Stop calling ypurself African-American, You Asiatic.

No its a fact.. adaptation and mutation are different. Look it up.

Adaptation: characteristics that increase an organism's ability to survive within a changing environment.

Mutation: A permanent change, a structural alteration, in the DNA or RNA. In humans and many other organisms, mutations occur in DNA. In most cases, such changes are neutral and have no effect or they are deleterious and cause harm, but occasionally a mutation can improve an organism's chance of surviving and of passing the beneficial change on to its descendants. Mutations are the necessary raw material of evolution.

The differences between Africans are mutations as well as adaptations.
Sickle cell is a prime example of this.
It only affects Africans and other peoples that live within malarial zones.
 
We already know there are difference in skin tone, cultures, shape of noses, shape of eyes etc. That does not change the fact that Africans come from the same genetic ancestor and migrated west, south and east and north.

WE DO CLAIM ALL OTHER "RACES" - We are their mothers and fathers.

So you do understand there was some family fuckery.

The 'children' that left came back into Africa. This is why WHITES will say for sure the Khoisan are the oldest people. They never had the 'children' come back and reproduce with them so they are the purist humans we have.




 
So you finally get it that they are different.

Adaptation: characteristics that increase an organism's ability to survive within a changing environment.

Mutation: A permanent change, a structural alteration, in the DNA or RNA. In humans and many other organisms, mutations occur in DNA. In most cases, such changes are neutral and have no effect or they are deleterious and cause harm, but occasionally a mutation can improve an organism's chance of surviving and of passing the beneficial change on to its descendants. Mutations are the necessary raw material of evolution.

The differences between Africans are mutations as well as adaptations.
Sickle cell is a prime example of this.
It only affects Africans and other peoples that live within malarial zones.
 
I don't care what some white people say... what does that have to do with the facts I presented?

So you do understand there was some family fuckery.

The 'children' that left came back into Africa. This is why WHITES will say for sure the Khoisan are the oldest people. They never had the 'children' come back and reproduce with them so they are the purist humans we have.




 
Did you not READ?

No, they come from us.. but have mutated. That is the only line drawn.. and I did not draw it.. Science did.

here are the links you keep ignoring...

Blue Eyes http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...-eyes-result-of-ancient-genetic-mutation.html

White Skin http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html

I'm not ignoring your links

I'm pointing out the fact that if you really wanna count mutations, this thread will never end. EVERY living person is mutant, meaning there were errors made in genetic copies from the last generation. SO you singling out White skin as a mutation is nothing new.. the question what difference does that make? They are the same species as us-- this is evidenced insomething as simple as the fact that we can reproduce with them. I can't believe we gotta break it down that simple.

That would make Everyon on the planet AFRICAN- if ya wanna call it ASIATIC, then go right ahead.

And on top of that, at this point in history, (humans have only existed in this species for approx 200,000 years) YOU AND I are just as much a SON of that original man, as Bob and Suzy. SKin color doesn't say much about how close we are to so called original man.

Yeah, I'm just as proud as you are that the earliest humans are found in the continent that I'm from just a few generations ago, and that they are from high UV concentrated spot, which made them BLACK-(blacker than I am, but BLACK) but that really doesn't change the amount of time and generations closer I am to them.

so yeah, they come from the originals-- not YOU or I. The same descendant WE come from
 
Finally you admit what I said 2 pages ago...

Yes Africans have different mutations.. such as the one that caused white skin and blue eyes.

Of course they are different just like Africans are different from each other, Africans just have different mutations and adaptations!!!
You appear have come round to my view point!!!
 
How can we not count mutations, when they are the cause of white skin and blue eyes? If we ignore those.. then we have to ignore white people.

No, every human is not a mutation.. mutations are caused by something.. but yes, we all adapt. Most humans genes are transferred PROPERLY from parents to children. The errors are what are called mutations.


I didn't say white people are not the same species of us ( I said they are mutations).

You are the ones claiming that Africans are different.. yet you are now claiming white people are the same as us.. So white people are the same as us.. but Africans are different from other Africans? You two don;t make sense.



I'm not ignoring your links

I'm pointing out the fact that if you really wanna count mutations, this thread will never end. EVERY living person is mutant, meaning there were errors made in genetic copies from the last generation. SO you singling out White skin as a mutation is nothing new.. the question what difference does that make? They are the same species as us-- this is evidenced insomething as simple as the fact that we can reproduce with them. I can't believe we gotta break it down that simple.

That would make Everyon on the planet AFRICAN- if ya wanna call it ASIATIC, then go right ahead.

And on top of that, at this point in history, (humans have only existed in this species for approx 200,000 years) YOU AND I are just as much a SON of that original man, as Bob and Suzy. SKin color doesn't say much about how close we are to so called original man.

Yeah, I'm just as proud as you are that the earliest humans are found in the continent that I'm from just a few generations ago, and that they are from high UV concentrated spot, which made them BLACK-(blacker than I am, but BLACK) but that really doesn't change the amount of time and generations closer I am to them.
 
How can we not count mutations, when they are the cause of white skin and blue eyes? If we ignore those.. then we have to ignore white people.

No, every human is a mutation.. mutations are caused by something.. but yes, we all adapt.


I didn't say white people are not the same species of us ( I said they are mutations).

You are the ones claiming that Africans are different.. yet you are now claiming white people are the same as us.. So white people are the same as us.. but Africans are different from other Africans? You two don;t make sense.
[/QUOTE]


ur playing stupid I take it... here we go from the top:

I'll say it slow, K?

There are many cultural, tribal, classifications of HUMANS on the planet EARTH

Many different types on every cooontineeeent....

Many different ones in YOOOOOOOOUUUURRRROPE... many different types of people in AAAAAAFRICA, AAAAAAASIA, and on and on- get it?
 
I don't care what some white people say... what does that have to do with the facts I presented?

Ok, if you will do me the favor and just tell me YOUR THOUGHTS on this 'out of Africa-mutation' discussion.

Do you think that the mutations that made white people made them inferior?

Do you think that SOME mutated people did come back into africa and reproduce with CERTAIN groups of Africans while others remained untainted?


 
Finally you admit what I said 2 pages ago...

Yes Africans have different mutations.. such as the one that caused white skin and blue eyes.

No this is what you said 2 pages ago:

I think many of you are trying to mix modern times with ancient times - and what you are saying still doesn't make any sense. There is NO difference in an East African, West African, South African or North Africa... just as there is no difference between a Black person from Florida, New York, California and Washington DC. Why is that so hard to understand? They are the same people who just migrated/expanded to different regions.

Not true as you've since admitted and not quite what your saying now!!!!
 
As I stated a couple of pages ago.. yes there are many cultures, and difference. But that does not change the fact that we are the same people, genetically. Africans are the same whether they live in the not, south, east or west. Culture is not a genetic difference.








ur playing stupid I take it... here we go from the top:

I'll say it slow, K?

There are many cultural, tribal, classifications of HUMANS on the planet EARTH

Many different types on every cooontineeeent....

Many different ones in YOOOOOOOOUUUURRRROPE... many different types of people in AAAAAAFRICA, AAAAAAASIA, and on and on- get it?
 
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN AN AFRICAN LIVING IN THE EAST, WEST, NORTH OR SOUTH AFRICA... JUST AS THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN A BLACK PERSON LIVING IN FLORIDA OR NEW YORK. THEY ARE ALL AFRICANS WHO HAVE MIGRATED.

Just because a person has a different culture, doesn't not mean they are not the same people.

No this is what you said 2 pages ago:

I think many of you are trying to mix modern times with ancient times - and what you are saying still doesn't make any sense. There is NO difference in an East African, West African, South African or North Africa... just as there is no difference between a Black person from Florida, New York, California and Washington DC. Why is that so hard to understand? They are the same people who just migrated/expanded to different regions.

Not true as you've since admitted and not quite what your saying now!!!!
 
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN AN AFRICAN LIVING IN THE EAST, WEST, NORTH OR SOUTH AFRICA... JUST AS THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN A BLACK PERSON LIVING IN FLORIDA OR NEW YORK. THEY ARE ALL AFRICANS WHO HAVE MIGRATED.

Just because a person has a different culture, doesn't not mean they are not the same people.

NO NO and NO!
They are genetically different as well as culturally.
Hence my original statement, that there is more genetic diversity within Africa than in the rest of the world combined!!

We have come full circle again!!!
 
Name some genetic differences.



NO NO and NO!
They are genetically different as well as culturally.
Hence my original statement, that there is more genetic diversity within Africa than in the rest of the world combined!!

We have come full circle again!!!
 
Man, this video is outdated. This was at a time when certain black people were trying to figure out who were were. I guess some of us are still trying to figure it out. Back then it was about a play on words, semantics arguments and hidden messages within whitey's language.

The truth is out bruh. Science is showing us more and more who we are. The study of genetics is revealing a lot about Africans.

It doesn't matter whether you call the land Asia or Africa, so what? Okay, it's Asia now, and therefore I'm Asiatic? Okay, now what? I got my "true" knowledge of self now, now what? Live righteously? Sell bean pies and newspapers? Stop eating pork? Support polygamy?

My approach to my lineage now, is to my first research my dna, learn what part of africa my ancestors are from, go take a visit, learn about the culture and the land.

I'm mostly interested in the land, because I want to know what kind of diet my ancestors ate. I want to know about indigenous medicine. I want to know about their sports and fitness activities. And I'm talking about historical, not modern day. And I want to know the history.

And I'll continue to study Africa has I always have, because it's fascinating to me, but I'm not interested in this kinda shit. Just like I'm not interested in those dumbass hebrew israelites. Shit is ignorant. If these dudes paid attention to the science, they would see that we don't have to find strength in ideology.
...
 
Name some genetic differences.


There you go:


http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/161/1/269

The worldwide pattern of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) variation is of great interest to human geneticists, population geneticists, and evolutionists, but remains incompletely understood. We studied the pattern in noncoding regions, because they are less affected by natural selection than are coding regions. Thus, it can reflect better the history of human evolution and can serve as a baseline for understanding the maintenance of SNPs in human populations. We sequenced 50 noncoding DNA segments each ~500 bp long in 10 Africans, 10 Europeans, and 10 Asians. An analysis of the data suggests that the sampling scheme is adequate for our purpose. The average nucleotide diversity ({pi}) for the 50 segments is only 0.061% ± 0.010% among Asians and 0.064% ± 0.011% among Europeans but almost twice as high (0.115% ± 0.016%) among Africans. The African diversity estimate is even higher than that between Africans and Eurasians (0.096% ± 0.012%). From available data for noncoding autosomal regions (total length = 47,038 bp) and X-linked regions (47,421 bp), we estimated the {pi}-values for autosomal regions to be 0.105, 0.070, 0.069, and 0.097% for Africans, Asians, Europeans, and between Africans and Eurasians, and the corresponding values for X-linked regions to be 0.088, 0.042, 0.053, and 0.082%. Thus, Africans differ from one another slightly more than from Eurasians, and the genetic diversity in Eurasians is largely a subset of that in Africans, supporting the out of Africa model of human evolution. Clearly, one must specify the geographic origins of the individuals sampled when studying {pi} or SNP density.

THERE has been much interest in single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in human populations because such data are useful for studying human evolution and the mechanism of maintenance of genetic variability in human populations and for identifying genes associated with complex disease (HARDING et al. 1997 Down; NICKERSON et al. 1998 Down; ZIETKIEWICZ et al. 1998 Down; CHARGILL et al. 1999; HALUSHKA et al. 1999 Down; HARRIS and HEY 1999 Down; JARUZELSKA et al. 1999 Down; KAESSMANN et al. 1999 Down; RIEDER et al. 1999 Down; NACHMAN and CROWELL 2000 Down). The much interest notwithstanding, the worldwide pattern of SNP variation remains incompletely understood. This is especially true for noncoding regions because such regions are medically less interesting. However, data from noncoding regions are less affected by natural selection than data from coding regions and so can reflect more accurately the history of human evolution. Moreover, the pattern of SNP variation in noncoding regions can serve as a baseline for understanding the maintenance of SNPs in human populations. For these reasons, we have obtained SNP data from 50 noncoding regions in Africans, Europeans, and Asians and have estimated the levels of nucleotide diversity within and between populations. To strengthen our conclusions, we have also used data from GenBank and the literature.


* MATERIALS AND METHODS
*TOP
*ABSTRACT
*MATERIALS AND METHODS
*RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
*LITERATURE CITED

DNA samples:
The 10 Africans used were 1 Biaka Pygmy, 1 Mbuti Pygmy, 1 Ghanaian, 1 Kikuyu, 1 !Kung, 1 Luo, 2 Nigerians (Yuroba and Rivers), 1 South African Bantu speaker, and 1 Zulu (also a South African Bantu speaker); the 10 Europeans were 1 Finnish, 1 French, 1 German, 1 Hungarian, 1 Italian, 1 Portuguese, 1 Russian, 1 Spanish, 1 Swedish, and 1 Ukranian; and the 10 Asians were 1 Cambodian, 2 Chinese (North and South), 1 Han Taiwanese, 2 Indians (Punjab and Bengal), 1 Japanese, 1 Mongolian, 1 Vietnamese, and 1 Yakut. As every segment studied is autosomal, the number of sequences studied for each segment is 60 (20 for each continent studied).

Selection of DNA segments:
Fifty noncoding, nonrepetitive genomic segments (each ~1 kb), which covered almost all autosomes, were selected randomly with reference to the Genome Channel (http://genome.ornl.gov/GCat/species.shtml); see CHEN and LI 2001 Down for details. All of them were chosen to avoid coding or close linkage to any coding regions. In each segment and its nearby regions there was no registered gene in GenBank and no potential coding region was detected by either GenScan or GRAIL-EXP.

PCR amplification and DNA sequencing:
Touchdown PCR (DON et al. 1991 Down) was used and the reactions were carried out following the conditions described (ZHAO et al. 2000 Down). The PCR products were purified by the Wizard PCR Preps DNA purification resin kit (Promega, Madison, WI). Sequencing reaction was performed according to the protocol of ABI Prism BigDye Terminator sequencing kits (Perkin-Elmer, Norwalk, CT) modified by quarter reaction. The extension products were purified by Sephadex G-50 (DNA grade; Pharmacia, Piscataway, NJ) and run on an ABI 377XL DNA sequencer using 4.25% gels (Sooner Scientific). About 500 bp of each segment was sequenced.

ABI DNA Sequence Analysis 3.0 was used for lane tracking and base calling. The data were then proofread manually and heterozygous sites were detected as double peaks. The forward and reverse sequences were assembled automatically in each individual using SeqMan in DNASTAR. The assembled files were carefully checked by eye. Fluorescent traces for each variant site were rechecked again in all individuals. All singletons, which were variants that appear only once in the total sample, were verified by PCR reamplification and resequencing the PCR products in both directions.

Data analysis:
The sequences were aligned by SeqMan in the DNASTAR or the DAMBE package (XIA 2000 Down). Nucleotide diversity values were calculated using DNASP (ROZAS and ROZAS 1999 Down), DAMBE, and our own programs.


* RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
*TOP
*ABSTRACT
*MATERIALS AND METHODS
*RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
*LITERATURE CITED

Distribution of SNPs:
A total of 146 SNPs were found in the total sample; 53 of them were observed only once (i.e., singletons) and 22 only twice (doubletons). The number of variant sites found in the African sample was 118, of which 68 (36 singletons, 15 doubletons, and 17 others) were not found in the Eurasian sequences (i.e., they were unique). In contrast, in the Eurasian sample only 78 variant sites were found and only 28 of them (17 singletons, 4 doubletons, and 7 others) were unique, though the combined sample size was twice the African sample size. Thus, beyond the 50 variants already observed in the African sample, the combined Eurasian sample contains in addition only 17 singletons and 11 nonsingleton variants. The high frequencies of singletons in the African and Eurasian samples are similar to those observed in other studies (KAESSMANN et al. 1999 Down; ZHAO et al. 2000 Down; YU et al. 2001 Down). Note that in a neutral Wright-Fisher population with {theta}, the expected number of mutations of size i in a random sample of n sequences is {theta}/i (FU 1995 Down). So the number of singletons should be twice the number of doubletons and thrice the number of tripletons. In our total sample we found 53 singletons, 22 doubletons, and 7 tripletons. Therefore, there is an excess of singletons, which suggests a population expansion in the recent past.

Nucleotide diversity:
Nucleotide diversity ({pi}) is defined as the number of nucleotide differences between two randomly chosen sequences in a population. The {pi}-value fluctuates greatly among the segments studied (Table 1). The range of {pi} is from 0 (5 segments) to 0.27% in the total sample, from 0 (5 segments) to 0.58% in the African sample, from 0 (19 segments) to 0.27% in the Asian sample, and from 0 (18 segments) to 0.29% in the European sample. Such large fluctuations are not surprising because the nucleotide diversity in a short DNA region is subject to strong stochastic effects. In addition, variation in {pi} may also arise from different mutation rates among different segments, although we found no correlation between {pi} and the divergence between human and ape sequences. The average {pi}-values are only 0.061% ± 0.010% among Asians and 0.064% ± 0.011% among Europeans, but almost twice as high among Africans (0.115% ± 0.016%); {pi} is 0.088% ± 0.011% for the total sample. The average {pi}-value within Africans is actually somewhat higher than that between Africans and Eurasians (0.096% ± 0.012%). In other words, Africans differ on average more among themselves than from Eurasians.



View this table:
In this window
In a new window

Table 1. Nucleotide diversity in each segment within and between continents

Adequacy of sampling scheme and sample size:
We now consider the adequacy of our sampling schedule. The fact that the individuals used were chosen to cover various geographic areas and ethnic backgrounds in each of the three continents studied may tend to overestimate {pi}, whereas the inclusion of the two sequences within each individual may tend to underestimate {pi}. The two tendencies should be reflected in between-individual {pi}-values ({pi}b) and in within-individual {pi}-values ({pi}w), respectively, and the average {pi}b and {pi}w can be taken as an upper and a lower bound of the true {pi}-value. To simplify the analysis, we concatenate the segments in an individual in a random manner into two continuous sequences. For the African sequences the distribution of {pi}b-values, which ranges from 0.059 to 0.187%, is only somewhat wider than that of the 10 {pi}w-values, which ranges from 0.059 to 0.152%. Therefore, the average {pi}b (0.115%) is only slightly higher than the average {pi}w (0.108%), implying that the geographic locations of the individuals sampled have little effect on the average {pi}-value. For the Asian sample there are two very low {pi}w-values (0.023 for the North Chinese and the Bengal) and the average {pi}w-value (0.051%) is substantially lower than the average {pi}b (0.063%). The average {pi}w without the two outliers becomes 0.058%, which is similar to the between-individual average {pi}b (0.063%). So, our sampling schedule in Asia may cause at most only a minor overestimate of the true average {pi}-value. For the European sample, the average {pi}w-value is only 0.049% and, after excluding the two lowest values (0.027% for the Ukranian and 0.031% for the Russian), it becomes 0.054%, which is still not close to the between-individual average of 0.066%. This comparison suggests that our sampling schedule may have inflated somewhat the average {pi}-value for the Europeans. However, as the final estimate of 0.063% should have been compensated to some extent by the {pi}w-values, which tend to be low, it should not differ much from the true value.

Next let us consider whether the sample size of 10 individuals from each continent studied is sufficiently large for our purpose. To answer this question, let us consider subsamples of the original samples; we consider concatenated sequences. Fig 1 shows the distribution of the average {pi}-values when each subsample in a continent contains only 6 individuals from the original sample of 10; there are 210 such possible subsamples. It is seen that the three distributions are rather concentrated. For example, in each distribution none of the average {pi}-values deviate significantly from the mean {pi}-value of the total sample and the proportions of average {pi}-values in subsamples that deviate more than 10% from the mean are 18.1, 7.6, and 20.4% for the African, Asian, and European samples, respectively. This analysis suggests that even a sample of 6 independent individuals would usually give an estimate of {pi} in a continent reasonably close to the true value.



View larger version (16K):
In this window
In a new window
Download PPT slide
Figure 1. Distributions of average {pi}-values in subsamples of 6 individuals from the sample of 10 individuals in each continent studied. The distribution is based on 1000 replicates.

Worldwide pattern of SNP variation and implications for human evolution:
A more general pattern of worldwide nucleotide diversity is shown in Table 2, which includes the present data and data from the literature and our unpublished studies. For the autosomal regions included (47,038 bp) the {pi}-values are 0.105% for Africans, 0.070% for Asians, 0.069% for Europeans, and 0.097% for between Africans and Eurasians. For X-linked regions (47,421 bp) the corresponding values are 0.088, 0.042, 0.053, and 0.082%. As in many previous studies (VIGILANT et al. 1991 Down; HAMMER et al. 1997 Down; NICKERSON et al. 1998 Down; HALUSHKA et al. 1999 Down; KAESSMANN et al. 1999 Down; INGMAN et al. 2000 Down; JORDE et al. 2000 Down; UNDERHILL et al. 2000 Down; ZHAO et al. 2000 Down; YU et al. 2001 Down), the nucleotide diversity is considerably higher in Africans than in non-Africans, probably because of a larger effective population size or longer evolutionary history (STONEKING et al. 1997 Down; INGMAN et al. 2000 Down). Asians and Europeans have very similar {pi}-values and are considerably closer to each other than to Africans.



View this table:
In this window
In a new window

Table 2. Nucleotide diversity within and between populations in noncoding regions

The genome-wide nucleotide diversity has been estimated to be 0.075% for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) diversity panel (INTERNATIONAL SNP WORKING GROUP 2001; see also VENTER et al. 2001 Down). The NIH panel consists of 90 individuals from European-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans, while our estimate of 0.089% is from a worldwide sample (Table 2) and is slightly higher. The SNP density is 1 SNP/1331 bp for the former data and 1 SNP/1123 bp for our data. For X-linked sequences the SNP density is 1 SNP/1408 bp (Table 2). It is clear from Table 2 that the geographic origins of the individuals sampled should be specified when considering nucleotide diversity or SNP density. For example, the SNP density for autosomal regions is 1 SNP/952 bp for Africans but only 1 SNP/1430 bp for Asians and Europeans.

Interestingly, both autosomal and X-linked sequence data show higher DNA variation within Africans than between Africans and Eurasians (Table 2), contrary to the general observation of lower within-population than between-population differences in population genetics. This finding implies that Africans differ on average more among themselves than from Eurasians. Thus, with the exception of many minor unique variants, the nucleotide diversity in Eurasians is essentially a subset of that in Africans, as suggested by the observation that both Y-linked and autosomal haplotypes found outside of Africa were often a subset of the collection of haplotypes found in Africa (ARMOUR et al. 1996 Down; TISHKOFF et al. 1996 Down, TISHKOFF et al. 2000 Down; HAMMER et al. 1997 Down; UNDERHILL et al. 2000 Down). Our finding is more in agreement with the out of Africa model of human evolution than with the multiregional model because it is consistent with the view that modern humans originated in Africa and that a smaller subset of this population later migrated to other parts of the world (see STONEKING et al. 1997 Down and references therein). During and after the migration some variants would have been lost and, as the separation time is still short, non-Africans have not yet acquired many high-frequency variants, though they might have derived some variants from indigenous archaic populations in Asia and Europe. For these reasons, the genetic differences between non-Africans and Africans are on average smaller than the genetic differences within Africans.
 
:lol: so you are using height, girth, hair etc as evidence that Africans are different? Things that are passed from parent to child? Ok man, I;m done.

yeah, you are done. what are your genetic differences besides skin color?:lol::lol::lol:

those slight , and I mean SLIGHT genetic differences were enuf to cause tribal wars, well before the White folks came BACK to bring about the biggest tribal genocide in history... aided in their victory by Arab tribes, and other AFRICAN tribes nonetheless.
 
:lol: so you are using height, girth, hair etc as evidence that Africans are different? Things that are passed from parent to child? Ok man, I;m done.

Phenotype and genotype.

Obama is 'black' because of phenotype(darker skin, nappy hair, and facial features). He could have just as easily been born with straight hair with lighter skin looking white.

Where is the line drawn?
 
:lol: so you are using height, girth, hair etc as evidence that Africans are different? Things that are passed from parent to child? Ok man, I;m done.

No You were done when you first entered this thread!!!


Check the physical stature of a Yoruba man as compared to an Ashanti or a Masai or a Pygmy, these people are distinctly different.
Your genetic makeup as well as your environment will determine your physiucal appearance possibilities.
Pygmies never grow to 6 foot, that my friend is their genetic coding.
 
Back
Top