posted
Anyone who didn't already know the above and needed a white man to tell them the above is pure D pitiful.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Anyone who didn't already know the above and needed a white man to tell them the above is pure D pitiful.
You know, it's really funny, you're always saying something about someone not being informed, and the big bad "white man" blah blah blah. But I have never seen one post come from you that would give the reader the interpretation, that you were the least bit knowledgeable of anything pertaining to even the simplest anthropological or genetic analysis. OOA is an alien subject to you. As far I can tell, you are "the white man", poor you and your failed attempt at keeping Europe pure of recent African admixture.
"Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". - American Anthropologist (1997)
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's an example of what you've just posted:
How an Amazonian tribe turned a missionary into an atheist
A RIVETING and hugely satisfying report on BBC Radio 4 today tells the story of a missionary who was charged by an American missionary group with taking the Gospel to the little understood Pirahãs tribe in the Amazon – only to realise how ridiculous his faith in Christianity was. Daniel Everett, 57, a linguist in the Departmental Chair of Languages, Literatures and Cultures at Illinois State University, told presenter John McCarthy on the Excess Baggage programme, that he had travelled to the Amazon in the 70s to bring the tribe “the joy of faith” only to discover that they were a deeply contented people. In fact they seemed far better contented than he was.
Tribe members asked the missionary whether he had seen or experienced any of the things he was telling them about. He had to admit that he hadn’t; that he was simply passing things onto them that were told to him by people who hadn’t seen or experienced them either.
The Pirahãs, he said, “believed that the world was as it had always been, and that there was no supreme deity”. Furthermore they had no creation myths in their culture. In short, here was a people who were more than happy to live their lives “without God, religion or any political authority”.
Despite Everett translating the Book of Luke into Pirahã and reading it to tribe members, the Pirahãs sensibly resisted all his attempts to convert them.
According to a report in the New Yorker:
His zeal soon dissipated … Convinced that the Pirahã assigned no spiritual meaning to the Bible, Everett finally admitted that he did not, either. He declared himself an atheist …
According to Wikipedia, Everett “was having serious doubts by 1982, and had lost all faith by 1985 after having spent a year at MIT. He would not tell anyone about his atheism for another 19 years; when he finally did, his marriage ended in divorce and two of his three children broke off all contact.”
Everett’s account of his life among the Pirahãs is told in his book Don’t Sleep There are Snakes. BBC Radio 4 has chosen it as its Book of The Week, and it will be broadcast from Monday, November 17, 2008 ( weekdays 9.45am -10.00am, repeated 00.30-00.45am.) SourcePosts: 67 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Anyone who didn't already know the above and needed a white man to tell them the above is pure D pitiful.
You know, it's really funny, you're always saying something about someone not being informed, and the big bad "white man" blah blah blah. But I have never seen one post come from you that would give the reader the interpretation, that you were the least bit knowledgeable of anything pertaining to even the simplest anthropological or genetic analysis. OOA is an alien subject to you. As far I can tell, you are "the white man", poor you and your failed attempt at keeping Europe pure of recent African admixture.
"Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". - American Anthropologist (1997)
Learn to quote properly rasolowitz. All your posts have the same distortion; the real quote does not say "type of race". LOL And how are the "Asian" and "African" populations differentiated bearing in mind that "few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches"Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Anyone who didn't already know the above and needed a white man to tell them the above is pure D pitiful.
You know, it's really funny, you're always saying something about someone not being informed, and the big bad "white man" blah blah blah. But I have never seen one post come from you that would give the reader the interpretation, that you were the least bit knowledgeable of anything pertaining to even the simplest anthropological or genetic analysis. OOA is an alien subject to you. As far I can tell, you are "the white man", poor you and your failed attempt at keeping Europe pure of recent African admixture.
"Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". - American Anthropologist (1997)
Learn to quote properly rasolowitz. All your posts have the same distortion; the real quote does not say "type of race". LOL And how are the "Asian" and "African" populations differentiated bearing in mind that "few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches"
Keita himself is saying they're already differentiated you idiot. Few human populations right? So which human populations is he speaking of? Why did you promote race, and argue that the classifications were correct, but now you're retracting, acting as if now you don't believe in race???
quote: Posted by Jackassoben: Ill equipped to handle the reality that race still exist. Your underhand reply coward jewboy is irrelevant to the point I was making: whites today in the geographical location called Europe are still an identifiable group, despite them being a "hybrid population". Yes we all are similar inside, but the differences ("little genetic distinction" - rasolowitz) are important enough to show distinct physical differences. If this wasn't the case then, despite the evolutionary past, blacks today could produce this. This is what really eat you negro commies who use these liberal "no race" arguments as an excuse to couple with white women. LOL
Pray, do tell what these physical differences are which defines your Caucasoid race, that you're desperately trying to hold on to???
I also wonder how come you never address the following??
Of course you're an idiot and don't understand OOA. Of course the OOA lineages became the founding lineages for non African lineage F, K, I, J, R, D and all the others.
From Cavalli-Sforza: Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution. Pg 187.
quote:..."In other words, all non-Africans carry M168. Of course, Africans carrying the M168 mutation today are the descendants of the African subpopulation from which the migrants originated....Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Africans) was an East African Man."
Europeans carry lineages which arose in Asia post OOA, and lineages that arose in Africa post OOA. If Europeans wouldn't have received post OOA Neolithic admixture from Africans, than Europeans would be totally consisted of lineages which first arose in Asia.
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
^^Which confirms Cavalli's distance matrix...Now can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations???? Or are you saying the above wouldn't make Europeans intermediate, as East Africans are intermediate between West Africans and Oceanics, due to all non-Africans possessing a subset of East African genes??
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Keita himself is saying they're already differentiated you idiot.
Oh jesus, no he's not, "Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation... suggests that"
Without going over again whether he was actually agreeing with Bowcock's analysis or not, show how the Asian and African populations are differentiated.
Show where I promote race as distinct biological subspecies? What I am saying is that racial classifications are still a social reality (never said "correct", again learn to quote properly rasolowitz) for the very reason we still speak of "blacks" and "whites" (do you speak of whites and blacks, if so why?), physical differences between the two allow us to distinguish a Tony Blair from a Paul Kagame.
quote:what these physical differences are which defines your Caucasoid race
Where in that quote did I say anything about a "Caucasoid race"? Again learn to quote properly boy.
quote:Of course the OOA lineages became the founding lineages for non African lineage F, K, I, J, R, D and all the others.
^ If all non-Africans carry M168 you fucking idiot how can the Asian and African populations be already differentiated according to Bowcock? Which goes back to "few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches" so much for Cavalli's trees.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Oh jesus, without going over again whether he was actually agreeing with Bowcock's analysis or not, show how the Asian and African populations are differentiated.
No Jackassoben, there is no need, as it was explained months ago, as Keita explains himself, are you asking me to prove Keita right in what he said, when you're the one who said he never said it? Lmao obviously you were wrong.
quote:Show where I promote race as distinct biological subspecies? What I am saying is that racial classifications are still a social reality (never said "correct", again learn to quote properly rasolowitz) for the very reason we still speak of "blacks" and "whites" (do you speak of whites and blacks, if so why?), physical differences between the two allow us to distinguish a Tony Blair from a Paul Kagame.
Nope, what you said is there is such thing as races, and they're defined by distinct physical differences, so what are these distinct physical differences which defines your use of race???
quote: Where in that quote did I say anything about a "Caucasoid race"?
Right here .....
quote:Jackassoben says: whites today in the geographical location called Europe are still an identifiable group, despite them being a "hybrid population". Yes we all are similar inside, but the differences ("little genetic distinction" - rasolowitz) are important enough to show distinct physical differences.
quote:^ If all non-Africans carry M168 you fucking idiot how can the Asian and African populations be already differentiated according to Bowcock? Which goes back to "few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches" so much for Cavalli's trees.
The point was you were saying Keita never said they were differentiated but he did. They're differentiated to Bowcock and Keita, so what's your point???
Since you believe in race, address the following, I'll wait........
Europeans carry lineages which arose in Asia post OOA, and lineages that arose in Africa post OOA. If Europeans wouldn't have received post OOA Neolithic admixture from Africans, than Europeans would be totally consisted of lineages which first arose in Asia.
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
^^Which confirms Cavalli's distance matrix...Now can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations???? Or are you saying the above wouldn't make Europeans intermediate? If not, why?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Oh really? Then simply explain again, how are the Asia and African populations differentiated?
quote:what are these distinct physical differences which defines your use of race???
I just did, physical differences between the two allow us to distinguish a Tony Blair from a Paul Kagame. And I asked you do you speak of whites and blacks, if so why? why no reply?
quote: Where in that quote did I say anything about a "Caucasoid race"?
quote:Right here .....
I now know why you can't quote properly, you can't read. LOL
quote:The point was you were saying Keita never said they were differentiated but he did. They're differentiated to Bowcock and Keita, so what's your point???
...show how the Asian and African populations are differentiated, I'll wait...
quote: Since you believe in race, address the following, I'll wait........ Europeans carry lineages which arose in Asia post OOA, and lineages that arose in Africa post OOA. If Europeans wouldn't have received post OOA Neolithic admixture from Africans, than Europeans would be totally consisted of lineages which first arose in Asia.
Since I never defined race as separate and distinct biological units, I'll wait for you to explain how Europeans carry lineages which arose in Asia post OOA, and lineages that arose in Africa post OOA proves that the "Asian" and "African" populations are differentiated.
Until you show how the "Asian" and "African" populations are differentiated you have not validated your white master's dendrograms. Until you do it such analysis will remain evidence of the persistence of racial thinking according to Keita. (Keita, pg 536)
quote: Or are you saying the above wouldn't make Europeans intermediate? If not, why?
Because you have yet to show how Asian and African are differentiated population groups.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just did, physical differences between the two allow us to distinguish a Tony Blair from a Paul Kagame. And I asked you do you speak of whites and blacks, if so why? why no reply?
Telling me to look at two people is not explaining the differences, can you elaborate, and explain the physical differences and what categories of race they fall into?
Or is it basically you're saying there is a black and white race? Or a European race and African race? Which one is it?
quote: I now know why you can't quote properly, you can't read. LOL
quote: Jackassoben says: whites today in the geographical location called Europe are still an identifiable group, despite them being a "hybrid population". Yes we all are similar inside, but the differences ("little genetic distinction" - rasolowitz) are important enough to show distinct physical differences.
^^^^So this above is not what you said? Why are whites in Europe identifiable? Aren't there pale populations living in East Asia? Are there not populations around the world who have blond hair, blue eyes, straight hair, thin nose, thin lipped, etc.. so what makes whites in Europe an identifiable group according to your persistence of race, what's so unique about Europeans? Or are you retracting and saying you don't believe in race now?
quote:Since I never defined race as separate and distinct biological units, I'll wait for you to explain how Europeans carry lineages which arose in Asia post OOA, and lineages that arose in Africa post OOA proves that the "Asian" and "African" populations are differentiated.
You can cling on to this differentiated nonsense forever, which has been proven to you over and over again, by Keita himself, who identified these two populations as differentiated, you're whole argument stemmed from saying Keita wasn't saying they were differentiated. You try to use a quote where Keita confirms again, albeit only a few, populations are still differentiated as Keita explained between Asians and (some) Africans who populated Europe. So basically your whole argument is mooted, and if you want to continue to persist on whites in Europe being an identifiable race therefore what would you say about the following, what category would West Eurasians fall into?
Europeans carry lineages which arose in Asia post OOA, and lineages that arose in Africa post OOA. If Europeans wouldn't have received post OOA Neolithic admixture from Africans, than Europeans would be totally consisted of lineages which first arose in Asia. Right or Wrong Jackass????
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
^^Which confirms Cavalli's distance matrix...Now can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Physical differences that allows you to make these distinctions, "It's kind of like when whites were seen salvaging for food after Katrina, they were immediately considered as "searching for food", but when it was blacks they were referred to as "looters".."
quote:Why are whites in Europe identifiable?
Same reasons they are in New Orlans.
quote:Aren't there pale populations living in East Asia?
Socially they would be "Asian". Once called "yellow".
quote:Are there not populations around the world who have blond hair, blue eyes, straight hair, thin nose, thin lipped, etc..
Depending on where they live, as you pointed out, they would be classified as "white".
quote:so what makes whites in Europe an identifiable group according to your persistence of race, what's so unique about Europeans? Or are you retracting and saying you don't believe in race now?
Not only whites in Europe but in Brasil, South Africa... and New Orleans, "It's kind of like when whites were seen salvaging for food after Katrina, they were immediately considered as "searching for food", but when it was blacks they were referred to as "looters".."
quote:You can cling on to this differentiated nonsense forever, which has been proven to you over and over again, by Keita himself, who identified these two populations as differentiated, you're whole argument stemmed from saying Keita wasn't saying they were differentiated. You try to use a quote where Keita confirms again, albeit only a few, populations are still differentiated as Keita explained between Asians and (some) Africans who populated Europe. So basically your whole argument is mooted, and if you want to continue to persist on whites in Europe being an identifiable race therefore what would you say about the following, what category would West Eurasians fall into?
Oh so its "differentiated nonsense" now that you cannot explain it! HAHAHHAHAHA
Jesus Christ you really are a internet pseudo-scholar. If you make a claim, dufus, like Asian and African populations are differentiated why can't you explain it?! You made the fucking claim, explain it! How is the Asian and African populations differentiated so as to justify your white scholars human population dendrograms.
You can't because its bullshit! Keita did not claim African and the Asian populations are differentiated the two times he mentions it in the context of the persistence of racial thinking, "Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation... suggests that" and "...Nuclear DNA studies suggest to some that..."
However
"this may be a problem given that the contributing groups seem to conform to received raciotypological schema—but should be acceptable to those who believe in the existence of races."
Why should it be acceptable to those who believe in races?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
A non answer, I asked you what are these physical distinctions of pale whites in Europe? Are there not pale whites in East Asia??
quote: Socially they would be "Asian". Once called "yellow".
I didn't ask for a social definition, I asked you if there are pale populations living in East Asia?
quote: Depending on where they live, as you pointed out, they would be classified as "white".
Again a non answer, I asked what makes "whites in Europe unique? So basically you're saying an Australian aborigine with curly blond hair(more straight) thin lipped and nosed in Europe he'd be considered white?
Paul Kagame in Europe, considered white? Is your definition of race "white and black"? Are only Africans black? Or are Australians and Southeast Asians black too? Are only Europeans white? Or are pale Berber speakers, pale near easterners and East Asians white too?
quote: Oh so its "differentiated nonsense" now that you cannot explain it! HAHAHHAHAHA
Jesus Christ you really are a internet pseudo-scholar. If you make a claim, dufus, like Asian and African populations are differentiated why can't you explain it?! You made the fucking claim, explain it! How is the Asian and African populations differentiated so as to justify your white scholars human population dendrograms.
You can't because its bullshit! Keita did not claim African and the Asian populations are differentiated the two times he mentions it in the context of the persistence of racial thinking, "Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation... suggests that" and "...Nuclear DNA studies suggest to some that..."
First of all you jackass, I never made a "claim", I am simply interpreting what has been said, over and over again to you, but you simply can't grasp the facts. Secondly, it's "Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities." not Nuclear studies suggest. Keita is saying Nucleur studies contribute to the deconstructions of racial entities and then goes on to cite Bowcock. Keita himself mentions there are few populations differentiated correct?
"Nuclear DNA studies **also contribute** to the **deconstruction** of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". - American Anthropologist (1997)
quote: However
"this may be a problem given that the contributing groups seem to conform to received raciotypological schema—but should be acceptable to those who believe in the existence of races."
Why should it be acceptable to those who believe in races?
Ok, it would be a problem if anyone here believed in race, but being that we don't, but you do, and we are using these dendrograms, as Keita does as well, to contribute to the deconstruction of racial entities, there is no way around you addressing the following since you believe in "race"
Europeans carry lineages which arose in Asia post OOA, and lineages that arose in Africa post OOA. If Europeans wouldn't have received post OOA Neolithic admixture from Africans, than Europeans would be totally consisted of lineages which first arose in Asia. Right or Wrong Jackass????
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
^^Which confirms Cavalli's distance matrix...Now can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:A non answer, I asked you what are these physical distinctions of pale whites in Europe? Are there not pale whites in East Asia??
Why, it's the same distinctions YOU make whiskey, phenotypical: "It's kind of like when whites were seen salvaging for food after Katrina, they were immediately considered as "searching for food", but when it was blacks they were referred to as "looters".."
quote:I didn't ask for a social definition, I asked you if there are pale populations living in East Asia?
Yes, so?
quote:I asked what makes "whites in Europe unique?
Where did I say whites in Europe were "unique"?
quote:Paul Kagame in Europe, considered white? Is your definition of race "white and black"? Are only Africans black? Or are Australians and Southeast Asians black too? Are only Europeans white? Or are pale Berber speakers, pale near easterners and East Asians white too?
Where did I say Kagame in Europe would be considered white? Jesus boy can't you quote properly for once.
Rwandans that look like Kagame in Europe would be considered black and given the same treatment, denied the same opportunities as Nigerians, South Africans etc. My definition of black does not include certain SE Asians, original negritos yes, not the others. There was a thread on this very topic.
And pale skin blue eyed Berbers are "white" as far as I am concerned, unless you are going to argue that white Berbers are indigenous to N.Africa. Dana Renolds might disagree.
East Asians are "yellow" but since that term is no longer in use, I'd go for simply "Asian", not "white".
quote:So basically you're saying an Australian aborigine with curly blond hair(more straight) thin lipped and nosed in Europe he'd be considered white?
No. I consider Australian aborigines, even blond ones, black.
People use physical distinctions to categorize, group etc all the time. These are the same distinctions that allows Bowcock's samples to include "individuals of European origin" <--- are they using in their sample Africans/blacks born in Europe? LOL No they are using what society calls "whites". How did they single out these "individuals of European origin" if not by certain distinguishing qualities, however superficial?
quote:Do not reflect the underlying genetics..."very well"? How about "not at all"; in relation to this, what can one say about that which one says is "caucasian-like" or "caucasian-characteristic" about a gene, and what gene? One either has a "Caucasian" ancestor, or one doesn't; and by "Caucasian", I mean an ancestor *literally* from Caucasia/Caucasus! – Ausarianstein
Exactly, this point can never ever be over emphasized, because there are no "Caucasians" except in the Caucasus itself. This fact requires questions which are never answered by Euro-centrists. When you ask them to be specific about what they mean by "Caucasian" ancestry, you receive a rebuttal of insignificant drivel posted to astray from the actual questions which debunked them from the beginning. – whiskey
Eurocentric drivel seeks refuge in what they call "Caucasoid", which would of course mean "caucasian-like" but not actually "caucasian"; this sums up the argument. This they think, allows them to claim close family association with things that would normally not be remotely seen "Caucasian" or "European" about them. That is the bankrupt reasoning behind the sham. - Ausarianstein
Yet being the little dumbass white validating pseudo scholar you are, you agree with said "Eurocentric drivel". HAHAHAHHA
Yes, Bowcock uses bankrupt terms and human population dendrograms Keita rightly regards as evidence of the persistence of racial thinking. (Keita, 1997)
Now questions include, what does your favorite geneticist consider "Caucasoid"? LOL No wonder Keita cites her as evidence of the persistence of racial thinking. LOL
Keita is not endorsing dendrograms and human population differentiations on trees as he is quite clear on these, "Dendrograms are also used to illustrate the divergence of entities called human races or of populations used as their surrogates. This is problematic since few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches.... strictly speaking, studies can only inform about the groups used in the analysis. Therefore a study using Mbuti, a clan of Saame speakers, a Swedish village, and Vedda can only tell us about each of them. These groups should not be reified into other entities."
Which is exactly what Bowcock does with her "pygmy", "Caucasoid of European origin" and "San Francisco Chinese".
quote: First of all you jackass, I never made a "claim", I am simply interpreting what has been said,
Stop beating around the bush boy, you jumped on the claim now valdate it. Explain how the "Asian" and the "African" populations are differentiated. Why can't you do this you sodomite?!!! HAHAHHA
quote:Keita is saying Nucleur studies contribute to the deconstructions [sic] of racial entities and then goes on to cite Bowcock.
Then he says it compromises the racial schema. Why is it a compromise?
quote:Keita himself mentions there are few populations differentiated correct?
Where does he cite the "differentiated" ones and how do they come to be defined as such?
quote:we are using these dendrograms, as Keita does as well,
Where does Keita construct human population dendrograms?
quote:Europeans carry lineages which arose in Asia post OOA, and lineages that arose in Africa post OOA. If Europeans wouldn't have received post OOA Neolithic admixture from Africans, than Europeans would be totally consisted of lineages which first arose in Asia. Right or Wrong Jackass???? E3b, A, E3a[yes], L1, L2, L3, M1, U6, Benin Hbs autosome......^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.^^Which confirms Cavalli's distance matrix...Now can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
LOL I can see rasolowitz that you are never going to show just how the Asian and African populations are differentiated (because you can't) in order to validate your white scholars trees, but only spam the above. LOL
few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches ^ If there are exceptions, explain.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^Your whole post is seriously redundant, you never answer questions directly, you distract and give non-answers, I always answer your questions directly while you sit there and post redundant nonsense......
quote:"Why, it's the same distinctions YOU make whiskey, phenotypical: "It's kind of like when whites were seen salvaging for food after Katrina, they were immediately considered as "searching for food", but when it was blacks they were referred to as "looters".."
Nope, because whites could be East Asians, mixed white Hispanics, blacks could be Australians, Indians, Africans, Southeast Asians etc... so you're saying there is a white and black race, and only whites come from Europe???
So I will ask again what are these physical distinctions of pale whites in Europe? Are there not pale whites in East Asia??
quote:Yes, so?
So... how are whites in Europe physically identifiable? AND What racial group of yours do they fit under
quote: Where did I say whites in Europe were "unique"?
You said they were an identifiable group, so I asked what is unique about them, what is physically identifiable about them? That can't be found in non European populations around the world?
quote:Where did I say Kagame in Europe would be considered white? Jesus boy can't you quote properly for once.
Of course more non answers and misinterpretations. I asked you. Are there not populations around the world who have blond hair, blue eyes, straight hair, thin nose, thin lipped, etc... You replied with
"Depending on where they live, they would be classified as "white". " <<<<Did you not say this?
quote: No. I consider Australian aborigines, even blond ones, black.
So how or why did you say depending on where they are, they would be considered white???
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes, Bowcock uses bankrupt terms and human population dendrograms Keita rightly regards as evidence of the persistence of racial thinking. (Keita, 1997)
Now questions include, what does your favorite geneticist consider "Caucasoid"? LOL No wonder Keita cites her as evidence of the persistence of racial thinking. LOL
Nope Keita did say "Nuclear DNA studies **also contribute** to the **deconstruction** of received racial entities. Then goes on to cite Bowcock, so if Keita wasn't agreeing with Bowcock, then why did he say Bowcocks work further contributes to the destruction of racial entities? Please tell me how Cavalli or Bowcock promotes race? Of course if you were able to read you would see Bowcock says Europeans, defining "Caucasians". Do you need to be spoon fed everything??
quote:Stop beating around the bush boy, you jumped on the claim now valdate it. Explain how the "Asian" and the "African" populations are differentiated. Why can't you do this you sodomite?!!! HAHAHHA
Already did, Keita himself verified it, by using Bowcock to further destruct racial entities, again I will ask why Keita says Bowcocks analysis further destroys racial entities? But your saying they promote them?
quote:Where does he cite the "differentiated" ones and how do they come to be defined as such?
Keita quotes Bowcock as further destroying racial entities, of course he agrees with Bowcock by considering her work as a destruction of racial entities, so how do you say he disagrees with Bowcock? Bowcock says and Keita quotes already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians....
"Nuclear DNA studies **also contribute** to the **deconstruction** of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". - American Anthropologist (1997)
quote: LOL I can see rasolowitz that you are never going to show just how the Asian and African populations are differentiated (because you can't) in order to validate your white scholars trees, but only spam the above. LOL
few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches ^ If there are exceptions, explain.
Few populations are the exception, as Keita quoted Bowcock, and refereed to her work as further destructing racial entities. Not further promoting, but further destructing. Why do you keep referring to me as rasol?
"Nuclear DNA studies **also contribute** to the **deconstruction** of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". - American Anthropologist (1997)
Ok, it would be a problem if anyone here believed in race, but being that we don't, but you do, and we are using these dendrograms, as Keita uses Bowcock as well, to contribute to the deconstruction of racial entities, there is no way around you addressing the following since you believe in "race"........
Europeans carry lineages which arose in Asia post OOA, and lineages that arose in Africa post OOA. If Europeans wouldn't have received post OOA Neolithic admixture from Africans, than Europeans would be totally consisted of lineages which first arose in Asia. Right or Wrong Jackass????
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
^^Which confirms Cavalli's distance matrix...Now can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Europeans carry lineages which arose in Asia post OOA, and lineages that arose in Africa post OOA. If Europeans wouldn't have received post OOA Neolithic admixture from Africans, than Europeans would be totally consisted of lineages which first arose in Asia. Right or Wrong Jackass????
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
^^Which confirms Cavalli's distance matrix...Now can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
What I don't understand about the distance matrix is: how does your posting those lineages reflect "2/3 Asian and 1/3 African" influence? I've looked at haplogroup maps, but contribution from African haplogroups looked imo like less than 1/3.
I don't doubt that Europeans are the result of the coming together of both Asians and Africans post OOA...it's just the percentages/fractions that throw off how credible that particular claim looks. The amount of L1, L2, L3, M1, U6, and E3b combined does not look like 1/3. Or am I misunderstanding something?
Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: The amount of L1, L2, L3, M1, U6, and E3b combined does not look like 1/3. Or am I misunderstanding something?
Well, from your understanding, what would the above lineages amount to? Don't forget to add A, E3a and Benin Hbs........
Where are these lineages found, in what parts of Europe?
I'm not looking to start an argument. I've admitted to having a limited understanding about population genetics (relative to you guys), hence why I ask so many questions and give a disclaimer before I even ask. I'm not challenging you to a written duel or anything (which seems to be what you guys do when it comes to anything regarding genetics).
Anyways, I didn't do any mathmatical measurements. I just eyeballed the map. I picked those lineages (besides Benin hbs) and looked to see if they were roughly 1/3 of all of the lineages in Europe. I know that this is not accurate, which is why I'm asking what evidence supports 1/3 African influence?
Then again, I don't know what Benin hbs is, exactly. I've heard of it, and I THINK it is some kind of marker that shows influence from Benin in populations outside of Africa; probably like Southern Europe and the Arabian Penninsula. How close am I? Maybe this would explain why it would be more like 1/3 than less than 1/3.
Also, I'm confused about what exactly makes or doesn't make U6 African. U6 arose in Africa, but U itself arose in Eurasia, correct?
Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've admitted to having a limited understanding about population genetics
Therein lies the problem.
Thanks for the info. Funny how when it's not in argument form, or when someone doesn't lash out with a claim that you disagree with, you don't even try to help the person out. I didn't say I know nothing about genetics, just that it's limited. I've noticed that you've argued with other "limited" people, so why not even atempt to enlighten a person who isn't hostile?
Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparrently Whiskey's not interested in teachin but in schoolin.
quote:Originally posted by Boofer: Anyways, I didn't do any mathmatical measurements. I just eyeballed the map. I picked those lineages (besides Benin hbs) and looked to see if they were roughly 1/3 of all of the lineages in Europe. I know that this is not accurate, which is why I'm asking what evidence supports 1/3 African influence?
Then again, I don't know what Benin hbs is, exactly.
Say there are three lineages found in a population native to Z. One of the lineages is found @ 1.5% but originates in X.
This does not make them 1/3 Xian. it's not the number of lineages that get us the one third.
It's not really a genetics problem, it's a math one. As for the number, it comes from Cavelli Sforza.
Benin HBS is a sickle cell gene that originates in Benin.
It's found from Cameroon to South West Asia, from Nigeria to Italy.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've admitted to having a limited understanding about population genetics
Therein lies the problem.
Thanks for the info. Funny how when it's not in argument form, or when someone doesn't lash out with a claim that you disagree with, you don't even try to help the person out. I didn't say I know nothing about genetics, just that it's limited. I've noticed that you've argued with other "limited" people, so why not even atempt to enlighten a person who isn't hostile?
Let's see, you made it clear that to **you**, the genetics didn't conform to 1/3rd the genetic makeup of Europeans, correct?
So I simply asked you, from your understanding (since you stated already it didn't comprise 1/3rd) what did these lineages equal in total, if not 1/3rd?
Everyone has to learn somewhere, if you're a fast learner, and your reading comprehension skills are up to par, it shouldn't be too difficult. I made it ****MY PRIORITY**** before posting on this board to understand genetics, anthropology, pretty much whatever is discussed here. I am not discouraging you in any way to ask questions, but at least use Google, try to make a correlation for yourself, and then if you don't understand, make clear what's not understood. Remember, **YOU** were the one who said from your understanding the lineages you read didn't result to 1/3rd, so again, to you what do they comprise of? Or are you not familiar with **percentages**, which have nothing to do with genetics?
Or you can simply read older topics from this forum.....
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): [QB] Apparrently Whiskey's not interested in teachin but in schoolin.
Say there are three lineages found in a population native to Z. One of the lineages is found @ 1.5% but originates in X.
This does not make them 1/3 Xian. it's not the number of lineages that get us the one third.
It's not really a genetics problem, it's a math one. As for the number, it comes from Cavelli Sforza.
Yeah, I never thought the amount of different types had anything to do with the fraction that Sforza gave. 1.5% is not 33%, which is 1/3. For Z to be 1/3 X, 33% of Z's total haplogroups would have had to originate in X, right? Is it that simple?.
Anyways, the reason I questioned the 1/3 is just based on my observations of the European mtdna and y dna maps. No one European population shows close to 1/3 African haplogroups, let alone if you were to lump all of the pie charts/populations together in Europe. In fact, the only lineage that had a big enough influence to be visible in any of those pie charts was E3b, and that did not even approach 1/3. This is, of course unless I missed something, like perhaps I forgot about a lineage that is "technically African."
Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've admitted to having a limited understanding about population genetics
Therein lies the problem.
Thanks for the info. Funny how when it's not in argument form, or when someone doesn't lash out with a claim that you disagree with, you don't even try to help the person out. I didn't say I know nothing about genetics, just that it's limited. I've noticed that you've argued with other "limited" people, so why not even atempt to enlighten a person who isn't hostile?
Let's see, you made it clear that to **you**, the genetics didn't conform to 1/3rd the genetic makeup of Europeans, correct?
So I simply asked you, from your understanding (since you stated already it didn't comprise 1/3rd) what did these lineages equal in total, if not 1/3rd?
Everyone has to learn somewhere, if you're a fast learner, and your reading comprehension skills are up to par, it shouldn't be too difficult. I made it ****MY PRIORITY**** before posting on this board to understand genetics, anthropology, pretty much whatever is discussed here. I am not discouraging you in any way to ask questions, but at least use Google, try to make a correlation for yourself, and then if you don't understand, make clear what's not understood. Remember, **YOU** were the one who said from your understanding the lineages you read didn't result to 1/3rd, so again, to you what do they comprise of? Or are you not familiar with **percentages**, which have nothing to do with genetics?
Or you can simply read older topics from this forum.....
Well I don't have a specific number, since I didn't do any math. But it didn't seem needed. Based on eyeballing, the post OOA African influence in Europe looks significantly less than 33%. To make myself clear, I'm trying to figure out why it might appear that way. Maybe I'm not including lineages that are technically African. From What those maps show, the only post OOA lineages in Europe that have a big enough influence to be seen is E3b. The others, from what I'm guessing (and this may be the problem)left Africa at OOA, went to Asia and changed/mutated, and then to Europe where they changed some more.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Nuclear DNA studies **also contribute** to the **deconstruction** of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". - American Anthropologist (1997)
So is Keita saying Europeans are a secondary type?
quote:"Depending on where they live, they would be classified as "white". " <<<<Did you not say this? So how or why did you say depending on where they are, they would be considered white???
Thats because race as a social construct is subjective you confused imbecile! Your "blacks" may not necessarily be my "blacks", or "whites" for that matter. When I say "whites" in Europe I'm referring to those who look like Blair, Zapatero, Mertile, Sarkozy etc. Those who control Europe. You can spout the "no race" line all you want but the reality is, in society, people group and classify and build relations based on such groupings.
E.g. when French "nonwhites" revolted couple years ago in the suburbs it was against treatment at hands of "white French" (an identifiable group) discrimination over the years. When there is talk of Obama's victory giving Europe's "minorities" (another identifiable group) a sense of new possibilities this too is referring to hisory of white discrimination against "nonwhites", "Structures that are closed are being looked at, and it is time for that." Who closed these structures in Euorpe? "Black" Europeans "yellow"/Asian Europeans or "whites"?
quote: Why do you keep referring to me as rasol?
Your using the same misquotes as he ("type of race"), which simply means you never read the actual article only continue to tag the original misquote and misrepresentation from Sundiata. And you're encouraging others to take the initiative? LOL
You only tag but dont understand which is why 1) you said Bowcock says "defining Caucasians", which is rubbish! That quote was from Keita.
2) and of course you can't show how the Asian and African populations are differentiated, after supporting Bowcock's interpretation! Youre a simple tag-along.
3) You dismiss "Caucasoid", "K-ziods" as unscientific yet you tagged Bowcock work, her "Caucasiods" and all!!!
HAHHAHHA
quote:Keita quoted Bowcock, and refereed to her work as further destructing racial entities. Not further promoting, but further destructing.
Again if you read the actual essay, not simply tag it, you would see where he is saying essentially that racial thinking today is not in it's pure form but it still exits in the works of his contemporaries. Hence Bowcock's work invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the race construct which imply deep fundamental differences between the units but it still compromises the racial schema. Why is it a compromise? Still no answer from the queer who claims to answer all questions. LOL
quote:Please tell me how Cavalli or Bowcock promotes race?
As Keita told you, "Dendrograms are also used to illustrate the divergence of entities called human races or of populations used as their surrogates.... strictly speaking, studies can only inform about the groups used in the analysis...These groups should not be reified into other entities"
So by placing groups ("pygmy", "Caucasoids of European origin" (LOL), and "San Francisco Chinese") into other entities (like human geographical populations) and putting them on trees is evidence of the persistene of racial thinking as "Near worldwide research on lineagemarkers (mtDNA and Y-chromosome vari-ants) shows that the (individual) bearers of specific haplotypes do not form into clustersof individuals with uniform morphologiesand geographical origin (i.e. classical "races" as commonly accepted)"
How does a "pygmy" and a Chinese from San Francisco represent "Asian" and "African" populations branching on trees?
quote:"Many investigators still use dendrograms to represent the philogenetic history of human “races”. These representations imply bifurcations or splitting of ancestral populations. They suggest an absolute distinctness or discreetness that is not a flaw of ordinate methods. This problematic. Dendrograms cannot accurately depict evolutionary gradients of differentiation or distinguish similarity due to gene flow. They can also be unreliable in their depictions of population relationships when demographic factors such as population size are not constant or equal between populations ... In a word, dendrograms are ambiguous in their apparent depiction of certainty."
"The persistence of the racial paradigm (and not just names) is further illustrated by investigators who use dendrograms (trees) to assess to group similarities or dissimilarities, usually in quest of intraspecific phylogenies. The groups utilized usually conform to the old racial schema. Dendrograms are also used to illustrate the divergence of entities called human races or of populations used as their surrogates. This is problematic since few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches. The degree of drift has not been necessarily equal across space and time. The ubiquity and complexity of human migration patterns guarantee that branching points in trees will always be suspect. (Jorde 1985) Also, strictly speaking, studies can only inform about the groups used in the analysis. Therefore a study using Mbuti, a clan of Saame speakers, a Swedish village, and Vedda can only tell us about each of them. These groups should not be reified into other entities."
quote:Please tell me how Cavalli or Bowcock promotes race?
2) In her use of the unscientific "Caucasoid" to represent Europeans, which you and your motley crew of amateur scholars admit is unscientific.
quote:Caucasian is accurate as reference to "people from the Caucasia", it is not accurate as a reference to either the heavily admixed Latin populations of southern Europe, or the somewhat less heavily mixed Nordics of Northern Europe.
Biologically, such terms [Caucasoid] are worse than useless. – Brace
Hence the persistent of racial thiking in works such as Bowcock.
Questions unanswered:
- What does your favorite geneticist consider "Caucasoid"?
- Why is it [bowcock's work] a compromise?
- Stop telling me what "Keita quotes" what "Bowcock says", show how are the African and Asian populations "differentiated"?
Come on whiskey, you only reply to abuse yes? Get to work you fucking fraud! Show how Asian and African populations are differentiated.
quote:Funny how when it's not in argument form, or when someone doesn't lash out with a claim that you disagree with, you don't even try to help the person out.
It's his defense mechanism, because he only tags other people but do not understand what is being tagged.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Europeans carry lineages which arose in Asia post OOA, and lineages that arose in Africa post OOA. If Europeans wouldn't have received post OOA Neolithic admixture from Africans, than Europeans would be totally consisted of lineages which first arose in Asia. Right or Wrong Jackass????
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
^^Which confirms Cavalli's distance matrix...Now can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
What I don't understand about the distance matrix is: how does your posting those lineages reflect "2/3 Asian and 1/3 African" influence? I've looked at haplogroup maps, but contribution from African haplogroups looked imo like less than 1/3.
I don't doubt that Europeans are the result of the coming together of both Asians and Africans post OOA...it's just the percentages/fractions that throw off how credible that particular claim looks. The amount of L1, L2, L3, M1, U6, and E3b combined does not look like 1/3. Or am I misunderstanding something?
Actually is not even "2/3 Asian" or even Oceanic(non African), its 65% ancestral Chinese which throws of his lineages some more. LOL
This is why Keita said human population dendrograms are suspect. It's all unscientific racial thinking.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:So is Keita saying Europeans are a secondary type?
Why do you repeat and digress all the time? You've been told Europeans would be a hybrid population if "race" was biologically valid. But due to Cavallis findings, Bowcocks findings, my posts(and others) showing the post OOA admixture in recent Europeans, further destructs biological racial entities.
quote: Thats because race as a social construct is subjective you confused imbecile! Your "blacks" may not necessarily be my "blacks", or "whites" for that matter.
So like I said from the beginning, an Australian man would be considered white to you in Europe. With his blond curly hair.
I've also asked you, what your terms of Black and white were, and who you consider said terms?
quote:
Your using the same misquotes as he ("type of race"), which simply means you never read the actual article only continue to tag the original misquote and misrepresentation from Sundiata. And you're encouraging others to take the initiative? LOL
Surely the intellectual breakdown you're receiving gives you flashbacks of rasol.
quote: As Keita told you, "Dendrograms are also used to illustrate the divergence of entities called human races or of populations used as their surrogates.... strictly speaking, studies can only inform about the groups used in the analysis...These groups should not be reified into other entities"
Well in this case Cavalli's dendrogram is being used to further destruct racial entities as Keita does with Bowcock. Europeans appearing intermediate between Africans and Oceanics is a population genetic fact. Further debunks "race" and further enhances the notion of genotype doesn't necessarily equal phenotype.
Obviously you're trying to distort Cavalli's results into a racial schema, but what racial schema would that be??? Are you saying that all Oceanics are one race, all Asians are one race, all Africans are one race, all Native Americans are one race?
quote: 2) In her use of the unscientific "Caucasoid" to represent Europeans, which you and your motley crew of amateur scholars admit is unscientific.
Bowcock is further contributing to the destruction of "Caucasoid" race, in the statement, therefore her work is cited by Keita to further destruct racial entities.
quote: Genes, peoples, and languages
L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
What we know of the occupation of different continents (1) shows that West Asia was first settled around 100,000 years ago, although perhaps not permanently. Oceania was occupied first from Africa, more or less at the same time as East Asia (both probably having been settled by the coastal route of South Asia), and then from East Asia both Europe and America were settled, the latter certainly from the north, via the Bering Strait (then a wide land passage). The dates are approximately known, and the genetic distances corresponding to the splits in the unweighted pair–group method with arithmetic mean tree (or approximately the averages of appropriate columns and other entries in Table 2; see also ref. 1) are in reasonable agreement with them. This is indicated by the approximate constancy of the ratios D/T (genetic distance/time of first settlement) in Table 2. There is a marked uncertainty in the time of occupation of the Americas, and genetic data suggest the earlier dates are correct. But if very small groups of people were responsible for the initial settlement, as suggested also by other considerations, genetic drift may have been especially strong and the time of settlement, calculated from genetic distances, will be in excess. One reasonable hypothesis is that the genetic distance between Asia and Africa is shorter than that between Africa and the other continents in Table 1 because both Africans and Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began about 40,000 years ago. It seems very reasonable to assume that both continents nearest to Europe contributed to its settlement, even if perhaps at different times and maybe repeatedly. It is reassuring that the analysis of other markers also consistently gives the same results in this case. Moreover, a specific evolutionary model tested, i.e., that Europe is formed by contributions from Asia and Africa, fits the distance matrix perfectly (6). In this simplified model, the migrations postulated to have populated Europe are estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to distinguish, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining.
It's extremely funny how you pick and choose lines instead of my whole quote, obviously so you can distort it. It's also funny how you left this post unanswered.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote: Yes, Bowcock uses bankrupt terms and human population dendrograms Keita rightly regards as evidence of the persistence of racial thinking. (Keita, 1997)
Now questions include, what does your favorite geneticist consider "Caucasoid"? LOL No wonder Keita cites her as evidence of the persistence of racial thinking. LOL
Nope Keita did say "Nuclear DNA studies **also contribute** to the **deconstruction** of received racial entities. Then goes on to cite Bowcock, so if Keita wasn't agreeing with Bowcock, then why did he say Bowcocks work further contributes to the destruction of racial entities? Please tell me how Cavalli or Bowcock promotes race? Of course if you were able to read you would see Bowcock says Europeans, defining "Caucasians". Do you need to be spoon fed everything??
quote:Stop beating around the bush boy, you jumped on the claim now valdate it. Explain how the "Asian" and the "African" populations are differentiated. Why can't you do this you sodomite?!!! HAHAHHA
Already did, Keita himself verified it, by using Bowcock to further destruct racial entities, again I will ask why Keita says Bowcocks analysis further destroys racial entities? But your saying they promote them?
quote:Where does he cite the "differentiated" ones and how do they come to be defined as such?
Keita quotes Bowcock as further destroying racial entities, of course he agrees with Bowcock by considering her work as a destruction of racial entities, so how do you say he disagrees with Bowcock? Bowcock says and Keita quotes already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians....
"Nuclear DNA studies **also contribute** to the **deconstruction** of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". - American Anthropologist (1997)
quote: LOL I can see rasolowitz that you are never going to show just how the Asian and African populations are differentiated (because you can't) in order to validate your white scholars trees, but only spam the above. LOL
few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches ^ If there are exceptions, explain.
Few populations are the exception, as Keita quoted Bowcock, and refereed to her work as further destructing racial entities. Not further promoting, but further destructing. Why do you keep referring to me as rasol?
"Nuclear DNA studies **also contribute** to the **deconstruction** of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". - American Anthropologist (1997)
Ok, it would be a problem if anyone here believed in race, but being that we don't, but you do, and we are using these dendrograms, as Keita uses Bowcock as well, to contribute to the deconstruction of racial entities, there is no way around you addressing the following since you believe in "race"........
Europeans carry lineages which arose in Asia post OOA, and lineages that arose in Africa post OOA. If Europeans wouldn't have received post OOA Neolithic admixture from Africans, than Europeans would be totally consisted of lineages which first arose in Asia. Right or Wrong Jackass????
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
^^Which confirms Cavalli's distance matrix...Now can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've been told Europeans would be a hybrid population if "race" was biologically valid.
We keep going over this again to show how much of a confused post-tagging imbecile you are.
Now you admit here that Europeans are not a hybrid population! You say they would be only if race existed. But since we know race doesn't exist biologically they can't then be a hybrid!
Before, your position was Europeans ARE a hybrid population, "Europeans **are** genetically hybrids" You even accused me of using Keita "as a scapegoat to refute the hybridization of Europeans".
Now your position is that Europeans are not a hybrid population. Keep your flip flops coming! LOL
quote:So like I said from the beginning, an Australian man would be considered white to you in Europe. With his blond curly hair.I've also asked you, what your terms of Black and white were, and who you consider said terms?
It depends on what you mean by "Australian man". If you mean the blond haired blacks that Dr. Winters (I think) posted in one of the threads, then yes I would consider them "black".
I already told you who I considered "black" and "white". Instead of trying to find away to "refute" my subjective views (what a dumbass) you should try to show how your choice of "black" and "white" ("It's kind of like when *whites* were seen salvaging for food after Katrina, they were immediately considered as "searching for food", but when it was *blacks* they were referred to as "looters"..") is any more "scientific" or "correct" than mine. If it is not then your questions are pointless. Then go **** yourself. LOL
quote:Surely the intellectual breakdown you're receiving gives you flashbacks of rasol.
Actually your going down by default (as a tag along). This is why can't distinguish Bowcock's quotes from Keita's; can't show how the "Asian" and "African" are differentiated to validate your trees since rasolowitz never did.
quote:Well in this case Cavalli's dendrogram is being used to further destruct racial entities as Keita does with Bowcock.
No you dumbass his type of dendrograms are further evidence of the persistence of racial thinking according to Keita.
quote:Europeans appearing intermediate between Africans and Oceanics is a population genetic fact.
Do they really? According to Bowcock it is "Caucasoids" (that you say don't exist LOL) that supposedly appear intermediate between a "pygmy" and an "ancestral Chinese". LOL
quote:Further debunks "race" and further enhances the notion of genotype doesn't necessarily equal phenotype.Obviously you're trying to distort Cavalli's results into a racial schema, but what racial schema would that be???
The same racial schema that Keita places human population trees (dendrograms) and clearly says that "studies can only inform about the groups used in the analysis...These groups should not be reified into other entities"
So Bowcock's "Caucasoid" (whom you say doesn't exist (LOL!), and has been established here has no genetic definition, what then does your favorite geneticist consider "Caucasoid"? Still no answer), her San Francisco Chinese and a "pygmy" can only tell us about them. If you want to put these groups into other entities: Caucasoid (that doesn't exist really) = "European population"; San Francisco Chinese = "Asian population"; pygmy = "African population", then fine. But Keita is clear about such tree branching.
quote:Are you saying that all Oceanics are one race, all Asians are one race, all Africans are one race, all Native Americans are one race?
You dumbass, scientifically they are yes. "Homo sapiens sapiens (by nomenclature a proper race)" – Keita
Socially is another matter.
quote:Bowcock is further contributing to the destruction of "Caucasoid" race, in the statement,
LOL Bowcock is "deconstructing" the Caucasoid race by showing them to be a secondary race? "one of the units [Caucasiod] is not fundamental"
"Variation from these units in this [racial] model is primarily explained by admixture. Thus there were primary and secondary races."
by citing "Caucasoids" (that you say don't exist LOL) in Europe?! How does she define this entity – NONENTITY according to you and your crew! Still no answer. Remember
quote:Meanwhile - caucaZoids are as dead as a doornail – rasolowtz
Biologically, such terms [Caucasoid] are worse than useless. – Brace
"Caucasian is accurate as reference to "people from the Caucasia", it is not accurate as a reference to either the heavily admixed Latin populations of southern Europe, or the somewhat less heavily mixed Nordics of Northern Europe." [Caucasoids] Do not reflect the underlying genetics..."very well"? How about "not at all"
Do they exist or don't they? Are they a hyrid or not?
quote:therefore her work is cited by Keita to further destruct racial entities.
By showing that her "Europeans" in her sample are not "pure" race or model as a primary unit, as was once propagated (classical race construct), Bowcock's work invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the race construct which imply deep fundamental differences between the units but it still compromises the racial schema. Why is it a compromise? Still no answer from the queer who claims to answer all questions.
So is:
- How are the "Asian" and "African" populations differentiated?
- What does she use to define and single out this "Caucasoid" in Europe to use in her analysis?
- Why is it [bowcock's work] a compromise?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: We keep going over this again to show how much of a confused post-tagging imbecile you are.
Now you admit here that Europeans are not a hybrid population! You say they would be only if race existed. But since we know race doesn't exist biologically they can't then be a hybrid!
Before, your position was Europeans ARE a hybrid population, "Europeans **are** genetically hybrids" You even accused me of using Keita "as a scapegoat to refute the hybridization of Europeans".
Now your position is that Europeans are not a hybrid population. Keep your flip flops coming! LOL
You know exactly what was meant from the beginning Europeans would be a hybrid population is race existed biologically, this is what you had to deal with from the beginning. Something you simply can't address. Since you say "race" exists, then you have to deal with and address the fact that Europeans would be a hybrid population due to the fact of being populated by Asian lineages and post OOA African lineages. You know the deal, don't twist the facts.
quote:It depends on what you mean by "Australian man". If you mean the blond haired blacks that Dr. Winters (I think) posted in one of the threads, then yes I would consider them "black".
Don't play games, you know exactly what I meant, an aboriginal of Australia. So you would consider them black right? Why? If you said depending on where they are, they would be considered white?
So this again goes back to what makes Europeans physically identifiable as a group? What is unique that makes them identifiable?
Is it their pale skin, blue eyes, blond hair little to no lips etc.....?
quote: I already told you who I considered "black" and "white".
Yea, and what you consider white and black is subjective to the point where you would consider people with thin lips, nose etc... depending where they are to be white. If not, then again prompts the question what makes whites an identifiable group in Europe?
quote:No you dumbass his type of dendrograms are further evidence of the persistence of racial thinking according to Keita.
Please explain/ elaborate, I've asked you this a thousand times? Is Cavalli promoting a European race, an Asian race, an African race etc..???
So basically you're saying, as phenotypically diverse as continental Asia is (but not genetically), you're saying Cavalli's dendrogram is promoting Indians, Chinese, Japanese Filipinos, Andamanese etc... to be a single Asian race, or is he saying they're a population, according to their geographical position and their lineage origin?
Cavalli himself admits, the attempt to group populations into distinct races has been a futile exercise, and he himself has abandoned it. Therefore how do you say he is promoting race by giving an estimate on a world human population scale, and finding that Europe was founded by lineages which arose in Asia, and Africa (post OOA)?
Pray tell???
quote: Do they really? According to Bowcock it is "Caucasoids" (that you say don't exist LOL) that supposedly appear intermediate between a "pygmy" and an "ancestral Chinese". LOL
Indians, Near Easterners, Europeans North Africans etc.. are considered "Caucasoid". But in Bowcocks work, she makes clear, defining "Caucasoids" I.e Europeans, were populated by lineages which arose from OOA lineages (non African), and post OOA African lineages, she doesn't mention any other population but the defining "Caucasians" and puts this defining "Caucasian" myth to rest. As Keita understood, and which is why Keita cited her work, as further destructing racial entities. I.e "Caucasoid's", by debunking the original supposed defining Caucasians, who are Europeans.
quote: You dumbass, scientifically they are yes. "Homo sapiens sapiens (by nomenclature a proper race)" – Keita
Nope, all Asians are not a single race, no, all Africans are not a single race etc...
Scientifically all humans are part of a single species, which arose in Africa and migrated out of Africa, as a result populated the world, this is confirmed genetically, all people can trace their DNA back to Africa, and anthropologically.
quote: Socially is another matter.
Socially is definitely another matter, as Brace admits himself, socially race is acceptable amongst those who have no idea or understanding of the concept at hand.
quote:LOL Bowcock is "deconstructing" the Caucasoid race by showing them to be a secondary race? "one of the units [Caucasiod] is not fundamental"
She is destructing "Caucasoid" by debunking a pure Europe, the defining "Caucasians" she is cutting them off at the roots, understand? As you know Europeans are not the only ones considered Caucasians..but, Europeans are the ones who promote it, so by cutting them (Europeans) out of being some pure different/seperate entity, and not some defining Caucasian, neither skeletally nor genetically, then this further debunks the racial schema, as Keita understands, and which is why Keita himself quotes Bowcock.
What makes a Caucasoid if not skeletally or genetically? Genetically Europeans, defining "Caucasians", are a population arising as a result of Asians and Africans. Skeletally, features considered to be "Caucasoid" were around in populations in Africa before any population around the world would even be able to be considered anything but African!! Actually, even before the world was populated by modern humans coming out of East Africa these supposed features defining "Caucasians" were present.
quote:Do they exist or don't they? Are they a hyrid or not?
If Europeans (such as yourself) want to continue to consider yourselves a separate identifiable group from the rest of the world, than yea, you believe in race, therefore you have to deal with the fact that genetically Europe would be a hybrid population, and skeletally, these traits were around before humans even dispersed OOA, so what makes whites in Europe an identifiable group?
quote:"From the size of the preserved bones, we estimated that Omo I was tall and slender, most likely around 5'10" tall and about 155 pounds," University of New Mexico anthropologist Osbjorn Pearson, who co-authored at least two of the new papers, told Discovery News. Pearson said another, later fossil was also recently found. It too belonged to a "moderately tall -- around 5'9" -- and slender individual." "Taken together, the remains show that these early modern humans were...much like the people in southern Ethiopia and the southern Sudan today," Pearson said.
quote: Genes, peoples, and languages
L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
What we know of the occupation of different continents (1) shows that West Asia was first settled around 100,000 years ago, although perhaps not permanently. Oceania was occupied first from Africa, more or less at the same time as East Asia (both probably having been settled by the coastal route of South Asia), and then from East Asia both Europe and America were settled, the latter certainly from the north, via the Bering Strait (then a wide land passage). The dates are approximately known, and the genetic distances corresponding to the splits in the unweighted pair–group method with arithmetic mean tree (or approximately the averages of appropriate columns and other entries in Table 2; see also ref. 1) are in reasonable agreement with them. This is indicated by the approximate constancy of the ratios D/T (genetic distance/time of first settlement) in Table 2. There is a marked uncertainty in the time of occupation of the Americas, and genetic data suggest the earlier dates are correct. But if very small groups of people were responsible for the initial settlement, as suggested also by other considerations, genetic drift may have been especially strong and the time of settlement, calculated from genetic distances, will be in excess. One reasonable hypothesis is that the genetic distance between Asia and Africa is shorter than that between Africa and the other continents in Table 1 because both Africans and Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began about 40,000 years ago. It seems very reasonable to assume that both continents nearest to Europe contributed to its settlement, even if perhaps at different times and maybe repeatedly. It is reassuring that the analysis of other markers also consistently gives the same results in this case. Moreover, a specific evolutionary model tested, i.e., that Europe is formed by contributions from Asia and Africa, fits the distance matrix perfectly (6). In this simplified model, the migrations postulated to have populated Europe are estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to distinguish, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining.
It's extremely funny how you pick and choose lines instead of my whole quote, obviously so you can distort it. It's also funny how you left this post unanswered.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote: Yes, Bowcock uses bankrupt terms and human population dendrograms Keita rightly regards as evidence of the persistence of racial thinking. (Keita, 1997)
Now questions include, what does your favorite geneticist consider "Caucasoid"? LOL No wonder Keita cites her as evidence of the persistence of racial thinking. LOL
Nope Keita did say "Nuclear DNA studies **also contribute** to the **deconstruction** of received racial entities. Then goes on to cite Bowcock, so if Keita wasn't agreeing with Bowcock, then why did he say Bowcocks work further contributes to the destruction of racial entities? Please tell me how Cavalli or Bowcock promotes race? Of course if you were able to read you would see Bowcock says Europeans, defining "Caucasians". Do you need to be spoon fed everything??
quote:Stop beating around the bush boy, you jumped on the claim now valdate it. Explain how the "Asian" and the "African" populations are differentiated. Why can't you do this you sodomite?!!! HAHAHHA
Already did, Keita himself verified it, by using Bowcock to further destruct racial entities, again I will ask why Keita says Bowcocks analysis further destroys racial entities? But your saying they promote them?
quote:Where does he cite the "differentiated" ones and how do they come to be defined as such?
Keita quotes Bowcock as further destroying racial entities, of course he agrees with Bowcock by considering her work as a destruction of racial entities, so how do you say he disagrees with Bowcock? Bowcock says and Keita quotes already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians....
"Nuclear DNA studies **also contribute** to the **deconstruction** of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". - American Anthropologist (1997)
quote: LOL I can see rasolowitz that you are never going to show just how the Asian and African populations are differentiated (because you can't) in order to validate your white scholars trees, but only spam the above. LOL
few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches ^ If there are exceptions, explain.
Few populations are the exception, as Keita quoted Bowcock, and refereed to her work as further destructing racial entities. Not further promoting, but further destructing. Why do you keep referring to me as rasol?
"Nuclear DNA studies **also contribute** to the **deconstruction** of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". - American Anthropologist (1997)
Ok, it would be a problem if anyone here believed in race, but being that we don't, but you do, and we are using these dendrograms, as Keita uses Bowcock as well, to contribute to the deconstruction of racial entities, there is no way around you addressing the following since you believe in "race"........
Europeans carry lineages which arose in Asia post OOA, and lineages that arose in Africa post OOA. If Europeans wouldn't have received post OOA Neolithic admixture from Africans, than Europeans would be totally consisted of lineages which first arose in Asia. Right or Wrong Jackass????
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
^^Which confirms Cavalli's distance matrix...Now can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know exactly what was meant from the beginning Europeans would be a hybrid population is race existed biologically, this is what you had to deal with from the beginning. Something you simply can't address. …You know the deal, don't twist the facts.
Twist facts? You babbling imbecile, I'm merely quoting what YOU said.
Europeans are not a hybrid
Europeans are a hybrid
^ Don't blame me for your confusion! LOL
quote:Since you say "race" exists, then you have to deal with and address the fact that Europeans would be a hybrid population due to the fact of being populated by Asian lineages and post OOA African lineages.
Accepting that Europeans are a "hybrid" intermediate between two extremes and not "pure" race doesn't mean the racial schema is destroyed. Remember under said schema there are secondary and primary races. According to Bowcock's work, Europeans would be the former. This is why Keita says it's a compromise. I keep asking you why did he say this? STILL NO ANSWER!!!
quote:Don't play games, you know exactly what I meant, an aboriginal of Australia. So you would consider them black right? Why? If you said depending on where they are, they would be considered white?
Sorry kid, no need to play games with an amateur toddler who thinks he's an expert in genetics just by tagging fellow posters. Say exactly what you mean boy, I'm not a mind reader.
Now, where did I say depending on where Aboriginal Australians are they would be considered white? I said I considered them black, even the blond ones in Dr. Winters thread. Some might not. So what?
quote:So this again goes back to what makes Europeans physically identifiable as a group? What is unique that makes them identifiable?
Jesus Christ, I feel like a prisoner at Gitmo being interrogated by an extremely retarded US soldier.
Again, socially, "race" still exist, however its all subjective no "science" to it. Think back to your dumbass "Kushite" and "Egyptian" false dichotomy. According to you, on average they looked different and can distinguish one group from other. This was bullshit of course but it would have been more effective argument with an "Egyptian" and a "Roman", on average they look different. The similar with "black" and "white" in society today. Socially on average we can tell a "black" from a "white", "grey" areas exist yes, but as I said racism based on racial categories and groupings still exist in Europe today.
quote:Yea, and what you consider white and black is subjective
Holy ****, did I not say in my last post "black"/"white" is subjective? LOL
quote:Please explain/ elaborate, I've asked you this a thousand times?
LOL What chutzpah, you asking me to explain/elaborate when your dumbass has failed over and over to explain/elaborate on how Asian and African are differentiated populations! ("two extremes") HAHAHAH
I posted/explained and elaborated on why according to Keita your white "scholar's" trees are unreliable "will always be suspect". Apart from quoting Keita referring to Bowcock's work within the context of the persistence of racial thinking, you have yet to explain/elaborate on how the "Asian" and "African" populations are differentiated (two extremes). They have separate genetic/phenotypic make up? What? STILL NO ANSWER!!!
quote:So basically you're saying, as phenotypically diverse as continental Asia is (but not genetically),
Asia is not genetically diverse? Are you saying that individual bearers (in this case Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos etc) of specific haplotypes form into clusters of individuals with uniform morphologies and geographical origin? LOL
quote:Indians, Near Easterners, Europeans North Africans etc.. are considered "Caucasoid".
Yes, according to the classic racial schema..and rasolowitz's (your) favorite source Webster. LOLOLOLOL
quote:But in Bowcocks work, she makes clear, defining "Caucasoids" I.e Europeans,
Yes, Bowcock takes some aspect of the racial schema, the "Caucasoids of Europe" part. This is why Keita says in his critique, not general agreement, "Nuclear DNA studies suggest **to some** that Blumenbach's "Caucasian" entity(or some of it)".
Note: Bowcock does not put "Caucasian" in quotes; Keita does, as he does not accept the existence of this entity. Now again, if this entity [Caucasoid] does not exist genetically or otherwise ("caucaZoids are as dead as a doornail", "Biologically, such terms [Caucasoid] are worse than useless." – Brace, [Caucasoids] Do not reflect the underlying genetics..."very well"? How about "not at all") on what basis did Bowcock single them out in Europe for analysis? What did she use to identify them? STILL NO ANSWER!!!
quote:Scientifically all humans are part of a single species
"Homo sapiens sapiens (by nomenclature a proper race)" – Keita
quote:the defining "Caucasians" she is cutting them off at the roots, understand?
Yes, her "Caucasoids of European origin" are "hybrids". What did she use to identify these "Caucasoids" of European origin? By phenotype, genetics what? STILL NO ANSWER!!!
quote:so by cutting them (Europeans) out of being some pure different/seperate entity
Did I not say this?
quote:By showing that her "Europeans" in her sample are not "pure" race or model as a primary unit, as was once propagated (classical race construct), Bowcock's work invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the race construct which imply deep fundamental differences between the units but it still compromises the racial schema. Why is it a compromise? Still no answer from the queer who claims to answer all questions.[posted 19 November, 2008 10:29 PM]
^^^STILL NO ANSWER!!!
quote: Genetically Europeans, defining "Caucasians", are a population arising as a result of Asians and Africans.
Like I said, all her work shows is that her "Caucasoids" (that you say don't exist LOL) show intermediate between a "pygmy" and an "ancestral Chinese". If you want to go putting them in other entities and then put them on trees, fine.
But as Keita said [i]"strictly speaking, studies can only inform about the groups used in the analysis. Therefore a study using Mbuti, a clan of Saame speakers, a Swedish village, and Vedda can only tell us about each of them. These groups should not be reified into other entities."
quote:Skeletally, features considered to be "Caucasoid" were around in populations in Africa before any population around the world would even be able to be considered anything but African!! Actually, even before the world was populated by modern humans coming out of East Africa these supposed features defining "Caucasians" were present.
(((yawn)))) your telling me nothing new here kid. However we are debating the merits of your white master's trees, not the myth of "Caucasoid features"...then again, Bowcock seems to be able to identity them, she has in her sample "Caucasoids of Europeans origin" (who are these people, blacks?)? HAHHHHA
quote:so what makes whites in Europe an identifiable group?
