posted
"The African branch included three sub-Saharan populations, CAR pygmies, Zaire pygmies, and the Lisongo; the Caucasian branch included Northern Europeans and Northern Italians; the Pacific Islander branch included Melanesians, New Guineans and Australians; the East Asian branch included Chinese, Japanese and Cambodians;...Their study [Wilson et al.] was based on cluster analysis using 39 microsatellite loci. Consistent with previous studies, they obtained evidence of four clusters representing the major continental (racial) divisions described above as African, Caucasian, Asian, and Pacific Islander."
Looking at Risch et al. 2002, how is this different from Bowcock (1991) where you obtained your fractions?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Debate without name calling fallas no need to poisend the well so to speak..intresting debate though.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Risch et al. 2002 says "consistent with previous studies" they are referring to Bowcock (1991), the very study used by some to argue the demolition of the racial schema and the one they claim Keita endorses! Talk about lack of comprehension skills!
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yea, speak for yourself with the lack of comprehension since I am not saying Keita endorses it.
What I am saying is that Keita notes their final results-- not methods --as compromising the racial schema since according their final results Europeans (defining "Caucasians") unite two of the so called racial groups.
Proof is in the 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 or race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.--- S.O.Y. Keita Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
its been over year gringo, a year, and you still don't comprehend what he is actually saying in that quote. lol
but please address
quote:Originally posted by Bogle: When Risch et al. 2002 says "consistent with previous studies" they are referring to Bowcock (1991), the very study used by some to argue the demolition of the racial schema and the one they claim Keita endorses! Talk about lack of comprehension skills!
Bowcock uses racial schema, groups stereotypical "races" based on continents, so does Wilson. you choose one not the other, why?
quote:Keita notes their final results-- not methods --as compromising the racial schema since according their final results
Please stop lowering Keita to your level. You can't separate results from methods. Typical latino, you never made it past grade school.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Sighs** Are you kidding me? You must be high or something, because just like a year ago, I already told you what Keita is saying.
Which is...according to Bowcocks Nuclear DNA study results in which Europeans were shown to be 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African. Keita then points out that the results 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African, contradicts the racial schema (which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units) since Europeans being 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African unite two of the so called units Asia and Africa.
After a year gringo jackass, and you still are a sore loser huh?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Keita notes their final results-- not methods --as compromising the racial schema since according their final results
Please stop lowering Keita to your level. You can't separate results from methods. Typical latino, you never made it past grade school.
My level? Lol you're a sad case, I shouldn't be lowering myself to your level but hey, sometimes idiots need to be put in their place.
As Keita notes, which is if Bowcocks interpretation is correct then one of the units (according to the racial schema) is not fundamental.
In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects themPosts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bogle: but please address
quote:Originally posted by Bogle: When Risch et al. 2002 says "consistent with previous studies" they are referring to Bowcock (1991), the very study used by some to argue the demolition of the racial schema and the one they claim Keita endorses! Talk about lack of comprehension skills!
Bowcock uses racial schema, groups stereotypical "races" based on continents, so does Wilson. you choose one not the other, why?
You're illiterate, and after this I have nothing further to say to you.
Im not saying Keita endorses it, and nor do I endorse it..what I am saying is that Keita notes their final results-- not methods --as compromising the racial schema since according their final results Europeans (defining "Caucasians") unite two of the so called racial groups.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Repeating your sad misinterpretations that are at least a year old in no way makes it correct. You never comprehend what you read as we have already seen in another forum you are quite capable of arguing the opposite of what you argue in here (e.g. when neolithic incoming Africans mixed with whites, Asian Europeans, tropical adapted peoples, etc etc). Don't you remember all of that?
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Im not saying Keita endorses it, and nor do I endorse it..what I am saying is that Keita notes their final results-- not methods --as compromising the racial schema since according their final results Europeans (defining "Caucasians") unite two of the so called racial groups.
Gringo, you are showing everyone you never made it past grade school. You cant separate results from method. Go to graduate school (or even undergrad) students doing research with this logic and they will laugh at you.
quote:You're illiterate, and after this I have nothing further to say to you.
I can understand as you seem unable to explain this contradiction of endorsing one study's result based on the racial schema while opposing another result based on same schema.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I notice though gringo, you are now carefully saying that Keita notes their final results. It seems as if you are no longer willing to say he endorses the view that Europeans are "secondary types" (hybrids) which was your (and rasol's) original argument. Remember rasolowitz argued that "secondary type" meant secondary genotype. Go back to Charlie Bass's original thread "Eb3 paper" or something like that and see for yourself.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those of you who don't know, this Bogle character is actually a former poster who went by the name akoben, and the following thread contains 20+ pages of him being schooled on the same subject, while he throws his fesces back and forth distorting and plain simply sore loser attitude. No need for me to delude myself into thinking he'll someday admit to his defeat....
posted
''... 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.
But I thought Europeans arose as a result of northern latitudes?
So the ancestral populations to some Africans and Asians are... whom?
If the ancestrals are ''innerbelt''? Africans then the tongues will be wagging in some evangelical communities, but not all I'm sure, i.e., all humans are directly descended from darkskinned Africans... which means that this ancestral has the built-in dna for this phenotypic variation found all over the globe. Right? Which also makes some aspects of this topic religious doesn't it.
This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates themetaphysical underpinningsof the persisting race construct
What is more metaphysical than the latitude explanation?
Well Spencer Wells didn't commit himself either on the Journey of Man aired on television about three weeks or so ago, where he said humans probably turned lighter. My bolded print is comparable to Wells' audibly forcing the word.
In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.--- S.O.Y. Keita
Then Mr. Keita isn't sure their explanation is sound enough to categorically endorse it?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's indeed always funny and noteworthy how Grumman always comes to the aid out of the woodworks when akoben/bogle is in trouble
I mean seriously, anytime Grumman has made any attempt at a response towards me was something to do with akoben/bogle...
Trying to give bogle/akoben/jackassoben a further chance to spread his ignorance on the subject!
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: ''... 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.
But I thought Europeans arose as a result of northern latitudes?
You're talking about phenotype while we're talking about genotype, the old man corner is that way>>> Grumman the old man dunce!
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Then Mr. Keita isn't sure their explanation is sound enough to categorically endorse it?
Well, Keita is simply noting that if Bowcocks analysis is ultimately correct then Europeans being 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African contradicts the racial schema, since Europeans unite two of the so called units, units, that are identified according to the so called racial schema!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gringo why dont you answer the question? Are you saying he merely "notes" it or does he endorse it? Before you claim Europeans are "secondary types" (hybrids) and Keita endorses it remember? And also, Bowcock uses racial schema, groups stereotypical "races" based on continents, so does Wilson. Yet you choose one not the other, why?
Also, who was it that mixed with the incoming Africans? Your arguments are confusing:
1) a morphologically white population
2) Asians
3) Genetic Asians living in Europe
Instead fo throwing insults to cover for your inability to reconcile your contradictions try to deal with your confusion.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^I digress, but if you want to bring the thread back to life, go ahead, this is where your ignorance, indeed from multiple pages of schooling you, lies...don't bring your year old sore loser debating nonsense into this thread.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: For those of you who don't know, this Bogle character is actually a former poster who went by the name akoben, and the following thread contains 20+ pages of him being schooled on the same subject, while he throws his fesces back and forth distorting and plain simply sore loser attitude. No need for me to delude myself into thinking he'll someday admit to his defeat....
The Genotype/Phenotype Distinction First published Fri Jan 23, 2004 The distinction between phenotype and genotype is fundamental to the understanding of heredity and development of organisms. The genotype of an organism is the class to which that organism belongs as determined by the description of the actual physical material made up of DNA that was passed to the organism by its parents at the organism's conception. For sexually reproducing organisms that physical material consists of the DNA contributed to the fertilized egg by the sperm and egg of its two parents. For asexually reproducing organisms, for example bacteria, the inherited material is a direct copy of the DNA of its parent. The phenotype of an organism is the class to which that organism belongs as determined by the description of the physical and behavioral characteristics of the organism, for example its size and shape, its metabolic activities and its pattern of movement.
It is essential to distinguish the descriptors of the organism, its genotype and phenotype, from the material objects that are being described. The genotype is the descriptor of the genome which is the set of physical DNA molecules inherited from the organism's parents. The phenotype is the descriptor of the phenome, the manifest physical properties of the organism, its physiology, morphology and behavior.
The concepts of phenotype and genotype also demand the distinction between types and tokens. As the words “genotype” and “phenotype” suggest, these are types, sets of which any given organism and its genome are members, sets defined by their physical description.Any individual organism and its genome are members of those sets, tokens of those types.
MindoverMatter718... are you still prepared to separate those two entities from each other? You will recall they both are biological. Now you can jump up and down and shout all day about your separating the two but you can't get away with it. The rest of the (unposted) lengthy article goes into much more detail, and I have to admit the capability to spin away is evident. But you can't separate them because they are intertwined.Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: MindoverMatter718... are you still prepared to separate those two entities from each other? You will recall they both are biological. Now you can jump up and down and shout all day about your separating the two but you can't get away with it. The rest of the (unposted) lengthy article goes into much more detail, and I have to admit the capability to spin away is evident. But you can't separate them because they are intertwined.
Lol **Sighs** It's not disconnecting phenotype from genotype so you make no sense you dim bulb.
Grumman, you said:
"But I thought Europeans arose as a result of northern latitudes?"
^^Europeans pale phenotype is indeed partly due to northern latitudes, but their genes come from somewhere else, not Europe, which is being noted.
Europeans didn't arise poof out of the sky because northern latitudes magically creates Europeans.
Their genes descend from Africans who left Africa to populate the world, in this case Asia, where mutations arose in the Y and Mtdna chromosomes, and Africans directly from Africa.
Their are no underived uni-parentals that arose in Europe as noted above, but their pale phenotype did, and it was after settling Europe that their phenotype did change partly as a result of northern latitudes.
Understand? I'm not separating genotype and phenotype.
Hence the context of the following quote that befuddled you from Keita...
'... 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."
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grumman, believe me, its no use arguing with gringo about genotype and phenotype, go to the link and you will see how much of missmatch of befuddled reasoning he is capable of: from positing a population of Euro Asians resembling (to justify Bowcock's Chinese sample) to a population not white or black waiting to mix with incoming Africans. The guy is notorious for misreading studies like thinking Berber genetic intermediates is due to hybridisation; apart from of course not being sure what population incoming neolithic Africans mixed with in Europe.
He thinks Europeans are a "hybrids", secondary type, the result of admixture between already differentiated populations (i.e. "races" we know today) from Africa and Asia. What he still doesn't understand is that Keita is not endorsing this view but pointing out the persistence of racial thinking in post-Coonian scholarship. Its over a year and he hasn't understood the significance of the title! lol
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lmao at the deceitful lying clowns on this board, such sour sore losers...
For everyone else who has a brain this post is for you, as you all can see it was already made clear that I, nor Keita was/is endorsing it.
What is said ad nauseum is that nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. That is if Bowcocks results are correct then this compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, since Europeans being 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African, Europeans (defining "Caucasians"), unites two of the so called units.
Hence why nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities.
^^Plain and simple, clear as day, no need to further elaborate because this has been and still is what it is.
This clown bogle/akoben is just a defeated sore loser and loves to argue just for the sake of it bringing up year old arguments, he does this by inserting distortions, acting like he doesn't know what's being said, and asking a whole bunch of dumb questions, similar to his sockpuppet oops, I mean this other guy Grumman.
Nothing new.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: nor Keita was/is endorsing it.
Oh my god! You finally admit! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Yes gringo, Keita does not see them as "secondary types" or "hybrids". It seems the experience has indeed made a positive impact on you. Frankly, it doesn't matter much that you are now denying your original argument. You know what you said, it is there in the threads. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
MindoverMatter718 - I was torn between akoben and Sungjata, but decided to go with Sungjata because of the tone. But it seems you might be right, certain phrases say akoben.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: MindoverMatter718 - I was torn between akoben and Sungjata, but decided to go with Sungjata because of the tone. But it seems you might be right, certain phrases say akoben.
Yes indeed he is akoben a.k.a jackassoben the undercover Euro-centrist..
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gringo, you can get off on your fractions based on Coonian sampling methods all you want, but don't misrepresent Keita, he does not agree with you or your white genecists you love to quote with such reckless abandon.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
''Lol **Sighs** It's not disconnecting phenotype from genotype so you make no sense you dim bulb.''
But you disconnected phenotype from genotype when you said you weren't talking about Phenotype.
The lamp in my pc room (with all the books) has one(1) 200 watt bulb. A bulb that allows me to see and read much better because the light isn't dim. I only paid $3 for it. That's cheap considering the benefit you get from all that light.
''Europeans didn't arise poof out of the sky because northern latitudes magically creates Europeans.''
Yeah, that would be like creationism... wouldn't it.
''Their genes descend from Africans who left Africa to populate the world, in this case Asia, where mutations arose in the Y and Mtdna chromosomes, and Africans directly from Africa.''
So instead of relying somewhat on latitude you are admitting to mutations that ''arose'' in Y and Mtdna and that those two are really responsible for the change? Looks like a scientific explanation to me. So are you saying Y and Mtdna are the ''caucasians'' after all? If you are then you are throwing religion back into the mix since humans are out of Africa and the religious community says, or nearly so, everyone came from one. Well I don't subscribe to out of one, (human that is) came all; it raises too many psychological questions.
''Their are no underived uni-parentals that arose in Europe as noted above, but their pale phenotype did, and it was after settling Europe that their phenotype did change partly as a result of northern latitudes.''
How long after settling Europe did their appearance change? Was it 40,000 years ago or 5,000 to 6,000 years, according to those whom profess to know?
''Understand? I'm not separating genotype and phenotype.''
Can I get an amen up in here.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL @ Grumman's humor. The old man has you on the ropes with his annoying questions doesnt he gringo?
But be careful how you answer "How long after settling Europe did their appearance change?" as you are on record for giving at least two different accounts: 1. when incoming neolithic Africans migrated into Europe they mixed with morphologically white population; 2. when incoming neolithic Africans migrated into Europe they mixed with an "Asian derived" population not black anymore BUT not yet white! LOL
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: MindoverMatter718 says,
''Lol **Sighs** It's not disconnecting phenotype from genotype so you make no sense you dim bulb.''
But you disconnected phenotype from genotype when you said you weren't talking about Phenotype.
No Grumman, I was informing you that the quote you responded to wasn't saying that Europeans pale skin phenotype arose due to admixture between Asians and Africans, so your latitude comment (which has to do with their phenotype) was irrelevant to what was being said in the quote.
You responded to:
'... 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.--Keita
by saying...
"But I thought Europeans arose as a result of northern latitudes?",
^^No Grumman, the quote isn't talking about their phenotype such as pale skin, which would then be relevant to what you said about northern latitudes.
So again, when you said:
"I thought Europeans arose out of northern latitudes"
To the quote from Keita, you were obviously confused, and I corrected you!
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: ''Their genes descend from Africans who left Africa to populate the world, in this case Asia, where mutations arose in the Y and Mtdna chromosomes, and Africans directly from Africa.''
So instead of relying somewhat on latitude you are admitting to mutations that ''arose'' in Y and Mtdna and that those two are really responsible for the change?
No Einstein, I was explaining to you how some uni-parentals after they left Africa and went off into Asia mutated into derivatives which then those lineages became Asian, and is how we are able to note population movements. I.e haplogroup E is African and J is southwest Asian. Both present in the European population.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Looks like a scientific explanation to me. So are you saying Y and Mtdna are the ''caucasians'' after all?
Huh what? You make no sense...
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: ''Their are no underived uni-parentals that arose in Europe as noted above, but their pale phenotype did, and it was after settling Europe that their phenotype did change partly as a result of northern latitudes.''
How long after settling Europe did their appearance change? Was it 40,000 years ago or 5,000 to 6,000 years, according to those whom profess to know?
A gradual process as explained to you before on several occasions, alleles such as SLC24A5 111*A allele and MATP 374*G have been found by geneticists to have mutated recently which are noted to be responsible for pale skin in Europeans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ so gringo now that you admit Keita wasn't endorsing Bowcocks "hybrid theory", merely "noting" it, who was it that met the incoming Africans during the neolothic: morphologically white population or "Asian derived" humans not black anymore but not white as yet?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
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 ofadmixturebetween already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians.
Does the italicized type mixed in with the bold mean anything to you? If you agree with it, maybe not, then why did you post this:
''No Grumman, I was informing you that the quote you responded to wasn't saying that Europeans pale skin phenotype arose due to admixture between Asians and Africans,
Yes I know, you are saying phenoype comes from latitude; although now you aren't as confident as you were several months back; read your posts above.
I say genetics prove phenotype, you say latitude (Osirion notes that it can be ''block -by-block'' evolution). Genetics sounds like science to me. So again, you are distancing genotype from phenotype with your spin.
''A gradual process as explained to you before on several occasions, alleles such as SLC24A5 111*A allele and MATP 374*G have been found by geneticists to have mutated recently which are noted to be responsible for pale skin in Europeans.''
Not so fast junior. Are you certain they said ''responsible''? I don't recall they did. Correlative evidence 'suggests' they did. Besides if you read the article again they said there may be more genes, which they don't know of, that may be involved in the process.
And, are you certain that the mutation rate has been found? The much earlier article noted the geneticist says she felt that the mutation rate didn't quite add up (I say she went to Walmart and bought a new pencil with a better eraser) and figured that many thousands of years for mutations was too much and didn't fit and later settled on 6,000 to 12,000 years for the pale skin (that is, after purchasing that Walmart pencil). (Actually that figure has been shaved off by hundreds of years since that comment.)
Bogle asks MindoverMatter718:
''so gringo now that you admit Keita wasn't endorsing Bowcocks "hybrid theory", merely "noting" it, who was it that met the incoming Africans during the neolothic: morphologically white population or "Asian derived" humans not black anymore but not white as yet?''
He wouldn't answer it for me so why would he answer it for you; he hates you worse than me. Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Mindovermatter718's post:
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 ofadmixturebetween already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians.
Does the italicized type mixed in with the bold mean anything to you? If you agree with it, maybe not, then why did you post this:
''No Grumman, I was informing you that the quote you responded to wasn't saying that Europeans pale skin phenotype arose due to admixture between Asians and Africans,
Yes I know, you are saying phenoype comes from latitude; although now you aren't as confident as you were several months back; read your posts above.
You're an idiot lol. You mentioned northern latitudes towards a quote which was not in reference to phenotype, get it?
Northern latitude has to do with the pale skinned phenotype of Europeans, and not with who populated Europe, which the quote that you mentioned latitude towards, was noting, so again you made no sense. Get it?
But then again, when do you ever? Nothing new!
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: I say genetics prove phenotype,
No, you mentioned latitude towards a quote talking about the people who populated Europe.
But latitude influenced things such as pale skin, latitude has nothing to do, and doesn't tell us about who populated Europe.
You mentioned latitude making Europeans arise, if you weren't talking about their pale skin, then what was it, jackass?
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: you say latitude (Osirion notes that it can be ''block -by-block'' evolution).
Latitude influenced mutations in genetics dumb dumb.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Genetics sounds like science to me.
It is.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: So again, you are distancing genotype from phenotype with your spin.
No I'm not, I was letting you know the quote had nothing to do with pale skin phenotype, which is the only way latitude would be relevant you dunce.
Your dumb ass thinks Europeans arose out of thin air due to being in northern latitudes.
Jeez you're an idiot.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: ''A gradual process as explained to you before on several occasions, alleles such as SLC24A5 111*A allele and MATP 374*G have been found by geneticists to have mutated recently which are noted to be responsible for pale skin in Europeans.''
Not so fast junior. Are you certain they said ''responsible''? I don't recall they did. Correlative evidence 'suggests' they did. Besides if you read the article again they said there may be more genes, which they don't know of, that may be involved in the process.
And, are you certain that the mutation rate has been found? The much earlier article noted the geneticist says she felt that the mutation rate didn't quite add up (I say she went to Walmart and bought a new pencil with a better eraser) and figured that many thousands of years for mutations was too much and didn't fit and later settled on 6,000 to 12,000 years for the pale skin (that is, after purchasing that Walmart pencil). (Actually that figure has been shaved off by hundreds of years since that comment.)
You see old dunce, the problem is you read articles and pick apart what the columnist notes, while I read studies and post the scientist quote...
"The differences between Europeans and non-Europeans for the MATP 374*G and SLC24A5 111*A alleles (both derived alleles associated with lighter pigmentation). "-- Norton, Kittles et al...
^^....and I was giving you an example with two alleles not saying those are the only two alleles.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no need for me to repeat to you what you are mangling so I'll stop that part now.
And the skin color article posted on this website many times says what the geneticists said about light skin in ''Caucasians''.
You said: ''....and I was giving you an example with two alleles not saying those are the only two alleles.''
So you went back and read your article and cleared up your confusion after I pointed it out to you. Your confusion stemmed not from me but your citing just those two alleles when the same article on this website says there may be more genes/alleles. Translation: there is no clearcut information on what happens in skin color change MindoverMatter718; not even your cherished latitude/phenotype change. A lot of geneticists I'm sure recognize that yet you take their information and maneuver it all over the place.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grumman, why are you so obsessed with Race? Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not concerned about it, it just needs to be discussed; trying to clear the air so to speak.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grumman, you know you were wrong in the first place with your latitude comment towards something that had absolutely nothing to do with pale skin of Europeans....which would of then made your latitude comment relevant.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: You said: ''....and I was giving you an example with two alleles not saying those are the only two alleles.''
So you went back and read your article and cleared up your confusion after I pointed it out to you.
No Grumman, you read articles, that's why you're confused.
I've read the study and discussed it plenty of times.
You like to argue about what the columnists wrote in the articles.
While ignoring the actual study.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Your confusion stemmed not from me but your citing just those two alleles when the same article on this website says there may be more genes/alleles.
No Grumman, your confusion stems from you only reading the article from the NY Times, the actual information comes from a genetic study, and like I pointed out to you, there are indeed alleles identified, and I gave you an example.
Note the following study if you'd like...
Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians-- Heather L. Norton1,8, Rick A. Kittles
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Translation: there is no clearcut information on what happens in skin color change
Translation, Grumman only reads articles and thinks that is definitive truth while picking apart what the article from a columnist in the NY times posted about said study.
But in reality I think Grumman should read the study and then reply.
There is clearcut information as noted you can read the study I gave you above, here's a quote;
"Polymorphisms in two genes, ASIP and OCA2, may play a shared role in shaping light and dark pigmentation across the globe while SLC24A5, MATP, and TYR have a predominant role in the evolution of light skin in Europeans but not in East Asians. These findings support a case for the recent convergent evolution of a lighter pigmentation phenotype in Europeans and East Asians."
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: MindoverMatter718; not even your cherished latitude/phenotype change.
My cherished latitude and phenotype change?
You dunce, it's what scientific information keeps evidencing.
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: A lot of geneticists I'm sure recognize that yet you take their information and maneuver it all over the place.
No I don't maneuver any information incorrectly, what I post is what's said by geneticists, not columnists, and I understand it, you don't, hence why you're always so damn confused.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: So you went back and read your article and cleared up your confusion after I pointed it out to you. Your confusion stemmed not from me but your citing just those two alleles when the same article on this website says there may be more genes/alleles. Translation: there is no clearcut information on what happens in skin color change MindoverMatter718; not even your cherished latitude/phenotype change. A lot of geneticists I'm sure recognize that yet you take their information and maneuver it all over the place.
The guy does this all the time! Believe me when I say he is known for misreading studies and then going off into some far out lunatic deductive logic spree.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ You really don't know that do you? Have you asked him? Turk? Really? He could just be indigenous Egyptian - pure. What are you basing your assesment on - his color? 3000 yeaars. Its been 3000 years for crying out loud. Egyptians can evolve you know - change....climate....diet....culture.....etc!
My God people. Phenotype changes! Its not static.
Most Egyptians are dark. Not many people in the Gulf or Lebanon would stand out in Egypt. It's just in the West, somehow, everyone in the region are assumed to be Lebanese-looking.
Gulf Arabs, also, do not look like more "typical" Arab population with the West. Egyptians resemble Africans (culturally as well) than the dark skinned Asiatic populations.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: So you went back and read your article and cleared up your confusion after I pointed it out to you. Your confusion stemmed not from me but your citing just those two alleles when the same article on this website says there may be more genes/alleles. Translation: there is no clearcut information on what happens in skin color change MindoverMatter718; not even your cherished latitude/phenotype change. A lot of geneticists I'm sure recognize that yet you take their information and maneuver it all over the place.
The guy does this all the time! Believe me when I say he is known for misreading studies and then going off into some far out lunatic deductive logic spree.
Can you even read? The paper released on Science regarding SLC24A5 derivative is legitimate. Show us how the papers are being misread and provide evidence to back your position.
Pale skin developed recently in North Asia and was precipitated by diet and thicker clothing. It is a method that arose to maximize Vitamin D production. I could upload that study as well and it'd be interesting to see the data set involving various ethnic groups.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
MindoverMatter your link, which had been posted on this site a couple of times in the past two years, a post I already took issue with because it didn't serve to prove as an undeniable fact what the article thinks is true. Strong positive correlation is just that. It is not the evidence you need to support your position as categorical support.
I've taken the liberty to reword it for you, just as I did before you showed up on this website.
Human skin pigmentation showsundeniable and positive evidencewith ultraviolet radiation (UVR) intensity, leaving no doubtthat variation in skin color is, not due to natural selection, nor any other method that can be questioned, as this information says what we have to know, under the microscope, to come to this conclusion. We investigated the evolution of pigmentation variation by testing for the presence of positive directional selection in six pigmentation genes using an empirical FST approach, through an examination of global diversity patterns of these genes in the CEPH-Diversity Panel, and by exploring signaturesof known datafrom the International HapMap project. Additionally, we demonstrated a role for MATP in determining normal skin pigmentation variation using admixture mapping methods. Taken together (with the results of previous admixture mapping studies), these results point to the importance of several genes in shaping the pigmentation phenotype and anow understood, simple evolutionary history not involving strong selection, nor any kind of selection for that matter. Polymorphisms in two genes, ASIP and OCA2, we now know as established fact via other investigative procedures, procedures to complex to grasp, have played, and are playing as we speak, a shared rolein shaping light and dark pigmentation across the globe while SLC24A5, MATP, and TYR have a predominant role in the evolution of light skin in Europeans but not in East Asians. These findings support a case for therecent convergent evolution of a lighter pigmentation phenotype in Europeans and East Asians.
If the ancestor in convergent evolution isn't common, and it isn't, according to, then you are saying Asians and Europeans aren't connected to Africans... even after you say they are. If you cling to it then you are saying Africans and Asians and Europeans are only related because they are human beings, not from the same outfit. Which makes sense to me.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
''Pale skin developed recently in North Asia and was precipitated by diet and thicker clothing. It is a method that arose to maximize Vitamin D production. I could upload that study as well and it'd be interesting to see the data set involving various ethnic groups.''
No need to upload anything as it has been an issue before you came on this site. Unless and until undeniable evidence can surface then it is still up for grabs.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Artist says: ''I didn't say you were concerned, I said you're obsessed.
What does it profit you?
Okay, you did say obsessed. Are you saying obsessed with no intent at an explanation? Or is it easier for you to not know?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: ''Pale skin developed recently in North Asia and was precipitated by diet and thicker clothing. It is a method that arose to maximize Vitamin D production. I could upload that study as well and it'd be interesting to see the data set involving various ethnic groups.''
No need to upload anything as it has been an issue before you came on this site. Unless and until undeniable evidence can surface then it is still up for grabs.
Bogle, post your picture right now. Let's end this bullshit right now. I know you're white.
Europeans originated from North Asia. R1b in the part of the world <10kya. It could be implied due to a general, East-to-West expansion, South-North expansion, along with thicker clothing, North West Eurasian origin is implied.
There is no evidence that it arose within the African continent. Please provide that evidence right now. Most papers point out climate as being an important factor.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: MindoverMatter your link, which had been posted on this site a couple of times in the past two years, a post I already took issue with because it didn't serve to prove as an undeniable fact what the article thinks is true. Strong positive correlation is just that. It is not the evidence you need to support your position as categorical support.
I've taken the liberty to reword it for you, just as I did before you showed up on this website.
Human skin pigmentation showsundeniable and positive evidencewith ultraviolet radiation (UVR) intensity, leaving no doubtthat variation in skin color is, not due to natural selection, nor any other method that can be questioned, as this information says what we have to know, under the microscope, to come to this conclusion. We investigated the evolution of pigmentation variation by testing for the presence of positive directional selection in six pigmentation genes using an empirical FST approach, through an examination of global diversity patterns of these genes in the CEPH-Diversity Panel, and by exploring signaturesof known datafrom the International HapMap project. Additionally, we demonstrated a role for MATP in determining normal skin pigmentation variation using admixture mapping methods. Taken together (with the results of previous admixture mapping studies), these results point to the importance of several genes in shaping the pigmentation phenotype and anow understood, simple evolutionary history not involving strong selection, nor any kind of selection for that matter. Polymorphisms in two genes, ASIP and OCA2, we now know as established fact via other investigative procedures, procedures to complex to grasp, have played, and are playing as we speak, a shared rolein shaping light and dark pigmentation across the globe while SLC24A5, MATP, and TYR have a predominant role in the evolution of light skin in Europeans but not in East Asians. These findings support a case for therecent convergent evolution of a lighter pigmentation phenotype in Europeans and East Asians.
If the ancestor in convergent evolution isn't common, and it isn't, according to, then you are saying Asians and Europeans aren't connected to Africans... even after you say they are. If you cling to it then you are saying Africans and Asians and Europeans are only related because they are human beings, not from the same outfit. Which makes sense to me.
Here we go with the semantics...
Grumman no need to reword the original abstract (like akoben/bogle does with everything, not just abstracts), it says clearly that ultraviolet light shows strong positive correlation with human skin color variation, which suggests that the variation in skin color is atleast partially due to this via selection.
They're not saying there weren't other factors which came into play, such as the change in diet from hunter gatherer to agro-pastoralists, that's what is meant by at least partially due to ultraviolet radiation.
And of course they are all from the same outfit genius, how do you think the geneticists have been able to establish the six genes studied in the African, Asian, and European populations in the first place?
They don't have different genes, it's simply that within these six genes there were different mutations within these populations.
It wasn't one gene tested in European and two in Asian or 3 in African and some populations didn't have one of the six genes tested, its that there are derived mutations, all populations mentioned had these same six pigmentation genes analyzed.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, where did I "reword" the Norton, Kittles abstract? Please keep in mind that it is you who have yet to reconcile within yourself just who the incoming neolithic Africans mixed with in Europe: a morphologically white population or "Asian derived" humans not black anymore but not white as yet. lol
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bogle: Ah, where did I "reword" the Norton, Kittles abstract? Please keep in mind that it is you who have yet to reconcile within yourself just who the incoming neolithic Africans mixed with in Europe: a morphologically white population or "Asian derived" humans not black anymore but not white as yet. lol
I don't get what you're even trying to point out. The "white" population is a relatively recent population. The darker-skinned paleolithic European-based populations prior the expansion of agriculture likely developed a cold adapted body plain due to the cold climate.
Grumman, do you belong to an arts backgrounds? The term 'suggest' vs definition terms is used because of the dynamic nature of the sciences. It is not like the arts, where a Truth exists.
Pointing that out seems rather unnecessary. The truth is, from what we see, Europeans developed their pale skin quite early. Stop reading psuedo-intellectual popular media sources and look strictly at academic sources.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bogle: When Risch et al. 2002 says "consistent with previous studies" they are referring to Bowcock (1991), the very study used by some to argue the demolition of the racial schema and the one they claim Keita endorses! Talk about lack of comprehension skills!
You're mixing up methodology and result. Both aren't same. One can be used the affirm a position, while the other cannot.
Why not post a result from Bowcock studies, which suggests that race DOES exist? This is the first time I've seen methodology being used as evidence.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Check your link Bob_01. It isn't direct. I need no membership.
''Grumman, do you belong to an arts backgrounds?''
No.
''The term 'suggest' vs definition terms is used because of the dynamic nature of the sciences.''
...which means science is still trying to find out. Good, glad to read that.
''It is not like the arts, where a Truth exists.''
If the artists' work is critiqued and an agreement is reached between artists' on what constitutes the truth then yes it is a truth for them. So the moral is the artist sticks to his/her world where there is no question whether it is a truth.
''The truth is, from what we see, Europeans developed their pale skin quite early.''
Early as in 5,000 to 6,000 years ago? Just asking.
''Stop reading psuedo-intellectual popular media sources and look strictly at academic sources.''
An intellectual can be just that... until he or she says something you don't like... and that turns them into psuedo-intellectuals... after reading the same material produced by the disease-free intellectuals?
Hmmm, I have a psuedo-intellectual library around here some place, you know, the kind with the point-counter-point stuff. It just may have one of your favorite names in it too. Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
its been over year gringo, a year, and you still don't comprehend what he is actually saying in that quote. lol![[Wink]](wink.gif)
if you want to bring the thread back to life, go ahead, this is where your ignorance, indeed from multiple pages of schooling you, lies...don't bring your year old sore loser debating nonsense into this thread.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic