Tag Archives: DNA

Stunning new study found human and all animal species today originated only 100,000 to 200,000 years ago

Research by two scientists on DNA and mitochrondria found that over 90% of animal species in existence today — including humans — had originated only 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

While the two scientists shied away from saying it, their finding that humans and all animals date back to at most only 200,000 years ago is contrary to what evolutionists have been telling us, that the Earth and its life forms had taken millions of years to develop and evolve.

Note: DNA or Deoxyribonucleic acid carries the genetic instructions of all known living organisms. Mitochrondria are structures or organelles located in the cell’s cytoplasm outside the nucleus, responsible for energy production. All mitochondrial chromosomes are inherited from the mother.

The two scientists are:

  • Mark Young Stoeckle, Ph.D. and M.D., Senior Research Associate at the Program for the Human Environment, The Rockefeller University, New York, NY. Email: mark.stoeckle@rockefeller.edu
  • David S. Thaler, Ph.D., who researches and teaches Genetics and Microbiology at the Biozentrum – Center for Molecular Life Sciences at the University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. Email: david.thaler@unibas.ch; davidsthaler@gmail.com

Their research is published as M.Y. Stoeckle and D. S. Thaler, “Why should mitochondria define species?,” Human Evolution, Vol. 33, n. 1-2, May 2018, pp. 1-30.

Written in a technical and, for non-specialists, arcane language, the article concerns DNA barcoding — a taxonomic method that uses a short genetic marker in an organism’s DNA to identify it as belonging to a particular species. For animals, the preferred barcode regions are in mitochondria — cellular organelles that power all animal life. As the authors wrote (p. 10):

The agreement of barcodes and domain experts implies that explaining the origin of the pattern of DNA barcodes would be in large part explaining the origin of species. Understanding the mechanism by which the near-universal pattern of DNA barcodes comes about would be tantamount to understanding the mechanism of speciation.

For their study, Stoeckle and Thaler relied largely on more than 5 million mitochondrial barcodes from more than 100,000 animal species, assembled by scientists worldwide over the past 15 years in the open access GenBank database maintained by the US National Center for Biotechnology Information. The two scientists used the collection to examine the range of genetic differences within and between animal species ranging from bumblebees to birds. They found surprisingly minute or little genetic variation (between 0.0% and 0.5% variance) within most animal species — but very clear genetic distinction between a given species and all others.

The authors conclude that the surprisingly little genetic variation found within each of nearly all existing animal species can only be explained by the species all being young — no more than 100,000 to 200,000 years old.

Here is the article’s “Abstract”:

More than a decade of DNA barcoding encompassing about five million specimens covering 100,000 animal species supports the generalization that mitochondrial DNA clusters largely overlap with species as defined by domain experts. Most barcode clustering reflects synonymous substitutions. What evolutionary mechanisms account for synonymous clusters being largely coincident with species? The answer depends on whether variants are phenotypically neutral. To the degree that variants are selectable, purifying selection limits variation within species and neighboring species may have distinct adaptive peaks. Phenotypically neutral variants are only subject to demographic processes—drift, lineage sorting, genetic hitchhiking, and bottlenecks. The evolution of modern humans has been studied from several disciplines with detail unique among animal species. Mitochondrial barcodes provide a commensurable way to compare modern humans to other animal species. Barcode variation in the modern human population is quantitatively similar to that within other animal species. Several convergent lines of evidence show that mitochondrial diversity in modern humans follows from sequence uniformity followed by the accumulation of largely neutral diversity during a population expansion that began approximately 100,000 years ago. A straightforward hypothesis is that the extant populations of almost all animal species have arrived at a similar result consequent to a similar process of expansion from mitochondrial uniformity within the last one to several hundred thousand years.

And again, Stoeckle and Thaler wrote (p. 22):

More approaches have been brought to bear on the emergence and outgrowth of Homo sapiens sapiens (i.e., modern humans) than any other species including full genome sequence analysis of thousands of individuals and tens of thousands of mitochondria, paleontology, anthropology, history and linguistics [61, 142-144]. The congruence of these fields supports the view that modern human mitochondria and Y chromosome originated from conditions that imposed a single sequence on these genetic elements between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago [145-147]. (p. 22)

The authors wrote in the article’s “Summary and Conclusion” (pp. 22-23):

Mostly synonymous and apparently neutral variation in mitochondria within species shows a similar quantitative pattern across the entire animal kingdom. The pattern is that that most—over 90% in the best characterized groups—of the approximately five million barcode sequences cluster into groups with between 0.0% and 0.5% variance as measured by APD [average pair-wise distance], with an average APD of 0.2%.