As I said, a combination of certain phenotypes. By what measure did Bowcock use to identify in her sample "individuals of European origin"? Who did she use? Europeans born blacks, Asians? Who? STILL NO ANSWER!!!Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^You're remedial. Instead of answering questions, you instead, ask the same questions already answered, it's becoming redundant trying to explain this to you.
So basically you're saying, as phenotypically diverse as continental Asia is (but not genetically), you're saying Cavalli's dendrogram is promoting Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, Andamanese etc... to be a single Asian race, or is he saying they're a population, according to their geographical position and their lineage origin?
Cavalli himself admits, the attempt to group populations into distinct races has been a futile exercise, and he himself has abandoned it. Therefore how do you say he is promoting race by giving an estimate on a world human population scale, and finding that Europe was founded by lineages which arose in Asia, and Africa (post OOA)?
Pray tell???
quote:Do they exist or don't they? Are they a hyrid or not?
If Europeans (such as yourself) want to continue to consider yourselves a separate identifiable group from the rest of the world, than yea, you believe in race, therefore you have to deal with the fact that genetically Europe would be a hybrid population, and skeletally, these traits were around before humans even dispersed OOA, so what makes whites in Europe an identifiable group?
quote:"From the size of the preserved bones, we estimated that Omo I was tall and slender, most likely around 5'10" tall and about 155 pounds," University of New Mexico anthropologist Osbjorn Pearson, who co-authored at least two of the new papers, told Discovery News. Pearson said another, later fossil was also recently found. It too belonged to a "moderately tall -- around 5'9" -- and slender individual." "Taken together, the remains show that these early modern humans were...much like the people in southern Ethiopia and the southern Sudan today," Pearson said.
quote: Genes, peoples, and languages
L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
What we know of the occupation of different continents (1) shows that West Asia was first settled around 100,000 years ago, although perhaps not permanently. Oceania was occupied first from Africa, more or less at the same time as East Asia (both probably having been settled by the coastal route of South Asia), and then from East Asia both Europe and America were settled, the latter certainly from the north, via the Bering Strait (then a wide land passage). The dates are approximately known, and the genetic distances corresponding to the splits in the unweighted pair–group method with arithmetic mean tree (or approximately the averages of appropriate columns and other entries in Table 2; see also ref. 1) are in reasonable agreement with them. This is indicated by the approximate constancy of the ratios D/T (genetic distance/time of first settlement) in Table 2. There is a marked uncertainty in the time of occupation of the Americas, and genetic data suggest the earlier dates are correct. But if very small groups of people were responsible for the initial settlement, as suggested also by other considerations, genetic drift may have been especially strong and the time of settlement, calculated from genetic distances, will be in excess. One reasonable hypothesis is that the genetic distance between Asia and Africa is shorter than that between Africa and the other continents in Table 1 because both Africans and Asians contributed to the settlement of Europe, which began about 40,000 years ago. It seems very reasonable to assume that both continents nearest to Europe contributed to its settlement, even if perhaps at different times and maybe repeatedly. It is reassuring that the analysis of other markers also consistently gives the same results in this case. Moreover, a specific evolutionary model tested, i.e., that Europe is formed by contributions from Asia and Africa, fits the distance matrix perfectly (6). In this simplified model, the migrations postulated to have populated Europe are estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to distinguish, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining.
It's extremely funny how you pick and choose lines instead of my whole quote, obviously so you can distort it. It's also funny how you left this post unanswered.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote: Yes, Bowcock uses bankrupt terms and human population dendrograms Keita rightly regards as evidence of the persistence of racial thinking. (Keita, 1997)
Now questions include, what does your favorite geneticist consider "Caucasoid"? LOL No wonder Keita cites her as evidence of the persistence of racial thinking. LOL
Nope Keita did say "Nuclear DNA studies **also contribute** to the **deconstruction** of received racial entities. Then goes on to cite Bowcock, so if Keita wasn't agreeing with Bowcock, then why did he say Bowcocks work further contributes to the destruction of racial entities? Please tell me how Cavalli or Bowcock promotes race? Of course if you were able to read you would see Bowcock says Europeans, defining "Caucasians". Do you need to be spoon fed everything??
quote:Stop beating around the bush boy, you jumped on the claim now valdate it. Explain how the "Asian" and the "African" populations are differentiated. Why can't you do this you sodomite?!!! HAHAHHA
Already did, Keita himself verified it, by using Bowcock to further destruct racial entities, again I will ask why Keita says Bowcocks analysis further destroys racial entities? But your saying they promote them?
quote:Where does he cite the "differentiated" ones and how do they come to be defined as such?
Keita quotes Bowcock as further destroying racial entities, of course he agrees with Bowcock by considering her work as a destruction of racial entities, so how do you say he disagrees with Bowcock? Bowcock says and Keita quotes already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians....
"Nuclear DNA studies **also contribute** to the **deconstruction** of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". - American Anthropologist (1997)
quote: LOL I can see rasolowitz that you are never going to show just how the Asian and African populations are differentiated (because you can't) in order to validate your white scholars trees, but only spam the above. LOL
few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches ^ If there are exceptions, explain.
Few populations are the exception, as Keita quoted Bowcock, and refereed to her work as further destructing racial entities. Not further promoting, but further destructing. Why do you keep referring to me as rasol?
"Nuclear DNA studies **also contribute** to the **deconstruction** of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". - American Anthropologist (1997)
Ok, it would be a problem if anyone here believed in race, but being that we don't, but you do, and we are using these dendrograms, as Keita uses Bowcock as well, to contribute to the deconstruction of racial entities, there is no way around you addressing the following since you believe in "race"........
Europeans carry lineages which arose in Asia post OOA, and lineages that arose in Africa post OOA. If Europeans wouldn't have received post OOA Neolithic admixture from Africans, than Europeans would be totally consisted of lineages which first arose in Asia. Right or Wrong Jackass????
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
^^Which confirms Cavalli's distance matrix...Now can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Instead of answering questions, you instead, ask the same questions already answered
Oh really? I must have missed it.
- Are Europeans a hybrid population or not? (you say yes, you say no)
- Why is it [Bowcock's analysis] a compromise?
- How are the "Asian" and "African" populations differentiated (two extremes)?
- Asia is not genetically diverse? Are you saying that individual bearers (in this case Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos etc) of specific haplotypes form into clusters of individuals with uniform morphologies and geographical origin?
- On what basis did Bowcock single out these "Caucasoids" of Europe for analysis? What did she use to identify them?
You couldn't even reply to Boofer's question, I doubt you will be able to explain the above even though you try front in here as an expert in genetics. You're a mere tag along (to equally dumb posters at that) which is why when asked to explain specifics you go dumb. Because, just as your "Kushite" "Egyptian" false dichotomy, you don't know what the **** you were talking about. LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The first book of population genetics I read was Genetics and the Origin of species, by Theodosius Dobzhansky, and it was basic for my understanding of the subject. I later had the chance of knowing Dobzhansky personally and sharing results of my early, relevant research with him. He greatly encouraged me to continue this line of work, and I am happy to share in this opportunity to honor his fundamental contributions. - Genes, peoples, and languages
Very significant admission by Cavalli-Sforza. And what are Dobzhansky's "fundamental contributions" you may ask? See Keita's The Persistence of Racial Thinking where he deals with his "breeding populations" and then compare with Cavalli's (his loyal disciple) echoes and Keita's critique,
quote:Keita and Kittles criticize the use, by Cavalli-Sfroza et al., and Horai et al., of "core" populations (supposedly less-admixed) to reconstruct "racial" history:
Their study consisted of mtDNA derived from an African individual from Uganda (who was used to represent all Africans), ten Japanese individuals whose sequences where amalgamated into one consensus sequence (to represent Asians), and the Cambridge sequence (used to represent Europeans). Here a single mtDNA sequence in two of three cases were deemed by the investigators to be representative of entire geographical regions conceptualized as being authentic. (The Persistence of Racial Thinking p.542)
Compare too with Bowcock's "pygmy", "Caucasoids ["Terms like caucasoid are worse than useless". - CL Brace] of European origin" and "San Francisco Chinese" as representative of entire geographical regions. (see also pg. 539 for Keita's debunking the notion of specific groups "representing" entire populations.)
No wonder Keita said it [Bowcock's work] should be acceptable to those who believe in races!hypocrites like YOU!
quote:The Ethiopians genotype is more than 50% African. It is difficult to say if they originated in Arabia and are therefore Caucasoids...
I thought Caucasoids didn't exist! Or is this a mere echo of his "Ethiopian Caucasians"? And you want to lump Keita with this racist piece of ****?
quote:Black Americans ...who notoriously have a lighter skin color than Black Africans, their ancestors. This is especially true in the northern States. Genetic analysis shows that African Americans have on average 30% of their gene pool from European (White American) genes
LOL Ligter skin in blacks = "white genes". And this is not persistence of racial think?!?!?!
Also like YOU, your favorite white scholar is able to distinguish "black" from "white". How?
Also did you say some where that Europeans are just "Asian" and "African"? What then is so "unique" about "European genes" that makes them "white"? What makes whites an identifiable group in America?
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic