 The women, like the Andaman Island
women (Fig. 26-4), are characterized by their enormous buttocks.
The women also had large external genital flaps 23 and large areolae
with inverted nipples. The face is flat, similar to an Asian’s, with only
the teeth protruding and the incisors meeting at an angle, as in an
African. (Coon, 1962, p. 646). The brain is smaller and simpler. 24 Figure 26-5
Bushmen
The Bushmen (aka “San”), a pygmy 25 hunter/gatherer tribe that
lives in the Kalahari Desert in southern Africa, are one of the most
primitive people on earth. Figure 26-6 is a photograph of a male
Bushman. As you can see, even the males are steatopygous. It is
steatopygia that ties Andaman Islanders, Hottentots, and Bushmen
together as descendants of a single population.
Now take a close up view of another Bushman (actually a
Bushman woman) in Figure 26-7. (Coon, 1962, plate V). Although
Bushmen have some African features (large
lips, broad nose, small ears, and wooly hair)
they also have some neotenic Asian traits
(Cruciani, 2002), including light, yellowish
skin, eye folds, and a flat face. 26 These traits
Figure 26-6 are cold adaptations that occurred in East
Asians when they became neotenic. Unlike
other Africans, the Bushmen are monogamous, a trait of the cold
north. Bushmen also have shoveled incisors and many newborn
Bushmen even have “Mongoloid spots” at the base of the spine, both
also Asian traits and Bushman DNA is 56% “Near Eastern.” 27 Thus, Figure 26-7
there was likely interbreeding between the steatopygous Andaman
Islander lineage and the neotenic East Asian lineage. 28 Interbreeding most likely occurred in
Asia rather than in Africa because Bushmen first lived in northern Africa (where Eurasians
entered Africa), before they were driven into southern Africa by new migrants. 29 Since the
Bushmen were least capable of fending off other tribes, they now occupy the least desirable
territory, the Kalahari Desert. However, the desert may have allowed them to escape malaria-
carrying mosquitoes 30 and decimation from later, more advanced migrants.
The small size of the Bushmen may be because their tropically-adapted
Australopithecus ancestors were small, 31 or it may be due to long-term calorie restriction, a
condition that would have made a large energy-consuming brain a liability. When there is not
enough food, individuals whose bodies require the least amount of energy have the best
chance of surviving and individuals with smaller brains require significantly less energy. 32 As a
result, brain size decreased, which gave Bushmen the lowest IQ (54) of any population yet
measured and the lowest brain to body mass ratio of all human populations (even lower than
the South Pacific aborigines).
As the Bushmen show, it is clearly possible to be neotenic, which is not a primitive trait
in man, yet have a small brain. Conversely, as the Neanderthals show, it is equally possible to
have primitive traits (heavy brow ridges, receding forehead), yet have a large brain.
NE Africans
“But originally they [East Africans] 33 must have belonged to an Upper Paleolithic
[40,000 ya], large-skulled White stock of a longheaded variety, … Men like them were in South
Russia in the Mesolithic [20,000 – 18,000 BC], and perhaps in the Near East.” (Howells, 1959,
p. 313). “To put it simply, if skulls mean anything it is the Whites who have been solidly
entrenched in East Africa since the latter Pleistocene, and anyone else is an interloper.” 34 This
is, of course, consistent with the southward migrations of Caucasians into Africa.
Cro-Magnons, driven south by the ice ages, migrated into Africa
35 and interbred with the populations already there. 36 Figure 26-8 is a
picture of a Caucasian-looking Somali (who immigrated to Russia).
Although his Caucasian features are obvious, 37 the behavior of NE
Africans is African, as is their IQ (Ethiopia = 63, Somalia = 68, Kenya =
72; Lynn, 2002a). The existence of the living populations of Bushmen
and Somalis in Africa proves that there were ancient migrations of Asians
and Europeans into Africa.
Thus, Africans seem to have descended from at least three Figure 26-8
species of tropics-specialized Australopithecus: (1) an Indian
Australopithecus that had steatopygia, e.g., the Andaman Islanders, (2) an East Asian
Australopithecus that was neotenic and had specializations for the cold, e.g., the Negritos of the
Pacific Islands, and (3) a more generalized Australopithecus that lacked the specializations of
(1) and (2), but was specialized for the tropics. Some of the more generalized African lineages
did not interbreed very much with Europeans and retained their simian traits (Congoids), while
others interbred to a much greater extent with Europeans and lost more of their simian traits
(NE Africans). The Australopithecus LCA of those three species would have been similar to
species (3), also adapted for a warm climate but less specialized for the tropics. Having lived in
the tropics for millions of years, the species (3) Australopithecus would have had the simian
prognathism (Figure 25-10) of their ape ancestors plus the specializations of bipeds for the
tropics, e.g., sweat glands, dark, hairless skin, and short, wooly, black head hair.
Figure 26-9 is an interesting tree from (Cavalli-Sforza, 1994).
Figure 26-9
Note that Caucasians are in the center of the tree, strongly suggesting that both East
Asians and Africans descended from, or received genetic input from, the generalized Caucasian
lineage, as in the OoE theory. As usual, the genetic distance from Caucasians to Africans is
large, but note that the Africans that are farthest from Caucasians are the West Africans (e.g.,
Nigerians) and the Pygmies, indicating that they are descendants of the first migrants into
Africa. The short stature of the pygmies is consistent with the short stature of Australopithecus.
The West Africans live near the chimpanzees and are the most simian of the Africans, which is
consistent with an early generalized Australopithecus from Eurasia entering Africa and
interbreeding with chimpanzees. The next migrants were the steatopygous Australopithecines,
probably from the Orient, then India, who became the San (Bushmen and Hottentots). And the
last migrants were modern Caucasians, probably from the Middle East, who interbred with
earlier migrants and became the NE Africans.
Boskop
An “anomaly” is something that does not seem to fit into a theory or explanation. One
can consider an anomaly as an annoyance to be swept under the rug, hoping no one will notice,
or as an opportunity, a clue to a deeper understanding. Boskop is an anomaly that any theory of
human origins must deal with, though it may not yet be possible to determine which theory of
his origins is correct.
There is little information about
Boskop (aka Homo capensis), just a few
pieces of a skull found in the Transvaal
region of NW South Africa. Figure 26-10
is the skull (reconstructed by Broom),
with the darker areas being the pieces
found. Although the skull is dated at
only 30,000 to 10,000 ya, 38 the skull
bones are thick and the jaw is massive
and projecting. 39 It is described as
“modern-looking” (neotenic) because
the high forehead and larger skull
capacity look European, but the
protruding heavy jaw is similar to the
African skull in Figure 9-4. It has a
cephalic index (breadth of skull divided
by length times 100) given as 75.1 by
one researcher and as 76.19 by
another, only slightly higher than that of Figure 26-10
living Africans (<75, see (4) in Table 9-
1), which suggests some Caucasian heritage. However, it had an endocranial capacity
estimated at 1860 cc, higher than Europeans (1441 cc), much higher than living Africans (1338
cc), and higher than Neanderthals (1450 cc) or Liujiang (1480 cc). Moreover, Boskop is said to
be related to Hottentots and the Bushmen, 40 who have a very small cranial capacity. How did
Boskop, living in South Africa, acquire those traits?
Given that Boskop has some Hottentot-Bushman features and some Caucasian
features, one possibility is that Cro-Magnons entered the horn of Africa 41 and migrated south,
interbreeding with the natives along the way, though that does not explain the large skull
capacity.
What we do know is that today there are no large-brained Africans. The disappearance
of large-brained Africans, such as Boskop and the Eurasians who contributed alleles to the
Bushmen (IQ = 54, Lynn 2006a, , p. 169) and the Somalis (IQ = 68; Lynn, 2002a), is evidence
that the optimal intelligence in Africa is much lower than the optimal intelligence in Eurasia.
(See “Intelligence as a Liability,” pp. 120-123.) In North Africa, it was the lighter-skinned,
somewhat more intelligent (ave. IQ = 84, Lynn, 2006a, p. 80) hybrids who were best adapted,
but below the Sahara it was the darker-skinned, less intelligent (ave. IQ = 67, Lynn, 2006a, p.
225) and more erectine individuals who had the advantage. Thus, any large-brained
Caucasians who migrated into Africa would be burdened by their excess brain tissue and would
become extinct, as Boskop did.
Today, southern Africa, where Boskop was found, is cooler, but
not as cold as Eurasia. Large brains would not be as useful due to the
absence of a winter cold enough to cover the ground for many months
with snow. Figure 26-11 shows the monthly temperature range for
Bloemfontein, the coldest of the major cities in South Africa 42 (due to its
high elevation), and even there the temperature barely reaches freezing.
However, there were times in the past when the temperature in
Africa, at least at higher elevations, was colder and large brains, and
greater intelligence, would have been an advantage. Under those Figure 26-11
conditions, the optimal brain size for Africa would have been greater and
large-brained northerners who migrated there to escape the cold of Europe could have
maintained or even increased their brain size. As the African climate warmed again, large
brains again became a liability and those who had them died out. 43
Grimaldi
Two skeletons found in Grimaldi
Cave on the Mediterranean, near Mentone,
Italy are another anomaly. They were
dated at 30,000 BP and appear to be a
Negroid-Caucasoid mixture, but more
Caucasoid than Boskop. 44 One was a 5’2”
woman and the other was a 5’1” teenage
boy (Fig. 26-12). 45 The Negroid traits are
the wide nasal opening, large teeth, Figure 26-12
forward-projecting incisors and jaw, small
chin, and long forearm and legs, and the Caucasoid traits are the high forehead, meeting of
frontal skull bones, large cranial capacity (1375 and 1580 cc for the woman and boy,
respectively), and prominent nose bones.
A Cro-Magnon was buried above the skulls and a Neanderthal was buried below them,
suggesting Neanderthals were there first, then the Grimaldi hybrids came, and finally Cro-
Magnons took the territory. A possible explanation is that the ice ages drove Cro-Magnons into
Africa where they interbred with Africans forming the Grimaldi hybrids. When the ice receded,
the hybrids advanced north around the Mediterranean. They were later replaced by un-
hybridized Cro-Magnons.
Chapter 27
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. (Luis, 2004). “Analyses of sub-Saharan African … suggest that they began diverging from
one another upward of 50 KYA.” “African populations are shown to experience low levels of
mitochondrial DNA gene flow, but high levels of Y chromosome gene flow.” Both quotes from
(Garrigan, 2007); The divergence occurred as diverse Eurasians migrated into Africa after the
Cultural Revolution and the gene flows indicate that it was mainly Eurasian males that entered
Africa and interbred with earlier migrants. Back
2. The first “human ancestor,” dated at 3.8 to 4 mya, was found in northeastern Ethiopia but,
again, that is so close to the Middle East that one cannot assume that it evolved there and did
not migrate there. (Gibbons, 2005). Back
3. Although genetic evidence of chimp (Pan) – Homo interbreeding (actually, Pan lineage –
Homo lineage interbreeding) has been found (Patterson, 2006), it is likely to have occurred
before two human chromosomes fused to give humans 46 chromosomes (Williams, 1999), two
less than chimpanzees with 48. Interbreeding between related species with different
chromosome numbers can produce fertile offspring, but that is not likely. Two features of the
Hottentots and the Bushmen, their steatopygia and the external genitalia of the women (Fig. 26-
5 & 26-6), are simian traits and suggest either interbreeding with apes or the retention of simian
traits. Referring to the Hottentot Venus, whom he dissected, French anatomist Cuvier said, "I
have never seen a human head more like an ape than that of this woman." “… this man [a
bushman] had the true physiognomy of the small blue ape of Caffraria.” (Lichtenstein, Travels in
South Africa, Vol. II, p. 224. The quotes can be found here and here, respectively.) Early
hominoids entered Africa as populations of males and females; in modern times, it was primarily
males who entered Africa and interbred. Back
4. Because Africa has a relatively stable climate, the optimal amount of variation should be low
Chapter 4, Rules 4 and 5); multiple migrations of Eurasians into Africa explain why it is not.
Analogous situations occur with animals. The voles in the Orkney Islands north of Scotland are
“enormously diverse,” having “more variation … than in all of western Europe,” due to hitching
rides on boats from diverse locations during Neolithic times. (“Beastly Tales,” New Scientist,
Jan. 19, 2008, p. 31). Back
5. “And there are no archaeological signs of pre-Neolithic people in the Congo at all, and it
might have been empty when the Negritos and Negroes came.” (Howells, 1948, p. 299). That
is, empty of hominids that could make artifacts. Also, no ancestor in Africa has been found for
Australopithecus (Coon, 1962, p. 217) or for the chimps (Lovgren, 2004). These ancestors are
missing in Africa because they were living in Eurasia. Back
6. “…the fossil record shows that transitional forms of Homo [e.g., Homo erectus] were
widespread in Africa, even after the time of emergence of modern humans.” (Plagnol, 2006).
Back
7. In Figure 19-2, the African-specific alleles would be outside the red and green circles but
inside the blue circle. Back
8. In Figure 19-2, the lost alleles would be within the red and green circles but outside the blue
circle. Back
9. “Occupations and diseases which are fatal to the Europeans are quite harmless to the
Negro.” (Hunt, 1865, p. 25). Back
10. At least 1800 genes have been under selection pressure in Africa, Europe, and East Asia
for less than 50,000 years, which suggests extensive recent evolution of different races. (Wang,
E.T., 2006). Although this may indicate environmental change, it may also be due to the
introduction of new alleles due to more migrating into other territories. Back
11. Coon (1962) estimates 200,000 years, which would put today's Africans right at the
transition between Hs and Hss. Back
12. (Howells, 1948, p. 271 & inside cover). The map gives the tribes and races at least back to
1492. Back
13. “… in the Upper Paleolithic [40,000 to 10,000 ya] North Africa was racially indistinguishable
from Europe, …” (Howells, 1948, p. 272). Back
14. Note in Figure 10-8, how the broadest-nosed Africans, the most primitive and simian
Africans, are in the west and south of Africa, just where one would expect them to be if narrow-
nosed Eurasians were entering Africa at the northeast Horn. Back
15. However, Gibraltar is a deep channel and even during the peak of the ice ages was not a
land bridge. (Sykes, 2001, p. 278). During ice ages when the seas dropped, the Arabian
Peninsula was only a short distance from Africa. Back
16. “The mtDNAs from Africa, Europe, and Asia were found to carry 34.4 ± 2.7, 35.8 ± 2.1, and
33.8 ± 2.0 differences from the Neandertal sequence, respectively. The modern human
lineages displaying the fewest differences (29 substitutions) to the Neandertal mtDNA were
found in Africa, but the closest lineages in Asia and Europe were almost as similar to the
Neandertal (30 and 31 differences, respectively).” (Krings, 1999). The two widely disparate
differences for Africa (34.4 and 29) suggest the presence of ancient populations in Africa that
have not evolved as much away from Neanderthals (29 differences) along with more evolved
populations (34.4 differences). Back
17. “Modern Europeans are apparently more closely related [mtDNA] to South American
Indians than are western Africans to southern Africans.” (Haywood, 2000, p. 44). Note, in Figure
7-3, that the Mbuti pygmies in the Congo are the most genetically distant from the Eurasians.
Back
18. (Patterson, 2006; Arnold, 2006). Back
19. “This peculiarity is greatly admired by the men.” (Darwin, 1871). Some men make passes at
girls with fat asses. Back
20. Steatopygia can also be seen today to a diminished extent in some female Africans and
even some female African-Americans. It is a way to store fat without insulating the body, much
like a camel’s hump. Back
21. Examination of fossils of extinct apes may detect some evidence of steatopygia, such as
bones that supported or counterbalanced the weight. Back
22. Reported to really be a “Bushman woman.” (Keane, Ethnology, 1896, p. 251). The face in
Fig. 26.5 may not be accurately drawn as Hottentots are reported to have “a very broad flat
nose, …, large mouth with thick pouting lips, pronounced prognathism (64 to 70) [i.e., the facial
angle, see Figure 9-26], highly dolichocephalic head [long-headed, Figure 9-7], …” (Keane,
Ethnology, 1896, p. 251). Back
23. Note the large genital flaps on the bonobo pictured in Figure 23-14. Perhaps identification of
the genes responsible for those flaps in the Hottentots and the bonobos will be show whether
they are a result of the interbreeding that occurred between the chimp and human lineages.
Back
24. Hottentot skulls give a brain size of about 75 cubic in (1229 cc); the brain of the Hottentot
Venus was described as “smoother … more ape-like.” (Huxley, T.H., “On Some Fossil Remains
of Man”). Although there is no data on Hottentot IQ, one would expect it to be at least as low as
the Bushman IQ, which is only 54. Back
25. Not to be confused with the Pygmies, who live in forested areas of the Congo (Howells,
1959, pp. 304-305); they are likely a branch of the Bushmen lineage that broke off during the
trek south through Africa. The two populations are linked by blood group genes (DeAnza
College, CA), nasal index (103.9 for Bushmen and 103.8 for Pygmies), and average height (5’1”
for Bushmen and 4’8” for Pygmies). (DeAnza College, CA). Back
26. Howells (1959, p. 306) questions a genetic connection to Asians because the eye folds of
Bushmen have a different structure than the epicanthic folds of Asians. (Baker, 1974, pp. 312,
415). On the other hand, “Bushmen teeth, although very small, resemble those of Mongoloids
morphologically more than they do the teeth of Caucasoids, Negroids, or Australoids.” (Coon,
1962, p. 364, 362). In the click language (! = click sound) of the Bushmen there are three kinds
of mammals: (1) “!a” is an edible animal like a warthog, (2) “!oma” is an inedible animal like a
black African or European, and (3) “zhu” is a person, such as themselves. Vietnamese in
Botswana were immediately identified as “zhu” by Bushmen. (“Human Diversity and Its History,”
H.C Harpending and E. Eller for Biodiversity, ed. By M. Kato and N. Takahata, in press). Back
27. (Miller, 1994c), citing (Cavalli-Sforza, 1994). Also (Cruciani, 2002; Altheide, 1997; Hammer,
1998, 2001). In Table 7-1, the San (Bushmen) are almost as related to the people of the Near
East as the East Africans, who are closest to the Near East. Back
28. The Negritos in the Philippines and other South Pacific islands are also neotenic, as are the
pygmies of Australia (next chapter); however, they are not steatopygous, which suggests there
was another tropically-adapted species of Australopithecus that lived in SE Asia, but not in
India. Back
29. (Coon, 1962, p. 590). “… remnants of peoples exist up in East Africa who speak languages
of the Bush-Hottentot family.” (Howells, 1959, p. 308). “And at a few places in Kenya, skulls
suggesting Bushman traits have come from graves or caves of general Neolithic date…” (id., p.
312). “[Findings suggest an] ancient genetic affinity between Khoisan and
Ethiopians.” (Cruciani, 2002). In NE Africa, the Bushmen and Hottentots may have once been a
single population. Back
30. Bushmen lack the sickle cell allele, perhaps due to an early migration into Africa prior to that
mutation, with little subsequent gene flow into the Bushman population. (Howells, 1959, p. 266).
Back
31. The small size and ancient age of the Bushmen, the Negritos, and the Australian pygmies
suggests that East Asian neoteny occurred in an Australopithecus; Australopithecines were
small and their small stature was simply retained in those environments where it was an
advantage. A short lifespan has also been given to explain their size. (“Why Are Pygmies
Short?” PhysOrg.com, Dec. 21, 2007; Migliano, 2007). Although the neotenic traits were
primarily cold-adaptations, they must include at least one trait that was adaptive in the tropics,
so that the neotenic Asians were able to survive there. Back
32. On the other hand, a more intelligent brain of the same size uses less energy than a less
intelligent brain, presumably because it is more efficient. (Haier, 1988, 1992, & 1993). Back
33. Howells (1959, p. 311) defines “East Africa” as “modern Sudan, plus all the eastern
uplands: the Horn (Ethiopia and the Somalilands), British East Africa (Uganda, Kenya, and
Tanganyika), and the Ruanda Urundi Protectorate.” Back
34. (Howells, 1959, p. 311). Carriers of the U6 mtDNA haplogroup went from the Middle East to
North Africa about 39,000 to 52,000 ya. (Maca-Meyer, 2003). Back
35. “Most Ethiopians and Somalis, for example, along with almost all of the inhabitants of India
have mainly or partially Caucasoid skulls, while the Khoisan [Bushmen] people indigenous to
southwestern Africa have partially Mongoloid skulls (Capoid).” (Wikipedia, “Craniofacial
Anthropometry”). Back
36. Two out of 85 randomly recruited men named “Jefferson” in England share exactly the
same rare class of Y chromosome (“K2”) as President Thomas Jefferson. It is found at its
highest frequency in the Middle East and Eastern Africa, including Oman, Somalia, and Iraq.
(King, 2007). This is consistent with the migration of Caucasians into East Africa. Back
37. The Somali and the Ethiopians of the Horn of Africa (NE Africa) are the least simian of the
Africans because they are hybrids formed from a much more recent entry of European Hss into
Africa. In Table 7-1, the East Africans are closer to non-Africans than are the West Africans.
Back
38. (Bosveld, J., "The Extinct Human That Was Smarter Than Us," Discover, Mar., 2008, p. 72).
Back
39. A similar large skull, “Fish Hoek Man,” also found in South Africa, was dated at about
12,000 ya. Back
40. Baker (1974, p. 321) regards the skull as “pre-Bushman.” Back
41. Many large-brained Caucasoid skulls dated about 11-12 kya have also been found in north
Africa. “The mean cranial capacity of the males is 1,614 cc. for a pooled series of thirty-nine
male skulls (Briggs and Ferenbach) and 1,519 cc for seventeen female skulls.” (Coon, 1962, p.
607). Back
42. Cape Town and Pretoria are warmer. The Atlantic and Indian Oceans moderate the
temperature of South Africa but, except for mountaintops, it is still colder than elsewhere in
Africa. Back
43. “Cranial capacity [in sub-Saharan Africa], depending on the mode of its calculation, has
decreased by 95-165 cm3 among males and by 74 – 106 cm3 among females between the Late
Stone Age (30 –2 ka BP) and modern times (last 200 years). Values of the cranial index did not
show any trend over time and their averages remained in the dolichocephalic [long headed]
category. The decrease in cranial capacity in Subsaharan [sic] Africa is similar to that previously
found in Europe, West Asia, and North Africa, but, unlike the latter, it is not accompanied by
brachycephalization [broad headedness].” (Henneberg, 2005). Back
44. “The Grimaldi child was no more Negroid than the Palestinians of Skhul and many living
Europeans of the Mediterranean region.” (Coon , 1962, p. 584). Back
45. Photos from (Elliot, G.F.S., Prehistoric Man and His Story: A Sketch of the History of
Mankind, 1925). Grimaldi is said to resemble the Hottentots and Bushmen. Back
Chapter 27 - The Origin of Asian Aborigines

“But in the South Seas, where there are only separated islands, an earlier people may be
preserved against being entirely swamped by a later one, simply because the later may not
reach all of their island refuges."
(Howells, 1948, p. 281)
Tropical aboriginal populations are the last remnants of tropically-adapted erectus

populations, pushed south by more advanced Hs and Hss northern populations. They survived
by seeking refuge on isolated and less desirable territories, such as islands, mountains, and
dense forests. As they retreated and diminished in numbers, they interbred with those
northerners, picking up Hs and Hss alleles and traits. The resulting erectus hybrids had traits
of both parent populations, but only those individuals who had traits best adapted for the
tropics survived. Today, erectus hybrids and Hs can be found in the aborigines of India, the
Andaman Islands, some South Pacific Islands, the Philippines, New Guinea, New Zealand,
Australia, and elsewhere in Asia.
Australian aborigines form three distinct populations, one living in the rainforests of
North Queensland (“pygmies”), one living mostly in the southern desert areas (“desert
aborigines,” of macrohaplogroup “N”) and the other living mostly in the northern coastal areas
(“coastal aborigines” of macrohaplogroup “M”); see Figure 20-3. 1
As noted in
Chapter 5, the last
two ice ages occurred
between about
73,000 and 55,000 ya
(the “first” ice age),
and between about
30,000 and 12,000 ya
(the “second” ice
age). During those
two ice ages, vast
quantities of sea
water were locked up
in ice (i.e., water
evaporated and fell as
snow, but did not
melt), which lowered
sea levels enough to
make crossing from
SE Asia into Australia
not only feasible but Figure 27-1
necessary to escape
more advanced populations moving south away from the increasing cold. Figure 27-1 shows
sea levels during the second ice age (grey areas were dry land).
Toba, 73,000 ya, wiped out a large portion of the people living in SE Asia, making it
easier for northern Asians to move south. Who got to Australia first depended upon the
severity of conditions and how advanced the SE Asian populations were at that time. The first
ice age was not as severe as the second, so the sea levels were higher, but the “N”
macrohaplogroup populations, who were from India and northern Asia, 2 were more advanced
at that time than the “M” macrohaplogroup populations and, using small rafts to island hop, got
to Australia at least 60,000 ya. (Figure 20-3, shows how close Indians (in India), SE Asians,
and Australian aborigines are in the N macrohaplogroup.) Later, during the second, more
severe ice age, when the seas were still lower (about 25,000 ya), a more primitive, but
numerically greater, “M” population in New Guinea was able to cross over to Australia, pushing
the earlier arrivals into southern Australia and the desert. No doubt there was some conflict
between the earlier and later migrants. Although there was probably some interbreeding
between the coastal and desert aborigines, the coastal aborigines today are still more primitive
than the desert aborigines.
Figure 27-2 shows skin color for aborigines in Australia and
New Guinea, which generally coincides with the M and N
macrohaplogroups. (Brace, 2000). The equator (orange line) is just
north of New Guinea, so skin colors are reversed in the southern
hemisphere, with the darker skin color in the north, closer to the
equator, and the lighter colors in the colder south. Because the
aborigines in Australia and on South Pacific islands were isolated and
did not receive much inflow of more evolved alleles from northern
populations, they are among the most primitive populations. When Figure 27-2
modern Europeans first arrived in the 1600s, the Australian aborigines
“had no bow and arrow, to say nothing of such arts as pottery or agriculture,” and they cooked
by “tossing their meat into the fire.” (Howells, 1948, p. 285). The Australian aborigines were the
only people who did not make the connection between having sex and giving birth. 4
Pygmies
For largely political reasons, the existence of the
Australian pygmies is not well known. (Windschuttle,
2002). These pygmies lived in the rainforest until
missionaries drew them out and mixed them with other
aborigines; now they are almost extinct. The adult
males were between 4½ and 5 ft. tall and the women ½
ft to a foot shorter. (Fig. 27-3). 5
“Their small size, tightly curled hair, child-like
faces, peculiarities in their tooth dimensions and their
blood groupings showed that they were different from
other Australian Aborigines and had a strong strain of
Negrito in them.” (Norman Tindale, Australian
anthropologist). Their tropical adaptations and small
size suggest a lineage from a tropically-adapted Asian
Australopithecus, and their “child-like faces” suggest
interbreeding with a neotenic Asian Australopithecus,
as described in the previous chapter. The presence of
people of small stature in Australia, Africa (Bushmen),
and in Indonesia (the Hobbits), is consistent with
Bergmann’s rule, that northern populations are larger. 6
There are no fossils of these pygmies, so
anthropologists assume that they did not arrive in
Australia prior to about 40,000 ya. However, their Figure 27-3
Australopithecine traits suggest that they were in
Australia long before that, because Australopithecines had disappeared from mainland Asia
long before then. There were many earlier ice ages that would have provided access to
Australia from the mainland. (Figure 5-1).
Desert Aborigines
The tree in Figure 24-5 shows two distinct types of tropical aborigines, the southern
desert aborigines (also living on the west coast of Australia, and the open grasslands and
parklands of the south and west of the continent.), descended from a generalized archaic, and
the coastal aborigines, descended from a tropical Australopithecus. The desert aborigines look
like primitive Caucasians, with light skin and wavy or straight hair that can be blond. (Fig. 27-4;
also Figure 22-5). 7 No, the children’s hair was not dyed blond. Amazing as it seems, some
desert aborigines really do have straight or wavy, naturally blond hair. (Note 17 in Chapter 10).
The child on the right has some simian prognathism and the second child from the left has a
broad nose with upturned nostrils. Note that the adult in the back, probably a mother of at least
some of the children, has darker
skin and hair; Caucasian
children also have lighter skin
and hair than adults. 8
Coastal Aborigines
Unlike the desert
Australian aborigines, the
coastal aborigines are more
anatomically specialized for the
tropics and look Negroid, with
dark skin and wooly black hair.
In those respects, they are
similar to the Negritos of the
South Pacific, the Africans,
Andaman Islanders, and
Melanesians (which includes
people on New Guinea). They Figure 27-4
are the descendants of a
tropically-adapted Australopithecus and a tropically-adapted erectus 9 and have retained many
of those traits.
At least 2 mya erectus was living in Java and New Guinea (Roberts-Thomson, 1996)
and there are Australian and New Guinea natives living today who have more erectine traits
than even Africans. The two ice ages were not as severe in Asia as in Europe and the
migrations from the north were therefore also less severe, enabling more primitive people to
survive on South Pacific islands. The lower sea levels during the first ice age would have
enabled erectus to reach New Guinea and other islands, but not Australia. The higher sea
levels in between the two ice ages would isolate them, but the still lower sea levels during the
second ice age would permit them to walk from New Guinea to Australia (Fig. 27-1). They, in
turn, pushed the desert Aborigines away from the coast and into the central desert, the same
fate that befell the Bushmen in Africa.
The northern coastal aborigines
are “tall, dark, less hairy, and very
lanky.” (Howells, 1959, p. 326). They
have some erectine features, such as
marked protruding jaws and brow ridges,
small cranial capacities, low IQ, and

black, curly hair. 10 Figure 27-5
compares the skulls of a recent (after
1800), but more primitive, northern
coastal Australian aborigine (Pintubi-1,
from the Great Sandy Desert of Western
Australia) to a modern Caucasian. 11
The primitiveness of the robust aborigine
skull is unmistakable and it would not be
unreasonable to classify it as Homo
erectus. 12 Note the brow ridges, sloping
forehead, protruding jaw, and large eye
sockets, though those traits are not as
pronounced as in some older erectus
skulls; only its chin is modern. 13 Figure 27-5
Figure 27-6 is a photograph 14 of a contemporary coastal Australian aborigine. The
aborigine in Figure 27-6 has many primitive features, such as considerable simian prognathism
(p. 215) and a small broad nose. The South Pacific aborigines, e.g., the Negritos of
Malaysia (the “Semang”) and the Philippines (the “Aeta”), and the
highlanders of New Guinea, also have some of these traits, but are
even more erectine, having a smaller cranial capacity, 15 thick,
heavy bones, 16 large teeth, a smaller chin, a broad nose, very
black skin,
and frequently
short curly or
woolly black
hair. Figure
27-7 shows a
European
standing
Figure 27-6 between two
Negritos. 17
One can easily understand how the
smaller, primitive people in the tropics
would have been displaced and
defeated by the larger and more
advanced people who migrated there
from the cooler climates.
As mentioned previously,
although the Negritos look like little
Africans, they are genetically the most
unrelated people to Africans on the
planet. 18 The large genetic distance Figure 27-7
between Africans and Negritos suggests
that their LCA was likely a tropically-
adapted Australopithecus that lived more than 2 mya and possessed the tropical traits that the
aborigines and the Africans have in common.
Modern man, Hss, evolved from a primitive mammal because, at each stage in his
journey, the next step paid off with greater reproductive success. Now, in the final section, we
see whether man will continue down the same path, becoming ever more “human,” or whether
reproductive success will take us back to where we came from.
Section V
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. “Dr. Birdsell [1993], who knows these people thoroughly, believes they are actually
composed of two strains, equally primitive.” (Howells, 1959, p. 326). Back
2. (Howells, 1948, p. 285 ). Mungo Man (Figure 20-4) was a member of the “N” population.
(Baker, 1974, p. 279). If the Neanderthals were also in “N,” that would support Cro-Magnon
interbreeding with Neanderthals. Back
3. One can find in the literature a number of different dates for the first occupation of Australia
by the aborigines, but it would probably have occurred when sea levels were lowest, between
65,000 and 55,000 ya , with the 65,000 date being the most likely. There is mtDNA evidence
for 60,000 to 119,000 ya. (Ingman, 2003). Back
4. (Kemp, 2006, p. 332). When Europeans first arrived on Tasmania, 125 miles south of
Australia, which was often cool and damp, the natives did not know how to start a fire.
(Arsuaga, 2001, p. 270). Back
5. (Windshuttle, K. & Gillin, T., “The extinction of the Australian pygmies,” Quadrant, June,
2002). Anthropologist Joseph Birdsell , on the left, is 6’1” and the 24 year old on the right is
4’6”; the picture was taken in North Queensland, Australia, in 1938. Back
6. The volume of a sphere, V, is (4πr3)/3 and its surface area, S, is 4πr2, so as the radius, r,
doubles, its surface-area/volume ratio, S/V, halves and, since heat loss is proportional to
surface area, bigger is warmer. Back
7. Picture from: http://www.calarts.edu/~shockley/talgai.html (no longer available)> “The other,

concentrated in the south, is fleshier and stockier, very hairy, and not so very dark; and Birdsell
[1993] believes it is an antique White strain, related to the Ainu, and derived from North China
or Manchuria.” (Howells, 1959, p. 326). Table 9-3, shows that the sacral indices of the
aborigines and the Europeans are similar. Back
8. Coon (1962, p. 426) refers to “the juvenile and female blondism of the aborigines living in
the central desert;” “And yet the possibility of the Australians being an extremely archaic brand
of ‘White’ has been suggested by my colleagues often enough and with justice.” (Howells,
1959, p. 335). This is also true of New Zealand aborigines. “If anything, the ‘White’ appearance
is strongest in the Maoris of New Zealand, who are well bearded and look like nothing so much
as a brunet European.” (id., p.321). Back
9. Both tropical India and Asia were occupied by erectines “with wooly hair, black skin, and
Negro features.” (Howells, 1948, pp. 252-253). See cover. Back
10. The anterior nasal spine (Figures 9-20 and 9-22) is present in Eurasians but is absent is
Africans and is sometimes absent in coastal Australian aborigines; it is also absent in

Australopithecus africanus and the orangutan. (Baker, 1974, pp. 283-284). Back
11. Picture from ("The Canovanogram Research Paleoanthropology Report," July, 2002). Back
12. Some Australian Aborigines have an occipital bun and some are beetle-browed,
suggesting a linkage to the georgicus-Neanderthal lineage. Back
13. A good guess would be that the modern population that Mungo Man was part of got to
Australia first, then interbred with later, more primitive arrivals. Back
14. Photograph by Sheila Smart, Australian photographer. Back
15. “One still finds recent aboriginal female skulls with cranial capacities of 930 cc., 946 cc.,
and 956 cc whose owners apparently met the demands of their culture well enough to live to
maturity.” (Coon, 1962, p. 410). Back
16. “The woolly-haired races are subdivided into those with tuft-like hair (Hottentots, Papuans),
and those with fleecy hair (African negro, Kafir [tall people from South Africa]).” (1911 Catholic
Encyclopedia). The Papuans are people from New Guinea. That both these primitive, but
widely separated people, Papuans and Hottentots, have “tuft-like hair” suggests an ancient
LCA. Back
17. The picture is from (Lord Moyne, Walkabout: A Journey in Lands between the Pacific and
Indian Ocean, London, 1938). Back
18. (Figure 24-7, and Table 7-1). Africans and Australian aborigines are “about as far apart as
two human populations can be” in blood chemistry ((Shreeve, 1995, p. 60) as well as in DNA
itself. This is strong evidence that the LCA of Africans and Australian aborigines lived a long
time ago, and supports the OoE theory that the LCA was an Australopithecus. (Chapter 24 &
Chapter 26). Back
Section V Page 1 of 1
SECTION V
Policy
Readers who think this book is already shockingly politically incorrect should buckle up
their seat belts as it is about to become even more so. From the information and conclusions
presented so far in this book, the reader may make his own inferences as to the direction in
which Homo sapiens sapiens, as a successful species, should proceed in order to continue to
be a successful species, and perhaps become an even more successful species. What follows
is the author’s opinions on this subject.
Since the Asians have wisely limited immigration into their homelands by other races
and their interbreeding with them, while Caucasians have foolishly done the opposite, Asians
do not face the problems that are becoming more and more apparent in Caucasian
homelands. For that reason, this discussion of policy is primarily directed at Caucasians in the
West.
One of the conclusions put forth so far in this book is expressed in its title, that primitive
man still lives, not just on some isolated islands in the Pacific, but right in your town or even
your neighborhood. Africans and part-Africans live throughout the Caucasian homelands. They
are not just like everyone else. They have ape-like features and behavior, not by accident, but
because, although everyone evolved from an ape ancestor, they did not evolve quite so far.
Unlike the Eurasians, they still have strong erectine physical and behavioral traits. And, as
their alleles spread by miscegenation, the civilized Western world will become more erectine
and less sapiens.
Given the preceding sections of this book, what policies should be adopted? There are
three possibilities: (1) Adopt policies that encourage the spread of Homo erectus alleles, (2)
Adopt policies that limit the spread of Homo erectus alleles, or (3) Adopt no policies and let
nature take its course. Because the Homo erectus that walks amongst us is genetically more
“r” orientated than Caucasians (Chapter 11), and Caucasians will not let them starve, adopting
no policy is akin to encouraging the spread of their alleles with the likely outcome of a behavior
and an average IQ too low to support an advanced civilization. Adopting policies that
encourage the spread of their alleles will, of course, bring about that result even sooner and
amounts to not only racial suicide, but also the end of modern civilization, at least in the West.
Chapter 28
Table of Contents
http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/SecV.html 07/09/2009
Chapter 28 - Homo africanus

“…all men belong to the same species."
UNESCO Statement, July 18, 1950
Taxonomy is an obscure word, but it has a simple meaning – the classification of living
things. Scientists classify plants and animals using the Linnaeus classification system, where
each species is identified by a Latin genus and species name, such as Homo sapiens.
Occasionally, a Latin name for the sub-species will also be added, such as Homo sapiens
sapiens. Here is the classification for man: 1
Kingdom: Animals - living things other than bacteria and plants

Phylum: Chordates - protected spinal chords
Subphylum: Vertebrates – boney spines and skulls
Class: Mammals – warm-blooded with hair and a four-chambered
heart; 2 females nourish their young from mammary glands
Order: Primates – mammals with an opposable thumb, e.g.,
man, apes, monkeys, lemurs, tarsiers
Family: Hominids – bipedal primates, e.g., extinct bipedal
apes and man, and living man
Genus: Homo – tool-making hominids, e.g., habilis,
ergaster, erectus, archaic man and living man
Species: sapiens – extinct nearly modern man,
Neanderthals, and living man
Sub-species: sapiens – modern man
There are no labels on plants and animals, however that tell us what their classification is.
Nature does not classify her critters; only man classifies things that are, or were, living. The
decision as to how something should be classified is made by taxonomists according to how
different a population is from related populations, which is bound to be somewhat arbitrary.
As evolution does its magic, old species, orders, and even phyla die out and new ones
arise. There is, however, no sharp dividing line between a preceding species and the species it
evolves into. Even if a species splits into two populations that become so different as to be
classified as separate species, it is usually not clear into which of the three species individuals
who lived near the time of the split belonged. When a species evolves, it gradually changes,
though a few of the changes may be “sudden” in geological time; i.e., they may occur in one
individual, then spread throughout the population in tens of thousands of years instead of
millions.
Changes from one generation to the next are almost always so small that no individual
can justifiably be placed in a different species from its parents. Even if we knew the genome of
each and every individual in our lineage, it would be difficult to point to particular mothers and
say, “She and her child are different species.” Paleoanthropologists spend a significant amount
of their time arguing over whether a fossil is a member of an existing species or is a new
species. Often the line that divides species is drawn where in-between fossils have not yet been
found. But even if the bones of every individual from the first to the last were available and in
the correct sequence, placing lines that divided the sequence into species would still be
arbitrary.
Many people believe that if two animals cannot interbreed they are different species
and, conversely, if they can interbreed they are the same species. If two animals cannot
interbreed they are always classified as different species. 3 But if two animals can interbreed,
they may or may not be classified as different species. There are many examples where
taxonomists have classified two animals as different species even though they can and do
interbreed. Even most dictionaries will not define “species” as populations that are incapable of
interbreeding. Indeed, one dictionary 4 specifically states, “… related organisms or populations
potentially capable of interbreeding … “ Many “species” can interbreed, but typically do not. For
example, many species of birds, such as the pintail (Anas acuta) and the mallard (Anas
platyrhynchos), can interbreed. The wolf (Canis lupus) and the dog (Canis lupus familiaris), the
coyote (Canis latrans), and the common jackal (Canis aureus) have different species names
(lupus, latrans, and aureus), yet they can all interbreed and produce fertile progeny. Even the
two species of orangutan (Pongo abellii from Sumatra and Pongo pygmaeus from Borneo) can
interbreed (Angier, 1995), despite having different chromosome numbers, 5 and so can the two
species of chimpanzee, the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo
chimpanzee (Pan paniscus). 6 So the fact that all human races can interbreed to produce fertile
progeny does not mean that they should be classified as a single species. 7
The determination of when a population has become sufficiently different from another
population to be classified as a “new” species or sub-species is especially important at the
interface between archaic man, Homo sapiens, and his immediate predecessor, Homo erectus,
and between archaic man and modern man (Homo sapiens sapiens). None of the populations
thus classified suddenly leaped into a different classification. Erectus, for example, was around
for about two million years and gradually changed from a very primitive early erectus (ergaster)
to a less primitive late erectus, after which taxonomists decided to call him archaic “sapiens”
instead of “erectus.” So, although early erectus might not have been able to produce hybrids
with Hss, certainly late erectus could have. Some scientists estimate “that periods of around 2
million years are required to produce sufficient genetic distance to represent
speciation.” (Curnoe, 2003).
Again, man alone decides whether a population is or is not distinctive enough to be
classified as a different species. 8 However, we can ask taxonomists to at least be consistent in
making these decisions. That is, whatever their criteria are for labeling one population of living
things as a “species” they should apply that same criteria in deciding whether another
population of living things is or is not a “species.” This is clearly not the case now, 9 as there are
many “species” of birds that can interbreed but differ so slightly in coloration that only an expert
can tell them apart, while the differences between the races are so great that even a 3 month
old baby can tell the difference, 10 and adults can correctly determine the race of a person 85%
of the time just from his silhouette. (Davidenko, 2007). Taxonomists should not apply one
criterion of speciation to animals other than man, and a different criterion to man himself. 11
Ample evidence is provided in this book and its citations to support the conclusion that
race is real, not a delusion concocted by evil racists. But that same evidence raises another
question: Is the evidence adequate to classify Africans not just as a different race, but as a
different species, Homo africanus? 12
Another way to think about the re-classification of Africans (and primitive Asian
aborigines 13) is to imagine that they were extinct and the only evidence we had of them was
their bones and their DNA. Then, comparing the differences between them and modern living
Eurasians, would their classification as a separate species be justified?
To the egalitarians this question itself will be outrageously offensive and they will self-
righteously condemn anyone even posing the question. But, long before egalitarianism came to
dominate anthropology, the question had already been considered by anthropologists. Although
the consensus was that Africans were not a separate species, a few believed they were. 14
Until recently, species were classified based on their morphology, i.e., their form and
appearance. This was not always accurate since populations that are not closely related can
undergo parallel evolution, that is, they can be unrelated on even the phylum level, yet still look
very similar as, for example, a bird, a bat, and an insect, or a shark and a dolphin. In classifying
humans using morphology, were the taxonomists objective and unbiased and did they apply the
same standards to humans that they applied when classifying other species? Well, not exactly.
"The differences in morphology (cranial and facial features) between human races are
typically around ten times the corresponding differences between the sexes within a given
race, larger even than the comparable differences taxonomists use to distinguish the two
chimpanzee species from each other. To the best of our knowledge, human racial
differences exceed those for any other non-domesticated species. One must look to the
breeds of dogs to find a comparable degree of within-species differences in
morphology.”15
We no longer need to rely on morphology, however, to distinguish between different

species. DNA analyses can be used to determine the genetic difference between populations, a
better way to classify species. 16 While this has not yet been done, a less subjective
classification system might say that a genetic distance of less than “x” is a sub-species (race,
variety, or breed), of less than “y” but more than “x” is a species, of less than “z” but more than
“y” is a genus, and so on.
Applying a bit of egalitarianism, let us begin with the proposition that the same standard
of classification should be applied to the classification of all living things. That is, a population of
birds, for example, should not be divided into a great many species because of small genetic
differences, while populations within Homo, the genus of humans, are classified as a single
species, even though the genetic differences between them are greater than the genetic
differences between the species of birds.
Applying that bit of inter-species egalitarianism to humans and gorillas, and using
genetic distance as the standard to classify populations, 17 since the genetic distance between
the two species of gorilla, Gorilla gorilla and G. beringei, 0.04%, 18 is nearly six times less than
the genetic distance between (sub-Saharan) Africans (Bantu) and Eurasians (English), 0.23%
(Table 7-1), either Africans and Eurasians should be classified as two different species or
gorillas should be classified as a single species. The genetic distance between the common
chimp and the bonobo is 0.103% (Curnoe, 2003, Table 2), less than half the English-Bantu
genetic distance of 0.23%, and therefore either (at least some) sub-Saharan blacks and
Eurasians should be classified as different species or the common chimp and the bonobo (and
the two species of orangutan) should be classified as the same species. 19 Although wolves
(Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are a different species (lupus) than coyotes
(Canis latrans), "… there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes than
there is between the various ethnic groups of human beings..." (Coppinger, 1995). It seems that
taxonomists have been bending their objectivity a bit.
Now let’s see how taxonomists have classified Neanderthals. Until the 1960s,
Neanderthals were classified as Homo neanderthalensis, a different species from us, Homo
sapiens. But the genetic distance between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis
(<0.08%) 20 is less than the genetic distance between the two chimpanzee species (0.103). 21
Today, Neanderthals are classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 22 a sub-species of our
species, while we are another sub-species, Homo sapiens sapiens. The genetic distance
between (sub-Saharan) Africans and Eurasians (0.2%) is more than twice the genetic distance
between living humans and Neanderthals (0.08%) 23 so, at the very least, Africans should be
classified as a sub-species, Homo sapiens africanus and Eurasians as another sub-species,

Homo sapiens eurasianensis.
Finally, the genetic distance between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus is estimated as
0.170 (mean given as 0.19), 25 about the same as the genetic distance between the Bantu
24
Africans and the Eskimos, but the genetic distance between living Africans and Eurasians is
0.23 (Table 7-1, p. 45). Thus, Homo sapiens is more closely related to Homo erectus than
Eurasians are to sub-Saharan Africans. Either erectus should be reclassified as Homo sapiens
erectus or sub-Saharan Africans should be reclassified as Homo africanus. 26
Chapter 29
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. Some recent reshuffling has limited “Hominids” to gorillas, chimps, and humans, added a
sub-family, “Homininae” or hominins, for humans plus any (extinct) creature closer to us than a
chimp, and a super-family, “Hominoidea,” or hominoids, the hominids plus gibbons and
orangutans. The old classification may prove more accurate, however. Back
2. Birds are also warm-blooded and so are some fishes. The bluefin tuna “is one of the few
warm-blooded fishes.” (Ellis, R., “The Bluefin in Peril,” Scientific American, Mar., 2008, p. 72);
birds also have four-chambered hearts. Back
3. Ernst Mayr, in 1942, defined “species” as a reproductively isolated groups of organisms,

where the isolation can be purely geographical, i.e., populations that do not interbreed are
different species, even if they can interbreed. Back
4. (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary). Back
5. The gibbon and the siamang can also interbreed to produce a hybrid, although they differ
more in chromosome numbers than do humans and chimps. (Myers, 1979). Also, (Chandley,
1975). And some species that are not even in the same genus can still interbreed. (McConchie,
1994). On the other hand, some populations that include individuals with different chromosome
numbers, but can still interbreed to produce fertile offspring, have been classified as the same
species, e.g., Lemur fulvus. (Tattersall, 1993). Back
6. Email from Professor William H. Calvin. The common chimp and the bonobo were separated
by the Congo River 2.5 mya. (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 8). Back
7. An enlightening definition of “species” is: Two competing populations are different species if a
genetic improvement in one of the populations would threaten the survival of the other.
Suggested by Schwartz (1999, p. 254). Back
8. Darwin himself dismissed “species” as a term that is "arbitrarily given, for the sake of
convenience." Back
9. Humans are at the top of the list in genetic diversity, which supports the conclusion that the
same classification standards are not applied to humans that are applied to other species.
"Racial morphological distances within our species are, on the average, about equal to the
distances among species within other genera of mammals. [Except for races created by human
selection, e.g., breeds of dogs], I am not aware of any other mammalian species where the
constituent races are as strongly marked as they are in ours." (Sarich, 2004, p. 170). Back
10. (Bar-Heim, 2006; Kelly, 2005). And people become more racially conscious as they grow
older. (MacDonald, 2006). Back
11. The egalitarians demand that all living humans must be classified as the same species, but
paleoanthropologists who discover a new fossil hominoid want it classified as a different
species to enhance the importance of their discovery. (Curnoe, 2003). Back
12. The author presents this idea with some trepidation because it was not previously well-
received by the Church; Bruno (1591) was burned at the stake and Vanini (1619) had his
tongue cut out and was strangled. Back
13. And possibly also the Bushmen. (Baker, 1974, pp. 323-324). Back
14. E.g., American physician and natural scientist Samuel George Morton, Dr. Samuel A.
Cartwright, German medical geneticist Fritz Lenz, British geneticist R. Ruggles Gates, and
Louis Agassiz, the founder of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Also,
“The typical negroes of adult age, when tried by this rule, are proved to belong to a different
species from the man of Europe or Asia, because the head and face are anatomically
constructed more after the fashion of the simiadiae [apes] and the brute creation than the
Caucasian and Mongolian species of mankind, their mouth and jaws projecting beyond the
forehead containing the anterior lobes of the brain.” (Cartwright, 1857, p. 45). “[T]here is as
good reason for classifying the Negro as a distinct species from Europeans as there is for
making an ass a distinct species from the zebra; … there is a far greater difference between the
Negro and the European than between the gorilla and chimpanzee.” (Hunt, 1865, p. 23). Back
15. (Sarich, 2004, p. 9). Humans are much more genetically diverse than dogs; the observed
heterozygosity for humans is 0.7, but it is only 0.4 for dogs. (John Goodwin, “The Race FAQ”).
Back
16. (Curnoe, 2003). That is, individuals in the same lineage, or branches of the same lineage
(“phylogeny”) would be divided into species, genus, etc. according to a uniform standard of
genetic distance. “ … a percentage threshold of common DNA can be stipulated for
speciation.” (Ross, K.L.,"Human Evolution," 2006). Back
17. As discussed in the introduction to Section IV, interbreeding between lineages can reduce
genetic distance so, if genetic distance is used to define species, genus, etc., it will not show
actual descent unless genetic similarities due to interbreeding can be subtracted from genetic
distance. Back
18. (Guillen, 2005; Jensen-Seaman, 2000). Back
19. (Curnoe, 2003). These numbers will be different when insertions/deletions are considered.
(Anzai, 2003). Back
20. (Caramelli, 2003, Fig. 2; Gutiérrez, 2002, Table 3; Curnoe, 2003). Moreover, this genetic
distance may actually be less because ancient Neanderthal DNA may be damaged. (Id.). “…
the Neanderthal and human genomes are at least 99.5% identical …” (Noonan, 2006). Back
21. The mtDNA sequence differences between modern humans and the Neanderthal is about
half of that between modern humans and modern chimpanzees. (Cooper, 1997). Back
22. Though some favor the older classification. (Harvati, 2004). Back
23. “Thus, the largest difference observed between any two human sequences was two
substitutions larger than the smallest difference between a human and the Neandertal.” (Krings,
1997). Back
24. (Curnoe, 2003, Table 3). Back
25. (id, p. 214). Back
26. Although DNA from Australopithecus is not available, the differences between at least some
of the many species of Australopithecus may also be less than the differences between the
Africans and Eurasians. Back
Chapter 29 - Miscegenation
“And every race must fall which carelessly suffers its blood to become mixed."
Benjamin Disraeli
Miscegenation (“mix race”) is the interbreeding of the races, especially blacks and
whites. Miscegenation was illegal in many states until 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court
overruled a Virginia court and declared those laws unconstitutional 1 under the unconstitutional
Fourteenth Amendment. Not that long ago miscegenation was viewed as akin to bestiality
(Chap. 28), but today it is promoted by the video and print media, even in advertising, and
columnists despair that there is not enough of it. 2
Evolution “automatically” works against miscegenation. Every population has variation.
Over time, the individuals in a population who have traits most advantageous for particular
environments concentrate in those environments and become sub-populations. If some of the
individuals in one of those sub-populations develop traits that prevent them from interbreeding
with individuals in the rest of the population, they will have an advantage over other individuals
in their sub-population because they will not waste resources producing progeny who lack the
advantageous traits for the sub-population’s environment. For that reason, sub-populations
evolve traits that discourage or prevent interbreeding with other sub-populations, and the sub-
populations eventually become different species. 3
To a physicist, miscegenation brings to mind the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
which says that in a closed system, order goes to disorder (i.e., entropy increases). Without
getting technical, this means that if you have a gallon each of white, black, and yellow paint,
“paint” being a metaphor for a collection of racial traits, and mix them together, it would take
many times the age of the universe before the pigment particles in the mixture again separated
into white, black, and yellow paints. The uniqueness of those colors would be forever lost. Life,
like other acts of creation, is a local lowering of entropy; miscegenation, like death, destruction,
and chaos, increases entropy.
When miscegenation occurs, the alleles that make the interbreeding races unique do
not necessarily disappear, 4 but, like the pigment particles in the paint, they can no longer be
separated again into the unique collections that constituted the original races. The races, as
distinct forms of life, are destroyed forever. As argued earlier in this book, it took at least two
million years to create and select the alleles that make us different, but it takes only an instant
of miscegenation to scramble them up again. The selection of some of those alleles required
the suffering and death of hundreds of thousands of people who did not have them, so the
creation of racial differences was not without great cost. To destroy this monumental natural
creation – us, so thoughtlessly and permanently, is akin to desecrating graves, dynamiting
ancient statues, bombing cathedrals, and burning the library at Alexandria. What is the most
valuable possession populations have that they can pass on to the next generation? It is not
wealth or even knowledge. It is their genome, their ability to reproduce themselves as the
unique people that they are. To squander that by miscegenation is the ultimate betrayal of
one’s heritage. 5
To a biologist, the loss of distinct races of humans might bring to mind the relatively
recent extinctions of species such as the dodo bird, the Carolina parakeet, the passenger
pigeon, and many of the birds of Hawaii, as well as various frogs, mammals, and even the 65
mya extinction of the dinosaurs. Nothing saddens a lover of nature so much as seeing a
unique form of life become extinct, and nothing is as gladdening as finding that a species once
thought to be extinct (e.g., the ivory billed woodpecker) still lives. (Fitzpatrick, 2005).
Most scientists value diversity as an end in itself, for how dull life would be if they could
study only one kind of star, rock, bacteria, cloud, and so on. No dog lover would want all the
breeds of dogs to interbreed, so that all dogs are mongrels. No breeder of race horses would
want his thoroughbreds to breed with common riding ponies. No garden lover wants all his
flowers to come in only a single color or shape, or his tomatoes or apples in only a single
variety, and no oenophile would want only a single red wine and a single white wine to choose
from. Only those driven mad by the maladaptive ideology of egalitarianism cheer the loss of
diversity that results from their demands for more of it. 6 To borrow from the anti-racists, one
might call the end result of miscegenation, “Life without rainbows.”
Egalitarians love diversity so much that they insist that everything – our corporations,
restaurants, hotels, neighborhoods, schools, television, movies, and textbooks 7 must all be
diverse – everything, that is, except people, who must miscegenate to become the same and
therefore equal. They were overjoyed in 2003 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8 that
“diversity” (i.e., racial quotas) is so important that colleges can legally violate the Fourteenth
Amendment, 9 but only for 25 yrs, by discriminating against Eurasians in order to achieve
diversity in their student bodies. But their love of diversity is different from the love others have
for it. Egalitarians love diversity not as an end, but as a means. They do not want to preserve
the diversity of the peoples of this planet; they want to destroy it. Making all human contact
diverse is simply their means for destroying human diversity. Mix the races physically, and they
will mix biologically on their own. 10 Diversity to destroy diversity. The loss of biological
diversity, which most of us would not wish on the living things we love and value, egalitarians
wish upon man himself.
Some egalitarians openly encourage miscegenation, while others even condemn the
failure to miscegenate as “racist,” 11 and still others argue that everyone might as well
miscegenate because everyone is already a mixture. In the sense that the races share most
alleles (as do people and chimps), everyone is a mixture but, as we shall see in the next
chapter, there are major differences between (1) people within a population interbreeding and
(2) people from very different populations interbreeding.
It is not necessary to involve the government in people’s intimate decisions in order to
reduce miscegenation and preserve the uniqueness of the Earth’s peoples. People
themselves, given their freedom, can accomplish this. They can segregate themselves, as
suggested in Chapter 31. 12 They can boycott movies, television, and books that show or
advocate miscegenation. And they can ostracize those who practice, encourage, or condone it.
Parents can disapprove of their children dating interracially and withhold benefits, such as
weddings, gifts, inheritances, and social support from children who defy their wishes and reject
their own people as mates. They can cite statistics showing that they are many times as likely
to get a STD from a black as from a white (Chapter 12, Note (4)) and, for females, many times
as likely to be beaten, raped, and murdered. 13 Many things can be done but, until people
come to believe that it is desirable and morally good to preserve their own genetic heritage,
nothing will be done.
The race mixers love to point out that white men fear that black men will take “their”
women. Of course, they fear that; 14 for a white man, it’s a significant loss in fitness. The
biological purpose of a male of any species is to pass on his alleles, and the principal way he
does this is by impregnating females. But he gets a big bonus if he impregnates a woman who
already has more of the same alleles that he has, i.e., someone of the same race (Chapter 8,
FN 4), and his fitness falls if he lets someone of another race impregnate “his” women (and
similarly for women). This biological purpose implies, of course, that he must not only compete
against other men, particularly men of a different race, but win that competition. If he does not
even try to win and, indeed, facilitates his own failure, then his unique collection of alleles,
including the alleles that made him a biological loser, are out of the game. 15
The incidence of miscegenation is greatly increased by welfare. As we saw in Chapters
5 and 12, Eurasian women normally choose “dads,” not “cads,” because, until modern times,
they and their children could not survive without the support of a man. With the state now
supporting them, however, they can choose “cads” and still survive and therefore are more
likely to make that choice. Blacks are more likely to be cads, and therefore the absence of
welfare would induce Eurasian women to once again choose dads and would significantly
reduce miscegenation. 16 Other studies have shown that partners who are genetically similar
to each other tend to have happier marriages 17 and, without welfare, the importance of having
a happy marriage increases.
Another way of looking at miscegenation is from the viewpoint of eugenics. If blacks
and whites engage in miscegenation, the mulatto progeny will have characteristics of both
races. 18 Will the two races regard the mullatos as “improved” children? Although there are no
polls on this question, other evidence suggests that more blacks would see it as an
improvement than whites. 19 As we have seen, blacks are genetically primitive humans, who
have evolved a lesser distance away from our ape LCA. They have alleles that are many
millions of years old – chimpanzees and gorillas have them, but Eurasians do not (Chapter 16,
FN 17). Admitting those and other primitive alleles into the white genome would undo
hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years of white evolution. 20 Both blacks and whites
regard the primitive features of blacks as undesirable (p. 96). Both white and black children
prefer playing with white dolls. 21 And the push behind integration has been blacks wanting to
be around whites, not whites wanting to be around blacks.
Mulattos resent the fact that they can never be “white,” and must accept a lower status
as a “black.” They become hostile towards whites, who are the higher status group, even
though they would have an even lower status if they were not partly white. Thus, whites who
have mulatto children create enemies of whites, including themselves, another reason for
whites to oppose miscegenation. 22
Most mixed race breeding occurs at the margins, where a white woman is undesirable
to white men (overweight, ugly, old, addicted to drugs, mentally ill, low IQ, etc.) or has been
rejected by a white man, resulting in a deep hatred of all white men, or the black man may be
rich and/or famous (e.g., Tiger Woods, O.J. Simpson), though there are some cases where the
explanation is not readily apparent (e.g., blond German model Heidi Klum).
Declining Civilizations
Perhaps both the strongest and the weakest argument against miscegenation is that it
can destroy an existing civilization. (Simpson, 2003, pp. 746-751). That argument deserves
consideration because the outcome is so dire, but the evidence for it is indirect because it is
difficult to assign the collapse of an entire civilization to any particular cause, though a lower
quality gene pool is certainly a strong candidate. (Gobineau, 1853; Fisher, 1958). And the
decline of a civilization is often slow, over hundreds of years, so that people may not even
realize it is happening. However, there is good evidence that a lowering of IQ individually
(Herrnstein, 1994) or nationally (Lynn, 2002a) will lower living standards as less intelligent
people are less productive and consumption cannot be maintained without production (though
if you borrow or steal, it can be someone else’s production). The reader should keep in mind
the “right-tail effect” shown in Figure 14-5 & Figure 14-7. When the average intelligence of the
entire population drops, the number of people at the higher end of the bell curve falls much
more drastically. With welfare states ensuring the reproductive success of the less intelligent in
the temperate zones, the dysgenic effect of miscegenation in reducing the percentage of
people in the right tail will never be overcome by natural selection, i.e., the less intelligent will
not lack the means to successfully reproduce. And, when mankind is presented with
environmental challenges to his survival, as he inevitably will be, he will no longer have the
intellectual wherewithal to overcome them.
Let us examine the past consequences of the right-tail effect of lower intelligence due
to miscegenation to see the future that awaits us. Contrary to the OoA theory, Africans did not
travel of their own accord into other countries – every country they went to, they went as
slaves. (Figure 21-1). As individuals, the slaves no doubt suffered, though they very likely were
better off as slaves than if they had been left in Africa. 23 Biologically, being a slave to
Eurasians was adaptive for Africans, as it enabled them to spread their alleles much more
widely than they otherwise would have, but all the civilizations they became part of declined.
Today, people in the countries that imported slaves emphatically deny they have any
Negro blood and become quite offended at the suggestion that they do. However, their dark
skin, short, black, woolly hair, and African alleles betray them.
As discussed in Chapter 26, the multiple migrations of Eurasians into Africa have
resulted in a mixed population in Africa itself. And, as discussed in Chapter 15, the
accomplishments and achievements of Africans and African Americans have been abysmal,
which is not surprising given their average IQs of only 67 and 85, respectively (Chap. 14). So it
is not unreasonable to blame the decline of white civilizations on the importation of, and
interbreeding with, Africans slaves.
Egypt
The early Egyptians were Caucasian (Figure 26-2). From 3400 to 1800 B.C., Egypt
excelled in architecture, mathematics, and science. As Egyptians moved south, up the Nile
River, they encountered black Africans (Nubians), who were brought back as slaves.
Miscegenation spread, Egyptians became more Negroid, 24 and Egyptian civilization began a
decline from which it has never recovered. 25 “The weak, disease-ridden population of modern
Egypt offers dramatic evidence of the evil effects of a hybridization which has gone on for 5000
years.” (Garrett, 1960, p. 7). Today, Egypt is a Third World country with an average IQ of only
77 to 83. (Lynn, 2006a, p. 80).
The Middle East

The Muslims in the Middle East made many important discoveries and inventions
including coffee, the camera obscura, soap, the crank shaft, quilting, the pointed arch, surgical
instruments, anesthetics, the windmill, smallpox inoculation, checks, and algebra. 26 When the
more powerful men acquired large harems of women, many of the common men were left
without wives. From about 600 to about 1000 AD, cheap African slaves were imported as
concubines, a practice that did not end until the 1960s. By 1200 AD, Arab advances in the arts
and sciences had stopped. “The number of books published in the Arab world did not exceed
1.1% of world production though Arabs constitute 5% of the world population…. No more than
10,000 books were translated into Arabic over the entire millennium [1000 to 2000 AD],
equivalent to the number translated every year into Spanish.” 27 The average IQ in the Middle
East is now about 83. (Lynn, 2006a, p. 80; also Kemp, 2006, Chap. 7, 16, 17).
\
Greece
Originally white, classical Greece reached such heights that it is still studied today. The
IQ in Greece at that time must have been at least 100, but today it is only 92 (Lynn, 2006a, p
173). There is as yet little evidence for the presence of African alleles in the Greek gene pool,
though that would explain the drop in IQ. (Kemp, 2006, Chap. 10, App. 4, 6).
Portugal
By 1550, Portugal, then a white country, had become the wealthiest, most powerful
nation in the world with colonies in Asia, Africa, and South America. Unfortunately, Negro
slaves were brought into Portugal from Africa between the middle 15th century until slavery
was banned in the late 19th century (Godinho, 1983), when Africans were about 5 to 10% of
the population. 28 Interbreeding occurred 29 and Portugal declined until today it is the poorest
nation in Europe and has the lowest literacy score for ages 26 to 65. 30 Of the 346 Nobel
Prizes awarded in science between 1901 and 2003, the Portuguese received only one, for
prefrontal lobotomy, a now discredited treatment for mental illness. Spain was also affected,
but to a lesser extent. The average IQ in Portugal is 95, 31 but it is 99 in Spain.
The West Indies

“In the West Indies, the civilization is advanced almost exactly in the degree to which
the populations are unmixed with the Negro.” (Garrett, 1960, p. 7). Haiti, like most African
nations, is a basket case of corruption, poverty, and crime. There are no ‘safe areas’ in Haiti.
(U.S. Department of State Travel Warning, Oct., 2008).
In Jamaica, it has been reported that race-mixing has lead to “physical as well as
mental disharmonies.” (Garrett, 1960, p. 7; Davenport, 1970).
Brazil
“Let any one who doubts the evil of
this mixture of races, and is inclined
from mistaken philanthropy to break
down all barriers between them, come
to Brazil."
Louis Gassiz, naturalist
The northern coastal Bahia

region of Brazil, where there is
extensive interbreeding between
former African slaves, native Indians,
and whites, is in poverty and the
southern region around San Paulo,
which is mostly white, is well-off. Figure 29-1
(Garrett, 1960, p. 7). As is true throughout the world, those who are brown or black are
poorest, the least educated, and have the lowest IQ. The average IQ in Brazil is 87 but the
average IQ of Europeans in Brazil is 95 and the average IQ of Africans in Brasilia is only 70.
(Lynn, 2006a, pp 23, 70). Figure 29-1 (Wikipedia, “IQ,” now withdrawn) shows the overlapping
IQ bell curves in the U.S. for (left to right) African Americans, Hispanics, whites, and Asians.
The lower mean IQ for Hispanics is due to the interbreeding of Portuguese and Spaniards with
Africans and South American Indians (ave. IQ = 86; Lynn, 2006, p. 159).
Europe and the United States

In Europe and the United States the evidence for the de-civilizing effect of
miscegenation can be found in the education and crime levels in black schools and
neighborhoods. And it is almost certain to become worse. According to a U.S. Census Bureau
report, non-Hispanic whites accounted for only 66.4 percent of the U.S. population on July 1,
2006, though they were 76% in 1990 and 88% in 1965.
The U.S. population is predicted to balloon from the current (October, 2006) 327 million
people (Abernathy, 2006) to nearly 420 million in 2050. (Census Bureau). Census Bureau
projections show that the U.S. white population (IQ = 98; Lynn, 2006a, p. 174) will drop from
69.4% of the population to 50.1%; 32 blacks (African-American IQ = 85, African = 67; Lynn,
2006a, pp. 41, 37) will increase from 12.7% to 14.6%; Hispanics (Mexican IQ = 87; Lynn,
2002a) will rise from 13% to 24.4%; and Asians (East Asian IQ = 105, Southeast Asian = 87;
Lynn, 2006a, pp. 147, 99) will jump from 3.8% to 8%. 33 Thus, the percentage of blacks in the
U.S. is already significantly higher than the 5 to 10% that Portugal had when its decline began.
The United States is becoming more and more genetically homogenized and there is little
hope that the trend can be reversed. The extent that a society is civilized is a function of its
gene pool; once the gene pool has been lost, the products of that gene pool are also lost.
Miscegenation (with blacks), by inexorably lowering IQ, is the greatest threat to the
survival of whites and their civilizations. 34 Nothing else is more certain to permanently destroy
white civilization. Yet few whites recognize the threat and many whites actually welcome it.
Unless miscegenation is stopped soon, it will be too late. The center of civilization is already
moving from the West to East Asia, i.e., China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. Soon,
those countries will be the center of art, science, and military power, and the West will be
mired in a hopeless struggle to keep up.
Chapter 30
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967). According to Stanford University sociologist Michael

Rosenfeld, the number of biracial marriages in the U.S. went from 2% in 1970 to 7% in 2005.
(Crary, D., "Interracial Marriages Surge Across U.S.," Associated Press, Apr 12, 2007) The
amount of black/white miscegenation has increased in the U.S. from 3.3 per 1000 pregnancies
in 1968 to 17.7 in 1996, a 4 to 5 fold increase. (Getahun, 2005). Back
2. As in particle physics, whatever is not forbidden, is required; for miscegenation, that took
less than 50 yrs. Back
3. A different and disagreeable odor discourages interbreeding, but as man has become
domesticated he has lost some of his sensitivity to odors (as evidenced by the large
percentage of inactive genes (“pseudogenes”) in our olfactory genome; Keller, 2007), and
modern deodorants hide natural odors. The degree with which another race “smells bad,” is
proportional to the damage interbreeding would do to the genome, by “break[ing] apart those
compatible physical and mental qualities which have established a smoothly operating whole
in each race by hundreds [millions] of years of natural selection.” (East, 1919, p. 245ff). Also
see (Simpson, 2003, pp. 737-747). The advantages of preserving unique traits, however, apply
more to larger populations. For smaller groups, an optimal balance between inbreeding and
outbreeding is more beneficial. See next chapter. Back
4. Alleles may disappear if the individual who has them has no offspring (“lineage sorting”).
Back
5. The larger a population is, the more mutations will arise in it, though that affects evolution
only if a mutation codes for a trait that is selected. Culture, behavior that is not inherited, can
select traits. Thus, agriculture, the Industrial Revolution, and public health measures have
vastly increased human populations, and therefore the number of mutations, and cultures have
been selecting some of the resulting traits, though not necessarily desirable traits (Chap. 32).
As a result of cultural selection, “Human races are evolving away from each other, … on a
scale of centuries to millennia." (Harpending, H., Press Release, U. of Utah, Dec. 10, 2007).
Evolution occurs because better adapted individuals are selected; to the extent that everyone
becomes more alike, selection is reduced and evolution cannot occur. Miscegenation, by
hampering evolution, is maladaptive, anti-life, and destructive. Back
6. When the first sailors arrived at the Galapagos Islands, they took giant tortoises aboard for
eating. Excess tortoises were deposited on different islands than they came from, thereby
mixing up the many different races of tortoises. Now scientists are using DNA to sort them out
and return them to their home islands in order to preserve their unique races. It is ironic that so
much trouble would be incurred to preserve tortoise races while, at the same time, some
people deliberately try to mix up and destroy human races. (Nicholls, H., "Galapagos tortoises:
untangling the evolutionary threads," New Scientist, June 6, 2007, pp. 40-41). Back
7. Textbook publishers now require their school books to be “diverse” to meet state laws for
diversity. For example, McGraw-Hill’s guidelines for elementary and high school texts specify
that “40% of the people depicted should be white, 30% Hispanic, 20% African-American, 7%
Asian and 3% Native American.” (Liberty Magazine, Nov., 2006, p. 7). Also see (Lefkowitz,
1997; Ravitch, 2003). Back
8. (Grutter v. Bollinger et al., No. 02-241, 2003). Back
9. “No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Back
10. E.g., by permitting and encouraging the immigration of non-white races. “One of the
biggest threats to global biodiversity comes from invasive species transported from their
natural habitats to places they don’t belong.” (Pain, S., "The last place on earth with no
invasive species," New Scientist, June 16, 2007, p. 38). And immigrants of African descent are
4.9 times more likely than African Americans to marry interracially. (Wikipedia, “Interracial
Marriage”). Back
11. Dennis Prager, Jewish radio talk show host, promoting white miscegenation, not Jewish
miscegenation. Back
12. Studies have shown that almost everyone marries someone within a very short geographic
distance from his or her home, so one method of reducing miscegenation is segregation –
permitting ethnic and racial groups to legally limit their communities to people of the same
group. Another way is to maintain language differences. A language barrier (e.g., Spanish,
Ebonics) is equivalent to living 109 km (68 miles) away. (Barrai, 2003). Back
13. (Chapter 12, "Black on White Crime"). “The incidence of spousal homicide is 7.7 times
higher in interracial marriages compared to intraracial marriages.” (Burnett & Adler, “Domestic
Violence,” emedicine, Jan. 17, 2006). During the 10 year period from 1975 to 1985, spousal
homicide rates were 7.7 times higher in interracial marriages. (Mercy, 1989). Back
14. With good reason. According to the 1990 Census there were 2.5 times more black
husband-white wife marriages than white husband-black wife marriages, i.e., 72% of the
miscegenating couples were black man-white woman. Back
15. Surely the people who succeeded in convincing white men to abandon their biological
purpose in life are the greatest propagandists ever, far superior to Joseph Goebbels, whose
accomplishments pale by comparison. Back
16. In a multi-racial society, welfare is also against the genetic interests of the race with the
highest ratio of welfare taxes to welfare payments, i.e., whites. (Salter, 2003). Back
17. (Russell, 1991). The batting average of success for mixed race marriages is 0.127
compared to 0.213 for same race couples (Joyner, 2005). Back
18. If a racial characteristic requires the presence of two recessive alleles, there is less
likelihood that a mulatto will have it. For example, straight hair requires two copies of the same
allele, so most mulattoes have wooly hair. One reason for the “one drop rule” – that anyone
with any visible amount of black heritage is black – may be that whites have more recessive
alleles; thus, when it come to the expression of genes, the “phenotype,” a person with one
drop really is “black.” Back
19. A Pew Research Center survey (2007), found that 97% of African Americans believe that
interracial dating is acceptable. “Marry light – improve the race,” is a black aphorism. Also,
(Ross, 1997). On the other hand, here is what two white Americans thought: “There is a
natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate
amalgamation of the white and black races.” (Abraham Lincoln, Springfield, Illinois, June 26,
1857). “… I give … the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of the
State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.” (Also Abraham Lincoln;
Basler, 1953, p. 402-403). “Blacks … are inferior to Whites in the endowments of both body
and mind. (W)hen freed, the Black is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.” (Thomas
Jefferson). Back
20. The number of Americans born with blue eyes has dropped from about half in 1900 to
about 1/3 in 1950 to about 1 in 6 today. (Belkin, D. "Don't Make My Blue Eyes Brown, , Oct.
17, 2006). Back
21. See studies done in support of (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483,
1954). Back
22. Mulattos who are mostly white nevertheless usually see themselves as black and side with
black interests, e.g., Colin Powell, just as people with a minor amount of Jewish ancestry often
sympathize with Jewish interests. Even people who discover, through DNA testing, that they
have a bit of non-white heritage that they did not know they had, e.g., an Indian ancestor, tend
to become more sympathetic towards that minority. Back
23. After a match in Africa, black boxer Mohammed Ali (Cassius Clay) famously remarked,
“Thank God, my grand-daddy got on that boat!” Black reporter Keith Richburg, author of “Out
of America,” said, "Thank God my ancestor got out, because, now, I am not one of them
[Africans].” African slaves were captured by fellow Africans. They were not put to work as the
women did the work (and they could not be trusted around the women) and there was no way
of preventing them from escaping. They were either killed immediately or kept until needed as
food. Back
24. This is shown by the increasing lengths of the forearms relative to the upper arm.
(Zakrzewski, 2003, Table 6). “The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of
the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations.” The
Nubian dynasty was 742 to 633 B.C. Back
25. Kemp (Kemp, 2006, Chap. 8 & 9, App. 3). Those of us who are born into an advanced
civilization take it for granted, and we don’t realize how difficult they are to create and how
fragile they can be. Civilizations arise in populations that are genetically homogeneous,
intelligent, and cooperative, if not altruistic and, when those factors are lost, so is the
civilization. Compare Africa to the way Germany rebuilt itself within a few decades after being
destroyed in WWI and WWII. Back
26. ("1001 Inventions: Discover the Muslim Heritage in Our World" a touring exhibition, 2006).
Back
27. ("Arab education in crisis," Aljazeera News, October 21, 2003). Back
28. (Pereira, 2000; Simpson, 2003, pp. 816-818). The percentage of sub-Saharan African
mtDNA is negligible in Europe, but is 11.7% in southern Portugal. (González, 2003). Back
29. "The Portuguese intermarried freely with their slaves, and this infusion of alien blood
profoundly modified the character and physique of the nation. It may be said without
exaggeration that the Portuguese of the 'age of discoveries' and the Portuguese of the 17th
and later centuries were two different races.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., 1911,
“Portugal”). “Templeton gives a modern-day analogy: the presence of a gene for sickle cell
anemia in Caucasians in Portugal. The gene traces back to a mutation that occurred in Africa
and spread through interbreeding between Africans and Europeans. ‘The Africans didn't come
up, reconquer the Iberian peninsula, kill off all the Europeans, and that's why there are sickle
cell alleles in Portugal today,’ he says. The presence of the sickle cell gene in Portugal ‘means
that Portuguese and Africans have met and they've interbred, just like humans tend to do.’
" (Flanagan, R., Contributing Editor, “Out of Africa,” Earth Magazine). About one in 12 African-
Americans and about one in 100 Hispanic Americans are carriers for the sickle cell trait.
(Minority Organ Donation Education Program, Inc.). Back
30. (International Adult Literacy Survey, 1994-1998, Figure 7). Back
31. (Lynn, 2006a, p 174; also Kemp, 2006, Chap. 22, 23, App. 10, 11). The 95 IQ for Portugal
is an average of two studies showing IQs of 101 and 88, but in view of the few achievements
of today’s Portuguese, an IQ of 101 is unlikely to be accurate. In a homogenized population,
the “right tail effect” disproportionately reduces the number of people with high IQs, so the 88
figure is more likely to be accurate. (A high IQ is a synergistic trait that occurs when a number
of alleles that affect intelligence are assembled in the same person. Thus, a homogeneous
mixing of a high IQ population with a low IQ population greatly reduces the odds that that will
occur. See next chapter.) Back
32. Between 1900 and 1950, only about 1 in 10 Americans was nonwhite. Today that ratio is 1
in 3. (Belkin, D. "Don't Make My Blue Eyes Brown, , Oct. 17, 2006). According to the Census
Bureau, by 2042 whites will be a minority in the U.S. (Ohlemacher, S., "White Americans no
longer a majority by 2042," Associated Press, Aug., 14, 2008). Back
33. (Rubenstein, E.S., “Hispanics, Blacks Driving Baby Boomlet,” VDARE.com, Jan. 23, 2008).
“A decimated, defeated, or impoverished population can quickly recover if it retains control of

its territory, but a large-scale influx of genetically distant immigrants has the potential
permanently to reduce the genetic interests of the original population.” (Salter, 2002a). Back
34. (Kemp, 2006, Chap. 69, 70, App. 13, 14,and "The Ruins of Detroit"). “[T]he weak members
of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of
domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.” (Darwin,
1871, p. 128). Back
Chapter 30 - Hybrid Vigor

“There is no evidence that race-mixture as such produces bad results from the biological point
of view. The social results of race-mixture whether for good or ill are to be traced to social
factors."
"Statement on Race," United Nations, Unesco, 1950
Egalitarians have argued that people of mixed race are in some ways superior to
people of unmixed race, and therefore race-mixing is desirable. This seems inconsistent with
their position that there are no significant genetic differences between races, but egalitarians
are not strongly committed to consistency. That position is examined in this chapter.
It will no doubt occur to readers that miscegenation seems similar to making a hybrid.
We all know that hybrids are improved varieties, possessed of “hybrid vigor,” and perhaps
other desirable traits. This book takes the position that the Caucasians themselves are hybrids
of Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals. (Chapter 24). So why should miscegenation be any
different? Won’t miscegenation just produce hybrids with superior qualities?
“Hybrid vigor” (“heterosis”) is the phenomenon of hybrids growing more vigorously
(bigger, stronger, faster) than either parent population (or than the average of the two parent
populations). (Ekblom, 2000). In order to understand why hybrid vigor occurs, it is necessary to
explain the technical terms “homozygous” and “heterozygous.” An individual is 100%
homozygous if all of the alleles he inherited from his mother are paired with identical alleles
inherited from his father; an entire population is “homozygous” if each individual in the
population is homozygous and everyone has the same alleles for every gene. Thus, a 100%
homozygous population is “pure” and “breeds true” because every individual has exactly the
same alleles – identical “multiplets”; each individual in each generation is genetically identical
and each generation is genetically identical to prior and future generations. 1
In a 100% heterozygous individual, on the other hand, all of the alleles from the father
are paired with alleles from the mother that are different; a population is 100% heterozygous if
each individual is heterozygous and no two individuals have the same allele for any gene.
Aside from a very few purebreds, all sexually-reproduced living things are heterozygous to
some extent and there are no 100% homozygous populations. Similarly, it is unlikely that any
population will be 100% heterozygous because some alleles are “fixed,” i.e., everyone has
them. Thus, real populations will be “more homozygous” or “more heterozygous” than other
populations or than they were previously.
Due to mutation and selection, the longer a population has been isolated from other
populations, the more likely it is to have acquired alleles by mutation that other populations
don’t have. Intrabreeding passes those alleles around within the population, so that people
within that population are more likely to share alleles than are people from different populations
(Chapter 7), i.e., that population is more homozygous than is a population formed by
combining that population with another population.
Since an advantageous allele of a gene, i.e., an allele that increases reproductive
success more than some other alleles of that gene that are in the gene pool, will increase in
frequency in a population, populations will have mostly advantageous alleles. The smaller the
population is, the sooner everyone within a population will acquire any advantageous alleles
that have arisen and the sooner any less advantageous alleles that have gotten in to the gene
pool will be eliminated from the population when the people who have them have less
reproductive success. (Ridley, 1996, p. 285; Patterson, 1999, p. 40). Thus, the longer a
population is isolated from other populations, the more homozygous it becomes as there will
be only a single allele for more genes in the population, i.e., more genes go to “fixation.” Less
advantageous alleles are seldom entirely eliminated, however, because they may be only
slightly less advantageous, they arise faster than they can be eliminated, they are not
expressed until after an individual has (at least to some extent) reproduced, and other reasons.
Now, when two populations interbreed to form a hybrid population, each parent
population has accumulated, over tens or hundreds of thousands of years, a unique set of
alleles that is close to the optimum for the particular environment it has been in, and that
environment includes the environment its own members have created, e.g., their history,
culture, and accumulated knowledge. Inevitably, the two parent populations have lived in
different environments, and the hybrid population will live in the environment of one or both of
the parent populations. Thus, the hybrid population will not have the collection of alleles that
are most advantageous for either of those environments, a substantial loss of fitness, i.e., their
likelihood of successfully reproducing is lessened. 2
Although populations have different percentages of each allele, those percentages
change as the environment changes and selects for different combinations of the traits that the
alleles code for. The percentage of each allele in a population increases or decreases, moving
asymptotically towards the percentage that is optimum for that population in that environment,
where that optimality is constrained by what is genetically and culturally feasible (e.g.,
removing harmful alleles by preventing carriers from breeding may cause more loss of fitness
than letting them breed).
When formerly separated populations in different territories intermix and interbreed, the
percentage of each allele in the hybrid population will be approximately the average of its
percentage in the parent populations, weighted by the relative sizes of the populations. Those
percentages will be farther away from the optimal percentages for each population in their
former territories, a loss in fitness for the hybrid population. And, unless the individuals in the
hybrid population continue to move about in the combined territories and interbreed, thereby
keeping their alleles at non-optimal percentages, individuals will tend to migrate to the territory
that they are most adapted to and, by selection for adaptation to that territory, the percentages
of the alleles in the population in each territory will once again gradually move towards the
optimal percentages. In other words, without continual random interbreeding, two (genetically
different) populations will once again form. As soon as nature is permitted to take its course,
different varieties, races, and species will evolve all over again – egalitarianism requires a
never-ending battle against nature. 3
The longer a population remains isolated, the more inbred (i.e., homozygous), it
becomes because, eventually, recessive alleles are either expressed and spread (if
advantageous) or are expressed and eliminated (if less advantageous). Thus, isolation and
inbreeding not only eliminate less advantageous alleles, but also increase the frequency of the
expression of advantageous recessive alleles. Conversely, a population that has a large
number of expressed recessive traits, e.g., blue eyes, has likely been isolated for a long time. 4
Although the gene pool of an inbred population becomes more adapted to the
population’s environment, it has less variation; an inbred population is more vulnerable to
extinction because it lacks individuals with slightly different traits who can be selected should
the environment change and make those traits more advantageous. On the other hand, a
population that has less variation will be better adapted to an environment that is stable
(Chapter 4, Rule 7) and will be more efficient at exploiting it than a population with unneeded
variation. 5
Recessive Alleles
When an allele from the father is paired with an allele from the mother that is not
identical, one allele may be dominant and the other recessive, so that only the dominant allele
is expressed, or a mixture of the two alleles may be expressed. If a deleterious allele is
dominant, it is usually quickly eliminated from a population because its possessor is unlikely to
reproduce or raise offspring to maturity. 6
Populations will normally have a small proportion of deleterious recessive alleles
(“DRAs”). A few DRAs are constantly being introduced into populations by mutation (or
interbreeding with other populations) and a few are constantly being eliminated by the failure of
the individuals carrying them to reproduce, so the percentage of deleterious recessive alleles
in a population tends to reach a stable, equilibrium level. Interbreeding spreads both desirable
recessive alleles and DRAs. 7
Although DRAs will vary from only slightly disadvantageous to deadly, for the sake of
clarity in a simple thought (“gedenken”) experiment, let us assume that they are all deadly.
Let’s say that 50 white women breed with 50 white men and 50 black women breed with 50
black men. Each population maintains a stable level of 100 members, half men and half
women. The 100 member white population has two identical DRAs, one DRA in one of the 50
men and one DRA in one of the 50 women, and so does the black population, but the white
DRA is not the same as the black DRA. The 2% DRA level in the white and black populations
(2% of the members have a DRA) will be maintained and there is a 1/2500 chance (1/50 x
1/50) that a male carrying one of the DRAs will mate with a female carrying the other DRA. If
that happens, there is a ¼ chance that their child will have two copies of the DRA (½ x ½ = ¼)
and will die. If the child dies, those two DRAs will no longer exist in that population until two
mutations occur to replace them, one in the men and one in the women.
Now suppose instead that the 100 whites interbreed with the 100 blacks (50 white
women with 50 black men and 50 white men with 50 black women). In the resulting 200
member mulatto population, 1% will have white DRAs and 1% will have black DRAs. Although
2% of the population will have DRAs, in the first generation there will be no pairing of the two
black or the two white DRAs. In other words, the first generation of the mulatto population will
have no deaths due to the expression of the white or black DRAs. (Even if the mixing were
less than 100% the number of deaths would still drop, but not to zero.)
Individuals in the resulting mulatto population of 100 men and 100 women now breed
among themselves. The percentage of white and black DRAs in subsequent mulatto
populations will gradually increase to their stable level of 2% again, i.e. there will now be 4
white DRAs and 4 black DRAs in the mulatto population of 200, i.e., 2 white DRAs and 2 black
DRAs in the men and the same in the women. The probability that a male carrying a white
DRA will mate with a female carrying another white DRA is 1/2500 (2/100 x 2/100) and the
probability that a male carrying a black DRA will mate with a female carrying another black
DRA will also be 1/2500, so the probability that one of those two types of matings will occur is
1/1250. The probability that a mulatto child will inherit two copies of either the white DRA or the
black DRA and will die is now twice as high as that a white or black child would have died in
the two unmixed populations; miscegenation has doubled the chances that a child will die from
having two copies of a DRA. 8
Most of the time people, even in isolated racial or ethnic groups, need not worry about
DRAs being expressed because the probability is low unless their mate is a close relative.
Also, if a population has been inbred for a long time, there will be very few DRAs in it anyway.
Although the decrease in deaths in first generation could be (and sometime is) called
“hybrid vigor” it is not “vigor” so much as it is a single generation dilution of the two DRAs in the
mixed population before the DRAs return to their equilibrium levels. Interbreeding temporarily
reduced the percentage of DRAs at the cost of subsequently increasing the number of people
who have them, thereby making their elimination more difficult and less likely.
True Hybrid Vigor

True “hybrid vigor” occurs when inbred populations are interbred. The inbred
populations that are used do not have DRAs, but do have advantageous alleles, dominant and
recessive. (Simpson, 2003, pp. 601-602). How can that be accomplished? Well, it is
accomplished all the time with plants and animals. Here is how it is done.
Start with purebred (i.e., mostly homozygous) parent populations that are not obviously
incompatible, e.g., one very large and the other very small. 9 Purebred parent populations are
used because they “breed true,” that is, the offspring are all very much the same as the
parents. If you start with mixed breed (mostly heterozygous) parent populations, you will just
get a lot of mixed breeds and will produce neither a population with the desirable qualities you
want nor hybrid vigor.
Purebred populations are obtained by inbreeding. 10 Since close relatives have more of
the same alleles than non-relatives do, if close relatives breed, some of the offspring will be
more homozygous than the parents. (If the desired traits are recessive, the set of individuals
who have more of the desired traits will be more homozygous.) If only the individuals who have
the desired traits from each generation are selected for breeding, the population will become
more and more inbred, because those individuals have more of the same alleles that code for
those traits. Eventually, the population becomes homozygous, or nearly so, i.e., it is purebred.
When purebred parent populations are being created by inbreeding closely related
individuals, both desired and undesired traits coded for by recessive alleles will be expressed
much more than in the parent population because the probability of two recessive alleles
ending up in the same individual is greater. But, when that happens, those individuals are bred
only if they have the desired traits. Individuals that don’t have the desired traits are culled
(“purged”), 11 i.e., euthanized or given away as pets. In that way, each succeeding inbred
generation has fewer and fewer undesirable traits and more and more desirable traits. 12
Now crossbreed two or more purebred parent populations, each having a different set
of desired traits, and, voila, hybrid vigor! 13 To see why, let us take two homozygous
populations, “AA” and “BB,” where “A” is the complete collection of alleles in the “AA”
population and “B” is the complete collection of alleles in the “BB” population and no A allele
on any gene is the same as a B allele. When purebred population “AA” is crossed with
purebred population “BB,” all the individuals in the hybrid population “AB” will have a mixture of
all the “A” alleles from the “AA” population and all the “B” alleles from the “BB” population and
will exhibit “hybrid vigor,” i.e., they will be healthier, stronger, and will grow faster than their
purebred parents. 14 Why?
If two heterozygous populations interbreed, each population having two different alleles
for each gene in each pair of chromosomes (AB and CD), and the two populations do not
share any alleles, the alleles for each gene in the two chromosomes of each individual in the
resulting mongrel hybrids will be different (AC, AD, BC, BD). That is also true of the purebred
hybrids, who are all “AB.”
If we pick one individual from the purebred hybrids and one from the mongrel hybrids
and compare their alleles, we see that both individuals are heterozygous, i.e., each allele of
each gene in the chromosome inherited from the mother is different from the corresponding
allele in the chromosome inherited from the father. But, in the purebred hybrid all the alleles in
one of those two chromosomes were previously together in the mother and, in the other
chromosome, they were previously together in the father. 15 In the mongrel hybrid, however,
the combination of completely different alleles and crossover placed alleles in the two
chromosomes that had never previously been together in the same individual. This suggests
that because the purebreds were inbred, their alleles were together in many previous
generations and had been selected for compatibility with other alleles as a necessary part of
the process of forming a purebred population with the desired traits. The alleles in the hybrid
populations were less compatible because they had not previously been together in the same
individual, and therefore could not be, and had not been, selected for compatibility.
In the first generation of the purebred hybrids, all the alleles from each parent are
together in each pair of chromosomes, but in each subsequent generation crossover mixes
them up so that they are in different chromosomes. As a result, hybrid vigor quickly dissipates,
16 which is why farmers have to buy new hybrid seeds each year.
Individual humans, however, are a long way from being homozygous and, although
races are somewhat inbred, they are a long way from being purebred. 17 It would simply not be
worth the immense cost required to obtain hybrid vigor in humans, even supposing people
wanted to do it, especially when the effect quickly dissipates anyway.
Selection and Culling

When man makes a plant or animal hybrid, he carefully selects which offspring he will
let survive and reproduce. Nature, too, selects ruthlessly and destroys thousands of crosses
from different populations, leaving few, if any, hybrid survivors. (Patterson, 1999, p. 95). When
the Caucasians arose, for example, there was no government aid to the less capable, and
those who did not possess the most advantageous traits of both the Cro-Magnons and the
Neanderthals simply died without issue. The very existence of the Caucasians in Europe
proves that they, the hybrids, were more fit in Europe than either the Cro-Magnons or the
Neanderthals who begot them.
With miscegenation today, however, few of the hybrids fail to survive and reproduce
because food, shelter, medical and dental treatment, and social services are provided for
them, whether or not they are sufficiently productive to pay for them. Instead of letting natural
selection take its course, as it did when the Caucasian hybrids were born, the state requires
the more fit to reduce their own chances of surviving and reproducing in order to enhance the
chances of the less fit surviving and reproducing. Any farmer with an ounce of sense knows
that all his plants and livestock are not all genetically equal, and so he selects his seed for his
next year’s crop from only the best of his plants and animals; only egalitarians tell every seed
that with a little manure it can be the equal of any other seed, however unfit it is.
In primitive populations that are barely surviving, genetically-defective individuals are
quickly culled, but in First World countries, with surplus resources, modern medicine, and
welfare, even individuals in whom severe DRAs are expressed, are kept alive and frequently
reproduce, 18 gradually degrading the gene pool. Indeed, the less capable have more
reproductive success than the more capable, another byproduct of egalitarianism. With
domesticated plants and animals, humans purge individuals with the slightest fault, but with
their own species, only the worst cases don’t breed, so the undesirable traits of DRAs are
expressed at an ever increasing percentage. And, when there are no more resources to keep
the unproductive alive they will attack the more productive, killing off the foolish geese that
enabled them to do so.
When the races interbreed, there is no plan to produce a human who is more fit or even
one who is healthier, more intelligent, or otherwise more desirable, other than, perhaps, being
“not white.” There is not even a plan to let the offspring fend for themselves and die off if they
cannot do so. All the offspring are permitted to breed and no one is stopped from breeding.
Worse, the non-productive are more fecund and, still worse, new deleterious mutations arise in
each generation. The inevitable result is the enfeeblement of the entire species, a fate that
awaits no species save man.
Failing to cull is like trying to create a new breed of dog by putting different purebreds in
an enclosure and letting them promiscuously bred while caring for all the pups. 19 You would
not end up with a new breed, just a bunch of mongrels, and you will have destroyed all the
hundreds of years of work that were required to create the pure breeds you started with. That
is why you pay a lot more for a purebred dog, cat, horse, cow, sheep, or tomato seed, and why
a mongrel dog or cat at the pound is free or nearly free. 20

People inherently understand the concepts involved in breeding and readily apply them
not only to plants and animals, but even to their own reproductive choices. Parents, being
more objective and experienced than their children, can often instantly tell when their child’s
choice of a mate is a bad one. Young people, too, may have flings with enticing, but unsuitable
mates, yet when it comes to settling down, the genetically-controlled traits in a mate that
determine their mate’s traits and their children’s traits usually become more important. 21
The only practical way (genetic engineering would be incredibly difficult) to obtain a
population with a high percentage of desirable traits and a low percentage of undesirable traits,
is to isolate that population from other populations so that it becomes inbred, then select for
breeding only those individuals who have the desirable traits. That is, in fact, what our
ancestors have done for us and that is what we are thoughtlessly undoing by miscegenation.
Incest
Another argument raised by the egalitarians is that races are isolated populations that
have bred among themselves for tens of thousands of years (true) and they are somewhat
inbred (also true). Incest is an extreme form of inbreeding, they continue, and we all know that
incest produces horribly sick and deformed people. 22 Race-mixing introduces new blood and
is therefore healthy because it is the opposite of incest.
Incest may be culturally abhorrent, but it does not create DRAs – it merely increases
the probability that they will be expressed (“inbreeding depression”) if they are present. 23 But
some believe that the more inbred a person is, i.e., the more homozygous he is, the
unhealthier he will be, even if he has no DRAs. In other words, they are arguing that
homozygosity, in and of itself is, for some reason, unhealthy.
There are, indeed, some disadvantages to homozygosity. Because a sexually-
reproducing population that was 100% homozygous would be similar to an asexually-
reproducing population (in both cases, the offspring are genetically the same as the parents),
they would have the same problems that asexual populations have – inability to evolve by the
selection of alleles already present in the population, vulnerability to predators, and an
increased load of parasites who have specialized to attack that unique collection of traits. 24
So, to that extent, the egalitarians are correct, but races are a long, long way from 100%
homozygosity, and those problems are not problems with real races. 25
Other than those problems, however, there is no evidence or logical reason why 100%
homozygosity is or would be harmful. 26 There is, with few exceptions, no harm in having a
single gene in which both copies are identical, 27 so it is hard to see why having all genes with
both copies identical would, in itself, be harmful. (Simpson, 2003, pp. 590-598, 606-607).
Incestuous inbreeding of animals has been performed for multiple generations without
problems. (Id., pp. 599-600). Most commercial plants and animals used for human food are
highly inbred, so that all individuals are nearly identical in their nutritional requirements,
medical needs, date of maturation, and behavior. No commercial farm could operate efficiently
if each animal had its own requirements. If inbreeding were harmful, these farms would not
exist.
But there is no need for incestuous inbreeding in order to obtain the advantages of
inbreeding. Any isolated ethnic group is inbred, yet can, and usually does, avoid incest. The
absence of sexual desires towards people who look or smell too similar or are
“nestlings” (raised together, the over-stimulation of familiarity dulling sexual desire), and one
sex leaving the home discourages incest. 28
Incompatibility
“Genes do not work in isolation.” (Sapolsky, R., "A Gene For Nothing," Discover
magazine, May, 2007, p. 32). Genes code for polypeptides that are used to make proteins that
interact with other proteins and compounds in the body. If those interactions are between fully
compatible compounds, the efficiency of the interaction is higher than if the compounds are not
fully compatible. Each parent has thousands of collections of interacting compounds that, over
many thousands of years, have been selected because they are compatible with other
compounds present in that population. 29 Race mixing breaks up the collections of alleles that
code for those compatible compounds. 30 During long periods of isolation where individuals in
a population breed among themselves, a huge number of different combinations of alleles are
expressed, i.e., tried out. Individuals who had combinations that did not work well were less
reproductively successful, which eliminated some of the alleles from the genome, leaving
behind fewer alleles for each gene, but alleles that worked well with the other remaining
alleles. (Pusey, 1996).
Because brain tissue has more complex interactions than other tissues, a decrease in
compatibility may have a greater adverse effect on the brain than on other organs. Egalitarians
take the position that if a black and a white are both intelligent then, since everyone is
genetically equal, it is just as likely that they will have intelligent children as if they were both
white. Not so. Certain traits, and intelligence is one of them, are not inherited in such a way
that the children tend to cluster around the average of that trait in their parents. Instead, the
children are in between the average of their parents and the average for their own population;
this phenomenon is called “regression to the mean.” 31 For example, if the intelligence of both
parents is above average, the intelligence of the children is also likely to be above average, but
not as high as the parents, and if the intelligence of the parents is below average, the
intelligence of the children is likely to be below average, but not as low as the parents. So, if an
African couple both have an IQ of 85, which is above the African average of 67, their children
are likely to have IQs between 67 and 85; if a white couple both have an IQ of 85, which is
below the white average of 100, their children are likely to have IQs between 85 and 100.
Consistent with the increased incompatibility of alleles 32 that results from race mixing,
there is evidence that mixed races have more health and behavior problems. 33 For example,
the child may have small teeth in a large jaw with gaps in between, or large teeth in a small
jaw, resulting in crowded teeth. 34 In the brain, specialized areas of the cortex must be the
right size relative to other parts of the brain or performance suffers. (See EMX2 gene).
Mismatched alleles in mulattoes can lead to autoimmune diseases, such as arthritis
and multiple sclerosis, where the immune system inherited from one parent attacks the
proteins made from the other parent’s DNA. Ness, 2004. There are rearrangements,
inversions, and duplications in the human genome that differ among the races and may cause
incompatibility. There are also some non-genetic costs of race-mixing, such as cultural
incompatibility and the spread of a disease that one of the parent populations is immune to but
the other is not.
The greater the genetic distance between two
individuals, the greater is the incompatibility of their
alleles. 35 Some part of the excess miscarriages,
stillborns, and infant mortality among African
Americans may result from “mismatches” between
their European alleles and their African alleles, e.g.,
the father’s genes code for one set of proteins and
the mother’s genes code for a different set of proteins
that are not fully compatible with the father’s set.
Compared to white parents, stillbirths are 17% higher
for white mother/black father, 37% higher for black

mother/white father, and 67% higher for black
mother/black father; a similar relationship holds for
low birth weight and neonatal mortality. 36 As genetic
distance between the parents increases, their
offspring become more sickly, then are no longer
fertile, then are no longer viable, and finally, there are
no pregnancies. (Fig. 30-1). By operating at the left
side of the graph in Figure 30-1, DRAs are
expressed, 37 but are removed from the population if
the individuals who have them do not breed;
advantageous recessive alleles are also expressed 38
and can more rapidly increase in frequency, which Figure 30-1
benefits the population.
By operating at the right side of the above graph, miscegenation spreads DRAs
throughout the mulatto population, increasing the number of individuals who have them and
causing genetic incompatibility in the mulatto genome, weakening it; the presence of
advantageous recessive alleles is diluted. 39
Chapter 31
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. A 100% homozygous population is even more identical than identical twins because each
twin is most probably not homozygous. Also, identical twins and clones drift apart genetically
as they age. (Martin, 2005). Back
2. If an advantageous allele has arisen in one population but not the other, a portion of the
hybrids will have it, but that allele may not be accompanied by other alleles that enable it to
perform efficiently. Back
3. To put it another way, to prevent populations from evolving and wiping out an egalitarian
mongrel utopia, selection must be prevented. It is similar to economic egalitarianism where,
once everyone is made equal in wealth and income exchange, if permitted, will soon make
them unequal again. “.. if men are free, they won’t be equal.” (Putnam, 1961, p. 60). Foolish
men are no match for persistent Nature. Back
4. (Chapter 4, Rule 14, corollary). If Eurasians express more recessive alleles than Africans
(which seems likely, given that Africans have greater variation), that would lend support to the
OoE theory because it would suggest that Eurasians were more isolated than Africans and
Africans received their alleles from Eurasians, not the reverse. Also, the expression of
recessive alleles in Europeans suggests that Europe was not invaded much by people carrying
dominant alleles. Back
5. (Chapter 4, Rules 4, 7, and 11). Africans have more variation not because each population
in Africa is more varied, but because the entirely of all the many populations in Africa
collectively have more variation. Back
6. On the other hand, although a dominant allele that increases reproductive success, such as
an allele for health, good looks, or intelligence, would have spread quickly throughout a
population prior to birth control, today that is not necessarily the case because those who have
the allele may not want to reproduce. Back
7. For example, African Americans, a hybrid population of Africans and Caucasians, have
picked up a Caucasian allele that increases their risk of heart disease (Helgadottir, 2006) and
they may be at a higher risk of developing multiple sclerosis due to acquiring a European allele
on Chromosome-1. (Reich, 2005). Back
8. (Lynch, 1997). Suppose the thought experiment is repeated, but this time the two
populations are highly inbred and the non-DRA alleles are the same in all the whites and the
same in all the blacks, but none of the white non-DRAs are the same as the black non-DRAs.
Now, in the first generation mulatto population, every white non-DRA will be paired with a black
non-DRA and none of the advantageous traits that resulted from having the same non-DRAs in
all the whites and the same non-DRAs in all blacks will be expressed; i.e., even the first
generation mulatto population will be less fit. Back
9. Often, the males are selected from one parent population and the females from the other.
Back
10. About 20 generations are required to produce mice that are as similar to each other as
identical twins. (Zimmer, C., "Inside the Lab-Mouse Factory," Discover magazine, May, 2007,
p. 33). Back
11. Purging reduces the genetic load of the population by decreasing the amount of useless
and destructive genetic material that must be copied and carried. Back
12. A little physics again - the Second Law of Thermodynamics: in a closed system, entropy
increases. As individuals are inbred to produce purebred lineages, their collections of alleles
become more and more ordered. That is, out of the total number of alleles in the population,
the probability that the sought-after particular collection of alleles would end up by chance in
the individuals of the purebred population is very low. The collection of alleles in the individuals
of a mulatto population, however, become more random, a much more probable outcome.
Thus, hybridization creates a more ordered state, reducing entropy within the culled inbreeding
population, while miscegenation creates a more disordered state, increasing entropy within the
unculled randomly breeding mulatto population. Hybridization is creation, miscegenation is
destruction. Back
13. The assumption is made that alleles in the purebred populations are compatible, i.e., they
are closely related, so that the vigor of the hybrids is not reduced by incompatible alleles. Back
14. New species are often formed in nature by this same process. Isolated groups become
highly inbreed, then the environment changes so that they come into contact and breed. The
hybrids have various mixtures of the traits of the two inbred groups. Only those with the most
adaptive traits survive and form the new species. Back
15. That is true even with crossover because the grandparents also had the same alleles.
Back
16. “Hybrid vigor,” when it does occur, “is the peculiar possession of the first cross.” “Further
crossing of these hybrids results in a manifest decrease of vigor in subsequent generations.
The second crosses are not so vigorous as their hybrid parents.” (Crew, 1927; quoted in
Simpson, 2003, p. 601). Back
17. With an average of 14 alleles per gene, the percentage of homozygous genes will be
small. Back
18. (Dugdale, 1877). This may be why European populations have proportionally more
deleterious genetic variations than African populations. (Lohmueller, 2008). Back
19. (Simpson, 2003, pp. 602-605, 732-733). Even after cross-breeding two or more parental
stocks that are mostly homozygous and that have compatible and complementary traits that
are unlikely to conflict, the resulting hybrids are bred with each other so that any remaining
undesirable alleles are expressed and the alleles for those traits can be eliminated. Back
20. It is true that many purebred animals, especially dogs, have genetic problems. The reason
is that people will pay a lot for them, even with their problems, and so they are not culled. Back
21. There is some evidence that women are able to discern which men will be dads and which
cads just by looking at their faces. (Roney, 2006). Back
22. If inbreeding is harmful then inbred species should not evolve barriers to outbreeding. But
they do. Such barriers may include different odors, songs, mating rituals, etc. Back
23. “Continuous crossing only tends to hide inherent defects, not to exterminate them, and
inbreeding only tends to bring them to the surface, not to create them.” (Castle, 1930). But
remember, inbreeding also increases the likelihood that advantageous recessive traits will be
expressed. (Chapter 4, Rule 14). Back
24. A loss of vigor has been observed in a few small, isolated natural populations that have
become more homozygous, but not in laboratory animals. A natural population, of course,
faces parasites and a much more changeable environment than does a laboratory population.
Back
25. On the other hand, because inbred parents share so many alleles they can be expected to
be more “K” orientated, caring parents. (Thünken, 2007). Back
26. “Further, any racial stock which maintains a high standard of excellence under inbreeding
is certainly one of great vigor, and free from inherent defects.” (Schwartz, 1999, p. 266). The
Mennonites in Kansas have been mentioned as being an inbred, but intelligent and healthy,
population. (Moore, 1987). Cleopatra was the seventh generation of brother-sister marriages,
and brother-sister marriages were also practiced by the royal Incas, the Hawaiian Alii, and the
Singhalese. (White, E. Doorway Papers by Arthur Custance, 1988, Chap. 1). Before the DRAs
are eliminated, the offspring of incest are unhealthy; after they are eliminated, they are
superior. Back
27. Indeed, that occurs in most people. The exception is “balanced polymorphism.” Also, most
people have multiple copies of some entire genes, which can actually be beneficial. Back
28. A delay in puberty in girls when fathers are in the home may also be an incest-avoidance
strategy. (Matchock, 2006). Back
29. “[G]enes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one
another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood.” (Caruso, D., "Change to
gene theory raises new challenges for biotech," International Herald Tribune, July 3, 2007).
Back
30. See the explanation for “True Hybrid Vigor,” above. An example of an incompatible gene is
LTA4H. Back
31. Here is a possible explanation: Let’s say, for the sake of an example, that 20 genes, each
with 10 alleles, determine genetic intelligence. They can combine in 1020 different ways.
Assuming each allele is equally likely (a false, but simplifying assumption), if each of those
combinations corresponds to an IQ and we plot IQ on the horizontal axis and number of
combinations that give that IQ on the vertical axis, we should get a bell-shaped curve. Since
each combination is equally likely, only a very few combinations will correspond to a high IQ
and only a very few people will have those combinations. Two high IQ parents don’t have the
same alleles, but they each have combinations of alleles that result in a high IQ. Their children,
however, will receive mixtures of their parent’s alleles and the children’s combinations are
more likely to be on the left (lower IQ) side of their parent’s combinations than on their right
(higher IQ). So the children’s IQ regresses towards the more probable combinations, which are
nearer to the mean.
Some alleles will be mostly in combinations below the mean and some will be mostly in
combinations above the mean. The combinations at the extreme right will have not only a
subset of particular alleles, but will have only particular combinations within that subset. Thus,
it is easy to knock a combination out of the extreme right end of the bell-shaped curve by
simply substituting alleles that are mostly in combinations below the IQ of the parents.
The more closely related the two high IQ parents are, the more likely they are to have
the same alleles and the more likely it is that their child will have the same alleles, and the
same combination of alleles, that gave the two parents high IQs. Thus, if all four grandparents
and all eight great-grandparents had high IQs, the child’s IQ is not likely to regress towards the
mean as much, i.e., he will “breed true.” On the other hand, the more genetically distant the
parents are, the more likely the child is to receive different alleles and the greater his
combination of alleles will differ from his parent’s combinations, so the more he will regress
towards the mean. Thus, even assuming that the parents have the same high IQ, the IQ of a
child is likely to be higher when both parents are white than when one is white and one is
black. Regression to the mean also explains why black children of middle class parents are
three times more likely than white children of middle class parents to drop to the lowest fifth in
income. (Taylor, J. “Race/IQ Explanation Gap at ‘Achievement Gap Summit’,” VDARE.com,
Nov. 13, 2007). Here are some other examples of regression to the mean: “Black children from
the wealthiest families [i.e., higher IQ parents] have mean SAT scores lower than white
children from families below the poverty line.” “Black children of parents with graduate degrees
have lower SAT scores than white children of parents with a high-school diploma or less.” (La
Griffe du Lion, 2000a). Back
32. It is not only alleles that can be incompatible, but strings of DNA. As discussed in Chapter
4, under “Recombination,” in the production of eggs and sperm, strings of DNA inherited from
the parents are mixed up (“crossover”), and the strings may be incompatible. This may be the
reason that two white-looking mulattoes can have a child that looks black. Epigenomes may
also be incompatible. Back
33. (Choi, 2006). See (Richards, 2005 and 2006) and references cited therein. The mating of
people with dissimilar genes may result in health problems in the offspring due to the failure of
genetically-programmed incompatible biochemical or physiological pathways, a phenomenon
known as “outbreeding depression.” These problems may increase with subsequent
generations as more incompatible combinations of genes occur. “Adolescents who identify
themselves as mixed race are at higher health and behavior risk than those of 1 race.” (Udry,
2003). Genetic similarity theory (Chap. 7) predicts that white mothers of mulatto children will
not feel close to them, which is unhealthy for both mother and child. (Riley, 2006). White
mother/black father couples invest fewer resources in their mulatto children than do either
black couples or white couples. (Cheng, 2007). “…complexes of genes co-evolve in a
population, acting harmoniously with one another to produce a high level of fitness. Different
isolated populations may evolve different complexes of genes that interact well within a
particular population, but poorly when the genes are mixed through cross-population
matings.” (Lynch, 1997). “Blacks [i.e., African Americans, who are hybrids] tend to die sooner
and younger from almost every cause but osteoporosis [because they have denser bones].
There are reports that even after all known causes are accounted for there is still ‘unexplained’
poor health among blacks. This difference is often ascribed to the stresses of ‘racism,’ but this
is not a very convincing explanation. Recently, Surgeon General David Satcher appeared on
television to point out that in America, black babies are 2-1/2 times more likely than whites to
die in the first year of life. It is not clear how infants suffer from the stresses of ‘racism.’
“ (Whitney, 1999). There are also incompatibilities between whites and Asians. (Nystrom,
2008). The higher mortality of left-handers (Ramadhani, 2007) may also be due to
incompatibility problems. Back
34. (Bergman, 1998). “It is tempting to suppose that interbreeding would exacerbate
malocclusion and increase the number of impactions.” (MacGregor, 1985). Back
35. A good example of genetic incompatibility is Haldane’s Rule, which says, “when in the
offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the
heterogametic [XY} sex.” In birds and butterflies, the female is the XY sex, but in mammals
and fruit flies it is the male that is XY. (Birkhead, 2003, p. 150; Ridley, 1996, pp. 406-408). An
X from one race and a Y from the other are less compatible than an X from each, so the
percentage of male mulattoes resulting from Caucasian-African matings should be lower than
the percentage in either parent population. (Holmes, 1927). “Indiscriminate interbreeding
between distinct forms, whether ‘species’ or markedly different races, is not generally
beneficial. The defect may show in a change in the sex-ratio of the offspring, probably caused
by the early abortion of members of one sex, generally the male in the case of
mammals.” (Baker, 1974, p.85). Back
36. (Getahun, 2005). Since this study was done in the United States, “black” refers to African
Americans, who are already mixtures of about 75% African and 25% European. "Florida health
statistics show that in 2005, the mortality rate for black infants was 4.4 times higher than that of
white infants ... Researchers found that African women who come to the United States and
have babies experience the same low rate of infant deaths as white American mothers [at least
partly because they do not have those incompatible white alleles]. " (Ackerman, S., "Stress,
Racism may Endanger Black Infants," The Tampa Tribune, Sept. 28, 2008). Also, (David, R.,
2007). Back
37. Cousins among Muslims in England have more children with birth defects. (Gadher, D.,
“Minister Warns of ‘inbred’ Muslims,” The Sunday Times, Feb. 10, 2008). Back
38. Cousins in Iceland, a more homozygous and isolated island with a population of only
313,400, have more children. (Helgason, 2006); Icelandic men also have the world’s highest
life expectancy for men at 79.4 yrs (2007). Back
39. “Population genetics” treats the population as a reproductive unit; the optimal balance of
inbreeding to outbreeding that will preserve advantageous alleles within the population while
permitting the acquisition of advantageous alleles from other populations can be calculated.
(Ardrey, 1966, pp. 138-141; Edmands, 2007). Back
Chapter 31 - Segregation
“Integration: the interval between the first black moving in and the last white moving out."
Mike Berman
Freedom of association is not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, though it was
implicit in the First Amendment, at least until the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights law. Before
that law abolished that Constitutional right, people had the freedom to associate (or not
associate) with other people as they chose, for any reason whatsoever. There is nothing in the
Constitution that gives the government the power to take that freedom away and the Ninth and
Tenth Amendments explicitly state that unless the government is given a power by the
Constitution, it does not have it. 1 But our eviscerated Constitution now lies in shambles and we
no longer have the right to buy, sell, rent, hire, or otherwise contract with whomever we wish to.
Housing, schools, and the workplace, segregated by race, even if done by a private party and
not by a government, and all “public accommodations” are illegal.
Yet a propensity to associate with those who are genetically similar is innate. (Chapter
8). Just as under Communism, where people did not behave the way Communist doctrine said
they should, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” so under
egalitarianism, despite the pervasiveness of the Equality Police, people do not behave as
though racial differences were superficial and of no importance. They still choose their friends
(including teenage gangs), mates, churches, and neighborhoods based at least partly on race. 2
Ideology can beat Nature down, but it cannot keep it down. Even children, who have not been
encouraged to segregate by race and, to the contrary, have been told not to do so, nevertheless
segregate themselves by race at lunchtime and at other times when they are free to choose
with whom they associate. 3 The two authors of a book on segregation (Steinhorn, 1999), one
white and one black, think race is trivial and lament the failure of society to integrate, while
admitting that they themselves have been to each other’s home only once. Even the most
fervent white anti-racist selects a white neighborhood to live in, though he will swear that he
does not and that he merely wants a “nice” neighborhood with “good” schools which, just
coincidentally, turn out to be white. 4 White Christians may profess egalitarianism and universal
love, but “11:00 Sunday morning …[is] the most segregated hour in this nation.” (Martin Luther
King, from Billy Graham).
One may pose a simple question: Is there less conflict between two groups of racially
different people when they are interspersed or when they are segregated? There is little doubt
that “stop the hate, segregate” is the answer. 5 Many primate species form “biological nations”
of related individuals and defend their territory against contiguous nations of others of their
species. The conflicts between these populations are often ritualized, rather than physical, and
serve the purpose of unifying their populations (Ardrey, 1966, pp. 191-200), much as the
leaders of human governments deliberately create external enemies to unify the country behind
them. Egalitarians may be surprised to learn that territorial species have more social equality
than non-territorial species.
“… through a wide variety of effective primate societies a clean line falls: territorial
societies tend toward the [social] equalitarian, exhibit the lowest gradients of
dominance, present the fewest example of physical conflict or punishment, and
while attaining a maximum of social solidarity and co -operation, sacrifice a minimum
of what a human being would call personal freedom.” (Ardrey, 1966, p. 223)
Thus, the egalitarians, by embracing multiculturalism and the immigration of non-whites in to
white nations on the basis of the genetic equality of all peoples, undermine their social equality,
and create societies of conflict, violence, ethnic cleansing, and civil war.
One might think that insuring domestic tranquility would be an objective of the U.S.
government, 6 but instead the Judicial and the Executive branches perversely uphold and
enforce laws that lead to and, indeed, require, the exact opposite result. 7 Even if two or more
populations could peacefully occupy the same territory, it is a delusion to think that such a
situation would be stable. 8
Then there is Gause’s Law of Competitive Exclusion:
“Two subspecies of the same species do not occupy the same geographical area. …
To imagine one subspecies of man living together on equal terms for long with
another subspecies is but wishful thinking and leads only to disaster and oblivion for
one or the other.” 9
The carrying capacity of the earth will eventually be reached, and it has probably already
been reached in some countries. When that happens in white countries, our descendants will
be in a life-and-death struggle for survival with the descendants of the non-whites that whites
foolishly let in to their homelands at the behest of the egalitarians and the multiculturalists. The
actions we take, or fail to take, now, are setting the stage for multiple civil wars in the future.
Most higher animals require a territory to survive. (Ardrey, 1966). So vitally do survival
and reproductive success depend upon the possession of a territory that most animals will
ferociously fight competitors to defend it. Every distinct population of man also requires a
territory, a homeland. Without it, they will be nomads who, like the Gypsies, are despised and
hated by those whose territory they cross. The Jews, who have been accused of trying to
destroy white homelands by supporting massive non-white immigration into them, 10
nevertheless went to extreme lengths 11 to obtain their own homeland, Israel, into which they
carefully restrict immigration to other Jews. Indeed, a homeland is so vital to survival that an
ethnic group will go to almost any length to have and hold one. The “youth” in multi-racial cities
organize by race and kill each other for trespassing into their territory, a few square blocks of
the city, and entire countries follow the same pattern. Examples include the Balkan War that
occurred after Tito died in 1980 and Yugoslavia disintegrated, the current civil war in Iraq
between the Shiites and the Sunnis, the 1994 Rwanda Massacre between the Tutsis and the
Hutus, and the endless slaughter in the Middle East between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The
Japanese 12 and Chinese do not permit others to settle in their country and the Africans are
now murdering, raping, and disenfranchising the few remaining whites in Africa. 13 As Michael
Shermer aptly put it, “As a social primate, we evolved within-group amity and between-group
enmity.” 14
But, nevertheless, whites are expected to welcome other races to their homelands -
Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Non-whites from the Third
World are not only permitted to immigrate into white homelands, they are openly welcomed -
white churches work to bring them over and white governments subsidize them when they have
arrived. Indeed, governments give these often uneducated, illiterate, low IQ, disease-carrying,
and crime-prone Third-World immigrants more benefits and rights than they give to their own
people, then send their own people the bill and punish them severely for any discrimination
against the unwelcome immigrants. One might think this is suicidal insanity, though the
consensus among the ruling elites is that it is a moral necessity. But moral it is definitely not, for
a morality that calls for the extinction of its adherents is fatally flawed. 15
By bringing non-whites into white territories the egalitarians are creating boiling pots
whose lids can be kept held down only by police state tactics. When it comes to violence, status
drives the individual (Buss, 2005; Barkow, 1991) and territory drives populations. (Ardrey,
1966). If whites do not defend their homelands, they will soon have no homelands, and not long
after that, there will be no more whites. The left, even the white left, may cheer the demise of
whites, which will also be their own demise, but for those of us who dearly love our culture, our
accomplishments, and our people, there can be no greater tragedy.
Segregation is just an application of the aphorism, “good fences make good neighbors.”
16 Segregation is something that parents do without thinking when their children are fighting.
When Yugoslavia broke up into genocidal ethnic groups, even the United Nations, that bastion
of egalitarianism, segregated the warring parties to stop the killing. 17 In California, new prison
inmates were segregated by race for 60 days for their own protection, until the Supreme Court
ruled it unconstitutional. 18 A few months later, there were race riots between blacks and
Hispanics in California prisons resulting in serious injuries and at least one death. Egalitarians
will not be satisfied until the rest of us enjoy the benefits of being forcibly racially mixed.
The integration of the races in the United States has already resulted in a large number
of racially-motivated crimes (Chapter 12, "Black on White Crime)" and, since blacks are 50
times as likely to attack whites as the reverse, the victims are mostly white. (NCF, 2005). What
result, other than black envy and hatred of whites, could be expected when the egalitarians
blame the under-achievement of blacks on white racism? 19 To prevent whites from segregating
themselves is a deliberate policy of sacrificing a percentage of the white population to rape,
robbery, and murder by blacks for the sake of the hopelessly flawed ideology of egalitarianism.
Voluntary segregation would benefit both whites and blacks. (Jackson, J.P., 2004). That
statement is easily proved by the fact that races voluntarily separate, not only at school
lunchtime, but in churches, neighborhoods, and clubs and, of course, they do so because they
benefit from doing so. 20 Even three month old babies prefer people of their own race. 21 In
schools, white children would no longer have to sit through boring material below their abilities
and endure assaults by blacks. 22 Blacks would not suffer the humiliation of always being at the
bottom. Each could practice his own culture, speak his own dialect, and otherwise go his own
way. As Abraham Lincoln said, 23 “It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated.” Forcing
people together who do not want to be together is hardly the way to reduce racial tensions. 24
Diversity, contrary to the multiculturalists, is not strength, but weakness. 25 Who will
willingly pay taxes when most of the money goes to other ethnies? Worse, who will risk life and
limb defending other ethnies? (Salter, 2004; Putnam, 2007). With a black Congressional
Caucus already working in the interests of blacks and a Latino caucus on the horizon, Congress
itself will degenerate, if further degeneration is possible, until it becomes an ethnic battleground
that mirrors the rest of the country. Have we forgotten “Divide and conquer”? 26
If there is a common enemy and you ask people to put aside their genetic interests for
the common good, they usually will. But most of the time there is no common enemy, despite
the best efforts of the power-seekers to create one. As we have seen, we are all biologically
programmed to promote our own genetic interests - we would not be here today if that
programming had not increased our fitness; to believe that it can suddenly be put aside is a
delusion.
Let us test the reader’s mettle. Suppose a small colony of “Hobbits” (Figure 17-11) is
discovered living on a remote Indonesian Island. They stand less than 4 feet tall, walk on two
feet, and, except for heavy brow ridges and a sloping forehead, they look human. But they
communicate by chattering and facial expressions and are only about as intelligent as a
chimpanzee. Visitors flock to see them and it is soon discovered that they have no concept of
rights or property and will seize anything that interests them, biting and scratching anyone who
resists. Occasionally, they viciously attack and kill people, usually in gangs, apparently
defending their territory. The males seize young women, even children, and attempt to mate
with them. A number of people, for reasons of ideology, psychopathology, or notoriety, want to
mate with the Hobbits and have mixed children. You must decide what to do. Do you prevent
the Hobbits from interacting with the outside world, and vice versa, except for a few scientists?
Do you treat them as animals like chimpanzees or do you welcome them in to the human family
and let them go where they wish? Do you permit interbreeding with them?
Chapter 32
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Tenth Amendment: “The powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Back
2. Cross-racial friendships decline with age. (Moody, 2002). Blacks are more ethnocentric than
whites. (MacDonald, 2006). Back
3. (Rushton, 2005b). Also see (Hirschfeld, 1996, pp. 97, xi; and Bishop, Bill, The Big Sort: Why
the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart, Houghton-Mifflin, 2008). Back
4. “The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the
population that is Black and Hispanic.” ("The Color of Crime," New Century Foundation, 2005).
Back
5. (Lloyd, 2006). The egalitarians promoted integration in the naïve belief that once whites got
to know blacks, they would discover that they are the same as whites and whites would no
longer be “prejudiced” against blacks: “Prejudice … may be reduced by equal status contact
between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals.” ("Allport, G., The Nature
of Prejudice, 1953). However, although familiarity breeds, it also breeds contempt. Back
6. The first sentence of the U.S. Constitution begins, “We the People of the United States in
Order to … insure domestic Tranquility, ...” Back
7. (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 1971). Also, (Wikipedia,

“Desegregation Busing”). Back
8. “Where two races occupy a country side by side, it is not correct to speak of one type as
changing into the other. Even if present in equal numbers one of the two contrasted types will
have some small advantage or capacity which the other lacks toward a perfect adjustment to
surroundings. Those possessing these favorable variations will flourish at the expense of their
rivals and their offspring will not only be more numerous, but will also tend to inherit such
variations. In this way one type gradually breeds the other out.” (Grant, 1970, p 46). Back
9. (Hall, 1960; Wikipedia, “Competitive Exclusion Principle”). Also, “The theory of competitive
exclusion holds that when there is total niche overlap by two species, one of them will
eventually go extinct.” (Boaz, 1997, p. 188; Hoffecker, 2002, p. 4). A good example is the Cro-
Magnons, who migrated into Neanderthal territory, leading to the extinction of the Neanderthals.
Interracial crime is one manifestation of this Law. Even within a species, if animals are too
similar in the food and resources they use, competition drives them apart, despite genetic
similarity. Cooper, 2008 Back
10. (Blog of Yglesias, M., “Jews and Immigration.” Permalink, Apr. 6, 2006,). "The non-
Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality." (Jewish
Neocon Ben Wattenberg, "Jewish Hypocrisy and the One-State Solution ," 1985; MacDonald,
2002b). Back
11. E.g., THIS and THIS. Back
12. (Taylor, J. “In Praise of Homogeneity,” American Renaissance, Aug., 2007, 18(8)). Back
13. One million whites have left South Africa in the past decade. ("Blight and Flight in South
Africa’s population," The South African Institute of Race Relations, 2005) Back
14. (Shermer, M., "Darwin on the Right," Scientific American, Oct., 2006; Simpson, 2003, pp.
453, 798; Ardrey, 1966, Chapter 8; the idea is from Herbert Spencer). Back
15. The conflict between the elites and the people arises because the people define “in-group”
and “out-group” according to their own ethnic group, while the elites define it according to who
is in their coalition to obtain and maintain political power. Thus, the elites sacrifice the interests
of other whites for their own benefit. Back
16. (Robert Frost). Nations formed with straight line borders, rather than “squiggly” borders
according to ethnicity, had “lower per capita GDP, greater political instability, and poorer quality
of life overall.” (Alesina, 2006). "Our research shows that violence [in ethnically mixed
populations] takes place when an ethnic group is large enough to impose cultural norms on
public spaces, but not large enough to prevent those norms from being broken." (Lim, 2007).
Back
17. “In areas where that [ethnic] separation has not yet occurred, politics is apt to remain
ugly.” (Muller, J.Z., “Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism,” Foreign Affairs,
Mar., 2008; also, Buchanan, P., “The Return of Ethnic Nationalism,” VDARE.com, Feb. 25,
2008). Back
18. (Johnson v. California et al., No. 03-636. February 23, 2005). Back
19. Miles Davis (black jazz musician): “If somebody told me I had only one hour to live, I’d
spend it choking a white man. I’d do it nice and slow [sic].” (Lubinskas, J., "Expressions of
Ethnic Animosity," Front Page Magazine, Nov. 24, 1999). Between 1972 and 1974, 71 whites
were stalked and killed in the San Francisco area by a gang of blacks. (Lubinskas, J.,
“Remembering the Zebra Killings,” Front Page Magazine, August 30, 2001; Howard, 1979),
killings that most Americans never heard of because the media suppressed reporting them.
Feminism creates an analogous situation, where women hate men because they have been
convinced that their failings could not possibly be due to their own deficiencies, and therefore
must be due to the evil sexism of men. (Sommers, C.H. “Academic Inquisitors,” The Wall Street
Journal Online, Oct. 16, 2007). Back
20. (Taylor, J., “Integration Has Failed,” American Renaissance, Feb., 19(2) and Mar., 2008, 19
(3)). A modest proposal: Since ethnic neighborhoods preserve cultural diversity, perhaps the
preservation of ethnic neighborhoods could be legally facilitated by permitting their formal
establishment and preservation? Back
21. (Kelly, 2005, Bar-Haim, 2003). Back
22. “This suggests …, perhaps, that rearing in close proximity to black children adversely
affects white children.” (Levin, 1997, p. 111). Back
23. Said by Lincoln to a group of blacks invited to the White House in 1862; Lincoln tried to
convince them to go to Liberia. Back
24. Trevor Phillips, Commission for Racial Equality in Great Britain, said, “We've done work
here which shows that people, frankly, when there aren't other pressures, like to live within a
comfort zone which is defined by racial sameness.” (Easton, M., "Does diversity makes us
unhappy?," BBC News, May 30, 2006). Back
25. See (Taylor, J., “Is Racial Diversity Good for Canada?,” American Renaissance, 2007) The
Japanese are a good example of a monocultural society. (Taylor, J. “In Praise of Homogeneity,”
American Renaissance, Aug., 2007, Vol. 18, No. 8, p. 1). Back
26. The judicial system is already becoming corrupted. Not that long ago white juries refused to
convict whites of crimes against blacks and now the reverse is happening, e.g., O.J. Simpson.
(Butler, 1995). Back
Chapter 32 - Eugenics
“The nation which first subjects itself to a rational eugenical discipline is bound to inherit the
earth."
Francis Galton
“Eugenics” (“good birth.”) is the science of improving inherited traits. The word
“improving” in the definition implies that someone is doing something to change those traits and
that that person has made a judgment as to which traits constitute an “improvement.” Eugenics
does not occur when a race or breed evolves of its own accord, even if it becomes more
complex, beautiful, intelligent, healthy, or reproductively successful. Eugenics requires a goal
and evolution by itself has no purpose or goal; 1 ultimately, it is just chemicals reacting. Thus, if
humans simply let evolution take its natural course, humans will still evolve, but we may not like
the results. Eugenics implies overruling nature and altering the purposeless course it would
otherwise follow in order to achieve a desired collection of traits.
When it comes to choosing a goal for eugenics, what can be said is that failing to
choose the minimum amount of those traits that are necessary for reproductive success is
maladaptive. 2 Now, what about traits above and beyond those minimum amounts of necessary
traits?
Complexity, beauty, intelligence, and even health are not “free” in nature. They cost
resources and if “spending” resources on those traits does not bring more reproductive success
than other ways they could be “spent,” those traits are less adaptive. To support eugenics
means that you must value certain traits above other traits and must be willing to sacrifice a bit
of some of the other traits you also desire in order to obtain proportionally more of those traits
that are more important to you. 3 Eugenics says nothing about what those more important traits
are. For some people, they may include beauty, for others, height or strength. Everyone may
favor “health” but, as noted, more “health” is not free, as it requires a better immune system,
more DNA repair mechanisms, and so on, so some amount of another trait or traits must be
sacrificed to increase it, and that may reduce reproductive success more than the additional
health increases it. Similarly, almost everyone favors more intelligence, but a more intelligent
brain is a heavier and more resource-costly brain. In the end, people will differ in which traits
they desire and which other traits, and how much of them, they are willing to sacrifice in order to
obtain the traits they want.
Because the environment may change, making a valuable trait worthless, most people
will select a mixture of traits (beyond the necessary traits), rather than maximizing just one
single trait. Nevertheless, because man has been so successful primarily because of his
intelligence, not his robustness, speed, agility, or some other trait, and we are even more likely
to need intelligence to continue surviving, most people will put intelligence near or at the top of
their list. 4 However, like other traits, there are diminishing returns for intelligence. That is, for
each additional unit (e.g., an IQ point) increase in intelligence, an ever-increasing greater
amount of other traits must be sacrificed to achieve it. Not only that, but each additional unit
increase in intelligence will have less value to you than the preceding unit increase, e.g., once
you have an IQ of about 120, success depends more on other factors, such as persistence,
open-mindedness, etc., than on more intelligence. You would not want a child with a brain so
huge that he had trouble walking, but who is only slightly more intelligent than another child with
a brain half his size.
But since we know that intelligence (high IQ) correlates positively with increased living
standards, less crime, and many other desirable qualities, 5 selecting for more intelligence, at
least until those correlations no longer hold, offers the best chance of avoiding an unpleasant
future. There is certainly no other trait that has any chance of affecting our future in a positive
way as much as intelligence. Yet, our government decision makers (“I am the Decider,” G.W.
Bush), at the urging of the egalitarians, continue to promote a dysgenic, low IQ future for our
country.
A minimum birthrate of 2.1 children per woman is required to maintain a population.
Based on 2004 fertility rates, non-Hispanic white women will have 1.847 children; non-Hispanic
black women, 2.02 children; and Hispanic women, 2.82 children. Almost half the children in the
U.S. under age 5 are non-white. 6 As those numbers show, whites are going extinct 7 and there
will be fewer and fewer people with red and blond hair 8 and blue and green eyes.9
Given that the average IQs of the increasing ethnic groups is lower (except for East
Asians), the average IQ in the U.S. will fall, the standard of living will decrease, crime will
increase (Schuster, 1982), the U.S. will no longer be competitive in highly technical industries,
and it will no longer be a world military power. 10 As IQ drops, so does productivity, because
high IQ people are more productive than low IQ people – that is why their income is higher.
(Herrnstein, 1994). And, since one cannot consume what is not first produced (“If you don’t
work, you don’t eat.”), consumption (Gross Domestic Product per person), which correlates 0.73
with IQ (Lynn, 2002a), will also fall, until the country reaches Third World levels. 11
Immigration of
non-East Asian
non-whites into
(formerly) white
nations lowers
the average IQ
in those
nations. Figure
32-1 shows
who
immigrated into
the United
States in 1960,
prior to the Figure 32-1 Figure 32-2
passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, and Figure 32-2 shows who the immigrants were in 2000.
12
Using a British average IQ set at 100, the average IQ in the U.S. in 1960 would have
been about 98. (Lynn, 2006a, p. 174). The average IQ in Mexico, where most of the Latin
Americans are from, is 87. 13
Average IQ also falls because more intelligent people have fewer children. 14 Table 32-1
shows that 22% of the white children had a mother whose IQ was over 110, but only 2% of the
children of blacks and Latinos did. 15 On the other hand, 69% of the black children and 64% of
Latino children had a mother whose IQ was less than 90, but only 19% of the white children did.
As Table 32-1 shows, whites are slightly raising their IQ, while blacks and Latinos are drastically
lowering theirs.
Even without the ethnic
and racial lowering of IQ shown
in Table 32-1, women in the
bottom 5% of intelligence have
their first baby more than seven
years earlier than women in the
top 5%, and they have more

children, thereby directly
lowering national intelligence. 16
Fully one-third of women in their
late 30's with graduate degrees
have no children (Lynn, 1996),
and that is also true of blacks. 17
The U.S. abortion rate for
women 20 yrs of age and older
was 44.3 for women with a high
school education but only 3.2 for
those who had less than eight
years of schooling, further
lowering national IQ. (Henshaw,
1983, p. 10). As the average IQ Table 32-1
in the U.S. falls, so will
achievements. This is, of
East Asia Europe S. America S. Asia Africa
course, expected as intelligence
correlates with achievement. IQ +0.33 0.00 -0.66 -0.93 -2.00
Table 32-2 (Lynn, 2006a, Attainment +0.44 0.00 -2.27 -1.30 -2.44
p. 177) gives attainments in
Table 32-2
math and science. The results
are given in units of standard deviation (“SD”; 1 SD = 15 IQ points) and Europe is taken as the
norm (IQ= 100). Attainment falls sharply with even a small drop in IQ. 18 Eugenics has been
practiced with domesticated animals and plants since they were first domesticated, thousands
of years ago, and it is practiced today even more rigorously using our knowledge of genetics.
We would not have all the protean breeds of dogs, cats, horses, chickens, pigeons, corn, rice,
other grains, and so on were it not for selective breeding, i.e., eugenics.
It is only when eugenics is practiced on humans that people are repelled. The reason is
that selective breeding of humans requires making a judgment as to which humans have alleles
that are worthy of propagating and which do not, and that contradicts egalitarianism, the
ideology that all people are genetically equal. Even when a person is genetically severely
handicapped or mentally retarded, propagation is considered a basic human right and many
people are reluctant to discourage it. 19
Nevertheless, humans practice eugenics on other humans every day all over the planet,
and it is highly likely that the reader himself has done so. Every time a person selects or rejects
a person for a sexual relationship, he or she is practicing eugenics. 20 A person’s appearance,
personality, and success in life all have strong genetic components. Even a prostitute is
reluctant to have sex with a person she (or he) considers repulsive. And today, in the West,
genetic screening is not uncommon. People who know they are a carrier for a genetic disease
may decide not to have children or to abort a fetus that has one or two alleles for the disease.
21 They, too, are practicing eugenics.
If no one practiced eugenics and mates were chosen randomly, so that couples had sex
without regard for any of the heritable traits of their partner, behavior that would win high praise
from the egalitarians, the results would not be pretty. Those who are best at increasing their
numbers will do so and, once the earth can no longer support any more humans (and after it is
thoroughly polluted and many other species have been driven extinct), those who are best at
surviving in those overcrowded and desperate conditions will increase their numbers; when
there are too many people, many of them starving, a modern civilization will no longer be
possible. Just as fish trapped in a dark cave for millions of years become blind because sight is
no longer needed for reproductive success, so humans would lose the alleles for the traits
needed for reproductive success in a modern civilization, such as abstract thinking, impulse
control, long term planning, altruism, and cooperativeness. 22 At some point, they would be
“human,” only in the loosest sense of the word. Eugenics, influencing the heritable qualities of
the next generation, is not only desirable, but necessary if we are to remain “human.”
The reason eugenics is feared, even by biologists who ought to know better, can be
answered in a single word, “government.” When those who control the government make
eugenic decisions for everyone else, the decisions are made on the basis of which traits are
most desired by the people who control the government, not on the basis of what traits you
want your child to have. And what traits do those who control the government want those who
do not control the government to have? Well, like the New Soviet Man, they should be
compliant and ready to sacrifice themselves for the good of the state or, more accurately, for
the benefit of those who control the state. 23 Ugh! If we take government out of the picture, we
are left with individuals making their own eugenic decisions, selecting all sorts of different traits
that they personally find desirable, based on their own experiences.
In 1980, Robert Graham started a sperm bank that made the sperm of Nobel Prize
winners (“geniuses” 24) available to women who wanted to become pregnant. It closed in 1999.
Sperm banks have discovered that women do not choose sperm just on the basis of the
intelligence or success of the donor. They pick the physical characteristics they want in their
child, usually selecting characteristics similar to themselves. They certainly want a healthy
good-looking child of above-average intelligence but, after that, they select on the basis of all
sorts of quirky things, such as does the sperm donor like cats, was he born on a farm, is he a
good swimmer, etc.?
If people make their own eugenic decisions, and the technology is available to
implement those decisions, they will generally select for traits that will improve the health,
intelligence, attractiveness, and fitness of the next generation. If government bureaucrats do the
selecting, a quite different result is likely. Western countries, for example, by paying more
welfare for more children ("You feed, we breed"), provide a perverse incentive 25 that
encourages people who are incapable of caring even for themselves to have children, passing
on to their children the very alleles that made their parents incompetent, which is surely
dysgenic. (“The rich get richer and the poor get children.”)
If welfare is to be provided then, at the very least, it should be eugenic and not dysgenic.
This can be done by making welfare conditioned on not having children, at least while one is on
welfare. “Welfare” is nothing but a transfer of wealth from those who created it, the taxpayers, to
those who did not, the tax consumers. In other words, the competent are penalized to benefit
the incompetent, which is certainly maladaptive. Surely, it is not unreasonable to say that this
coerced transfer of wealth will be tolerated only so long as the recipient does not make the
situation worse by having more dependents. 26 A person would still be free to have children, but
then he or she would not receive welfare. For women, the condition of not having children could
be fulfilled in a variety of ways, such as by proof of the use of a contraceptive patch or other
verifiable birth control, infertility (the person is infertile or too old to have children), or
sterilization. For men, a reversible or irreversible vasectomy would suffice.
Given evidence that high testosterone levels and low serotonin levels are heritable and
correlate with violence, another policy that could be instituted without coercion would be to
provide incentives to violent felons (who will eventually be let out of prison) if they agree to be
sterilized. These incentives could include better prison facilities or privileges, or a slightly lower
sentence.
Before we leave the subject of eugenics, let’s consider one other issue: Could eugenics
itself be maladaptive? That is, by selecting the traits we want in our children could we be
making it less likely that they will be able to survive and reproduce? Surely very few parents
would intentionally do that but, since we cannot know the future, it is always possible to make a
poor decision. 27 On the other hand, if the selection is voluntary, people can always avoid
making any decision at all and let nature take its course, perhaps thereby having more
successful children.
Chapter 33
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. See (Fuerle, 1986) for a discussion of purposeful, goal-directed behavior and its implications.
Back
2. The term “maladaptive” is applied to behavior that lessens an individual’s fitness, his
likelihood of successfully passing on his genes to the next generation. The term is not applied to
every mistake an individual makes, nor to behavior that seems to be adaptive at the time, but
turns out to be maladaptive later – perfection is not required. But if there is particular persistent
behavior in at least a portion of the population that lowers the reproductive success of those
who practice it, that behavior is maladaptive. Most maladaptive behavior was adaptive in the
past, but the environment changed so that it is no longer adaptive. Back
3. Ignore the programming difficulties for the moment and think of eugenics as a thought
(“gedenken”) experiment, simulated on a computer. The computer sets the minimum amount of
traits required to live and reproduce, and you select traits from the remaining resources, trading
off some traits for others until you achieve the mix you want; every trait is obtained in the most
efficient manner possible. The computer assumes no initial genetic defects, though some may
occur later if you don’t select enough DNA repair mechanisms. You compete against other
players and the computer (i.e., no eugenics). Whoever is left wins. Back
4. Even our scientific name, Homo sapiens sapiens (man the very wise) denotes high
intelligence as our defining trait. Back
5. Even for corruption, the correlation with intelligence is -0.708. (Lynn, 2002a). Back
6. (AFP, Oct. 1, 2006). In 1990, children ranked third in importance for a successful marriage;
by 2007, they ranked eighth. By nearly 3:1, Americans say that the main purpose of marriage is
the "mutual happiness and fulfillment" of adults rather than the "bearing and raising of
children." (“As Marriage and Parenthood Drift Apart, Public Is Concerned About Social Impact,”
Pew Research Center, July 1, 2007). "In terms of intergenerational solidarity, the importance of
the child as an investment for material support in old age has been limited by the social security
and pension insurance system, which has eliminated people's immediate dependence on
children…" (“The National Report on Family,” Czech Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, Aug.,
2004, quoted in "Where Have All the Children Gone?" Ziggi's Corner)."Today, children no
longer represent investments; instead, they have become pets ... many young couples ... have
consciously decided to have a dog instead of a baby.” (Id.) Back
7. Whites are already a minority in 1 in 10 counties in the U.S. (Pollard, K., "10% of U.S.
Counties Now 'MajorityMinority"," Population Reference Bureau, Aug., 2008), but motherhood
could, in theory, make a comeback. Women who don’t have alleles for desiring children do not
pass on those alleles, but women who have those alleles do. Thus, after a few generations the
alleles in the gene pool should be mostly those that induce a desire for motherhood. (Aarssen,
2007). (However, one could fairly ask, “Why, then, it is not already so?”) Back
8. "As the amount of migration, inter-marriage and mixing increases we will see them [various
shades of red and blond hair] all but disappear." Dr. Desmond Tobin, researcher in hair cell
biology at Bradford University. Red and blond hair and blue and green eyes are recessive, so
the alleles for them will not disappear, but they will be so widely dispersed that only very
infrequently will they be expressed. Back
9. "About half of Americans born at the turn of the 20th century had blue eyes, according to a
2002 Loyola University study in Chicago. By mid-century that number had dropped to a third.
Today only about one 1 of every 6 Americans has blue eyes, said Mark Grant, the
epidemiologist who conducted the study." (Belkin, D., "Don't it make my blue eyes brown," The
Boston Globe, Oct. 17, 2006). Back
10. (Sailer, 2006). Three distinguished American scholars compared massive evidence of
national I.Q. score averages worldwide and warned against the decline of any nation whose
population reflects declining intelligence. Taking into consideration the differential birthrates of
American ethnic stocks, they concluded that American ability is declining rapidly. (Lerner,
1984). Because the black IQ in the U.S. averages 85 and the U.S. military will not accept
people with an IQ of less than about 80, U.S. wars kill a disproportionate number of white US
soldiers, further lowering IQ. Back
11. Currently, the US finances current consumption by borrowing the money to pay for it, i.e.,
the U.S. is already bankrupt. China produces for our consumption, expecting us to repay them
with even more goods at a later date. Fat chance. "The U.S. annual trade deficit, now running at
a rate of more than three-quarters of a trillion annually, or 6.3 percent of GDP, is ….” (Anthony
Fell, formerly vice-chairman of the Royal Bank of Canada. Jan. 18, 2007). Back
12. Figures from (MacDonald, K. “MidEast Policy—Immigration Policy: Is The Other Boot About
To Drop?” VDARE.com, Jan. 31, 2007). In the 10 yrs between 1990 and 2000, the percentage
of Europeans in the US population decreased 18.3%. (US Census, 1990 and 2000). In 2000,
there were 881,300 U.S. residents from Africa, but only 5 years later there were 1.25 million.
(Crary, D., "Diverse influx of African immigrants search for niche," Oakland Tribune, June 17,
2007, quoting Wilson, J., of the Brookings Institution, based on the U.S. Census). According to
the Wright Island Model (Wright, 1931), an established theorem of population genetics, one-way
immigration causes the complete genetic extinction of the target population. (Wright, 1931).
Back
13. (Lynn, 2002a). The average IQ of Mexicans coming to the U.S. is likely to be lower than 87
because most are peasants. The average IQ of Africans coming to the U.S. is likely to be a
higher than 67 because, while those coming as refugees may have an average of 67, the IQ of
those coming on other programs is likely to be higher. By importing the more intelligent (and
therefore more productive) people from Africa, both the U.S. and Africa become poorer. To
paraphrase a quote attributed to Will Rogers, “When the Africans left Africa and went to the
U.S.A., the average intelligence of both places went down." Back
14. (Van Court, 1985; Lynn, 2004; Vining, 1984). This is called “dysgenic fertility.” There is a
correlation of − 0.73 between IQ and fertility; dysgenic fertility has been estimated to have
caused a decline in the world's genotypic IQ of 0.86 IQ points for the years 1950–2000. An
additional decline of 1.28 IQ points in the world's genotypic IQ is projected for the years 2000–
2050. (Lynn, 2007; Shatz, 2008). To put this another way, more intelligent people, who have
fewer children but expend more care on each one, are more “K” orientated. (Chap. 11;
Gillespie, 2008). And criminals, who have lower IQ’s, (ave. = 92; Herrnstein, 1994, p. 242),
have more children than non-criminals. (Lynn, 1995). Back
15. (Herrnstein, 1994, p. 354). “NLSY” is the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth; “National
population” is the U.S. average. Back
16. (Herrnstein, 1994, p. 351). The correlation between IQ and fecundity is -0.81. (“Intelligence
and Latitude in the U.S.," The Audacious Epigone, Apr. 13, 2007). Radical feminism, which
glorifies a career over motherhood, must bear some of the responsibility for the failure of
Caucasians, particularly above-average women, to replace themselves. Ironically, there is some
evidence that it is not even healthy for a woman to forego having children. (Grundy, 2006). Back
17. Although Negro slaves were encouraged to produce more slaves, “Even then birth control
was secretly exercised by the more intelligent slaves, as we know from many reminiscences.”
“On the other hand, the mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and
disastrously…” (DuBois, 1932). Back
18. ‘ … a ‘mere’ 2 point drop of a population's average I.Q. will cut the percentage of geniuses
(anyone having an I.Q. over 150) to less than half! And by the time our [U.S.] actual
amalgamation [with lower IQ people] is almost complete, our American I.Q. will be about 92,
meaning that the percentage of geniuses will decrease to less than 1/30th the WWII
percentage. And the percentage of supergeniuses (anyone over 180) will decrease to less than
1/500th!” (Falconi, O., “Where’s America’s Gene Pool Heading?”). Back
19. Some deaf couples want to have deaf children and will abort non-deaf fetuses until they do.
(Cooley, 2006). Back
20. The high intelligence of European Jews (average IQ =107 to 115) is sometime attributed to
betrothing the brightest boy to the daughter of the richest man. Back
21. In preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), embryos fertilized in vitro are tested and
discarded it they carry a gene that causes a predisposition to a disease, such as cancer.
(Harmon, A., 2006). For a good discussion of the issues, see (Whelan, J., “Reproduction
revolution: Sex for fun, IVF for children,” New Scientist, Issue 2574, Oct. 20, 2006, pp. 42-45).
Back
22. “… slightly deleterious mutations arise in each generation. They are normally removed by
selection, but if selection is experimentally prevented then deleterious mutations accumulate
and the fitness of the average member of the population declines over time.” (Ridley, 1996, p.
289). Back
23. “Adherence to Marxism-Leninism, and individual behaviour consistent with that philosophy's
prescriptions, were among the crucial traits expected of the New Soviet man.” (Wikipedia, “New
Soviet Man”). Back
24. (Plotz, D., The Genius Factory, 2005). Back
25. A “perverse” incentive can be defined as an incentive that produces a result that is the
opposite of the stated desired result. Back
26. In the United States in the 1960s children became a cash crop for the poor. Mothers on
welfare (AFDC) had an average of 2.6 children each; non-AFDC mothers averaged 2.1.
(Wright, 1997, p. 64). The IQs of mothers of illegitimate children is ten points lower than
mothers of legitimate children. (Wright, 1997, p. 131; Herrnstein, 1994, pp. 191-201). Social
Security may also lower the number of children productive people have by increasing their
taxes during child-bearing years and making adults less dependent upon their children in their
old age. (Juurikkala, 2007). Back
27. Culturally required or encouraged behavior can certainly be maladaptive (Barkow, 1991, p.
293-322), so choosing a child’s traits can be expected to sometimes be maladaptive as well.
We are physically generalized apes who have specialized in thinking. In our current
environment, this has paid off big time, but future environments may be very different, and we
may find ourselves selected for surviving on little energy, where a big brain is a liability, and
assets are a cast iron stomach and the immune system of a Komodo Dragon. Back
Chapter 33 - Re-Classifying the Left

“I yam what I yam."
Popeye, the Sailor Man
Returning to the subject of re-classification (Chapter 28), let’s consider a different sort of
classification, the classification by psychiatrists of certain behavior as “mental illness” in their
manual, “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.” The objectivity of psychiatrists
came into question in 1964 when U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater was the Republican candidate
for President. Without ever examining him, 1,189 American psychiatrists responded to
questions about the candidates in a (now-defunct) magazine and stated that Goldwater was
mentally unbalanced. (Goldwater sued and won a substantial settlement; such behavior by
psychiatrists has been banned as unethical.)
California psychologist Edward Dunbar has now circulated draft guidelines for a new
category in the Manual for people who are “pathologically” prejudiced against gays, Jews,
blacks, or others, but presumably not for people who are prejudiced against racists,
homophobes, Christian fundamentalists, right-wing Republicans, and Nazis. 1 Presumably,
people who are “pathologically” prejudiced in favor of certain groups would also end up in the
Manual. Since everyone has likes and dislikes about groups of other people, Dr. Dunbar can
determine which feelings constitute “prejudice” only by determining whether or not those
feelings are justified by the facts. If a Jew hates the Nazis, is he “prejudiced” or does he have a
perfectly normal and justifiable feeling? Must every psychiatrist be an historian?
Why is certain behavior listed in the Manual as a mental illness? 2 The reason usually
given is that the behavior impairs the ability of a person to function “normally,” i.e., to work and
take care of himself and his dependents. Biologically, such behavior is maladaptive because it
reduces reproductive success. With few exceptions, the behavior that your genes induce in you
(i.e., to nurse, care for your children, avoid danger, acquire resources, find a mate, have sex,
etc.) is adaptive and behavior that is contrary to what your genes induce you to do, is
maladaptive.
Let us first concede that any behavior, even behavior that is induced by our genes, is
maladaptive if it so dominates a person’s life that he can not otherwise function. Someone who
cannot hold a job because he is obsessed with sex, or with hating an ethnic group, or with
fighting hatred of an ethnic group, probably has some psychological problems. Is racism,
homophobia, etc. maladaptive, even if it is not obsessive, so that it could be described as a
“mental illness”?
Homosexuality was actually in the Manual until 1973, when it became fashionable to the
left and was removed. Homosexuality is hardly adaptive since it does not induce sexual
behavior that passes on one’s alleles, and any argument that it is not maladaptive will be
devious at best. 3 It is not contagious and it is not a threat to heterosexuals, other than the
possibility that it might reduce the number of mates available to the opposite sex. Science is
now uncovering more and more evidence that homosexuality is genetic, epigenetic, or due to
exposure to the mother’s hormones in the womb 4 and is not a chosen behavior (except when
the opposite sex is unavailable, as in prison). But a great many conditions in the Manual, such
as schizophrenia, very likely also have a genetic basis, so that by itself should not keep
homosexuality out of the Manual.
What about homophobia, a hatred of homosexuals? Should it also be in the manual?
Homosexuality is accepted by some cultures and condemned by others, so there is unlikely to
be a genetic inducement towards homophobia. But if homophobia is not so severe that it
impairs a person’s ability to pass on his own genes (e.g., by physically attacking homosexuals
and ending up in jail), it is probably less maladaptive than not liking broccoli.
Racism and ethnocentrism, however, are different. Certainly, caring for your family is
adaptive, as they have more of your alleles than do strangers, so, by helping them, you help
your own alleles to be passed on; conversely, it is usually maladaptive to not care for your
family. Mathematical analysis of genetic distances has now shown - surprise, surprise - that
your ethnic group also carries more of your alleles than do other ethnic groups, and the same is
true of your race. (Chap. 7). Thus, using your resources to help people of your own race is
adaptive and using your resources to instead help people of other races is, when there is no
quid pro quo, maladaptive. In other words, it is the anti-racists who should be labeled “mentally
ill” and worry about being put into the Manual, not the racists. Like the taxonomists and many
social scientists, the psychiatrists have been corrupted by egalitarianism.
Man is a highly social animal and readily forms groups that compete with other groups
for territory, mates, and resources. Given our social nature and the fact that resources are
limited, the formation of a manageable group is the best strategy for surviving against
competing groups. A loner, at least until modern times, would not have survived for long. For a
group to be effective, it must be cohesive – the individuals in it must stick together and sacrifice
for others in the group. Such cohesiveness cannot be easily obtained unless the people in the
group are genetically similar so that any sacrifice for others is for those who have more of one’s
own alleles and is therefore, in a biological sense, less of a sacrifice than it is a gain in fitness.
Ethnocentrism and racism are built into our nature; 5 the alleles of those who support their own
genetic family are more likely to survive than the alleles of those who do not, i.e., anti-racism is
maladaptive. 6
“In 1998 President Clinton boasted to a cheering Portland State University audience that
by 2050 whites would be a minority in America.” 7 Huh? White college students cheering for the
loss of their homeland and their own extinction? And no one thinks there is anything “abnormal”
about that? How can any people survive who cheer the prospect of their own demise? 8 Surely,
this is as pathological as taking poisoned “Kool-Aide” at Jonestown, yet it is considered highly
moral, not sick. Jews condemn and ostracize “self-hating Jews,” but a majority of whites love
and lionize “self-hating whites.” Can there be any act of betrayal greater than rejecting the
genetic heritage that made such betrayal possible?
Noel Ignatiev, who is white (but Jewish), 9 a fellow at Harvard’s WEB DuBois Institute,
and the founder of the journal “Race Traitor,” whose slogan is "Treason to whiteness is loyalty
to humanity," wrote, “abolishing the white race is desirable.” 10 Another Jewish writer, Susan
Sontag, wrote, “The white race is the cancer of human history.” 11 Whites supposedly benefit
from the “privilege” of being white, which consists of being able to live in safe, white
neighborhoods, go to safe, white schools, have white friends, etc., in other words, enjoying and
participating in the civilization that they themselves created. Condemning “white privilege” not
only makes it hateful and racist for whites to create a society that others are not capable of
creating, it also contradicts the multicultural argument that all cultures are equal.
The latest craze on college campuses is “whiteness studies,” which are courses or
presentations, usually to whites by whites, on how evil whites are (e.g., “Exploration of
Whiteness Week” at Occidental College). 12 Tim Wise, another Jewish white-hater, earns
$4000 plus expenses for speeches that induce white college students to flagellate themselves
with guilt and shame ("my sin is my skin"), 13 thereby enabling him to live in a white
neighborhood and send his children to white schools. 14 “It is an established fact that white
people favor integration throughout the United States exactly in proportion as they do not need
to practice it.” (Putnam, 1961, p. 36).
On January 15, 2007 Jared Taylor
was scheduled to take the “Weakness” side
of a debate on "Racial Diversity: North

America's Strength or Weakness," but when
the “Strength” side of the debate, Professor
David Divine of Dalhousie University in
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, chickened out,
Taylor decided to present his speech at a
small conference room he rented at the Lord
Nelson Hotel. The audience, mostly young,
white protestors, shouted, banged pots and
pans so he could not be heard, then
surrounded Mr. Taylor, linked arms, forced
him from the room, and tore up copies of the
American Renaissance that he had brought
to hand out and tossed them at his head. 15
(Fig. 33-1).
No arrests were made although the
identity of the ringleader is known. 16 One
may wonder why whites would risk jail to
silence someone who tries to speak for the
interests of whites. With the exception of Figure 33-1
radical Muslims, the most ideologically
committed people in white countries today are the white egalitarians. They are the people who
are so incensed by perceived affronts to non-whites they will use violence against their own
people.
The first step to mental health is to love yourself. Even if you are the worst SOB ever,
you can still be a mentally healthy worst SOB ever if you love yourself. And, even if you are
Mother Teresa, if you don’t like yourself, you are not mentally healthy – hence the Popeye
quote at the beginning of this chapter. The white anti-racists don’t like what they are. 17
How could creatures evolve who are capable of not liking themselves? Surely, such
creatures would have been driven extinct long ago by others of their kind who do like
themselves. Part of the answer is that man, unlike most other animals, does not entirely follow
his instincts. Man feels his instincts as urges, but since man has free will he can override those
urges by an exercise of his will, and he often does so, sometimes choosing maladaptive
behavior instead of biologically programmed adaptive behavior. 18 That is why we have
suicides, 19 miscegenation, and a host of other maladaptive behaviors.
We inherit urges to behave in ways that increase our reproductive success. Foremost
among these, often ahead of even self-preservation, is sex, the urge to reproduce. But, like all
urges, it can be satisfied in multifarious ways that do not achieve reproduction. Similarly, our
urge to survive, so that we can pass on our alleles to the next generation, can be perverted to
accomplish something else entirely – the reproduction of those who possess far fewer of our
alleles than do our own children. This is the perversion of the left, who sacrifice the continuation
of their own alleles to proliferate alleles they don’t possess. Urges demand to be satisfied, but
they can be misdirected to obtain satisfaction without fulfilling their raison d’être.
Some of the actions of anti-racists are more maladaptive than if they just went out and
killed themselves. For example, a white anti-racist who is responsible for bringing 11 Bantu s-S
African children into a European country causes a loss to his genetic interests equivalent to the
death of 10 white children. 20 Being an anti-racist can be more maladaptive than behaviors that
society rigorously condemns, such as murder, child molestation, and failing to support one’s
children. Yet “anti-racism” is never likely to enter the Manual, though it may be quite a battle to
keep “racism” out of it.
Every normal person is programmed to pass on his or her unique set of alleles; anyone
not so programmed is an accident of nature who will die without issue. For both sexes, no price,
not even the risk of death, is too high to pay to achieve this goal. If a person does not himself
reproduce, does not help those who carry more of his alleles to reproduce or, at the very least,
does not influence the reproductive choices made by others so as to increase the number of his
alleles in the next generation (e.g., by discouraging miscegenation), he has failed his life’s
biological mission and is but an inconsequential terminal twig on the Tree of Life.
He may be a financial success, a social success, or any other kind of success, but he is
a biological success only if his actions increase the number of his alleles in the next generation,
not only in absolute terms but as a percentage of all the alleles in the population. And, note
carefully, some persons of the opposite sex carry more of his alleles than do other persons. It is
those persons who carry more of his alleles who are the most important to his own reproductive
success because, for each of his alleles that they also have, his children with them will have
twice as many of those alleles. Table 33-1 gives the percent increase in kinship a parent gains
with his child when the other parent of his child is from his own population. For example, if a
European Caucasoid (left column) has a child with another European Caucasoid, his kinship
with that child will be 66% greater than if he has a child with an African (2nd column), and vice
versa. 21
Population
Here’s
anotherAfricans (AFR) AFR
way Non-European Caucasoids (NEC) 54 NEC
of European Caucasoids (EUC) 66 6 EUC
looking
at it. NE Asians (NEA) 70 26 38 NEA
Because Arctic NE Asians (ANE) 80 28 30 18 ANE
AfricansAmerindians (AME) 90 38 42 30 23 AME
and
Pacific SE Asians (SEA) 88 38 50 25 42 54 SEA
Pacific Islanders (PAI)
Islanders 100 38 54 29 47 70 17 PAI
are so New Guineans & Australians (NGA) 99 47 54 29 41 58 50 32 NGA
genetically
Ave. % gained over other 8 races
unrelated, 81 34 43 33 39 51 46 48 47
the Table 33-1
child
of two Africans would carry 100% more (i.e., twice as many) uniquely African alleles than a child
of an African and a Pacific Islander. 22 Table 33-1 shows only the loss of alleles from different
mates, however, and loss of alleles from interbreeding is not the same thing as less
reproductive success. Africans lose the most alleles by mating with other races instead of with
their own race, but they may gain more reproductive success if their hybrid offspring have traits
that make them more likely to survive, and that gain in alleles may more than offset the loss
from not mating with another African.
A person also has a strong genetic interest in who reproduces with persons of the
opposite sex who carry more of his alleles, e.g., his children, his blood relatives, and people
within his ethnic group and race – because he can place more of his alleles in future
generations if they mate with people who carry more of his alleles. It is those individuals who
are most genetically distant from him, i.e., blacks for Eurasians, 23 who will most dilute his
alleles in the next generation and most reduce his fitness, i.e., the likelihood of his alleles
surviving in future generations will decrease. Thus, a normal, healthy person will be dismayed
and angry when a person of his race mates with a person of different race, especially a black,
because they are the most genetically different.

What are we to say, then, of whites today who not only make no objection to this
coupling but actually encourage it? It is not believable that a lineage that has survived since
mate choice began has produced an individual who has lost the most basic instincts that kept
that lineage from going extinct. Of course, like the rest of us, he has been relentlessly subjected
to the pervasive propaganda that permeates our society, so we should not be surprised if his
brain has been so thoroughly washed that he now fears his own instincts more than the
extinction of his lineage.
The egalitarians have succeeded, surely beyond their most extravagant hopes, for now
almost all whites not only follow, but vehemently defend, the malignant ideology of
egalitarianism, that people of all populations are genetically the same. Oprah, who is black, can
say on national TV that is it hateful for whites to want to have more children in order to preserve
their kind, and the only whites who are offended are a few racists. A white woman in Sweden
says she likes seeing blond, blue-eyed children, and white Swedes condemn her. Today’s
whites, males and females alike, cheer their own loss of fitness and eagerly anticipate the day
when the presence of a white person, live or in history, is nowhere to be found. As Jean-
Francois Revel wrote, "Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will
lack the energy and conviction to defend itself." Life is not a gift - it must be seized – and only
those who love it above all else shall have it.
Before leaving this chapter, let us address the important question of why so many whites
are anti-white. It has not escaped notice that the most fervent of the white white-haters are not
only on the left politically, but many are Marxist. When the working class did not rise up against
the exploiting capitalists, as predicted by Marx, the Marxists ideologues of the Frankfort school
(Frankfort, Germany, which moved to Columbia University in New York City when Hitler came
to power) sought out other classes of exploited victims who could be induced to rebel against
the hated establishment. They settled on women, homosexuals, and minorities. The Marxists
have no real concern with these oppressed classes, but find them handy weapons for
weakening white societies so that they can be more easily overthrown. 24 Why so many whites
eagerly embrace white-hating, however, remains to be explained.
If you have been reading this book, you know that egalitarianism is clearly false –
populations are not genetically the same and that is obvious even to small children. To hold a
view that so clearly conflicts with reality is surely psychopathological, i.e., these people are
mentally ill. Nor is it a trivial illness, as it perverts their most important biological function –
passing on their alleles. It is only because psychologists and psychiatrists are also mired in the
same psychopathology that egalitarians do not have their own special place in the Manuel.
I have written elsewhere on this subject, 25 where I argue that the problem has its
genesis in the inevitable conflicts that children have with their parents. If children decide that it
is the parents who are wrong, unfair, even evil, they readily identify with those whom they see
as similarly oppressed, urging them to overthrow the ruling class, i.e., initially their white parents
but, by projection, all whites, including themselves. The parent’s justification for ruling over
them, that there are biological classes, in this case, children and adults, must be refuted, hence
fervently held egalitarianism, that there are no biological classes. Marxism, which promotes
class warfare and hatred of those who have and rule (i.e., for children, their parents), is just an
extension of this psychopathology. 26 Unfortunately, the egalitarians will be with us forever
unless children can be raised to see their parents as wise and loving guardians, not as
arbitrarily frustrating obstacles. 27
Chapter 34
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. (Vedantam, S., “Psychiatry Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be an Illness,” Washington
Post, Dec. 10, 2005). Back
2. A cynic might suspect that the people making the decisions are financially tied to the
pharmaceutical industry and that the mental disorders that goes into the Manuel are those that
require treatment with prescription drugs, e.g., schizophrenia,. (Cosgrove, 2006; Moynihan,
2006). Back
3. “The best estimates of the fitness cost of homosexuality hover around 80 percent: in other
words, gay men (in modern times, at least) have only 20 percent as many offspring as
heterosexuals have.” (Hooper, J., "The Great Synthesizer," The Atlantic Online, Feb., 1999).
Some claim homosexuality persists because homosexuals help raise close kin, thereby passing
on their alleles for homosexuality, of which their close kin may have some. (Vasey, 2007). Also
see (“A Wild, and Gay, Kingdom,” World Science, October 24, 2006; Vasey, 2007). But see
(Wikipedia, “Pathogenic theory of Homosexuality”). Back
4. (Savic, 2008; “The Science of Sexual Orientation,” CBS News, Aug. 26, 2006; “Further
evidence that genetics has a role in determining sexual orientation in men,” PhysOrg.com, Sept.
7, 2007; Manning, 2004). Back
5. (Barkow, 1991, p. 149). Babies as young as three months prefer the faces of someone of
their own race to the faces of people of a different race. (Kelly, 2005; Bar-Haim, 2006). Back
6. “The inclination to form bands, cliques, clubs, secret societies, and ‘in’ groups to the benefit
of themselves and the exclusion of others is part of the coalitional psychology that enabled our
ancestors to thrive.” (Allman, 1994, p. 251). Back
7. (Roberts, P.C., “That Buchanan Book,” Jan. 8, 2002). Robert Frost defined a “liberal” as
someone “too broadmined to take his own side in a quarrel.” Back
8. Even in the 1960s the mostly-white Weatherman" advocated the end of the white race: "I
remember going to the last above ground Weatherman convention [in 1969], and sitting in a
room and the question that was debated was, 'Was it or was it not the duty of every good
revolutionary to kill all newborn white babies.' " (McAdam, D., professor of Sociology at Stanford
University, in "Picking Up the Pieces," Part 5 of the PBS series "Making Sense of the Sixties,"
televised Jan. 23, 1991). “The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that
some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed
white supremacists.” (Professor Noel Ignatiev). Perhaps “leucanthrophobia,” the hatred of white
people, should be listed in the Manual? Back
9. Many Jews do not consider themselves to be “white.” (Lerner, M., “Jews are Not White,”
Village Voice, May 18, 1993). Jews who wish to condemn racism, but not themselves, say, “I’m
not white; I’m Jewish.” Back
10. ("Abolish the White Race," Harvard Magazine, Sept-Oct, 2002). Another quote from the
august professor, who has not read Section II of this book: “The key to solving the social
problems of our age is to abolish the white race.” By convincing blacks that white racism, rather
than their own deficiencies, is the source of their problems, egalitarians justify black crime
against whites. (Chapter 12). Even Lincoln, in his Emancipation Proclamation, has been
accused of implicitly urging slaves to rebel and attack whites, “[It is a] proposal for the butchery
of women and children, for scenes of lust and rapine, and of arson and murder.” (Horatio
Seymour, former governor of New York). Back
11. (Partisan Review, Winter 1967, p. 57). Back
12. “The goal of WS [whiteness studies] is to entrench permanent race consciousness in

everyone—eternal victimhood for nonwhites, eternal guilt for whites … Abolitionism is also a
strategy: its aim is not racial harmony but class war. By attacking whiteness, the abolitionists
seek to undermine the main pillar of capitalist rule in this country … The task is to gather
together a minority determined to make it impossible for anyone to be white.” (Barbara Kay,
Canada’s National Post). “Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates
Chicanos, women’s studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as
evil.” (Conservative social critic David Horowitz). Back
13. Inducing shame and guilt into the mind of one’s enemies is the surest way to undermine
their will to resist their displacement. Any creature, man or beast, who questions his right to be
what he is, will soon be no more. Back
14. Whites who are more educated live in whiter neighborhoods and avoid sending their
children to schools that have more than a few token blacks. (Sikkink, 2007). Upon leaving
office, Bill Clinton, who describes himself as “the first black president,” bought a house in lily-
white Chappaqua, NY. Back
15. Taylor’s censored speech. Drowning out the speaker and destroying his handouts suggests
the attackers have “philophobia,” the fear and hatred of knowledge that is likely to conflict with
beliefs that serve a desperate psychological need. Back
16. Selective enforcement is common. In 1996, Californians voted for Proposition 209, which
banned race and gender preferences in government and education. The day after it passed,
public officials filed a lawsuit to have it declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated
the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Huh? Though the courts upheld the
law, the Pacific Legal Foundation has had to draw white bureaucrats kicking and screaming
through the courts to obtain even reluctant minimal compliance. (MacDonald, H. “Elites to Anti-
Affirmative-Action Voters: Drop Dead,” City Journal, Winter, 2007; La Griffe du Lion, 2000c). A
similar refusal to enforce the law occurred in Seattle. (Ramsey, B., “Tiebreaker,” Liberty
magazine, Nov., 2007). Here’s another Fourteenth Amendment “Huh?”: “Civil rights laws were
not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them.” (Mary Frances Berry,
former head of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights). To paraphrase George Orwell (Animal
Farm), "Some people are more equal than other people." Back
17. Because a person who is in conflict with his biological nature is pulled in opposing
directions, he cannot attain confidence in his purpose in life; having a purpose is what makes
life meaningful and satisfying. Back
18. Do some animals also have free will? A test that is sometimes given for self-awareness is
to put a mark on the forehead of an animal then show him a mirror to see if he touches the mark
on his forehead. Chimpanzees, orangutans, elephants, and probably dolphins pass, but only
some gorillas do. (Zimmer, 1998, p. 132-134; Wikipedia, “Mirror Test”). Back
19. Suicide in the elderly may help their genes survive, however, and death may even be
programmed into the genes of some living things to die. Since territory is finite, in the absence
of accidents and predation, the failure of parents to weaken and die after raising their young to
maturity may reduce the rate at which generations turn over, thereby preventing the population
from rapidly evolving when the environment changes. Genes that cause aging can reliably open
up habitat for a new generation. (New Scientist, Aug. 11-17, 2007, p. 37). Of course, if space is
not a problem (e.g., bristlecone pines or sequoias that cannot guarantee their space to their
seedlings when they die) or predation and accidents keep numbers down, those genes would
be unnecessary. (Fuerle, 1986, pp. 133-134). (Telomeres that are shortened each time a cell
divides may perform this function. Wikipedia, “Telomere”). Back
20. (Salter, 2002a, p. 69). The failure of whites to act in their own interests is best exemplified
by their importation into their territories, at great cost to them, of tens of thousands of African
refugees, each one of which lowers the genetic fitness of whites, as suicidal a policy as any
could be. (Salter, 2003). Back
21. (Salter, 2002a, Table 5). The children of a person who mates with someone of a different
race will have (100 × FST/0.25)% fewer of his alleles than if he had mated with someone of his
own race, where “FST” is genetic distance. “For example, a person of English ethnicity who
chooses an English spouse over a Danish one gains less than one percent kinship with
offspring. But choosing an English spouse over a Bantu one yields a fitness gain of 92 percent
(0.2288/0.25). [The FST in this case is 0.2288 – see Table 7-1, p. 45] In both cases the same
applies in reverse order.” (Id.). Back
22. Note that the average percentage is the highest (81%) for Africans because they are by far
the most genetically distant from the other races. This suggests the movement of alleles in to
Africa, as described in Chapter 26, as humans could not have advanced if the flow of alleles
was out of Africa. Also note that the aborigines of New Guinea and Australia are in fourth place
(47%) because, while they are in some ways more primitive than Africans, they are more
closely related to the ancestors of the other races. (Chapter 24). Back
23. There would be a 66% loss from mating, plus possible additional losses from reduced
reproductive success in the hybrid offspring due to undesirable traits and incompatible traits.
Back
24. (MacDonald, 2002b). A class struggle makes no sense if people are genetically incapable of
moving into a different class; hence, egalitarianism – everyone is genetically the same. Back
25. “What Makes Liberals Tick?.” The degeneration of a society may be tied to the percentage
of liberals (i.e., leftists, not classical liberals, i.e., libertarians) in it, and that may, in turn, be tied
to parenting. In other words, the social cycle of civilizations – struggle, triumph, complacency,
degeneracy, and collapse – may feed off the parenting cycle of strict discipline, relaxing
standards, pampering, and spoiling, producing more establishment-hating leftists, as described
in that article. Also see: The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, by
Lyle H. Rossiter and Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder, by Michael Savage. Back
26. Note how, more and more, the government can dictate parental behavior and seize children
from their parents, and how much education is now in the hands of government teachers,
instead of parents. The egalitarian left sees government as their idealized “good” parents (a
“nanny state”) and everyone else as children. They fear that their parents will not love them, a
reasonable fear given their hostility towards their white parents, but their ideal nanny state will
love everyone. And, if everyone is genetically equal, as the egalitarians believe, being equally
loved becomes a right. Back
27. There are less psychoanalytical explanations to white anti-racism, such as gaining status
and demonstrating moral superiority, but they are more superficial and do not explain the
intensity and depth of the feelings of the anti-racists. Back
Chapter 34 - Egalitarianism
“Whatever may be the sociological value of the legal fiction that ‘all men are born free and
equal,’ there can be no doubt that … in its biological application, at any rate, this statement is
one of the most stupendous falsehoods ever uttered by man through his misbegotten gift of
articulate speech."
Dr. Earnest Hooton, Professor of Anthropology at Harvard University 1
“Ideas have consequences,” 2 and one might add that bad ideas (ideas that conflict with
reality) have bad consequences. Certainly the prize for the worst idea of all time has to go to
Marxism and its political embodiment, Communism, which resulted in the death of over
100,000,000 people in the twentieth century. 3 Today, Marxism lives on only in the minds of
academics, who live quite comfortably under capitalism. 4
The second worst idea could well be egalitarianism. 5 The dictionary says it means, “a
belief in human equality.” That idea might not be objectionable if it were limited equality before
God 6 or before the law, 7 as in “all men are created equal,” but it is now applied to genetically-
controlled traits, that no population differs genetically from any other population, except in trivial
differences in appearance. 8
But obvious racial differences in appearance are only a small percentage of the number
of racial differences, and whether they are “trivial” or not depends upon who is making that
decision; what is of no importance to one person may be vital to another. 9 As we have seen,
egalitarianism must ignore some genetic differences as “trivial,” though the line that divides the
trivial from the important is hard to draw. Since, clearly, man’s early ancestors were not the
equal of modern man, egalitarians must divide our ancestors into those who were our equals
(“Homo erectus?) and those earlier in our lineage who were not. The living are all supposedly
equal and the long-ago deceased are all presumably unequal, but the vast humanity in between
is anyone’s guess. How far back in man’s lineage is it necessary to go to reach the unequal,
where differences are no longer “trivial”? And, no matter where the line is drawn, some on one
side will be more like those on the other side, and those near the boundary will differ in ways so
minuscule as to be of no significance.
There are a number of other problems with egalitarianism. If there are no significant
genetic differences between populations, then:
“voluntarily segregated all-white and all-black societies would be equal and

there would be no ethical or logical argument against such societies. It is only if the
races are not equal that arguments (not necessarily valid arguments) can be made
for integration or the immigration of one race into the homeland of another race; and
“diversity cannot be ‘celebrated’ and it cannot be a ‘strength’ as there is no
racial diversity of any significance.” 10
Some ideologies tell you what reality should be (i.e., how we should live our lives) but others tell
you what reality is. An example of the former is modern day Christianity, other than anti-
evolution fundamentalists, and an example of the latter is the old Roman Catholic Church,
which insisted that the sun revolved around the earth. The ideologists who tell us what reality is
typically insist that it must be that way and become quite agitated when reality doesn’t behave
the way it is supposed to, and angry at those who disturb their equanimity by pointing this out to
them. Egalitarianism is such an ideology. It holds that all populations are genetically equal, but
when reality refuses to cooperate, its adherents desperately insist that it must be so, that
somehow a reality in which it is not so is not possible. 11

Egalitarianism, and any ideology that conflicts with reality, is doomed from the beginning
though, like a zombie, once killed it refuses to remain dead because it fulfills a psychological
need. Examples abound. Communism held that people could be educated to sacrifice for the
state, and that once they were transformed, their children would inherit this admirable quality.
They were not and they did not. Feminism, the fatherless child of egalitarianism, held that the
sexes, including confused and undifferentiated sexes, are genetically equal and therefore
interchangeable, except for giving birth and nursing, where nature refused to go along. Thus,
any suggestions that women cannot compete with men at sports and are less suited for careers
in the military, sciences, or in math, are met with fury. 12 Not only women, but anyone who does
not measure up, including the handicapped and uninvited non-English speakers from other
countries, must be raised to their inherently equal abilities by giving them the special teachers
and facilities needed to let a thousand flowers bloom. Anyone incapable of distancing himself
from reality who points out that, despite these efforts, people are still not equal, must be
silenced, for they threaten the desperately-held beliefs of the emotionally-controlled equalizers.
Every ideology that is at war with reality, as egalitarianism is, must ultimately fail; the only
question is how much harm it will do before it does.
Man’s ideological conflicts with reality arise from his anthropocentrism, his arrogant view
that the universe revolves around him. Egalitarianism is an anthropocentric ideology – it is
based on the premise that man is not like other animals, each evolving differently to adapt to a
different environment, but was somehow miraculously spared the “try and die” gauntlet of
evolution. Unlike animals, who fight for territories and mates, all human populations are
supposedly capable of living in harmony in the same territory, cheerfully yielding to those who
threaten the survival of their alleles. But the reality is that the same biological laws that
constrain other animals also apply to us.
As cheerleaders have long known, people who believe that their own group is superior
to other groups, even if it is not, are more successful than people who believe their group is the
pits. 13 Greater success is an excellent reason for having a group identity and for favoring one’s
own group.
There is a subtle conflict between egalitarianism and man’s nature as a group animal.
Egalitarianism is not just an intellectual ideology – that people are genetically equal – but, in
order to gain adherents, it must heavily rely upon the emotion of empathy. Normal people (i.e.,
not sociopaths) identify with others and can and do feel what other people are suffering. That
feeling provides a basis for egalitarianism’s intellectual case. But we feel empathy only because
we are group animals;14 our feeling of empathy is there to control us and induce us to sacrifice
for the benefit of our group ("Group Selection," Chap. 5) so that our group can successfully
compete with other groups – that is its biological reason d’être. If we were not group animals,
we would have no need to feel empathy. Indeed, empathy would be maladaptive and would
soon disappear because those who felt it would reduce their own chances of reproducing and
increase the chances of those who lacked it to reproduce, i.e., everyone would be a
psychopath. Egalitarianism, however, needs that emotion to play a different and conflicting role,
namely to sacrifice for other groups to the detriment of our own group. Thus, empathy is “bad”
for egalitarianism when it is adaptive and does what it evolved to do – increase ethnocentricity,
but “good” when it is maladaptive and does the opposite of what it evolved to do – reduce
ethnocentricity by making us identify with people of other ethnies.
For millions of years, man and his predecessors lived in small groups that competed
with other groups. Man evolved when individuals in his group became better adapted for
surviving and reproducing not only as individuals, but also as a group. Group-orientated
behavior is deeply ingrained in man’s genome; ideology can suppress it, but it will not remove it.
Even if two groups are genetically equal (and races are not), they are not equal socially
because the members of each group do not see the members of other groups as their equals –
the members of one group are not interchangeable with members of another group, so they are
not equal in the eyes of the only people who count, the members of the two groups. 15
Egalitarianism is an ideology that is at war with biology, and nature’s creations cannot long
survive following a self-destructive ideology. 16 Biology tells man to fight and defeat his
competitors. Egalitarianism tells man, at least if he is white, to welcome his competitors and
help them triumph over him.
And how will those non-whites who benefited from the white egalitarian’s hara-kiri
remember him? As a noble creature who would rather go extinct than forego his ideology and
Christ-like morality? No, if he is remembered at all it will be as a fool who was conned into
casually tossing away 3½ billion years of evolution to benefit those who were less adapted to
successfully contribute to modern civilization, thereby setting back the entire human species.
In 1950, the hooligans at the United Nations officially declared that “all the races are
equal in intelligence.” Although losing contact with reality is a psychosis, let’s be more generous
and say that the statement is due to either ignorance or deception. That all human populations,
living in vastly different environments all over the world for at least hundreds of thousands of
years should, just coincidently, end up with exactly the same intelligence, though they differ in
thousands of other traits is contradicted by every intelligence test ever given to them. Are all
dog breeds also equally intelligent?
Every teacher of an integrated class, every social worker, every policeman on the beat,
soon learns that the races are not interchangeable. No one denies that genetics makes dog
breeds differ in intelligence and behavior, but it is a modern day sin to suggest that the same is
true of human races. Although there is massive evidence (Section II) that the “Mysterious Black-
White Gap” between black and white achievement is due to genetic racial differences, the
egalitarians insist it is environmental – whites simply have a superior environment. But to blame
whites for not giving blacks the same environment that whites have created for themselves
implies that, without whites, blacks are incapable of creating that environment. Since blacks
who have never seen a white person (e.g., some Africans) achieve even less than blacks who
suffer under white racism, 17 that implication is no doubt true.
The logic of the egalitarian is that since everyone is genetically equal, the fact that
everyone is not equal in wealth, accomplishments, or in other ways means that their
environments are not equal; to an egalitarian, physical racial differences (most of Section II) are
trivial and of no significance and therefore behavioral racial differences (Chapter 12) must be
environmental, not genetic. Thus, equalizing the environments of blacks and whites will make
everyone equally intelligent, civilized, and well-behaved. When it does not, a more sinister
source of inequality is sought – the whites must be deliberately, or at least unconsciously,
oppressing the blacks. 18 This leads to hostility towards the productive whites, who must be at
least insensitive, if not wicked, and sympathy for and glorification of their less productive black
victims.
Whenever a minority politician is elected to office, or achieves any position of power, he
is quite explicit in stating that he wants to help his people, and everyone finds that normal and
acceptable, and even commendable. 19 And, when he does help his people, he helps
propagate his own alleles, because his people have more of his alleles than do other people;
bias is adaptive. 20 But such adaptive behavior is not permissible for whites, who are expected
to watch their own people lose out without a whimper.
The best strategy for elected politicians is usually to offend no one. Politicians fear
divisive issues like vampires fear sunlight. Ethnic strife forces them to take sides, which means
losing large blocks of votes no matter which side they take. Using hate laws and censorship to
stamp out those who stir up ethnic conflict makes getting re-elected so much easier. Similarly,
the mass media has little to gain and much to lose from publicizing material that is insulting to
some of its viewers, readers, and advertisers. Recently, for example, the U.S. press and
television refused to show cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that had sparked world-wide
protests by Muslims.
Egalitarians should support democracy, especially for multicultural nations because, if
everyone is genetically equal, everyone should have one vote. However, one can only imagine
what would happen if the last remnants of the white majority voted as a block in their own racial
interests, the way various racial minorities do. 21 When voters vote as blocks, one vote is not
one equal portion of political influence, even in those rare occasions when influence is not for
sale; eventually democracies become troops of hyenas fighting over a dead carcass. The only
solutions are a dictatorship, e.g., Tito in Yugoslavia or Hussein in Iraq, who can dish out the
rewards and punishments needed to hold a multicultural nation together, or libertarianism,
where the government is so small that it has no loot to dish out; the latter, however, is unlikely
to ever be adopted as no one wants to forego what he is now getting.
Certainly, a democracy is maladaptive for a genetically cohesive majority, as it reduces
their genetic fitness. It would be far wiser for that majority to limit voting to (mostly) their own
members, as the Jews in Israel have done. To the egalitarians this is, of course, the most
blatant form of racism, but for the white majority the choice is racism or extinction. The
minorities can always go to or form their own countries, where they are the majority, and run it
as they wish.
(Genetic) egalitarianism is based not on rationality, but on the Kum-bay-yah
sentimentality of universal brotherhood and love. Any facts contrary to those feel-good, but
unrealistic, emotions, e.g., genetic differences, must be denied and suppressed because they
are just too upsetting. Egalitarianism is stress-relief for the reality-challenged.
One can imagine an egalitarian going to a race track and saying to the first person he
meets, “You know, all those horses would be equally as fast if they had just had the same
quality of food and training.” Blank stare. “I think some of the horses lose because people think
they can’t win and the horses believe it,” he adds. Another blank stare. His last statement is,
“Horse racing is really just plain wrong because it makes the horses that lose feel bad about
themselves.” Yet, when he makes the same points about people, hundreds of billions of dollars
chase his every word.
Egalitarianism is a reckless experiment promoted by rebellious teenage minds, a bet of
the entire future of our species, based on only the arrogance of those who will brook no
challenge to their ideology. When the experiment is finally complete, and human diversity has
been replaced by a single mongrelized breed incapable of maintaining a modern civilization, it
will be too late to recover what we once had.
Chapter 35
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. (Hooton, 1939, p. 342). Back
2. (Weaver, R. M., “Ideas Have Consequences,” University of Chicago Press, 1948). Back
3. (Courtois, S., et al., "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression," Harvard
University Press, 1999). Back
4. Japan, S. Korea, and China are three market-capitalist countries whose bright lights are
easily visible from space. Nearby is a strange dark shape - socialist North Korea. The 38th
parallel that divides North and South Korea is the only man-made line that can be seen from
space. Back
5. Marxism is based on egalitarianism. “[Communism and socialism] … drew their major

nourishment from supposedly unwarranted economic and social inequalities among men. To
recognize that many of the inequalities were not unwarranted, that they were instead
biologically constituted and consequently inevitable, was to cut to the root of every left-wing
doctrine, called by whatever name.” (Putnam, 1967, p. 9). Back
6. On the other hand, “Religious people who insist that ‘all men are equal in the sight of God,’
thereby plainly reveal their conviction that men ought to be treated as equals here and
now.” (Earnest A. Hooton, Professor of Anthropology at Harvard University, quoted in Simpson,
2003, p. 290). Back
7. U.S. Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, who also wrote, “In memory
they [blacks] are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be
found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in
imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.” Back
8. Note that “egalitarianism,” as used in this book, is the dictum that everyone is genetically
equal, i.e., “bioegalitarianism”; it does not refer to making people economically equal. An
argument can be made that sharing resources, i.e., “economic equality,” is, or at least was,
somewhat genetically-induced and adaptive because when people lived in small groups their
survival depended upon sharing food and other resources, though the sharing would have been
mostly limited to close relatives since almost everyone in the group was a blood relative. Today,
the much stronger case is that economic equality, especially when it is coerced, is maladaptive
as it punishes those who work and save and rewards those who are lazy and impulsive, thus
giving everyone an incentive to not produce. Reproductive success requires consumption,
which in turn requires production. Back
9. One can say that some values are harmful (e.g., smoking) and others beneficial (e.g.,
exercise), but it is not possible to objectively show that one should choose particular values
because a “should” cannot be deduced from an “is.” (David Hume’s “Is-Ought” argument, Chap.
36). For that reason, although differences in people can be labeled “trivial,” it is not possible to
say that trivial differences should have no effect on one’s choices. (Fuerle, 1986). Back
10. (MacLaren, A., internet post, “When Logic Fails,” Mar. 2, 2006). “Ironically, denial of the
reality of race often prefaces a denunciation of race bias, with little explanation given of how
people can respond to a trait that no one possesses and no one understands. It should be
obvious as well that repudiating race forbids advocacy of racial preferences, although few critics
of the race concept have faulted affirmative action on this account.” (Levin, 1997, p. 19). Blacks
who blame their failures on the resistance of whites to integration implicitly concede that they
are not genetically equal to whites because they are saying that whites can succeed without
blacks, but blacks cannot succeed without whites. Back
"Diversity training" also requires a contradiction: "To better treat one another as individuals, we
must stop seeing people as individuals, and instead acknowledge their identities as members of
a particular group." (Gifford, B., "The Unbearable Whiteness of Being," Washington City Paper,
Nov. 12, 1993). It is also illogical to deny the reality of race yet admit the reality of breeds of
dogs, as breeds are no different than races. Because diversity destroys the trust needed to
function efficiently as a group, it weakens the military. (Hengest, D., “Diversity in the Army,”
American Renaissance, Vol. 19, No. 1, Jan., 2008). 11. “Reality is what refuses to go away
when you do not believe in it.” (Pinker, S., "The Lessons of the Ashkenazim," The New Republic
Online, June 26, 2006). Back
12. Larry Summers, just installed as the new president of Harvard University, naively believing
that problems at this august institution could be solved rationally and logically in open debate,
set out all the possible reasons why not many women enrolled in the sciences and math, one of
those reasons being that they were genetically less capable. Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT,
could not decide whether to throw up or black out at this shocking display of truth-speaking. Not
long afterwards, the leftist professors gave Summers the boot and, not long after that, several
papers were published confirming that the female brain is different from the male mind,
something already well known to those of us who passed Puberty 101. Back
13. (See Chapter 8). A great deal of racism is actually “cheerleading,” boosting the morale and
cohesiveness of one’s own racial group, a practice that is adaptive if it is not unrealistic. Back
14. Some species of great apes can also feel empathy towards others (De Waal, 1997, p. 35).
While it is likely that one must possess functioning mirror neurons to feel empathy, it is not yet
clear what the connection is, if any, between possessing mirror neurons and passing the "mirror
test." (Mirror Test, Wikipedia). Dogs, for example, seem to have some social control feelings,
e.g., submissiveness, but cannot pass the mirror test. Back
15. The idea that if a person will not exchange A for B, then they are not “equal” or “the same”
in his mind, regardless of how physically identical they are, comes from Austrian economics; to
put it another way, they are concepts by intuition, not concepts by postulation. (Northrop, The
Meeting of East and West, 1979, pp. 446-448; also see “same good,” in the first paragraph of
Chapter 23 of Fuerle, 1986). Back
16. A good example of ideologues sacrificing the lives of (other) people is the opposition to
donor transplants when the donor picks the recipient. Some hospitals will not even perform the
operation unless the recipient is selected by the Equality Police. Here is another example from
Robert S. Schwartz, a deputy editor at the New England Journal of Medicine, who does not
want the race of a patient to be taken into account, even if it kills him (the patient, that is): "Race
is not only imprecise but also of no proven value in treating an individual patient." Perhaps he is
not familiar with the journal, Ethnicity and Health? Back
17. To many egalitarians, the term “white racism” is redundant as they believe that only whites
are capable of racism. A 2006 web page of the Seattle Public Schools defines racism as: "The
systematic subordination of members of targeted racial groups who have relatively little social
power in the United States (Blacks, Latino/as, Native Americans, and Asians), by the members
of the agent racial group who have relatively more social power (Whites)." In a predominately
white country, anti-racism and multiculturalism mean attacking whites and their culture. “…
people of color cannot be racists… “ (2007 program at U. of Delaware, Unruh, B., “University
defends teaching students all whites ‘racist’,” World Net Daily, Nov. 1, 2007). Back
18. “The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in
life, but because he is a negro.” H.L. Mencken. Back
19. Black politicians overwhelmingly support wealth transfer programs that burden whites to
benefit blacks, even forming their own Congressional Caucus to do so. (Sailer, 2008b; Sperry,
P., "Obama's Stealth Reparations," Front Page Magazine, Oct. 28, 2008). “Black presidential
candidate Senator Barack Obama got standing ovations from liberal Democrats by promising to
double foreign aid, most of which would go to Africa. (Kondracke, M. "Obama’s foreign vision is
exciting — and also naive," Leader Call, Aug. 6, 2007). An extreme case is the way Jews in
power favor Israel to the detriment of the U.S., e.g., the neo-Conservatives, who got us into the
Iraq War. Back
20. To be free of prejudice requires deluding oneself with “intellectual, moral and emotional
dishonesty” and “has several dire consequences for the individual and society as a
whole.” (Dalrymple, T., In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas). Back
21. Minorities everywhere tend to be more cohesive than majorities. (Salter, 2003). Back
Chapter 35 - Individualism
“I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask
another man to live for mine."
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged 1
Individualism requires treating each person as an individual, not as a member of a

group. To some individualists this means that no conclusions can be drawn about any person
based on his natural physical appearance (excluding makeup, tattoos, and clothing) and all
racial traits must be ignored as they tell you nothing about a person’s character. (“I have a
dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by
the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Martin Luther King, Aug. 28, 1963).
Treating people according to the content of their character and not according to their race,
however, assumes that race provides no useful information about a person’s character, which is
not true. Even race extortionist Jesse Jackson said, “I hate to admit it, but I have reached a
stage in my life that if I am walking down a dark street late at night and I see that the person
behind me is white, I subconsciously feel relieved.” And, obviously, he could have omitted the
word, “subconsciously.”
Perhaps every time Rev. Jackson encountered a person on a dark street, white or black,
he could somehow instantaneously obtain a complete dossier on that person, then use only the
facts in that dossier to determine whether or not to run for his life. But, no, like the rest of us, the
Reverend uses race instead. It is unfair to the other person for the Reverend to rely on a
stereotype – that blacks are dangerous – but, in this instance, he prefers living to fairness.
Although individualism clearly implies anti-racism, it also implies respect for the choices
each individual makes, since a person is not being treated as an individual if he is required to
make, or is prohibited from making, particular choices. 2 Thus, it is not consistent with
individualism to require a person to contract with (sell, rent, buy, hire) someone he does not
wish to, even if his reasons are racial. In other words, the Civil Rights Laws, which require non-
discrimination in public accommodations, are not consistent with individualism. 3 A consistent
individualist must advocate both treating everyone as an individual and respecting the choices
an individual makes, even if one does not approve of those choices. Egalitarians, however,
endorse individualism when it means treating people according to “the content of their
character” but reject it when it is used to defend freedom of choice, making individualism not an
end in itself, but only another weapon to attack racism.
If people are to be treated as individuals, and their choices are to be respected, then it
cannot be unethical for them to act as individuals and to make their own choices, even if those
choices benefit only themselves and not others. In other words, individualism also (subtly)
implies that it is ethical for people to act in their own interest, as individuals, not as though they
were part of a race, class, the “American people,” or other type of collective; that also does not
sit well with those on the left, who are collectivists. Ayn Rand takes this implication the farthest,
suggesting that it is even a virtue to act in one’s own interests (Rand, 1961); she condemns
altruism, sacrificing one’s own interests for the benefit of others, even if it is voluntary. This she
does on the basis that people are not “things,” here to serve others, but autonomous beings
who have the right to survive and live for themselves. 4
To Rand, however, whether an act is or is not commendable “acting in one’s own
interest” or condemnable “altruism” depends on the values one chooses, not on biology. An act
is laudable only if one expects to receive something one values more than what one gave up.
Acting for the benefit of one’s own family, for example, is acceptable to Rand due to the
reciprocal benefits received from one’s family, and giving to charity is acceptable if the giving
brings status or recognition, but she would have condemned acting for the benefit of a stranger
for no reason other than that you shared more alleles with him. Thus, Rand advocates
individualism because it gives an individual the freedom he needs to live his life so as achieve
his values, and further argues that it is not only ethical for him to live that way, but unethical if
he does not.
She implicitly assumes, however, that he will either choose values that will result in his
survival and the survival of his lineage or she does not care if his lineage goes extinct. In either
case, her philosophy is not consistent with what nature requires of her creations – that they
pass on their own unique collection of alleles – because, consistent with Rand’s philosophy,
individuals could (and many do), enjoy dining out and the theater, having lovely clothes and
apartments or homes, and interesting, successful careers, but not children. Nature’s
requirements guarantee, as much as possible, the continuation of the lineage; Rand’s
philosophy does not, unless that just happens to be what someone wants.
Philosophies, including Rand’s, are created by people, not by nature. It is people, not
nature, who decide that some philosophies are worthy and others are not. There is only a single
criterion that nature uses to evaluate any philosophy and that is whether or not it enhances the
chances of the adherent’s lineage continuing. If you choose a philosophy that leads to the end
of your lineage, nature has no objection, and cares not a whit. But if you decide that the survival
of yourself and your descendants is a worthy end, then any philosophy that, if followed, imperils
that end, can not be an acceptable philosophy.
Survival requires not only the will to survive and pass on your alleles, but knowledge,
true knowledge, of reality, at least as much knowledge as can be acquired without imperiling
survival. Included in that knowledge is knowledge of ourselves. We cannot survive for long
believing that we don’t have a racist bone in our bodies, when we do. The reason we have
those racist bones is that they aid in our survival, so denying we have them eviscerates a vital
instinct. “Know thyself,” said Socrates, as the beginning of wisdom. Knowing thyself implies not
burying our racist bones deep in our unconscious and denying that they, and other urges our
genes gave us, are there.
A philosophy that is adaptive and does not lead to our extinction will not require us to
deny any reality, especially the reality of what we are. If a philosophy requires us to deny our
nature or the nature of the environment we live in, it is poison. Surely, there must be an error
somewhere in any philosophy that is in conflict with reality. Does individualism conflict with
reality, just as egalitarianism does (previous chapter)?
To the extent that individualism requires individuals to choose certain values, such as
treating everyone according to the content of his character and therefore without regard to his
race, it condemns individual choice and becomes a form of collectivism as it is an attempt to
limit our choices to the choices that the Equality Police approve of, to say nothing of placing us
in great danger from people of other races. To the extent that it favors maladaptive choices and
condemns adaptive choices it conflicts with the reality that we either succeed in placing our
alleles in the next generation or our lineage dies out. These possible complaints against
individualism are easily cured, however, if individualism does not advocate any particular
choices, but only the freedom to choose.
Nature has, however, given us at least two inborn urges that may conflict with
individualism. The first is the urge of men to control the sexuality of women. 5 As far as nature is
concerned, the purpose of a man is primarily to impregnate women with his own sperm and
secondarily to help those women and his children by them to survive. Every man has a natural
interest in trying to limit the sexual relations of women, especially those women who carry more
of his alleles, to men who are likely to increase the number of his alleles in future generations,
either because those men already have many of his alleles or because they have the money or
power to increase the fitness of those future generations. This natural interest, if it involves the
coercion of women or others, is certainly anti-individualism.
A second inborn urge that we have is to form groups, identify with them, and advance
the interests of our own group over the interests of other groups. We have this urge for the
same reason that we have the first urge – it has increased our reproductive success. It is
stronger in men than women because it involves competing with other groups, and physical
conflict is more suited to men. A dramatic manifestation of this urge is the “madness of crowds,”
6 where a group of people acts as though it had a single mind, doing violent and criminal
activities that the people in the group would never do if they were acting as individuals. Each
person in the group feels that his actions are not only morally legitimate, but also uplifting and
empowering, freeing him from artificial social constraints on his innate urges.
Man is clearly a group animal (Chap. 4), as evidenced by his highly developed language
and the large amount of his brain devoted to speech and social complexities. He is that way
because individuals who had alleles for group-orientated behavior were more reproductively
successful than individuals who lacked those alleles. The “selfishness” that Rand demands may
reduce the gains in reproductive success that man derives from living in groups, turning
Randians into “free riders,” who receive the benefits of group membership without contributing
to the success of the group. 7 Although one can argue the doubtful proposition that today group
solidarity no longer enhances reproductive success, it will nevertheless remain part of man’s
psyche until those who lack the alleles for it out-reproduce those who have them which, despite
the narcissism of individualists, is unlikely. Man may be an intellectual individualist, but
emotionally he is, at least in part, a collectivist.
Although the violation of the natural rights of individuals would not be consistent with
individualism, it may be possible to satisfy our natural urges to control the sexuality of others
and to act as a group without violating those rights. For example, a man and a woman could be
permitted to make an enforceable contract that would, among other things, require support by
the man only if the woman had sex and children only with him. Also, the contract could provide
that he is obligated to support only his biological children and, after they reach puberty, only if
they do not have sexual relations with anyone without his permission. 8
The parents may also argue that they have the right to control their children’s sexuality
because they own the genetic information that is in their eggs and sperm, much as a writer
obtains a copyright on his books. When a person voluntarily relinquishes control over his
property, he abandons it and ownership of it can be acquired by another person. To the extent
that a man relinquishes control over his sperm, he abandons them and, to the (much lesser)
extent that a woman abandons control over her eggs, she abandons them as well.
We know there is an intent to abandon property when a person no longer tries to control
the use of his property. The mother certainly tries to retain control over her developing egg and
the resulting child for many years after it is born. The father may also try to retain control over
the genetic material he contributed to that developing egg. For example, if either parent
demands a say in whom their child dates and marries, we know that they did not abandon his
control over the use of his genetic material, now embodied in the child. Thus, it may be possible
to resolve conflicts between individualism and controlling the sexuality of certain other people
without violating their natural rights.
In addition to individual genetic interests that may conflict with individualism, a
population also has genetic interests, and they, too, may conflict with individualism. 9 The usual
argument made in opposition to miscegenation, for example, is that the parties have the right to
decide for themselves with whom they will mate. But rights, like philosophies, are creations of
man, not nature. The implementation of a system of rights in a population is adaptive when the
rights increase the fitness of the population as a whole and is maladaptive when they do not.
(Chapter 27 of Fuerle, 2003). Since miscegenation is maladaptive (Chapter 29), implementing a
system of rights that permits it is also maladaptive.
Individualism assumes that there are only individual interests and that there are no
legitimate group interests. But biologically that has never been true of man. Man has always
survived in groups – it is part of his nature. The immense tax burden we all bear today is good
evidence that there are group interests. This is not to say that man is wholly a group animal, 10
as the socialists would have it, but he is certainly a mixture of individual and group genetic
interests.
Those group interests are, of course, the survival of the group, i.e., the people in the
group, their territory, culture, and genome. The question is, “Can our group interests be
preserved within individualism?” and the answer is probably “yes.” There have always been
individuals who, for one reason or another, have been a liability to their group. The penalty was
removal from the group, which may or may not have been consistent with individualism.
Certainly, removal by killing or incarceration for a minor offense would be inconsistent, but
expulsion from the group’s territory may not be. Even without physical removal, a person can be
removed socially by ostracism – others in the group can simply refuse to have anything to do
with him; the greatest fear of a group animal is that he will be expelled from the group. 11
Refusing to socialize or trade with a person is completely consistent with individualism.
Ostracism is a severe penalty – Socrates drank hemlock rather than leave Athens – but
it is a penalty that is within the rights of the other individuals in the group and does not violate
the natural rights of the person being ostracized. After all, an individual who acts against the
interests of his group betrays not only others within his group, but all his ancestors who
sacrificed and died to enable him to exist. Ostracism by individuals is a common occurrence as
we all distance ourselves from those we don’t like or trust. Ostracism by a group of people
requires only that they act in concert for the interests they share. Today, however, we have “civil
rights laws” that violate our natural right to associate with whomever we wish to, preventing
many effective forms of ostracism, such as refusing to deal with persons based on their race,
religion, etc. 12
For a group to ostracize or expel one or more of its members weakens the group by
decreasing its numbers, but strengthens the group by removing those who are likely to weaken
the group more than they strengthen it, and by warning others of the consequences of such
behavior, which can be a net gain to the group’s fitness. Those who refuse to contribute to the
welfare of the group (a “free rider”) or, worse, knowingly work against the interests of the group
(a traitor), are hardly assets for the remainder of the group. 13 Thus, individualism does not
necessarily conflict with the interests of the group.
But a further consideration must be kept in mind. Individualism is an ideology and, like
rights and philosophies, ideologies are concocted by man – they are not to be found anywhere
in nature. Group interests are not an ideology, but a behavior deeply ingrained in our genes
because they are crucial to our survival and, when push comes to shove, biology will trump
ideology, like it or not. Any group that sacrifices its genetic interests for an ideology, be it a
religion, a political system, or a social dogma, cannot successfully compete against a group that
puts its genetic interests first. Let the reader ponder this: If the vast majority of women decide
they do not wish to be “breeders” and refuse to become pregnant, so that the only alternatives
are to allow humanity to go extinct or force pregnancy upon women, which would he choose?
Chapter 36
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. Abraham Lincoln expressed a similar sentiment: “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be
a master.” (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 2, p. 532). Back
2. Here, I am referring to choices that do not violate the natural rights of other persons. Exactly
what those rights are is beyond the subject of this book, but is discussed in (Fuerle, 2003). Back
3. These laws were, and are, sold to the public with the argument that prohibiting discrimination
ensures that the best person is hired, promoted, admitted to college, etc. However, it can be
mathematically proved that if two groups have different means on the test given to determine
eligibility, then the test scores of persons from those two groups must be adjusted towards the
mean of their own group in order to select the best qualified person. In other words, prohibiting
racial discrimination, guarantees that best qualified person will not be hired, promoted, admitted
to college, etc. (Miller, 1994b; Jensen, 1980, p. 94). Back
4. "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of
any other, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means." (Kant, I.
Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals). Ironically, Rand despised Kant. Back
5. Men, of course, do not want their mates to have sex with other men as that directly reduces
their fitness. They may also want to limit the sexual activity of their sisters and daughters as
their virginity increases their value as mates and therefore increases the likelihood that they will
obtain a better quality man so their father will have more surviving grandchildren. For that same
reason, it is in a woman’s interest to limit her sexual activity, or at least keep it secret. (Barkow,
1991, p. 337). Back
6. (Chaplin, J.P., Rumor, Fear and the Madness of Crowds, 1959). “Madness is rare in
individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule.” (Nietzsche). Back
7. “But for animals that live in groups, selfishness must be strictly curbed or there will be no
advantage to social living.” (Wade, N. “Is ‘Do Unto Others’ Written Into Our Genes?” New York
Times, Sept. 17, 2007). Individuals of all species will tend to evolve into group animals
whenever that strategy results in more reproductive success than acting independently. A group
strategy, however, necessarily means that individuals must sacrifice some of their individual
fitness for the fitness of the group, and this, in turn, means that some individuals will be
sacrificing more than others and/or receiving fewer of the benefits. That loss of fitness is
overcome, however, when the more fortunate members of the group carry most of the same
alleles as the less fortunate; the success of a group strategy therefore requires the members of
the group to be more genetically-related to each other than to those outside the group. Back
8. If his sons have children, he passes his alleles on to his grandchildren and, since his sons
can have a large number of children, he usually benefits genetically from their promiscuity. (But,
if the sons impregnate females who are genetically distant, the sons are creating hybrids who
may be enemies of his group, thus damaging his genetic interests.) His daughters, however,
can have only a limited number of children, so their quality and genetic distance from him are
more important. Back
9. Individualism, for example, seems to be associated with a higher percentage of sociopaths.

(Stout, 2005, p.136). Back
10. Indeed, socialists may see the entire group as a single biological entity to be governed by a
single mind, i.e., theirs. Back
11. Edward Everett Hale's short story, The Man Without a Country, poignantly describes the
painful alienation that results from ostracism from one’s group. Dog trainer Victoria Stilwell (“It’s
Me or the Dog,” on the Animal Planet Channel) trains dogs, another social animal, by turning
away and ignoring them when they misbehave, i.e., she ostracizes them. Whites already
practice severe ostracism, but against those who do not genuflect to the Equality Police.
Ostracism is a form of rejection. To a normal person, rejection brings on a feeling of depression
and a display of submission, which will often get them back into the group. But psychopaths
lack the capacity for empathy, and therefore cannot see themselves as others see them. Thus,
they cannot feel the disapproval of others, which the rest of us feel as depression. Since the
goal of a psychopath is to win, rejection is seen as a frustrating defeat. As in normal people,
frustrations create intense anger and hatred in the psychopath against the frustrating person
but, unlike normal people, they feel no depression to dampen those aggressive feelings. That is
why women are most likely to be murdered after they reject a male (Buss, 2005) and why
psychopaths within the Allied leadership, e.g., Morganthau, had millions of Germans murdered
after WWII was over. (Keeling, 1947; Irving, 1996) Back
12. E.g., a person who owns an apartment building, movie theater, or store, even if he is black,
cannot refuse to rent to or admit blacks, even for the reason that they are likely to vandalize,
steal, or drive other customers away. Back
13. That is the source of “the Jewish Problem.” The Jews survive as a distinct ethny by being
strongly cohesive, but that creates distinct Jewish interests that inevitably conflict with the
interests of the host population in which they are imbedded. Back
Chapter 36 - Morality
“Morality is man’s servant, not his master.”
Public policy eventually turns on who holds the moral high ground. After all, no one
wants to be seen as supporting “evil” and anyone who believes he is morally in the wrong is
more easily defeated. Clearly, it was capturing the moral high ground that brought about the
abolition of slavery and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Laws. And there is no doubt that
today the anti-racist egalitarians have captured the moral high ground.
“To see what is in front of one’s nose requires a constant struggle,” (George Orwell) may
be true of most of us, but egalitarians struggle not to see the 800 pound gorilla in front of them,
and even dress him up in a suit, tie, and glasses so others won’t notice him. (See front cover.)
The evidence that the races are not genetically equal, especially in intelligence and behavior, is
clear to all but the reality-challenged egalitarians, who find it emotionally unacceptable. Any
apparent differences must be due to the irrationality of whites, who, consciously or
unconsciously, think they see differences where there are none, thereby somehow preventing
non-whites from achieving, even when the finish line is moved closer and closer. Whites,
probably the least ethnocentric of all the races, judging from the devastation of their internecine
wars and the immense costs they have imposed on themselves for the benefit the blacks, are
nevertheless pronounced guilty of the newly-concocted sin of racism, i.e., of favoring those of
their own kind, behaving as nature insists they must if they are to continue to exist. Would that it
were so.
Thus, the weapon of choice for the egalitarians is the morality of sacrifice, a morality that
coincides nicely with both Marxism 1 and Christianity, though Egalitarians often display
contempt for Christianity. Both embrace the morality of sacrifice – that on the scale of morality,
from the depths of the devil to the heights of heaven, one rises or falls according to whether his
acts benefit others … or himself. 2 The moral high ground is gained by personal sacrifice, be it
of money, resources, mates, territory, children, or life itself. And, obviously, sacrifice is possible
in only one direction - from those who have to those who do not have, no matter how honestly
or ethically they acquired what they have. The morality of sacrifice is a weapon used by the
have-nots to infuse the haves with guilt and induce them to abandon all that they have worked
for; one does not have to be a cynic to realize that it is a morality that will be quickly abandoned
when the have-nots become the haves.
Evolution offers no support for the morality of sacrifice, because sacrifice is adaptive
only if it is likely to increase one’s alleles in future generations, which is not a sacrifice at all, but
a necessity if one’s lineage is to avoid extinction. Although that is called “altruism” by biologists,
it is in no way a sacrifice because it is a biological gain to the individual, not a loss. It is hardly a
coincidence that Caucasians, who have a strong urge to cooperate with and help others, 3
embraced Christianity, a religion that requires them to do exactly that. Thus, they receive moral
kudos for doing what their genes urge them to do anyway, but for different reasons. Before
modern times, those urges served them well in hunting, fighting off enemies, and creating
civilizations. 4 Altruism was strongly adaptive when nearly everyone one dealt with had most of
the same alleles but, once the anti-racists mixed the races up, altruism became maladaptive as
it lead Caucasians to sacrifice their own genetic interests for the benefit of those who did not
share as many of their alleles and did not reciprocate. 5
Today, Caucasian altruism is not directed just towards nearby Caucasians, but towards
anyone anywhere, i.e., “promiscuous altruism.” 6 The urge to help people of a different race, 7
sometimes called the “White Man’s Burden” because only whites seem to have it, lowers
fitness, sometimes drastically. 8 To much of the world, people who give away their territory and
wealth are not “good” people, to be admired and emulated, but “suckers,” to be despised. 9
Worse, to be the recipient of aid is insulting and degrading as it is seen as proof that the
recipient is inferior to the giver. The result is that the giver does not receive the love and
gratitude that he believes he is entitled to, but hatred. 10 Now the giver is helping his enemies,
all the while dumbfounded by their growing hatred for him. Does he stop giving? No, he
condemns himself for not giving enough, wallows in his guilt, and further aids in his own
demise. Associations of whites with non-whites has made the altruism and cooperation that was
formerly adaptive, maladaptive. To avoid becoming a dead end on a 3½ billion year old lineage,
the promiscuous altruist must learn to allocate his altruism roughly in accord with relatedness,
11 and refuse to accept any guilt for doing so.
One might suppose that this would be not be difficult to do, but for demonized whites,
who accept their status as immoral pariahs, it is not. If you let others convince you of your own
immorality, they have already defeated you, without firing a shot. You will no longer defend what
was once yours, and will wallow in the neurosis of self-hatred. 12 Far better to take pride in
being the epitome of evil than to be tricked into defeat by a few words. Even if it were true that
whites are evil to the core (and it is not true), pride in their evilness would serve them far better
than shame. A snake that believes it is immoral to bite and swallow an adorable little baby
bunny is no longer a snake; indeed, it is no longer, period. A morality that forbids us to be what
we are, holds that extinction is our only moral course of action. Whites could easily secure the
preservation of their race, as they are the most technologically competent of the races. But,
tricked into believing that their survival as a race is immoral, they refuse to do so.
All people, especially men, seek status, as status brings more reproductive success. 13
When a man cannot claim status based on wealth or power, he is left with the poor man’s status
– moral superiority. The egalitarian’s claim of moral superiority is the ultimate claim for status as
it trumps status based on both wealth and power. Even if he has no other indicia of status, he
can claim he has greater moral worth. (To be consistent, an egalitarian must, of course, deny
that there is a genetic component to morality, for otherwise his claim of moral superiority would
invalidate his claim that everyone is genetically equal.) 14
A claim of moral superiority, however, is not consistent with the multiculturalists’ dictum
that “all cultures are equal” because “culture” includes morality and, if one’s own moral stands
are superior, then the moral standards of others have to be inferior. Indeed, even many
multiculturalists regard some alien cultural practices as immoral. 15 But why let foolish
inconsistencies hobble a glorious ideology? 16 Surely, having an emotionally comforting, but
inconsistent ideology is preferable to consistency and the cold shower of reality? (Barkow,
1991, p. 201).
David Hume long ago pointed out (A Treatise of Human Nature, 1739) that one cannot
obtain a “ought” from an “is,” an observation that is sometimes referred to as “Hume's
Guillotine." That is, to objectively prove a statement is true one must begin with facts about man
and the world he lives in, then show that those facts lead to the conclusion that the statement
must be true. Hume was asserting that no moral statement can be proved to be true by
reasoning from facts. Morality is outside of the “is” world of facts and is in an entirely different
realm of moral “oughts” and “shoulds,” 17 and there is no way to journey from one realm to the
other. 18 Morality is not discovered using our senses, as facts are, but is created or divined by
man. 19 Thus, morality cannot be “correct” or “true,” in the sense that facts about reality are.
Nevertheless, a moral statement is commonly accepted as true when it is emphatically
asserted to be true by a large number of people. Counting votes does not prove something is
true, of course, but we all have a psychological tendency to believe that “60 million Frenchmen
can’t be wrong,” even if they neither have nor can have any objective proof that they are
correct. The beliefs that racism is immoral and anti-racism is moral long ago passed the “tipping
point” and now nearly everyone either accepts them as true or is at least afraid to say that they
are not true.
Dual Morality
If we take it as an abiding principle that any morality, the acceptance of which will lead to
our extinction, is so much in conflict with reality that it cannot be correct, then anti-racism cannot
be a correct morality. Man, like his relative, the chimpanzee, is an animal that lived and lives in
groups. Behavior, such as murder, rape, theft, and adultery, that endangered the survival of the
group could not be tolerated and became “immoral.” 20 But that morality was intra group –
within the group. As to inter group behavior – between groups – there was an entirely different
morality. We see this “dual morality” today, especially preceding and during a war, when the
enemy is demonized and dehumanized, so that the intra group rules of morality need not be
applied to them. 21
The existence of a group, any kind of a group, necessitates dual behavior, i.e., people in
the group must behave one way towards members of the group and a different way towards
outsiders, for otherwise they cannot function as a group; this suggests that at least some
behavior that is immoral within a group will be moral between groups. Egalitarianism argues
against a dual morality because, if everyone is genetically about the same, everyone should be
treated the same. That does not follow, however, because the second phrase has a “should” in
it and the first phrase does not, so that argument is decapitated by Hume’s Guillotine. 22
Egalitarianism’s mono-morality is also incompatible with man’s nature as a group
animal. To require man to adhere to one-morality-fits-all is an attempt to make man into
something he is not, which requires the destruction of what he is. Far better to accept a dual
morality, one morality for inside the group and a different morality for outside the group, and try
to obtain agreements with other groups on the terms of the out-group morality. 23
In addition to being in conflict with man’s nature as a group animal, a morality based on
egalitarianism is irrelevant to biological survival. The object of all life is to successfully
reproduce. Whether the parties are equal or unequal, in any sense, or whether their behavior is
fair or moral, matters only to the extent that it increases or decreases success in reproducing.
And, for groups, unequal, unfair, and amoral dual morality does exactly that. 24
Even in peacetime, no one, not even egalitarians, applies the same morality to
everyone. Certainly, everyone, to some extent, follows a “do as I say, not as I do” dual morality,
and everyone has a different morality for their children, even their adult children, than they do
for strangers. We don’t toss dice to determine to which drowning person we will throw the last
life preserver, which is what should be done if our morality were the same for everyone. No,
instead, we make a moral judgment about who is more worthy to live, typically women and
children. No one actually lives by a one-morality-fits-all rule. And, most of the time, these
multiple moralities will, at least approximately, coincide with the answer to the question, “Which
choice maximizes my reproductive success?” To act according to that “natural morality” is
adaptive and usually instinctive, and to not do so is maladaptive and usually extinctive.
Populations all across the planet apply different moralities to different people, depending
upon their genetic relatedness (Simpson, 2003, pp. 798-801). They typically use flattering
words for their own people and pejorative words for people outside their group to justify their
dual morality, e.g., “goy” for a non-Jew (“animal”), 25 as in “Jewish blood is not the same as the
blood of a goy.” (Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg of Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus/Shechem, justifying the
murder of an Arab girl by Jews). 26 Although Christian egalitarians quote the Bible for support,
there are many references one can find to a “different strokes for different folks” morality in the
Bible, such as “…our leaders should have entered Lebanon and Beirut without hesitation, and
killed every single one of them. Not a memory should have remained.” (Genesis 15: 18–20;
Joshua 1: 3–4).
A successful population that has expanded to the carrying capacity of its territory has to
move into the territory of contiguous populations. Since resources are limited, when one
population expands and eliminates a competing population, it increases its own fitness. If it fails
to do so and instead maintains a stable population, it jeopardize its own long term survival
when, inevitably, circumstances and the environment change and turn against it. This
necessitates a dual morality – an intra-population morality and an inter-population morality.
But inter-population warfare for territory is no longer necessary. The brutality of
conquest and colonialization can be replaced by the civility of contract. Conquest, after all, is
not free; in addition to military costs, it may leave a legacy of guilt that demoralizes the
conquering population, providing its enemies with a weapon, e.g., Mahatma Gandhi in India
fighting the British. Contract, on the other hand, improves the lot of both parties. The expanding
population obtains additional territory and, in return, the other population receives resources.
The U.S. practiced this policy several times in its history, with Thomas Jefferson and the
Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of California and the southwest from Mexico, and the
purchase of Alaska from Russia.
The only morality that can be followed without moving towards extinction is a morality
that directs our behavior towards passing on our alleles, e.g., “Be fruitful and multiply.” (Genesis
1:28). Quite naturally, that is the morality that people follow when they not are subjected to
propaganda and coercion to make them choose a different morality. In the long run, an
egalitarianism morality is doomed, for it demoralizes and immobilizes those who adhere to it,
reducing their genetic fitness, and driving them to extinction. (Though, of course, that would not
apply to a deceptive egalitarian who urges others to follow egalitarianism while he himself does
not.)
The empathy that we feel for other creatures is a creation of nature, the mirror neurons
in our brain. 27 Empathy motivates us to help those who are around us, based on their genetic
similarity to us, i.e., how many of our alleles they have. That is why we care deeply about our
babies, some for our pet dog or cat, little for the mouse in the house, and not at all for the spider
on the glider. Empathy arose long before television and instant worldwide communications,
when the only people anyone knew lived in the same geographical vicinity and were closely
related. Now a person can feel more empathy for someone on the other side of the planet, who
is suffering on television, but who shares few alleles with him, than he can for his own children
sitting right beside him. 28
Empathy gives morality an emotional impetus, but nature does not create a morality and
nature’s only punishment for ignoring it is the guilt felt for violating a morality that has been
accepted. And, although the amount of empathy we feel for others varies approximately with
genetic distance, the lines that divide different moral standards are drawn by men, not nature,
and men draw them to suit their own purposes. Empathy is nature’s way of controlling man;
morality is man’s way. Both are adaptive when they increase our reproductive success and both
are maladaptive when they decrease it.
Man created morality to benefit the group – it reduced strife, induced cooperation, and
kept the group stable. Morality encouraged individuals within a group to put aside their own
genetic interests for the benefit of others in their group. 29 But now other groups have hijacked
that morality to use as a weapon against the group that created it. Those who define what is or
is not moral can be expected to do so in a way that benefits themselves, and those who do not
resist that morality will be at the mercy of the morality-definers. In the War Against Whites, the
egalitarians claim the right to define “morality” and collect the spoils from the demonized and
demoralized Whites; whites can save themselves only by refusing to accept any morality that
requires their extinction.
Chapter 37
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” (Karl Marx). That aid by
whites to non-whites is morally commendable shows that it is a manisfistation of the morality of
sacrifice; it is also an admission that such aid is maladaptive because, if it was not maladaptive,
it would not be a sacrifice and therefore would not be morally commendable. Back
2. E.g., the epitome of Christian morality, Christ dying for our sins. Defining morality as
incurring a personal loss to benefit others justifies the left’s view of the immorality of profits and
capitalism and the Christian view of charity; both see the accumulation of wealth as immoral (“It
is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the
kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:24). Back
3. It has been observed that when Europeans go to war, they claim to be helping the people
they attack, e.g., by spreading freedom and democracy or by saving their souls, while other
races do not use such justifications. (Epstein, M. “War and the Imperfect Nature of Man,”
VDARE.com, Jan. 29, 2008). Even very small children and chimpanzees voluntarily help others.
(Warneken, 2007). Back
4. Altruism also gave more reproductive success to individuals who invested less in brawn and
more in brain, causing people to become more gracile, cooperative, and intelligent, traits useful
in building civilizations. Back
5. The expectation of reciprocity, “reciprocal altruism,” should not be considered to be altruism

