1,063 words
Homo Erectus reconstruction. Neanderthal Museum
It’s always encouraging when scientific discoveries confirm what people have always known. This is especially the case today when observation and common sense is suppressed and science confirms it anyway—which can be a revolutionary act. In the past 15 years, geneticists have been struggling with the idea of early human “introgression” with archaic hominid populations. Through introgression, members of two disparate populations mate and produce hybrid individuals, which then mate with members of either parent population. The resulting population’s DNA can retain traces of introgression to the point where it becomes possible to estimate when and to what extent this hybridization took place. For example, researchers have known for some time that all non-African populations display signs of interbreeding with Neanderthals, whose genes make up around 2 percent of the non-African genome. Further research has shown that Oceanic and Australian aboriginal populations inherited an additional 4 or 5 percent of their genome from an archaic population known as the Denisovans.
Researchers have also known that the genomes of sub-Saharan African populations do not display evidence of introgression with either of these groups. Yet they do show evidence of introgression with a “ghost population,” which took place some time in the last half million years. The genetic artifacts of this mysterious population are known as “Putative Ghost Haplotypes” and point to what many geneticists believe is an archaic branch of humanity now long extinct.
According to subspecieist.com, in 2019,
Arun Durvasula and Sriram Sankararaman from the University of California in Los Angeles confirmed up to 19% archaic Hominid DNA in modern Africans. They have described the ancestor as a “ghost species” or quite possibly Homo naledi a “small-brained hominin” on the “African plains 250,000 years ago.”
Other researchers point to Australopithecines, or Homo ergaster as possible suspects. Regardless, the implications should be crystal clear: After the Homo sapiens exodus from Africa many tens of thousands of years ago, sub-Saharan black populations continued to introgress (or interbreed) with less-developed archaic hominid populations, which had split with modern humans before the advent of the Neanderthals.
As if “small-brained hominin” hadn’t been stated bluntly enough, the Subspecieist article above announces at its very beginning that Africans are “genetically closer to primitive hominins or chimpanzees” according to geneticist Shi Huang. In a tweet from 2020, Shi Huang elaborated:
That Africans carry more ancestral alleles (=archaic or apes) has been well demonstrated by the rooting of phylogenetic trees in Africa for both autosomes and uniparental DNAs by using the outgroup rooting method. Biological significance of this? Eerie silence.
Of course, we all know what this eerie silence entails—educated people once again confronting their reflexively liberal worldview with stubborn and uncomfortable facts. If black Africans interbred with more primitive humans after Homo sapiens departed from Africa, then that explains much, doesn’t it? It explains the relative low intelligence among sub-Saharan blacks as well as their violent tendencies and general lack of impulse control—which is, frankly, chimp-like. Sub-Saharan blacks are effectively a sub-species of Homo sapiens, and a more primitive one at that. The elegance of this explanation—in its simplicity, brevity, and harmony with obvious facts—should be lost on no one, including honest blacks themselves. But falling sway to this elegance comes at a political price, which is to vindicate the traditionalist, segregationist Right. Those who cling to liberal egalitarian principals are loath to do this, and thus dig their heels into race denialism—or squirm in “eerie silence,” hoping the issue will go away.
The problem is that it doesn’t go away. With more black people in our midst, the problems only increase as does the evidence of our obvious differences. It may sound like basic bitch at this point (for those readers familiar with my writing), but the crime, violence, poverty, chaos, corruption, and drug abuse black Africans bring with them everywhere they go becomes a serious burden for any nation of non-blacks which takes them in. Edwin Rubenstein’s Color of Crime is a great place to start with the details. Since its publication in 2016, things haven’t gotten any better. In 2024, blacks, despite being approximately 13 percent of the US population, murdered 475 whites and made up 58 percent of the interracial murder suspects. In 2023, those numbers were 603 and 62, respectively.
How many more white people are we willing to sacrifice to prop up the demonstrably false and unscientific notion of racial equality?
What makes these recent discoveries of archaic human introgression so remarkable, however, is that they provide a reason for sub-Saharan African inferiority. Previously, the best all our neuroscientific and psychometric data could tell us was that they were inferior, but not why. Now we know why. 19 percent of black African DNA tells us they interbred at a greater rate with more primitive subspecies of archaic humans than did those Homo sapiens who left Africa.
All that, and Bob’s your uncle. And if you’re a sub-Saharan African, then this Bob is likely to have been one of the “small brained,” chimp-like hominids running around the Serengeti hundreds of thousands of years ago. Denying this would be denying science, which, as Al Gore likes to tell us, is settled.
If this pithy and splendidly written essay isn’t enough to sell you on the racial inegalitarian perspective, you are free to peruse the findings of noted Nazi eugenicists and KKK Grand Wizards Arun Durvasula and Sriram Sankararaman here. If you disagree you could challenge their data with some of your own. Here is what they say about their methods:
We leveraged whole-genome sequence data from present-day West African populations and archaic hominins to compute statistics that are sensitive to introgression in the history of these populations. Specifically, we tabulated the distribution of the frequencies of derived alleles (where a derived allele is determined relative to an inferred human ancestor) in the analyzed African populations at single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for which a randomly sampled allele from an archaic individual was observed to also be derived.
And this is what they conclude:
Our analyses provide support for a contribution to the genetic ancestry of present-day West African populations from an archaic ghost population whose divergence from the ancestors of modern humans predates the split of Neanderthals and modern humans.
Alternatively, you could look up the infamous white supremacist Shi Huang on X and DM him for his take. But be careful, please. In the face of all this science, you just might turn into a white supremacist yourself.
54 comments
I seriously doubt that anyone on this site is going to doubt the data that you’ve provided. If anything you didn’t go far enough.
Hopefully Jared Taylor can talk Shi Huang into speaking at next year’s American Renaissance conference.
Neanderthals have been given a promotion by anthropologists in recent years. It’s good to see the ancestors finally getting the attention and respect we have found they deserve.
Since East Asians hold the highest percentage of Neanderthal DNA perhaps White people could join with them in a class action suit against Geico for the racial slur that was their Cave Man ad series.
Neanderthals were the first to bury their dead, & they would place the deceased’s hunting trophies beside the body.
I didn’t know they buried their dead with certain animal bones. The evidence that they buried flowers, which has been around for a while is now questioned. The pollen as evidence could have found an unintentional way into the grave.
Neanderthals did have bigger brains relative to their body size compared to modern humans. Maybe they could see ahead with this possible increase in intelligence and just decided to stay hunting and fishing.
This was mentioned by an archeology professor in a death rituals & burial practices class I took back in the early 90s. (I can’t remember whether or not he also shared a photo of what had been uncovered in excavation– the large animal skulls sometimes buried with Neanderthal bodies.)
Once again, complete 100% separation for us Whites embarking on our Breakaway Civilization in perpetuity.
Trust the science! . . . Oh, wait. It’s “inconvenient.”
This seems like a really major scientific development that should be front and center in discussions concerning race. It certainly explains a lot that is related to many people’s everyday lives, such as getting robbed, hassled, or clobbered over the head by individuals who appear to be subhumans. The actual discovery dates to 2020; this is the first I’ve heard of it.
Good work. It’s not news to me. I’ve been aware of this stuff for years. I wonder if the researchers talking about this via introgression, a completely valid thing, is a way of making this a bit more palatable. It’s just some accident of nature and populations swapping genes, rather than where we end up – different kinds of organism that have their own traits.
Everyone knows blacks have one foot in something far more archaic.
A direct line of genetics is obviously really important, and it’s interesting, but it’s not everything. Just collections, clusters, of phenotypical traits from a particular geographic region are going to show generally where an organism overlaps with others and the broad environmental pressures. If blacks look, or behave like a mixture of other hominids, or even primates, there’s probably a very strong reason for that. If they have physical and mental traits that push them in that direction, you can bet there’s a very strong reason for that.
Count me as a speciesist rather a subspeciesist on this question. Go and have a look at biology book about different plants and animals and you’ll very quickly understand why.
The problem all goes back to WW2. The Nahtzees were into race science > Nahtzees did the Holocaust > race science bad.
Plus letting Jews like Boas, Lewontin and Gould dictate anthropology towards a blank slate view didn’t help.
I’m so grateful for that study, this article, + the link to that crime database!
I am here to serve.
Great article!
“If black Africans interbred with more primitive humans after Homo sapiens departed from Africa, then that explains much, doesn’t it?”
Actually, it doesn’t explain much. Both we and blacks interbred with different subspecies of archaic humans, but given the time since our divergence, without knowing the traits of those populations we can’t infer anything about what traits may have been inherited from them. (The “small-brained” Homo naledi is only one contender among several.) Furthermore, even if we knew the general traits of those populations, it doesn’t tell us anything about which specific traits have been inherited from those ancestors. Evolution, of course, would tend to discard harmful alleles and retain helpful ones.
It’s also not really correct to call those other human populations “less-developed”. All living species descending from a common ancestor have had an equal amount of time to develop. There’s also nothing inherently bad about being primitive. When species and subspecies are more primitive – which just means “more similar to the ancestral state” – that typically just means that their environment is more similar to the ancestral environment, so the adaptations of their ancestors to that environment are preserved. Europeans, who moved to a rather different environment, have necessarily had to genetically adapt and change, but Africans in Africa and Europeans in Europe were both well-adapted to their environments. (One could argue that Europeans, whose populations are everywhere shrinking, are currently less well-adapted to the modern world than black Africans, whose populations are growing. Sometimes simple and dumb approaches work better than complex approaches. But you could also argue the other way.)
Overall, I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on tenuous explanations for why blacks are the way they are. Our opponents will always seize upon any weakness in an argument to discredit and ignore the whole thing, so we shouldn’t give them that opportunity. If we can show that they are a certain way, that it’s incompatible with the kind of society we want, and that it’s irremediable, that’s enough.
When it comes to modern genetic studies, you can get a lot more mileage out of simply showing that the alleles correlating with high intelligence are not equally distributed among the races. Trying to unravel the ancient history of that distribution is a lot harder and more error-prone than simply showing that it exists.
This is correct, and at the time when they interbred, the gap between Homo sapiens and the archaic humans was much smaller. Differences in modern human cognitive traits (believe me, I’m not denying these, lol) developed gradually later. The things we take from archaic humans are probably like dietary or skin texture, environmental adaptations.
Boy, doesn’t that reconstructed erectus look just like an Australian aborigine? I’ve read that African pygmies have six sacral vertebral bodies, a trait of archaic humans.
Not sure time is the only qualifier whether one population is more or less developed than another. If a population splits in two, and one group is forced to go to another environment where it is placed under lots of stress to adapt, and the other remains where no further adaptation is necessary, it is indeed fair to say the one forced to adapt is more developed.
As far as the Europeans’ current weakness goes, that is more likely cultural than genetic. Sometimes it can come down to a single choice by an individual. If Constantine had chosen to wipe out Christianity instead of the pagan religions, our culture would still have its very aggressive tendencies instead of influencing us to strive to be “meek as lambs.” European males still make good soldiers; all that is needed is cultural change to unleash their aggressiveness.
And your final comment almost seems anti-knowledge. We can indeed learn more by studying the topic. That doesn’t mean we have to know everything to make policy, but more knowledge = stronger arguments.
If a population moves to a new environment and adapts to it, I wouldn’t call it more developed unless it could also outcompete (or equal) the original form in its original environment (or more generally that it is more competitive in more environments). Otherwise, you just have two forms, both well-adapted to their environments, but neither better than the other in a general sense.
I agree that we should investigate everything and try to expand our knowledge infinitely. I just think we should argue from the things we know best, especially when our opponents have bad faith.
I disagree. It’s tremendously important to demonstrate that biological differences between the races have been present for millennia. People have been pointing out the discrepancies in intelligence between races for decades. The establishment position to “refute” this deploys the Out of Africa theory to suggest that there’s only one race, so that must mean that any differences in intelligence are the result of epigenetics that could be fixed with the proper environmental changes. Disproving race negationism is the first step of this process, and looking at ancestral origins is fundamental to that.
Your counterargument isn’t entirely relevant either. The results of this study acknowledge that other races bred with early hominids, the point is that Africans did so much more recently and at a much greater rate. You’re correct that we don’t know precisely which traits were passed down in that process, but we can assert that Africans have more of those traits, linking them more closely with primitive hominids than other humans.
Your suggestion that black Africans are better adapted to modernity because they reproduce at a higher rate ignores the fact that modernity has reduced or often eliminated evolutionary pressures. Africans are poised to become the largest racial group in large part because white societies have provided them with sufficient food and medicine to enable that. White rates of reproduction have significantly decreased due to all sorts of artificial societal incentives that run contrary to evolution. Besides, these demographic changes have happened in living memory, far too brief a timespan for evolution to be responsible.
Well, epigenetics isn’t a plausible explanation anyway, but I agree with you that it’s important to show that the differences are innate and practically unchangeable, which may include showing that they have been around for tens of thousands of years.
I just think you can do that better by finding current genetic differences and tracing them backwards than you can by guessing about historical events and genotypes that have been lost to the mists of time.
This seems very misleading. I should stress I’m not a trained expert on all of this, but I do know a lot of rather convoluted word games and abstractions have come to affect this field and adjacent ones, seemingly for scientific reasons, to move human bias to one side, but I think we should be quite suspicious too. Equally it has the effect to obscure race in the human domain, so it can never be looked at with any kind of language at all.
If it’s too politically incorrect for you, you can exchange the term ‘less developed’ for ‘less derived’. Blacks are less derived forms. A non specialist dictionary seems to support this use. But I can flick through science papers that insist a different meaning to derived, to bind it strictly to genes and not traits, so the modern bacteria is ‘just as derived’ as modern humans, because…. level playing field reasons. Or they’ll find some other reason. We could create a new word, ‘distinct’ or ‘differentiated’ and see how long it lasts before that’s deconstructed too.
Well I think we can call BS on this.
There are morphologically and functionally distinct organisms, split, where one population has stayed in the ocean, while the other walks on land. You can argue the fish are just as developed or derived, or some new term we nominate, but in human terms it’s a game with words. We know what we mean by populations that have become more and more distinct from each other, more and more separated, where one is clustering with a certain collection of traits, and other a different collection.
One can argue about some of the very fine details, but I don’t regard it as tenuous. I would describe it as obvious.
We do know the traits of those populations – or can constrain them to a reasonably tight cloud of possibilities – because they are apparent in blacks and not in us.
What he’s saying is focus on the fact of differences between groups, not complex explanations of why those differences exist, which the left could easily punch holes in or which may turn out to be untrue. I’m not sure that later erectus was a lot dumber than Neanderthal, for example. Neanderthals were pretty primitive in their Mousterian tool kit. If we interbred with Neanderthal, that’s not why we are smart.
for example, people are always saying in these settings and elsewhere, “find something in the genes, find something in the genes” about intelligence. Well, we don’t know what the genes express, except for what the phenotype shows. We have to establish difference between groups based on psychometric testing and brain size, etc. etc. before we can say anything about the genome. Phenotype first.
genomics and intelligence is some thing that might be used as a screening tool by government agencies, or something, if they find that people with IQ greater than 130 always have a certain gene or something you know.
If that’s what he wanted to say, then he would have said that first, instead of paragraphs of abstractions he’s absorbed from somewhere, about why none of it matters anyway.
Why are you opposed to him?
I think “primitive” captures your meaning. Blacks are seemingly more primitive in the biological sense of being “more like the ancestral state”, and also in the sociological sense of having less and lower levels of civilization. (They’re not on track for extinction, though, so that strategy is working for them, for now.)
My argument is really that we should avoid weak arguments that rely on guesses about historical events and populations that we know little about, especially since our opponents won’t argue in good faith and will use any flaw to discredit the whole message.
I decided not to use ‘primitive’ because of the potential word games trap that’s appeared through your comment and that I tried to depict. Maybe I’m off track, but I’m getting a sense of a word game again if it’s now offered to me. I don’t want to play the word game on this topic.
You’re conceding blacks appear to be closer to something prior. You also keep saying “little is known.” And what is observed can’t be understood. It’s too complex with too many questions and the left will find some fault somewhere or lie about it.
I don’t know the strength of the exact claim in this article. The website link is not informative to me and doesn’t appear to be a scientific source itself. But any serious study of this kind of thing generally is just a process that’s happening. One would expect disagreements, wrong turnings, right turnings, prejudices on different sides, good research, bad research, but some model will form and not every detail needs to be known, not every question needs an immediate answer, to have a useful or even explanatory model.
Nothing else is expected to be perfect in that way. But this topic is so delicate and special it’s required to have some extraordinary standard. I’m pretty sure the left have found plenty of specious arguments to deny all the standard, non evolutionary arguments for race anyway.
A position that says, “let’s just bury this whole topic in case the left find a fault somewhere” and then when it’s accompanied by a lot of arguments for negation sounds like something else is going on.
Yes, we can say derivedness and propagability are two different criteria. Bacteria are doing well too last time I checked.
Blacks globally – in the US and Europe, and Africa are given enormous aid and investment to reproduce, to be propped up artificially, be treated medically, and to be given artificial status, without which their numbers would be a lot less.
I suppose one could reduce this to an unfortunate white genetic response to blacks, where whites are ill adapted to the promixity of blacks. But you could just as easily say social/political factors have interfered with black survival.
Hi VR, I link the scientific article at the end. Here it is.
https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aax5097
There are others in the links I provided. Thanks.
I think you’re pretty much correct, but just to nitpick — birth rates are declining among Blacks everywhere.
“All living species descending from a common ancestor have had an equal amount of time to develop.”
Oh? Who sez? Where’s your proof?
It simply follows from the definitions of the terms. It’s analogous to how if a woman gives birth to twins, then at any point that the twins are still alive, they will have the same age. (You can ignore the seconds’ or minutes’ gap between their births, because species formation is more analogous to one individual splitting into two. If you suddenly split into two people, then at any point that the two people were still alive they would have the same age.)
Thank you for this! Many years ago I majored in anthropology, in part because of a fascination with ancient and prehistoric peoples. As you can guess, the dogma of racial equality was the rule among the faculty (with a few quiet exceptions). I’m glad to have lived long enough to see the truth being revealed again. Most people before the reign of Boas knew that truth.
Good research and sharing of information. Your article writing is thoughtful and conveys detail in a feasible form.
You document the latest evolutionary history and provide evidence of the group behaviour which links to that history. This bolsters what has long been argued at CC and AR.
Would the use of inferior not trigger an almost involuntary reaction among “so-called” liberals to feel hostility to all that you argue in this essay, regardless whether it is the truth? You surely have seen the reaction of many to Mr. Taylor’s quip about out-of-shape Appalachians. (See Jason Kessler’s essay and the following comments about a week ago.) I think these reactions are understandable, but then I am guilty of being quite liberal myself.
I think your producing novels and Angelo Plume’s stab at creating art will be what stanches the hemorrhaging of white civilization. As a CC commenter wrote, “when will we have our To Kill A Mockingbird?”
Gosh, I would like to think that The No College Club and Critical Daze are superior to To Kill a Mockingbird.
Funny how all that “party of science” horseshit kind of gets put on hold when science makes discoveries like this.
Except I’m not sure how much prestige Chinese scientists have in population genetics circles. However, they may soon make their name with studies of Denisovan remains.
Also, bear in mind that Shi Huang promotes an “Out of East Asia” model, whereby first modern humans evolved in China and then mixed with other hominids as they migrated elsewhere. Which is to say, if science in the West is compromised by political correctness, don’t discount that the Chinese may slant their science by another agenda.
Analyses based on a more complete molecular evolutionary framework, the maximum genetic diversity (MGD) theory, suggests multiregional origins for autosomes, but roots both uniparental DNAs in East Asia. In this model of an Asian origin of Homo Sapiens, modernity is defined by individuals carrying modern uniparental DNAs. Migration of modern humans from East Asia to other regions would result in mating between modern and local archaic humans, and hence the gradual dilution of the autosomes carried by early modern humans from East Asia by the autosomes of the populations already inhabiting these regions before admixture/migration.
Arrogant stat guy and source dude are the worst. Like, neil degrasse tyson bad. “What peer reviewed studies and medical science journals do you peons read?” Now every overschooled shithead thinks they’re Heraclitus Empiricus all of a sudden. How dare you scoff at my lectures! Their “science”, like “my truth”, becomes as legitimate as scientology when obvious racial no-shits are dogmatically subdued in the boas constrictor.
If humans had developed in Africa, we’d all carry this same archaic DNA. The fact that it’s only present in blacks suggests humans developed from some precursor group that left Africa long before, developed into humans outside of Africa, and eventually spread back into Africa, where that population was (presumably) ‘forcibly blended’ into modern blacks by the non-human locals in Africa.
TLDR they’re sensitive about gorilla jokes for a reason.
Agreed, it’s impolite to talk about someone’s parents!
Look at the meem of patrick ewing and the gorilla side by side and see if that’s just harsh ‘racism’ on our part.
That looks like my next door neighbor!
A useful article: the more race science the better. But let us not forget that evolutionary differences can also arise quickly, if, eg, there is an exterminatory event. It might be that black behavior (phenotype) is in some part caused by the archaic DNA (genotype) found exclusively in Africans. But the majority genetic contribution to contemporary black behavior is still likely to have been the different environmental stresses of the past several hundred thousand years since either homo sapiens, or pre-human hominid ancestors of homo sapiens, first ventured out of Africa. That was more than enough time for small genetic differences to arise which, under conditions of urban civilization, manifest themselves in large behavioral differences.
The scientific research in this field is very important; it helps to buttress the common sense views that were universally held everywhere. The genetic studies confirm the truth that 80 years ago was proclaimed unacceptable in the “civilized world”.
But, however important to know the genetic truth about different population groups, it isn’t something that will decide the outcome of the overall struggle. Negroes are not the problem for our societies. Or, to be more precise, it is far from being the problem number one. Therefore, it is counterproductive to frame Blacks as the exclusive source of all social evils (like Jared Taylor tends to do). If you allow wild monkeys into your house and they wreak havoc there, who is to blame, you or those monkeys?
Here is my article on this topic: https://whitebiocentrism.com/viewtopic.php?p=40220#p40220
The orcs are less a threat without Sauron and the Nazgûl organizing them is what you are saying. And they’re putting Sarumans up at congress.
NORTH-SOUTH: THE FIRST HUMAN DICHOTOMY AND THE SEPARATION OF THE AUSTRAL BRANCH
The out of Africa has long since disappeared into the realm of fairy tales
Frobenius, the Hindus and all traditional civilizations had already understood thousands of years ago that blacks and pygmies were races coming from the pole and prematurely decayed
https://immagineperduta.altervista.org/nord-sud-la-dicotomia-umana-la-separazione-del-ramo-australe/
https://immagineperduta.altervista.org/page/2/?s=Acerbi
Furthermore, it seems plausible to me that the model of a boreal origin of the first human migrations was structured in a significantly different way from that imagined by the “Out of Africa” theory. In fact, this hypothesis foresees the hypothesis of small groups of migrants who would have pushed themselves further and further away from Africa, bringing with them only a fraction of the global genetic variability, much of which however remained in the mother continent until the present day. On the contrary, in the boreal hypothesis, in my opinion it would not have been just a few men who left the original area around 52,000 years ago, but a much greater number would have left, probably due to a first macrocosmic and geoclimatic event that in that period hit the Arctic area (which we will return to later), so as to depopulate it to a large extent almost from the beginning of its occupation. In fact, if for Africa the current genetic evidence that, as we will see, is read as supporting a sub-Saharan human origin could be largely distorted by demographic mechanisms (for example, a high population density that occurred in relatively recent times) it is clear that a similar interpretative distortion cannot be applied to the current Arctic areas, which today are almost completely uninhabited or have been repopulated in more recent times than those in Africa, moreover not by populations that originated there but have adapted there only in the last few millennia; this is, for example, the case of the Inuit, of evident Mongoloid origin and therefore not particularly ancient. In other words, I believe that the current Arctic can no longer reveal clear genetic traces of its past, because over time it has been subjected to a demographic dynamic (which we will try to explore further on) that can be summarized in the probable sequence:
1. First Great Year: “incorporeal” anthropogenesis and consequent absence of fossil traces
2. Beginning of Second Great Year: human corporization and first waves of migration, in several phases
3. End of Second Great Year (and end of the Paradise Age): further and almost complete depopulation
4. Recent times: poor repopulation from the south.
https://immagineperduta.altervista.org/il-paradiso-iperboreo/
Short article on Shi Huang’s out-of-Asia theory =
https://nybreaking.com/scientist-challenges-out-of-africa-theory-with-new-origins-for-modern-humans/
In the eight years since Dr. Huang and his team first presented their “out of East Asia” theory at an international academic conference in 2016, he has been unable to find an academic journal outside China willing to publish the theory.
“We tried to submit the article to many journals but were rejected, so we gave up,” Huang said.
“Any intellectual who wants to overthrow public opinion will face the same difficulties,” he said. “But it’s fine as long as what you’re promoting is true and you don’t care how long it takes (to be accepted).”
English-language version of Shi Huang’s January ’25 article on modern human origins, i.e., the Out-of-Asia theory ==
https://www.sciengine.com/prehistory/doi/10.3724/2097-3063.20240030;JSESSIONID=6371f33c-664a-4b9f-9303-ab0cbc8dfb3e?trans=true
“It’s always encouraging when scientific discoveries confirm what people have always known.”
That one made me want to chuckle. Science now demonstrates that water is wet, so finally we know for sure that water is wet – cool!
Anyway, it looks like this ghost population hasn’t been named yet. How about orcs?
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.