...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Keita's Cambridge Workshop and Nat Geo Videos
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: For any takers: What is the following saying. I want to know, because we have seen different interpretations of pieces of this one extract cut & pasted here... [i]The biohistory of this sample of Berber speakers is not elucidated, let alone that of all Berbers whose geographical range is great. Nor should admixture be invoked to explain the lack of resolution. Much of the genetic variation of Berber speakers no doubt goes back to the time of early genetic differentiation in Africa. Modern humans have been in northwestern supra-Saharan Africa for more than 60,000 years, perhaps in relative isolation due to Saharan hyperaridity (Clark 1989). Neanderthals were in Europe at this time. Modern Berber speakers’ similarity to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that postdate the early differentiation, probably from supra-Saharan sources. The “intermediate” biological characteristics of supra-Saharan Africans are not easily explained primarily as the result of hybridization. A Dravidian sample from southern India likewise shifts between European and Asian populations, not attaining significance by standard bootstrap criteria. This is to be regarded as a less serious error if this kind of work is accepted in a general sense. But both of these results are devastating to the race paradigm. The Berber and Dravidian examples show shifts between the major racial groups as traditionally and currently defined by some scholars.[/i] - Keita & Kittles, Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, 1997. Alright then, since there were no takers amongst the debating parties, I'll be the taker myself. Here, the piece is focused on a genetic study by Sforza et al. 1988 [Reconstruction of human evolution: Bringing together genetic, archaeological, and linguistic data], and Keita & Kittles were therefore alluding to *genetic similarity*, when their paper said this: [i]Modern Berber speakers’ similarity to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that postdate the early differentiation, probably from supra-Saharan sources. The “intermediate” biological characteristics of supra-Saharan Africans are not easily explained primarily as the result of hybridization. A Dravidian sample from southern India likewise shifts between European and Asian populations, not attaining significance by standard bootstrap criteria.[/i] Which brings me to MindoverMatter's question, of what genetic markers would refer to the following then, that supposedly [i]"are not easily explained primarily as the result of hybridization"[/i]: [i]Modern Berber speakers’ similarity to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that postdate the early differentiation, probably from supra-Saharan sources. The “intermediate” biological characteristics of supra-Saharan Africans are not easily explained primarily as the result of hybridization.[/i] These markers would be certain atDNA markers, including for example, those associated with human leukocyte antigens. Keita's point about these not easily being explained primarily as a result of hybridization, is aided by the observation of the shifts in the results of a "Berber" sample between supposedly two camps; Sforza et al.'s "African" group and his "Caucasoid" group, and the lack of statistical significance, necessary to show that there was more to Sforza et al.'s observations of said shifts than mere chance occurrence, and rooted in the idea that the similarity may well instead, reflect an earlier bifurcation event in Africa prior to an OOA migration which would have been responsible for spreading the said genetic traits into extra-African territories by the OOA migrants, and inherited by descendants of the OOA migrant ancestors who were the main recipients of newly acquired markers, which have become geographically-structured due to bottlenecks, resultant genetic drift, and founder effect as the said OOA migrants dispersed. Keita raises the likelihood that the said "Berber" shifting to "Caucasoid" group may well reflect a bifurcation even in *supra-Saharan* African populations who would later became fundamental to or contributed to the gene pool of the so-called "Caucasoid" group that they were presumably shifting towards, rather than simple interpretation of such observation as merely the result of some "hybridization" event(s), wherein a supra-Saharan sample like the "Berber" sample in question, supposedly attained said "similarity" due to colonization or gene flow from the so-called "Caucasoids" from Europe or the so-called "Near East". You see, Keita sees contemporary supra-Saharan Africans as having links to populations that have long been present in the region, which he estimates to be more than 60,000 years. Now of course, he's not totally ruling out a possible role played to some degree by bidirectional gene flow between sup-Saharan African populations and the other said populations, but just that he does not see it as necessarily being the decisive factor in the phenomenon observed -- i.e. the shifting between two "typified" [if not tacitly, by Sforza et al. 1988] populations, for the combination of reasons just mentioned. The same situation may well be at play in the shifting of a Dravidian sample between the European and Asian samples. There you have it! I hope this provides a more nuance, complete and balanced interpretation of the excerpt above, as compared to the sharply distinct interpretations we've seen here, in accommodation to the *partitioning* citations of the said except by either debating parties. BTW, it does appear that Sforza et al. 1988 were under the impression that Afro-Asiatic was the sub-phylum of Nostratic super-phylum, which is why Keita interpreted it as,... [i]Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues (1988) [b]do not accurately represent the Afro-Asiatic family because they exclude Chadic, Omotic, and Cushitic speakers, thereby giving the illusion that Ethiopians are an anomaly, being genetically Africans (but mixed) who also speak the language of Caucasions (Afro-Asiatic!?)[/b] (Armstrong 1990). An evolutionary model explains the geographical range of Afro-Asiatic speakers as one overlaying gradients of genetic differentiation, which a racial model breaks into discrete units that cannot be shown to have ever existed.[/i]" - Keita & Kittles, Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, 1997. [/QUOTE]Jackass, where's your non-existent "copy" of the above? As a matter of fact, let's put you to further test: [i]Bootstrapping reveals that the sample of Berber speakers joins a cluster of European populations in 80 percent of the resamplings and joins the African cluster in the other 20 percent. This is noteworthy because the Berber sample is shifting between the major two clusters regarded as denoting the primary bifurcation of modern humans. A bootstrap value less than 95 percent is deemed insignificant if the goal is to show definitive primary relationship. The Berber sample in this example possibly illustrates the low resolution of dendrograms when data are not highly differentiated and the inappropriateness of representing human population differences with dendrograms.[/i] What is the above saying? If you have any remote clue about anything I relayed in my cited piece above, which you wish you could steal, it might school you about this Keita-Kittles excerpt. Btw, do you still stand by your claim that Keita rejects dendrograms? [/QUOTE]While being the cowardly-dodging jackass pussy he is, jackass calls questions that put his ass in the hot seat as 'spam'. Well, what the above definitely isn't is this: For the gofuckyourself jackass: you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from [b]another[/b] study, as [b]if the latter was discussing the said subjects[/b]. This is jackass dishonesty, pure and simple; the question is, why were you dumb enough to do it? The answer: You are a jackass. Unlike the jackass, my post actually cites the extracts about said subjects from the said study itself, for one. :cool: [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3