Modern humans are a low-average animal species in terms of the APD. The molecular clock as a heuristic marks 1% sequence divergence per million years which is consistent with evidence for a clonal stage of human mitochondria between 100,000-200,000 years ago and the 0.1% APD found in the modern human population [34, 155, 156]. A conjunction of factors could bring about the same result. However, one should not as a first impulse seek a complex and multifaceted explanation for one of the clearest, most data rich and general facts in all of evolution. The simple hypothesis is that the same explanation offered for the sequence variation found among modern humans applies equally to the modern populations of essentially all other animal species. Namely that the extant population, no matter what its current size or similarity to fossils of any age, has expanded from mitochondrial uniformity within the past 200,000 years.

Dr. Thaler observes: “Our paper strengthens the argument that the low variation in the mitochondrial DNA of modern humans also explains the similar low variation found in over 90% of living animal species — we all likely originated by similar processes and most animal species are likely young.

All this is reinforced by The Rockefeller University’s Press Release about Stoeckle and Thaler’s journal article:

Researchers report important new insights into evolution following a study of mitochondrial DNA from about 5 million specimens covering about 100,000 animal species.

Mining “big data” insights from the world’s fast-growing genetic databases and reviewing a large literature in evolutionary theory, researchers at The Rockefeller University in New York City and the Biozentrum at the University of Basel in Switzerland, published several conclusions today in the journal “Human Evolution.” Among them . . .

* The mass of evidence supports the hypothesis that most species, be it a bird or a moth or a fish, like modern humans, arose recently and have not had time to develop a lot of genetic diversity. The 0.1% average genetic diversity within humanity today corresponds to the divergence of modern humans as a distinct species about 100,000 – 200,000 years ago — not very long in evolutionary terms. The same is likely true of over 90% of species on Earth today.

* Genetically the world “is not a blurry place.” Each species has its own specific mitochondrial sequence and other members of the same species are identical or tightly similar. The research shows that species are “islands in sequence space” with few intermediate “stepping stones” surviving the evolutionary process.

In other words, Stoeckle and Thaler did not find the “missing links” — the intermediate forms that, according to the theory of evolution, developed when one species evolved into another distinct species. As Dr. Thaler notes, “Darwin struggled to understand the absence of intermediates and his questions remain fruitful [i.e., unanswered].”

Allow me to rephrase Stoeckle and Thaler’s stunning study:

  1. When a species began, its members are characterized by genetic sameness (“mitochondrial or sequence uniformity”).
  2. In the natural course of time, members of a species would develop genetic differences (“mitochrondrial variation”) at a rate (“molecular clock”) of 1% variation per million years.
  3. Using a data base of the DNA barcodes of more than 100,000 animals species, the two scientists found very little genetic variation — between 0.0% to 0.5% variance — within each species. The average intra-species genetic variation is only 0.2%. The genetic variation within the human species is even less — 0.1% — which means the human species is about 100,000 years old, younger than most other animal species.
  4. Appealing to Occam’s Razor, a simple explanation for the paucity (0.0% to 0.5%) of intra-species genetic variation is that all animal species, including humans, are very young — no more than 100,000 to 200,000 years old — and therefore did not have the millions of years to develop genetic divergence or variation.
  5. If the theory of evolution is true, we would expect to find a wide range of points-of-origin of animal species — from 100,000 years to millions of years. Instead, Stoeckle and Thaler found that all existing animal species date back no more than 200,000 years ago, which means that they share a similar originating point-in-time — “the extant populations of almost all animal species have arrived at a similar result consequent to a similar process of expansion from mitochondrial uniformity within the last one to several hundred thousand years”.
  6. Lastly, the scientists found that each species is distinct from other species, but could not find intermediate forms (“stepping stones” or missing links) between species.

Note that points 4, 5 and 6 all contradict the theory of evolution, but support the Theory of Creation —

  • That there was a point in time when God created all living things as distinct species (“after their kind” – Genesis 1:21).
  • That man was the last living thing to be created and therefore the human species is younger than other species.
  • All of which means humans and other species had not evolved over the course of millions of years;
  • Which would explain why there are no intermediate forms or missing links.

Genesis 1

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

~Eowyn

US government seeking one million volunteers for massive study of DNA, health habits

What could possibly go wrong?

From NY Post: Wanted: a million people willing to share their DNA and 10 years of health habits, big and small, for science.

On Sunday, the US government will open nationwide enrollment for an ambitious experiment: If they can build a large enough database comparing the genetics, lifestyles and environments of people from all walks of life, researchers hope to learn why some escape illness and others don’t, and better customize ways to prevent and treat disease.

“A national adventure that is going to transform medical care” is how Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, describes his agency’s All of Us Research Program.

Congress has authorized $1.45 billion over 10 years for the project. It all hinges on whether enough people around the country will sign up, either online or through participating health centers.

There’s already interest: More than 25,000 people got early entry to the project over the past year through an invitation-only pilot test run by participating universities and health providers.

Why study so many? Most of today’s medical care is based on what happened to the average person in short studies of a few hundred or thousand patients with a specific health condition.

And most people who volunteer for those studies are white, leaving questions about the best care for people of different races.

“One-size-fits-all is far from an optimal strategy,” Collins said Tuesday in announcing enrollment for All of Us.

The project involves “precision medicine,” using traits that make us unique to forecast and treat disease. Learning enough to individualize care requires studying a massive number of participants: the healthy and not-so-healthy, young and old, rural and urban, blue-collar and white-collar — and people of all races and ethnicities.

For now, participants must be at least 18. Next year, the study will open to children, too.

While there are other big “biobanks” of genetic data from at least 100,000 people, the NIH project aims to be the largest and most diverse of its kind. At least half of the participants must be from groups traditionally under-represented in medical research, Collins stressed.

Genes aren’t the whole story: Sure, what genes you harbor can raise your risk for various diseases. But other factors can increase or reduce some genetic risks.

So first volunteers will share electronic health records and blood samples, and answer periodic questionnaires about their diet, sleep, environmental exposures and other lifestyle factors. Theymight wear fitness trackers and other sensors.

And later this year they’ll start undergoing genetic testing, initially to look for so-called “variants” in DNA that affect disease risk, similar to what some private companies now sell, Collins said. Fully mapping the genetic code is too pricey now for a million people, but that more comprehensive approach eventually will be used with some participants, too.

Among the first lessons Collins hopes to learn is about resilience: Why do some people stay healthy despite smoking or pollution or poor nutrition? “We have no idea how those people escape those odds,” he said.

Learn your results: Unlike with most medical studies, participants can choose to see their own test results and share them with their physician long before the study reaches any big-picture conclusions. A caution: There are still many questions about how best to use the results of genetic tests. Still, “we will try to help their doctors sort through what it means,” Collins said.

One result that might bring a quick benefit: Genetic variants can signal who is prone to side effects from more than 100 drugs, information that could be used to prescribe a safer drug if only their doctors knew, Collins added.

Protecting privacy: The privacy of DNA databases made headlines last week when investigators used a free genealogy website to track down a suspected California serial killer. That’s pretty different than the security under which medical DNA must be handled.

NIH said it has taken as many steps as possible to safeguard against would-be hackers. Volunteers’ medical data is stripped of identifying information and replaced with a code. Only scientists meeting specific security requirements will be cleared to study the data. NIH also said federal “certificates of confidentiality” prohibit disclosure to law enforcement.

Privacy wasn’t a worry for Michelle McNeely, 41, an early participant at Dallas’ Baylor Scot & White Health System. She underwent breast cancer treatment in 2016 and considers taking part in All of Us a way to give back.

“If they can use my genes and someone’s genes in California and someone’s genes in New York to find some common ground, to help discover some cure — they can use my genes all day long,” McNeely said.

DCG

Man who underwent “gender reassignment” surgery to foil detectives sentenced to life for three Spokane-area slayings

donna perry

Chopping off body parts doesn’t change your DNA, only your feeeeeelings.

From Seattle Times: A 65-year-old transgender woman has been sentenced to life in prison without parole for the 1990 slayings of three women who worked as prostitutes.

Donna Perry was sentenced in Spokane County Superior Court. Perry was known as Douglas Perry before undergoing gender reassignment surgery in 2000, which prosecutors contended was done to avoid suspicion in the deaths.

She was convicted in the killings of Yolanda Sapp, 26, Nickie Lowe, 34, and Kathy Brisbois, 38. They were all shot during a four-month span in 1990.

The cases were unsolved until 2012, when Perry was convicted in federal court for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Her DNA was entered into a national database and linked to the victims.

More details from the Spokesman Review:

During trial, prosecutors argued there was a common link between Perry and the three women, whose bodies were found naked or exposed near the banks of the Spokane River.

Perry frequented the same area of Spokane’s skid row – East Sprague Avenue – and dated a prostitute who worked the same streets as the three women.

Perry’s DNA also was found underneath one of the victim’s fingernails, on a blanket near where another victim’s body was discovered and on a bottle of lubricant known to be used by the third victim, which was located in a trash bin along with some of her other items. She also admitted to killing people in the past, according to witness testimony from a jailhouse informant.

Defense attorneys, however, argued the state’s evidence was coincidental, and did not prove that Perry had anything to do with the women’s deaths. Attorney Brian Whitaker said in closing arguments that the threshold of reasonable doubt was not met during trial, and pointed to what he deemed poor police work and a constantly changing motive offered by prosecutors.

DCG

Baby born with DNA from 3 people, first from new technique

20_week_fetus

From Seattle Times: Scientists say the first baby has been born from a controversial new technique that combines DNA from three people — the mother, the father and an egg donor. The goal was to prevent the child from inheriting a fatal genetic disease from his mother, who had previously lost two children to the illness.

The birth of the boy is revealed in a research summary published by the journal Fertility & Sterility. Scientists are scheduled to present details at a meeting next month in Salt Lake City.

The magazine New Scientist, which first reported the birth, said the baby was born five months ago to Jordanian parents, and that they were treated in Mexico by a team led by Dr. John Zhang of the New Hope Fertility Center in New York. It’s not clear where the child was born.

Dr. John Zhang

Dr. John Zhang

The technique is not approved in the United States, but Zhang told the magazine, “To save lives is the ethical thing to do.” A spokesman for the fertility center said Zhang was not available for further comment on Tuesday. Others involved in the research referred questions to Zhang.

The mother carries DNA that could have given her child Leigh syndrome, a severe neurological disorder that usually kills within a few years of birth. Her two previous children died of the disease at 8 months and 6 years, the research summary said.

The technique involved removing some of the mother’s DNA from an egg, and leaving the disease-causing DNA behind. The healthy DNA was slipped into a donor’s egg, which was then fertilized. As a result, the baby inherited DNA from both parents and the egg donor. The technique is sometimes said to produce “three-parent babies,” but the DNA contribution from the egg donor is very small.

People carry DNA in two places, the nucleus of the cell and in features called mitochondria, which lie outside the nucleus. The technique is designed to transfer only DNA of the nucleus to the donor egg, separating it from the mother’s disease-causing mitochondrial DNA.

The research summary identified the mother as a 36-year-old woman and said her pregnancy was uneventful. One of the five eggs the researchers treated was suitable for use.

Critics question the technique’s safety, saying children would have to be tracked for decades to make sure they remain healthy. And they say it passes a fundamental scientific boundary by altering the DNA inherited by future generations. Mitochondrial DNA is passed from women to their offspring.

Still, last year, Britain became the first country in the world to allow creation of human embryos with the technique. In the U.S., a panel of government advisers said earlier this year that it’s ethical to test the approach in people if initial experiments follow certain strict safety steps. That report was requested by the Food and Drug Administration, which is currently prevented by Congress from considering applications to approve testing the technique in people.

Shroukhrat Mitalipov, who has worked with the approach at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, said that given the panel’s conclusion, “We believe it’s time to move forward with FDA-approved clinical trials in the United States.”

Henry Greely from Stanford University

Henry Greely from Stanford University

Henry Greely, who directs the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford University, said Tuesday he sees nothing wrong with using the technique if it is safe and is aimed at diseases clearly caused by faulty mitochondrial DNA. But he called the research leading to the newly reported birth “unethical, unwise, immoral.” He said the approach “hasn’t been sufficiently proven safe enough to try to use to make a baby.”

Dieter Egli of the New York Stem Cell Foundation, who has done work in the area, was cautious about the implications of the new report. “I wouldn’t go out there at this point and tout the accomplishment because we don’t have enough information,” he said Tuesday. “We do not know exactly what was done. We have to wait for a fuller report,’ he said.

The child is not the first to inherit DNA from three people. In the 1990s, some children were born after researchers used a different technique. But federal regulators intervened, and the field’s interest now has passed to the new approach.

DCG

The Christmas Miracle: Scientific Evidence of the Virgin Birth

Note: I first published this on Christmas Day two years ago. But it seems most readers just don’t know what to make of it. So I’m republishing this in the hope that more will read this.

~Eowyn

………………………………………………………..

“The angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin bethrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming to her, he said ‘Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you.’ But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High….’ But Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?’ And the angel said to her in reply, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.” Luke 1:26-35

A criterion that biblical scholars use to assess whether the New Testament’s accounts of Jesus are true is the Criterion of Embarrassment. The reasoning goes something like this:

Being human, writers tend to write accounts that put them and/or their cause in a positive light. Given that, accounts that are embarrassing are likely to be true because the Gospel’s author would have no reason to invent accounts that reflect negatively on Jesus, his mother, or his followers.

Mary’s pregnancy and virgin birth meets the Criterion of Embarrassment.

Fr. Dwight Longenecker explains that according to Hebrew (Mosaic) law of the time, a girl who became pregnant outside of marriage could be stoned to death. Upon being told by Mary that she was pregnant with child, Joseph had every reason to fear — not only for Mary, but also for his own fate because, in the eyes of the community, he would be the obvious culprit. Joseph was in a quandary: To marry his fiancée would be to admit that he had impregnated her before marriage and he would have to live the rest of his life with that bad reputation. Not to marry his fiancée, however, would mean abandoning Mary to, at best, a life of shame, and at worst, death by stoning.

But Joseph heard the angel’s word — “Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife” — and responded with courage and fortitude.

All of which means that the author of the account in Luke 1 was telling the truth, that:

  • Mary was a virgin;
  • She conceived a child not by man but “by the power of the Holy Spirit”;
  • Her child is the Son of God.

Translated into the language of modern biology, what this means is that Jesus’ DNA would have no Y chromosome.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid containing the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all (except RNA viruses) known living organisms. DNA segments carrying this genetic information are called genes.

A chromosome is an organized structure of DNA and protein found in cells. It is a single piece of coiled DNA containing many genes, regulatory elements, other nucleotide sequences, and proteins that package the DNA and control its functions.

In human beings, as in all mammals, sex/gender is determined by the XY chromosomes. The XY sex chromosomes are different in shape and size from each other. Females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), while males have two distinct sex chromosomes (XY). A male child gets his Y chromosome from his biological father. The combination of two Y chromosomes is always lethal in humans.

The human Y chromosome showing the SRY gene

Within the Y chromosome is a gene, SRY, that is the sex-determining region of the Y chromosome. Once SRY is activated, cells create testosterone and anti-müllerian hormone to turn the genderless sex organs into male. With females, their cells excrete estrogen, driving the body down the female pathway.

In his book, The Physics of Christianity (Doubleday, 2007), Tulane University physicist Dr. Frank J. Tipler reasons that if the Gospels’ account of the virgin birth is true, then Jesus’ DNA makeup would have no Y chromosome because he did not have a human father, but instead have two X chromosomes. However, since Jesus was clearly male, he must have the SRY gene. But the SRY gene, instead of being in the Y chromosome, was inserted into a location where it is not normally found – inside one of the two X chromosomes imparted from Mary, his mother.

And that’s exactly what a team of Italian researchers found.

In January 1995, led by Professor Marcello Canale of the Institute of Legal Medicine in Genoa, a group of Italian researchers, including several workers who had invented the standard DNA test for gender, conducted a DNA analysis of the blood on the Shroud of Turin and on the Oviedo Cloth (also called the Sudarium of Oviedo). A recent report by scientists confirms that the Shroud is not a fake. Mark Guscin provides strong evidence that the Sudarium of Oviedo, Spain, is the cloth described in John 20:7 as being wrapped around Jesus’ head.

Here is Dr. Tipler’s account (from pages 183-187 of his book):

Normally, the results of a DNA test of the blood on such a famous object would be published in English in a major scientific journal. … Not so the results of this DNA test. The results were published, in Italian, in the very obscure Italian journal devoted to the study of the Turin Shroud. Furthermore, only the raw data were published. That is, the Genoa team published black-and-white Xerox copies of the computer output of the DNA analyzer. This is never, never done. Always, the data are presented in a neat table or figure, and they are accompanied by a discussion of their significance. The Genoa team made no effort to interpret their data.

But I was able to interpret the data at once. They are the expected signature of the DNA of a male born in a Virgin Birth! … 

The Turin Shroud data show 107 (106+1) but not trace of a 112 base pair gene. The Oviedo Cloth data show 105 (106-1) but no trace of a 112 base pair. The X chromosome is present, but there is no evidence of a Y chromosome. This is the expected signature of … virgin birth, the XX male generated by an SRY inserted into an X chromosome. It is not what would be expected of a standard male.

Other explanations are possible. The DNA analyzed could be entirely contamination from people who later touched the Shroud and the Cloth. But we have witnesses that men touched the two samples also, and it seems incredible that no trace of male contamination would be seen…. Another possibility is that the Turin Shroud and the Oviedo Cloth are fakes and that the fakes used real blood from males they knew were born of virgins. This possibility, in my opinion, has zero probability.

The DNA data thus support the virgin birth hypothesis. The DNA data supporting a virgin birth also support the hypothesis that both the Turin Shroud and the Oviedo Cloth are genuine. 

So much for what Rudolf Bultmann, a leading theologian of the 1930s, once sneeringly said: “Myths [like the Virgin Birth] are difficult to believe in these days of electric lights.”

In the end, what is most intriguing about the Shroud and the Ovieto Cloth is that their characteristics and true nature are increasingly revealed as human beings grow more in knowledge and our science becomes increasingly advanced and sophisticated. Instead of science showing the Shroud and the Ovieto Cloth to be fakes, it is with science that their miraculous character is revealed.

“The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; upon those who dwelt in the land of gloom a light has shone. You have brought them abundant joy and great rejoicing…. For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.” -Isaiah 9:1-6

UPDATE (Nov. 7, 2015):

A reader “Mike” asked for the Italian scientists’ DNA data, which are published in Dr. Tipler’s book. Here they are (click tables to enlarge):

Table 7.1 DNA on Turin ShroudTable 7.2 DNA on Oviedo Cloth

~Eowyn

Butt Kicking Boogie Woogie Twin Pianos.

These Dudes Rock!

Here is Albert Ammons and Pete Johnson Who are mentioned in first video. Wow they are Amazing.

~Steve~                                        H/T  hujonwi

shappy_icon30

 

White Supremacist Makes Hilarious Discovery. Pretty Funny Stuff.

God does have a sense of humor.

If you’you’ve been reading Eagle Rising for any length of time, you’ve’ve already come to know that we hate racism. In fact, it’s more than that we at Eagle Rising believe racism to be a sin of the ugliest kind. Racism is a disgusting attack on the very God of the universe, calling into question the worth of His creation, mankind. When a racist spews his hateful rhetoric about other people, he quite literally demeans God by attacking those whom God created in His Own Image.

That said, we do like to take the time to laugh at hatemongers like a certain white supremacist who found out some … startling news.

Craig Cobb has recently gained a bit of fame by trying to create a “White Nationalist intentional community in North Dakota.” Fortunately for humanity, his neighbors in North Dakota were not too keen on letting this happen and while the community may not be the most diverse, they stood against his racist attempts.

Well, now Mr. Cobb is getting a second chance at his “15 minutes” of fame. He was recently a guest on a British daytime talk show that did a DNA test as part of their segment with him. Much to Mr. Cobb’s chagrin he learned that, like our President, he too was part African-American! It was an all too perfect ending to his racist saga.

“86% European and,” Goddard said, pausing as the audience started to cheer before she continued, “14% sub-Saharan African!”

craigcobb2The audience erupted in cheers and laughs as a grinning Cobb began to protest.

“Sweetheart, you have a little black in you,” Goddard said.

Cobb tried to “defend” himself, citing “statistical noise” and claiming that “oil and water” don’t mix. What he missed was that ethnic differences are not “oil and water” but simple differences in the amount of melanin in a person’s skin. Thanks to advances in DNA research, science has long since proven that the differences between us truly are only “skin deep.”

Too Funny!

Too Funny!

~Steve~
Read more at http://eaglerising.com/2935/white-supremacist-make-hilarious-discovery/#jroCfz6kLWCoFxqQ.99