frankster Posted July 22 Report Posted July 22 On 7/20/2025 at 2:15 PM, Pioneer1 said: frankster We've already agreed....based on the actual DEFINITION of race....that nearly ANY difference among human beings can be a basis for racial classification -skin color (genetic) -language -even profession Yes On 7/20/2025 at 2:15 PM, Pioneer1 said: According to definition, nearly ANYTHING that distinguishes one group of humans from another can be considered their race or racial classification depending on how society chooses to define it or "construct" it. Yes On 7/20/2025 at 2:15 PM, Pioneer1 said: So what is the argument about???? Is it Physically True as in Biologically based....No or Is it based on Social and Political Drives....Yes On 7/20/2025 at 2:15 PM, Pioneer1 said: Race can be based on skin color as easily as nose shape or hair texture.....all genetically based; depending on what that particular society CHOOSES to base their racial classification system on. We human beings are biological entities....so our appearance is rooted in genetics - that is inescapable. Race is based in and on Politics....A form of politics rooted in the desire to create a permanent divide between human beings based on their physical appearances. Race is associated/afilliated not based in or on physical features....popular vernacular prefers to use the term based on or in instead of associated On 7/20/2025 at 2:15 PM, Pioneer1 said: So why WOULDN'T race have a genetic basis? Science demands distinctiveness.....For race to be genetic There must be a distinctive and or totally different gene or set of genes that is exclusive to one race and is absent in the other race...This has not be found. Most if not all human featues can be found accross and within all or most ethnicities. As @Troy keep telling you but you seemed to miss or ignore is that there is more genetic diversity in and among Africans than between African and Europeans even though their appearance is some strikingly different.. More important today the idea of race is tied to the justification of oppression and expliotation of human beings based on their appearance.
Pioneer1 Posted July 27 Report Posted July 27 frankster Is it Physically True as in Biologically based....No or Is it based on Social and Political Drives....Yes Truth is truth. Doesn't matter if it's "physically true" or "biologically true". Either it's true or it's not. Race is based in and on Politics Race IS political, however it can be BASED IN many other things besides politics. ...A form of politics rooted in the desire to create a permanent divide between human beings based on their physical appearances. If they look different physically, the division is ALREADY there. Perhaps what you mean is that division is just being EXPLOITED for political purposes. Science demands distinctiveness.....For race to be genetic Race IS genetic....depending on what the distinctiveness is based on. If the distinctiveness is based on PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES then it IS genetic. There must be a distinctive and or totally different gene or set of genes that is exclusive to one race and is absent in the other race...This has not be found. It absolutely HAS been found. Which is why there are genes for blonde hair and genes for dark skin. As @Troy keep telling you but you seemed to miss or ignore is that there is more genetic diversity in and among Africans than between African and Europeans even though their appearance is some strikingly different. I haven't missed nor ignored it. The point is simply irrelevant. Besides, perhaps there are DIFFERENT RACES among Africans that account for that genetic diversity. Ever thought of that????
Troy Posted July 28 Author Report Posted July 28 11 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: It absolutely HAS been found. So why isn’t there a genetic test for race,
Pioneer1 Posted July 28 Report Posted July 28 4 hours ago, Troy said: So why isn’t there a genetic test for race, Because you don't need one. ....any more than you need a "test" to distinguish a polo shirt from a button down.
Troy Posted July 28 Author Report Posted July 28 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Because you don't need one. If it was so easy to determine race, why do we have so much difficulty doing it you don’t think Homer Plessey was black. You don’t think well to white was black. But but the nation, including the Supreme Court the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Do you think Barack Obama is black? How about the authors James McBride and Colson Whitehead? At the end of the day, the fact that there is no genetic test for race should be sufficient proof to you that there is no genetic basis for race. Instead you ignore that fact and come up with the notion that a test is unnecessary,
Pioneer1 Posted July 29 Report Posted July 29 Troy If it was so easy to determine race, why do we have so much difficulty doing it What do you mean "we"???? Lol.... Determining the race for most people isn't difficult. It's simply a matter of categorizing them according to society's standards for Racial Categorization The most difficult part...especially in places like the United States...is getting most people in society to AGREE on the same standards. Thus you have: you don’t think Homer Plessey was black. You don’t think well to white was black. But but the nation, including the Supreme Court the Supreme Court disagrees with you. There in lays the problem. Different people with different standards for who qualifies for what race. In societies where most people agree, you don't have that problem. In the past in some parts of the South you had the one drop rule where ANY Black ancestry got you put in the "Black" or "Colored" Racial category. That was pretty easy. Do you think Barack Obama is black? No. How about the authors James McBride No and Colson Whitehead? Yes At the end of the day, the fact that there is no genetic test for race should be sufficient proof to you that there is no genetic basis for race. In a society where race is determined by skin color and other physical features, there usually is no need for a test because racial categorization is based upon PHENOTYPE...not GENOTYPE.
Troy Posted July 29 Author Report Posted July 29 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: and Colson Whitehead? Yes what?! lol! please explain that one.
Pioneer1 Posted July 29 Report Posted July 29 4 hours ago, Troy said: what?! lol! please explain that one. You want me to "explain" why THIS man should be labeled as Black?????
Troy Posted July 29 Author Report Posted July 29 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: You want me to "explain" why THIS man should be labeled as Black????? Yes, you rejected Barack and James. on what grounds do you justify accepting Colson into the black race while rejecting the other two. Do you accept the author Howard French into the so-called Black race? By the way, I’d accept all of these men as Black men. And by America’s historical standards, these men are unequivocally black. Again this points to how subjective and indeed pointless, it is to group human beings in this manner.
Chevdove Posted July 31 Report Posted July 31 On 7/17/2025 at 12:23 PM, Troy said: Let me know when you get a chance to share the information from Stanford regarding different human races. Okay. I just popped in briefly today. But I will hope to get back into this discussion as soon as I can. On 7/17/2025 at 12:23 PM, Troy said: Also, all humans Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, and Denisovans are all from Africa evolving long after the continent we know today formed. not so. But I will get back with some references to show that I do not believe this to be true. The genetics of Denisovans so not have the same origin as do the homo sapiens at all. On 7/17/2025 at 12:23 PM, Troy said: The only problem @Chevdove, and it is a big one: humans are not horses our genetics are different. There are hundreds of breeds of horses while the concept of breed does not apply to human. Differences of hair and skin colors of horses of the same breed that does not alter their breed. lol. I have a degree in Biology! It does not matter about the species whether human or horses. The pigment is the same!!! Eumelanin is the same whether in humans, horses, cats, etc. It is the very same!!! I am NOT addressing the issue of breed or whether human or animal, I am addressing the genetics of the pigment 'eumelanin'. period. BLACK pigment is the same! Phaeomelanin is the same in all kinds of animals. On 7/20/2025 at 2:36 PM, richardmurray said: what is it either of you want with this issue? I notice with the activities list this topic has gone on and on, you each continually reiterate your positions to each other. What is it either of you want? Do either of you want to convince the other two, proselytize? Or do you either of you love the banter? As a victim of racism, this subject is my passion. So my desire to address it would be in hopes dispelling deliberate lies to hurt people and then to bring about peace.
Chevdove Posted July 31 Report Posted July 31 On 7/17/2025 at 8:59 AM, frankster said: cool Awaiting more info Okay. I just popped in. Hope to get back to this discussion real soon.
Chevdove Posted July 31 Report Posted July 31 On 7/17/2025 at 8:59 AM, frankster said: I think Zechariah was addressing an spiritual loss of integrity among the people or social injustice....that is the aspect I am seeing and agreeing with you on... I know it has nothing to do with racism... Not sure how much of a role colorism and or xenophobia plays.... The entire book of Zechariah is based on the color of the horses in correlation to Colorism and racism. Social injustice based on Colorism. His entire book was based on the Bay or 'red' horse, the Black horse, the Grisled horse, the white horse, etc. Colorism and White Supremacy. Again, the genetic basis of the Bay horses correlates to the Original Sin. To add a little more about 'the Bay horse'; The Bay horse is 'a red horse' but it is due to a specific gene known as 'the agouti gene'. Otherwise, the original horse, the Bay horse is a black horse. Due to this agouti gene, the bay horse may be in phenotype, may look like a black horse, brown horse, grisled (white or gray) horse, or a beige horse, etc. But its origin is that it was a black horse. The prophet Zechariah writes about 'the Bay Horse' and the pure Black horse and the pure White horse to address the issue of Colorism in the human world. Like it was later revealed, the watered down Jews, murdered Zechariah for this prophecy. Also, I need to make a correction because I earlier wrote about Zechariah and then realized that I had forgotten when he actually lived. He lived long after the overthrow. Zechariah lived 70 years after the overthrow and at the time that the Second Temple was being built during the Persian Empire times.
Troy Posted August 2 Author Report Posted August 2 On 7/30/2025 at 9:06 PM, Chevdove said: I have a degree in Biology! Fascinating. 1
richardmurray Posted August 2 Report Posted August 2 @Chevdove On 7/31/2025 at 12:06 AM, Chevdove said: As a victim of racism, this subject is my passion. So my desire to address it would be in hopes dispelling deliberate lies to hurt people and then to bring about peace. In your opinion what has been most effective in diminishing negative bias in any intraracial[ within one racial category for example phenotype/age/language/religion/gender/species{meaning human}or other singular racial mark] relationship?
Pioneer1 Posted August 3 Report Posted August 3 Troy Yes, you rejected Barack and James. on what grounds do you justify accepting Colson into the black race while rejecting the other two. Because he clearly LOOKS like a Black man. His features are predominately African which fits him squarely inside the African race. Do you accept the author Howard French into the so-called Black race? Him? No. He's clearly heavily mixed with Caucasian. By the way, I’d accept all of these men as Black men. That's your right. And by America’s historical standards, these men are unequivocally black. It depends WHICH "historical standards". Based on the standards of RECENT history, many of them would fall under the "biracial" category. Again this points to how subjective and indeed pointless, it is to group human beings in this manner. It's not pointless. Racial categorization absolutely has a point and serves a purpose even if you don't accept or agree with it.
Troy Posted August 4 Author Report Posted August 4 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: He's clearly heavily mixed with Caucasian. most of us ADOS are mixed with Caucasian… “Biracial” is an even more absurd construct, as it just compounds the problem of race. You cannot look at someone and tell that they are “biracial.” You recall the video of the twin girls, where one was what you would define as black and the other white — now it sounds like you would call them biracial, which is meaningless using your racial lens. At the end of the day, a person‘s phenotype does not tell you anything about them. You’ll learn more about a person,, understanding their ethnicity, which includes religion, language, culture… then there is class, nationality, age, shared history (enslavement), gender, sexual orientation, etc. The thickness of one’s lips has nothing to do with any of the above, unless someone decides that it matters for some reason, has the power to enforce it, and convinces others that it makes sense… sounds silly, but this is exactly what has happened.
Pioneer1 Posted August 4 Report Posted August 4 Troy most of us ADOS are mixed with Caucasian… But not HEAVILY mixed, like Howard French is. You're mixing apples and pears by the way.... You seem to be conflating BLACK with ADOS, and those are 2 separate categories that often overlap. “Biracial” is an even more absurd construct, as it just compounds the problem of race. You cannot look at someone and tell that they are “biracial.” You can with HIM. At the end of the day, a person‘s phenotype does not tell you anything about them. Sure it does. It tells you: -Their age range -Something of their state of health -Their racial background -Their sex Phenotype tells you a lot about a person, if you're paying attention.
Troy Posted August 4 Author Report Posted August 4 9 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: You seem to be conflating BLACK with ADOS, and those are 2 separate categories that often overlap. They are not separate, as all ADOS are Black. Our Brother, Howard French is ADOS, Black, and entitled to reparations the same as you or I. 9 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: At the end of the day, a person‘s phenotype does not tell you anything about them. Sure it does. My bad. I meant, "At the end of the day, a person‘s so called race does not tell you anything about them."
Pioneer1 Posted August 9 Report Posted August 9 Troy They are not separate, as all ADOS are Black. It depends on how society defines "Black". I've read where you said that "Black" is cultural or atleast involves a cultural element. By that definition... A White dude can grow some dreadlocks and start listening to Hiphop and adopting Black culture and BECOMES "Black". But an African who's skin is jet Black and practices an entirely different culture would NOT be considered "Black". That's why for ME...race is genetic. Your culture or language doesn't matter. Your phenotype and lineage does. Our Brother, Howard French is ADOS, Black, and entitled to reparations the same as you or I. He's clearly more White than he is Black. Based on your standards...... Theoretically, if an African woman was raped by a White overseer and produced a mixed MALE child who grows up, marries, and reproduces with a White woman...that child is still an ADOS although they are only 1/4 Black and 3/4 White. Are they entitled to Reparations in your opinion?
Chevdove Posted August 16 Report Posted August 16 On 8/2/2025 at 9:26 AM, richardmurray said: In your opinion what has been most effective in diminishing negative bias in any intraracial[ within one racial category for example phenotype/age/language/religion/gender/species{meaning human}or other singular racial mark] relationship? I believe by getting a better understanding about genes will help to diminish the negative bias in all categories you mentioned. For example, when the phenotype is regarded in terms of skin color, therefore, it would help to understand gene expression and how 'a blending affect' occurs. But when the origin of skin color is acknowledged in terms of the first modern male, this kind of truth would completely shed light on the truth and expose a lot of negativity that came about. 1
Chevdove Posted August 16 Report Posted August 16 On 7/17/2025 at 8:59 AM, frankster said: I consider the man Called Jesus Christ to be Black skin (burntt brass) and woolly hair(white like lambs wool). Yes! Awesome! The description of Jesus Christ by the prophets all correlate, and what is so fascinating for me would be that every word written down seems to be a confirmation. I can see where the 'burnt brass' could mean that Jesus may have looked black or black/brown, or bronze! Years ago, I did extensive research on ancient metal works of brass and bronze and iron, etc. I was so amazed at how, after hundreds of years, the earlier Bronze Age used the element 'nickel' to make bronze. But then the second Bronze Age came about due to a newfound technique and the use of 'tin', [If I remember correctly] became used. I was so surprised to learn that brass was a mixture of bronze and another metal and for this reason, brass was much darker than copper. So the Copper Age was overshadowed by the Second Bronze Age and many of the idols of the Egyptians did look black!!! It looked like black metal! I apologize for not coming back sooner, but my family is stressing me out recently!
Chevdove Posted August 16 Report Posted August 16 On 7/12/2025 at 11:19 PM, frankster said: On 7/11/2025 at 2:12 PM, Chevdove said: Therefore 'race' defined as a social construct is definitely genetic-based, No.... Irish Poles Jews and Italians were not always considered members of the White race...yet their skin was white Whilst people from Iran Lebanon and Egypt or MENA Descent were consider members of the White race....yet the vast majority of whose skin is brown. "No.... Irish Poles Jews and Italians were not always considered members of the White race...yet their skin was white Whilst people from Iran Lebanon and Egypt or MENA Descent were consider members of the White race....yet the vast majority of whose skin is brown." Going back to try and respond to some earlier comments; Whether 'Irish Poles Jews, and Italians' have white skin or not, nevertheless, it would be their genetic origins and not only their phenotype that define their physical identity. Likewise, whether 'Iranian, Lebanese, Egyptian or of MENA descent, it would not be because these people tend to have brown skin that define them completely, even if they regard themselves to be of the White race. As you have mentioned, that would be 'a social construct' and they would be recognized as such to be distinguished from their earlier origins and specifically to be distinguished from their earlier 'African and Black origins'. So even though these people have white or brown skin, no matter, their genes express a commonality that also is vital in understanding how they are defined. They are defined based on cultural practices and other shared factors that show up as 'gene flow' as genes tend to travel in pairs. Therefore, because none of these ethnic cultural peoples mention express 'a complete white color' but a blending, their being defined as 'the White Race' is relative. By the time that they have erased the dominant African traits through sex selection, it would be acceptable to regard them as being of the White race, even if they have brown skin along with other traits such as straight type hair. But that does not mean that it would be scientifically accurate, nevertheless, it would be a governmental category and a social construct. So if European Jews are referred to as being 'of the White Race', or 'European', nonetheless, it still would not erase the presence of their origins and the presence of the Original Jews, and more importantly, their governmental White-ethnic identity would not erase the written description and the historical definition of 'the Original Jews' dominant genetic identity. The ancient scriptures define the identity of the Original Jews to have the dominant genetic expression and phenotype of having woolly hair and that is redundant throughout the scriptures. And as I explained earlier, that absolutely does NOT mean that all Jews must have nappy hair, but that this would be a major phenotype expressed for many of the Original Jews because the beginning of their ethnic and cultural identity is based on them living in Africa for four hundred years and intermixing with African people. So, when it comes to this modern world and the many European Jews, well, if they say that their origins stem from the Original Jews, then why would that be wrong if their genes still reveal this origin? If their phenotype shows that they look like the White Race or European, then it would obviously mean that they intermixed with Europeans for a long time, but their genes may still reveal something else. The bottom line though, would be that all modern mankind have genetic material that will show that one aspect of their genetic origins stem one Black African male. But then, the practice of sex selection for the purpose of White Supremacy yields other deep truths and reveals that at one time, modern humans intermixed with Primitive humans. And when sex selection is practiced to the point that certain kinds of mutations occurs, then, another major scientific genetic issue arises! If mutation occurs to the point that the dominant gene expression of African traits are completely gone, then that human is NOT defined as being 'of the Black Race'. In other words, a human with straight hair who continues to reproduce for the purpose of erasing the trait of nappy hair can cause a mutation to occur, and not only erase that trait but break other genetic bonds as genes travel in pairs. Therefore, other 'African traits' or dominant traits of Africans also go through a mutation, and so these traits can never be reversed for that individual. So based on the culture that forms, they would be defined based on a shared gene pool. Because the gene material of the Primitive humans is not abundant and there are NO anatomically straight Y-DNA primitive males, then, there is no such existence of a Primitive inter-racial culture of humans. However, there is much more to this though. So for now, to say that Polish people or Poles are of the White race today, does not mean that they did not have Black African origins. To say that Irish people are of the White race today, does not mean that they did not have Black African origins. One key factor about the Poles and their ancient historical origins would be based on geography. In the ancient Byzantine world, and long before that time even, the dominant name in that region for an ancient people was names like 'Pul', and 'Arpad', etc. But before the Greeks, the names were 'Black names' like 'Pul' and 'Pelops', [i.e. Peloponnese].
Chevdove Posted August 16 Report Posted August 16 On 7/12/2025 at 11:19 PM, frankster said: Miscegenation by another name..... One drop of black blood whether male or female....makes you black What is so ironic about this term!? Anyway, the problem with this belief would be that it is obviously used by White Supremacist but, they themselves have 'black blood' showing that the one drop rule is a distortion. In reality, humans are NOT defined based on whether or not we express dark skin as being a primary factor or we are not defined based on whether or not we have a little black blood due to an African ancestor. Skin color is one of several other major physical characteristic that is a factor in how certain ethnic cultures of people are defined. But by itself, skin color means nothing in how a person is defined. For example, Solomon was very black skinned and he described himself as being a twin to the Black virgin. But Solomon's racial identity would not be 'a Black man', however, he was an Israelite man. He was an Israelite of the tribe of Judah. And then there is Solomon's father, David. David was described as being 'a Ruddy man'. So how can David's racial identity be that he was 'of the Brown Race' or 'of the Red Race' and his son be a completely different 'Race' and of the Black Race? So, skin color is a physical characteristic not a defining factor of 'the Human Race'. Today, the Black Race could mean African Americans, or Nigerians, or Ghanians, or Jamaicans, or Haitians, or South Sudanese, or maybe a kind of people in India, etc. But maybe in ancient times, the word 'KEMET' may define African people and one physical characteristic of Kemet people was their dark skin or black skin and another physical trait would be thick hair and a people who formed cultures along the Nile River, etc. But however, an ancient Assyrian would not be defined as Kemet. Even if an Assyrian had dark or swarthy skin complexion, they would not be Kemet. And furthermore, a dark skinned Assyrian would not even be considered as 'a Syrian'! An Assyrian or White Syrian was a people that formed a distinct ethnic cultural identity in a geographical region apart from the Syrians. So even if a Syrian was very light skinned, that person would be from a unique culture and not an Assyrian at all, even though, they had a common origin at an earlier time period. Likewise, many Europeans today, express blue eyes, and therefore, they definitely have a little black blood! You can't have blue eyes with any other pigment but Eumelanin, meaning black pigment. However, they are not of the Black Race. Today, Europeans or White people with blonde hair and blue eyes are of the White Race. They are not considered to be Black just because they have a little black blood. But today, people today are categorized differently and what a confusion!
Chevdove Posted August 16 Report Posted August 16 On 7/14/2025 at 10:28 PM, frankster said: So the pure white beings and the white gene and the pale gene has nothing to do with present day humans? Interbreeding with primitive human caused white skin today? It has everything to do with present day humans. Well what about angels? What do they look like? Color was not created at the time humans appeared on earth but was part of this earth long before modern humans arrived. On 7/14/2025 at 10:28 PM, frankster said: IF the white gene is a by product of the mixture of eumelanin and the pale gene then can it be pure? Or is the the source of albinism? No. The pale gene has nothing to do with 'the gene that causes White skin'. Albinism is a recessive trait and a mutation, but the genes that causes White skin functions completely different from the gene that causes albinism. Although this short video does not explain the genetic basis, it is a great film to better understand how the gene that produces healthy light skin or white skin functions. This film is about people of African descent; Beautiful South Africans who many express this form of reproduction and genetic trait. Even though this film explains the phenotype and how light skin occurs without a genetic explanation, however, it may help to understand. But, there is a lot more about how healthy white skin happens.
