Genetics and Inheritance

By John Bean. When the Human Genome Project was completed in 2000, it was widely touted that its result showed no genetic basis for race. In fact some scientists went so far as to dub race a “biological fiction.”
Developments since then have clearly demonstrated that quite small genetic differences can produce disproportionate results that substantiate the fact that racial differences are a reality and that they are more complex than just differences in skin colour and hair texture.
When we are told that as the difference in DNA between peoples from different parts of the globe is so small therefore there is really no such thing as ‘race’, let us first remember that the difference between humans and chimpanzees is only just over one per cent. Yet despite sharing 99 per cent of the same DNA how is it that we are so different in appearance, behaviour and, above all, in mental abilities? Our pet dogs and cats also share around 80 per cent of our DNA. Approximately 75 per cent of mouse genes so far identified have a firm counterpart in the human genome.
Furthermore, according to Prof Stylianos Antonarakis of the University of Geneva Medical School and Dr Ewen Kirkness of the Institute of Genomic Research, Maryland, latest DNA research shows that some DNA regions of humans, dogs, and species as distant as elephant and wallaby are nearly identical.(1)
Importantly, they also found that huge tracts of human DNA, previously written off as meaningless junk, have been found to contain a hitherto unrecognised “genetic grammar”, making the language of our genes much more complex than previously thought. More on the importance of this DNA junk in carrying group, or racial, differences later. But for the moment let it be noted that small though DNA differences may be the effects they can have are considerable.
It starts in your genes
We appreciate that for some readers we may be preaching the art of egg-sucking for grandmothers. For those who have not really bothered about ‘genes’, ‘chromosomes’ and DNA, the following is a basic guide suitable for anyone with O level Science.

DNA is made up of sugar, phosphate and nitrogen pair-bonds.

 The characteristics you inherit from your parents and ancestors are in your inherited genes. This genetic information forms part of the chromosomes which are carried in DNA, which is a chemical called deoxyribonucleic acid.
 The chromosomes, which exist in pairs, are threadlike structures, usually found in the cell nucleus of animals and plants carrying the genes. The DNA molecule takes the structure of a double helix, i.e. a pair of parallel helices with a common axis, and it exists in the nucleus of every living cell. This was the revolutionary discovery made by the British scientists Francis Crick, Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin and the American James Watson in 1953, including the fact that the two strands were complementary. The complete DNA sequence housed in a cell of an organism is known as its genome.
DNA consists of long sequences of four chemical ‘letters’ – C,T,G, and A – strung together in different combinations like different coloured beads on a necklace.(2)The information of DNA is encoded in the precise order of these four chemicals; like writing but using fewer symbols.
Genes are the smallest element of DNA and are the basis of heredity. There are many thousands of genes that create each chromosome. In the human body there are 46 pairs of chromosomes. They are sections of data that is received from our parents; one chromosome from each parent and they combine in the embryo to create a set.
It was originally thought that the genetic message comes equally from each parent, but it now seems that some children might end up with three, four or even more copies of a gene from one parent. Although one can often see that offspring are related, even with large families each child, unless an identical twin, will be different in varying degrees. This is because there are immense numbers of possible combinations of the genes carried by each parent.
Mitochondrial DNA
It is the nuclear DNA that really makes us what we are. It consists of around 25,000 genes, compared with a paltry 37 that our mothers pass to us in mitochondria.
Mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell. They consume the sugars that our bodies have converted from food and in return produce electricity with which to power the cell But it is considered to be separate from the cell, because it has its own DNA, and this DNA is unaffected by other genetic exchanges.
Although you may have inherited all manner of characteristics through your nuclear DNA from parents, grandparents and back many generations, there is one factor that remains constant: the mitochondrial DNA hasn’t altered at all. It remains intact through the female line. Male sperm contains only enough mitochondria to power the sperm to the surface of the egg – it does not enter the egg. The egg, however, contains mitochondria that have been passed from mother to daughter for countless generations. The only way for mitochondrial DNA to alter is by natural mutations, which occur very slowly when compared with the almost frantic gene mixing we and our parents take part in.
Importantly, according to Adrian Woolfson, even the smallest DNA changes can result in significant changes to the structure and function of a living creature. In fact minute changes can have disproportionate results. It is this natural mutation of mitochondrial DNA occurring just occasionally over countless generations that has led to group differences and thereby the establishment of separate human races.
Because the rate of mitochondrial genetic mutation is slow it can be used as a clock to turn back time to a period before the mutations had crept in. The common belief at present is that modern Europeans originated from Africa (although some, such as Prof.Carleton S.Coon contend that the ancestors of the living races of man achieved Homo sapiens sapiens status (truly modern status)independently in several different global areas). When mitochondrial DNA from modern sub-Saharan African populations are sampled they can be compared with European mitochondrial DNA. The mutation difference between the two populations can then be compared and a ‘clock’ can be produced to give a time-scale which indicates when the distant ancestors of modern Europeans first left Africa (assuming they did). But there are vast differences between the genome of the Negro peoples of sub-Saharan Africa and the present day inhabitants of Europe, Asia and the Americas, because evolution did not stop after migrants moved out of Africa.
It is known that pre-sapiens “hominid” or humanlike populations were already in possession of many parts of the Old World before “intelligent” Homo sapiens spread around the world and replaced them. Some of these were quite intelligent, such as the Neanderthals of Ice Age Europe. But the prevailing view is that these were all replaced by the ancestors of modern men, although it is possible that in some places there may have been some genetic mixing with older more primitive populations. However that may be, the latest research indicates that after early Homo sapiens migrants from Africa entered Asia, they slowly spread outwards over the more habitable parts of Asia. Some went eastwards, in several waves, along the southern parts of Asia. The earliest of these are believed to have been ancestral to the Negritoes, a now rare people who resemble African Negroes, who have left traces of their genes in parts of India and Southeast Asia, and another wave may have been ancestral to the Australoids of Australia and New Guinea, who also left their genes amongst some of the living tribal peoples in the more remote parts of southern India, and amongst various southeast Asian peoples, notably in Cambodia.  It is thought the Negritos, Gonds and so on are offshoots from the Australid wave about 60,000 years ago. They are thought to have migrated along the (now submerged – sea levels were lower due to water locked in glaciation) coasts of Arabia, India, “Sundaland” (not home to Geordies but the peninsula of Malaya-Indonesia formed when sea levels fall 300 feet) and on to a New Guinea then joined to Australia.
But another portion of the Homo sapiens population that moved into Asia spread out in a more northerly direction, and found themselves north of the great mountain barrier that stretches from the Caucasus through northern Iran and Afghanistan. Here the climate was much colder, and from this population two further living human stocks are believed to have evolved. Those who spread eastwards became ancestral to the Mongoloids of Mongolia, China and East Asia. Those who spread in a more northwesterly direction, bccame ancestral to the Caucasoids of Europe and Western Asia. The harsh conditions of cold northern Eurasia proved a challenge to survival, and many believed that this resulted in further evolutionary selection in favour of greater intelligence. Those who could not find ways of providing for their families during the long winter months, were less likely to survive.   Certainly, the non-tropical climate led to modifications in the physical appearance of those who continued to be shaped by evolution in Europe and northeastern Asia, hence the fair colouring of Europeans, especially northern Europeans, and the relatively fair skin colour of the Mongoloids of Eastern Asia.
Tiny differences in genes lead to changes in human appearance, behaviour, immunity, health and ability. Female medic from the Icelandic Army, left, and a Tamil from southern India, right.
When talking about race, we must remember that the further we go back in the history of the human race, the more localized people were, and so different populations evolved differently. There was no genetic mixing between Central Africans, North Europeans, Chinese, or Australian aboriginals until relatively very recent times. It is true that populations living in more central areas, such as Mesopotamia were likely to become admixed with neighbouring peoples, and genetic mergers would occur in such places. The Caucasoids of the Middle East and North Africa deliberately conducted slave raids into sub-Saharan Africa to capture Negro men and women to serve them, and although they often neutered the males many had offspring from the female slaves, and so the genetic constitution of these people was changed, and their high civilization collapsed.
The Cro-Magnons whom we find in southern Europe during the last Ice Age, some 25,000 years ago, were seemingly very similar to and probably ancestral to most living Europeans, but Northern Europe was not populated until the last Ice Age waned some 12,000 years ago, and allowed the glaciers and permafrost to disappear. DNA samples from human skeletal remains (based on a branch of science known as ‘archeogenetics’) showed that the first human settlers arrived in Britain around 10-12,000 BC as Britain was thawing. They were much the same people as the people who settled Western Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia as these areas became habitable. According to David Miles, formerly chief archaeologist at English Heritage and a research fellow at Oxford University(3) in his book, The Tribes of Britain, the genetic make-up of modern white indigenous Britons has hardly changed from those first post-Ice Age arrivals. He states that 80 per cent of the indigenous white British person shares the same genetic characteristics as those early hunters and gatherers.
Some nationalists have misinterpreted this important information by suggesting that the Anglo Saxons and Vikings, and even the Celts, must have had a minimal racial contribution to white British stock if 80 per cent of us share the same genes as the first arrivals of 12,000 BC. The point here is that all these people were but different variations of a common European race.
The earliest post-Ice Age settlers of the British Isles and Western seaboard of Europe may have been akin to the Basques of north eastern Spain, but later, in historical times, the British Isles was settled more thoroughly by Celts, whose homeland was Southern Germany, and then by the Germanic peoples, from Northern Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia.
An outcome of the human genome project indicates that what seems to have happened is that at the Last Glacial Maximum 18,000 years humans in Europe retreated to refugia, notably around the Pyrenees and in the Ukraine. Britain was settled by two very early waves, one coming along the coasts from the Pyrenees and the other across Europe from the Ukraine. The Pyrenean wave led to the “Celtic” types of Western Britain, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, and the Ukrainian one to the “Germanic” eastern Britons, such as most English. The Celts (if they actually existed as invaders in any numbers, Saxons, Danes etc were also descended ultimately from the same Ukrainian Ice Age refuge population as the indigenous Britons of England. The existence of two generically distinct British founder populations was identified in the C19th by Beddoes and others. But they thought they were “Mediterranean” Celts and Nordic Germans. In fact they are based on much earlier migrations in the initial settlement of Britain 12,000 years ago when the Ice retreated by populations from two refugia at opposite ends of Europe. 8000 years earlier.
All were what we today would call European, with the Celts and Germans tending only to be blonder than the first settlers. Genetic testing has been carried out on modern day white Danes, Dutchmen and Germans from Saxony and in nearly all cases very little difference in DNA has been found.
Small Differences – Wide Ranging Results
The human DNA carries an estimated 25,000 genes and not much more than 0.1 per cent, i.e. 320 genes, account for the differences between individuals and races, whether it be freckles, Afro hair, ginger hair or hereditary in-growing toenails. Geneticist Steve Scherer, a senior scientist at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, has said: “Based on what we now know it (the genetic difference) is probably in the 0.2 per cent range and in the end it may even be as high as one per cent.”(4)
Within the last five years scientists have carried out in-depth work to chart these genetic variations. One of these, Francis Crick, who along with James Watson, Maurice Wilkins and Rosamund Franklin discovered the structure and role of DNA in the 1950’s and has more recently played a leading role in the Human Genome Project, had to admit that “well-intentioned statements” about the biological insignificance of race may have left the wrong impression: “It is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection.”(5)
Again, the importance of the small genetic differences between people groups/races was suggested in a paper this year by Hua Tang and other scientists on “Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity.”(6) Hua Tang et al contended that in a study of Blacks, Whites, Hispanics and Asians in 12 different U.S. locations and three in Taiwan, that there are 326 genetic markers on racial differences.
A variation in a single gene may explain why some people can withstand pain – or other physical or emotional stress – better than others, a team from the University of Michigan and the National Institutes of Health reported in a recent issue of Science.
If we bear in mind that flies and worms have around half as many genes as humans and that fish, rats and mice have almost the same number as us, then it cannot be genes alone that account for the differences between us. As Woolfson explains, the main difference between the genes of ‘higher’ organisms, such as vertebrates, and those of ‘lower’ organisms is that they are ‘smarter,’ which means simply that each gene is more complex, as are its behavioural patterns. As genes become smarter, the organisms they build and operate become more complex..
We also have to consider that as much as 98% of the human genome contains ‘junk’, which are DNA sequences that lack protein-coding genes and about which scientists still need to know much more.. It is now being found that a huge amount of information lies outside genes, scattered throughout the ‘junk’ and is responsible for the maintenance, regulation and reprogramming of genetic processes.
Now pulling all the above information together, it can be seen, for example, that the difference between the complexity of a fly and a human can be explained not only by the extra 10,000 or so genes found in a humans, but in the number of different gene behavioural patterns each genome is capable of producing. The difference is a huge number, larger than the number of elementary particles in the known universe (10 to the power 80), according to Woolfson. This means that a relatively small variation in the number of genes between two species has the potential to generate a tremendous difference in biological complexity.
If one applies this to the 300 plus gene differences between, for example, the European and the African, it would explain the biological, physical and metaphysical differences between these two races of the common species Homo sapiens.
The Evidence
Several laboratory investigations carried out on behalf of the Police and/or the FBI in the USA have confirmed that genetic testing can determine a persons exact racial profile. A classic report was that by Josh Noel, a staff writer for the The Advocate News, Florida, 06/04/03. It stated:
“A prvate genetics lab altered the hunt for the south Louisiana serial killer after telling investigators that the person they sought was a black man. For eight months the investigation had focussed on white men.
“Tony Frudakis, chief executive officer of DNAPrint Genomics said that he told the task force that the serial killer was 85% Sub-Saharan and 15% Native American based on analysis of the killer’s DNA.”
Eventually a black man was arrested as his DNA matched exactly the lab’s report. Frudakis has said his company can determine a person’s ancestral past by analysing 73 DNA markers and narrowing the result to proportions in four categories: East Asian, Indo-European, Native American and Sub-Saharan African.
The Guardian, 16/06/05, reported that a drug (BiDil) was now available in America which was aimed specifically at African-Americans to remedy heart failure. Among New Yorkers aged 45 to 54 the death rate from heart disease among black people is 55% higher than among whites. The Food & Drug Authority’s stamp of approval for the drug was being opposed by some liberals because it would “give the stamp of authority on racial biological differences”.
In an article on genetic medicines in The Times, 18/6/05, Kenan Malik said that according to the American Heart Association the death rate amongst Black Americans was five times that of Whites. Malek also pointed out that Northern Europeans are more likely to suffer from cystic fibrosis than other groups. Tay-Sachs, a fatal disease of the central nervous system, particularly affects Ashkenazi Jews. Beta-blockers appear to work less effectively for African-Americans than those of European descent.
The New Scientist, 20/1/05 reported that a length of DNA has been found in a fifth of Europeans which is very rare in Africans and non-existent in Asians. This DNA is said to be 3 million years old and can only have passed to modern Europeans in the last 50,000 years, otherwise it would be present today in all other races.
In 1992 Bo Rybeck, Director of the Swedish National Defence Research Institute, stated that as we became able to identify the DNA variations of different races and ethnic groups, we will be able to determine the difference between blacks and whites and Orientals and Jews and Swedes and Finns and develop an agent that will kill only a particular group.”
The Sunday Times, 15.11.1998, revealed in a report from Israel: “Israel is working on a biological weapon that would harm Arabs but not Jews, according to Israeli military and western intelligence sources. In developing their ‘ethno-bomb’, Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying genes carried by some Arabs.”
A North Korean team of microbiologists are also said to be working on an ethno-bomb which would destroy white races.
Earlier Evidence
Before the secrets of DNA began to be unravelled and showed clearly that there were many genetic markers indicating racial differences, ample evidence had existed but was ignored or suppressed by the Marxist-liberal intellectual ‘elite’ and its media mouthpieces. All differences were due to environmental factors, they said. This was the standard answer to the findings of countless IQ tests over the past century which have consistently shown that North eastern Asians (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese) have a higher IQ than Europeans, who in turn are some 15 % above people of African origin.
A broad, in-depth investigation into IQ research studies was carried out by Herrnstein and Murray, the results of which were published in The Bell Curve, 1994, and greeted in the main with abuse by those who could not challenge their findings on racial IQ differences and that it was largely genetic and hereditary.
We are frequently told that there is a shortage of West Indian, African and Asian blood donors in the UK, but at the same time we are told there is no difference in the ratio of the blood groups in the various racial groupings. Similarly, with kidney, heart and other organ transplants emphasis is given to matching the race of the donor and the recipient. More recently doctors have found, to their apparent surprise, that this also applies to the success of bone marrow transplants.
It has long been known that West Indians and African are almost exclusively susceptible to the hereditary blood characteristic, sickle cell anaemia. This makes them more receptive to jaundice, pneumonia and TB, sometimes leading to death.
The UK Prostate Cancer Charity issued a report in March 2005 that Prostate cancer among African Caribbean men is three times more prevalent than among whites.
American Indians have a tendency to hypertension and high blood pressure and, like the Japanese, have a low tolerance to alcohol.
We could probably continue with another page of specific biological, physical and mental differences to support our view that all these minor differences add up to there being a substantial difference between the world’s main racial strains. However, the emphasis is on difference, not on superiority of any one race over another because it would depend on the yardstick chosen to measure superiority.
To end on a personal note, the human genome project revealed that there are some 1400 potential illnesses/diseases carried by single gene markers, and one of them I suffer from. This is Dupuytren’s Contracture, which causes one or more fingers to bend in towards the palm; a ‘disease’ which I shared with Margaret Thatcher. Prior to an operation my surgeon said that it only occurs among people of “North European descent” and is sometimes known as the “Scandinavian disease”. The highest rates of incidence world-wide are in Iceland, followed by Denmark, and in Britain, the Orkneys and Shetlands followed by the north east of England (where many of my ancestors came from). Of course, distorted fingers are of little concern for the future of the world’s races, but distorted reporting on the genetic evidence of each race’s distinctiveness is of great concern.
1. Adrian Woolfson, An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Genetics, published by Duckworth Overlook, London, 2004.
2. Science, October 2003.
3. David Miles, The Tribes of Britain, Oxford University Press
4. Paper by Professor Henry Harpending, University of Utah, June 2005.
5. Nature Genetics, Autumn 2004
6. American Journal of Human Genetics, Spring 2005.

Recommended For You


  1. Like you, I am the happy (!) carrier of the genes that single me out for Dupuytren's and Ledderhose's diseases.

    You say that "The highest rates of incidence [of Dupuytren's disease] world-wide are in Iceland, followed by Denmark, and in Britain, the Orkneys and Shetlands followed by the north east of England (where many of my ancestors came from)".

    Where do you get this information from?

    I'm curious because the data on the prevalence of Dupuytren's disease are notable mostly by their absence (Lanting et al. 2014). There is not one good scientific study that can say with any assurance that more people are afflicted in, say, Belgium than Bosnia, or more in Scotland than in Norway. You will find graphs showing exactly that, but they are bogus: seek out the data on which they are based. You will discover immediately that the studies aren’t comparable – you cannot claim that data collected on diabetics in a hospital can be generalised to the whole country, and you can’t compare data from a hospital with a study of people visiting a market place in another region.

    Perhaps it really is more likely that if your genes contain a healthy admixture of Angles you will get the disease; but as yet as far as I have been able to discover there are no reliable data to show it. None, and this for a disease that affects – the data are wobbly – between 10 and 30% of men over 50 in some countries, and perhaps a tenth or a fifth as many women, too. Lack of data does not stop these memes from propagating.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.