Read people and understand how scientists lie, distort, and omit information. Only fools like the keyboard scholar crew would believe what they say instead of using ones own natural intellect.
What's also funny is how rasol is always ankle grabbing about Cavalli-Sforza being a genious. LOL
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fools often find other fools believable - that's why they're fools. Other people under similar circumstances, are simply uninformed or ignorant of the available information.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Read people and understand how scientists lie, distort, and omit information. Only fools would believe what they say instead of using ones own natural intellect.
^
^ 1st, lets dismiss your par-for-the-course stupidity, in the service of 'faux-comedy':
Science isn't something you 'believe in', it's something you study and learn, of course.
Your problem argoyal - is simply that you're not very bright, and can't learn or think.
That you imagine you can attack 'science' in favor of 'natural intellect' [buzzword which really means -> ignorance] is pure, if unintended comedy, and requires no further comment.
So let me tell you instead - why you *needed* to start this dumb thread...
This thread is intended as group therapy for intellectually insecure simpletons such as yourself.
It shows that you're insecure about being so dumb, and need to make excuses, in hopes of cheering yourself.
Naturally then, you attract Mike111 to co-sign, for the same reason that flies are attracted to feces.
Both of you then, keep telling yourselves lies to cheer yourselves up.
But why doesn't it work?
Because when you're done stroking yourselves, you're still dumb, and you still know it. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Read people and understand how scientists lie, distort, and omit information.
^ Too bad for you that most people *can* read, and comprehend far, far better than you.
That you think an article that consists entirely of citations from scientists, can be construed as a blanket attack on science, provides another example of just how apallingly stupid you are.
It seems that you are completely unable to read anything, or grasp context.
No wonder then, that you hate science, so much:
Modern DNA analysis used on ancient Nile Valley peoples
The high genetic diversity of the East African peoples and the PN2 bridge
High genetic diversity of African peoples. The DNA research of Tishkoff and Williams (2002), et. al. (Tishkoff SA, Williams SM. "Genetic analysis of African populations..") notes that Africa, particularly East Africa, is home to the highest levels of genetic diversity in the world, and that "all non-African lineages can be derived from a single ancestral African haplogroup... non-African populations [harbour] only a subset of genetic diversity present in Africa as would be expected.." in the out of Africa evolutionary model. DNA surveys of 33 globally diverse populations, found that all non-African populations have a similar pattern of haplotypic variability and a subset of variability seen in Ethiopian and Somalian populations, "which is itself, a subset of the variability that is present in other sub-Saharan populations."
Tishkoff and Williams suggest that a subset of the ancient northeast African population played a large role in populating the rest of the globe. "Analysis of mtDNA and Y-chromosone diversity supports a single East African source of migration out of Africa." According to the study:
"Population history in Africa is likely to be a complex web of population diversification that involves population expansions, contractions, fragmentation, and differential levels and patterns of gene flow. An analysis of genome-wide genetic variation in diverse African populations is required to understand better the genetic structure of these populations."[50]
"Africa contains tremendous cultural, linguistic and genetic diversity, and has more than 2,000 distinct ethnic groups and languages.. Studies using mitochondrial (mt)DNA and nuclear DNA markers consistently indicate that Africa is the most genetically diverse region of the world. However, most studies report only a few markers in divergent African populations, which makes it difficult to draw general conclusions about the levels and patterns of genetic diversity in these populations. Historically, human population genetic studies have relied on one or two African populations as being representative of African diversity, but recent studies show extensive genetic variation among even geographically close African populations, which indicates that there is not a single ‘representative’ African population." (Tishkoff SA, Williams SM., Genetic analysis of African populations: human evolution and complex disease. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2002 Aug (8):611-21.)[50] "Representative Africans and backflow theories." Some theories speculate that Y-genetic elements associated with the Haplogroup "E" originally beginning in Africa, flowed out from that source and mutated into other sub-clades such as E-M34 chromosomes. These mutations in turn flowed back into Africa. (Cruciani 2004).50a While gene flow of varying proportions is nothing unusual in the history North and Northeastern Africa, attempts to assign Near Eastern or Mediterranean "racial" categories to the peoples of the region on this basis are problematic.
The original Y-chromone marker "root stock" is of African origin, reflecting its beginning base of vast African genetic diversity. Any backflow mutations may simply reflect the built-in diversity inherent in the original root stock which is based in sub-Saharan Africa, not north or Northeast Africa. Haplogroup E is far more diverse in sub-Saharan east Africa than it is in northeast Africa. The ancestors to outside mutations from the Near East and elsewhere, the ancestral YAP+ clades, gave rise to such mutations as haplogroup "D". Other mutations such as E-M34 are dependent on another African ancestor, the undifferentiated E-M35 chromosomes, which are essentially confined to sub-Saharan Africa.
Undifferentiated PN2* chromosomes, the ancestral clade needed to give rise to downstream E clades like E1a1a (E3a) and E1a1b (E3b) are rare to non-existent in northeast Africa, and the ancestral YAP+ clades which would be essential to giving rise to haplogroups E and D, is virtually non-existent outside of Africa. (Keita 2004).[51a] In short, backflow mutations are themselves another subset of original sub-Saharan baseline variability, the engine that gave rise to all these variants.
Such complexity calls into question attempts to slice up ancient East and Northeast African populations into assigned proportions or percentages of Negroid, Caucasoid, Asiatic, or Middle Eastern race groups. It also calls into question attempts to assign such populations to one monolithic type. Nilo-Saharan and Bantu speakers for example differ in some respects, but both strands are indigenous Africans. And despite their wide dispersion, Bantu speakers cannot be considered to be "representative" of "true" Africans. They are simply one more variant in the mix and groupings of African genetic diversity. Per Tishkoff (2002) "there is not a single ‘representative’ African population."
The PN2 Transition
Kittles and Keita (2004) also note the vast genetic diversity of Africans, and how similar looking people may not possess the same DNA pattern. A DNA lineage may also include people who do not look the same outwardly.[51]
"Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex (or 'racial type'). Y-chromosome DNA from Africa alone suffices to make this point. Africa contains populations whose members have a range of external phenotypes. This variation has usually been described in terms of 'race' (Caucasoids, Pygmoids, Congoids, Khoisanoids). But the Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined 'races' are not characterized by 'private' distinct lineages restricted to each of them." (S O Y Keita, R A Kittles, et al. "Conceptualizing human variation," Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)
^ argoyole translation: science is evil ju-ju. thinking make argoyle brain hurt. argoyle use 'natural intellect' instead. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: That you think an article that consists entirely of citations from scientists, can be construed as a blanket attack on science, provides another example of just how apalling stupid you are.
Exactly what I wanted to say.
Argyle, assuming that you pay attention to us, science is a collaborative effort. Individual scientists will make mistakes and errors, yes, but there will always exist other scientists (e.g. Keita) to correct them. You therefore cannot smear all of science by picking on some bad apples in it.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Limitations in specific DNA sampling techniques have also been noted by writers such as Keita and Kittles, particularly as regards the "representative" samples used for "black" Africans. One example cited is Cavalli-Sforza's advocacy of defining "core populations" (discrete, less admixed groupings, i.e. "races") and their evolution and migration. Followers of this approach (Horai 1995) use DNA analysis to postulate racial divergence times, when discrete populations supposedly began to form from "core" peoples into spreading populations throughout Africa, Europe, Asia and elsewhere. As regards Africa, the entire mtDNA sequence was applied to the core groups or populations to determine such divergences. Samples used in measurement were (a) one African individual from Uganda who was used to represent all African peoples, (b) 10 individuals from Japan, whose gene data was amalgamated into a consensus to represent Asians, and (c) a large cluster of Europeanized data called the Cambridge sequence was used as a stand-in for Europeans. On this basis, entire geographic regions were conceptualized as authentic.
Keita and Kittles call for less narrow definition of "true types" and recognition of a wide range of population gradients and variations among peoples of Africa, particularly northeast Africa (the Horn, Nubia, the Nile Valley and the Sahara). Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
A number of surveys have attempted to use DNA data as a marker of race, tyically centering on identifying populations based on their geographic regions. Such studies are sometimes fairly accurate in distinguishing between groups that were very widely separated by distance- such as European Swedes versus African Pygmies. However when groups living in close proximity to each other are analyzed then the analyses lose much of their strength. Applied to peoples in Southern India for example, data from one survey showed that they had much more in common genetically with each other than with distant peoples such as Europeans.[73] This proximity of related peoples (Nubians, Egyptians, Somalians, Ethiopians, Sudanese, etc), sharing a number of common genetic, material and cultural elements.[74] is precisely what is at issue in the Nilotic populations. On such counts, many DNA studies that attempt to dice up that population into traditionally assigned racial groups fall short.[75]
Clustering methods across geographic boundaries to place racial groups have also been questioned, such as the use of such huge categories as Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas,[76] assignment of the widest possible categories to groups classified as Caucasoid,[77] while isolating certain others in narrower regions, separating out related populations (i.e. the Nilotic peoples), and non-evolutionary treatment of movement through geographic barriers.[78] The Sahara for example was often fertile in various eras and with a fluctuating climate cycle congenial to movement and interchange, and was not a rigid barrier throughout the millennia.[79]Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
DNA studies and racial models excluding certain African data
Several DNA studies applied to peoples near or in the Nile Valley have also been criticized for downplaying or excluding essential data on African populations in order to maintain certain racial models.[80] One study of gene and language flow for example, repeatedly excluded African data not meeting assigned racial categories, removing Chadic, Omotic and Cushitic speakers to create the impression that Ethiopians are an anomaly, i.e. Africans who speak the language of Caucasians.[81] When gene-frequency clustering in another survey did not adhere to the designated Caucasian categories (European and Middle Eastern) the study's authors simply excluded the non-European DNA samples to achieve desired results. According to one review: "The data in effect were tailored to fit into the traditional racial schema."[82] The racial models used in similar research have also been queried, particularly when data from various peoples held to be 'representative' of certain racial classifications (Berbers for example) continually shifts between 'assigned' categories, calling the validity of the categories themselves into question.Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
DNA studies have also been critiqued for sampling bias, in particular, using samples drawn mostly from northern (Lower) Egypt, which has historically had the presence of more foreigners from the Mediterranean and the Near East, and using those samples as representing the rest of Egypt, excluding the 'darker' south or Upper Egypt. Hammer (1997) for example uses samples drawn from the far northern city of Cairo, near the Mediterranean to represent North Africa, and thus all of Egypt. Cavalli-Sforza, Luis et. al. (2004) also use northern Egyptians to create clustering matches with peoples from the Middle East. As one anthropologist notes in a review of DNA research in the area: However, in some of the studies, only individuals from northern Egypt are sampled, and this could theoretically give a false impression of Egyptian variability (contrast Lucotte and Mercier 2003a with Manni et al. 2002), because this region has received more foreign settlers (and is nearer the Near East). Possible sample bias should be integrated into the discussion of results. (S.O.Y. Keita, A.J. Boyce, "Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 )Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Use of misleading labels applied to Nile Valley DNA data
Pre-labeling may not capture complexity of population variability A number of researchers such as Sforza, et. al continue to use categories such as Extra European Caucasoid and other related labels to categorize the Nile Valley peoples. Others such as Keita and Kittles argue that modern DNA and anthropological analysis points to the need for less pre-categorization and more emphasis on clinal variation and gradations that are more than adequate to explain differences between peoples rather than pre-conceived racial categories. It is held that arbitrary divisions into "Caucasoid" clusters, use of stereotypical "true" negro or sub-Saharan samples, and separating out of other Northeast African populations, does not capture the full range of variation among of Nile Valley peoples. Such variation need not be the result of a "mix" from categories such as Negroid or Caucasoid, but may be simply a contiuum of peoples in that region from skin color, to facial features, to hair, to height.[84]
Keita's arguments also contradict assertions and labels used by some Afrocentric writers as to the 'race' of the ancient peoples, and the culture and genetics of the Nilotic peoples, such as the "sun people, ice people" formulation of US college Professor Leonard Jefferies in the 1990s.[85] Keita's research also challenges Afrocentric notions as to a worldwide 'black' phenotype in places such as New Guinea or India linked with the Nilotic or African peoples,[86] pointing rather to DNA data placing such populations closer to those of Southeast Asia rather than the Nile Valley.[87]
Use of labels such as 'Oriental,' 'Arabic,' or 'Middle Eastern' The question of inconsistent labeling also arises in describing African and Nile Valley DNA samples, held by some scholars to be part of "the ongoing tendency in some disciplines to label the Nile valley as Middle Eastern, in a fashion that effectively suggests that Egypt has no African context, and that also hides its biocultural Africanity in pre-Islamic times."[88]
Chromosonial variants that have a bearing on the Nile Valley include Haplotype IV, which is found in high frequency in west, central, and sub-equatorial Africa in speakers of Niger-Congo, and to some extent among the Nubians. Another variant, Haplotype XI has its highest frequencies in the Horn and the Nile valley, but has been misleadingly called "Oriental". The haplotypes VII and VIII are the major indigenous Near Eastern haplotypes, found especially in Near Eastern Arabic speakers and Jews. In comparison to those of V their frequencies are small in supra-Saharan Africa.[89]
Haplotype V has also seen the use of misleading terms like "Arabic" to describe it, implying it is of 'Middle Eastern' origins.[90] When the hapotype V variant is looked at in context however, very high prevalences occur in African countries above the Sahara and Ethiopia, with heavy concentrations found among Berbers and Falashas (black Jews of Ethiopia). The weight of this distribution in Africa, rather than Arabia, has led researchers like Lucotte 1993, 1996 et. al.) to call the gene variant "African" or "Berber." As regards the Ethiopian Falahas, (the 'black' Jews), they have a very high frequency of haplotypes V and XI, with none or little of VII and VIII (often associated with movements of Arabic and Turkic peoples into Egypt) which shows them to be "clearly of African origin" per Lucotte and Mercier, 2003. As a result of this data, some DNA researchers hold that it is more accurate to call hapotype V "Horn-supra-Saharan African" rather than "Arabic" and to recognize it as indigeous to Africa rather than labeling it as "Middle Eastern" or "Oriental."[91] Overall the Nile Valley peoples show a diversity of chromosonal patterns throughout their long history.Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Inconsistent methodology and failure to look at broader, more complex models of population genesis
DNA Studies that seek to carve up the ancient Nile Valley populations into racial percentages have also been questioned by such researchers as Keita and Boyce 2005, and Kittles and Keita 1997.[93] They note that gene flow in the ancient Nile Valley is widely accepted, given the presence of Hyskos, Assyrians, Libyans, Greeks, Romans etc at various times in Egyptian history. However it is deemed problematic to jump from this fact to assigning 'racial' percentages of Caucasoid, Negroid, or West Asian (i.e. Caucasian) to the ancients. Mainstream Egyptologist F. Yurco (1989) also notes the limited applicability of such 'racial' models to the ancient peoples who are properly one Nilotic community[94] Kittles and Keita suggest that many studies typically use a "true negro" approach - finding a gene marker prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa, and then running tests on modern day sample populations. If the "true African" gene marker is not found heavily in the target area, then the inhabitants are deemed 'non-black' or 'mixed.' They note that there is inconsistent use of methodology- scholars generally show little interest in applying similar methods to populations deemed 'true white' - i.e. testing for gene markers unique to Nordic peoples and declaring their absence to certify a particular target group as 'black.'
Keita and Boyce (2005) maintain that differentiation of DNA haplogroups began BEFORE emigration out of Africa and that "there would be indigenous supra-Saharan/Saharan or Horn-supra-Saharan haplotypes." African populations at an earlier time thus had a vast range of native variation and biodiversity in place from the beginning, and their heterogeneity is an organic part of the African heritage and not necessarily a sign of admixture between groups with widely varying DNA. They call for more balanced and complex models based on evolutionary processes.
"It is important to consider more complex models of population genesis, which allow for historically visible "groups" to be heterogeneous at origin, due to evolutionary (or social) processes, instead of interpreting heterogeneity as a necessary sign of admixture between distinct historically-known groups with different haplotypes or gene frequencies."Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As you can see folks rasol attempted the tactic of misdirection.
See the 7 segments above from the site. rasol in his desperate attempt to cover for his racist eurocentric idols evaded the fact that was stated by many scientists themselves.
Read the above 7 segments and understand how scientists lie.
rasol its no coincidence that you tried to distract from this thread since it shoots down with evidence the genetic mumbo jumbo that you try to pass yourself off as an expert on.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ the harder they try, the more they demonstrate the real problem, which is that they are extremely stupid.
so let's turn their stupidity to our advantage, as we usually and easily do.
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: DNA methods using 'true negro' types
^ As evidenced according to the article by the following...
Limitations in specific DNA sampling techniques have also been noted by writers such as Keita and Kittles
Keita is a bioanthroplogist.
Rick Kittles is a population geneticist.
Rick Antonius Kittles (born in Sylvania, Georgia, United States) is an American biologist specializing in human genetics. He is of African American ancestry, and achieved renown in the 1990s for his pioneering work in tracing the ancestry of African Americans via DNA testing
The article you are quoting is utterly dependant on citing these scientists for it's 'position'.
Actually the article is little more than a collection of citations from them.
But argoyle calls them faux scholars, say's they aren't to be trusted.
Instead you should trust argoyle, a drunken public school dropout from Britain, who claims to have a 'natural intellect'.
This is because argoyle is dumb and can't read.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Of course, African American population geneticist Rick Kittles is one of the authors of this study.
^ The article also correctly sites Sforza.
Now argoyle doesn't have a fully developed brain, so he can't come to grips with the need to put information into context.
For a simpleton like argyole - personalities are to be put into catagories of hero or villain.
He can't grasp that Kittles is a practicing and renowned population geneticists whose criticisms of other geneticists is a part of the process of PEER REVIEW which is inherent the scientific method, and *not* a repudiation *of* it.
How can a grown man be so stupid as to not understand something so basic?
But there is no point in expecting a blithering idiot like argoyle to be less superficial in his thinking.... might as well ask a cockroach to list prime numbers up to 17.
His brain simply doesn't work 'that way'.
Argoyle would need to be 'genetically redesigned' to grasp any of this. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol wrote: -------------------------- But argyle calls them faux scholars, say's they aren't to be trusted. --------------------------
Considering the words of the scientists themselves who expose how their fellow scientists lie, distort, and omit for their own dubious reasons.
There's no escape rasol. The scientists themselves have exposed the fraud. Now your flailing franticly hurling insults,ad hominem attacks, and strawmen as if it will save you.
It can't.
HA HA HA HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Read people and understand how scientists lie, distort, and omit information. Only fools would believe what they say instead of using ones own natural intellect.
^
^ 1st, lets dismiss your par-for-the-course stupidity, in the service of 'faux-comedy':
Science isn't something you 'believe in', it's something you study and learn, of course.
Your problem argoyal - is simply that you're not very bright, and can't learn or think.
That you imagine you can attack 'science' in favor of 'natural intellect' [buzzword which really means -> ignorance] is pure, if unintended comedy, and requires no further comment.
So let me tell you instead - why you *needed* to start this dumb thread...
This thread is intended as group therapy for intellectually insecure simpletons such as yourself.
It shows that you're insecure about being so dumb, and need to make excuses, in hopes of cheering yourself.
Naturally then, you attract Mike111 to co-sign, for the same reason that flies are attracted to feces.
Both of you then, keep telling yourselves lies to cheer yourselves up.
But why doesn't it work?
Because when you're done stroking yourselves, you're still dumb, and you still know it.
DAMN RUSSELL YOU GOT TOTALLY OWNED! Posts: 1819 | From: odesco baba | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^It's really no wonder why argyle would create a thread, on a similar topic, after reading the intelectual/virtual whipping of his alternate ego, or just another member of the apres-scree, akoben.
The names he mentions show's the frustrations he has with the intellectuals on this forum, as he watches his Euro-centricity crumble right before his eyes.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: ^^^^It's really no wonder why argyle would create a thread, on a similar topic, after reading the intelectual/virtual whipping of his alternate ego, or just another member of the apres-scree, akoben.
The names he mentions show's the frustrations he has with the intellectuals on this forum, as he watches his Euro-centricity crumble right before his eyes.
I guess argoyle and akoben serve a useful role as dunk tank clowns.
They really do amaze with their stupidity.
They don't research or understand the context of anything they try to cite/distort.
^^ They think Kittles is a 'writer', whose comments they can use to -disprove genetics- , when Kittles himself is a population geneticist whose works we are citing, and they are trying and *failing* to dispute, to begin with.
This is what happens when lazy/stupid people like akoben/argoyle try to "debate" -->
^ I't a genuine mystery to me that they would forward non sequiturs, strawmen, and other self evident stupidies..... and imagine any result other than the usual humiliation they receive.
But maybe Dejehuti is correct, and they are masochistic perverts who enjoy being publicly humiliated?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
, when Kittles himself is a population geneticist whose works we are citing, and they are trying and *failing* to dispute, to begin with.
Printer-friendly view of this topic