at all, as it is more of an implied contract; if your bumper sticker says “Practice random acts of
kindness,” you expect to be a recipient of some of the kindness you are encouraging. Ditto for
practicing a religion to obtain promised rewards in Heaven. (A religion is an attempt to gain the
favor of a supernatural being; organized religion is the selling of those favors.) Ironically,
altruism may have evolved to make groups more successful in war. (Bowles, 2006). Back
6. Wikipedia is an example of promiscuous altruism since the hundreds of hours editors spend
without pay probably lowers their fitness; another good example is the Peace Core.
Promiscuous altruism is a perversion of adaptive altruism. Back
7. A charitable organization run by whites that helped only whites would be denounced as
“racist” and therefore immoral. Back
8. “Let no good deed go unpunished.” A significant number of whites have been killed helping
non-whites. On Mar. 26, 2006, University of Washington medical professor Richard Root was
killed, and presumably eaten, by a crocodile in Botswana. Amy Biehl, a 26 year old white
Stanford graduate student and Fulbright Scholar, who went to South Africa in 1993 to help
Africans overthrow her fellow whites, was stoned and stabbed to death by Africans.
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/biehl.htm "I remember very clearly watching the ABC News
reports on the trial of the men who had stoned and stabbed Biehl to death as she begged for
her life. The courtroom was packed with the relatives and friends of the accused, who had to be
admonished by the judge over and over to maintain order during the proceedings. The ABC
newsman focused on one dramatic event during that day's testimony. As a witness for the
prosecution described in detail Biehl's begging while a knife was being driven into her chest
down to the hilt, the black women in the crowd began to laugh and perform a mocking ululating
while a few performed mock begging motions. The black men yowled in glee and the entire
courtroom broke out into hysterics as the black crowd mocked this white girl's final
moments." (Black savagery, white acceptance: the Biehl story). In 2003, an Israeli soldier killed
23-year-old Rachel Corrie with a bulldozer as she tried to prevent the destruction of a
Palestinian home. (Wikipedia, “Rachel Corrie”). Back
9. “Generosity and indulgence exhibited by the white man they [the Negroes in Cuba] consider
as weakness.” (Count Gorz, in Hunt, 1865, p. 19). Whites are much less emotionally attached to
their race than non-whites, and so they reasonably, but incorrectly, assume that non-whites feel
the same way. This individualist view leads whites to define morality in terms of abstract rules of
justice, while non-whites define it in terms of loyalty to one’s own group. (MacDonald, 2002a).
Jews apply the term “useful idiots” to people who benefit Jews to the detriment of their own
interests, e.g., support foreign aid for Israel and fight wars against Israel’s enemies, such as
Iraq. Unless the genes responsible for altruism are evenly distributed among all the races, and
they are not, the morality of sacrifice is doomed to produce a society of productive but exploited
altruists and unproductive but exploiting parasites. When the latter eventually destroys the
former, the society will no longer be capable of supporting itself and will also disintegrate. Back
10. “Around the year 2040, whites will become a minority in the United States and, believe me,
it will be ‘payback time’.” Pro-Immigration Activist, Jorge Sanchez. “The white race is a disease,
and the only cure is a bullet.” Hindu nationalist, Ramesh Sharma. (Roodt, D., “France’s National
Suicide,” World Net Daily, Dec. 6, 2007). Back
11. People already do this to some extent with their own money, but mostly after they are dead
and beyond the reach of moralizing egalitarians. Did you will your estate to complete strangers
or mostly to your relatives? But with money that is almost entirely other people’s, i.e., money
given out by the government, the living will trade some of their reproductive success for guilt
relief. Back
12. See (Horney, K., Neurosis and Human Growth: The Struggle Toward Self-Realization,
1950). Back
13. “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” (Henry Kissinger). Back
14. But sociopaths have no conscious, and lack moral feelings (e.g., guilt, shame, remorse)
and sociopathy is about 50% heritable (Stout, 2005, p. 123), so morality must be at least partly
genetic. Back
15. E.g., cruelty to animals (horse tripping, dog and cock fighting), female genital mutilation,
honor killings, forced marriages, etc. Back
16. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” (Ralph Waldo Emerson) draws
attention away from the embarrassing consistency that underlies inconsistent positions. (See
FN 26). Back
17. A moral “ought” or “should” implies that behavior violates a moral rule, as opposed to “I
should (or ought to) go shopping,” which does not. The division of statements into "is's" and
"oughts" is a subset of the division of all concepts into concepts that describe reality (e.g., a
"point" as a dot on a piece of paper) and concepts that that describe creations in man's
imagination (e.g., a "point" as a location in mathematical space that does not extend in any
direction). Back
18. The impossibility of an objective morality does not mean that there can be no morality.
Each person can still have his own subjective morality – he can feel guilt, shame, or remorse for
acts that generate no such emotions in others, e.g., killing a bug, eating lamb. Back
19. Since egalitarians normally believe that (alleged) genetic equality makes racial
discrimination immoral, David Hume’s Guillotine collapses the moral high ground claimed by the
egalitarians. Back
20. Some of the Ten Commandments, for example, prohibit behavior that disrupts the
functioning of the group. Clearly, morality was created to serve group interests – an individual in
isolation has no need for morality. Only group animals, such as meerkats, monkeys, and men,
have rules about what behavior is permissible between members of the group. Thus, morality
arose because it was adaptive and, like any trait, it will continue only so long as it remains
adaptive and does not become maladaptive. Back
21. In general, the greater the genetic distance between two groups, the greater will be the
difference between in-group and out-group moralities. We step on ants, but mistreating a dog is
a crime. Every egalitarian who is not an anarchist accepts a dual morality when it comes to the
government because people acting in their “official” capacity as agents of the government are
permitted to take actions that would be crimes if done by anyone else, e.g., seize money for
taxes. The best strategy for a minority group is to conceal its own unegalitarian dual morality
while demanding that the majority practice an egalitarian mono-morality, i.e., treat the members
of the out-group the same as members of the in-group. Back
22. Also see (Fuerle, 2003, Chapter 23), where free will forms the basis for arguing that a
person consents to being treated the same way he treats others. And, if he treats others
according to a dual morality, he consents to that dual morality being applied to himself as well.
Back
23. Indeed, this is the aim of the rules of war, such as the Geneva Conventions. It also arises
spontaneously when people practice “tit-for-tat,” the most effective game strategy. (Wikipedia,
“Tit for Tat”; also see THIS). One might think that the Golden Rule is an expression of a mono-
morality, but if one treats people inside his group as he wishes to be treated by them, and treats
people outside his group as he wishes to be treated by them, although it is a different treatment,
the Golden Rule would be compatible with a dual-morality. Dual moralities are not inherently
more conflict-prone than mono-moralities; dual moralities lead to conflicts when groups fail to
agree upon and follow complementary dual-moralities. Back
24. Whites lost The Union of South Africa and Rhodesia because they were induced to apply
their mono-morality to Africans. The most successful government, all else being the same
("ceteris paribus"), will an ethnic state that is consistent with an ethny's biology and represents
its genetic interests. Back
25. The literal translation of “goy” is “nation,” but the Talmud suggests it means “animal.”
Dictionaries define “goy” as an offensive term for a non-Jew and the Talmud says, “The non-
Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and
night." (Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L; Horowitz, 1985). The more a population develops its own
language, religion, and culture, the more genetically isolated and different it will become; and,
since everyone sees himself as “human,” the more his DNA differs from the DNA of others, the
less “human” they will seem to him. Back
26. Also, “Any trial based on the assumption that Jews and goyim are equal is a total travesty of
justice.” (Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, "An Israeli Mayor Is Under Scrutiny," The New York Times,
June 6, 1989, p. 5). The Jews should be commended for openly expressing their dual morality,
as most of us do our best to conceal it. However, they have not only a dual morality, but also a
"meta" dual morality because they claim a dual morality for themselves while condemning
others for also having a dual morality. “It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an
Arab girl.” (Muslim immigrant in Sweden, quoted in Swank, Jr., J.G., "Official Sweden Says
Muslim Rapes, Etc. = OK." CAGE, May, 23, 2006). Those who follow a dual morality are often
labeled “hypocrites,” suggesting they hold inconsistent positions, but that is true only of
egalitarians; the consistency is that the two moralities both increase their fitness. The Golden
Rule is a good example of mono-morality. Back
27. (Masters, 1995). The brain’s mirror neuron network responds differently to people who look
like us, suggesting a dual morality may have a genetic basis. (Molnar-Szakacs, 2007). Back
28. Civil rights worker Viola Liuzzo left her husband and five children in Michigan to protest in
Alabama, where she was murdered on March 25, 1965. Back
29. “One's 'neighbor praises selflessness because he derives advantage from it.” (Nietzsche).
Back
Chapter 37 - Which Way Western Man?

“Civilizations die from suicide, not murder."
Arnold Toynbee
When the environment changes, behavior that was so adaptive that it made a population
supreme may be so maladaptive that it leads them towards extinction. Such is the case with
whites, whose intra-group cooperation and altruism took them to the top, but now that they are
no longer isolated from other races, their altruism is their Achilles' heel, leaving them a mere
resource to be used by others. Yet changing their innate, now maladaptive, behavior may be
more difficult for them than watching their race disappear forever. To paraphrase Woody Allen’s
dark humor:
“We stand today at a crossroads: One path leads to a slow diminishment of our
numbers, a weakening of our ability to defend ourselves, and the likely extinction of
our people. The other leads to vicious conflicts with immense losses on all sides and
the possible extinction of our people. Let us hope we have the wisdom to make the
right choice.”
The decline of the West has been lamented, 1 but warnings go unheeded and we
continue to decline; indeed, our decline is accelerating. All the signs of a catastrophic collapse
are there, and getting worse all the time – financing current consumption by massive foreign
debt, lowering the national average IQ by subsidizing the reproduction of the less intelligent and
permitting them to enter the country (La Griffe du Lion, 2005), and wasting thousands of lives
and hundreds of billions of dollars on counterproductive military adventures. Struggle and
suffering can make a people great, but once they have achieved greatness they flee the caldron
that made them so, lose their edge, indulge in hedonism and baseness, and are no longer the
equal of those who begot them.
Today, white men in the military fight all over the world, but they do not fight for the one
thing that is most important to the survival of their kind – who impregnates their women. 2 They
not only condone the impregnation of white women by other races, 3 they not only facilitate it,
they actually celebrate it! Unless they throw off the shackles of egalitarianism and fulfill their
biological destiny, there will soon be no more white babies and no more whites.
Almost nothing is as maladaptive for whites as admitting non-white immigrants and
refugees into white homelands (Salter, 2002a), yet every year white elites in churches and
governments bring in tens of thousands of non-whites. Our territory is lost and our gene pool is
desecrated, a slow genocide of the white race, all so the white elites can gloat in their supposed
moral superiority.
The closer the West moves towards the precipice, 4 the more difficult it becomes to
reverse directions and save it. (Stang, A., "A Warning for America from South Africa," Nov. 6,
2008). The West is nominally democratic, and the best survival strategy in a democracy is to
form an interest group and vote yourself somebody else’s money. There are dozens of
coalitions of like-benefiting people – seniors for old-age benefits, blacks for affirmative action
and welfare, Jews for foreign aid and military support for Israel, trial lawyers for laws that benefit
plaintiffs, farmers for agricultural subsidies, manufacturers for tariffs on imports, and so on, with
the government taking a “handling fee,” which can amount to as much as 90% of the money
transferred. Each coalition is a small minority, but few politicians can afford to lose their votes or
campaign contributions, so the coalitions and their power increases. Everyone ends up putting
the interest of his own group first, until the system collapses. 5 Since no coalitions are permitted
to represent the interests of the whites who made the West – that would be racism – the only
solution is to reduce the power of government so that it can no longer take from one person and
give to another, but that is unlikely to happen. 6
Because whites are genetically programmed to be altruistic, it is difficult for them to
resist financing their own extinction. 7 Every year billions of dollars are transferred from whites
to blacks, 8 subsidizing blacks and their children while whites forego, postpone, or limit
childbearing because of the expense. These transfers consist not only of government welfare
payments, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, aid to schools and black organizations,
but international aid to Africa. In addition, individual whites make huge transfers of funds to
blacks in the form of donations to black organizations and scholarships, 9 and white businesses
lose money complying with affirmative action laws 10 and paying out damages for
discrimination. 11 A hidden cost, which extends indefinitely into the future, is the lost
opportunities that whites would have had to survive and propagate, had they helped themselves
and had not aided the survival and propagation of other races, all due to egalitarianism, the
greatest triumph of ideology over adaptation in man’s entire lineage. 12
A conquering tribe claims the territory, resources, and women 13 of the conquered. The
massive amount of wealth transferred from whites to blacks, the ubiquitous white women with
mulatto children, 14 and the tens of millions of Mexicans claiming most of the western states as
their own, are the proof that whites are the vanquished.
“…African-Americans … are clearly dominant over whites. There is a tremendous

and continuing transfer of property, land, and women from the subordinate race to
the dominant race.” (Whitney, 1999).
There is no doubt that whites, in their own homelands, could not be vanquished by other races,
if they only believed in their own right to exist and had the will to resist. It is their own
conscience, their own decency, that has brought them down. What better way is there to
destroy an enemy with a conscience than to convince him that he is the cause of the misery of
others and therefore should not survive? 15 Whites have been convinced that they are evil –
responsible for the poverty and suffering of others, the destruction of the environment, and the
carnage of wars. Even the crimes that other races commit against whites are blamed on whites
– those crimes are excused as justifiable reactions to the racism of whites. An unexpressed, but
critical, thought in the mind of a white about a non-white is a thought crime – proof that whites
oppress other races. Both mentally and physically, whites have been demonized, demoralized,
and disarmed by the relentless self-serving anger of non-whites and their fifth column allies,
white egalitarians. Since non-whites gain from the defeat of the whites, there is no one who can
or will save whites but themselves.
Are there populations living today that, unlike most whites, try to preserve themselves?
Yes, there are. In fact, every other population on the planet believes in its own goodness and
tries to preserve itself, but the population that has done so most effectively is, perhaps
surprisingly, the European Jews. They strongly discourage marriage to non-Jews, nor do they
proselytize to bring non-Jews into their genetic fold. They have strong in-group amity and out-
group enmity, a dual morality that is supported and justified by their religious rules, the Talmud,
16 and they support policies for white countries (multiculturalism, open immigration,
miscegenation, 17 civil rights) that weaken and divide their out-group, the non-Jews. 18 19 They
encourage their daughters to marry the most intelligent Jews and have many children, thereby
raising their average IQ to the highest of any population. 20 They have many cultural practices
that increase group coherence, including their own religion, language, holidays, rituals, and
even humor. They have their own clubs and organizations, even one for keeping Jewish
criminals out of jail (the “Alternative Sentencing Proposals” of the ALEPH Institute). Were whites
to emulate the European Jews, they would be unstoppable.
Neuroses, according to Karen Horney, (1945) are caused by unconscious conflicts. By
cowering before the Equality Police, whites have internalized a conflict between their innate,
now-subconscious ethnocentrism and their conscious thinking processes, which warn them that
any expression of their ethnocentrism is dangerous. Thus, they act according to their
ethnocentrism by avoiding other races, then use their conscious thinking to rationalize their
choices, i.e., they are hypocrites. 21 This is, of course, unhealthy, as a person who has internal
conflicts cannot function as well as a person who is of one mind. 22
There is some good news and some bad news. The good news is that the conflict will
end when reality so blatantly conflicts with conscious thinking that the conflict can no longer be
rationalized. At that time whites will have an epiphany and, in an exuberant feeling of joy and
freedom, they will throw off their false view of reality and openly embrace their ethnocentrism.
The epiphany will begin not with a few demoralized race realists on the fringes, who already
know the score, but with a well-respected and loved leader who will stand up and say the
obvious. There will be dead silence as whites wait for the Equality Police to push him down the
memory hole. 23 When that does not happen, other whites will quickly agree with him because
they have been waiting all their lives for a savior. The bad news is that whites may have to
suffer considerably more before this happens.
In the meantime, a little push here, a bit of a nudge there, can only bring that day closer.
David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary in Great Britain, now admits that multiculturalism is
not working. 24 Perhaps a prominent person in the US could do the same? (e.g., Putnam,
2007). A few college debates on the benefits of diversity, or the lack thereof, would be
refreshing. How about a study showing that white mothers of mulatto children feel alienated
from their children? 25 Or a bold statement by the CEO of a large company that a decline in IQ
is occurring and that it is not in the national interest? A moratorium on immigration, including
refugees, would probably be too much to hope for, but you never know. Or how about “Proud
and confident explicit assertions of ethnic identity and interests among white people, and the
creation of communities where such explicit assertions are considered normal and natural
rather than a reason for ostracism.” (MacDonald, 2006).
In the final analysis, the most valuable possession whites have is their genome. They
can lose territory and wealth but, if their genome is intact, they can survive and recover all that
they have lost. 26 In today’s times, however, it is racist and immoral for whites to love and
cherish their own racial uniqueness. So on to the precipice we go. It won’t be a pleasant
descent, but the wise and well-prepared will perhaps survive and, after much suffering, will rise
again.
I leave the reader with one last question to ponder: Suppose, hypothetically, of course,
that the information presented in this book is mostly correct, despite being extremely politically
incorrect, what action, if any, would he take?
Appendix
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. (Buchanan, P., The Death of the West, 2002; Brimelow, P., Alien Nation, 1995; Simpson,
2003). Back
2. The use of the word “their” is deliberate. Feminism teaches that women (and, presumably,
men) are autonomous beings who do not belong to anyone. Like all ideologies, that is a position
created by humans; it is not a fact that was discovered to be true in nature. Biology matches up
those males and females who are likely to have the greatest reproductive success. That is what
gives white males a claim to white females and vice versa. Feminism, like anti-racism, is
unnatural and maladaptive. Back
3. "In 2002-2003, 89% of white 18-25 year-olds agreed that it is okay for blacks and whites to
date each other." ("2006 Generation Next Study," Pew Research Center survey, 2007). Back
4. (Buchanan, P., Day Of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology and Greed Are Tearing America
Apart). Back
5. This is why multiculturalism is not compatible with democracy. (Sailer, 2005b). The war in
Bosnia and the current war in Iraq are good examples. Partitioning would greatly alleviate the
problems created by multiculturalism, but that would be an admission that people are not
identical and therefore are not interchangeable. Back
6. There are two political parties that oppose the vast power of government, the Libertarian
Party and the Constitution Party, but so far neither has had much success. However, “It is a
well-established finding that the more ethnically mixed a population becomes, the greater is its
resistance to redistributive policies.” (McDonald, 2006). Back
7. Without the altruism of whites, providing them with the benefits of white civilization, Africans
would have gone extinct long ago. Back
8. “Thirty-three percent of all black children (and their mothers) are now supported almost
entirely by the resource of genetically unrelated whites in the form of public assistance, rather
than by their biological parents.” (Levin, 1997, p. 188; also see pp. 115, 258-260). “There is a
steady flow of stolen resources from whites to blacks.” (id, p. 274). “In other words, each black
child received .6 x 26 = $15.60 in schooling from taxes paid by whites for every $1 he received
in schooling from taxes paid by blacks.” (id, p. 279). For whites, the abolition of slavery turned
blacks from assets into liabilities. The “Racial Ratio” is the ratio of the number of people (mostly
blacks and Hispanics) who benefit from affirmative action to the number of people (whites and
sometimes Asians) who lose out because of it. The Racial Ratio was about 8 whites per black in
1969, i.e., the burden of each black was shared by 8 whites, but in 2004 only about 2 whites
had to bear the burden of each black, and it continues to fall. (Sailer, S., “The Coming Diversity
Crack-Up: The Future of Racial Quotas,” The American Conservative, Aug. 11, 2003, and
Sailer, 2007e). Affirmative Action is a tax on whites. Back
9. Poor, mostly black students receive 20% of the tuition collected at major colleges. (Goldin,
1995). Bill and Melinda Gates, both of whom are white, have set aside $1,000,000,000.00 ($1
billion) through their foundation for scholarships for “minorities,” and many other well-off white
people have created similar scholarship funds with lesser amounts. Three-fourths of Federal
education money goes to the handicapped and “disadvantaged,” i.e., mostly blacks, and 0.02%
goes to gifted and talented programs, i.e., mostly whites. (Rubenstein, 2007). Thus, the
educatable are not educated because they are white, while a fruitless attempt is made to
educate the uneducatable because they are black. Back
10. (Brimelow, 1993) estimates the cost of Affirmative Action to the U.S. economy at "well over
$225 billion" per year, but a follow up study (Rubenstein, 2008) "puts the annual waste at over
$1.1 trillion dollars" per year. (Also see Stein, 2006; Brimelow, P., “Invisible Victims: White
Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action Revisited,” VDARE.com, Oct. 15, 2007). The 2008
credit crisis has also been blamed on Affirmation Action as banks for pressured to make loans
to minorities who were not credit-worthy. (Liebowitz, S., "House of Cards: Liberals Fueled Wall
St. Woes," New York Post, Sept. 24, 2008). Out-sourcing is another consequence of Affirmative
Action as companies send jobs overseas to avoid having to hire incompetent blacks. Strangely,
in countries where whites are not the majority, such as South Africa and Malaysia, the
Affirmative Action laws favor the non-whites who enact them - to the detriment of other non-
whites; it is only in countries run by whites that Affirmative Action laws penalize those who pass
the laws. Back
11. In 1996, blacks extorted $176 million from Texaco because an executive allegedly used the
word “nigger” in a conversation with other executives; an analysis of the tape showed that he
did not. (“Texaco Independent Investigator’s Report,” Court TV Online, Legal Documents, Nov.
11, 1996). Back
12. “According to Espenshade’s regression analysis of data from a dozen selective colleges, on
a 1600-point SAT scale, being black and Hispanic adds up to an advantage of 230 and 185
extra SAT points respectively.” (Dalmia, S., "Legacies of injustice: alumni preferences threaten
educational equity--and no one seems to care," Reason magazine, Feb. 1, 2008, p. 36). This is
another cost that whites impose on themselves. Back
13. “In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a
black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a
white man. What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white
women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.” (Auster, L., "The truth of interracial
rape in the United States," View from the Right, April 27, 2007, based on Department of Justice,
Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005). "Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted
me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man's law, upon his system of values, and
that I was defiling his women." (Eldridge Cleaver, Soul on Ice, McGraw-Hill, 1968, p. 14). Back
14. Black men have “a strong preference for meeting either white or Asian women.” (Fisman,
2008). Back
15. Mahatma Gandhi’s passive resistance defeated the British in India only because the British
had a conscience. Back
16. It is illegal in Israel, the only western nation with laws against miscegenation, i.e., the Jews
in Israel enact the same laws that the Jews in the United States did their best to abolish. (Gitlin,
2004). For 2000 years, only 1 in 200 matings within Jewish communities were with non-Jews.
(Hammer, 2000). Back
17. “When a Jew murders a gentile (Cuthean), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew
steals from a gentile he may keep.” (Talmud, Sanhedrin 57a). Back
18. E.g., Breeding Between the Lines by Jewish writer Alon Ziv, reviewed at (Richards, 2006).
Back
19. Living in an ethnically diverse environment causes people to mistrust everyone, withdraw
from friends, and stay home. “In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings
appear to ‘hunker down’—that is, to pull in like a turtle.” (Putnam, 2007). “It is well recognized in
the social sciences that ties, notably between kith, kin and co-ethnics, increase trust and
trustworthiness, and thus mitigate breach of agreement.” (Salter, 2002b). Back
20. Yet even very intelligent people can embrace policies that damage their interests. The Jews
support multiculturalism and open immigration as they fear living with a racially unified non-
Jewish majority, but now anti-Jewish Muslims are flooding into Europe and other countries. The
Chinese had a one-child policy to control an exploding population, but soon will have a million
men without wives (though this could be eugenic as it is mostly the uneducated men who
cannot find wives). (BBC News, Jan. 12, 2007). And the egalitarian policies enacted by whites
(e.g., Civil Rights, affirmative action, the No Child Left Behind Act (i.e., the No Black-White
Achievement Gap Act) all damaged white interests and left whites permanently supporting a
white-hating black population. Back
21. (Sailer, 2005a). When whites are shown photos of blacks for too short a time to register
consciously, brains scans (fmRI) show negative reactions. When the photos are shown long
enough to register consciously, the negative reactions decrease because whites consciously
censor themselves. (Richeson, 2003). White liberals are more hypocritical about race than
white conservatives. (MacDonald, 2006). Back
22. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." (Abraham Lincoln). Back
23. James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize (with others) in 1962 for finding the structure of
DNA, told a British newspaper (Oct., 2007) that blacks are less intelligent than whites, and all
hell broke loose. The Science Museum in London cancelled an over-sold lecture he was to give,
he was suspended from his job as director at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island,
and the Federation of American Scientists said he was promoting "personal prejudices that are
racist, vicious and unsupported by science." Did he cite the masses of data that support his
statement? No, he squirmed like a scolded child, then joined a long line of sniveling grovelers
who begged the Equality Police for absolution. (Sailer, 2007c; Bradley, 2008). Back
24. (Jones, G. “Multicultural Britain Is Not Working, says Tory Chief,” Telegraph, April 8, 2005;
Riley, 2006). Back
25. (Turner, L., “I love my mixed race baby – but why does she feel so alien?” Daily Mail, July
11, 2007). Barack Obama's mother married two non-white men, but she turned him over to her
parents to raise. Back
26. After Germany had been defeated in WWI and WWII, the Allies brought in Negro troops in
what seems to have been a deliberate effort to destroy the German genome. (Keeliing, 1947).
Back
Appendix Page 1 of 3
Appendix - DNA
DNA (“deoxyribonucleic acid”) is the carrier of genetic information in all living things
except for retroviruses (which use RNA instead). DNA is a polymer that is made by stringing
together various combinations of four different monomers called “nucleotides.” Each nucleotide
is made by reacting 1 three compounds: 2
(1) Phosphoric acid,
Phosphoric Acid
(2) deoxyribose,
Deoxyribose
and
(3) a pyrimidine or purine base.
The pyrimidines are the single-ring bases thymine (T) and cytosine (C):
Thymine Cytosine
The purines are the double-ring bases adenine (A) and guanine (G):
Adenine Guanine
http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/Appendix.html 07/09/2009
Figure App-1 (Wikipedia, “Gene”) shows two DNA strands (the “sense” strand that is
read and the complementary “anti-sense” strand), each strand in the figure having four
nucleotides. Each nucleotide is made up of three groups – a phosphate, a deoxyribose, and a
base; all four pairs of the possible base pairs, A-T, C-G, T-A, and G-C, are shown. Analogizing
to a ladder, the rails (“backbones”) of the ladder are formed by alternating phosphate and
deoxyribose groups and the rungs of the ladder are formed by a pair of bases. Adenine (“A”)
always bonds to thymine (“T”), and cytosine (“C”) always bonds to guanine (“G”), so all the
base pairs are either A-T or C-G. 3 Since A and G each have a single ring and C and T each
have two rings, there are always 3 rings separating the rails and not 2 rings or 4 rings. The
paired bases weakly bond the two rails together, so they can be easily separated when the
strands are read. 4 The two rails are reversed, one going from the 5’ end to the 3’ end and the
other from the 3’ end to the 5’ end. (The “5” and “3” come from counting clockwise around the
ribose ring, starting with the oxygen atom, “O.”) Note that there are two weak bonds (dotted
lines) between adenine (A) and thymine (T), but there are three weak bonds between cytosine
(C) and guanine (G); this gives the structure a slight twist, forming a double helix.
DNA
RNA (“ribonucleic acid”) is the same as DNA, but ribose replaces deoxyribose and
uracil replaces thymine:
Ribose Uracil
Since each nucleotide can be formed with one of four bases (A, C, G, or T), every
group of three adjacent nucleotides in the DNA sense strand will have one of 64 possible
combinations (4x4x4) of the four T-G-C-A bases. The three base pairs in those three
nucleotides (a “codon”) correspond to one of the 20 amino acids that are linked together to
form proteins. For example, the base sequence TGC codes for the amino acid cysteine, so
that when that codon (T-G-C) is read the amino acid cysteine will be added to the polypeptide
that is being formed. Since there are 64 different codons and only 20 different amino acids,
different codons may code for the same amino acid, i.e., those codons are “synonymous.” A
“gene” is a portion of the DNA sense chain that codes for a product, usually a polypeptide;
various polypeptides are then assembled to form different proteins.
Glossary
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTES
1. In the first reaction, a hydrogen atom (H) on one of the four bases, A, C, G, or T, combines
with a hydroxyl group (OH) on deoxyribose, bonding the base to the deoxyribose and forming
water (H-OH). In the second reaction, hydrogen atoms (H) from phosphoric acid combine with
the remaining two hydroxyl radicals (OH) on the deoxyribose, splitting out more water (H-OH)
and forming long strings of alternating phosphoric acid and deoxyribose groups (with bases
attached). Back
2. In the chemical formulas, the letters represent atoms of various elements. “H” is hydrogen,
“O” is oxygen, “C” is carbon, “N” is nitrogen, and “P” is phosphorus; a carbon atom is at every
vertex in the rings that is not occupied by an “N” or an “O.” Back
3. For that reason, a sense strand can be the same as its anti-sense strand read backwards,
e.g., ACCTAGGT and TGGATCCA, a palindrome. Many of the sequences on the Y
chromosome are palindromes, which is useful in making repairs. Back
4. Typically, the sense strand is read, but now scientists are finding that the anti-sense strand
can also be read. (Stark, 2008). Back
Glossary Page 1 of 5
Glossary 1
Adaptive – behavior or traits that increase fitness, the likelihood of passing on alleles.
Adult – an individual who is (or was) capable of reproducing.
Allele – a variety of a gene; the particular A-C-G-T sequence of a gene.
Allen’s Rule – mammals and birds from colder climates usually have shorter and bulkier limbs
than the equivalent animals from warmer climates.
Altruism – reducing individual fitness to increase inclusive fitness.
Amino acid – an organic compound that has at least one amine group (-NH2) and at least one
carboxylic acid group (-COOH). They are the monomers that link
together to form proteins.
Artifact – something made or used by long deceased humans.
Assortative mating – the tendency to mate non-randomly, typically with someone who is
similar.
Atavism – the expression of an allele that had been long ago turned off; a “throwback.”
Autosomes – chromosomes other than the X and Y chromosomes.
Balanced polymorphism – a situation where the optimal percentage of each of two or more
alleles of a gene in a population is greater than 0 and less than 100.
(Wikipedia, “Balancing Selection”). See “environmental heterogeneity,” “frequency-
dependant selection,” and “heterozygote advantage.”
Bergmann’s Rule – within a species, the body mass increases with latitude and colder climate.
Biogenetic Law – “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” i.e., the fetal stages of an organism
reveal its evolution. Formulated by Ernst Haeckel, it is now believed to
be more accurately stated as “Ontogeny recapitulates the fetal stages of phylogeny.”
Bipedal – walking on two feet.
BP – before present, taken as the year 1950.
Bottleneck – a large reduction in population size, followed by a large increase in their numbers.
Brachiator – an animal that moves through trees by swinging from its arms.
Brow ridge – a bony ridge over the eyes that strengthens the skull and protects the eyes.
Capoid – Bushmen and the remnants of the Hottentots, who presently reside near the Cape of
Africa.
Carrying capacity – the maximum biomass or number of individuals of a population that can
survive in a territory.
Chromosome – a strand of DNA entwined with a histone; it is passed on to the next generation
during fertilization.
Cline – a gradual change of the incidence of a trait between contiguous populations.
Coalescence – a reduction of genetic variety as one moves back in time.
Codon – three linked nucleotides that code for an amino acid.
Congoid – Africans who reside around the Congo River and Niger basins.
Copy number variant (CNV) – a difference in the number of copies of a string of DNA.
Cross-over – in a pair of chromosomes, the transfer of chunks of DNA from one chromosome
to the other during the preparation of an egg or sperm.
Culture – behavior that is not inherited.
DNA – deoxynucleic acid; a large polymer made by stringing together four nucleotides. It is a
carrier of hereditary information.
Junk DNA – nuclear DNA that does not code for a gene.
Mitochondrial DNA – DNA that is inside a mitochondrion.
Nuclear DNA – DNA that is inside a nucleus.
Y Chromosomal DNA – nuclear DNA that is in the Y chromosome, which males have
http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/Glossary.html 07/09/2009
and females do not have.

Drift – the tendency for a population that splits into two populations to become genetically
different.
Egalitarian – someone who believes that all people are essentially genetically the same and
therefore genetically equal; a bioegalitarian.
Environmental heterogeneity – a situation where the environment changes periodically and
having a trait that is partially
advantageous in each environment is more advantageous than having a trait that is
more advantageous in one environment and less advantageous in another,
i.e., where generalized is better than specialized.
Epicanthic fold – a fatty fold of skin over the upper portion of the eyes.
Epigenetics –the study of heritable changes in gene expression that are not due to changes in
DNA.
Equilibrium – the genome a population would have in a completely stable environment after an
infinite amount of time.
Erectine – having traits characteristic of Homo erectus.
Ethny – a group whose solidarity is based on common descent; a group in between blood
relatives and race.
Exaptation – using a trait to do something other than what it evolved to do.
Evolutionary psychology – the study of the selection of heritable behavior.
Fitness, inclusive – the likelihood of increasing the number of copies of an individual’s alleles in
the next generation.
individual – the likelihood of increasing the number of copies of an individual’s alleles in
the next generation by an individual himself reproducing.
Fixed – an allele is “fixed” in a population if everyone has it.
Frequency-dependant selection – a situation where having an allele is advantageous only if
less than a certain percentage of people in the population have it, e.g.,
sociopathy.
Founder effect – the lesser genetic diversity of a population that was founded by a sub-set of
another population.
FST - the numerical genetic distance or variaance between individuals or populations.
Gause’s Law of Competitive Exclusion – two subspecies of the same species do not for long
occupy the same territory.
Gene – a string of DNA that codes for one or more biologically useful molecules, usually
polypeptides.
Gene pool – a population’s combined genetic heritage.
Generalized – lacking traits for functioning better in particular environments.
Genetic distance – a measurement of the extent that the genetic material of an individual or
population differs from that of another individual or population.
Genetic drift – random changes in the genome of an isolated population.
Genetic similarity theory – the theory that people prefer mates, friends, etc. who are genetically
similar to themselves.
Genome – the full complement of heritable genetic information in an individual or a population.
Genotype – heritable genetic information.
Germline cell – an egg or sperm, or a cell that makes eggs or sperm.
Gloger’s rule – birds and mammals that live in a humid environment are more heavily
pigmented.
Gracile – having less bone and muscle; not robust.
Gyrus – (pl, gyri) the raised portions of the cerebral cortex in between sulci.
Haplogroup – a group of haplotypes.
Haplotype – a collection of alleles in a region of a single strand of a chromosome that are

inherited as a unit and are the same in most members of a population.
Heterozygote – an individual who receives different alleles of a gene from his mother and
father.
Heterozygote advantage – a situation where having one copy of an allele is advantageous, but
having two copies is not, e.g., sickle-cell anemia.
Histones – proteins that entwine the DNA strands in chromosomes.
Hitchhiking – an increase in the frequency on an allele because it is linked to an allele that is
being positively selected.
Holocene – the last 11,600 yrs.
Hominid – a bipedal primate.
Hominin – a member (living or extinct) of the genus Homo.
Hominoid – resembling or related to man.
Homo – the genus of man.
Homozygote – an individual who receives the same allele of a gene from both his mother and
his father.
Human – a member of the genus Homo.
Archaic – a member of the species Homo sapiens who is not yet anatomically modern.
Early – a member of the genus Homo but not the species sapiens.
Modern – a member of the sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens.
Hybrid – the offspring of two (genetically different) populations.
Introgression – the movement of an allele from one population into another population by
interbreeding.
Inversion – a rearrangement of a chromosome where a segment is reversed end-to-end. An
inversion occurs when a chromosome breaks and recombines in a
different arrangement.
Kinship – kinship (f) is half the value of the coefficient of relatedness (r), f = r/2.
Last Common Ancestor (LCA) – the LCA of two individuals (or two populations) is the most
recent individual (or population) that includes an ancestor of both of
them, aka Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA).
Lewontin’s fallacy – the assumption that because individuals within a population differ in their
alleles more than the average differences between races over all their
genes, the concept of “race” is meaningless.
Lineage sorting – the loss of an allele that occurs in a population when all the individuals who
have that allele fail to have any progeny. The Y chromosomes of males
are lost when they have no sons and the mtDNA of females is lost when they have no
daughters.
Locus (pl, Loci) – a particular base pair (nucleotide) in an identifiable string of DNA.
Macrohaplogroup – a group of haplogroups.
Maladaptive – behavior that reduces fitness. Melanin – a pigment that colors skin, hair, and
eyes, and protects against ultraviolet rays from the sun. There are two
primary pigments: Eumelanin – a dark brown or black pigment, and
Phenomelanin – a red-gold pigment.
Meme – an idea that induces those who believe it to engage in behavior to induce others to
believe it.
Mirror Neurons – neurons in the brain that enable a person to understand what another person
is feeling and empathize with him.
Monomer – a compound that can react with itself or a different monomer to form a polymer.
Mt. Toba – a volcano located in Indonesia that exploded 73,000 ya, darkening the atmosphere
and killing large numbers of humans in Europe and Asia, as well as
other species.
Multiculturalism – the doctrine that a desirable society consists of a mixture of many different
(and often conflicting) cultures, each legally equal and equally worthy.
Neoteny – the retention of childlike features (other than sexual features) into adulthood.
Neutral – having no effect; an allele is neutral if it changes no traits.
Nucleotide – a compound of phosphoric acid, a sugar (ribose for RNA and deoxyribose for
DNA), and one of five bases (adenine, cytosine, thymine, and uracil
for RNA and adenine, cytosine, thymine, and guanine for DNA).
Occipital bun – a bulge at the back of the skull, principally in Neanderthals.
Ontogeny – the developmental history of an organism from embryo to adult.
Peptide – a short string of amino acids linked together.
Phenotype – the traits expressed when genes are read.
Phylogeny – the evolutionary history of an organism.
Plasmid – circular DNA in mitochondria.
Pleistocene – the period from about 1.8 mya to about 11,600 ya.
Polymorphism – a gene having more than one allele.
Polypeptide – a string of linked peptides.
Population – a group of interbreeding individuals who have shared alleles that distinguish them
from other groups; a politically correct term for race or ethny.
Population genetics – the study of the distribution and frequency of alleles in different
populations and how they have changed over time.
Primate – a mammal that has five fingers, an opposable thumb, and fingernails.
Promiscuous altruism – altruism that is not limited to those who are closely genetically related
to the giver; sacrificing for others without regard to increasing one’s
own fitness.
Protein – a large polypeptide; a polymer formed from amino acids monomers.
Pseudogene – a gene that has been turned off.
Race – a group of individuals all expressing a set of independent genetically-controlled traits,
where that set is not possessed by individuals in other groups of that
species; a partly inbred extended family; a breed.
Race-denier – someone who denies the existence of biological human races.
Race-realist – someone who believes that there are racial differences that are real and
significant.
Random – not predictable by any rule.
Recombination – (1) the recombining of chromosomes from the egg and the sperm after
fertilization, thereby restoring the chromosome number that was halved
during meiosis; (2) the “undoing” of a mutation by one or more subsequent mutations
that restores the original condition; (3) the process in which two
pairs of chromosome combine and exchange pieces to form hybrid chromosomes
during the formation of an egg or a sperm cell (“cross-over”).
Relatedness – the coefficient of relatedness, r, is the portion of genes that two individuals
receive from their LCA; generally, r = (½)n, where “n” is the number of
generations between two related people.
Reproductive success – placing one’s alleles in the genome of the next generation.
Retrovirus – an RNA virus that converts its RNA to DNA when it infects a cell.
Endogenous – a retrovirus whose DNA has become part of its host’s germline.
RNA – ribonucleic acid, a large polymer identical to DNA, except that ribose replaces
deoxyribose and uracil replaces guanine.
Robust – having large bones and muscles; not gracile.
Saggital keel (or crest) – a bony ridge extending along the center of the top of the skull from
the forehead back for attaching chewing muscles and strengthening the
skull.
Selection – increasing or decreasing the frequency of a trait in a population according to
whether individuals who possess that trait have increased or decreased
reproductive success.
Selection pressure – the additional reproductive success that could be achieved by increasing
the frequency of an allele or combination of alleles in a population.
Selective sweep – the replacement of a group of alleles in a population when an advantageous
mutation occurs and the individual with that mutation is so
reproductively successful that not only does the new allele become common, but so do
his other alleles, even though they are not more advantageous.
Selector – any factor that increases or decreases an individual’s reproductive success
depending on whether or not he possesses a particular trait.
Sexual dimorphism – the extent that males differ from females, other than in genital or
reproductive traits.
Simian shelf – a bony reinforcing ridge behind the lower incisors.
SNP – single nucleotide polymorphism, a single base (A, C, G, or T) difference in a string of
DNA.
Sociobiology – the study of the biological basis for social behavior.
Specialized – having traits for superior functioning in particular environments.
Species – an interbreeding group of individuals who differ significantly from other interbreeding
groups within the same genus.
Sub-species – a race or a classification in between species and race.
Sulcus – (pl, sulci) a groove in the cerebral cortex of the brain.
Synonymous – having a different A-C-G-T sequence, but coding for the same amino acid.
Tajima’s D – a statistic used to infer whether positive selection of an allele has occurred.
Trait – a heritable property of a living thing; a phenotype.
Recommended Reading
Table of Contents
FOOTNOTE
1. For a technical glossary see THIS Back
Recommended Reading Page 1 of 1
Recommended Reading
Here are some of my favorite books on subjects in this book:
Which Way Western Man? by William Gayley Simpson.

This book, a literary classic by a founder of the ACLU and a Franciscan monk, is
elegantly written and full of the author’s wisdom, knowledge, and honesty. Although the book
was written 50 ya, the people then faced the same problems that we do today.
The March of the Titans by Arthur Kemp.

Is history dull? Well, this book is about the history of the white race and, if you are
white, it will help tell you who you are and how you came to be.
Why Race Matters by Michael Levin.

Written by a philosopher, this book makes tight and well-reasoned arguments for the
reality and importance of race.
On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration by Frank
Salter.
This book explains why racism is rational and in everyone’s genetic interest.
Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective by J. Philippe Rushton.

Rushton amasses data from many fields to make the case that the races have different
reproductive strategies. The blacks are the most “r” orientated (more kids, less care) and the
Asians the most “K” orientated (fewer kids, more care), with whites in between, but close to
Asians.
Race Differences in Intelligence by Richard Lynn.

The average IQ in nations all over the world is given and explained. Whites are in third
place, behind Jews and East Asians.
References
Table of Contents
http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/RecRead.html 07/09/2009
References Page 1 of 62
REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Aarssen, L.W.
(Nov. 26, 2007). Some bold evolutionary predictions for the future of mating in humans.
Oikos, 116(10):1768-1778.
Abernathy, V.
(Oct. 2006). Census Bureau Distortions Hide Immigration Crisis. Population-Environment
Balance.
Abner, A.,
Villarosa, L., & Beal, A. (1998). The Black Parenting Book. Broadway.
Abramson, L.
(Nov. 15, 2006). The ‘achievement gap’ gets wider, despite changes. All Things
Considered. NPR.
Achilli, A.,
Rengo, C., Battaglia, V. et al. (2005). Saami and Berbers – An unexpected mitochondrial
DNA link. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 76:883–886.
Adamowicz, S.J.,
Purvis, A., & Wills, M.A. (Mar. 17, 2008). Increasing morphological complexity in multiple
parallel lineages of the Crustacea. PNAS, 10:1073.
Adcock, G.J.,
Dennis, E.S., Easteal, S., Huttley, G.A., Jermiin, L.S., Peacock, W.J., & Thorne, A. (Jan.
16, 2001). Mitochondrial DNA sequences in ancient Australians: Implications for modern
human origins. PNAS, 98(2):537-542.
Adler, D.S.,
Bar-Oz, G., Belfer-Cohen, A., & Bar-Yosef, O. (Feb., 2006). Ahead of the game: Middle
and upper Paleolithic hunting behaviors in the southern Caucasus. Current Anthropology,
47(1).
Aiello, L.C.
& Dean, C. (1990). An Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy. Academic Press:
London.
Aiello, L.C.
& Wheeler, P. (1995). The expensive tissue hypothesis: the brain and the digestive
system in human and primate evolution. Current Anthropology, 36: 199-221.
Albu, J.,
Shur, M., Curi, M. Murphy, L. Heymsfield, S.B., & Pi-Sunyer, F.X. (1997). Resting
metabolic rate in obese, premenopausal black women. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 66:531-538.
Alesina, A.,
Easterly, W., & Matuszeski, J. (June, 2006). Artificial states. National Bureau of Economic
Research, Working Paper No. 12328.
Allaby, R.G.,
Fuller, D.Q., & Brown, T.A. (Sept. 16, 2008). The genetic expectations of a protracted
model for the origins of domesticated crops. PNAS, 105(37):13982-13986.
Allen, G.
(1987). Frequency of triplets and triplet zygosity types among U.S. births, 1964. Acta
Geneticae Medicae et Gemellologiae, 37:299-306.
Alles, D.L.
(2006). A review of current research on human evolution.
http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/Human_Evolution.pdf
http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/References.html 07/09/2009
Alliegro, M.C.,
Alliegro, M.A., & Plazzo, R.E. (June 5, 2006). Centrosome-associated RNA in surf clam
oocytes. PNAS, 103(24).
Allik, J.
& McCrae, R.R. (2004). Towards a geography of personality traits: patterns of profiles
across 36 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35:13-28.
Allman, W.F.
(1994) The Stone Age Present. Touchstone: NY.
Allocco, D.J.
et al. (2007). Geography and genography: prediction of continental origin using randomly
selected single nucleotide polymorphisms. BMC Genomics, 8:68.
Altheide, T.K.
& Hammer, M.F. (1997). Evidence for a possible Asian origin of YAP_ Y chromosomes.
Am J Hum Genet, 61:462–466.
Ama, P.F.M.
et al. (1986). Skeletal muscle characteristics in sedentary Black and Caucasian males.
Journal of Applied Physiology, 61:1758-1761.
Ama, P.F.M., & Ambassa, S. (1997). Buoyancy of African black and European white males.
American Journal of Human Biology, 9(1):87-92.
Ambrose, S.H.
(June, 1998). Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and
differentiation of modern humans. Journal of Human Evolution, 34(6):623-651.
Ananthaswamy, A.
& Douglas, K. (May 25, 2002). X-rated brains. New Scientist, Issue 2344.
Andreev, L.
(Aug. 29, 2004). Analysis of population pyramids. 2. UNEX Index and dynamics of
population pyramids. http://www.matrixreasoning.com/pdf/poppyrtwo.pdf.
Angier, N.
(Feb. 28, 1995). Orangutan hybrid, bred to save species, now seen as pollutant. New
York Times.
Anikovich, M.V.,
et al. (Jan. 12, 2007). Early Upper Paleolithic in Eastern Europe and implications for the
dispersal of modern humans. Science, 315(5809):223-226.
Anzai, T.
et al. (June 24, 2003). Comparative sequencing of human and chimpanzee MHC Class |
Regions unveils insertions/deletions as the major path to genomic divergence. PNAS, 100
(13):7708-7713.
Ardrey, R.
(1966). The Territorial Imperative: A Personal Inquiry into the Animal Oriqins of Property
and Nations. Atheneum.
Arnold, M.L.
& Meyer, A. (2006). Natural hybridization in primates: One evolutionary mechanism.
Zoology (Jena).
Arsuaga, J.L.
(2001). The Neanderthal’s Necklace: In Search of the First Thinkers. Four Walls Eight
Windows: NY.
Ash, J.
& Gallup Jr., G.G. (June, 2007). Paleoclimatic Variation and Brain Expansion during
Human Evolution. Human Nature, 18(2):109-124.
Asimov, I.
(1989). Chronology of Science & Discovery. Collins.
Bailey, R.
(Nov. 18, 2005). Discriminating medicine: Using race and ethnicity to improve medicare.
Reason Online.
Bailey, S.E.
(2002). A closer look at Neanderthal postcanine dental morphology: The mandibular
dentation. The Anatomical Record (New Anat.), 269:148–156.
Bakalar, P.
(2004). The IQ of Gypsies in Central Europe. Mankind Quarterly, 44(3&4):291-300.
Baker, J.R.
(1974). Race. Georgia: Foundation for Human Understanding with permission of Oxford
University Press, reprinted 1981.
Baker, R.
(2006). Sperm Wars: Infidelity, Sexual Conflict, and Other Bedroom Battles. Basic Books.
Bakewell, M.A.,
Shi, P., & Zhang, J. (May 1, 2007). More genes underwent positive selection in
chimpanzee evolution than in human evolution. PNAS, 104(18):7489-7494.
Balbirnie, C.
(Feb. 10, 2005). The icy truth behind Neanderthals. BBC News.
Balter, M.
(Nov. 25, 2005). Expression of endorphin gene favored in human evolution. Science, 310
(5752):1257.
Balter, M.
(Feb. 2, 2007). Small brains, big fight: ‘Hobbits’ called new species. Science, 315
(5812):583.
Bar-Haim, Y.,
Ziv, T., Lamy, D., & Hodes, R.M. (Feb., 2006). Nature and nurture in own-race face
processing. Psychological Science, 17(2):159-163.
Barash, D.P.
& Lipton, J.E. (1997). Making Sense of Sex. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
Barkow, J.H.
(1991). Darwin, Sex, and Status. University of Toronto Press.
Barkow, J.,
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the
Generation of Culture. Oxford University Press.
Barnouw, V.
(1982). An Introduction to Anthropology: Physical Anthropology and Archaeology, Vol. 1,
The Dorsey Press: Homewood, Illinois.
Barrai, I,
Rodriguez-Larralde, A., Manni, F., Ruggierio, V., Tartari, D., & Scapoli, D. (2003). Isolation
by language and distance in Belgium. Annuls of Human Genetics, 68:1-16.
Barreiro, L.B.,
Laval, G., Quach, H., Patin, E., & Quintana-Murci, L. (Feb. 3, 2008). Natural selection has
driven population differentiation in modern humans. Nature Genetics, online,
doi:10.1038/ng.78.
Basler, R.P. ed.
(1953). The Collected Works Of Abraham Lincoln. Rutgers University Press.
Baumann, S.
(Aug. 14, 2004). Gender, Complexion, and the Link Between Aesthetic and Moral
Boundaries: Content Analysis of Magazine Advertisements. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Hilton San Francisco &
Renaissance Parc 55 Hotel, San Francisco, CA.
Bazin, E.,
Glémin, S. & Galtier, N. (Apr. 28, 2006). Population Size Does Not Influence Mitochondrial
Genetic Diversity in Animals. Science, 312(5773):570-572.
Beals, K.L.
(1965). An introduction to anthropology, 3rd Ed. Allyn and Bacon: Boston, Mass.
Beals,
Smith, C. L. & Dodd, S. M. (1984). Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time
machines. Current Anthropology, 25:301-330.
Bean, R.B.
(1906). Some racial peculiarities of the Negro brain. American Journal of Anatomy, 5:353-
432.
Beard, K.C.
(Mar. 3, 2008). The oldest North American primate and mammalian biogeography during
the Paleocene– Eocene Thermal Maximum. PNAS, Online.
Begun, E.R.
(1997). Eurasian Origin of the Hominidae. American Journal of Physical Anthropology,
Supp. 24, pp.73-74.
Benfer, R.
(Apr., 2006). Presentation at Society for American Archeology, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Benjamin, J.,
Li, L., Patterson, C., Greenberg, B.D., Murphy, D.L., Hamer, D.H..(1996). Population and
familial association between the D4 dopamine receptor gene and measures of novelty
seeking. Nat. Genet., 12:81- 84.
Benveniste, R.E.
& Todaro, G.J. (May 13, 1976). Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian
origin of man. Nature, 261:101-108.
Bereczkei, T.,
Gyuris, P., & Weisfeld, G.E. (Jun. 7, 2004). Sexual imprinting in human mate choice. Proc.
Biol. Sci., 271:1129-34.
Bereczkei, T.,
Hegedus, G., & Hajnal, G. (Sept. 2, 2008). Facialmetric similarities mediate mate choice:
sexual imprinting on opposite-sex parents. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, Online.
Berger, L.R.,
Churchill, S.E., De Klerk, B., & Quinn, R.L. (2008). Small-Bodied Humans from Palau,
Micronesia. PLOS ONE, 3(3):e1780.
Bergman, J.
(Dec., 1998). Are wisdom teeth (third molars) vestiges of human evolution? TJ Archive, 12
(3):297-304.
Bermúdez de Castro, J.M.,
Arsuaga, J.L., Carbonell, E., Rosas, A., Martinez, I., & Mosquera, M. (1997). A Hominid
from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: Possible ancestor to Neanderthals and
modern humans. Science, 276:1392-1395.
Beyers, S.N.
(2007). Introduction to Forensic Anthropology, Third Ed., Allyn & Bacon.
Birdsell, J.B.
(1993). Microevolutionary Patterns in Aboriginal Australia: A Gradient Analysis of Clines
(Research Monographs on Human Population Biology). Oxford University Press.
Birkhead, T.
(2003). A Brand-New Bird. Basic Books.
Birney, E.
et al. (June 14, 2007). Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the
human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature, 447:799-816.
Bishop, N.A.
& Guarente, L. (May 31, 2007). Two neurons mediate diet-restriction-induced longevity in
C. elegans. Nature, 447:545-549.
Blain, J.
& Barkow, J.H. (1988). Father-involvement, reproductive strategies, and the sensitive
period. Sociobiology and Human Development, MacDonald, ed., pp.373-396. Garland:
NY.
Blumenstiel, J.P.
(Dec. 7, 2007). Sperm competition can drive a male-biased mutation rate. Journal of
Theoretical Biology, 249(3),624-632.
Boaz, N.T.
(1997). Eco Homo. Basic Books: NY.
Boaz, N.T.
& Ciochon, R.L. (2004). Dragon Bone Hill: An Ice-Age Saga of Homo erectus. Oxford
University Press.
Bolk, L.
(1926). Das Problem der Menschwerdung [The problem of human development]. Jena:
Gustav Fischer.
Bolton, J.S.
(1914). The Brain in Health and Disease. London.
Bonger, W.A.
(1948). Race and Crime. Columbia University Press.
Bornstein, M.H.,
Hahn, C-S., Belf, C., Haynes, O.M., Slater, A., Golding, J., Wolke, D., & ALSPAC Study
Team. (Feb., 2006). Stability in cognition across early childhood: A developmental
cascade. Psychological Science, 17:151.
Borst, R.A.
(Apr., 1986). Bring your skeleton to life. The Science Teacher.
Botting, K.
& Botting, D. (1995). Sex Appeal. London: Boxtree Ltd.
Bouchard, T.J., Jr,
Lykken, D.T., McGue, M., Segal, N.L., & Tellegen, A. (1990). Sources of human
psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. Science, 250:223–
228.
Bourgouin, S.
(1993). Serial killers; enquête sur les tueurs en série. Livre de poche.
Bower, B.
(Feb. 25, 2006). Big Woman with a Distant Past: Stone Age gal embodies humanity's cold
shifts. Science News Online, 169(8):116.
Bowles, S.
(Dec., 8, 2006). Group Competition, Reproductive Leveling, and the Evolution of Human
Altruism. Science, 314(5805):1569-1572.
Boyd, W.C.
& Asimov, I. (1955) Races and People. Abelard-Schumann: NY.
Brace, C. L.
(2000). Evolution in an Anthropological View. AltaMira Press.
Bradley, B.
& Stanford D. (2004). The North Atlantic ice-age corridor: A possible Paleolithic route to
the New World. World Archeology, 36:459-478.
Bradley, P.
(Feb. 12, 2008). Why Do Only Whites Lose Jobs Over Racial Remarks? VDARE.com.
Brain, C.K.
& Sillent, A. (Dec. 1, 1988). Evidence from the Swartkrans cave for the earliest use of fire.
Nature, 336:464-466.
Bramble, D.M.
& Llieberman, D.E. (Nov. 18, 2004). Endurance running and the evolution of Homo.
Nature, 432:345-352.
Brandt, T.
(1978). Growth dynamics of low birth weight infants with emphasis on the perinatal period.
Human Growth, Vol. 2, Falkner, F. & Tanner, J.M. (eds.), pp. 557-617. Plenum Press: NY.
Brésard, B.
& Bresson, F. (1983). Handedness in Pongo pygmaeus and Pan troglodytes. Journal of
Human Evolution, 12:659-666.
Briffault, R.
(1931). The mothers: the matriarchal theory of social origins. Macmillan: New York, NY.
Brimelow, P.
& Spencer, L. (Feb. 15, 1993). When quotas replace merit, everybody suffers. Forbes, pp.
80-102.
Broca, P.P.
(1858). Mémoire sur l’hybridité en général, sur la distinction des espèces animals et sur
les métis obtenus par le croisement du lièvre et du lapin. J. De la Physiol., 1:433-471 &
684-729.
Brody, N.
(1992). Intelligence. (2nd ed.) Academic: NY.
Brody, S.
(1997). Sex at risk: Lifetime number of partners, frequency of intercourse, and the low
AIDS risk of vaginal intercourse. Transaction Publishers.
Broom, R.
(1918) The evidence afforded by the Boskop skull of a new species of primitive man
(Homo capensis). Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History,
XXIII, Part II.
Brosnan, M.J.
(Nov., 2006). Digit ratio and faculty membership: Implications for the relationship between
prenatal testosterone and academia. British Journal of Psychology, 97(4):455-466.
Brown, G.L.,
et al. (1982). Crime Times, 1(1/2).
Brown, M.D.,
Hosseini, S.H., Torroni, A., Bandelt, H-J, Allen, J.C., Schurr, T.G., Scozzari, R., Cruciani,
F., & Wallace, D.C. (Nov., 25, 1998). mtDNA Haplogroup X: An Ancient Link between
Europe/Western Asia and North America? Am. J. Hum. Genet., 63:1852-1861.
Brown P.,
Sutikna, T., Morwood, M., Soejono, R.P., Jatmiko, Saptomo, E.W. et al. (2004). A new
small-bodied hominin from the late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia. Nature, 431:1055-61.
Bruder, C.E.G.,
et al. (2008). Phenotypically Concordant and Discordant Monozygotic Twins Display
Different DNA Copy- Number-Variation Profiles. The American Journal of Human
Genetics, Online.
Buck, T.J.
(Nov., 2004). A proposed method for the identification of race in sub-adult skeletons: a
geometric morphometric analysis of mandibular morphology. Journal of Forensic
Sciences, 29 (6).
Budiansky, S.
(1992). The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication. Morrow: New
York.
Bulmer, M.G.
(1970). The Biology of Twinning in Man. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Burmeister, H.
(1853). The black man. The comparative anatomy and psychology of the African Negro.
Evening Post.
Burdick, K.E.,
Lencz, T., Funke, B., Finn, C.T., Szeszko, P.R., Kane, J.M., Kucherlapati, R., &
Malhotra1, A.K. (2006). Genetic variation in DTNBP1 influences general cognitive ability.
Human Molecular Genetics, 15(10):1563-1568.
Burger, J.,
Kirchner,M., Bramanti, B., Haak, W. & Thomas M.G. (Mar. 6, 2007). Absence of the
lactase-persistence-associated allele in early Neolithic Europeans. PNAS, 104(10):3736-
3741.
Burton, M.L.,
Moore, C.C., Whiting, J.W.M., Romney, A.K., Aberle, D.F., Barcelo, J.A., Dow, M.M.,
Guyer, J.I., Kronenfeld, D.B., Levy, J.E., & Linnekin, J. (Feb., 1996). Current
Anthropology, 37(1):87- 123.
Buss, D.M.
(2005). The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind is Designed to Kill. Penguin Press.
Buss, D.M.
(2008). Attractive Women Want it All: Good Genes, Economic Investment, Parenting
Proclivities, and Emotional Commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1):134-146.
Butler, P.
(1995). Racially based jury nullification: Black power in the criminal justice system. Yale
Law Journal, 105:677-725.
Byer, S.N.
et al. (1997). Identification of Ero-Americans, Afro-Americans, and Amerindians from
palatal dimensions. The Journal of Forensic Science, 42(1):3-9.
Calvin, W.H.
(1991). Essays on the brain: The throwing Madonna.
http://williamcalvin.com/bk2/bk2ch1.htm
Cann, R.
(2002). Tangled genetic routes. Nature, 416(7):32-33.
Caramelli, D.,
Lalueza-Fox, C., Vernesi, C., Lari, M., Casoli, A., Mallegni, F., Chiarelli, B., Dupanloup, I.,
Bertranpetit, J., Barbujani, G., & Bertorelle, G. (May 27, 2003). Evidence for a genetic
discontinuity between Neandertals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans,
PNAS, 100(11):6593-6597.
Cardwell, D.
& Elliott, S. (Sept. 8, 2006). City ad firms agree to hire more black managers. New York
Times.
Cartwright, S.A.
(Nov. 10, 1857). Natural history of the prognathous species of man. New York Day- Book.
Caspari, R.
& Lee, S-H. (Jan. 27, 2004). Older age becomes common late in human evolution PNAS,
101 (30):10895-19000.
Caspi, E.,
et al. (Nov. 5, 2007). Moderation of breastfeeding effects on the IQ by genetic variation in

fatty acid metabolism. PNAS, 10:1073.
Castle,
W.E. (1930). Genetics and Eugenics. Harvard University Press, 4th Ed.
Caufield, P.W.,
Saxena, D., Fitch, D., & Li, Y. (2007). Population Structure of Plasmid-Containing Strains
of Streptococcus mutans, a Member of the Human Indigenous Biota. Journal of
Bacteriology, 189:1238- 1243.
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L.
(Nov., 1991). Genes, peoples and languages. Scientific American.
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L.,
Menozzi, P. & Piazza, A. (1994) The History and Geography of Human Genes, Princeton
University Press.
Chaimanee, Y.,
Suteethorn, V., Jintasakul, P., Vidthayanon, C., Marandat, B., & Jaeger, J-J. (Jan. 29,
2004). A new orangutan relative from the late Miocene of Thailand. Nature, 427:439-441.
Chandley, A.C.,
Short, R.V., & Allen, W.R. (Oct., 1975). Cytogenetic studies of three equine hybrids. J.
Reprod. Fertil. Suppl., 23:356-70.
Changizi, M.,
Zhang, Q. & Shimojo, S. (2006). Bare skin, blood, emotion, and the evolution of primate
color vision. Biology Letters 2.
Chapais, B.
(2008). Primeval Kinship: How Pair Bonding Gave Birth to Human Society. Harvard
University Press.
Charlton, B.G.
(2006). The rise of the boy-genius: psychological neoteny, science and modern life.
Medical Hypotheses, 67:679-681.
Chen, F.C.
& Li, W.H. (2001). Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the
effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Am. J.
Hum. Genet., 68(2):444-456.
Cheng, C.
(2006). Annual Main Meeting of the Society for Experimental Biology in Canterbury,
England.
Cheng, S.
& Powell, B. (Jan., 2007). Under and Beyond Constraints: Resource Allocation to Young
Children from Biracial Families. American Journal of Sociology, 112(4):1044–1094.
Chenn, A.
&Walsh, C.A. (July 19, 2002). Regulation of Cerebral Cortical Size by Control of Cell
Cycle Exit in Neural Precursors, Science, 297(5580):365-369.
Ch'eng-K'un, C. (Dec., 1946). Characteristic Traits of the Chinese People. Social Forces, 25(2)
146-155.
Childe, V.G. (Spring, 1965). Zimbabwean. Mankind Quarterly, V(4).
Choi, S.C.
& Trotter, M.A. (1970). Statistical study of the multivariate structure and race sex
differences of American White and Negro fetal skeletons. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, 33:307 312.
Choi, Y.
Harachi, T.W., Gillmore, M.R., & Catalano, R.F. (Jan., 2006). Are multiracial adolescents
at greater risk? Comparisons of rates, patterns, and correlates of substance use and
violence between monoracial and multiracial adolescents. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 76(1):86-97.
Chorney, M.J.,
Chorney, K., Seese, N., Owen, M.J., Daniels, J., McGuffin, P., Thompson, L.A.,
Detterman, D.K., Benbow, C., Lubinski, D., Eley, T., & Plomin, R. (1998). A quantitative
trait locus associated with cognitive ability in children. Psychological Science, 9:(3):1-8 &
159-166.
Chu, S.,
Hardaker, R., & Lysett, J.E. (May, 2007). Too good to be ‘true’? The handicap of high
socioeconomic status in attractive males. Personality and Individual Differences, 42
(7):1291-1300.
Clark, D.S.
et al. (June 12, 2003). Stratigraphic, chronological and behavioural contexts of
Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature, 423:747-752.
Clark, G.
(1969). World prehistory: A new outline. (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Clark, G.
(2007). A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World. Princeton University
Press.
Cochran, G.,
Hardy, J., & Harpending, H. (Sept., 2006). Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence.
Journal of Biosocial Science, 38(5):659-693.
Collard, M.
& Aiello, L.C. (Mar. 23, 2000). Human evolution: From forelimbs to two legs. Nature, 404:
339.
Connolly, C.J. (1950). External Morphology of the Primate Brain, Springfield, Ill.
Conroy, G.C.,
Vannier, M.W., & Tobias, P.V. (1990). Endocranial features of Australopithecus africanus
revealed by 2- and 3-D tomography. Science, 247:838-841.
Conti, B.
et al. (Nov. 3, 2006). Transgenic mice with a reduced core body temperature have an
increased life span. Science, 314(5800):825-828.
Cooley, D.R.
(2007). Deaf by Design: A Business Argument Against Engineering Disabled Offspring.
Journal of Business Ethics, 71:209-227.
Coon, C.S.
(1962). The Origin of Races. Alfred A Knopf: NY.
Cooper, A.,
Poinar, H.N., Pääbo, S.J., Radovcic, J., Debenath, A., Caparros, M., Barroso-Ruiz, C.,
Bertranpetit, J., Nielsen-Marsh, C., Hedges, R.E.M., & Sykes, B., (Aug. 22, 1997).
Neandertal genetics. Science, 277:1021–1023.
Cooper, N.,
Rodriguez, J., & Purvis, A., (Sept. 7, 2008). A common tendency for phylogenetic
overdispersion in mammalian assemblages. J. Pro. Roy. Soc. B, 275(1646).
Coppens, Y.
(2004). Human Origins: The Story of Our Species. Hachette Illustrated: UK.
Coppinger, R.
& Schneider, R. (1995). Evolution of working dogs. In J. Serpell (ed.), The Domestic Dog:
Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 21-47.
Coqueugniot, H,
Hublin, J.J., Veillon, F., Houët, F., & Jacob, T. (Sept. 16, 2004). Early brain growth in
Homo erectus and implications for cognitive ability. Nature, Letter, 431:299-302.
Corballis, M.C.
(1991). The Lopsided Ape: Evolution of the Generative Mind. Oxford University Press:
USA.
Cornwell, R.E.,
&a Perrett, D.I. (2008). Sexy sons and sexy daughters: the influence of parents' facial
characteristics on offspring. Animal Behaviour.
Cosgrove, L.,
Krimsky, S. Vijayaraghavan, M., & Schneider, L. (Spring, 2006). Financial ties between
DSM-IV panel members and the pharmaceutical industry. Psychotherapy and
Psychosomatics.
Coulthart, M.B.,
Posada, D., Crandall, K.A., & Dekaban, G.A. (2006). Infection, Genetics and Evolution,
6:91-96.
Crawford, M.A.,
Bloom, M., Broadhurst, L., Schmidt, W.F., Cunnane, S. C., Ghebremeskel, K., Linseisen,
F., Lloyd -Smith, J & Parkington, J. (2000). Evidence for the Unique Function of
Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) During the Evolution of the Modern Hominid Brain. Lipids,
34: S39-S47.
Crespi, B.,
Summers, K., & Dorus, S. (Sept. 4, 2007). Adaptive evolution of genes underlying
schizophrenis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Online.
Crew, F.A.E.
(1927). Heredity. London.
Cropley, J.E.,
Suter, C.M., Beckman, K.B., & Martin, D.I.K. (Nov. 14, 2006). Germ-line epigenetic
modification of the murine Avy allele by nutritional supplementation. PNAS, 103
(46):17308- 17312.
Cross, T.
& Slater, R.B. (Autumn, 1997). Special Report: Why the End of Affirmative Action Would
Exclude All but a Very Few Blacks from America's Leading Universities and Graduate
Schools. J. Blacks Higher Educ. No. 17, pp.8-17.
Cruciani, F.
et al. (2002). A back migration from Asia to sub-Saharan Africa is supported by high-
resolution analysis of human Y-chromosome haplotypes. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 70:1197-
1214.
Cruciani, F.
et al. (June 25, 2008). Genetic diversity patterns at the human clock gene period 2 are
suggestive of population-specific positive selection. European Journal of Human Genetics,
Online.
Cull, R.
(1850). Remarks on three Naloo Negro skulls. Journal of the Ethnological Society of
London, 2:238 -245.
Culotta, E.
(Oct. 26, 2007). Ancient DNA reveals Neanderthals with red hair, fair complexions.
Science, 318(5850):546-547.
Cunningham, W. A.,
Nezlek, J.B. & Banaji, M.R. (2004). Implicit and explicit ethnocentrism: Revisiting the
ideologies of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30:1332–1346.
Curnoe, D.,
& Thorne, A. (2003). Number of ancestral human species: a molecular perspective.
HOMO, 53 (3):201-224.
Curnoe, D.
& Tobias, P.V. (2006). Description, new reconstruction, comparative anatomy, and
classification of the Sterkfontein Stw 53 cranium, with discussions about the taxonomy of
other southern African early Homo remains. Journal of Human Evolution, 50:36-77.
Dabbs, Jr., J.M.
& Hargrove, M.F. (1997) Age, testosterone, and behavior among female prison inmates.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 59(5):477-480.
Dabbs, Jr., J.M.
& Milun, R. (1999). Pupil Dilation when Viewing Strangers: Can Testosterone Moderate
Prejudice? Social Behavior and Personality, 27:297-301.
Dabbs, Jr., J.M. & Dabbs, M.G. (2001). Heroes, rogues, & lovers: Testosterone and behavior.
MrGraw- Hill.
Dalley, J.W.
et al. (Mar. 2, 2007). Nucleus Accumbens D2/3 Receptors Predict Trait Impulsivity and
Cocaine Reinforcement. Science, 315(5816):1267-1270.
Daly, M.
& Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Aldine de Gruyter: NY.
Damasio, A.R.
(1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human Brain. Grosset/Putnam: NY.
Darwin, C.
(1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of
Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Darwin, C.
(1871) The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. D. Appleton & Co.: NY.
Davenport, C.B.
& Steggerda, M. (1970). Race Crossing in Jamaica. Greenwood Press Reprint, (N.e.of
1929 Ed edition).
David, H.
& Lynn, R. (2007). Intelligence Differences between European and Orienta Jews in Israel.
Journal of Biosocial Science, 39:465-473.
David, R.
& Collins, Jr., J. (July, 2007). Disparities in infant mortality: What’s genetics got to do with
it? Am. J. of Public Health, 97:1191-1197.
Davidenko, N.
(2007). Silhouetted face profiles: A new methodology for face perception research.
Journal of Vision, 7(4-6):1-17.
Davidson, L.E.
& Rodd, H.D. (2001). Interrelationship between dental age and chronological age in
Somali children. Community Dent. Health, 18:27-30.
Davies, P.
(Dec. 1, 2004). Tiny bones pose humanity’s big questions. Science & Theology News
Online.
Davis, B.D.
(1983). Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ and the press. The Public Interest, 74:41-59.
Davis, D.B.
(2006). Inhuman bondage: The rise and fall of slavery in the new world. Oxford University
Press.
Dawkins, R.
(1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Dawson, B.,
Iwamoto, C.K., Ross, L.P., Nungester, R.J., Swanson, D.B., Volle, R.L. (1994).
Performance on the National Board of Medical Examiners. Part I Examination by men and
women of different race and ethnicity. JAMA, 272(9):674-679.
Deaner, R.O.,
van Schaik, C.P., & Johnson, V. (2006). Do some taxa have better domain-general
cognition than others? A metaanalysis of nonhuman primate studies. Evolutionary
Psychology, 4:149-196.
Deaner, R.O.,
Isler, K., Burkart, J., & van Schaik, C. (2007). Overall Brain Size, and Not Encephalization
Quotient, Best Predicts Cognitive Ability across Non-Human Primates. Brain, Behavior,
and Evolution, 70:115-124.
Deary, I.J.,
Whalley, L.J., Lemmon, H., Crawford, J.R., & Starr, J.M. (Feb., 2000). The stability of
individual differences in mental ability from childhood to old age: follow-up of the 1932
Scottish Mental Survey, Intelligence, 28(1):49-55.
De Beer, G.R.,
(1951). Embryos and Ancestors. Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Dediu, D.
& Ladd, D.R. (May 30, 2007). Linguistic tone is related to the population frequency of the
adaptive haplogroups of two brain size genes, ASPM and Microcephalin. PNAS, 10:1073.
Deedrick, D.W.
& Koch, S.L. (Jan., 2004). Microscopy of Hair Part 1: A Practical Guide and Manual for
Human Hairs. Forensic Science Communications, 6(1).
Deka,
et al. (Feb., 1995). Population genetics of dinucleotide (dC-dA)n.(dG-dT)n polymorphisms
in world populations. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 56(2):461-74.
Demuth, J.P.,
De Bie, T., Stajich, J.E., Cristianini, N., Hahn, M.W. (2006). The evolution of mammalian
gene families. PLOS ONE, 1(1):e85.
Deng, C.,
Liu, C., Liu, C., Ao, H., Pan, Y., & Zhu, R. (2007). Magnetochronology of the Feiliang
Paleolithic site in the Nihewan Basin and implications for early human adaptability to high
northern latitudes in East Asia. Geophysical Research Letters, paper 10.1029.
Dennell, R.
& Roebroeks, W. (Dec. 22, 2005). An Asian perspective on early human dispersal from
Africa. Nature, 438:1099-1104.
Derbyshire, J.
(Oct. 21, 2006). Race and conservatism. New English Review.
Derenko, M.V.,
Grzybowski, T., Malyarchuk, B.A., Czarny, J., Miścicka-Śliwka, D., & Zakharov, I.A. (July,
2001). The presence of mitochondrial Haplogroup X in Altaians from South Siberia. Am. J.
Hum. Genet., 69(1):237–241.
Destro-Bisol, G.,
Maviglia, R., Caglia, A., Boschi, I., Spedini, G., Pascali, V., Clark, A., Tishkoff, S. (1999).
Estimating European admixture in African Americans by using microsatellites and a
microsatellite haplotype (CD4/Alu). Human Genetics, 104:149-157.
De Waal, F.
& Lanting, F. (1997). Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape. University of California Press.
Diamond, J.M.
(1986). Variation in human testis size. Nature, 320:488-489.

Dick, D.M, et al.
(Mar., 2007). Association of CHRM2 with IQ:Converging evidence for a gene influencing
intelligence. Behav. Genet., 37(2):265-272.
Ding, Y-C, et al.
(Jan. 8, 2002). Evidence of positive selection acting at the human dopamine receptor D4
gene locus. PNAS, 99(1):309-314.
Donohoe, J.
(Dec., 2003). Non-human primate handedness: The great apes. Historia & Ciencia,
Anthropologia, Primatologia.
Driscoll, C.A.
et al. (July 27, 2007). The Near Eastern origin of cat domestication. Science, 317:519-
523.
Duarte, C.,
Maurício, J., Pettitt, P.B., Souto, P., Trinkaus, E., van der Plicht, H., & Zilhão, J. (June 22,
1999). The early Upper Paleolithic human skeleton from the Abrigo do Lagar Velho
(Portugal) and modern human emergence in Iberia. PNAS, 96(13):7604-7609.
DuBois, W.E.B.
(1915). The Negro: Africa.
DuBois, W.E.B.
(June,1932). Black folk and birth control. Birth Control Review, 16(6).
Duckworth, W.L.H.
(1895). Variations in crania of Gorilla savagei. Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, 29.
Charles Griffen and Co.
Duffy, D.L.,
Montgomery, G.W., Chen, W., Zhao, Z.Z., Le, L., James, M.R., Hayward, N.K., Martin,
N.G., & Sturm, R.A. (2007). A Three–Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism Haplotype in Intron
1 of OCA2 Explains Most Human Eye-Color Variation. American Journal of Human
Genetics, 80:241- 252.
Dugdale, R.L.
(1877). The Jukes: A Study in Crime, Pauperism, Disease and Heredity.
Duranceaux, N.C.E.,
Schuckit, M.A., Mimy, Y., Eng, M.Y., Robinson, S.K., Carr, L.G., & Wall, T.L. (Sept.,
2006). Associations of variations in alcohol dehydrogenase genes with the level of
response to alcohol in non-Asians. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 30
(9):1451- 1631.
Dwyer, T.,
Blizzard, L., Ashbolt, R., Plulmb, J., Berwick, M., & Stankovich, J.M. (Apr., 2002).
Cutaneous melanin density of Caucasians measured by spectrophotometry and risk of
malignant melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. Am.
J. Epidemiol., 155: 614-621.
East, E.M.
& Jones, D.F. (1919). Inbreeding and Outbreeding, Lipppincott.
Eberhardt, J.L.
(Feb.-Mar., 2005). Imaging Race. American Psychologist, 60(2):181-190.
Eberhardt, J.L.,
Davies, P.G., Purdie-Vaughns, V.J., & Johnson, S.L. (May, 2006). Looking deathworthy:
Perceived stereotypicality of black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes.
Psychological Science, 17(5):383-386.
Edgar, H.
(Mar., 2005) Prediction of race using characteristics of dental morphology. Journal of
Forensic Sciences, 50(2).

Edmands, S.
(2007). Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and
outbreeding for conservation and management. Molecular Ecology 16(3):463–475.
Edwards, A.W.F.
(2003) Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy, an academic paper.
Eiberg, H.,
Troelsen, J., Nielsen, M., Mikkelsen, A., Mengel-From, J., Kjaer, K.W., & Hansen, L. (Jan.
3, 2008). Blue eye color in humans may be caused by a perfectly associated founder
mutation in a regulatory element located within the HERC2 gene inhibiting OCA2
expression. Human Genetics, Online.
Eichler, E.E.
(2006). Widening the spectrum of human genetic variation. Nature Genetics, 38:9-11.
Ekblom, R.
(2000). Inbreeding avoidance through mate choice. Evolutionary Biology Centre
Department of Population Biology, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Emery, N.J.
& Clayton, N.S. (Dec. 10, 2004). The mentality of crows: Convergent evolution of
intelligence in corvids and apes. Science, 306(5703):1903-1907.
Entine, J.
(2001). Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About
It. Public Affairs.
Eppinger, M.,
et.al. (July, 2006). Who ate whom? Adaptive Helicobacter genomic changes that
accompanied a host jump from early humans to large felines. PLoS Genet., 2(7):e120.
Eswaran, V.,
Harpending, H., Rogers, A.R. (July, 2005). Genomics refutes an exclusively African origin
of humans. Journal of Human Evolution, 49(1):1-18.
Etcoff, N.
(1999). Survival of the prettiest: The science of beauty. Doubleday: NY.
Etler, D.A.
(Oct., 1996). The fossil evidence for human evolution in Asia, Annual Review of
Anthropology 25:275-301.
Ettinger, B.,
Sidney S., Cummings, S.R., Libanati, C., Bikle, D.D., Tekawa, I.S., Tolan, K., & Steiger, P.
(1997). Racial differences in bone density between young adult black and white subjects
persist after adjustment for anthropometric, lifestyle, and biochemical differences. Journal
of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 82:429-434.
Evans, P.D.,
Anderson, J.R., Vallender, E.J., Gilbert, S.L., Malcom, C.M., Dorus, S., & Lahn, B.T. (Jan.
13, 2004). Adaptive evolution of ASPM, a major determinant of cerebral cortical size in
humans. Human Molecular Genetics Online, 13(5):489-494.
Evans, P.D.,
Gilbert, S.L., Mekel-Bobrov, N., Vallender, E.J., Anderson, F.R., Vaez-Azizi, L.M.,
Tishkoff, S.A., Hudson, R.R., & Lahn, B.T. (Sept. 9, 2005). Microcephalin, a Gene
Regulating Brain Size, Continues to Evolve Adaptively in Humans. Science, 309
(5741):1717-1720.
Evans, P.D.,
Mekel-Bobrov, N., Vallender, E.J., Hudson, R.R., & Lahn, B.T. (Nov. 7, 2006). Evidence
that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo
sapiens from an archaic Homo lineage. PNAS, 103:18178-18183.
Ewald, P.W.,
(1996). The Evolution of Infectious Disease. Oxford University Press.
Farkas, L.G.
(1981). Anthopometry of the head and face in medicine. Elsevier Science, NY.
Farron, S.
(2005). The Affirmative Action Hoax: Diversity, the Importance of Character And Other
Lies. Seven Locks Press. Reviewed by (Jobling, I., "The Affirmative Action Hoax, Inverted
World, Aug. 8, 2008).
Faulkner, J.,
Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Duncan, L. A. (2004). Evolved disease-avoidance mechanisms
and contemporary xenophobic attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7
(4):333–353.
Ferguson, W.W.
(Jan., 1989). Reappraisal of the taxonomic status of the cranium Stw 53 from the
Plio/Pleistocene of Sterkfontein, in South Africa. Primates, 30(1):103-109.
Filler, A.G.
(2007a). The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species. New Page Books.
Filler, A.G.
(Oct. 10, 2007b). Homeotic Evolution in the Mammalia: Diversification of Therian Axial
Seriation and the Morphogenetic Basis of Human Origins. PLOS ONE, 2(10):e1019.
Fincher, C.L.,
Thornhill, R., Murray, D.R., & Schaller, M. (Feb. 26, 2008). Pathogen prevalence predicts
human cross-cultural variability in individualism/collectivism. Proceeding of the Royal
Society, Online.
Fink, B.
(1997). Neanderthal Flute: Musicological Analysis. http://www.greenwych.ca/fl-compl.htm
Fink, B.,
Neave, N., & Seydel, H. (Jan./Feb., 2007). Male facial appearance signals physical
strength to women. American Journal of Human Biology, 19(1):82-87.
Finlay, B.L.,
Darlington, R.B., Nicastro, N. (2001). Developmental structure in brain evolution. Behavior
and Brain Science, 24(2):263-278.
Finlayson, C.,
et al. (Sept. 13, 2006). Late survival of Neanderthals at the southernmost extreme of
Europe. Nature, 443:850-853.
Fisher, H.
(1992). The Anatomy of Love: The Natural History of Monogamy, Adultery, and Divorce.
W.W. Norton.
Fisher, R.A.
(1958). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (2nd ed.). Dover: NY.
Fisman, R.
& Iyengar, S.S. (2008). Racial Preferences in Dating, Review of Economic Studies,
75:117-132.
Fitzpatrick, J.W.
et al. (Jun. 3, 2005). Ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) persists in
continental North America. Science, 308(5727):1460-1462.
Florida, R.
(Oct., 2006). Where the brains are. Atlantic Monthly, pp. 34-36.
Flynn, J. R.
(1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932-1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95:
29.
Flynn, J.R.
(1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: what IQ tests really measure. Psychological
Bulletin. 101:171-191.
Foley, R.
(1995). Humans before Humanity. Massachusetts: Blackwell Pub.
Fonda, R.A.
(2000). Human Origins. www.rafonda.com.
Fonda, R.A.
(Winter, 2001). Age and origin of the human species. Mankind Quarterly, 42(2):189-199.
Fonseca, I.
(1996). Bury Me Standing: The Gypsies and Their Journey. Vintage: NY.
Fraga, M.F.,
et al. (2005). Epigenetic differences arise during the lifetime of monozygotic twins. PNAS,
102:10413-10414.
Frayer, D.W.
(1992).Evolution at the European edge: Neanderthal and Upper Paleolithic relationships,
Prehistoire Europeenne, 2:9-69.
Freedman, D.G.
& Freedman N.C. (Dec. 20, 1969). Behavioral differences between Chinese-American and
European-American Newborns. Nature, 224:1227.
Freedman, B.I.,
et al. (April, 2007). A leucine repeat in the carnosinase gene CNDP1 is associated with
diabetic end-stage renal disease in European Americans. Nephrology Dialysis
Transplantation, 22: 1131-1135.
Freedman, M.L.,
(2006). Admixture mapping identifies 8q24 as a prostate cancer risk locus in African-
American men. PNAS, 103:14068-14073.
Freeth, T.
et al. (Nov. 30, 2006). Decoding the ancient Greek astronomical calculator known as the
Antikythera Mechanism. Nature, 444:587-591.
Friedlaender, J.S.,
Friedlaender, F.R., Hodgson, J.A., Stoltz, M., Koki, G., Horvat, G., Zhadanov, S., Schurr,
T.G., & Merriwether, D.A. (Feb. 28, 2007). Melanesian mtDNA complexity. PLOS ONE, 2
(2):e248.
Frost, P.
(2005). Fair Women, Dark Men: The Forgotten Roots of Racial Prejudice. Cybereditions.
Frost, P.
(Mar., 2006). European hair and eye color - A case of frequency-dependent sexual
selection? Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(2):85-103.
Fryer, R.G.
& Levitt, S.D. (Mar., 2006). Testing for racial differences in the mental ability of young
children. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 12066.
Fuerle, R.D.
(1986). The Pure Logic of Choice. Vantage Press: NY.
Fuerle, R.D.
(2003). Natural Rights: A New Theory. Xlibris.
Galdikas, B.M.F.
(1995). Reflections of Eden: My Tears with the Orangutans of Borneo. Little, Brown: NY.
Gale, C.R.,
O’Callaghan, F.J., Bredow, M., Martyn, C.N., & the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents
and Children Study Team. (Oct., 2006). The influence of head growth in fetal life, infancy,
and childhood on intelligence at the ages of 4 and 8 years. Pediatrics, 118(4):1486-1492.

Galloway, A.
(2005). The characteristics of the skull of the Boskop physical type, American Journal of
Physical Anthropology, 23:1.
Gardner, A.,
West, S.A., & Barton, N.H. (Feb., 2007). The relation between multilocus population
genetics and social evolution theory. American Naturalist, 169:207-226.
Garrett, H.E.
(July, 1960). A review: Klineberg’s chapter on Race and Psychology. Mankind Quarterly, 1
(1).
Garrigan, D.,
Mobasher, Z., Severson, T., Wilder, J.A., & Hammer, M.F. (Oct. 13, 2005). Evidence for
Archaic Asian Ancestry on the Human X Chromosome. Mol. Biol. Evol., 22:189-192.
Garrigan, D.,
Kingan, S.B., Pilkington, M.M., Wilder, J.A., Cox, M.P., Soodyall, H., Strassmann, B.,
Destro-Bisol, G., de Knijff, P., Novelletto, A., Friedlaender, J., & Hammer, M.F. Inferring
Human Population Sizes, Divergence Times and Rates of Gene Flow From Mitochondrial,
X and Y Chromosome Resequencing Data. (Dec., 2007). Genetics, 177(4):2195-2207.
Garte, S.
et al. (2001). Metabolic gene polymorphism frequencies in control populations. (Dec.,
2001). Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 10:1239-1248.
Garver-Apgar, C.E.,
Gangestad, S.W., Thornhiif, R. Miller, R.D., & Olp, J.J. (Oct., 2006). Major
histocompatibility complex alleles, sexual responsivity, and unfaithfulness in romantic
couples. Psychological Science, 17:830.
Gates, C.E.,
(Sept, 1922). The Polynesians: Caucasians of the Pacific. The Scientific Monthly, 15
(3):257- 262.
Gawande, A.
(Dec. 27, 2004) The bell curve for doctors. Gene Expression.
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003384.html
Gayre, R.
(Jan.-Mar.,1967). Negrophile Falsification of Racial History. Mankind Quarterly, VII(3).
Geber, M.
(1958). The psychomotor development of African children in the first year and the
influence of maternal behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 47:185-195.
Gebo, D.L.,
MacLatchy, L., Kityo, R., Deino, A., Kingston, J., & Pilbeam, D. (Apr. 18, 1997). A
Hominoid Genus from the Early Miocene of Uganda. Science, 276(5311):401-404.
Gebo, D.L.
(2004). A shrew-sized origin for primates. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 47:40-62.
Gee, H.
(Feb., 13, 1992). Statistical Cloud over African Eden, Nature, 355:583
Getahun, D.,
Ananth, C.V., Selvam, N., & Demissie, K. (2005). Adverse perinatal outcomes among
interracial couples in the United States. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 106:81-88.
Gibbons, A.
(Mar. 11, 2005). Skeleton of upright human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia. Science, 307
(5715):1545.
Gibbs, G.D.
(1865). [Comments on]: On the Essential Differences Observable between the Larynx of
the Negro and That of the White Man. Journal of the Anthropological Society of London,
3:cxxv- cxxviii.
Gillespie, D.O.S.,
Russell, A.F., and Lummaa, V.(Jan. 22, 2008). When fecundity does not equal fitness:
evidence of an offspring quantity versus quality trade-off in pre-industrial humans.
Proceeding of the Royal Society B. Online.
Gimelbrant, A.,
Hutchinson, J.N., Thompson, B.R., & Chess, A. (Nov.16, 2007). Widespread Monoallelic
Expression on Human Autosomes. Science, 318:1136-1140.
Gitlin, J.
(Mar. 25, 2004). They talk of change, but liberal parties thwart reform of Israel’s marriage
laws. Jewish Telegraph Agency.
Glad, J.P.
(2006). Future of Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century. Hermitage
Publishers: PA.
Gobineau, A.
(1853-1855). Essai sur L’inégalité des Races Humaines. Paris: Didot. Gore (1996).
Godinho, V.M.
(1983). Os descobrimentos e a economia mundial, volume 4, 2nd ed. Lisbon: Presenc¸a
Editors.
Goebel, T.,
Waters, M.R., & Rouke, D.H. (Mar. 14, 2008). The Late Pleistocene Dispersal of Modern
Humans in the Americas. Science, 319(5869):1497-1502.
Goff, P.A.,
Eberhardt, J.L., Williams, M.J., & Jackson, M.C. (Feb., 2008). Not yet human: Implicit
knowledge, historical dehumanization, and contemporary consequences. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2):292-306.
Goldin, D.
(Mar. 22, 1995). Increasing, those paying full tuition are supporting their poorer peers.
New York Times, B7.
Goldsmith, T.H.
(July, 2006). What birds see. Scientific American.
Gonzaga, G.C.,
Haselton, M.G., Smurda, J., Davies, M., & Poore, J.C. (Mar., 2008). Love, desire, and the
suppression of thoughts of romantic alternatives. Evolution & Human Behavior, 29(2):119-
126.
González, A.M.,
et al. (2003). Mitochondrial DNA Affinities at the Atlantic Fringe of Europe. Am. J. Phys.
Anthro.; 120:391-404.
Goodall, J.
(1977). Infant killing and cannibalism in free-living chimpanzees. Folia Primatologica;
International Journal of Primatology, 28(4):259-289.
Goodyear III, A.C.
(Nov. 17, 2004). New evidence puts man in North America 50,000 years ago. News
Release, Topper Site, Allendale County, SC.
Goos, L.
& Silverman, I. (July, 2006). The inheritance of cognitive skills: Does genomic imprinting
play a role? Journal of Neurogenetics, 20(1-2):19-40.
Gordon, A.D.,
Nevell, L. & Wood, B. (Mar. 20, 2008). The Homo floresiensis cranium (LB1): Size,
scaling, and early Homo affinities. PNAS, Online 105:4650-4655.
Goren-Inbar, N.,
Alperson, N., Kislev, M.E., Simchoni, O., Melamed, Y., Ben-Nun, A., & Werker, E. (Apr.
30, 2004). Evidence of hominin control of fire at Gesher Benot Ya`aqov, Israel. Science,
304(5671):725-727.
Gosso, M.F.,
van Belzen, M., de Geus, E.J., Polderman, J.C., Heitink, P., Boomsma, D.I., & Posthuma,
D. (Nov., 2006). Association between the CHRM2 gene and intelligence in a sample of
304 Dutch families. Genes Brain Behavior, 5(8):577-584
Gottfredson, L.S.
(1997a). Editorial: Mainstream science on intelligence. Intelligence, 24:13-24.
Gottfredson, L.S.
(1997b). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24(1):79-132.
Gottfredson, L.S.
(1999). The general intelligence factor. Scientific American Presents “Exploring
Intelligence,” p 24.
Gottfredson, L.S.
(Apr. 4, 2004a). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability. In C. E.
Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais.
(pp. 433- 456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers.
Gottfredson, L.
& Deary, I.J. (2004b). Intelligence predicts health and longevity, but why? Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1):1-4.
Gowlett, J.A.J.,
Harris, J.W.K., & Wood, B.A. (Nov. 12, 1981). Early archaeological sites, hominid remains
and traces of fire from Chesowanja, Kenya. Nature, 294:125-129.
Gowlett, J.A.J.,
Harris, J.W.K., & Wood, B.A. (Apr. 29, 1982). Early archaeological sites, hominid remains
and traces of fire from Chesowanja, Kenya (reply). Nature, 296:870.
Goymer, P.
(Feb., 2007). Synonymous mutations break their silence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 8:92.
Graglia, L.A.
(Summer, 1998). The “affirmative action” fraud. Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law.
54:31.
Grant, M.
(1970). Passing of the Great Race, Or, the Racial Basis of European History. Ayer Co
Pub; Reprint edition.
Gray-Little, B.
& Hafdahl, A.R. (Jan., 2000). Factors influencing racial comparisons of self-esteem: A
quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1):26-54.
Greene, J.P.
& Forster, G. (Sept., 2003). Public High School graduation and college readiness rates in
the United States. Education Working Paper, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
Grehan, J.R.
(2006). Mona Lisa smile: The morphological enigma of human and great ape evolution.
Anat. Rec. (Part B: New Anat.) 289B, pp. 139-157.
Greife, H.
(1999) Jewish-Run Concentration Camps in the Soviet Union. The Truth At Last.
Griffin, A.S.,
West, S.A., & Buckling, A. (Aug. 26, 2004). Cooperation and competition in pathogenic
bacteria. Nature, 430:1024-1027.
Grooms, R.M.
(Oct., 1995). Dixie’s censored subject – Black slave owners. The Barnes Review, No. 13.
Grundy, E.
(Sept. 12, 2006). Childless women risk poorer health in later life. Economic and Social
Research Council Press Release.
Guilherme, A.
& Pacheco, F. (Apr., 2002). CCR5 receptor gene and HIV infection. CDC National Office
of Public Health Genomics.
Guillén, A.,
Barrett, G.M., Takenaka, O. (Aug, 2005). Genetic diversity among African great apes
based on mitochondrial DNA sequences. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14(9):2221-2233.
Guthrie, R.D.
(May 11, 2006). New carbon dates link climatic change with human colonization and
Pleistocene extinctions. Nature, 441:207-209.
Gutiérrez, G.,
Sánchez, D., & Marín, A. (2002). A Reanalysis of the Ancient Mitochondrial DNA
Sequences Recovered from Neandertal Bones. Molecular Biology and Evolution,
19:1359-1366.
Hagelberg, E.
(2003). Recombination or mutation rate heterogeneity? Implications for mitochondrial Eve.
Trends in Genetics, 19:84-90.
Haier, R. J.,
Siegel, B. V., Nuechterlein, K. H., Hazlett, E., Wu, J. C., Paek, J., Browing, H. L., &
Buchsbaum, M. S. (1988). Cortical glucose metabolic rate: correlates of abstract
reasoning and attention studied with positron emission tomography. Intelligence, 12:199-
217.
Haier, R. J.,
Siegel, B., Tang, C., Abel, L., & Buchsbaum, M. S. (1992). Intelligence and changes in
regional cerebral glucose metabolic rate following learning. Intelligence, 16:415-426.
Haier, R. J.
(1993). Cerebral glucose metabolism and intelligence. In Vernon, P. A. (Ed.). The
biological basis of intelligence, Norwood: Ablex, pp. 317-332.
Hall, A.
(Nov. 8, 1999). The Latest Neanderthal. Scientific American.
Hall, E.R.
(Oct. 1960). Zoological subspecies of man. Mankind Quarterly, 1(2).
Hall, H.I.
et al. (Aug. 6, 2008). Estimation of HIV Incidence in the United States. JAMA, 300:520-
529.
Hamilton, W.D.
(1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior I and II, Journal of Theoretical Biology,
7:1-52.
Hamilton, W.D.
(1975). Innate social aptitudes of man: An approach from evolutionary genetics. In Narrow
roads of gene land Vol. 1: Evolution of social behaviour, pp. 315-352. W. H. Freeman:
Oxford.
Hammer, M.F.,
Karafet, T., Rasanayagam, A., Wood, E.T., Altheide, T.K., Jenkins, T., Griffiths, R.C.,
Templeton, & A.R., Zegura, S.L. (1998). Out of Africa and back again: nested cladistic
analysis of human Y chromosome variation. Mol. Biol. Evol., 15:427–441.
Hammer, M.F.,
et al. (2000). Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of
Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes. PNAS, 97:6769-6774.

Hammer, M.F.,
Karafet, T.M., Redd, A.J., Jarjanazi, H., Santachiara-Benerecetti, S., Soodyall, H., Zegura,
S.L. (2001). Hierarchical patterns of global human Y-chromosome diversity. Mol. Biol.
Evol., 18:1189–1203.
Hanihara, T.
(2000). Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology, 111:105-134.
Hanihara, T.
& Ishida, H. (2005). Metric dental variation of major human populations. American Journal
of Physical Anthropology, 128(2):287-298.
Hanna, Z.,
Cheung, E., & Jolicoeur, P. (June, 4-9, 1989). Molecular characterization of the human
CD4 gene. Int. Conf. AIDS, (abstract no. T.C.O.32), 5:520.
Hanson, P.,
Magnusson, S.P., & Simonsen, E.B. (1998). Differences in Sacral Angulation and Lumbo-
sacral Curvature in Black and White Young Men and Women. Acta Anatomica, 162:226-
231.
Hanson, P.,
Magnusson, S.P., Sorensen, H., & Simonsen, E.B. (1999). Anatomical differences in the
psoas muscle in young black and white men. Journal of Anatomy, 194:303-307.
Harden, K.P.,
Turkheimer, E., Emery, R.E., D'Onofrio, B.M., Slutske, W.S., Heath, A.C., & Martin, N.G.
(2007). Marital conflict and conduct problems in children of twins. Child Develop., 78(1):1–
18.
Harding, R.M.
(Mar. 16, 1999). More on the X files. PNAS, 96(6):2582-2584.
Harding, R.M.,
Healy, E., Ray, A.J., Ellis, N.S., Flanagan, N., Todd, C., Dixon, C., Sajantila, A., Jackson,
I.J., Birch-Machin, M.A., & Rees, J.L. (2000). Evidence for Variable Selective Pressures at
MC1R. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66:1351-1361.
Hardy, J.,
Pittman, A., Myers, A., Gwinn-Hardy, K., Fung, H.C., de Silva, R., Hutton, M., &
Duckworth, J., (2005). Evidence suggesting that Homo neanderthalensis contributed the
H2 MAPT haplotype to Homo sapiens. Biochem. Soc. Trans., 33:582-585.
Harmon, A.
(Sept. 3, 2006). Couples cull embryos to halt heritage of cancer. New York Times.
Harmon, E.H.
(Feb., 2007). The shape of the hominoid proximal femur: a geometric morphometric
analysis. Journal of Anatomy, 210(2):170–185.
Harpending, H.C.,
Batzer M.A., Gurven M., Jorde L.B., Rogers, A.R., & Sherry S.T. (1998a). Genetic traces
of ancient demography. PNAS, USA, 95:1961-1967.
Harpending, H.C.,
Batzer, M.A., Gurven, M., Jorde, L.B., Rogers, A.R., & Sherry, S.T. (April, 1998b). Archaic
African and Asian lineages in the genetic ancestry of modern humans. American Journal
of Human Genetics, 60(4):772-89.
Harpending, H.C.
(Dec. 23, 2002) Did early humans mate with the locals? Human genome data cast doubt
on ‘Replacement Theory” of human evolution. News Release, University of Utah.
Harpending, H.C.
& Cochran, G. (Mar., 2006). Genetic diversity and genetic burden in humans. Infect
Genet. Evol., 6(2):154-162.
Harris, E.E.
& Hey, J. (Mar. 16, 1999). X chromosome evidence for ancient human histories. PNAS,
96(6):3320-3324.
Harris, E.F.
(July, 1990). Tooth Mineralization Standards for Blacks and Whites from the Middle
Southern United States. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 35(4).
Harris, J. A.,
Rushton, J.P., Hampson, E., & Jackson, D. N. (1996). Salivary testosterone and self-
report aggressive and pro-social personality characteristics in men and women.
Aggressive Behavior, 22: 321-331.
Harrison, G.A.
& Owen, J.J.T. (1964). Studies on the inheritance of human skin colour. Ann. Hum.
Genet., 28:27–37.
Harrison, T.
(Nov., 1986). New fossil anthropoids from the middle Miocene of East Africa and their
bearing on the origin of the oreopithecidae. American Journal of Physical Anthropology,
71(3): 265-284.
Hart, M.H.
(2007). Understanding Human History. Washington Summit Publishers: Georgia.
Harvati, K.
Frost, S.R., & McNulty, K.P. (Jan. 26, 2004). Neanderthal taxonomy reconsidered:
Implications of 3D primate models of intra- and interspecific differences. PNAS, 101:1147-
1152.
Hawkes, J.
& Cochran, G. (2006). Dynamics of adaptive introgression from archaic to modern
humans. PaleoAnthropology, pp. 101-115.
Hawkes, J.,
Wang, E.T., Cochran, G.M., Harpending, H.C., & Moyzis, R.K. (2007) Recent acceleration
of human adaptive evolution. PNAS, 104: 20753-20758.
Hawkes, K.,
O’Connell, J.F., Jones, N.G.B., Alvarez, H., & Charnov, L. (1998, current to 2006).
Grandmothering, menopause, and the evolution of human life histories. PNAS, 95:1136-
1139.
Hay, J.M.,
Subramanian, S. Millar, C.D., Mohandesan, E. & Lambert D.M. (2008). Rapid molecular
evolution in a living fossil. Trends in Genetics, 24(3):103-109.
Hayes, J.D.,
Imbrie, J. & Shackleton, N.J. (1976). Variations in the earths orbit: pacemaker of the ice
ages. Science, 194:1121-1131.
Haywood, J.
(2000). The Illustrated History of Early Man. PRC Pulbishing Ltd.: London.
Heatherton, E.M.
(1972). Effects of father absence on personality development in adolescent daughters.
Developmental Psychology, 7:313-326.
Hecht, J.
(June 17, 2005). Donkey Domestication Began in Africa. New Scientist.
Heizmann, E.P.J.
& Begun, D.R. (2001). The oldest Eurasian hominoid. Journal of Human Evolution, 41:5.
Helgadottir, A.
et al. (2006). A variant of the gene encoding leukotriene A4 hydrolase confers ethnicity-
specific risk of myocardial infarction, Nature Genetics, 38:68–74.
Helgason, A.,
Pálsson, S., Guðbjartsson, D.F., Kristjánsson, þ., & Stefánsson, K. (Feb. 8, 2006). An
Association Between the Kinship and Fertility of Human Couples. Science, 319:813-816.
Hemmingsson, T.,
Melin, B., Allebeck, P., & Lundberg, I. (2006). The association between cognitive ability
measured at ages 18-20 and mortality during 30 years of follow-up--a prospective
observational study among Swedish males born 1949-51. Int. J. Epidemiol., 35(3):665-
670.
Henneberg, M.
& Steyn, M. (May 27, 2005, Online). Trends in cranial capacity and cranial index in
Subsaharan Africa during the Holocene. American Journal of Human Biology, 5(4):473-
479.
Henshaw, S.K.
& O’Reilley, K. (1983). Characteristics of Abortion Patients in the United States, 1979 and
1980, Family Planning Perspectives, 15(1):5-16.
Herrick, C.H.
(1956). The Evolution of Human Nature. University of Texas Press.
Herring, C.D.
et al. (Dec. 1, 2006). Comparative genome sequencing of Escherichia coli allows
observation of bacterial evolution on a laboratory timescale. Nature Genetics, 38:1406-
1412.
Herrnstein, R.J.
& Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.
Simon & Schuster: NY.
Himes, J.H.
(1988). Racial variation in physique and body composition. Canadian Journal of Sport
Science, 13:117-126.
Hinds, D.A.,
Kloek, A.P., Jen, M., Chen,X., & Frazer, K.A. (2006). Common deletions and SNPs are in
linkage disequilibrium in the human genome. Nature Genetics, 38:82-85.
Hirschfeld, L.A.
(1996). Race in the making: Cognition, culture, and the child’s construction of human
kinds. MIT Press: Cambridge.
Hittinger, C.T.
& Sean B. Carroll, S.B. (Oct. 11, 2007). Gene duplication and the adaptive evolution of a
classic genetic switch. Nature, 449:677-681.
Hobolth, A.,
Christensen, O.F., Mailund, T., & Schierup, M.H. (Feb. 23, 2007). Genomic relationships
and speciation times of human, chimpanzee, and gorilla inferred from a coalescent hidden
Markov model. PNAS Genetics, 3(2):e7.
Hoffecker, J.F.
(2002). Desolate Landscapes: Ice-Age Settlement in Eastern Europe. Rutgers University
Press.
Hoffecker, J.F.
(2007). Upper pleistocene loess stratigraphy and paleolithic site chronology on the
Russian plain. Geoarchaeology, 2(4):259-284.
Hogan, J.
et al. (Oct. 2-5, 2001). China’s Energy Efficiency Design Standard for Residential
Buildings in the “Hot Summer/Cold Winter” Zone. Proceeding of the 4th International
Conference on Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation and Energy Conservation in Buildings. p.

573, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Holland, T.D.,
O’Brien, M.J., & Fessler, D.M. (2003). On morning sickness and the Neolithic revolution.
Current Anthropology, 44:707–711.
Holliday, T.W.
(1999). Brachial and crural indices of European Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic
humans, Journal of Human Evolution, 36:549-566.
Holloway, A.
(May, 1996). Race and health. American Renaissance, 7(5).
Holloway, R.L.
(1981). Culture, symbols, and human brain evolution. Dialectical Anthropology, 5:287-
303.
Holmes, S.J.
(1927). The Low Sex Ratio in Negro Births and Its Probable Explanation. Biological
Bulletin, pp. 325-329.
Hooton, E.
(1939). Crime and the Man. Harvard University Press.
Hopkins, W.D.,
Bard, K.A., Jones, A., & Bales, S. (1993). Chimpanzee hand preference for throwing and
infant cradling: Implications for the origin of human handedness. Current Anthropology. 34
(5): 786–790.
Hopkins, W.D.,
Stoinski, T.S., Lukas, K.E., Ross, S.R., & Wesley, M.J. (Sept., 2003). Comparative
Assessment of Handedness for a Coordinated Bimanual Task in Chimpanzees (Pan
troglodytes), Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla), and Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Journal of
Comparative Psychology, 117(3):302-308.
Horney, K.
(1945). Our Inner Conflicts: A Constructive Theory of Neurosis. W.W. Norton & Co.: NY.
Horowitz, D. L.
(1985). Ethnic Groups in Conflict. University of California Press: Berkeley.
Hotz, R.L.
(Mar. 3, 2000). Ancient tools compel a new look at the pace of human development in
Asia, The Los Angeles Times; Record edition.
Howard, C.
(1979). Zebra: The True Account of the 179 Days of Terror in San Francisco. Richard
Marek Publishers.
Howells, W.W.
(1948). Mankind So Far. Doubleday Doran: NY.
Howells, W.W.
(1959). Mankind in the Making. Doubleday & Company, Inc.: NY.
Howells, W.W.
(1989). Skull Shapes and the Man., Cambridge: Mass., Peabody Museum of Archaeology
and Ethnology.
Hrdy, S.B.,
& Whitten, P.L. (1987). Patterning of sexual activity. In Primate Societies, ed. B. Smuts et
al., 370-384. University of Chicago Press.
Hu, S.,
et al. (2006). Comparison of stage at diagnosis of melanoma among Hispanic, black, and
white patients in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Arch. Dermatol., 142:704-708.
Hublin, J-J.,
Barroso-Ruiz, C., Medina-Lara., P., Fontugne, M., & Reyss, J.-L. (1995). The Mousterian
site of Zafarraya (Andalucía, Spain): Dating and implications on the Paleolithic peopling
processes of Western Europe. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 321:931-937.
Hudjashov, G.,
Kivisild, T., Underhill, P.A., Endicott, P., Sanchez, J.J., Lin, A.A., Shen, P. Oefner, P.
Renfrew, C., Villems, R., & Forster, P. (May 22, 2007). Revealing the prehistoric
settlement of Australia by Y chromosome and mtDNA analysis, PNAS, 104(21):8726-
8739.
Hudson, A. I.
& Holbrook, A. (1982). Fundamental frequency characteristics of young black adults:
Spontaneous speaking and oral reading. Journal of speech and Hearing Research, 25:25-
28.
Hui, S.L.,
Dimeglio, L.A., Longcope, C., Peacock, M., McClintock, R., Perkins, A.J., & Johnston, Jr.,
C.C. (2003). Difference in bone mass between Black and White American children:
Attributable to body build, sex hormone levels, or bone turnover? Journal of Clinical
Endocrinology & Metabolism, 88:642–649.
Hunt, J.
(1864). The Negro’s Place in Nature. Van Evrie, Horton & Co.: New York, reprinted by
Cornell University Library Digital Collections.
Hunter, J.E.
& Hunter, R.F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance.
Psychological Bulletin, 96:72–98.
Ingman, M.
& Gyllensten, U. (2003). Mitochondrial genome variation and evolutionary history of
Australian and New Guinean aborigines. Genome Research, 13:1600-1606.
Irish, J.D.
(1998). Characteristic high- and low-frequency dental traits in sub-Saharan African
populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 102(4):455-467.
Irish, J.D.
& Steinberg, D.G. (Aug., 2003). Ancient teeth and modern human origins: An expanded
comparison of African Plio-Pleistocene and recent world dental samples. Journal of
Human Evolution, 45(2):113-144.
Irmak, M.K.,
Korkmaz, A., Erogul, O. (2004). Selective brain cooling seems to be a mechanism leading
to human craniofacial diversity observed in different geographical regions. Medical
Hypotheses, 63(6):974-979.
Irving, D.,
(1996). Nuremberg: The Last Battle. Focal Point.
İşcan, M.Y.
(Oct., 1983). Assessment of race from the pelvis. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol., 62(2):205-208.
İşcan, M.Y.
et al. (Mar., 1987). Racial variation in sternal extremity of the ribs and its effect on age.
The Journal of Forensic Science, 32(2):452-466.
Isler, K.
& van Schaik, C.P. (Dec. 22, 2006). Metabolic costs of brain size evolution. Biology
Letters, 2(4):557-560.
Jablonski, N.G.
& Chaplin, G. (July, 2000). The evolution of human skin coloration, J. Hum. Evol., 39(1):
57-106.
Jablonski, N.G.
(2006). Skin: A Natural History. University of California Press.

Jackson, D.N.
& Rushton, J.P. (2006). Males have greater g: Sex differences in general mental ability
from 100,000 17- to 18-year-olds on the Scholastic Assessment Test. Intelligence,
34:479-486.
Jackson, Jr., J.P.
(2004). The scientific defense of racial segregation, 1954-1964. American Psychologist
59:530-537.
Jackson, P.L.,
Meltzoff, A.N., & Decety, J. (Feb. 1, 2005). How do we perceive the pain of others? A
window into the neural processes involved in empathy. Neuroimage, 24(3):771-779.
Jacob, S.,
McClintock, M.K., Zelano, B., & Ober, C. (2002). Paternally inherited HLA alleles are
associated with women’s choice of male odor. Nature Genetics, 30:175 – 779.
Jaeger, J-J,
Thein, T., Benammi, M., Chaimanee, Y., Soe, A.N., Lwin, T., Tun, T., Wai, S., & Ducrocq,
S. (Oct. 15, 1999). A new primate from the Middle Eocene of Myanmar and the Asian
early origin of anthropoids. Science, 286(5439):528-530.
Jaeger, J-J,
Thein, T., Benammi, M., Chaimanee, Y., Soe, A.N., Lwin, T., Tun, T., Wai, S., & Ducrocq,
S. (Oct. 15, 1999). A new primate from the Middle Eocene of Myanmar and the Asian
early origin of anthropoids. Science, 286(5439):528-530.
Janeka, J.E.,
Miller, W., Pringle, T.H., Wiens, F., Zitzmann, A., Helgen, K.M., Springer, M.S., & Murphy,
W.J. (Nov. 2, 2007). Molecular and Genomic Data Identify the Closest Living Relative of
Primates, Science, 318(5851):792-794.
Jaynes, G.D.
& Williams, Jr., R.M. (1989). A Common Destiny: Blacks and American Society. National
Academy Press: Washington, D.C.
Jensen, A.R.
(1974a). Interaction of level I and level II abilities with race and socioeconomic status.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 66:99-111.
Jensen, A.R.
(1974b). Cumulative deficit: A testable hypothesis? Developmental Psychology, 10
(6):996-1019.
Jensen, A.R.
(1977). Cumulative deficit in IQ of Blacks in the rural South. Developmental Psychology,
13(3):184-191.
Jensen, A.R.
(1980). Bias in Mental Testing. The Free Press: NY.
Jensen, A.R.
(1982). The debunking of scientific fossils and straw persons. Contemporary Education
Review, 1(2):121-135.
Jensen, A.R.
(1998). The g Factor. Praeger: Connecticut, USA.
Jensen-Seaman, M.
(June, 2000). Western and Eastern Gorillas: Estimates of the Genetic Distance. Gorilla
Journal, 20:21-23.
Jeon, J.
& Buss, D.M. (Feb. 27, 2007). Altruism towards cousins. Proc. R. Soc. B, 274:1181–1187.
Jerison, HJ,
(1973). Evolution of the brain and intelligence. Academic Press: NY.

Jiménez-Espejo, F.J.,
Martínez-Ruiz, F., Finlayson, C., Paytan, A., Sakamoto, T., Ortega-Huertas, Finlayson, G.,
Iijima, K., Gallego-Torres, D., & Fa, D. (April, 2007). Climate forcing and Neanderthal
extinction in Southern Iberia: insights from a multiproxy marine record. Quaternary
Science Reviews, 26(7-8):836-852.
Johnston, H.H.
(1910). The Negro In the New World. Macmillan: New York.
Johnston, V.S.
(Jan., 2006). Mate choice decisions: the role of facial beauty. Trends in cognitive
sciences, 10(1):9-13.
Jones, G.
& Schneider, W.J. (2006a). Intelligence, human capital, and economic growth: A Bayesian
averaging of classical estimates (BACE) approach. Journal of Economic Growth, 11
(1):71-93.
Jones, G.
(2006b). Are smarter groups more cooperative? Evidence from prisoner’s dilemma
experiments, 1959-2003.
Joyner, K.
& Kao, G. (Aug., 2005). Interracial relationships and the transition to adulthood. American
Sociological Review, 70(4):563-581.
Juurikkala, O.
(Jan. 24, 2007). Making kids worthless: Social Security's contribution to the fertility crisis.
Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Online.
Kalb, C.
& Murr, A. (May 15, 2006). Battling a black epidemic. Newsweek Health.
Kamboh, M.I.,
Sanghera, K.K., Mehdi, H., Nestlerode, C.S., Chen, Q., Khalifa, O., Naqvi, A., Manzi, S., &
Bunker, C.H. (2004). Single nucleotide polymorphisms in the coding region of the
Apolipoprotein H (ß2-Glycoprotein I) gene and their correlation with the protein
polymorphism, Anti-ß2Glycoprotein I antibodies and cardiolipin binding: Description of
novel haplotypes and their evolution. Annuls of Human Genetics, 68(4).
Kanazawa, S.
& Kovar, J. (2004). Why beautiful people are more intelligent. Intelligence, 32:227-243.
Kanazawa, S.
(2006). No, it ain’t gonna be like that. Evolutionary Psychology, 4:120-128.
Kanazawa, S.
(Nov., 2006). Mind the gap…in intelligence: Re-examining the relationship between
inequality and health. British Journal of Health Psychology, 11(4):623-642.
Kanazawa, S.
(Jan. 7, 2007). Beautiful parents have more daughters: A further implication of the
generalized Trivers–Willard hypothesis (gTWH). Journal of Theoretical Biology, 244
(1):133- 140.
Kaplan, G.
& Rogers, L.J. (2000). The Orangutans: Their evolution, behavior, and future. Perseus:
Cambridge, MA.
Kaplowitz, P.B.,
Slora, E.J., Wasserman, R.C., Pedlow, S.E., & Herman-Giddens, M.E. (Aug. 2, 2001).
Earlier onset of puberty in girls: Relation to increased Body Mass Index and race.
Pediatrics, 108(2):347-353.
Kappelman, J.,
Alçiçek, M.C., Kazanc , N., Schultz, M., Özkul, M., & en, . (Jan., 2008). First Homo erectus
from Turkey and implications for migrations into temperate Eurasia. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology, 135(1):110-116.
Kashtan, N,
Noor, E., & Alon, U. (2007. Varying environments can speed up evolution. PNAS, 104(34):
13711-13716.
Kealey, T.
(Apr. 3, 2006). Why is a woman’s brain smaller than a man’s. Maybe because she’s a fox.
www.timesonline.co.uk.
Keeley, L.H.
(1996). War Before Civilization. Oxford University Press.
Keeling, R.F.
(1947). Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War Against the German People. The
Truth At Last: GA.
Keller, C.C.,
Kremsner, P.G., Hittner, J.B., Misukonis, M.A., Weinberg, J.B., Perkins, D.J. (2004).
Elevated Nitric Oxide Production in Children with Malarial Anemia: Hemozoin-Induced
Nitric Oxide Synthase Type 2 Transcripts and Nitric Oxide in Blood Mononuclear Cells.
Infect. Immun. 72:4868-4873.
Keller, A.,
Zhuang, H., Chi, Q., Vosshall, L.B., & Matsunami, H. (Sept. 27, 2007). Genetic variation in
a human odorant receptor alters odour perception. Nature, 449:468-472.
Kellis, M.
(2008). A single Hox locus in Drosophila produces functional microRNAs from opposite
DNA strands. Genes & Development, 22:8-13.
Kelly, D.J.,
Quinn, P.C., Slater, A.M., Lee, K., Gibson, A., Smith, M., Liezhong, G., Pascalis, O. (Nov.,
2005). Three-month-olds, but not newborns, prefer own-race faces. Developmental
Science, 8(6): F31–F36.
Kemp, A.
(2006). March of the Titans: A History of the White Race. Ostara Publications: Iowa.
Kennedy, G.E.
(Mar., 1984). The emergence of homo sapiens: The post cranial evidence. Man, New
Series, 19(1):94-110.
Kiang, L,
Yip, T., Gonzales-Backen, M. Witkow, M. Fulign, A. (Sept.-Oct., 2006). Ethnic identity and
the daily psychological well-being of adolescents from Mexican and Chinese
backgrounds. Child Development, 77(5):1338.
King, T.E.,
Bowden, G.R., Balaresque, P.L., Adams, S.M., Shanks, M.E., & Jobling, M.A. (Apr.,
2007). Thomas Jefferson's Y chromosome belongs to a rare European lineage. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology, 132(4):584-589.
Kiontke, K.,
Barrière, A., Kolotuev, I., Podbilewicz, B., Sommer, R., Fitch, D.H.A., & Félix, M-A. (2007).
Trends, stasis, and drift in the evolution of nematode vulva development. Current Biology,
17:1925-1937.
Kirsanow, P.
(June 27, 2006). Affirmative damage. National Review Online.
Kistka, Z.A-F.,
Palomar, L. Lee, K.A., Boslaugh, S.E., Wangler, M.F., Cole, F.S., DeBaun, M.R., &
Muglia, L.J. (2007). Racial disparity in the frequency of recurrence of preterm birth.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 196(2):131.e1-131.e6.

Kittler, R.,
Kayser, M., & Stoneking, M. (2003). Molecular evolution of Pediculus humanus and the
origin of clothing. Current Biology, 13:1414-1417.
Klein, J.
& Takahata, N. (2002). Where do we come from? The molecular evidence for human
descent. Springer-Verlag.
Kleindienst, M.R.
(1975). On new perspectives on ape and human evolution. Current Anthropology, 18
(4):644-651.
Kleinfeld, J. S.
(1971). Visual memory in village Eskimo and urban Caucasian children. Arctic, 24:132-
138.
Klitgaard, R.
(Apr., 1985). Choosing Elites. Basic Books.
Knafo, A.,
et al. (2007). Individual differences in allocation of funds in the dictator game associated
with length of the arginine vasopressin 1a receptor RS3 promoter region and correlation
between RS3 length and hippocampal mRNA. Genes, Brain and Behavior, (Online).
Knight, A.
et al. (Mar. 18, 2003). African Y chromosome and mtDNA divergence provides insight into
the history of click languages, Current Biology, 13:464-473.
Knutson, B.,
Wimmer, G.E., Kuhnen, C.M., & Winkielman, P. (Mar. 26, 2008). Nucleus accumbens
activation mediates the influence of reward cues on financial risk taking. Neuroreport, 19
(5):509- 513.
Kobayashi, H.
& Kohshima, S. (May, 2001). Unique morphology of the human eye and its adaptive
meaning: comparative studies on external morphology of the primate eye. Journal of
Koger, L.
(1985). Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860.
University of South Carolina Press. Reviewed by Wilson, W.S. (May, 1996). The Color of
Slavery, American Renaissance, 7(5).
Köhler, M.
& Moyà-Solà, S. (Oct., 1997). Ape-like or hominid-like? The positional behavior of
Oreopithecus bambolii reconsidered. PNAS, 94:11747-11750.
Komura, D.
et al. (Dec., 2006). Genome-wide detection of human copy number variations using high-
density DNA oligonucleotide arrays. Genome Res., 16:1575 – 1584.
Korbel, J.O.
et al. (Sept. 27, 2007). Paired-End Mapping Reveals Extensive Structural Variation in the
Human Genome. Science Express Online.
Kordos, L.
(2000). New results of hominoid research in the Carpathian Basin. Acta Biologica, 44(1-4):
71-74.
Krause, J.,
Orlando, L., Serre, D., Viola, B., Prüfer, K., Richards, M.P., Hublin, J-J. Hänni, C.,
Derevianko, A.P., & Svante Pääbo. (Oct. 18, 2007a). Neanderthals in Central Asia and
Siberia. Nature, 449:902-904.
Krause, J.
(Nov. 6, 2007b). The Derived FOXP2 Variant of Modern Humans Was Shared with
Neandertals. Current Biology, 17:1908-1012.
Krings, M.,
Stone, A., Schmitz, R.W., Krainitzki, K., Stoneking, M., & Paabo, S. (July 11, 1997).
Neandertal DNA sequences and the origins of modern humans. Cell, 90:19-30.
Krings, M.,
Geisert, H., Schmitz, R.W., Krainitzki, H., & Pääbo S. (May 11, 1999). DNA sequence of
the mitochondrial hypervariable region II from the Neandertal type specimen. PNAS, 96
(10):5581- 5585.
Kuliukas, A.
(2001). Bipedal wading in Hominoidae past and present. Dissertation for M.S. in Human
Evolution and Behaviour, Department of Anthropology, University College, London.
Kuliukas, A.
(2002). Wading for food: The driving force of the evolution of bipedalism. Nutrition and
Health, 16(4):267-290.
Kulozik, A.E.
(1986). Geographical survey of beta S-globin gene haplotypes: Evidence for an Asian
origin of the sickle-cell mutation. American Journal of Human Genetics, 39(2):239-244.
Kwak, J.,
Willse, A., Matsumura, K., Opiekun, M.C., Yi, W., et al. (2008). Genetically-Based
Olfactory Signatures Persist Despite Dietary Variation. PLoS ONE, 3(10):e3591.
LaBlanc, S.
& Register, K.E. (2003). Constant battles: The myth of the peaceful, noble savage. St.
Martin’s Press.
Laeng, B.,
Mathisen, R., & Johnsen, J.A. (Jan., 2007). Why do blue-eyed men prefer women with the
same eye color? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 61(3):371-384.
La Griffe du Lion.
(Nov., 1999a). Crime in the Hood. 1(3).
La Griffe du Lion.
(Dec., 1999b). Affirmative Action: The Robin Hood Effect. 1(4).
La Griffe du Lion.
(Jan., 2000). Black Athletes: Can Whites Measure Up?. 2(1).
La Griffe du Lion.
(Mar., 2000a). Standardized tests: The interpretation of racial and ethnic gaps. 2(3).
La Griffe du Lion.
(May, 2000b). Analysis of Hate Crime. 2(5).
La Griffe du Lion.
(June, 2000c). The Death of Meritocracy. 2(6).
La Griffe du Lion.
(Sept., 2000d). The politics of mental retardation: A tail of the bell curve. 2(9).
La Griffe du Lion.
(Dec. 2000e). Aggressiveness, criminality and sex drive by race, gender and ethnicity. 2
(11).
La Griffe du Lion.
(Mar. 2002). The smart fraction theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations. 4(1).
La Griffe du Lion.
(Feb. 2003). How to Optimize Productivity with a Multiracial Workforce: The Theory of
Differential Cutoff. 5(1).
La Griffe du Lion.
(Jan., 2005). Cognitive decline: The irreducible legacy of open borders. 7(1).
La Griffe du Lion.
(Jan., 2007). Intelligence, gender and race. 9(1).
Lahr, M.M.
& Foley, R. (2004). Human evolution writ small. Nature, 431:1043-4.
Lamason, R.L.
et al. (Dec. 16, 2005). SLC24A5, a Putative Cation Exchanger, Affects Pigmentation in
Zebrafish and Humans. Science, 310(5755):1782-1686.
Lao, O.,
de Gruijter, J. M., van Duijn, K., Navarro, A., & Kayser, M. (May, 2007). Signatures of
Positive Selection in Genes Associated with Human Skin Pigmentation as Revealed from
Analyses of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms. Annals of Human Genetics, 71(3):354-369.
Larsson, M.,
Pedersen, N.L., & Stattin, H. (May, 2007). Associations between iris characteristics and
personality in adulthood. Biological Psychology, 75(2):165-175.
Lazare, D.
(Mar., 2002). False Testament. Harpers.
Leach, H.M.
(June, 2003). Human domestication reconsidered. Current Anthropology, 44(3):349.
Leakey, R.
(1994). The Origin of Humankind. Basic Books: NY.
Lee, J.
(2005). The Evolution of General Intelligence in the Primate Clade. International Society
for Intelligence Research, Albuguerque, NM. p. 40.
Lee, R.B.
& Lee, I.D. (1968). Man the Hunter: The First Intensive Survey of a Single, Crucial Stage
of human Development. Aldine Publishing Company.
Lee, S-H
& Wolpoff, M.H. (2003). The pattern of evolution in Pleistocene human brain size.
Paleobiology, 29(2):186-196.
Lee, S.T.,
Nicholls, R.D., Schnur, R.E., Guida, L.C., Lu-Kuo, J., Spinner, N.B., Zackai, E.H., & Spitz,
R.A. (1994). Diverse mutations of the P gene among African-Americans with type II
(tyrosinase positive) oculocutaneous albinism (OCA2). Human Molecular Genetics, 3
(11):2047-2051.
Lefkowitz, M.
(1997). Not out of Africa: How Afrocentrism became an excuse to teach myth as history.
Basic Books Reprint.
Leibbrandt, M.,
Levinsohn, J. & McCrary, J. (2005). Incomes in South Africa since the fall of Apartheid.
Working Papers 11384. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Leingärtner, A.,
Thuret, S., Kroll, T.T., Chou, S-J., J. Leasure, L., Gage, F.H., & O’Leary, D.D.M. (Mar. 6,
2007). Cortical area size dictates performance at modality-specific behaviors. PNAS, 104
(10): 4153-4158.
LePage, M.
(Jan. 13, 2007). The ancestor within. New Scientist, 193(2586).
Lerner, B,
Vining, D.R., & Cattell, R.B., (editor). (1984). Intelligence and National Achievement.
Institute for the Study of Man, Inc.
Levin, M.
(1994). Comment on The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. Intelligence, 19:3-20.
Levin, M.
(1997; reprint 2005). Why Race Matters. New Century Foundation.
Lewin, R.
(1993). The Origin of Modern Humans. Scientific American Library.
Lewin, R.
(1998). Principles of Human Evolution. Blackwell Science, Inc.
Leynaert, B,
Downs, A.M., de Vincenzi, I. (1998). Heterosexual transmission of human
immunodeficiency virus: variability of infectivity throughout the course of infection.
European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV. Am. J. Epidemiol., 148:88-
96.
Libert, F.
et al. (1998). The ∆ccr5 mutation conferring protection against HIV-1 in Caucasian
populations has a single and recent origin in Northeastern Europe. Human Molecular
Genetics, 7(3):399-406.
Lieberman, M. D.,
Hariri, A., Jarcho, J.M., Eisenberger, N.I., & Bookheimer, S.Y. (June 1, 2005). An fMRI
investigation of race-related amygdala activity in African-American and Caucasian-
American individuals. Nature Neuroscience, 8:720-722.
Liggett, S.B.,
et al. (Apr. 20, 2008). A GRK5 polymorphism that inhibits -adrenergic receptor signaling is
protective in heart failure. Nature Medicine, Online. 14:510-517.
Lim, M.,
Metzler, R., & Bar-Yam, Y. (Sept. 14, 2007). Global pattern formation and ethnic/cultural
violence. Science, 14:1540-1544.
Lin, L-H.,
et al. (Oct. 20, 2006). Long-term sustainability of a high-energy, low-diversity crustal
biome. Science, 20:479-482.
Lind, J.M.,
Hutcheson-Dilks, H.B., Williams, S.M., Moore, J.H., Essex, M., Ruiz-Pesini, E., Wallace,
D.C., Tishkoff, S.A., O'Brien, S.J., & Smith, M.W. (Jan., 2007). Elevated male European
and female African contributions to the genomes of African American individuals. Hum.
Genet. 120(5):713-722.
Lindvall, O.
& McKay, R. (June 24, 2003). Brain repair by cell replacement and regeneration. PNAS,
100(13):7430-7431.
Lippsett, L.
(Feb. 6, 1998). Lamont scientists: African climate changes quickly. Columbia University
Record, 23(14).
Littlefield, C.H.
& Rushton, J.P. (1986). When a child dies: The sociobiology of bereavement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51:797-802.
Lloyd, J.
(Oct. 8, 2006). Study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity. London Financial Times.
LoBue, V.
& DeLoache, J.S. (Mar., 2008). Detecting the Snake in the Grass: Attention to Fear-
Relevant Stimuli by Adults and Young Children. Psychological Science, 19(3):284–289.
Lohmueller, K.E.,
Indap, A.R., Schmidt, S., Boyko, A.R., Hernandez, R.D., Hubisz, M.J., Sninsky, J.J.,
White, T.J., Sunyaev, S.R., Nielsen, R., Clark, A.G., & Bustamante, C.D. (Feb. 21, 2008).
Proportionally more deleterious genetic variation in European than in African populations.
Nature, Letter, 451:994-997.

Long, J.C.
(Nov. 21, 2003). Human genetic variation: The mechanisms and results of microevolution.
Presented at the session “Exploring the Nature of Human Biological Diversity: Myth v.
reality,” American Anthropological Association.
Lordkipanidze, D,,
Vekua, A,, Ferring R., Rightmire, G.P., Zollikofer, C.P., Ponce de Leon, M.S., Agusti J.,
Kiladze, G., Mouskhelishvili, A., Nioradze, M., & Tappen, M. (Oct. 9, 2006). A fourth
hominin skull from Dmanisi, Georgia. Anat. Rec. A Discov. Mol. Cell. Evol. Biol., 288A
(11):1146-1157.
Losos, J.B.,
Schoener, T.W., Langerhans, R.B., & Spiller, D.A. (Nov. 17, 2006). Rapid temporal
reversal in predator-driven natural selection. Science, 314(5802):1111.
Lott, Jr., J.R.,
(Apr., 2000). Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk?: Affirmative Action, Police
Departments, and Crime. Economic Inquiry, 38(2):249.
Lovejoy, O.C.
(1981). The origin of man. Science, 221:341-350.
Lovgren, S.
(Jan. 28, 2004). Fossil jaw grows orangutan family tree, scientists say. National
Geographic News.
Lowe, C.B.,
Begerano, G., & Haussler, D. (May, 8, 2007). Thousands of human mobile element
fragments undergo strong purifying selection near developmental genes. PNAS, 104
(19):8005- 8010.
Lubenow, M.
(1998). Recovery of Neandertal mtDNA: an evaluation. TJ 12(1):87–97.
Luboga, S.A.
& Wood, B.A. (1990). Position and orientation of the foramen magnum in higher primates.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 81(1):67-76.
Lucito, R.J.
et al. (2003). Representational oligonucleotide microarray analysis: a high-resolution
method to detect genome copy number variation. Genome. Res., 10:2291–2305.
Luis, J.R.,
Rowold, D.J., Regueiro, M., Caeiro, B., Cinnioğlu, C. Roseman, C., Underhill, P.A.,
Cavalli- Sforza, L.L,. & Herrera, R.J. (Mar. 1, 2004). The Levant versus the Horn of Africa:
Evidence for bidirectional corridors of human migrations. American Journal of Human
Genetics, 74(3):532-544.
Lykken, D.T.
& Bouchard, T.J.Jr. and McGue, M. and Tellegen, A. (1992). Emergenesis: Genetic traits
that may not run in families. American Psychologist, 47:1565-1577.
Lynch, M.
in W. Stewart Grant, ed. (1997). Genetic effects of straying of non-native fish hatchery fish
into natural populations: proceedings of the workshop. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech
Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-30, 130p.
Lynn, R.
(May 20, 1982). IQ in Japan and the United States shows a growing disparity. Nature,
297:222- 223.
Lynn, R.
(Fall/Winter, 1991). The evolution of racial differences in intelligence. Mankind Quarterly,
32(1/2):99-.
Lynn, R.
(1994). Reinterpretations Of The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. Intelligence,
19:1-27.
Lynn, R.
(1995). Dysgenic fertility for criminal behaviour. J. Biosoc. Sci., 27(4):405-408.
Lynn, R.
(1996). Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations. Praeger.
Lynn, R.
(1998). New data on black infant precocity. Personality and Individual Differences, 25:801-
804.
Lynn, R.
& Vanhanen, T. (2002a). IQ and the Wealth Of Nations. Praeger: CT.
Lynn, R.
(2002b). Skin color and intelligence in African Americans. Population and Environment,
23: 365-375.
Lynn, R.
(2002c & Oct., 2003). Racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic personality.
Personality and Individual Differences, 32(2):273-316 & 35(2):1463-1469.
Lynn, R.
(July, 2002d). Science in the service of ideology: Stephen Jay Gould was admired by
journalists but not by scientists. American Rennaisance, 13(7).
Lynn, R.
(July, 2002e). Race and Psychopathic Personality: Racial differences in “average
personality.” . American Rennaisance, 13(7).
Lynn, R.
& Van Court, M. (March-April, 2004). New evidence of dysgenic fertility for intelligence in
the United States. Intelligence, 32(2):193-201.
Lynn, R.
(2006a). Race Differences in Intelligence: An evolutionary Analysis. Washington Summit
Publishers: Augusta.
Lynn, R.
& Vanhanen, T. (2006b). IQ and Global Inequality. Washington Summit Publishers:
Augusta.
Lynn, R.
& Harvey, J. (Apr. 27, 2007). The decline of the world’s IQ. Intelligence, Online; in press.
Maca-Meyer, N.
González, A.M., Pestano, J. Flores, C., Larruga, J.M., & Cabrera, V.M. (2003).
Mitochondrial DNA transit between West Asia and North Africa inferred from U6
phylogeography. BioMed Central Genetics, 4:15.
MacDonald, K.B.
(2002a). What Makes Western Culture Unique? The Occidental Quarterly, 2(2):8-38.
MacDonald, K.B.
(2002b). The Culture of Critique. 1ST Books.
MacDonald, K.B.
(2004). Understanding Jewish Influence: A Study in Ethnic Activism. Washington Summit
Publishers: Augusta.
MacDonald, K.B.
(Winter, 2006). Psychology and white ethnocentrism. The Occidental Quarterly, 6(4).
MacGregor, A.J.
(1985). The Impacted Lower Wisdom Tooth, Oxford University Press: NY.
Mackintoch, B.
(Nov., 1976) George Washington Carver: The Making of a Myth. The Journal of Southern
History, XLII(4):507-528.
Mackintosh, J.A.
(July 21, 2001). The antimicrobial properties of melanocytes, melanosomes and melanin
and the evolution of black skin. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 211(2):101-113.
Mackintosh, N.
(1998). IQ and Human Intelligence. Oxford: University Press.
Maestripieri, D.,
Higley, J.D., Lindell, S.G., Newman, T.K., McCormack, K.M., & Sanchez, M.M. (2006).
Early maternal rejection affects the development of monoaminergic systems and adult
abusive parenting in Rhesus macaques. Behavioral Neuroscience, 120(5).
Maestripieri, D.
(2007). Macachiavellian Intelligence: How Rhesus Macaques and Humans Have
Conquered the World. University of Chicago Press.
Manning, J.T.,
Stewart, A., Bundred, P.E., & Trivers, R.L. (Nov., 2004). Sex and ethnic differences in 2nd
to 4th digit ratio of children. Early Human Development, 80(2):161-168.
March, L.T.
(2004). Harvest of lies: The black farmer lawsuit against the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Representative Government Press.
March, L.T.
(Nov. 6, 2006). The rest of the story: Fraud and murder follows “black farmer” consent
decree. VDARE.com.
Mare, R.D.
(2006). Educational assortative mating and the family background of the next generation.
Sociological Theory and Methods, 21(2):253-278.
Marean, C.W.
et al. (Oct. 18, 2007). Early human use of marine resources and pigment in South Africa in
the Middle Pleistocene. Nature, 449:905-908.
Marino, E.A.
(Nov., 1997). A Pilot Study Using the First Cervical Vertebra as an Indicator of Race.
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42(6).
Marth, G.,
et al. (2003). Sequence variations in the public human genome data reflect a bottlenecked
population history. PNAS, 100:376-381.
Martin, G.M.
(July 26, 2005). Epigenetic drift in aging identical twins. PNAS, 102(30):10413-10414.
Martin, N.G.
Eaves, L.J., Heath, A.C., Jardine, R., Feingold, L.M., & Eysenck, H.J. (1986).
Transmission of Social Attitudes. PNAS, 83(12):4364-4368.
Martinón-Torres, M.
et al. (Aug. 14, 2007). Dental evidence on the hominin dispersals during the Pleistocene.
PNAS, 104(33):13279-13282.
Masly, J.P.,
Jones, C.D., Noor, M.A.F., Locke, J., & Orr., H.A. (Sept., 8, 2006). Gene transposition as
a cause of hybrid sterility in Drosophila. Science, 313(5792):1448-1450.
Masters, M.W.
(1995). The morality of survival: Part I (and Part II). American Renaissance, 6(7).
Matchock, R.L.
& Susman, E.J. (2006). Family composition and menarcheal age: Anti-inbreeding
strategies. Am. J. Hum. Biol., 18:481-491.
McConchie, C.A.,
Batten, D.J., & Vithanage, V. (1994). Intergeneric hybridization between litchi (Litchi
chinensis Sonn.) and longan (Dimocarpus longan Lour.) Annals of Botany, 74:111–118.
McDaniel, M.
(2005). Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of the relationship between in
vivo brain volume and intelligence. Intelligence, 33:337-346.
McDougall, I.,
Brown, F.H., & Fleagle, J.G. (Feb. 17, 2005). Stratigraphic placement and age of modern
humans from Kibish, Ethiopia. Nature, 433:733-736.
McGowan, W.,
(2001). Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American
Journalism. Encounter Books: San Francisco.
McKie, R.
(2000). Dawn of Man: The Story of Human Evolution. Dorling Kindersley Pub. Inc.: NY.
McNulty, J.K.,
Neff, L.A., Karney, B.R. (Feb., 2008). Beyond initial attraction: Physical attractiveness in
newlywed marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1).
Mekel-Bobrov, N.,
Gilbert, S.L., Evans, P.D., Vallender, E.J., Anderson, J.R., Hudson, R.R., Tishkoff, S.A., &
Lahn, B.T. (Sept. 9, 2005). Ongoing Adaptive Evolution of ASPM, a Brain Size
Determinant in Homo sapiens. Science, 309(5741):1720-1722.
Mellars, P.
(Feb. 23, 2006). A new radiocarbon revolution and the dispersal of modern humans in
Eurasia. Nature, 439:931-935.
Mendes, N.
Hanus, D., & Call, J. (Oct. 22, 2007). Raising the level: orangutans use water as a tool.
Royal Society Biology Letters, 3(5):453-455.
Meng, H.
(Nov. 22, 2005). DCDC2 is associated with reading disability and modulates neuronal
development in the brain. PNAS, 102(47):17053-17058.
Mercy, J.A.
& Saltzman, L.E. (May, 1989). Fatal violence among spouses in the United States, 1976-
85. American Journal of Public Health, 79(5):595-599.
Meredith, H.V.,
& Spurgeon, J.H. (Mar., 1976). Comparative findings on the skelic index of black and
white children and youths residing in South Carolina. Growth, 40(1):75-81.
Mes, G.M.
(1964). Now-Men and Tomorrow-Men: Why We Are Not Equal. Afrikaanse Pers-
Boekhandel: Union of South Africa.
Mes, G.M.
(1965). Mr. White Man, What Now? Afrikaanse Pers-Boekhandel: Union of South Africa.
Meyer-Lindenberg, A.
et al. (Apr. 18, 2006). Neural mechanisms of genetic risk for impulsivity and violence in
humans. PNAS, 103(16):6269-6274.
Meyer-Lindenberg, A.,
Straub, R.E., Lipska, B.E., Verchinski, B.A., Goldberg, T., Callicott, J.H., Egan, M.F.,
Huffake, S.S., Mattay, V.S., Kolachana, B., Kleinman, J.E., & Weinberge, D.R. (Mar.,
2007). Genetic evidence implicating DARPP-32 in human frontostriatal structure, function,
and cognition. J. Clin. Invest., 117:672–682.
Migliano, A.B.,
Vinicius, L., & Lahr, M.M. (Dec., 11, 2007). Life history trade-offs explain the evolution of
human pygmies. PNAS, 104:20216-20219.

Mikkelsen, T.S.
(July 20, 2005). Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the
human genome. Nature 437:69-87.
Miller, A.S.
& Kanazawa, S. (2007). Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters. Perigree.
Miller, C.T.,
Beleza, S., Pollen, A.A., Schluter, D., Kittles, R.A., Shriver, M.D., & Kingsley, D.M. (2007).
cis-Regulatory Changes in Kit Ligand Expression and Parallel Evolution of Pigmentation in
Sticklebacks and Humans. Cell, 131:1179-1189.
Miller, E.M.
(Aug., 1994a). Paternal provisioning versus mate seeking in human populations.
Personality and Individual Differences, 17(2):227-255.
Miller, E.M.
(Fall, 1994b). The relevance of group membership for personnel selection: A
demonstration using Bayes’ Theorem. The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic
Studies, 19(3):323-359.
Miller, E.M.
(Winter, 1994c). Tracing the genetic history of modern man. Mankind Quarterly, 35(1-
2):71- 108.
Miller, E.M.
(Dec., 1994d). Intelligence and brain myelination: A hypothesis. Personallity and Individual
Differences, 17(6):803-833.
Miller, R.M.
& Federoff, H.J. (Nov. 11, 2006). Isoform-specific effects of ApoE on HSV immediate early
gene expression and establishment of latency. Neurobiology of Aging, Published Online.
Mischel, W.
(1961). “Preference for Delayed Reinforcement and Social Responsibility,” Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(1).
Mishmar, D.,
Ruiz-Pesini, E., Golik, P., Macaulay, V., Clark, A.G., Hosseini, S., Brandon, M., Easley, K.,
Chen, E., Brown, M.D., Sukernik, R.I., Olckers, A., & Douglas C. Wallace D.C. (Jan. 7,
2003). Natural selection shaped regional mtDNA variation in humans. PNAS, 100(1):171-
176.
Mitchell, J.P.
& Manaji, M.R. (May 18, 2006). Dissociable medial prefrontal contributions to judgments
of similar and dissimilar others. Neuron, 50:655–663.
Moffitt, T.E.
(2005). The new look of behavioral genetics in developmental psychopathology: Gene-
environment interplay in antisocial behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 131(4):533-554.
Mogk, L.G.
& Mogk, M. (Jan. 1, 2003). Macular Degeneration--The Complete Guide To Saving And
Maximizing Your Sight. Ballantine Books, 2nd Ed.
Molnar-Szakacs, I.,
Wu, A.D., Robles, F.J., Iacoboni, M. (2007). Do you see what I mean? Corticospinal
excitability during observation of culture-specific gestures. PLOS ONE 2(7).
Montgomery, N.D.,
Yee, D., Chen, A., Kalantry, S., Chamberlain, S.J., Otte, A.P., & Magnuson, T. (May, 24,
2005). The Murine Polycomb Group Protein Eed Is Required for Global Histone H3
Lysine-27 Methylation. Current Biology, 15:942-947.
Moody, J.
(2002). Race, school integration and friendship segregation in America. American Journal
of Sociology, 107:679–716.
Mooney, M.P.
& Siegel, M.I. (May, 2, 2005). Premaxillary-maxillary suture fusion and anterior nasal
tubercle morphology in the chimpanzee. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 85
(4):451 - 456.
Moore, F.R.,
Cassidy, C., Smith, M.J.L., & Perrett, D.I. (May, 2006). The effects of female control of
resources on sex-differentiated mate preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27
(3):193-205.
Moore, M. J.
(1987). Inbreeding and reproductive parameters among Mennonites in Kansas. Social
Biology, 34:180-186.
Moran, M.
(Nov. 3, 2006). July still out on impact of genes on trial verdicts. Psychiatric News, 41
(21):12.
Morris, D.
(1967). The Naked Ape. Dell Publishing Co., Inc.: NY.
Morton, G.R.
(2002). History of human technology. http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199707/0013.html.
Morton, S.G.,
(1839). Crania Americana; or, A Comparative View of the Skulls of Various Aboriginal
Nations of North and South America: To which is Prefixed An Essay on the Varieties of
the Human Species. J. Dobson: Philadelphia.
Morwood, M,J.,
O'Sullivan, P.B., Aziz, F., & Raza, A. (Mar. 12, 1998). Fission-track ages of stone tools
and fossils on the east Indonesian island of Flores. Nature, 392(6672):173-176.
Morwood, M.,
et al. (2004). Archaeology and age of a new hominin from Flores in eastern Indonesia.
Nature, 431:1087-1091.
Morwood, M.
et al. (2005) Further evidence for small-bodied hominins from the Late Pleistocene of
Flores, Indonesia. Nature, 437:1012-1017.
Moyà-Sollà, S.
& Kohler, M. (Jan. 11, 1996). A Dryopithecus Skeleton and the origins of Great-Ape
Locomotion. Nature, 379:157-158.
Moyà-Solà, S.,
Köhler, M., & Rook, L. (Jan. 5, 1999). Evidence of hominid-like precision grip capability in
the hand of the Miocene ape Oreopithecus. PNAS, 96(1):313-317.
Moynihan, R.
& Henry, D. (Apr., 2006). The Fight against Disease Mongering: Generating Knowledge
for Action. PLoS Med., 3(4):e191.
Mueller, J.
& Kelsh, R.N. (2006). A golden clue to human skin colour variation. Bioessays, 28(6):578-
582.
Murphy, W.
(2006). Acoustical Society of America's 151st Meeting, Providence, R.I.
Murray, C.
(2003). Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800
B.C. to 1950.HarperCollins.
Murray, C.
(Sept., 2005). The inequality taboo. Commentary.

Murray, C.
(2007). The magnitude and components of change in the black-white IQ difference from
1920-1991: A birth cohort analysis of the Woodcock-Johnson standardizations.
Intelligence, 35(4):305-318.
Myers, R.H.
& Shafer, D.A. (July 20, 1979). Hybrid ape offspring of a mating of gibbon and siamang.
Science, 205(4403):308 – 310.
Nagel, R.
& Fleming, A. (1992). Genetic epidemiology of the ßS gene. Baillieres Clin. Haematol.,
5:331- 365.
Nascimento, J.M.,
Shi, L.Z., Meyers, S., Gagneux, P., Loskutoff, N.M., Botvinick E.L., & M.W. (July 24,
2007). The use of optical tweezers to study sperm competition and motility in primates.
Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 10.1098/rsif.2007.1118.
Navarrete, D.
& Fessler, D.M.T. (2006). Disease avoidance and ethnocentrism: the effects of disease
vulnerability and disgust sensitivity on intergroup attitudes. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 27: 270–282.
Navas, A.,
Cobas, G., Talavera, M., Ayala, J.A., López, J.A., & Martínez, J.L. (Aug. 21, 2007).
Experimental validation of Haldane's hypothesis on the role of infection as an evolutionary
force for Metazoans. PNAS, 104(34):13728-13731.
NCF, New Century Foundation.
(2005). The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Justice in America, 2nd expanded ed.,
available online at www.amren.com.
Nedelcu, A.M.
& Michod, R.E. (Aug. 15, 2006). The Evolutionary Origin of an Altruistic Gene. Molecular
Biology and Evolution, 23(8):1460-1464.
Ness, R.B.
Haggerty, C.L., Harger, G., & Ferrell, R. (2004). Differential Distribution of Allelic Variants
in Cytokine Genes among African Americans and White Americans. American Journal of
Epidemiology, 160(11):1033-1038.
Nevin, E.
(1967). The Black brainwash in America. Mankind Quarterly, VII(4).
Newman, M.T.
(Autumn, 1950). The Blond Mandan: A Critical View of an Old Problem. Southwestern
Journal of Anthropology, 6(3):255-272.
Nguyen, D-Q,
Webber, C., & Ponting, C.P. (Feb. 17, 2006). Bias of selection on human copy-number
variants. PLoS, 2(2):e20.
Nicklas, T.A.,
Frank, G.C., Webber, L.S., Zinkgraf, S.A., Cresanta, J.L., Gatewood, L.C., & Berenson,
G.S. (Oct., 1987). Racial contrasts in hemoglobin levels and dietary patterns related to
hematopoiesis in children: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Am. J. Public Health, 77(10):1320-
1323.
Noonan, J.P.
et al. (Nov. 17, 2006). Sequencing and analysis of Neanderthal genomic DNA. Science,
314(5802):1113-1118.
Nordborg, M.
(1998). On the probability of Neanderthal ancestry. Am. J. Human Genetics, 63:1237-
1240.
Norton, H.L.,
Kittles, R.A., Parra, E., McKeigue, P., Mao, X., Cheng, K., Canfield, V.A., Bradley, D.G.,
McEvoy, B., & Shriver, M.D. (Dec. 20, 2006). Genetic Evidence for the Convergent
Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians. Mol. Biol. Evol., 24(3):710-722.
Novembre, J.,
Johnson, T., Bryc, K., Kutalik, Z., Boyko, A.R., Auton, A., Indap, A., King, K.S., Bergmann,
S., Nelson, M.R., Stephens, M., & Bustamante, C.D. (Oct., 2008). Genes mirror
geography within Europe. Nature, 455:861.
Nyborg, H.
(1987). Covariant Trait Development Across Species, Races, and Within Individuals:
Differential K Theory, Genes, and Hormone. International Society for the Study of
Individual Differences.
Nyborg, H.
& Jensen, A.R. (2001). Occupation and income related to psychometric g. Intelligence, 29:
45-55.
Nyborg, H., (Ed.),
(2003). The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: A Tribute to Arthur Jensen.
Pergamon.
Nyborg, H.
(Aug., 2005). Sex-related differences in general intelligence g, brain size, and social
status. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(3):497-509.
Nylander, P.P.S.
(1975). Frequency of multiple births. In MacGillivray, I. Nylander, P.P.S., & Corney, G.
(Eds.). Human Multiple Reproduction. Saunders: Philadelphia.
Nystrom, M.J.,
Caughey, A.B., Lyell, D.J., Druzin, M.L., & El-Sayed, Y.Y. (Oct., 2008). Perinatal
outcomes among Asian–white interracial couples. American Journal of Obstetrics &
Gynecology, 199(4):385.e1-385.e5.
Olivieri, A.
et al. (Dec. 15, 2006). The mtDNA legacy of the Levantine early upper Palaeolithic in
Africa. Science, 314(5806):1767-1770.
Olneck, M.R.
& Crouse, J. (Nov., 1979). The IQ meritocracy reconsidered: Cognitive skill and adult
success in the United States. American Journal of Education, 88(1):1-31.
Olsen, S.J.
& Olsen, J.W. (Aug. 5, 1977). The Chinese wolf ancestor of new world dogs. Science,
197: 533-535.
Olsen, S.J.
(1985). Origins of the Domestic Dog: The Fossil Record. University of Arizona Press.
Olze, A.,
Schmeling, A., Taniguchi, M., Maeda, H., van Niekerk, P., Wernecke, K.-D., & Geserick,
G. (June, 2004). Forensic age estimation in living subjects: the ethnic factor in wisdom
tooth mineralization. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 118(3):170-173.
Onyango-Obbo, C.
(Jan. 20, 2003). Stop the war, and maybe I won’t eat you, The East African.
Ostatnikova, D.,
Laznibatova, J., Putz, Z., Mataseje, A., Dohnanyiova, M., & Pastor, K. (June 1, 2000).
Salivary Testosterone Levels in Intellectually Gifted and Non-Intellectually Gifted
Preadolescents: an exploratory study. High Ability Studies, 11(1).
Ostrovsky, V.
& Hoy, C. (1990). By Way of Deception. St. Martin’s Press: NY.

O’Sullivan, P.B.,
Morwood, M. Hobbs, D. Suminto, F.A. Situmorang, M. Raza, A., & Roland, M. (July 21,
2001). Archaeological implications of the geology and chronology of the Soa basin,
Flores, Indonesia. Geology, 29:(7):607-610.
Ovchinnikov, I.V.
et al. (Mar., 2000) Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus.
Nature, 404:490-493.
Pääbo, S.
(Feb. 16, 2001). The human genome and our view of ourselves. Science, 16(5507):1219-
1220.
Pagel, M.
& Bodmer, W. (Aug. 7, 2003). A naked ape would have fewer parasites. Proceedings of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270(0):S117 - S119.
Parfitt, S.A.
et al. (2005). The earliest record of human activity in Northern Europe. Nature, 438:1008-
1012.
Parker, J.B.,
Bianchet, M.A., Krosky, D.J., Friedman, J.I., Amzel, M., Stivers, J.T. (Sept. 27, 2007).
Enzymatic capture of an extrahelical thymine in the search for uracil in DNA. Nature,
449:433- 437.
Parker, S.
1992. The dawn of man. Crescent books.
Parra, E.J.,
et al. (1998). Estimating African American admixture proportions by use of population-
specific alleles. American Journal of Human Genetics, 63:1839-1851.
Paschou, P.
et al. (Sept. 21, 2007). PCA-Correlated SNPs for Structure Identification in Worldwide
Human Populations. PLoS Genetics, 3(9).
Passingham, R.E.
(1982). The Human Primate. W.H. Freeman: San Francisco.
Passingham, R.E.
(2002). The frontal cortex: does size matter? Nature Neuroscience, 5:190-192.
Patterson, C.
(1999). Evolution. 2nd Ed., Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY.
Patterson, N.,
Richter, D.J., Gnerre, S., Lander, E.S., & Reich, D. (June 29, 2006). Genetic evidence for
complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees. Nature Online. 441(7097):1103-1108.
Peleg, G.,
Datzir, G., Peleg, O., Kamara, M., Brodsky, L., Hel-Or, H., Keren, D., & Nevo, E. (Oct. 16,
2006). Heriditary family signature of facial expression. PNAS, 10:1073.
Penfield, W.
& Rasmussen, T. (1957). The Cerebral Cortex of Man. Macmillan.
Penn, D.J.,
Oberzaucher, E., Grammer, K., Fischer, G. Soini, H.A., Wiesler, D. Novotny, M.V., Dixon,
S.J., Xu, Y. & Brereton, R.G. (Apr. 22, 2007). Individual and gender fingerprints in human
body odour. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4(13):331–340.
Pennisi, E.
(Mar. 26, 1999). Did Cooked Tubers Spur the Evolution of Big Brains? Science, 283
(5410): 2004-2005.
Pennisi, E.
(Apr. 11, 2003). Cannibalism and prion disease may have been rampant in ancient
humans, Science, 300(5617):227-228.
Penrose, L. S.,
& Raven, J. C. (1936). A new series of perceptual tests: Preliminary communication.
British Journal of Medical Psychology, 16:97-104.
Penton-Voak, I.S.,
Perrett, D.I., & Pierce, J. (1999). Computer graphic studies of the role of facial similarity in
judgements of attractiveness. Current Psychology, 18:104-117.
Pereira, L.,
Prata, M.J., & Amorim, A. (2000). Diversity of mtDNA lineages in Portugal: not a genetic
edge of European variation. Annals of Human Genetics, 64(6):491-506.
Peresani, M.,
(Aug., 2008). A New Cultural Frontier for the Last Neanderthals: The Uluzzian in Northern
Italy. Current Anthropology, 49(4):725-731.
Perry, G.H.,
Dominy, N., Claw, K.G., Lee, A.S., Fiegler, H., Redon, R., Werner, J., Villanea, F.A.,
Mountain, J.L., Misra, R., Carter, N.P., Lee, C., & Stone, A.C. (Oct., 2007). Diet and the
evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation. Nature Genetics, 39(10):1256-
60.
Petraglia, M.
et al. (2007). Middle Paleolithic assemblages from the Indian subcontinent before and
after the Toba super-eruption. Science, 317:114-116.
Pinker, S.
(2002). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Penguin Putnam.
Pitnick, S.,
Jones, K.E., & Wilkinson, G.S. (2006). Mating system and brain size in bats. PNAS Royal
Society B, 273:719-724.
Plagnol, V.
& Wall J.D. (2006). Possible ancestral structure in human populations. PLoS Genet., 2(7):
e105.
Plomin, R.
& Spinath, F.M. (Jan., 2004). Intelligence: Genetics, Genes, and Genomics. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1):112-129.
Plomin, R.
& Turic, D.M., Hill, L., Turic, D.E., Stephens, M., Williams, J. Owen, M.J., & O'Donovan,
M.C. (Feb. 24, 2004). A functional polymorphism in the succinate-semialdehyde
dehydrogenase (aldehyde dehydrogenase 5 family, member A1) gene is associated with
cognitive ability. Molecular Psychiatry, 9:582-586.
Plutchik, R.
(1980). A general psychoevolutionary theory of emotion. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman
(Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research, and experience: Vol. 1. Theories of emotion (pp. 3-33).
Academic: NY.
Polavarapu, N.,
Bowen, N.J., & McDonald, J.F. (2006). Identification, characterization and comparative
genomics of chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses. Genome Biology, 7:R51.
Pollard, K.S.
et al. (Sept. 14, 2006). An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved
rapidly in humans. Nature, 443:167-172.
Pollet, T.V.,
Nettle, D., & Nelisson, M. (2007). Maternal Grandmothers do go the Extra Mile: Factoring
Distance and Lineage into Differential Contact with Grandchildren. Evolutionary
Psychology, 5(4):832-843.
Pollet, T.V.
& Nettle, D. (Dec. 4, 2007). Driving a hard bargain: sex ratio and male marriage success
in a historical US population. Biology Letters, DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0543.
Pollick, A.S.
& de Waals, F.B.M. (May 8, 2007). Ape gestures and language evolution. PNAS, 104(19):
8184-8189.
Pollitzer, W. S.
& Anderson, J. J. (1989). Ethnic and genetic differences in bone mass: a review with a
hereditary vs environmental perspective. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 50:1244-
1259.
Poloni, E.S.,
Semino, O., Passarino, G., Santachiara-Benerecetti, A.S., Dupanloup, I., Langaney, A., &
Excoffier, L. (1997). Human Genetic Affinities for Y-Chromosome P49a,f/TaqI Haplotypes
Show Strong Correspondence with Linguistics. Am. J. Hum. Genet.; 61:1015-35.
Pontzer, H.
(2007. Predicting the energy cost of terrestrial locomotion: a test of the LiMb model in
humans and quadrupeds. Journal of Experimental Biology, 210:484-494.
Pope, G. (1992). Craniofacial evidence for the origins of modern humans in China. Yearbook of
Physical Anthropology, 35:243-297.
Popesco, M.C.,
MacLaren, E.J., Hopkins, J., Dumas, L., Cox, M., Meltesen, L., McGavran, L., Wyckoff,
G.J., & Sikela, M.J. (Sept. 1, 2006). Human Lineage–Specific Amplification, Selection, and
Neuronal Expression of DUF1220 Domains. Science, 313(5791):1304-1307.
Popp, J.L.
(2000). Popular Evolution: Life Lessons From Anthropology. Man and Nature Press: Lake
Jackson, TX.
Porteus, S.D.
(Jan. 1961). Ethnic group differences. Mankind Quarterly, 3(1).
Posthuma, D.,
de Geus, E.J., Baare, W.F., Hulshoff, Pol, H.E., Kahn, R.S., & Boomsma, D.I.(2002). The
association between brain volumeand intelligence is of genetic origin. Nature
Neuroscience, 5:83-84.
Potischman, N.,
Troisi, R., Thadhani, R., Hoover, R.N., Dodd, K., Davis, W.W., Sluss, P.M., Hsieh, C-C., &
Ballard-Barbash, R. (June, 2005). Pregnancy Hormone Concentrations Across Ethnic
Groups: Implications for Later Cancer Risk. Biomarkers & Prevention, 14:1514-1520.
Power, C.
(2006). Sexual selection models for the emergence of symbolic communication: why they
should be reversed. Cradle of Language Conference.
Powledge, T.M.
(Dec. 12, 2006). What is the Hobbit? PLoS Biology, 4(12).
Poynter, C.W.M.
& Keegan, J.J. (1915). A study of the American Negro brain. Journal of Comparative
Neurology, 25:183-212.
Pratt, D.
(Feb., 2004). Human origins: The ape ancestry myth.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/ape3.htm#al.
Pray, L.A.
(July 5, 2004). Epigenetics: Genome, meet your environment. The Scientist, 18(13):14.
Premack, D.
(1988). Minds with and without language. In L. Weiskrantz (ed.) Thought without
language, (pp. 46-65). Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Prichard, J.C.
(1836). Researches into the Physical History of Mankind. Sherwood, Gilbert, and Piper:
London.
Prideaux, G.J.,
Roberts, R.G., Megirian, D. Westaway, K.E., Hellstrom, J.C., & Olle, J.M. (Jan., 2007).
Mammalian responses to Pleistocene climate change in southeastern Australia. Geology,
35(1):33- 36.
Purucker, G. de.
(1977). Man in Evolution, 2nd Ed. Theosophical University Press: Pasadena, CA.
Pusey, A.
& Wolf, M. (1996). Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol. Evol., 11:201-206.
Putnam, C.
(1961). Race and Reason: a Yankee view, reprinted by New Century Foundation (2006).
Putnam, C.
(1967). Race and Reality. Public Affairs Press.
Putnam, R.D.
(2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century The 2006
Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Journal of Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2):137–174.
Raffaele, P.
(Nov., 2006). The smart and swinging bonobo. Smithsonian.com.
Rajkumar, R.,
Banerjee, J., Gunturi, H.B., Trivedi, R., & Kashyap, V.K. (2006). Phylogeny and antiquity
of M macrohaplogroup inferred from complete mtDNA sequence of Indian specific
lineages. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 6(9).
Ramadhani, M.K.,
Elias, S.G., van Noord, P.A.H., Grobbee, D.E., Peeters, P.H.M., & Uiterwaal, C.S.P.M.
(Mar., 2007). Innate Handedness and Disease-Specific Mortality in Women.
Epidemiology, 18(2): 208-212.
Rampino, M.R.
(1988). Volcanic winters. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 16:73-99.
Rand, A.
(1961) The Virtue of Selfishness. Signet: NY.
Randall, L.
(Oct. 17, 2005). The aquatic ape theory: Jury still out? Deeperblue.net.
Rantala, M.J.
(1999). Human nakedness: adaptation against ectoparasites? International Journal for
Parasitology, 29:1987-1989.
Raphael, S.
(March, 2004). The socioeconomic status of black males: The increasing importance of
Incarceration. Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley.
Rassoulzadegan, M.
et al. (May 25, 2006). RNA-mediated non-mendelian inheritance of an epigenetic change
in the mouse. Nature, 441:469-474.
Ravitch, D.
(2003). The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn.
Knopf.
Redon, R.
et al. (Nov. 23, 2006). Global variation in copy number in the human genome. Nature,
444: 444-445.
Ree, M.J.,
Earles, J.A. (June, 1992). Intelligence Is the Best Predictor of Job Performance. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3):86.
Reed, D.L.,
Smith, V.S., Hammond, S.L., Rogers, A.R., & Clayton, D.H. (2004). Genetic Analysis of
Lice Supports Direct Contact between Modern and Archaic Humans. PLoS Biol., 2
(11):e340.
Reed, T.
(1969). Caucasian genes in American Negroes. Science, 165:762-768.
Regalado, A.
(June 16, 2006). Dr. Lahn connects evolution in some groups to IQ debate on race and
DNA ‘Speculating is dangerous.’ The Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition).
Reich, D.
et al. (2005). A whole-genome admixture scan finds a candidate locus for multiple
sclerosis susceptibility. Nature Genetics, 37:1113–1118.
Reidla, M.,
et al. (2003). Origin and diffusion of mtDNA haplogroup X. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 73:1178-
1190.
Reiland, R.R.,
(1995). Affirmative Action or Equal Opportunity? Regulation, 18(3).
Relethford, J.H.
& Harpending, H.C. (Aug.-Oct., 1995). Ancient differences in population size can mimic
recent a recent African origin of modern humans. Current Anthropology, 36(4):667-674.
Relethford, J.H.
(Jan. 16, 2001). Ancient DNA and the origin of modern humans. PNAS, 98(2):390-391.
Rennie, D.W.,
Covino, B.G., Howell, B.J., Song, S.H., Kang, B.S., & Hong, S.K. (1962). Physical
insulation of Korean diving women. J. Appl. Physiol., 17:961-966.
Rhine, S.,
(1990). Non Metric Skull Racing, in Skeletal Attribution of Race. Gill, G.W. & Rhine, S.,
eds. pp.9-20, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Richards, J.
(June 6, 2005). The health consequences of race-mixing. www.MajorityRights.com.
Richards, J.
(Oct. 14, 2006). Book review of ‘Breeding Between the Lines” by Alon Ziv.
www.MajorityRights.com.
Richeson, J.A.,
Baird, A.A., Gordon, H.L., Heatherton, T.F., Wyland, C.L., Trawalter, S., & Shelton, J.N.
(2003). An fMRI investigation of the impact of interracial contact on executive function.
Nature Neuroscience, 6:1323–1328.
Richmond, B.G.,
Begun, D.R., & Strait, D.S. (2001). Origin of human bipedalism: The knuckle-walking
hypothesis revisited. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 44:70–105.
Richmond, B.G.
& Jungers, W.L. (Mar. 21, 2008). Orrorin tugenensis Femoral Morphology and the
Evolution of Hominin Bipedalism. Science, 319:1662-1665.
Ridley, M.
(1996). Evolution. 2nd Ed. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science.
Riley, J.L.
(Dec. 8, 2006). Race through a liberal lens. Wall Street Journal Editorial Page.
Risch, N.,
Burchard, E., Ziv, E., & Tang., H. (July 1, 2002). Categorization of humans in biomedical
research: Genes, race, and disease, Genome Biol., 3(7).
Roberts, R.G.,
Jones, R., & Smith, M.A. (1993). Optical dating at Deaf Adder Gorge, NT indicates human
occupation back to between 53,000 and 60,000 years ago. Australian Archaeology, 37:58-
59.
Roberts, S.C.,
Little, A.C., Gosling, L., Jones, B.C., Perrett, D.I., Carter, V., & Petriel, M. (Dec. 22, 2005).
MHC-assortative facial preferences in humans. Biol. Lett. 1(4):400–403.
Roberts-Thomson, J.M.,
et al. (1996). An ancient common origin of aboriginal Australians and New Guinea
highlanders is supported by alpha-globin haplotype analysis. Am J Hum Genet., 59
(1):277.
Robson, A.
(Oct. 26, 2006). The chosen ones: Slavery in the name of God. The Independent (UK).
Robson, S.L.
& Wood, B. (Apr., 2008). Hominin life history: reconstruction and life history. Journal of
Anatomy, 212 (4):394-425.
Rodriguez-Girones, M.A.
& Enquist, M. (2001). The evolution of female sexuality. Animal Behaviour, 61(4):695-704.
Rogers, A.R.,
Iltis, D., & Wooding, S. (2004). Genetic variation at the MC1R locus and the time since
loss of human body hair. Current Anthropology, 45(1):105-108.
Rogers, D.S.
& Ehrlich, P.R. (Mar. 4, 2008). Natural selection and cultural rates of change. PNAS, 105
(9):3416-3420.
Roney, J.R.,
Hanson, K.N., Durante, K.M. & Maestripieri, D. (2006). Reading men's faces: women's
mate attractiveness judgments track men's testosterone and interest in infants. Proc. R.
Soc. B, 273:2169–2175.
Rook, L.
Bondioli, L., Köhler, M., Moyà-Solà S.,& Macchiarelli, R. (July 20,1999). Oreopithecus was
a bipedal ape after all: Evidence from the iliac cancellous architecture. PNAS, 96
(15):8795-8799.
Rosas, A.
et al. (Dec. 19, 2006). Paleobiology and comparative morphology of a late Neandertal
sample from El Sidrón, Asturias, Spain. PNAS, 103(51):19266-19271.
Rosenberg, J.,
& Tunney, R.J. (2008). Human vocabulary use as display. Evolutionary Psychology, 6
(3):538-549.
Rosenberg, K.R.,
Zuné, L., & Ruff, C.B. (Mar. 6, 2006). Body size, body proportions, and encephalization in
a Middle Pleistocene archaic human from northern China. PNAS, 103:3552- 3556.
Rosenberg, N.A.,
Pritchard, J.K., Weber, J.L., Cann, H.M., Kidd, K.K., Zhivotovsky, L.A., & Feldmaan, M.W.
(Dec., 20, 2002). Genetic structure of human populations. Science, 298(5602):2381-2385.
Rosenberg, N.A.,
Mahajan, S., Ramachandran, S., Zhao, C., Pritchard, J.K., & Feldman, M.W. (2005).
Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population
Structure. PLOS, 1(6):70.
Ross, C.N.,
French, J.A., & Ortí, G. (2007). Germ-line chimerism and paternal care in marmosets
(Callithrix kuhlii). PNAS, 104(15):6278-6282.
Ross, L.E.
(Mar., 1997). Mate selection preferences among African American college students.
Journal of Black Studies, 27(4):554-569.
Ross, R.,
Bernstein, L., Judd, H., Hanisch, R., Pike, M., & Henderson, B.(1986). Serum testosterone
levels in healthy young black and white men. Journal of the National Cancer Institute,
76:45-48.
Rossie, J.B.,
Ni, X., & Beard, K.C. (Mar. 21, 2006). Cranial remains of an Eocene tarsier. PNAS, 103
(12): 4381-4385.
Roth, P.L.,
Bevier, C.A., Bobko, P., Switzer III, F.S., & Tyler, P. (2001). Ethnic group differences in
cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis. Personal
Psychology, 54(2):297-330.
Rougier, H.
et al. (2007). Pe tera cu Oase 2 and the cranial morphology of early modern Europeans.
PNAS, 10:1073.
Roy, J-N.,
Lajoie, J., Zijenah, L.S., Barama, A., Poirier, C., Ward, B.J., & Roger, M. (Apr. 15, 2005).
CYP3A5 genetic polymorphisms in different ethnic populations. Drug Metalbolism and
Disposition.
Rubenstein, E.S.
(August 29, 2006). National Data: From your friendly federal government – the coming
white minority. VDARE.com.
Rubenstein, E.S.
(Aug., 2007). “A Statistical Review of the Condition of Whites in the United States,” in The
National Policy Institute, The State of White America, 2007.
Rubenstein, E.S.
(Oct., 2008). Economic Costs of Racial and Cultural Diversity. National Policy Institute,
Issue 803.
Ruff, C.,
Trinkaus, E., & Holliday, T. (1997). Body mass and encephalization in Pleistocene Homo.
Nature, 387:173-176.
Ruhlen, M.
(Nov. 10, 1998). The origin of the Na-Dene. PNAS, 95(23):13994-13996.
Rushton, J.P.
(1988). Genetic similarity, mate choice, and fecundity in humans. Ethology &
Sociobiology, 9(6):329-333.
Rushton, J.P.
(1989). Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 12:503-559.
Rushton, J.P.,
(Mar.-Apr., 1994). "Victim of scientific hoax – Cyril Burt and the genetic IQ controversy,"
Society, 31(3):40-45.
Rushton, J.P.
& Osborne, R.T. (1995). Genetic and Environmental Contributions to Cranial Capacity in
Black and White Adolescents. Intelligence, 20:1-13.
Rushton, J.P.
& Ankney, C.D. (1996). Brain size and cognitive ability: Correlations with age, sex, social
class, and race. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(l):21-36.

Rushton, J.P.
(July, 1997). Race, Intelligence, and the Brain: The Errors and Omissions of the Revised
Edition of S. J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (1996). Personality and Individual
Rushton, J.P.
(Mar., 1998). The new enemies of evolutionary science. Liberty, II(4):31-35.
Rushton, J.P.
(2000a). Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, Third Edition, Charles
Darwin Research Foundation: Michigan.
Rushton, J.P.
(2000b). Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, 2nd Special Abridged,
Charles Darwin Research Foundation: Michigan.
Rushton, J.P.
(2005a). Ethnic nepotism, evolutionary psychology, and genetic similarity theory. Nations
and Nationalism, 11:489-507.
Rushton, J.P.
& Bons, T. A. (2005b). Mate choice and friendship in twins. Psychological Science, 16(2):
555 – 559.
Rushton, J.P.
& Jensen, A.R. (June, 2005c). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive
ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(2):235-294.
Rushton, J.P.
& Jensen, A.R. (Sept., 2005d). Correction to Rushton and Jensen (2005). Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law, 11(3):406.
Rushton, J.P.
& Jensen, A.R. (Oct., 2006). The totality of available evidence shows the race IQ gap still
remains. Psychological Science, 17(10):921.
Rushton, J.P.,
Vernon, P.A., & Bons, T.A. (2007a). No evidence that polymorphisms of brain regulator
genes Microcephalin and ASPM are associated with general mental ability, head
circumference or altruism. Biology Letters, 3:157-160.
Rushton, J.P.,
Čvorović, J., & Bons, T.A. (2007b). General mental ability in South Asians: Data from
three Roma (Gypsy) communities in Serbia. Intelligence, 35:1-12.
Russell, R.J.H.,
& Wells, P.A. (1991). Personality similarity and quality of marriage. Personality and
Individual Differences, 12:406-412.
Russon, A.E.
(2004). Orangutans: Wizards of the Rain Forest. Firefly Books: Buffalo, NY.
Sablin, M.V.
& Khlopachev, G.A. (2002). The earliest ice age dogs: Evidence from Eliseevichi 1.
Current Anthropology, 43:795-799.
Sackett, P.R.,
Hardison, C.M., & Cullen, M.J. (Jan., 2004). On Interpreting Stereotype Threat as
Accounting for African American–White Differences on Cognitive Tests. American
Psychologist, 59(1):7–13.
Sailer, S.
(Aug. 2, 2002). It’s All Relative: Putting Race in Its Proper Perspective, VDARE.com.
Sailer, S.
(Jan. 13, 2003). Cousin marriage conund/A>. The American Conservative, pp. 20-22.
Sailer, S.
(Feb. 22, 2004a). Stereotype threat a.k.a. Occam’s butterknife, VDARE.com.
Sailer, S.
(Aug. 22, 2004b). Importing a new underclass, more evidence. VDARE.com.
Sailer, S.
(Feb. 13, 2005a). Mapping the Unmentionable: Race and Crime. VDARE.com.
Sailer, S.
(Aug. 16, 2005b). Lee Kwan Yew on Democracy vs. Multiculturalism, isteve.com.
Sailer, S.
(Nov. 16, 2005c). America is dumbing down, isteve.com.
Sailer, S.
(Dec. 18, 2006). Is America headed for Idiocy? VDARE.com.
Sailer, S.
(Aug., 2007a). Two Cheers For Pinker On Genealogy … But What About Race?,
VDARE.com.
Sailer, S.
(Aug. 12, 2007b) A Real Diamond," VDARE.com.
Sailer, S.
(Oct. 21, 2007c). James D. Watson – A Modern Galileo, VDARE.com.
Sailer, S.
(Nov. 4, 2007d). Reflecting on James D. Watson, VDARE.com.
Sailer, S.
(Dec. 9, 2007e). Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…2006’s Demographic Death Spiral/A>.
VDARE.com.
Sailer, S.
(Feb. 10, 2008a). Will McCain Go to the Mat with Obama? VDARE.com.
Sailer, S.
(Apr. 13, 2008b). Obama’s “Civil Rights” Vision: Quotas, Increased Crime, More
Socialism. VDARE.com.
Saito, N.
& Nei, M. (July, 1987). The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing
phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 4(4):406-425.
Salter, F.K.
(1996). Carrier females and sender males: An evolutionary hypothesis linkig female
attractiveness, family resemblance, and paternity confidence. Ethology and Sociobiology,
17:211- 220.
Salter, F.K.
(Nov., 2002a). Estimating ethnic genetic interests: Is it adaptive to resist replacement
migration? Population and Environment, 24(2):111-140.
Salter, F. K.
(2002b). Ethnic nepotism as a two-edged sword: The risk-mitigating role of ethnicity
among mafiosi, nationalist fighters, middleman, and dissidents. In F. K. Salter (Ed.), Risky
Transactions. Kinship, Ethnicity, and Trust (pp. 243–289). Oxford and New York:
Berghahn.
Salter, F.K.
(2003). On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration.
Peter Lang: Frankfurt.
Salter, F.K.
(2004). Welfare, Ethnicity and Altruism: New Data and Evolutionary Theory. Routledge.
Sarich, V.
& Miele, F. (2004). Race: The Reality of Human Differences. Mass.:Westview Press.
Savic, I.
& Lindström, P. (June 16, 2008). PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry
and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects, PNAS, 105:9403-
9408.
Savino, J.
& Jones, M.D. (2007). Supervolcano: The Catastrophic Event that Changed the Course of
Human History. New Page Books: NJ.
Scarr, S,
Weinberg, R.A., Waldman, D. (1993). IQ correlations in transracial adoptive families.
Intelligence, 17:541–555.
Schaffner, S.S.
& Sabeti, P.C. (June 16, 2006). Examining natural selection in humans.
http://www.sciencemag.org/multimedia/video/seminars/
Schillaci, M.A.
(2006). Sexual selection and the evolution of brain size in primates. PLOS ONE, 1(1):e62.
Schmidt, K.L.
& Cohn, J.F. (2001). Human facial expressions as adaptations: Evolutionary questions in
facial expression research. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 44:3-24.
Schmidt, F.L.
& Hunter, J. (2004). General Mental Ability in the World of Work: Occupational Attainment
and Job Performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1):162–173.
Schnitzer, P.G.
& Ewigman, B.G. (Nov. 5, 2005). Child deaths resulting from inflicted injuries:Household
risk factors and perpetrator characteristics. Pediatrics, 116(5):e687-e693.
Schnitzler, C.M.
(Feb., 1993). Bone quality: A determinant for certain risk factors for bone fragility. Calcified
Tissue International, 53(1).
Scholz, C.A.,
et al. (Sept. 4, 2007). East African megadroughts between 135 and 75 thousand years
ago and bearing on early-modern human origins. PNAS Online, 10:1073.
Schulting, R.J.
& Wysocki, M. (July, 2002). Cranial trauma in the British earlier Neolithic. The Newsletter
of the Prehistoric Society, No. 41.
Schultz, A.H.
(1936). Characters common to higher primates and characters specific for man. Quarterly
Review of Biology, 11:259-283, 425-455.
Schulz, H-P.
(1998). [Wolf Cave]. Populär Arkeologi.
Schumann, T.E.
(Fall, 1960). The unpreparedness of civilized countries for the twentieth century racial
revolution. Mankind Quarterly, VIII(2).
Schuster, R.
(Apr., 1982). An Investigation of the Intellectual Capabilities of Juvenile Offenders. Journal
of Forensic Sciences, 27(2).
Schwartz, G.
(2000). Taxonomic and functional aspects of the patterning of enamel thickness
distribution in extant large-bodied hominoids. American Journal of Physical Anthropology,
111:221-244.
Schwartz, J.H.
(1988). History, morphology, paleontology, and evolution. Orangutan biology. (ed. by J.H.
Schwartz), pp. 59-85. Oxford University Press: NY.
Schwartz, J.H.
(1999). Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc.: NY.
Schwartz, J.H.
2nd Ed. (2005). The red ape: Orangutans and human origins. Westview Press.
Schwartz, M.
& Vissing, J. (2002). Paternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA. New England Journal of
Medicine, 347(8):576-580.
Segal, E.
et al. (July 23, 2006). A genomic code for nucleosome positioning. Nature, 34(2):455-456.
Segal, N.L.
(1999) Entwined Lives: Twins and What They Tell Us About Human Behavior. Penguin:
NY.
Segal, N.L.,
Sussman, L.J., Marelich, W.D., Mearns, J., & Blozis, S.A. (June, 2002). Monozygotic and
dizygotic twins' retrospective and current bereavement-related behaviors: an evolutionary
perspective. Twin Research, 5(3):189-195.
Seldin, M.F.
et al. (Sept., 2006). European population substructure: Clustering of northern and
southern Populations. PLoS Genetics, 2(9).
Seligman, D.
(Apr. 15, 1991). Is America smart enough? IQ and national productivity. National Review.
Seligman, D.
(1992). A Question of Intelligence. Carol Publishing Group.
Semino, O.
et al. (Nov. 10, 2000) The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant
Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective. Science, 290(5494):1155 – 1159.
Senner, W.M.
(1989). The origins of writing. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Serpell, J.
(1995). The Domestic Dog. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Serre, D.,
Langaney, A, Chech, M. Teschler-Nicola, M., Paunovic, M., Mennecier, P., Hofreiter, M.,
Possnert, G., & Pääbo, S. (Mar., 2004). No evidence of Neandertal mtDNA contribution to
early modern humans. PLoS Biology, 2(3).
Shackelford, T.K.
& Goetz, A.T. (2007). Adaptation to Sperm Competition in Humans Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 16(1):47–50.
Shahak, I.
(1994). Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The weight of three thousand years. Pluto Press:
London.
Shatz, S.M.
(Mar.-Apr., 2008). IQ and fertility: A cross-national study. Intelligence, 36(2):109-111.
Shaw, P.,
Greenstein, D., Lerch, J., Clasen, L., Lenroot, R., Gogtay, N., Evans, A., Rapoport, J. &
Giedd, J. (Mar. 30, 2006). Intellectual ability and cortical development in children and
adolescents. Nature, 440:676-679.
Shea, J.J.
(2001). Modern human origins and the extinction of the Neanderthals in the Levant.
Athena Review, 2(4):21-32.
Shea, J.J.,
Brown, K., & Davis, Z. (2002). Controlled experiments with Middle Paleolithic spear points:
Levallois points. In Mathieu, James R. (ed.) 2002 Experimental Archaeology: Replicating
Past Objects, Behaviors, and Processes, pp. 55-72. Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports, International Series 1035 (Oxford).
Shen, G.,
Wang, W. et al. (Dec. 1, 2002) U-series dating of Liujiang hominid site in Guangxi,
Southern China. Journal of Human Evolution, 43:817-829.
Shields, W.M.
& Shields, L.M. (1983). Forcible rape: An evolutionary perspective. Ethology and
Sociobiology, 4:115-136.
Shreeve, J.
(1995). The Neandertal Enigma. William Morrow and Co., Inc.
Shreeve, J.
(Mar., 2006). The Greatest Journey. National Geographic.
Shriver, M.D.,
et al. (2003). Skin pigmentation, biogeographical ancestry and admixture mapping.
Human Genetics, 112:387–399.
Shuey, A.H.
(1966). The Testing of Negro Intelligence, Social Science Press: New York.
Shultz, S.
& Dunbar, R.I.M. (Dec. 22, 2006). Chimpanzee and felid diet composition is influenced by
prey brain size. Biology Letters, 2(4).
Shur, M.D.,
Palombit, R.A., and Whitten, P.L. (2008). Association between male testosterone and
friendship formation with lactating females in wild olive baboons (Papio hamadryas
anubis). Program of the 77th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical
Anthropologists, p. 193.
Shurkin, J.N.
(1992). Terman's Kids: The Groundbreaking Study of How the Gifted Grow Up. Little
Brown & Co.
Sikkink, D.
& Emerson, M.O. (July 16, 2007). School Choice and Racial Residential Segregation in
U.S. Schools: The Role of Parents’ Education, Ethnic and Racial Studies, in press.
Silva, D.A,
Carvalho, E., Costa, G., Tavares, L., Amorim, A., & Gusmao, L. (Oct. 12, 2006). Y-
chromosome genetic variation in Rio De Janeiro population. Am. J. Hum. Biol., 18(6):829-
837.
Simpson, W.G.
(2003). Which Way Western Man? National Vanguard Books: Hillsboro, WV.
Small, M.F.
(1995). What’s Love Got to Do with It? Doubleday: NY.
Smith, F.H.
(1985). Continuity and change in the origin of modern humans. Z. Morphol. Anthropol., 75
(197):e222.
Smith, F.H.,
Jankovic, I., & Karavanic, I., (2005). The assimilation model, modern human origins in
Europe, and the extinction of Neandertals. Quaternary International, 137:7-19.
Smith, K.
(Aug. 16, 2006). Homing in on Genes for Humanity. Nature, 442:725-725.
Smith, M.W.,
Dean, M., Carrington, M., Huttley, G.A., & O'Brien S.J. (Sept. 6, 1997). CCR5-delta 32
gene deletion in HIV-1 infected patients. Lancet, 350(9079):741.

Smith, T.,
Rose, K., & Gingerich, P.D. (July 25, 2006). Rapid Asia-Europe-North America geographic
dispersal of earliest Eocene primate Teilhardina during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal
Maximum. PNAS, 103(30):11223-11227.
Smith, T.M.,
Tafforeau, P., Reid, D.J., Grün, R., Eggins, S., Boutakiout, M., Hublin, J-J. (Apr., 10,
2007). Earliest evidence of modern human life history in North African early Homo
sapiens. PNAS, 104(15):6128-6133.
Sniegowski, P.D.,
Gerrish, P.J., Johnson, T., & Shaver, A. (2000). The evolution of mutation rates:
separating causes from consequences. BioEssays, 22(12):1057-1066.
Soejima, M.,
Tachida, H., Ishida, T., Sano, A., & Koda, Y. (2006). Evidence for recent positive selection
at the human AIM1 locus in a European population. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 23
(1):179- 188.
Soffer, O.,
Adovasio, J.M., & Hyland, D.C. (Aug.-Oct., 2000). The "Venus" figurines: Textiles,
basketry, gender, and status in the Upper Paleolithic. Current Anthropology, 41(4).
Soficaru, A.,
Petrea, C., Dobo, A., & Trinkaus, E. (Aug., 2007). The Human Cranium from the Pestera
Cioclovina Uscata, Romania: Context, Age, Taphonomy, Morphology, and
Paleopathology. Current Anthropology, 48(4):611-619.
Sola, S.M.
& Kohler, M. (Oct. 7, 1993). Recent discoveries of Dryopithecus shed new light on
evolution of great apes. Nature, 365(6446):543-545.
Sonada, S.,
Li, H-C., Cartier, L., Nunez, L., & Tajima, K. (Nov., 2000). Ancient HTLV Type 1 Provirus
DNA of Andean Mummy. AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, 16(16):1753 -1756.
Spielman, R.S.,
Bastone, L.A., Burdick, J.T., Morley, M., Ewens, W.J., & Cheung, V.G., (Jan. 7, 2007).
Common genetic variants account for differences in gene expression among ethnic
groups. Nature Genetics, 39(2):226-231.
Stark, A.,
Bushati, N., Jan, C.H., Kheradpour, P., Hodges, E., Brennecke, J., Bartel, D.P., Cohen,
S.M., & Kellis, M. (Jan. 1, 2008). A single Hox locus in Drosophila produces functional
microRNAs from opposite DNA strands. Genes and Development, 22:8-13.
Stead, W.W.,
Senner, J.W., Reddick, W.T., & Lofgren, J.P. (Feb. 15, 1990). Racial differences in
susceptibility to infection by Mycobacterium tuberculosis. New England Journal of
Medicine, 322(7):422-427.
Stedman, H.H.,
et al. (Mar. 25, 2004). Myosin gene mutation correlates with anatomical changes in the
human lineage. Nature, 428:415-418.
Steegmann, Jr., A.T.,
Cherny, F.J., & Holliday, T.W. (Aug. 21, 2002). Neandertal cold adaptation: Physiological
and energetic factors. American Journal of Human Biology, 14(5):566-583.
Steele, C.M.
& Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African
Americans. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69:797–811.
Stefansson, H.
et al. (Feb., 2005). A common inversion under selection in Europeans. Nature Genetics,
37:129 – 137.
Stein, H.
(Autumn, 2006). Now the GOP is for affirmative action. City Journal.
Steinhorn, L.
& Diggs-Brown, B. (1999). By the Color of our Skin: The Illusion of Integration and the
Reality of Race. Dutton: England.
Stephens, J.C.
et al. (June, 1998). Dating the origin of the CCR5-∆32 AIDS-resistance allele by the
coalescence of haplotypes. American Journal of Human Genetics, 62(6):1507-1515.
Sternberg, R.J., ed.
(1994). Encyclopedia of Human Intelligence. Macmillan: NY.
Steudel-Numbers, K.L.
& Tilken, M.J. (2004). The effect of lower limb length on the energetic cost of locomotion:
implications for fossil hominins. Journal of Human Evolution, 47(1-2):95-109.
Stout, M.
(2005). The Sociopath Next Door: The Ruthless Versus the Rest of Us. Broadway Books:
NY.
Strassburg, A.,
Strassburg, C.P., Manns, M.P., & Tukey, R.H. (2002). Differential Gene Expression of
NAD(P)H:Quinone Oxidoreductase and NRH:Quinone Oxidoreductase in Human
Hepatocellular and Biliary Tissue. Molecular Pharmacology, 61(2):320-325.
Swan, L.W.,
(1990). The concordance of ontogeny with phylogeny. Bioscience, 40:383.
Swisher III, C.C.
(2001). Java Man: How Two Geologists Changed Our Understanding of Human Evolution.
University of Chicago Press.
Sykes, B.
(2001). The Seven Daughters of Eve. W.W. Norton: NY.
Tajima, F.
(1989). Statistical Method for Testing the Neutral Mutation Hypothesis by DNA
Polymorphism. Genetics, 123:585-595.
Tang, H.
et al. (2005). Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-
Control Association Studies. American Journal of Human Genetics, 76:268-275.
Tangley, L.
(2006). Cat on the spot. National Wildlife, 44(3).
Tankersley, D.,
Stowe, C.J. & Huettel, S.A. (Jan. 21, 2007). Altruism is associated with an increased
neural response to agency. Nature Neuroscience. Brief Communications.
Tashakkori, A.
(1993). Race, gender and pre-adolescent self-structure: A test of construct-specificity
hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 14:591-598.
Tattersall, I..
(1993). Speciation and morphological differentiation in the genus Lemur. In Kimbel, W.H.
& Lawrence, L.B. (eds), Species, Species Concepts, and Primate Evolution. Plenum
Press. NY, pp. 163-176.
Taylor, A.B.
& van Schaik, C.P. (Jan. 7, 2007). Variation in brain size and ecology in Pongo. Journal of
Templer, D.I.,
& Arikawa, H. (Mar.-Apr., 2006). Temperature, skin color, per capita income, and IQ: An
international perspective. Intelligence, 34(2):121-139.
Templeton, A.R.
(Mar. 7, 2002). Out of Africa again and again. Nature, 416:45-51.
Templeton, A.R.
(2005). Haplotype Trees and Modern Human Origins. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology,
128(S41):33-59.
Thernstrom, A.
& Thernstrom, S. (2003). No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning. Simon &
Schuster:NY.
Thery, I.,
Gril, J., Vernet, J.L., Meignen, L., & Maury, J. (July, 1996). Coal used for Fuel at Two
Prehistoric Sites in Southern France: Les Canalettes (Mousterian) and Les Usclades
(Mesolithic). Journal of Archaeological Science, 23(4):509-512.
Thieme, H.
(July, 1997). Lower Paleolithic hunting weapons from Schöningen, Germany: The oldest
spears in the world. PAST, the Newsletter of the Prehistoric Society, No. 26.
Thomas, M.G.,
Miller, K.W.P., & Mascie-Taylor, C.G.N. (1998). Mitochondrial DNA and IQ in Europe.
Intelligence, 26:167-173.
Thomas, S.B.
& Hirschman, J.L. (1995). Minority-targeted scholarships: More than a black-white issue.
Journal of College and University Law, 21(3):555-590.
Thompson, E.E.,
Kuttab-Boulos, H., Witonsky, D., Yang, L., Roe, B.A., & DiRienzo, A. (2004). CYP3A
Variation and the Evolution of Salt-Sensitivity Variants. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 75:1059-
1069.
Thompson, P.M.
et al. (2001). Genetic influences on brain structure. Nature Neuroscience, 4:1253–1258.
Thorpe, S.K.S.,
Holder, R.L., & Crompton, R.H. (June 1, 2007). Origin of human bipedalism as an
adaptation for locomotion on flexible branches. Science, 316(5829):1328-1331.
Thünken,
Bakker, T.C.M., Baldauf, S.A., & Kullmann, H. (Feb. 6, 2007). Active Inbreeding in a
Cichlid Fish and Its Adaptive Significance. Current Biology, 17:225-229.
Tian, C.,
Plenge, R.M., Ransom, M., Lee, A., Villoslada, P., et al. (2008). Analysis and Application
of European Genetic Substructure Using 300 K SNP Information. PLoS Genet., 4(1):e4.
Tiedemann, F.
(1836). On the Brain of the Negro, compared with that of the European and the Orang-
Outang. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.
Tobin, R.G.
(Jan., 2008). On the potential of a chemical Bonds: Possible effects of steroids on home
run production in baseball. American Journal of Physics, 76(1):15-20.
Tocheri, M.W.,
et al. (Sept. 21, 2007). The primitive wrist of Homo floresiensis and its implications for
hominin evolution. Science, 317(5845):1743-1745.
Tompkins, R.L.
(Jan., 1996). Relative dental development of Upper Pleistocene hominids compared to
human population variation. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 99(1):103-118.
Trinkaus, E.
& Howells, W.W. (1979). The neanderthals. Scientific American, 241(6):118-33.

Trinkaus, E.,
et al. (Sept. 30, 2003). An early modern human from the Pe tera cu Oase, Romania.
PNAS, 100(20):11231-11236.
Trinkaus, E.
(Oct., 2005). Anatomical evidence for the antiquity of human footwear use. Journal of
Archaelogical Science, 32(10):1515-1526.
Trinkaus, E.
(Apr. 23, 2007). European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals. PNAS,
Online.
Trotter, M.
(1970). in Personal Identification in Mass Disasters ed. Stewart, T. D. (Natl. Museum of
Natural History, Washington, DC).
Trudell, M.B.
(Sept., 1999). Anterior femoral curvature revisted: race assessment from the femur.
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44(5).
Trut, L.
(Mar.-Apr., 1999). Early Canid Domestication: The Farm-Fox Experiment. American
Scientist, 87(2).
Turner, W.
(1886). The sacral index in various races of mankind. J. Anat. Physiol., 20.
Udry, J.R.,
Li, R.M., & Hendrickson-Smith, J. (Nov., 2003). Health and behavior risks of adolescents
with mixed-race identity. Am. J. Public Health, 93(11):1865–1870.
Underhill, P.A.,
Passarino, G., Lin, A.A., Shen, P., Lahr, M.M., Foley, R.A., Oefner, P.J., & Cavalli- Sforza,
L.L. (2001). The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins of
modern human populations. Ann. Hum. Genet., 65:43-62.
Van Court, M.
& Bean, F.D. (1985) Intelligence and fertility in the United States: 1912 – 1982.
Intelligence, 9:23-32.
Vanhaeren, M.
et al. (June, 23, 2006). Oldest known beads reported found. Science, 312(5781):1785-
1788.
Van Heuverswyn, F.
(Nov. 9, 2006). Human immunodeficiency viruses: SIV infection in wild gorillas. Nature,
444:164.
Van Schaik, C.P.,
Ancrenaz, M., Borgen, G., Galdikas, B. Knott, C.D., Singleton, I., Suzuki, A., Utami, S.S.,
& Merrill, M. (Jan. 3, 2003). Orangutan cultures and the evolution of material culture.
Science, 299(5603):102-105.
Van Vugt, M.,
De Cremer, D., & Janssen, D. P. (Jan., 2007). Gender differences in cooperation and
competition: The male warrior hypothesis. Psychological Science, 18(1):19-23.
Vasey, P.L.,
Pocock, D.S., & Vanderlaan, D.P. (May, 2007). Kin selection and male androphilia in
Samoan fa'afafine. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(3):159-167.
Viding, E.,
Blair, R.J.R., Moffitt, T.E., & Plomin, R. (2005). Strong genetic risk for psychopathic
syndrome in children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46:592-597.
Vilakazi, A.
(1962). Zulu Transformations : A study of the dynamics of social change.

Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press.
Vining, D.R.
(1982). On the possibility of the reemergence of a dysgenic trend with respect to
intelligence in American fertility differentials. Intelligence, 6:241-264.
Vining, D.R., Jr.
(1984).Subfertility among the very intelligent: An examination of the American Mensa.
Personality and Individual Differneces, 5(6):725-733.
Vining, D.R.
(Aug., 1995). On the possibility of the reemergence of a dysgenic trend with respect to
intelligence in American fertility differentials: an update. Personality and Individual
Vint, F.W.
(1934). The Brain of the Kenya Native, Journal of Anatomy, 68:216-223.
Voight, B,
Kudaravalli, S, Wen, X, & Pritchard, J.K. (Mar., 2006). A Map of Recent Positive Selection
in the Human Genome. PLoS Biology, 4:3.
Wade, N.
(2006). Before the Dawn. Penguin: NY.
Waechter, J.
(1990). Man before history: The Making of the Past. Equinox.
Wagner, D.R.,
& Heyward, V.H. (2000). Measures of body composition in blacks and whites: a
comparative review. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 71:1392-1402.
Walsh, A.
(2005). African Americans and Serial Killing in the Media: The Myth and the Reality.
Homicide Studies, 9:271-291.
Wang, E.T.,
Kodama, G., Baldi, P. & Moyzis, R.K. (Jan. 3, 2006). Global landscape of recent inferred
Darwinian selection for Homo sapiens. PNAS, 103(1):135-140.
Wang, E.T.,
Sandberg, R., Luo, S., Khrebtukova, I., Zhang, L., Mayr, C., Kingsmore, S.F., Schroth,
G.P., & Burge, C.B. (Nov. 2, 2008). Alternative isoform regulation in human tissue
transcriptomes. Nature, Online.
Wang, H-Y.,
Chien, H-C., Osada, N. Hashimoto, K., Sugano, S., Gojobori, T., Chou, C-K., Tsai, S-F.,
Wu, C-I., Shen, C-K.J. (Dec. 26, 2006c). Rate of evolution in brain-expressed genes in
humans and other primates. PLoS Biology, 5(2).
Wang, L.,
Oota, H., Saitou, N., Jin, F., Matsushita, T., & Ueda, S. (2000). Genetic structure of a
2,500- year-old human population in China and its spatiotemporal changes. Molecular
Biology and Evolution, 17:1396-1400.
Wang, Y.
& Su, B. (2004). Molecular evolution of microcephalin, a gene determining human brain
size. Human Molecular Genetics, 13(11):1131-1137.
Wang, X.,
Grus, W.E., & Zhang, J. (Feb. 14, 2006b). Gene losses during human origins. PLoS
Biology, 4(3):e52.
Warneken, F.
& Tomasello, M. (Mar. 3, 2006). Altruistic Helping in Human Infants and Young
Chimpanzees. Science, 311:1301-1303.
Warneken, F.,
Hare, B., Melis, A.P., Hanus, D., Tomasello, M. (2007). Spontaneous Altruism by
Chimpanzees and Young Children. PLoS Biol., 5(7):e184.
Watanabe, H.
(May 27, 2004). DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome
22. Nature, 429:382-388.
Watkins, W.S.,
Ricker, C.E., Bamshad, M.J., Carroll, M.L., Nguyen, S.V., Baatzer, M.A., Harpending,
H.C., Rogers, A.R., & Jorde, L.B. (2001). Patterns of ancestral human diversity: An
analysis of Alu-insertion and restriction-site polymorphisms. The American Journal of
Human Genetics, 68: 738-752.
Watters, E.,
(Nov., 2006). DNA is not destiny. Discover Magazine.
Wayne, R.K.
(June, 1993). Molecular evolution of the dog family. Trends in Genetics, 9(6):218-224.
Wax, E.
(June 6, 2003). Africa's Women Beginning To See Progress in Politics. Washington Post,
p. A14.
Weber, J.L.,
David, D., Heil, J., Fan, Y., Zhao, C., & Marth, G. (Oct., 2002). Human diallelic
insertion/celetion polymorphisms. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 71(4):854–862.
Wedekind, C.,
Seebeck, T., Bettens, F. & Paepke, A.J. (1995). MHC-dependent mate preferences in
humans. Proceeding of the Royal Society of London, B260:245-249.
Weidenreich, F.
(1947). Facts and speculations concerning the origin of Homo sapiens. American
Anthropologist, 49(2):187-203.
Weir, J.T.
& Schulter, D. (Mar. 16, 2007). The Latitudinal Gradient in Recent Speciation and
Extinction Rates of Birds and Mammals. Science, 315(5818):1574-1576.
Weiss, V.
(1992). Major genes of general intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences,
13:1115- 1134.
Weiss, V.
(Dec. 21, 2005). Major genes of general intelligence (IQ). Personality and Individual
Differences, 13(10):1115-1134.
Weller, L.
& Weller, A. (1993). Human menstrual synchrony : a critical assessment. Neuroscience
and Biobehavioral Reviews, 17:427-439.
Wen, B.
et al. (2004). Genetic evidence supports demic diffusion of Han culture. J. Quaternary
Sci., 21: 471-483.
Wenban-Smith, F. F.,
Allen, P., Bates, M. R., Parfitt, S. A., Preece, R. C., Stewart, J. R., Turner, C. and
Whittaker, J. E. (2006). The Clactonian elephant butchery site at Southfleet Road,
Ebbsfleet, UK. J. Quaternary Sci., 21:471-483.
West, S.A.,
Diggle, S.P., Buckling, A., Gardner, A., Griffin, A.S. (2007). The social lives of microbes.
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, & Systematics, 38:53-77.
Weston, E.M.,
Friday, A.E., & Liò, P. (2007). Biometric evidence that sexual selection has shaped the
hominin face. PLOS ONE, 2(8).

Weyl, J.
(1989). The Geography of American Achievement. Scott-Townsend: Washington, DC.
Wheeler, P.E.
(May 12, 1988). Stand tall and stay cool. New Scientist, 12:62-65.
Whitney, G.
(Oct., 1999). The biological reality of race. American Renaissance, 10(10).
Wiercinski, A.
(1979). Has the brain size decreased since the upper paleolithic. Bull. Mem. Acad. R.
Med. Belg. 13:419-427.
Williams, J.
(Nov., 1994). Violence, genes, and prejudice. Discover magazine, 15(11).
Williams, R.
(1999). Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for
Common Ancestry. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html.
Williamson, S.H.,
Hubisz, M.J., Clark, A.G., Payseur, B.A., Bustamante, C.D., et al. (June 1, 2007).
Localizing Recent Adaptive Evolution in the Human Genome. PLoS Genet., 3(6).
Wilson, A.C.
& Cann, R.L. (1992). The Recent African Genesis of Humans. Scientific American,
266:68- 73.
Wilson, C.G.
(May, 2008). Male genital mutilation: an adaptation to sexual conflict. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 29(3):149-164.
Wilson, A.N.,
(1978). The Developmental Psychology of the Black Child. Africana Research Pubns.
Wilson, D.S.
& Wilson, E.O. (Dec., 2007). Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology. The
Quarterly Review of Biology, 82(4).
Wilson, E.O.
(1975). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Belknap Press.
Wilson, E.O.
(Jan., 2008). The evolution of eusociality in insects. BioScience, 58(1):17.
Wilson, J.Q.
(2002). The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families. HarperCollins
Publishers.
Windschuttle, K.
& Gilin, T. (June, 2002). The extinction of the Australian pygmies. Quadrant.
Wingreen, N.S.
& Levin, S.A. (Sept., 2006). Cooperation among micro-organisms. PLoS Biology, 4(9).
Witelson, S.F.,
Beresh, H., & Kiga, D.L. (2006). Intelligence and brain size in 100 postmortem brains: sex,
lateralization and age factors. Brain, 129(2):386-398.
Witherspoon, D.J.,
Wooding, S., Rogers, A.R., Marchani, E.E., Watkins, W.S., Batzer, M.A., & Jorde, L.B.
(May, 2007). Genetic similarities within and between human populations, Genetics,
176:351- 359.
Wittmann, B.C.,
Daw, N.D., Seymour, B., & Dolan1, R.J. (June 26, 2008). Striatal Activity Underlies
Novelty-Based Choice in Humans. Neuron, 58(6):967-973.
Wolf, N.
(1991). The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women. William
Morrow & Co.
Wolfe, L.D.
(1984). Japanese macaque female sexual behavior: a comparison of Arashiyma East and
West. In: Small, M.F., Female primates: studies by women primatologists. Alan R. Liss:
NY
Wolpoff, M.
& Thorne, A.. (June 22, 1991). The case against Eve. New Scientist, 130(1774):37.
Wolpoff, M.
&Caspari, R. (1997). Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Wolpoff, M.,
Mannheim, B., Mann, A., Hawks, J., Caspari, R., Rosenberg, K., Frayer, D.W., Gill, D.W.,
& Clark, G. (2004). Why not the Neandertals? World Archeology, 36(4):527-546.
Woods, R..P,
Freimer, N.B., De Young, J.A., Fears, S.C., Sicotte, N.L., Service, S.K., Valentino, D.J.,
Toga, A.W., & Mazziotta, J.C. (2006). Normal variants of Microcephalin and ASPM do not
account for brain size variability. Human Molecular Genetics, 15(12):2025-2029.
Wrangham, R.
& Peterson, D. (1996). Demonic Males. Houghton Mifflin Co: NY.
Wright, L.
(1997). Twins and What They Tell Us About Who We Are. John Wiley & Sons: NY.
Wright, N.M.,
Renault, J., Willi, S., Veldhuis, J.D., Pandey, J.P., Gordon, L., Key, L.L., & Bell, N.H.
(1995). Greater secretion of growth hormone in black than in white men: possible factor in
greater bone mineral density—a clinical research center study. Journal of Clinical
Endocrinology & Metabolism, 80:2291-2297.
Wright, S.
(1931). Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics, 16(2):97-159.
Wu, T.,
Mendola, P., & Buck, G.M. (Oct., 2002). Ethnic Differences in the Presence of Secondary
Sex Characteristics and Menarche Among US Girls: The Third National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. Pediatrics, 110(4):752-757.
Wu, X.
& Poirier, F.E. (1995). Human Evolution in Chin:. A metric description of the fossils and a
review of the sites. Oxford University Press: NY.
Wyman, J.
(Apr., 1896). Position of the foramen magnum. Anthropological Review, 7(25):152-154.
Xiao, J.,
Jin, C., & Zhu, Y. (Nov. 12, 2002). Age of the fossil Dali Man in north-central China
deduced from chronostratigraphy of the loess–paleosol sequence. Quaternary Science
Reviews, 21(20- 22):2191-2198.
Xue, Y.,
Zerjal, T., Bao, W., Zhu, S., Shu, Q., Xu, J., Du, R., Fu, S., Li, P., Hurles, M.E., Yang H.,
Tyler- Smith, C. (2006). Male demography in East Asia: a north-south contrast in human
population expansion times. Genetics, 172:2431-2439.
Yang, N.,
MacArthur, D.G., Gulbin, J.P., Hahn, A.G., Alan H. Beggs, A.H., Easteal, S., & Kathryn
North, K. (2003). ACTN3 Genotype Is Associated with Human Elite Athletic Performance.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 73:627-631.
Yang, X.,
Schadt, E.E., Wang, S., Wang, H., Arnold, A.P., Ingram-Drake, L., Drake, T.A., & Lusis,
A.J. (2006). Tissue-specific expression and regulation of sexually dimorphic genes in
mice. Genome Research, 16:995-1004.
Yohn, C.T.,
Jiang, Z., McGrath, S.D., Hayden, K.E., Khaitovich, P., Johnson, M.E., Eichler, M.Y.,
McPherson, J.D., Zhao, S., Pääbo, S., & Eichler, E.E. (Apr., 2005). Lineage-Specific
Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the Genomes of African Great Apes but Not
Humans and Orangutans, PLoS Biology, 3(4).
Young, E.
(May 11, 2006). Muggings were rife in New Stone Age. New Scientist Print Edition, issue
2551, p. 16.
Yu, N., Z.
Zhao, Fu, -X., Sambuughin, N., Ramsay, M., Jenkins, T., Leskinen, E., Patthy, L., Jorde,
L.B., Kuromori, T., & Li, W-H. (2001). Global patterns of human DNA sequence variation
in a 10-kb region on chromosome 1. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 18:214-222.
Yuasa, I.,
Umetsu, K., Watanabe, G., Nakamura H., Endoh, M., & Irizawa, Y. (Dec., 2004). MATP
polymorphisms in Germans and Japanese: The L374F mutation as a population marker
for Caucasoids. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 118(6):364-366.
Yunis, J.J.
& Prakash, O. (1982). The origin of man: A chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science, 215:
1525-1530.
Zagorsky, J.L.
(Sept.-Oct., 2007). Do you have to be smart to be rich? The impact of IQ on wealth,
income and financial distress. Intelligence, 35(5):489-501.
Zakrzewski, S.R.
(2003). Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions. Am. J. Phys.
Anthropol., Wiley-Liss, Inc. 121(3):219-229.
Zerjal, T.
et al. (2003). The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 72:717-721.
Zhang, F.,
Su, B., & Ahang, Ya-ping (June 29, 2007). Genetic studies of human diversity in East
Asia. The Royal Society B, 362(1482):987-995.
Zhao, J.
(2004). Lecture 2004: U-series isotopes – Applications in igneous processes, climate
change and hominid evolution. Acquire, University of Queensland.
Zhao, Z.,
Jin, L., Fu, Y-X., Ramsay, M., Jenkins, T. Leskinen, E., Pamilo, P., Trexler, M., Patthy, L.,
Jorde, L.B., Ramos-Onsins, S., Yu, N., & Li, W-H. (2000). Worldwide DNA sequence
variation in a 10-kilobase noncoding region on human chromosome 22. PNAS, 97:11354-
11358.
Zhu, R.X.,
Hoffman, K.A., Potts, R., Deng, C.L., Pan, Y.X., B. Guo, B., Sh*, C.D. Guo, Z.T., Yuan,
B.Y., Hou, Y.M., & Huang, W.W. (2001). Earliest presence of humans in northeast Asia,
Nature, 413:413-417.
Zhu, R.X.,
Potts, R., Pan, Y.X., Yao, H.T., Lü, L.Q., Zhao, X., Gao, X., Chen, L.W., Gao, F., Deng,
C.L. (2008). Early evidence of the genus Homo in East Asia. Journal of Human Evolution.
Zihlman, A.L.,
Cronin, J.E., Cramer, D.L. & Sarich, V.M. (1978). Pygmy chimpanzees as a possible
prototype for the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. Nature,
275:744-746.
Zilhão, J.,
d’Errico, F., Bordes, J-G., Lenoble, A., Texier, J-P., & Rigaud, J-P. (Aug. 15, 2006a).
Analysis of Aurignacian interstratification at the Châtelperronian-type site and implications
for the behavioral modernity of Neandertals. PNAS, 103(33):12643-12648.
Zilhão, J.
(Oct. 24, 2006b). Neanderthals and moderns mixed, and it matters. Evolutionary
Anthropology, 15(5):183-195.
Zimmer, C.
(Jan., 1996). From fin to hand. Discover magazine, 17(1).
Zimmer, C.
(1998). At the Water’s Edge. The Free Press: NY.
Zimmer, C.
(2001). Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea. Harper Collins Pub.: NY.
Zimmer, C.
(May 6, 2008). Lots of Animals Learn, but Smarter Isn't Better. New York Times.
Zink, C.F.,
Tong, Y., Chen, Q., Bassett, D.S., Stein, J.L., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (Apr. 24, 2008).
Know Your Place: Neural Processing of Social Hierarchy in Humans. Neuron, 58:273-283.
Zion, I.Z.B.,
Tessler, R., Cohen, L., Lerer, E., Raz, Y., Bachner-Melman, R., Gritsenko, I., Nemanov,
L., Zohar, A.H., Belmaker, R.H., Benjamin, J., & Ebstein, R.P. (Aug. 1, 2006).
Polymorphisms in the dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4) contribute to individual
differences in human sexual behavior: desire, arousal and sexual function. Molecular
Psychiatry, 11:782-786.
Zischler, H.,
Geisert, H., von Haeseler, A. & Pääbo, S. (Nov. 30, 1995). A nuclear 'fossil' of the
mitochondrial D-loop and the origin of modern humans. Nature, 378:489-492.
Zuk, M.
(2007). Riddled With Life: Friendly Worms, Ladybug Sex and the Parasites that Make Us
Who We Are. Hardcourt.
Index
Table of Contents

Homo Erectus Walks Amongst Us

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Homo Erectus Walks Amongst Us

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Homo Erectus Walks Amongst Us

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Index Page 1 of 5

Section II TRAITS OF LIVING POPULATIONS 56

Section III THE OUT-OF-AFRICA THEORY 141

Chapter 17 Fossil Skulls 144

Section IV THE OUT-OF-EURASIA THEORY 180

Section V POLICY 235

Appendix (DNA) 292

Other works by the author

Home Page Some articles and poems

The Pure Logic of Choice The basis of Austrian Economics

A New Theory of Natural

A light opera about the Whiskey Rebellion and a few

On the Steppes of Central

Contact the author

Uploaded July 26, 2008.

TAKE THIS TEST!

glass of wine while listening to a recording of the ocean surf.

preferably without cuss words, may be sent to me HERE.

Africans or s-S Africans = sub-Saharan Africans.

Hs = Homo sapiens – our immediate archaic predecessors.

Early man = Homo, but not Homo sapiens.

Chapter 1 - A Story of the Origin of Humans

13. A successful invasion of occupied territory typically requires at least a 2 to 1 numerical

superiority or a highly superior technology. Back

Chapter 2 - Early Humans

Homo georgicus Figure 2-4

primitive), the sloping forehead, the heavy brow

Figure 2-7 Figure 2-8

Archaic Man and Modern Man

3. (KNM ER 3733) Picture from Museums Choice Fossils. Back

4. From Transvaal Museum, South Africa. Back

8. Skull D2700. Back

9. Skull D2282. Back

10. An example of Bergmann’s Rule. Back

15. La Forressie (reconstructed), France. World Museum of Man Back

19. Bergmann’s Rule and Allen’s Rule, respectively. Back

3. Epigenetics is an exciting new science with much promise of important discoveries.

Premises: If an individuals in a population have traits that

Generalized Versus Specialized

(1) Evolution is cumulative. The genome of a population, altered by mutations,

(2) Addition is easier than subtraction. Like a government bureaucracy, the

(3) Generalized → specialized → extinction. Generalized populations tend to

(4) Specialized populations evolve in a stable environment; generalized

(5) Specialized populations have less genetic variation than generalized

(7) Specialization increases carrying capacity. The carrying capacity (maximum

13. Illustration from “The Reptilian Brain” by David Icke. Back

advantageous in only one season may be at a disadvantage relative to a (generalized)

2. Catastrophes other than climatic catastrophes also changed man’s evolution. A

7. In Asia, the cold selected for neoteny. (Chap. 6). Back

thought they were not even in the same genus. Back

13. (Witelson, 2006; McDaniel, 2005). Back

16. Compared to 9% for a chimpanzee. (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 38). Back

Chapter 7 - Genetic Distance

Mongol: Nomadic people of Mongolia. Sardinian: Sardinia, an island west of Italy.

As you can see in Figure 7-3, Europeans are

Chapter 8 - Evolutionary Psychology 1

genetic distance between them. 25 A mutually beneficial relationship (“mutualism”) between

6. (Dawkins, 1976). Altruism as a reproductive strategy requires individuals to recognize in

fewer of her alleles. (Ross, 2007). Back

26. See the discussion of Gause’s Law of Competitive Exclusion. Back