Category: phenotype vs. genotype

More Sweaty Fetishism Debunked

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.

The Viking travels to the New World are well documented, and should be acknowledged and celebrated.  However, after that, the essay goes off the rails in typically demented “movement” fashion.

Nordic Amerindians.  Nordic Polynesians.  Nordics from Atlantis.  Nordic Martians.  Nordics from the Andromeda Galaxy.

By the way, blond hair in Pacific Islanders is due to a native gene variant that differs from that of Europeans, and thus once again “movement” fantasies are disproved by objective scientific facts.

The common occurrence of blond hair among the dark-skinned indigenous people of the Solomon Islands is due to a homegrown genetic variant distinct from the gene that leads to blond hair in Europeans, according to a new study from the Stanford University School of Medicine.

Hmmm…it seems that refined French “intellectuals” are no better than the American “burgers” they so despise.

Summary: Der Movement Inc. LIES to you about race and racial history, it lies over and over again.  As to the excuse “it’s just ignorance, not dishonesty,” I respond that the facts about Polynesian hair color genetics can be found with about 10 seconds of online searching; instead AltRight.com runs an article quoting some crazed babbling from 1953.

They are fundamentally dishonest.

Advertisements

A Person of Tallness

About height.

Preferences for height were and are certainly not just due to an association between height and social status (and health and good nutrition).  It is likely that height was selected for, and appreciated, at least for men, because increased size gave men an advantage in combat, both for mate competition and also in warfare (this during pre-technic periods of human evolution).  Selection for height also includes extreme sexual selection by women for male height (which continues to this day); this preference is no doubt an evolved one, given the superiority of larger males in combat, providing protection for the women and offspring, and the ability to pass on these genes for tallness to the woman’s male offspring.  Further, as has been noted in a recent book review at VDARE, given that women select (or at least used to) for male intelligence as well as height, there seems to be a general trend for height and intelligence to correlate, although of course the bell curves overlap to a considerable degree.

There are of course costs to height, which may explain why, despite advantages to being taller, some ethnies are shorter than others, on average.  For example, looking at the well-known difference between taller Northern Europeans and shorter Southern Europeans (the latter, as Der Movement tells us, are low-IQ cringing subhumans), we can consider some selective pressures against height.  Larger people tend to do better in cooler climates rather than in the warmer clines of the south. Further, larger people require a greater caloric intake to maintain their mass, which necessitates more calorie-dense foods.  Northern Europe’s generally cool and wet climate allowed for agriculture that provided a diet rich in calorie-dense foods, such as (red) meat and dairy.  In the warmer and drier south, a more plant-based diet would have been insufficient to maintain a significant fraction of the population of larger size; in this latter scenario, smaller people would have had a long term survival advantage that more than balanced out the advantages (combat and mate competition) of height. Thus, the advantages of male height are a net evolutionary gain only in circumstances in which the environment can maintain a sizable fraction of the population being larger and with greater caloric requirements.

As Sailer suggests, cancer rates are higher in the tall; it may be in part cell number as he mentions; in addition, the increased caloric needs of the tall may help fuel cancer growth through diet (there are associations between diet/energy consumption and cancer, particularly between caloric-dense foods and cancer), and increased growth signaling, particularly in the young growing stage, may prime the body for later cancer, not only by increasing cell numbers, but, possibly, by epigenetic and other changes in the cells themselves.

However, this cancer link is generally not counter-selective against height, at least not in human evolutionary history, as cancer typically is a disease in the older (Sailer’s case being one exception, as are childhood cancers and some of those due to inherited mutations), past prime reproductive age, individuals.  It is a cost of height, though, at the individual and public health levels.

As to Sailer’s main thesis, why “heightism” is not a SJW issue, we must consider that Female Privilege plays a role.  Milady always gets her way (Roissy being correct about the “Fundamental Premise” – females being considered more valuable, and catered to, because eggs are more valuable than sperm).  Male height is a female preference, so discrimination against short men is socially acceptable.  Female thinness is a male preference, so that is socially unacceptable “fat shaming” – instead we must celebrate “curvy women” – an euphemism for disgusting piles of sweaty lard, with the BMI of a neutron star, rolling around the landscape, each consuming more calories in  a day than the entire world population of blue whales does in a year.  When you consider that men really can’t do anything about their height, while women can certainly lose weight, the fact that an immutable characteristic is “shamed” while a changeable one is not tells you all you need to know of the raw dominant power of Female Privilege (aka, the Yeastbucket Advantage).

Racial Facial

Or is that facial racial?

Genes for facial shape identified in human (i.e., European) samples.  Emphasis added:

Genome-wide association scans of complex multipartite traits like the human face typically use preselected phenotypic measures. Here we report a data-driven approach to phenotyping facial shape at multiple levels of organization, allowing for an open-ended description of facial variation while preserving statistical power. In a sample of 2,329 persons of European ancestry, we identified 38 loci, 15 of which replicated in an independent European sample (n = 1,719). Four loci were completely new. For the others, additional support (n = 9) or pleiotropic effects (n = 2) were found in the literature, but the results reported here were further refined. All 15 replicated loci highlighted distinctive patterns of global-to-local genetic effects on facial shape and showed enrichment for active chromatin elements in human cranial neural crest cells, suggesting an early developmental origin of the facial variation captured. These results have implications for studies of facial genetics and other complex morphological traits.

A summary, emphasis added:

Scientists from KU Leuven and the Universities of Pittsburgh, Stanford, and Penn State say they have identified fifteen genes that determine our facial features. Doctors could use DNA for skull and facial reconstructive surgery, forensic examiners could sketch a perpetrator’s face on the basis of DNA retrieved from a crime scene, and historians would be able to reconstruct facial features using DNA from the past….

…“We’re basically looking for needles in a haystack,” says Seth Weinberg, Ph.D., of the departments of oral biology and anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh. “In the past, scientists selected specific features, including the distance between the eyes or the width of the mouth. They would then look for a connection between this feature and many genes. This has already led to the identification of a number of genes but, of course, the results are limited because only a small set of features are selected and tested.”

In the current study the team adopted a different approach.

“Our search doesn’t focus on specific traits,” lead author Peter Claes, Ph.D., KU Leuven, explains. “My colleagues from Pittsburgh and Penn State each provided a database with 3D images of faces and the corresponding DNA of these people. Each face was automatically subdivided into smaller modules. Next, we examined whether any locations in the DNA matched these modules. This modular division technique made it possible for the first time to check for an unprecedented number of facial features.

The scientists were able to identify fifteen locations in our DNA. The Stanford team found out that genomic loci linked to these modular facial features are active when our face develops in the womb.

“Furthermore, we also discovered that different genetic variants identified in the study are associated with regions of the genome that influence when, where and how much genes are expressed,” adds Joanna Wysocka, Ph.D., at Stanford University School of Medicine.

Seven of the fifteen identified genes are linked to the nose, and that’s good news, according to Dr. Claes. “A skull doesn’t contain any traces of the nose, which only consists of soft tissue and cartilage. Therefore, when forensic scientists want to reconstruct a face on the basis of a skull, the nose is the main obstacle. If the skull also yields DNA, it would become much easier in the future to determine the shape of the nose.”

The four universities are continuing their research using larger databases.

“We won’t be able to predict a correct and complete face on the basis of DNA tomorrow. We’re not even close to knowing all the genes that give shape to our face. Furthermore, our age, environment, and lifestyle have an impact on what our face looks like as well,” points out Mark Shriver, Ph.D., of the department of anthropology at Penn State.

Shriver…Der Movement’s least favorite physical anthropologist (cue heavy breathing, re: DNAPrint Genomics).

In any case, this interesting work has implications for race, genotype-phenotype correlations, and other topics of at least peripheral interest to biologically-minded racialists (however genetic kinship is still fundamental and this other data, although interesting, is secondary).

The Face of the Duce

Also: Introducing Racial Recapitulation Theory.

What can the phenotype of the young Mussolini tell us?

Let’s take a look at the physical appearance phenotype of the Northern Italian (from Predappio in Romagna) Benito Mussolini, as a young man, to dissect certain aspects of “movement” dogma about Italians.

Let’s be honest. If you showed someone those pictures, and if they didn’t know who it was other than being told “it’s an Italian,” you know very well they would immediately say “must be a Southern Italian,” “It’s a Sicilian,” etc. – the extreme non-gracile swarthoid qualities would give the impression that reflects popular stereotypes.  However, Mussolini was, as stated above, a Northern Italian.  I also note that General von Rundstedt once deeply offended Hitler by questioning Der Fuhrer’s friendship and alliance with the “Negroid Asshole” Mussolini.  Did the good general see ll Duce’s Swiss mugshots?

What conclusions can we make based on these photos?

I want to first reply to potential objections to this brief analysis:

1. “This is just anecdotal evidence, a single-point piece of data.”  That’s correct, but Der Movement does the same with all groups (especially S. Italians), using pictures of single individuals as representative of an entire group, so we can do the same here.  There are indeed N. Italians who look like the young Mussolini, so there’s some general utility in the analysis.

2. “I thought you value genotype over phenotype.”  That’s true.  But we do not have access to Mussolini’s autosomal genome.  We do have access to his physical appearance; I’ll use the data at hand.

3. “I thought you wrote that phenotype is an imprecise reflection of the underlying genotype, of the underlying ancestry.”  That’s true as well; however, that is most true for phenotype analyzed as a stand-alone evaluation, and when one ignores available genetic data in favor of a purely phenotypic analysis. In the absence of genetic information, combining phenotype with other pieces of information – such as an individual’s ethnic affiliation – can give some useful information.  It’s flawed and subjective, but insofar as I know, no one has genotyped Mussolini’s remains, so we use what we have.

So, what can we say?

Two major points.

First, it is almost certain that Mussolini could not have been of exclusive Celto-Germanic ancestry (remember that one of Der Movement’s memes is that Northern Italians are Celto-Germanic).

Second, even if Mussolini did have some Celto-Germanic ancestry, it is likely in the extreme that such ancestry was only a minority of his ancestry.  The majority of his ancestry likely derived from other sources.

So, we can ask: what were those other sources?

According to another school of “movement” “thought” (Duke/My Awakening, etc.) Northern Italians reflect ancestry from the original Romans (or at least the original peoples of Italy).  If so, Il Duce suggests that at least some of those original Romans/Italians were quite swarthy and non-gracile indeed.  That goes against that precinct of “movement” “thought” that asserts that the original Romans/Italians were all akin to Dolph Lundgren walking around in a toga.

On the other hand, if you deny that the original peoples of Rome and Italy – or at least some of them – looked like Mussolini, and instead assert that his Swiss mugshots reflect “the racial degeneration due to Roman slavery” then you have to admit that such degeneration spread to Northern Italy, and that the ancestral remains of such degeneration is still present there in modern times.

So, it would seem that Der Movement dogma is at an impasse. Il Duce suggests that either there were real swarthoids among the original Romans/Italians or that Northern Italians are not purebred Romans or not purebred Celto-Germanics, or not merely a mix of the two.  Is it one or the other? Swarthy original Roman populations or racial degeneration in Northern Italy?

The point is for Der Movement to get beyond kneejerk dogma and at least think and consider the implications of their mutually exclusive memes coming into contact with facts and logic.

I doubt that will occur though.

By the way, Mussolini’s phenotype through his life reflects an observation I have made in that European-derived swarthoids tend to be swarthiest and most non-gracile in young adulthood and become lighter and more gracile as they age.  Hormones?  Some sort of racial version of recapitulation theory – “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” – at different stages of their life individuals reflect, to a greater or lesser degree, different aspects of their ancestry (*)?  Thus, for individuals of multi-component ancestry, they would look more like different components of that ancestry at different ages, at different phases of their life.  Would that be from actual differences in gene expression from various ancestrally-different gene segments that affect phenotype?  If so, what is the trigger for the switch – the aforementioned differences in hormone levels?  Some other age-related changes, possibly including epigenetics?  Or is it simply that phenotypic changes in physical appearance that normally accompany aging mimic the effects of looking more like various ethnic types?  This would require further consideration and study.  The former possibility is much more interesting than the latter, and more in keeping with “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”  Perhaps both possibilities operate.  Again, this would seem to be a potentially fruitful area of inquiry.

Finally, the purpose of this post is to critique Der Movement’s rigid, unquestioning dogma, certainly not to cast any dispersion at a historical leader I admire – Il Duce.  Indeed, with respect to Mussolini, my opinion of him is the same as Yockey’s – Il Duce was a great man, one of the great leaders of history, a flawed man of course, but a man of vision and force.  He was ultimately betrayed by Italian laziness, ineptitude, and hedonism – and he knew it, given his comments about Italians with an analogy of Michelangelo being forced to work with clay.  Mussolini’s phenotype is simply Italian – a reality that Der Movement misses with its view of Northern Italians all looking like actor Dolph Lundgren and Southern Italians all looking like boxer Mike Tyson.


Here is another picture. A Celto-Germanic Nordic on the left, a Nigerian Negro on the right.

*Racial recapitulation theory!  You read it at EGI Notes first.

Der Stupidity, 12/9/17

More “movement” antics.

Richard Spencer (laughably) asserts that an obvious non-White mongrel like Markle can “pass for White or Italian” (those two categories being, obviously, separate and distinct).  The resident wop on the podcast, along with Spencer, ended up making a joke out of it all (one could almost hear Beavis and Butthead sniggering in the background), and the podcast went on, the small faux paus of ethnic fetishism gently skipped over with a chuckle, akin to adults smiling when a toddler innocently passes gas in public.

Very well, everyone is entitled to their opinions on racial phenotypes, just as they are entitled to the glasses or corrective eye surgery that they so sorely require.  The irony though is that while these fellows decry that the “conversation moves in only one direction” – focusing on the hypocrisy between royal mores of the 1930s compared to today – they themselves exhibit the same tendencies to follow rigid trains of thought. How about moving the conversation about racial phenotypes in other directions?  If accusations of “ethnic fetishism” are thought to be unfair, then when are we going to hear Der Movement discuss how David Bromstad looks more Asian than Yukio Mishima, or how Bjork can pass as a Japanese Geisha?  Blasphemy!  Blasphemy!  Time to vandalize the Bromstad Wikipedia page with new lies about a “Chinese mother,” no doubt.

Critiquing Der Movement once again, I note the absence so far (apart from this blog) of commentary about Donald “Saturated Fats” Trump, the vacuum cleaner scarfing up piles of junk food like any typical obese American land whale, and his slavishly pro-Jewish Jerusalem ploy.  America First?  Laughable.  But all the “movement” heroes no doubt don’t want to dwell too much on this, as it would focus unwanted attention on their unrequited Trump lovefest, and their incurable “man on white horse syndrome.”  

Born Neandertal

Biological realities.

Read here.  Neandertals were born, not ”made.”  

Neandertal and modern human adults differ in skeletal features of the cranium and postcranium, and it is clear that many of the cranial differences—although not all of them—are already present at the time of birth. We know less, however, about the developmental origins of the postcranial differences. Here, we address this deficiency with morphometric analyses of the postcrania of the two most complete Neandertal neonates—Mezmaiskaya 1 (from Russia) and Le Moustier 2 (from France)—and a recent human sample. We find that neonatal Neandertals already appear to possess the wide body, long pubis, and robust long bones of adult Neandertals. Taken together, current evidence indicates that skeletal differences between Neandertals and modern humans are largely established by the time of birth.

 

That’s interesting.  More relevant to issues of interest to this blog is the following from the same paper:

Adult European Americans and African Americans differ, on average, in the shapes of their long bones, with European Americans having thicker shafts and larger articulations relative to shaft length.

But, but, but…aren’t racial differences all “skin deep” – just about color – and that other than such trivialities, we are all “exactly the same?”  You mean, there are actual anatomical differences between the races (never mind the genetic gulf)?

Race denial is a farce.  Real racial science is caught between the laughable lies of the Left and the HBD pseudoscience and crazed ethnic fetishism of the Right.  Fighting the former doesn’t mean we have to accept the latter.  Both are wrong (but, admittedly, the former is more dangerous).

And speaking of the Left, and getting back to the main article, did anyone truly believe that extreme Neandertal robustness was somehow the result of lifestyle?  Is anti-genetic leftism so entrenched in science that it goes to that extreme of ludicrousness?   Were the Neandertals constructing makeshift barbells out of boulders and tree trunks and engaging in Ice Age powerlifting routines?  Granted, yes, I understand (unlike Der Movement) that things need to be demonstrated empirically, and not just assumed.  But still, one cannot pretend that a demonstration that Neandertal robustness was an inborn trait is any sort of grand discovery.  Only leftists would be surprised by this finding.