frankster Posted August 20 Report Posted August 20 On 8/16/2025 at 2:20 AM, Chevdove said: Yes! Awesome! The description of Jesus Christ by the prophets all correlate, and what is so fascinating for me would be that every word written down seems to be a confirmation. I can see where the 'burnt brass' could mean that Jesus may have looked black or black/brown, or bronze! Years ago, I did extensive research on ancient metal works of brass and bronze and iron, etc. I was so amazed at how, after hundreds of years, the earlier Bronze Age used the element 'nickel' to make bronze. But then the second Bronze Age came about due to a newfound technique and the use of 'tin', [If I remember correctly] became used. I was so surprised to learn that brass was a mixture of bronze and another metal and for this reason, brass was much darker than copper. So the Copper Age was overshadowed by the Second Bronze Age and many of the idols of the Egyptians did look black!!! It looked like black metal! I apologize for not coming back sooner, but my family is stressing me out recently! Family is important....I understand - i too have been very busy recently So we agree the individual often referred to as Jesus was black On 8/16/2025 at 3:34 AM, Chevdove said: "No.... Irish Poles Jews and Italians were not always considered members of the White race...yet their skin was white Whilst people from Iran Lebanon and Egypt or MENA Descent were consider members of the White race....yet the vast majority of whose skin is brown." Going back to try and respond to some earlier comments; Whether 'Irish Poles Jews, and Italians' have white skin or not, nevertheless, it would be their genetic origins and not only their phenotype that define their physical identity. Likewise, whether 'Iranian, Lebanese, Egyptian or of MENA descent, it would not be because these people tend to have brown skin that define them completely, even if they regard themselves to be of the White race. As you have mentioned, that would be 'a social construct' and they would be recognized as such to be distinguished from their earlier origins and specifically to be distinguished from their earlier 'African and Black origins'. So even though these people have white or brown skin, no matter, their genes express a commonality that also is vital in understanding how they are defined. They are defined based on cultural practices and other shared factors that show up as 'gene flow' as genes tend to travel in pairs. Therefore, because none of these ethnic cultural peoples mention express 'a complete white color' but a blending, their being defined as 'the White Race' is relative. By the time that they have erased the dominant African traits through sex selection, it would be acceptable to regard them as being of the White race, even if they have brown skin along with other traits such as straight type hair. But that does not mean that it would be scientifically accurate, nevertheless, it would be a governmental category and a social construct. All human beings are of African Origin.... You can not breed the humanity(Africanness) out of Humans(Africans) How they are define is purely Political expediency. On 8/16/2025 at 3:34 AM, Chevdove said: So if European Jews are referred to as being 'of the White Race', or 'European', nonetheless, it still would not erase the presence of their origins and the presence of the Original Jews, and more importantly, their governmental White-ethnic identity would not erase the written description and the historical definition of 'the Original Jews' dominant genetic identity. The ancient scriptures define the identity of the Original Jews to have the dominant genetic expression and phenotype of having woolly hair and that is redundant throughout the scriptures. And as I explained earlier, that absolutely does NOT mean that all Jews must have nappy hair, but that this would be a major phenotype expressed for many of the Original Jews because the beginning of their ethnic and cultural identity is based on them living in Africa for four hundred years and intermixing with African people. So, when it comes to this modern world and the many European Jews, well, if they say that their origins stem from the Original Jews, then why would that be wrong if their genes still reveal this origin? If their phenotype shows that they look like the White Race or European, then it would obviously mean that they intermixed with Europeans for a long time, but their genes may still reveal something else. The bottom line though, would be that all modern mankind have genetic material that will show that one aspect of their genetic origins stem one Black African male. They are Africans with white skin due to diet climate and culture On 8/16/2025 at 3:34 AM, Chevdove said: But then, the practice of sex selection for the purpose of White Supremacy yields other deep truths and reveals that at one time, modern humans intermixed with Primitive humans. And when sex selection is practiced to the point that certain kinds of mutations occurs, then, another major scientific genetic issue arises! If mutation occurs to the point that the dominant gene expression of African traits are completely gone, then that human is NOT defined as being 'of the Black Race'. In other words, a human with straight hair who continues to reproduce for the purpose of erasing the trait of nappy hair can cause a mutation to occur, and not only erase that trait but break other genetic bonds as genes travel in pairs. Therefore, other 'African traits' or dominant traits of Africans also go through a mutation, and so these traits can never be reversed for that individual. So based on the culture that forms, they would be defined based on a shared gene pool. Because the gene material of the Primitive humans is not abundant and there are NO anatomically straight Y-DNA primitive males, then, there is no such existence of a Primitive inter-racial culture of humans. However, there is much more to this though. Skin Color is not the only thing that makes one African... How or what were the mechanism/practise used to cause this sex selection? How are you going to breed the Africanness out of Africans? You can only select for certain traits....yet those traits are still African and African in origin. You may call those with the selected traits something new....but they are still Africans. On 8/16/2025 at 3:34 AM, Chevdove said: So for now, to say that Polish people or Poles are of the White race today, does not mean that they did not have Black African origins. To say that Irish people are of the White race today, does not mean that they did not have Black African origins. One key factor about the Poles and their ancient historical origins would be based on geography. In the ancient Byzantine world, and long before that time even, the dominant name in that region for an ancient people was names like 'Pul', and 'Arpad', etc. But before the Greeks, the names were 'Black names' like 'Pul' and 'Pelops', [i.e. Peloponnese]. So if their origin is African....Then biologically and genetically they remanin African But socially and politically you can call them some thing else based on those differences in what has been selected for now being dominant. On 8/16/2025 at 4:39 AM, Chevdove said: What is so ironic about this term!? Anyway, the problem with this belief would be that it is obviously used by White Supremacist but, they themselves have 'black blood' showing that the one drop rule is a distortion. In reality, humans are NOT defined based on whether or not we express dark skin as being a primary factor or we are not defined based on whether or not we have a little black blood due to an African ancestor. All Human beings have African blood. On 8/16/2025 at 4:39 AM, Chevdove said: Skin color is one of several other major physical characteristic that is a factor in how certain ethnic cultures of people are defined. But by itself, skin color means nothing in how a person is defined. Yes On 8/16/2025 at 4:39 AM, Chevdove said: For example, Solomon was very black skinned and he described himself as being a twin to the Black virgin. But Solomon's racial identity would not be 'a Black man', however, he was an Israelite man. He was an Israelite of the tribe of Judah. And then there is Solomon's father, David. David was described as being 'a Ruddy man'. So how can David's racial identity be that he was 'of the Brown Race' or 'of the Red Race' and his son be a completely different 'Race' and of the Black Race? I think that both Solomon and David did not think in the terms of the Race...as we understand it today. They were thinking in terms of Tribe and Etnicity. On 8/16/2025 at 4:39 AM, Chevdove said: So, skin color is a physical characteristic not a defining factor of 'the Human Race'. Yes On 8/16/2025 at 4:39 AM, Chevdove said: Today, the Black Race could mean African Americans, or Nigerians, or Ghanians, or Jamaicans, or Haitians, or South Sudanese, or maybe a kind of people in India, etc. But maybe in ancient times, the word 'KEMET' may define African people and one physical characteristic of Kemet people was their dark skin or black skin and another physical trait would be thick hair and a people who formed cultures along the Nile River, etc. But however, an ancient Assyrian would not be defined as Kemet. Even if an Assyrian had dark or swarthy skin complexion, they would not be Kemet. And furthermore, a dark skinned Assyrian would not even be considered as 'a Syrian'! An Assyrian or White Syrian was a people that formed a distinct ethnic cultural identity in a geographical region apart from the Syrians. So even if a Syrian was very light skinned, that person would be from a unique culture and not an Assyrian at all, even though, they had a common origin at an earlier time period. The Terms and words African American Nigerians Ghanians Jamaicans Assyrians and Syrians are Political designations for the most part. They may also have social undertones that denote Place of Origin Place of Origin may then be correlated to a possible skin color....in a general sense. On 8/16/2025 at 4:39 AM, Chevdove said: Likewise, many Europeans today, express blue eyes, and therefore, they definitely have a little black blood! You can't have blue eyes with any other pigment but Eumelanin, meaning black pigment. However, they are not of the Black Race. Today, Europeans or White people with blonde hair and blue eyes are of the White Race. They are not considered to be Black just because they have a little black blood. But today, people today are categorized differently and what a confusion! To me there is no confusion....Cause the idea of Race is - purely political and socially constructed. On 8/16/2025 at 5:09 AM, Chevdove said: It has everything to do with present day humans. Well what about angels? What do they look like? Color was not created at the time humans appeared on earth but was part of this earth long before modern humans arrived. On that we agree On 8/16/2025 at 5:09 AM, Chevdove said: No. The pale gene has nothing to do with 'the gene that causes White skin'. Albinism is a recessive trait and a mutation, but the genes that causes White skin functions completely different from the gene that causes albinism. Which gene cause light/pale/white skin that is not related to albinism? In the Video you posted time stamp: 4:10 - 4:21....clearly states that the below two genes are directly responsible for white/pale skin in Europeans reference gene Slc24a5 and slc45a2 and mfsd12 as being clearly the reason for white or pale skin. slc24a5 and slc45a2 as seen below are clearly linked to albinism A gene that makes a protein involved in giving color to the skin, hair, and eyes. Mutations (changes) in the SLC24A5 gene have been found in an inherited condition called oculocutaneous albinism. People with this condition have very pale skin and light-colored hair and eyes. They also have a high risk of developing skin cancer at an early age. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/slc24a5-gene Oculocutaneous Albinism (OCA) is a heterogeneous group of inherited diseases involving hair, skin and eyes. To date, six forms are recognized on the effects of different melanogenesis genes. OCA4 is caused by mutations in SLC45A2 showing a heterogeneous phenotype ranging from white hair, blue irides and nystagmus to brown/black hair, brown irides and no nystagmus. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24096233/ On 8/16/2025 at 5:09 AM, Chevdove said: Although this short video does not explain the genetic basis, it is a great film to better understand how the gene that produces healthy light skin or white skin functions. This film is about people of African descent; Beautiful South Africans who many express this form of reproduction and genetic trait. Even though this film explains the phenotype and how light skin occurs without a genetic explanation, however, it may help to understand. But, there is a lot more about how healthy white skin happens. Great Video...
Chevdove Posted Monday at 06:23 AM Report Posted Monday at 06:23 AM On 8/20/2025 at 3:35 PM, frankster said: Family is important....I understand - i too have been very busy recently So we agree the individual often referred to as Jesus was black Yes, I suppose in reference to what we say today, he would be of African descent. On 8/20/2025 at 3:35 PM, frankster said: All human beings are of African Origin.... You can not breed the humanity(Africanness) out of Humans(Africans) How they are define is purely Political expediency. Absolutely not Neanderthals. They are not all all of African origin. The primitive humans were not all all African. You will never find any primitive humans in any cave depictions of primitives with afros.
Chevdove Posted Monday at 11:02 AM Report Posted Monday at 11:02 AM On 8/20/2025 at 3:35 PM, frankster said: Skin Color is not the only thing that makes one African... How or what were the mechanism/practise used to cause this sex selection? How are you going to breed the Africanness out of Africans? You can only select for certain traits....yet those traits are still African and African in origin. You may call those with the selected traits something new....but they are still Africans. Mutation. Neanderthals are not African. They had NO Haplogroups in any association with being males. On 8/20/2025 at 3:35 PM, frankster said: You can only select for certain traits....yet those traits are still African and African in origin. Never. The original Africans were not inter-sexed. Intersexed is NOT an African 'original' trait. On 8/20/2025 at 3:35 PM, frankster said: So if their origin is African....Then biologically and genetically they remanin African Neanderthal origins are NOT African. They are intersexed. On 8/20/2025 at 3:35 PM, frankster said: All Human beings have African blood. Yes. On 8/20/2025 at 3:35 PM, frankster said: Which gene cause light/pale/white skin that is not related to albinism? All pale skin 'not white' origin is due to albinism. The very references you posted reveals this fact. All pale skin stems from a mutation and a disease of albinism.
frankster Posted Monday at 09:01 PM Report Posted Monday at 09:01 PM 14 hours ago, Chevdove said: Yes, I suppose in reference to what we say today, he would be of African descent. Cool 14 hours ago, Chevdove said: Absolutely not Neanderthals. They are not all all of African origin. The primitive humans were not all all African. You will never find any primitive humans in any cave depictions of primitives with afros. It appears the vast majority where....out of Africa 9 hours ago, Chevdove said: Mutation. Neanderthals are not African. They had NO Haplogroups in any association with being males. I am not geneticist nor an anthropologist.... So when you say "they have no haplogroup in association with them being males" What are you saying?.....that there is no male Neaderthal DNA? 9 hours ago, Chevdove said: Never. The original Africans were not inter-sexed. Intersexed is NOT an African 'original' trait. What exactly do you mean by "intersexed"? 9 hours ago, Chevdove said: Neanderthal origins are NOT African. They are intersexed. 9 hours ago, Chevdove said: Yes. Since we agree that all humans have african blood..... Then all human are Africa.....END OF STORY 9 hours ago, Chevdove said: All pale skin 'not white' origin is due to albinism. The very references you posted reveals this fact. All pale skin stems from a mutation and a disease of albinism. How would you define and delineate the difference between pale skin vs white skin?
Chevdove Posted Wednesday at 12:24 PM Report Posted Wednesday at 12:24 PM On 9/15/2025 at 5:01 PM, frankster said: Since we agree that all humans have african blood..... Then all human are Africa.....END OF STORY LOL! It's not that simple. History and Science have to be regarded to understand how humans are classified and defined by ethnicity and cultural groups, etc. Also, some humans have other types of blood factors that is not specific to Africans and reveals the presence of another 'being'. Historical records show that the ancient Assyrians did not regard themselves as being African or Egyptian. The ancient Romans certainly did not define themselves as being 'Africanus' in anyway. The Medes of Medo-Persia did not define themselves as being African even though they dominated over certain countries in Africa and certain African peoples, and intermixed with them too. Hybridization is just one aspect of how humans and animals can be distinct even though their was an original type. On 9/15/2025 at 5:01 PM, frankster said: It appears the vast majority where....out of Africa Yeah, but that was not their land of origin. They originated somewhere else. On 9/15/2025 at 5:01 PM, frankster said: am not geneticist nor an anthropologist.... So when you say "they have no haplogroup in association with them being males" What are you saying?.....that there is no male Neaderthal DNA? Correct. Today, scientist are trying to use bits and pieces of genetic material to try and isolate genetic material and find out what happened to the male DNA because Neanderthals are NOT anatomically straight males. They are androgynous. They have genetic material though, that proves they were intersexed. For this reason, they are genetically males, but they have no haplogroups because they could not produce any anatomically straight male at all. On 9/15/2025 at 5:01 PM, frankster said: What exactly do you mean by "intersexed"? Andrygenous. On 9/15/2025 at 5:01 PM, frankster said: How would you define and delineate the difference between pale skin vs white skin? This is a huge subject. But to try and explain a little; In either humans or animals the presence of albinism is similar. It's a mutation. So even though, for example, some cats that look white but may actually be albino or express some degree of albinism and this can be seen if their skin or fur is viewed in a microscope. Therefore, the term 'pale' refers to albinism. It's a refraction. The skin cells have undergone a mutation and is altered and the way that sunlight bounces off of the skin cells gives off a light color. There is no dark pigment or any color within the skin cells. But white skin actually has melanin and this can easily be seen in skin cells under a microscope. The dark pigment has been removed and under a microscope, may look like a dull white or light yellow, in the clearly defined disk within the skin cell. Nevertheless, the skin cells can clearly be seen under a microscope.
frankster Posted Wednesday at 09:06 PM Report Posted Wednesday at 09:06 PM 8 hours ago, Chevdove said: LOL! It's not that simple. History and Science have to be regarded to understand how humans are classified and defined by ethnicity and cultural groups, etc. Also, some humans have other types of blood factors that is not specific to Africans and reveals the presence of another 'being'. So some of us are Hybrids...like 3/5th human??? 8 hours ago, Chevdove said: Historical records show that the ancient Assyrians did not regard themselves as being African or Egyptian. The ancient Romans certainly did not define themselves as being 'Africanus' in anyway. The Medes of Medo-Persia did not define themselves as being African even though they dominated over certain countries in Africa and certain African peoples, and intermixed with them too. The European did not consider Africans human or fully humans....we now know they were wrong If they are human....then they are Africans 8 hours ago, Chevdove said: Hybridization is just one aspect of how humans and animals can be distinct even though their was an original type. True.....the distinctions between human populations on all levels has not led to a classification of speciation 8 hours ago, Chevdove said: Yeah, but that was not their land of origin. They originated somewhere else. Hence I said most..... The few that some claim originated else....is still speculation 8 hours ago, Chevdove said: Correct. Today, scientist are trying to use bits and pieces of genetic material to try and isolate genetic material and find out what happened to the male DNA because Neanderthals are NOT anatomically straight males. They are androgynous. They have genetic material though, that proves they were intersexed. For this reason, they are genetically males, but they have no haplogroups because they could not produce any anatomically straight male at all. According to science we all started out as female 8 hours ago, Chevdove said: Andrygenous. God took Eve from Adam.....though I think it was the other way Around In a sense we are all androgynous 8 hours ago, Chevdove said: This is a huge subject. But to try and explain a little; In either humans or animals the presence of albinism is similar. It's a mutation. So even though, for example, some cats that look white but may actually be albino or express some degree of albinism and this can be seen if their skin or fur is viewed in a microscope. Therefore, the term 'pale' refers to albinism. It's a refraction. The skin cells have undergone a mutation and is altered and the way that sunlight bounces off of the skin cells gives off a light color. There is no dark pigment or any color within the skin cells. But white skin actually has melanin and this can easily be seen in skin cells under a microscope. The dark pigment has been removed and under a microscope, may look like a dull white or light yellow, in the clearly defined disk within the skin cell. Nevertheless, the skin cells can clearly be seen under a microscope. Yes.....Every one comes from dark/black skin originally So are you saying that Pale skin has no froms (eu/pheo)melanin? But White skin has some froms of Melanin?
Troy Posted Thursday at 04:20 AM Author Report Posted Thursday at 04:20 AM 7 hours ago, frankster said: God took Eve from Adam.....though I think it was the other way Around In a sense we are all androgynous Do you believe Adam and Eve were a first humans on earth? 15 hours ago, Chevdove said: Neanderthals are NOT anatomically straight males. They are androgynous. They have genetic material though, that proves they were intersexed. For this reason, they are genetically males, but they have no haplogroups because they could not produce any anatomically straight male at all. Did you read this in a textbook? @Chevdove right now all the available science tells us that all Homo species emerged from Africa —all of them.
frankster Posted Thursday at 08:10 PM Report Posted Thursday at 08:10 PM 15 hours ago, Troy said: Do you believe Adam and Eve were a first humans on earth? No.... To my understanding Adam and Eve represent a type/form of human beings after a reset.....akin to Noah and his family after the flood - similar situation
Troy Posted Thursday at 08:28 PM Author Report Posted Thursday at 08:28 PM I'm not sure what I understand what you wrote @frankster. Based upon your response do you believe Adam and Eve are the progenitors of all living humans? Math tells us there is a single female "Mitochondrial Eve" who every living human is directly descendant from and there is a male "Y-Chromonal Adam" who every man is direct descendant from. These two humans did not know each other and probably did not have live in the same millennia. We are all cousins I don't think you are talking about these two people.
frankster Posted Thursday at 10:48 PM Report Posted Thursday at 10:48 PM 2 hours ago, Troy said: I'm not sure what I understand what you wrote @frankster. Based upon your response do you believe Adam and Eve are the progenitors of all living humans? NO.....I do not believe they are 2 hours ago, Troy said: Math tells us there is a single female "Mitochondrial Eve" who every living human is directly descendant from and there is a male "Y-Chromonal Adam" who every man is direct descendant from. These two humans did not know each other and probably did not have live in the same millennia. We are all cousins Yes....this is according to current scientific understanding. 2 hours ago, Troy said: I don't think you are talking about these two people. No I was not...
Pioneer1 Posted Thursday at 11:04 PM Report Posted Thursday at 11:04 PM Adam and Eve are the symbolic parents of Caucasian (White) people.
Chevdove Posted 9 hours ago Report Posted 9 hours ago On 9/17/2025 at 5:06 PM, frankster said: So some of us are Hybrids...like 3/5th human??? Yes, very few I would believe are hybrids, but for the most part all humans are 'modern humans' meaning homo sapiens with genetic sharing that reveal there was intermixing with primitive humans. the 3/5ths percentage is a deception. That law was based on the two-thirds conflict initially. All of the history behind this 3/5ths law is based on the ancient and historical two-thirds definition. On 9/17/2025 at 5:06 PM, frankster said: The European did not consider Africans human or fully humans....we now know they were wrong If they are human....then they are Africans And why should it matter what Europeans consider? That is the very problem with the Black world; we are born into sin of which means, we are born and conditioned to worship Europeans even though they lie so much. If we are human NO, we are not all AFricans due to hybridization that did occur very early in our manifestation. On 9/17/2025 at 5:06 PM, frankster said: True.....the distinctions between human populations on all levels has not led to a classification of speciation Yes, human populations is distinct apart from speciation. On 9/17/2025 at 5:06 PM, frankster said: According to science we all started out as female Not true. But go ahead and put a reference. There is NO science that connects an anatomically straight Y-DNA Haplogroup to any female origin.. That is just non existent. All Mall haplogroups originate from ONE individual male origin. Some female genetics prove that some females are definitely much older though, that anatomically straight males. On 9/17/2025 at 5:06 PM, frankster said: God took Eve from Adam.....though I think it was the other way Around In a sense we are all androgynous lol. Yall are making up stuff! Go ahead. Put a reference if you can. Anatomically straight Y-DNA has never been linked to being female- at all-- for one major reason-- Male organs. a Female genetics cannot produce any androgen at all. lol. On 9/17/2025 at 5:06 PM, frankster said: Yes.....Every one comes from dark/black skin originally So are you saying that Pale skin has no froms (eu/pheo)melanin? But White skin has some froms of Melanin? No. that is not what I am saying at all. i am referring to MUTATION. On 9/18/2025 at 12:20 AM, Troy said: Did you read this in a textbook? @Chevdove right now all the available science tells us that all Homo species emerged from Africa —all of them. Yes. @Troy I read this in textbooks. It is redundant. Not all human species emerged from Africa. Not at all. One clue is the RH Negative factor. Primitive humans are not from Africa because, one major reason is that Africa did not exist as 'a continent' when they roamed this earth in the first place. 16 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Adam and Eve are the symbolic parents of Caucasian (White) people. Symbolic perhaps, but genetically, as you once shared; Caucasians are originally Negroes. Cauca-Asians or Original 'Brown' Negroes that were obsessed with White Supremacy engaged in intermixing.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now