Blacks Related Closer to Chimps Than Humans? Really?

Another study looking at African DNA has found that they are closer to Chimpanzees than Humans.

Human Genetic distance can be measured. Say that Humans are 1.0 on a scale and Chimps are 0.0 on the same scale. If a people measure 0.6 then their genome is closer to Humans than Chimps. Shockingly, two new studies have found that in fact blacks are closer genetically to chimpanzees than humans, scoring less that 0.5 on the scale. This places more strength to the theory that blacks and caucasians diverged over a million years ago and are not relative species. In fact they are better classified as different sub species such as dogs and wolves or chimps and oranguntans.

The more important of the two is Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995. This study looks at some genetic markers and compares the genetic distances of eight human populations (Samoans, North Amerindians, South Amerindians, New Guineans, Kachari [Mongolids], Germans, more generalized Caucasians, and Sokoto Negroes from Nigeria [Nigerian sub-Saharan African Negroes]) to each other and to chimpanzees. The data were analyzed two ways – with Nei’s standard genetic distance, and with modified Cavalli-Sforza distance.

Which group was genetically closest to chimpanzees? The answer for both methods was the Nigerian Negro group. Using Nei’s method, the Nigerian-chimp distance was 1.334 +/- 0.375, by far the closest value (second closest was the Kachari value of 1.527 +/- 0.493). To be fair, and show we are not knee-jerk “Eurocentrics” hiding data, the group farthest from the chimps was the South Amerindians (1.901 +/- 0.529); however the Germans (1.865 +/- 0.506) and the more general Caucasians (1.860 +/- 0.497) were right behind them (and given the +/- values, virtually overlapping). Looking at the Cavalli-Sforza method, the Sokoto Nigerians were again the closest to chimps (0.539) by a large margin.

The farthest were again the South Amerindians (0.712), with the Germans (0.680) and general Caucasians (0.667) being a very close third and fourth behind the South Amerindians as well as Samoans (0.711) and North Amerindians (0.697). So, while the two methods give slightly different orders, in both cases the Nigerians are by far the closest group to the chimps. Once again, given the first method, these sub-Saharan Africans were at 1.334 while all the other groups ranged from 1.527-1.901, and given the second method they were at 0.539 while the other groups ranged from 0.643 (Kachari again) to 0.712. Thus, based on these data, the sub-Saharan African group is genetically closest to chimps. The authors state the following about “neighbor-joining trees” based on these data, using the chimps as the “outgroup”:

“…the SO [Sokoto Nigerian - my note] population is the furthest from all the other human populations.”

Indeed, these genetic data are consistent with the work of J. Irish, reviewed here, demonstrating that sub-Saharan Africans are dentally more similar to extinct and extant apes, and to extinct hominids and australopithecines, than are any other human population. The genetic data and the dental phenotypic data match perfectly.

Some may find it unfortunate that all these data seem to correlate with certain racial stereotypes. However, we must view facts – however harsh – with honesty. And if that includes recognition that certain groups may be slightly more distant from chimps than are Whites, so be it. Of course, White groups have “on their side” the verdict of history as to their accomplishments compared to other groups;

the European extended phenotype is second to none. However, we can imagine that other less accomplished groups may find these data very unsettling. That is unfortunate; nonetheless, it does not change the facts.

The data can be looked at in other ways as well. One can compare the relative genetic distance between two human groups to that between those human groups and chimps, and thus calculate the former as a percentage of the latter. According to the Nei method, the German-Nigerian distance (0.238) is a full 12.8% of the German-chimp difference, while using the Cavalli-Sforza method the German-Nigerian distance (0.168) is a full 24.7% of the German-chimp distance! And for Caucasians-Nigerians vs. Caucasians-chimps the numbers using these two methods are 13.9% and 24.9%, respectively!

These data – however you crunch the numbers, and however liberals may cry that it is all being “misinterpreted” – are quite fascinating and shed important light on questions of racial differences, racial realities, and the consequences of racial miscegenation. It also points out that determining sub-Saharan African admixture (as well as other admixture) via established technology (here, and here) is of significant importance to us.

The other paper that I would like to mention (briefly) is that of Kimmel et al., Genetics 143, pgs. 549-555, 1996. Here eight human populations – including Caucasians, Mongolids, and sub-Saharan Africans- were studied to determine their relative genetic distances. The only real surprise here (not a surprise is that Germans and Nigerians are again very distant, and that various Caucasian groups, including the Germans, are close together) is the (relatively large) genetic distance between the Chinese and Japanese, which some uninformed folks may view as virtually “identical.” . The distance between those two East Asian groups (using relative measurements different than that of the Deka et al. work) was 0.029.

That is a full 72.5% of the distance (0.040) between Germans and the Bhramins (Asian Indians) of Uttar Pradesh, and is even 8.5% of the German-Nigerian distance (0.342). Not all East Asians are identical, although other data (e.g., Nei and Roychoudhury’s classic 1993 paper) do show a relatively close Japanese-Korean relationship. Different areas of China may show different distances to other Asian groups as well, of course. In any case, the stated intention of future ABD tests to distinguish between Chinese and Japanese origins may indeed be possible, given the Kimmel et al. data.

In summary, racial differences are quite real, and the implications of these differences must be considered, regardless of how startling these implications may be.

About these ads


  1. Yoiyus crazy I an’t no APE! I’ll rape your MOFO ass and well see whos the ape!

  2. I’ve always thought blacks had a somewhat ape-ish mentality about them. And those dark cold empty eyes… tells us they are empty souls

  3. I’m sick and tired of paying half my paycheck in taxes and cant afford children only to see the black welfare rats up the street with twelve of them!

  4. […] police. Teenagers, he said, had been called “monkeys”, fuelling resentment. But in fact new research shows that blacks are closer to monkeys than caucasians so it’s not so much a racial slur as modern […]

  5. Prof. Darwin · · Reply

    Look at Africa as a whole today…and look at Europe, USA, etc. I rest my case. Tons of resources there. Plant anything, it grow amazingly well, yet they are starving. Still cant even work together.

  6. Harsh Truth · · Reply

    It is a well-known, well documented scientific fact that blacks are merely another form of chimpanzee. Blacks are in no way, shape, or fashion human, not in the least.
    All one has to do is study the behavior, appearance, and intellect of chimpanzees and blacks, to see the startling similarities. They are so exactly alike in all ways that it is frightening to think that anyone would attempt to force people into believing that blacks are human.
    NAACP: Now Apes Are Considered People. Blacks are not human beings.

  7. The one thing they have going for them is – “anytime they need a second pair of hands, all they have to do is take off their shoes.’

  8. white guy · · Reply

    I forgot which former president said it but to paraphrase, ” i wish there were some humane way to exterminate the entire race”.

  9. white guy · · Reply

    Actually, I am not so interested in the humane thing but imagine how great the world would be without them.

  10. Lol u guys are mad. If you think the bullshit the author wrote is right then ur opinion is more likely to make black ppl laugh then get get angry. Like srs wtf. I was cracking up and nearly spit my morning coffee out laughing at the rubbish some ppl believe in hah.

    1. This is HARD SCIENCE. GENETICS. How can you possibly think it’s a joke! This is REAL!

  11. JoeSchmoe · · Reply

    God said the hour was coming when he would mix the seed of man with the seed of beast.
    Jonah 3:8 tells us of a Beast of the Field that has hands like a man, wears sackcloth, can turn from evil and pray to God. These beast can not be cows or camels. They are negroes. Youtube search The Beast of the Field. A pastor give many scriptures in the bible describing them.

  12. I think I’ll have to do a blog on the evolution of euro white from a piece of camel droppings

  13. Silindile · · Reply

    lol wow! u ppl ar very interestin hey…. so like since we ar non humans… what ar u gona do abt it???? your views and comments ar so worthless because no matter how much you hate us… u wont do shit abt it… ul jst hate on us until u die! #shame… im jst tired of pointin out how stupid whites ar! all u do is make noise… gosh!

    1. Cloward & Piven. Assistance programs will be hyperinflated away to nothing during the dollar collapse of 2016. Then we will see what blacks do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 100 other followers

%d bloggers like this: