posted
I read in this forum that the similarities between the negroes of the Pacific and those of Africa is just the result of the similarity of the climates of the two region where these two races live respectively. I understand that the black color of these two races can be the result of the heat from the sunlight in the tropical region , but what I didn't grasp is what made the hair texture of these two races to be similar if they are not related?
Posts: 57 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
It matters not that the Africans and the Pacific Islanders are more distantly related than the Africans and Europeans.
All groups have simply adapted to their environment.
Oceanians & East Africans likely have the original hair textures - the hair could be a response to heat or UV rays as it helps radiate out away from the body the former and even filter the latter.
Melanin is not an adaptation for cooling the body. Dark colors attract/absorb the sun's light & heat.
quote:Originally posted by Khadary: I read in this forum that the similarities between the negroes of the Pacific and those of Africa is just the result of the similarity of the climates of the two region where these two races live respectively. I understand that the black color of these two races can be the result of the heat from the sunlight in the tropical region , but what I didn't grasp is what made the hair texture of these two races to be similar if they are not related?
Either you've read the work from a wrong poster or misunderstood something. All humans originate from Africa which is why Oceanic populations exhibit these characteristics that define Africans (Original humans). A group of Africans migrated out of East Africa to populate the world which is why you see what you see.
All non Africans are descended from a **single** East African population. Of course that **single** population migration that populated the world, will result in all non Africans being closer genetically to eachother(non Africans), than to other Africans. This is OOA.
It's like for example say the world has a catastrophe and humans are cut down to a population of 1000 Africans(Original man). If this African population migrates and populates the rest of the world again, and adapts to the environment for thousands of years you will see the same phenotypical results you see today.
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."
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.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, the term "negro" is a not appropriate for objective discussions on the people of Africa or those whom you think share similar phenotypes. "Negro" is a nonsensical term coined by illiterate Portugese pirates who sailed down the West African coast looking for gold some 500 years ago
Now to your question:
There are 2 things to consider genotype and phenotype.
Differences in genotype crop up when random mutations affect DNA sequences so that there is a shift in the single nucleotides(ACTG)arrangement.
These random mutations occur ever so often and over time can be used to approximate the length of time that groups may have had a common ancestor.
But here's the issue: 2 human groups may have separated for several thousand years but have maintained a separate existence in environments that are quite similar. The result is those parts of the anatomy that would changed to adapt to different climatic and geographical environment have no need to change.
Thus while the Pacific Islanders and other Melanesians may show very different haplogroup lineages from East Africans they have maintained their original East African phenotype.
Since the Melanesians and Australoids left Africa some 50,000 years ago, the fact that they--especially the Melanesians --bear an obvious resemblance to East Africans gives us some idea of what Africans looked like 50,000 years ago--in a general way.
Europeans are phenotypically at variance with Africans in general--especially with regards to pigmentation and hair form--because they derive from those groups of Africans that migrated north into the much cooler areas. Their existing phenotypes are merely the result of human adaptation to climatically different environments.
But what really throws some people off is that Europeans and Africans are closer in terms of haplogroup lineages that are either to Melanesians. Which means that the very first group of humans to leave Africa onece humans attained the Sapiens level were the ancestors of the Andaman Islanders, the Melanesians and Australoids such as the now extinct Tasmanians--savagely destroyed by European settlers.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: First, the term "negro" is a not appropriate for objective discussions on the people of Africa or those whom you think share similar phenotypes. "Negro" is a nonsensical term coined by illiterate Portugese pirates who sailed down the West African coast looking for gold some 500 years ago
Now to your question:
There are 2 things to consider genotype and phenotype.
Differences in genotype crop up when random mutations affect DNA sequences so that there is a shift in the single nucleotides(ACTG)arrangement.
These random mutations occur ever so often and over time can be used to approximate the length of time that groups may have had a common ancestor.
But here's the issue: 2 human groups may have separated for several thousand years but have maintained a separate existence in environments that are quite similar. The result is those parts of the anatomy that would changed to adapt to different climatic and geographical environment have no need to change.
Thus while the Pacific Islanders and other Melanesians may show very different haplogroup lineages from East Africans they have maintained their original East African phenotype.
Since the Melanesians and Australoids left Africa some 50,000 years ago, the fact that they--especially the Melanesians --bear an obvious resemblance to East Africans gives us some idea of what Africans looked like 50,000 years ago--in a general way.
Europeans are phenotypically at variance with Africans in general--especially with regards to pigmentation and hair form--because they derive from those groups of Africans that migrated north into the much cooler areas. Their existing phenotypes are merely the result of human adaptation to climatically different environments.
But what really throws some people off is that Europeans and Africans are closer in terms of haplogroup lineages that are either to Melanesians. Which means that the very first group of humans to leave Africa onece humans attained the Sapiens level were the ancestors of the Andaman Islanders, the Melanesians and Australoids such as the now extinct Tasmanians--savagely destroyed by European settlers.
^ Good and well explained post.
I learned something today lol. Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understood what you guys are talking about. What you are saying is that the blacks of the Pacific islands have frizzy hairs just because they maintained the way their ancestors looked like when they left Africa.But, I thought the Malenasians were more closer to the Aborogines of Australia and to the Chinese in their Y-chromosome than they are to the people of Africa.If that is true, then how come the Malenasians maintained their original physiognomy while the Aborogines lost that. And if Africa is the crudle of mankind, why are there more family languages in Asia than are in Africa?
Posts: 57 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understood what you guys are talking about. What you are saying is that the blacks of the Pacific islands have frizzy hairs just because they maintained the way their ancestors looked like when they left Africa.But, I thought the Malenasians were more closer to the Aborogines of Australia and to the Chinese in their Y-chromosome than they are to the people of Africa.If that is true, then how come the Malenasians maintained their original physiognomy while the Aborogines lost that. And if Africa is the crudle of mankind, why are there more family languages in Asia than are in Africa?
Posts: 57 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its funny how this boy is actively trolling and you have fools that actually fall for it. Its always they fake scholars that fall for the same idiocy.
Hey Khadary, rumor has it that your scrotum has serious issues with perspiration.
posted
Khadary, Looks like you just couldn't understand or follow what I wrote. Sorry, not my fault.
Re: the Aboriginese. The Aborignese were not the first to settle what is now called Australia. The Tasmans entered that continent long before them. That's why their main abode was way to the South on the island now called Tasmania. Their hair form--like that of the Melansesians--demonstrates that fact. The Australian Aboriginese, on the other hand, entered Australia much later after having branched off from the South Asian Dravidian types--who at that point in time had experienced mutational variations to their hair form. Note though that Aboriginal hair is often frizzy-curly and cross-sectionally is more like the hair of Africans that that of either Europeans or East Asians.
Language classifications are often arbitrary and if meaningful only demonstrate that some groups have lived in sufficient isolation to have developed independent linguistic forms. Also too many languages just die out when they come in contact with other languages that are more widely spoken.
So whether--if true--there are more distinct language groups in Asia than Africa is besides the point.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
^ Can't do without your master can you boy? lol
What are the "core populations" used for Cavalli-Sforza's continental tree branching? Do they reflect or imply "racial" divergence or are they "accurate" archytypes? Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
^ Can't do without your master can you boy? lol
What are the "core populations" used for Cavalli-Sforza's continental tree branching? Do they reflect or imply "racial" divergence or are they "accurate" archytypes?
Surely since Europe is home of non Africans, and was populated by non Africans, then Europeans should be genetically uniform with all other non African OOA descendants, but how come their evolutionary rate is NOT the same across all branches of the tree as all other non Africans?
quote: Genes, peoples, and languages
L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
Table 1 shows a matrix of genetic distances among continents based on **six times as many markers** (2). The type of genetic distances used — of which there exist a great many — is usually of little importance. But for a tree representation to be acceptable, the evolutionary hypothesis used for drawing the tree must be correct. ***The simplest hypothesis is that the evolutionary rate is the same across all branches of the tree, and the evolution is independent in all branches [i.e., there are no (important) genetic exchanges among them or similar conditions creating correlations among branches after their origin].*** This can be tested on the matrix, since on the basis of this simple hypothesis the distances should be the same, apart from statistical error, in each column (3).
There is one important exception to the rule in Table 1, namely that in the first column of the matrix Europe shows a shorter distance from Africa than do all the other continents. The difference is statistically significant and is consistently found with all markers, ranging from “classical” ones based on gene products [blood groups and protein polymorphisms (1)] to DNA markers such as restriction polymorphisms (4) and microsatellites (5). For incompletely understood reasons, discussed later, mtDNA trees of non-African populations are not as informative as desired.
Could it be because....
"Europe shows a shorter genetic distance from Africa than do all the other continents...... 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. " - L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
^^^^^Oh yea, that's right, it is
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:
quote:Jackass, I know it's hard for you to accept, but read again slowly, try to comprehend. The existence of intermediate groups negates race. Not that race is validated by intermediate groups, but is further deconstructed by intermediate groups. Groups such as Europeans(YOU).
Same goes for you butthead, quit with your bullshit. Yes the existence of intermediate groups negates race as separate and distinct units, but
"He is NOT referring to Europe here as a "hybrid population" between two differentiated populations."
Jackass, this is why I told you to read slowly. This is why you fail at life. Keita is referring here to Europeans as an **intermediate group** which negates race. Regardless of gradients of differentiation etc....
Why do you keep on talking about Bowcock when Keita has already made it clear that......
The existence of ***intermediate*** groups (Europeans) whether they are products of ***gene flow or reflective of gradients of differentiation, or are the results of other microevolutionary processes**** tends to negate the validity of the implicit or explicit practice associated with the concept of race.---SOY Keita
Intermediate between who you ask? Intermediate between non Africans(Oceanic's) and Africans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ Girl, you don't even know what is being discussed. lol
^ Don't call me girl lol. I know you've an emasculutated loser now after numerous beatdowns from the more intelligent posters here. But keep your homo-erotic or otherwise wierdo fantasies to yourself.
posted
Girl, I have a condom with your name on it. Now bend over like the forum slut you are! lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic