posted
It was only a matter of time Clyde Winters, but the studies are out that now prove without a doubt that biological race doesn't exist, genetically and craniometrically:
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 000:000–000 (2009) The global pattern of gene identity variation reveals a history of long-range migrations, bottlenecks, and local mate exchange: Implications for biological race
From the full text:
The Sub-Saharan African results have important implications for race. For Sub-Saharan Africans to belong to a single race, all Sub-Saharan African populations would have to cluster together on a single branch of a larger species tree, which means that each population would have about the same level of gene identity with all non-Sub-Saharan African populations, i.e., the individual population strata in Figure 3D wouldn’t exist. These separate population strata indicate that the Sub- Saharan African populations do not cluster together, and, therefore, that there is no Sub-Saharan African race in any taxonomic sense.
If the independent regions model was correct, then individuals in the same geographic region would on average be more closely related to each other genetically than would be individuals in different geographic regions. Even in this case, the problem of finding a threshold level of gene identity for declaring taxonomic significance would remain unsolved.
In reality, the between-population gene identity pattern is nested. Because the between-population pattern is nested in Sub-Saharan Africa, and because Sub- Saharan African populations straddle the root of the species- wide population tree (e.g., Li et al., 2008), there can be no Sub-Saharan African race under the shared genetic relationship criterion. The first division in the population hierarchy that coincides with continental locations separates non-African populations from African populations. This division is consistent with the existence of a non-African race, but because of the root, the Africans would still not constitute a race. Another major division along continental lines separates East Asian and Native American populations from all others. However, classifiers would need to put East Asians and Native Americans into a sub-race, because they would already be members of the non-African race. Thus, we see that nested pattern of variation would require that the geographic groups that anthropologists traditionally considered races could not be assigned to the same level of hierarchical classification.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 000:000–000 (2009) Human DNA Sequences: More Variation and Less Race Jeffrey C. Long,1* Jie Li,1 and Meghan E. Healy2
We now turn to how these estimates and analyses of genetic diversity within and between populations effect the assessment of human races in our species. Lewontin’s argument against race is historically important and interesting (Lewontin, 1972). He was not the first to argue against race taxonomy using genetics, but his argument was unique. He confronted race by trying to show that classical racial groupings account for too little of the total diversity to be worth further concern. Our results show that race, as represented in the TLIM, fits both data sets poorly. Comparisons between raw and model-generated diversity and genetic distance estimates reveal that the TLIM indeed misrepresents both the pattern and amount of diversity within and between populations. A strong message from our findings is that the model used in an analysis biases the outcome measurements. We agree entirely with Lewontin that classical race taxonomy is a poor reflection of human diversity. However, we do not believe that the diversity components that he estimated using this model reflect an intrinsic property of human genetic structure as some scientists have suggested (Templeton, 1999, 2007; Brown and Armelagos, 2001).
The pattern of DNA sequence diversity also creates some unsettling problems for applying to humans the definition of races as groups of populations within which the individuals are more related to each other than they are to members of other such groups (Hartl and Clark, 1997). This definition essentially encompasses Templeton’s evolutionary lineage definition of race (Templeton, 1999) and Dobzhansky’s gene frequency definition of race (Dobzhansky, 1970). Although it is logically consistent to group populations by relationship, the nested pattern of genetic diversity in the EHM disagrees with the traditional anthropological classifications that placed continental populations at the same level of classification (i.e., race). A classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub- Saharan African populations also includes every non- Sub-Saharan African population (Figs. 2B and 4B). Moreover, the Out-of-Africa branch would place all Eurasians in the same race, but this would necessitate placing Europeans and Asians in sub-races. Several sub-sub-races would be necessary to account for the population groups throughout the world. We see no need for such a classification in light of the fact that our evolutionary history gives good guidance for understanding the structure of human diversity.
Some biologists define races based purely on correct assignment of individuals to groups. The best known version of this approach is the seventy-five percent correct classification rule (Amadon, 1949; Mayr, 1969). Edwards has explained how accurate classification will be achieved when multiple polymorphic loci are considered (Edwards, 2003), and we see empirically that there are applications to human data that satisfy the seventyfive percent criterion (Rosenberg et al., 2002; Bamshad et al., 2003). However, the clustering methods in popular use produce human population groups that have a simpler structure than even the TLIM (Pritchard et al., 2000; Falush et al., 2003). This structure is clearly a weak description of the true human population structure, because it does not capture the complete nested arrangement of populations. We do not expect that such a classification will serve any application better than the full nested structure of populations.
In summary, we find for our own data and for a large published data set, that human populations have much diversity when DNA sequences are considered. We show that simple partitions of diversity are biased and that they hide the true extent of diversity. The pattern of diversity that we reveal is richer and worthy of study as it sheds light on the peopling of the world, ancestry and natural selection, and disease patterns (Ramachandran et al., 2005; Rosenberg et al., 2005; Lohmueller et al., 2008).
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 000:000–000 (2009) RACE AND GLOBAL PATTERNS OF PHENOTYPIC VARIATION
Does the global pattern of phenotypic variation seen in skin color and craniometric traits support the idea of race? The answer depends on initial definitions and use of the term ‘‘race.’’ On the one hand, the idea of discrete races in the typological mindset of past centuries clearly does not apply to humans (Templeton, 1998; Graves, 2001). There is, however, geographic patterning to human biological variation, both for traits affected strongly by natural selection, such as skin color, and for traits whose distribution tends, on average, to be more neutral, such as craniometrics and many genetic polymorphisms. I suggest that typical uses of the concept of geographic race today are simply crude labels imposed upon this geographically structured variation. In that sense, race is culturally constructed, as all labels are, but it is also based on an underlying reality of biological variation. Rather than argue about whether race is a cultural construct (an idea that many unfortunately take as being equivalent to a denial of variation) or that race is ‘‘real,’’ it might be more useful to consider race as a culturally constructed label that crudely and imprecisely describes real variation.....
The final question is one of semantics. In cases where broad geographic groups are used, should we refer to these groups as ‘‘races’’ or should we use more politically correct terms such as ‘‘geographic regions’’ or ‘‘geographic clusters?’’ On the one hand, the very concept of ‘‘race’’ has such historical baggage that continued use of the term tends to reify incorrect conceptions of human variation. On the other hand, it is probably naıve to think that the term can be wiped from everyday use and misuse. It might be more appropriate to answer the questions about race by noting that race is a crude first order approximation to human biological variation that is arbitrary in terms of the number and definition of races. As such, race may not provide the best way of describing or analyzing human variation.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Superfly [Formerly The Bass] The world is eternally grateful to you for clearing that up for us. I mean what an eye opener, after all of these centuries of racial strife, and now to find out that there never was any race to begin with, wow!! Anyway, I just got a message from some formally confused (like me), formally White people, who have invited your formally Black ass, over for some good times. They promise that they will give you the WARM reception that your formally Black ass deserves.
posted
Idiot, biological race doesn't exist, why be Winters' crony when you can research books and studies on your own? Read this and shut up:
The Rise and Fall of the Caucasian Race: A Political History of Racial Identity By Bruce David Baum, Bruce Baum Edition: illustrated Published by NYU Press, 2006 ISBN 0814798926, 9780814798928 342 pages
Hope you and Clyde Winters get the point, oppression and exploitation is the result of the social construct of race, not anything biological.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike I am pretty sure you can understand, and distinguish between the two, socially and biologically in that Bass is further reiterating there is no biological race.
Socially we know race exists, but from a biological standpoint race does not exist. This is the point, nobody denies social races.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Oh, you mean like all Cats are Cats, all Birds are Birds, all Reptiles are Reptiles, All Humans are Humans. Damn, you learn something new every day, WOW!!!Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ you dont even think for yourself robot.
The Rise and Fall of the Caucasian Race!!!
How much research and thought have you put into reading and understanding studies and book? Thats a trick question because we know you don't understand anything and consistently make a jackass of yourself.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Superfly[Formerly The Bass]:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by Superfly[Formerly The Bass]: A good thread ruined again with trolling and meaningless picture spam.
No Superfly [Formerly The Bass]: It was a dumb-assed thread to begin with.
A Winters crony would think that instead of thinking for self.
What's funny is they believe in Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid etc...
But fail to realize that a lot of Africans don't fit the Negroid morphology, and sometimes fit the thin nosed, thin lipped morphology arbitrarily attributed to "Caucasoid". Or even Khoisan with their epicanthal lids which are to Marc and Clyde due to admixture with Mongoloids.
They fail to realize that there are New Guineans who actually do fit a Negroid profile, but are closer related to Asians, than to Africans.
So basically in essence Clyde, Marc, Mike etc.. believe that the ancient Egyptians, most East Africans, and any African around the continent with said thin features to be a "Negroid"/"Caucasoid" mix. Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ you are just as mindless as Charlie as what you outlined above is more accurate of your favorite whites Sforza and Bowcock. You know, the whites you mindlessly follow.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This one quote is going to hurt jackassoben's feelings:
There are several outlier populations in the sample. Within Africa, the Mozabite layer stands out (Figs. 3A and 4A). They are the topmost population in the African section of the contour map in Figure 4A (right panel). Their unique gene identity pattern might reflect a bottleneck that separated Sub-Saharan African populations from other populations in Africa. It might also reflect the large geographic distance between the Mozabite and the Sub-Saharan African populations. If populations were sampled uniformly geographically within Africa, the Mozabite might not be so distinctive.
jackassoben will still believe North Africans like Mozabites are "Caucasians."
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ no one but whites like your Sforza believes North Africans are "Caucasians." I know you have to turn this 19th century racialism on me so as to deflect attention form the fact that you are a hypocrite when you say K-zoid races doesnt exists yet you mindlessly follow their work. How do you explain this Charlie?
Here, you might as well use these:
Since you're nothing more than a mindless infantile cheerleader. Lmao!
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Sure, Sforza whose genetic work actually debunks the phenotypic Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid he uses.... It's like Keita said, using 19th century terminology with 20th century data just doesn't coincide.
quote: The most rigorous investigation to date of global genetic patterns.- L. Luca Cavalli Sforza, Paulo Mennozzi, and Alberto Piazza's massive History and Geography of Human Genes - finds that racial categories are genetically meaningless . The authors conclude that while one can identify " 'cluster of populations' exhibiting genetic similarities," such clusters can not be identified with races. " In fact, their painstaking genetic mapping and multivariate analysis fairly demolish the familiar "races of humanity". For example, the northern Chinese are shown to be more related to northern Europeans than they are to southern Chinese. And Africans, far from forming a uniform race, actually show more genetic diversity than do all of the world's non African peoples put together.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
When will you stop spamming selected quotes, you don't even understand, from books you never read and never will? I think Sundiata asked you for a page reference the first time you post that quote and you never even replied. Typical. lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: When will you stop spamming selected quotes, you don't even understand, from books you never read and never will?
Poor kid cries all day about someone not understanding meanwhile he's the one who is literally schooled on said matters daily from thread to thread humiliating himself.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: I think Sundiata asked you for a page reference the first time you post that quote and you never even replied. Typical. lol
Too bad you don't get paid to think.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it too much to ask you to explain the quotes and studies you cling to? What are the samples he used for the continents for the book you spammed?
And can't you list those 65% Chinese lineages and the European ones that were derived from and now distinguished from it? And do the same for 35% so-called "pygmy". It's your position that Europeans derived and are now distinct from them, is it not?
Whats taking so long????
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who in this thread initially referenced Cavalli-Sforza except jackassoben himself? None of the three studies above mention nothing about what jackassoben is whining about
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Denying that you parrot him are we Charlie? Even tried to defend his work? Its embarrassing now as you claim to be against racialism yet you mindlessly parrot scholars who echo it. You are a hypocrite when you say K-zoid races doesnt exists yet you mindlessly follow their work. How do you explain this Charlie? Is because they are white???? Winters was right about you...GET OFF YOUR KNEES!!!
Here, you might as well use these:
Since you're nothing more than a mindless infantile cheerleader. Lmao!
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of us quote Keita who is black yet Winters quotes whites when he wants to build his argument for the race concept, get off your knees and remove your mouth from his penis.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh please neophyte, you are the one who parrots Sforza and Bowcock who merely echo nineteen century racialists. Go read what he says about Khoisan and North Africans and see how that fits with what your claims of debunking "racial theories".
As for your Keita references, it only shows you have no clue as to what he is actually saying or you wouldn't mindlessly cut and paste his reference to Bowcock (1991) from other posters (with mistakes and all!) as if he was in agreement with thier racial divergence theory.
So maybe you aren't really a hypocrite, you just lack the understanding to fully comprehend the studies you gleefully post from off the net. Either way it doesn't look good Charlie.
quote:Mike111 writes: I mean what an eye opener, after all of these centuries of racial strife, and now to find out that there never was any race to begin with, wow!
^ defines tautology.
Mike Mike Mike, when will you ever learn to reason logically?
Excellent parent post Charlie. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ hey sambo, hows about giving us more of those jokes you always tell the board? You know the ones about racial units that are fundamental but the fundamental units that are not racial. lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
^ never claimed they were, so that's not a problem for me.
Ah, this is what we have come to expect from the dishonest little backtracking scum we know on ES as rasolowitz.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
I have exposed you as the forum veteran illiterate many a times. But please, do carry on with your signature frustrated rants. This forum could use a little cheering up.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I thought you said you were gone because it was getting too hot for you? Or is it that saving face is too hard to resist even for beatendown veteran like yourself?!
Now you edit your post from good bye master!!! Can't help saving face eh "veteran"?
quote:Originally posted by rasol: racial units are fundamentalbut fundamental units are not races....logical...This is Keita's position..... This is Keita's position..... This is Keita's position..... I'm not retarded! deeerrr
posted
What's "funny" is Hitler didn't even believe everything he said & even wrote about it [like what he said about the scientific unreality of races and the need to motivate the masses].
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I ruin Jews and their myth making. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic