Some beautiful black ladies....but you will note the most beautiful are the ones that are of a mulatto origin. http://izismile.com/2015/05/22/beautiful_black_ladies_that_will_brighten_your_day_45_pics.html mixed race black women turn out much better than mixed race black men for some reason. https://nicolamarven.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/mixed-race-people-are-not-beautiful/
These are your personal views of Black aesthetics and do not represent some objective observation of reality based in science.
Physical attraction is not all subjective. There's a universal (cross-cultural) preference for symmetric faces. This is because symmetric stimuli is more easily processed by the visual system than asymmetric stimuli. As an extension of the latter, the visual system finds it easier to process straight lines. This is why when it comes to hair texture, there is a cross-cultural preference for straight-wavy hair, than spiralled-woolly. The fact so many black women artificially straighten their hair has nothing to do with 'white racism'.
I do think physical attraction is partially based on natural instinct but also partially influenced by cultural standards of beauty which have changed over time. Yes, it does. Do you think Black women in Africa ever thought about straightening their hair before they encountered White people? And why is it Black women who so often straighten their hair and not Black men? Natural hair styles for Blacks were much more common in the 1960s. The media promotion of White aesthetics as the standard of beauty and racism has had a major psychological impact on Black people and their perceptions of beauty.
I would have to scan old literature to show there was a preference for straight hair in Africa before the European colonial period. What however I know for certain, is that nearly all pre-colonial Sub-Saharan African ethnic groups had an aesthetic preference for females in their populations with the lightest skin shades.
"Among the first genomes completely typed were those of James Watson and Craig Venter, two U.S. geneticists of European origin; they share more alleles with Seong-Jin Kim, a Korean scientist (1,824,482 and 1,736,340, respectively) than with each other (1,715,851). This does not mean that two random Europeans are expected to be genetically closer to Koreans than to each other, but certainly highlights the coarseness of racial categorizations. On average, nearby populations tend to resemble each other more than distant ones, but individual members of the same population, Watson and Venter in this case, can be very different. In short, if races are defined as subspecies, there is no such thing in humans. The best way to know what is in a person’s DNA is to study that person’s DNA." (Barbujani & Pigliucci, 2013)
It's obviously a flawed study when genomic reading was in the early stages and error prone. You cherry picked it to match your position. This indicates that your position is false, since you must resort to base pseudoscientific methods to support it. In Witherspoon's study it's clear two individuals from different races are never genetically more similar to each other when enough loci are examined.
This quote-mine was dealt with on Rationalwiki. Witherspoon's study actually supports what I posted if you read the full quote (see bold): Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, Formula can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is Formula ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, Formula ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations. On the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase. This is illustrated by the fact that Formula and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of >10,000 polymorphisms (Table 1, microarray data set; Figure 2D). (Witherspoon et al. 2007) This explains James Watson and Craig Venter. There are outliers in populations on a global dataset. On average two individuals from the same population are genetically closer than someone from another population, but as Barbujani & Pigliucci (2013) caution: average doesn't mean always.
No, the Watson, Venter and Kim result is explained by flawed or impartial data. Looking at any modern genetic plot shows that East Asians are never misclassified as Europeans. So you are just avoiding the definition, which is based on ancestry inferred from overall genetic similarity. Using millions of SNPs as they now do effectively reduces misclassification to zero, and individuals will always be closer to one cluster (major race) centroid or another, the definition robustly classifies all individuals. The definition is ancestry, inferred from whole-genome genomic similarity. You are attacking tiny-fraction genomic similarity as not being reliable, which in itself is missing the point, and furthermore it's just a proxy for the real definition: ancestry. In short, you fail.
"Sociologist and anthropologist Robert Stuckert examined census and fertility data to estimate how many blacks in America had passed as white, and how many whites had African ancestry as a result. His statistical tables showed that during the 1940s, 15,550 light-skinned blacks per year crossed over to live as whites, for a total of about 155,500 for the decade. Based on these figures, he determined that by 1950, some 21% of whites (about 28 million people then) had black ancestry within the last four generations, and he predicted that this number would only grow in the decades to come." - Stuckert, Robert S. (1958 "African Ancestry of the White American Population". Ohio Journal of Science; 55:155-160
This one claims 2% of Euro-Americans have Negro ancestry, with most of it at 0.5%. Also they claim the ancestry is over 7 generations old. This one has 11/681 or 1.6% of self-identified Euro-Americans over 10% Negro. The first study uses a more reliable method.
White Americans are mongrels. Even if you ignore the recent Sub-Saharan African admixture in up to 30% of the White American population, virtually all White Americans are a mix of different ethnic groups from Europe: Italian, Polish, German, English, Scottish, Swedish etc. On top of this there is also Native American, and Asian admixture. Based on this - it doesn't surprise me James Watson and Craig Venter came back as outliers. If you read the Witherspoon quote in full he points out classification accuracy is not 100% because of "the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations".
You are suffering from confirmation bias and cherry picking outdated studies that match the pre-decided conclusion you want to push. This is classic pseudoscience.
Shriver et al. 2002 is from a peer-reviewed science journal. The 23andme source you posted isn't. It appears as a blog entry on the 23andme website. Like DNAtribes, this sort of stuff isn't reliable. Classic pseudo-science is relying on non-peer reviewed work or studies from pseudo-journals - which you have been doing for years. Another thing, there is craniometric data which shows modern White Americans poorly resemble 18th-early 19th century White American skulls. Not all of this is because of gene flow (although some of it is), but selection. North America has a different climate and environment than Europe. Coon et al. 1950 (Races: A Study of the Problems of Race Formation in Man) realised this which is why White Americans in their classification are a separate race to European Whites.
Except you don't quote Shriver you link to a news blog. My Kittles source is very good. It's by top geneticists and can be considered reviewed. You think your 2002 study trumps this? Not a chance. Don't tell me, Franz "Jewish pseudoscience" Boas?
Assuming only 1% of White Americans have recent Sub-Saharan ancestry (the true figure is a lot higher), they're still all mongrels. White Americans are a mix of different populations from Europe, e.g. Donald Trump has Scottish and German ancestry.
Why is population mixture between continents bad, but mixture within continents not bad? The distinction is totally arbitrary. This is why white nationalism makes no sense. "Whiteness" is also an American construct because they're mutts. In Europe people identify with their ethnic group e.g. English, Danish not "white".
The Turkish straits are very narrow, they aren't barriers to gene flow and have been crossed for millennia. As I've repeatedly told you, Europeans are not a genetic cluster separated from Turks, or other West Asians. There is a genetic continuum: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2011.00701.x/epdf
The Turkish national border is a barrier to gene flow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey
just keep mixing the races and dumb down the world.. mix black and white and you get black....beside,no one has stated that Negros can get disease that whites cant....sickle cell for one!
Sickle Cell Anemia is caused by a genetic variant related to Malaria resistance. There are people with Sickle Cell in Southern Europe, The Middle East and other places that do NOT have recent African ancestry. The reason it is more common in people of African descent is because the mosquitoes that carry Malaria are more commonly found in certain parts of Africa. Sickle Cell Anemia is not a Black disease and White people can get it too. There are no racial diseases only genetic variants more commonly found in some populations than others. Race-mixing does not dumb down the world. You are just a racist who is mad that Black men are having sex with White women.
Your just being another dickweed.....most white wimmin have sex with black guys because no one else will dickum....your the biggest reason blacks are losing out to Mexicans in jobs and wealth...lotta people speak Mexican, but vey few speak negro... - - - Updated - - - ...go back and learn a lesson from Bill Cosby....
