posted                      

quote:

---

can be reduced to simple statistical partitions has limited our understanding of diversity and thwarted training in biological anthropology. For example, a current textbook (Boyd and Silk 2000) states, “Geneticists computed the amount of variation in
these characters within each local group, among groups within each race, and among the races. They found that there is much more genetic variation within local groups than there is among local groups or among races themselves. Differences within local groups account for about 85% of all the variation in the human
species. To put this another way, suppose a malevolent extraterrestrial wiped out the entire human species except for one local group, which it preserved in an extraterrestrial zoo. The alien could pick any local group at random—the Efe, the Inuit, the citizens of Ames, Iowa, or the people of Patagonia—and then wipe out the rest of the humans on the planet. This group would still contain on average 85% of the genetic variation that exists in the entire human species.” However, our analysis indicates that it would make a great difference which group is
chosen. For example, no gene diversity would be lost if the Sokoto were chosen while nearly one-third would be lost by choosing the subpopulation from Papua New Guinea. It is important to point out here that the rich genetic diversity within Africans is a robust finding that is not peculiar to the loci or specific samples analyzed here. Recently, Yu et al. (2002) assayed nucleotide substitutions in 50
randomly chosen noncoding DNA segments (~500 base pairs) in 30 individuals: 10 Africans, 10 Europeans, and 10 Asians. The subjects within each continent were chosen widely from dispersed geographic locations. Interestingly, nucleotide
diversity was greater within the Africans than within either Asians or Europeans. More importantly, the nucleotide diversity was greater within Africans than between Europeans and Asians.

---

quote:

---

Now, with more genetic data and more populations sampled, we are able to revisit the race problem with greater accuracy. Recently, my colleagues and I have tested the usefulness of race as a way to describe genetic differences among populations by contrasting the results of racial classification with those from generalized
hierarchical models (Long et al. 2009). Race fails! Figure 3 diagrams the contrast for a data set consisting of complete DNA sequences for 64 autosomal loci (38,000 bp total). Four resequenced individuals represent each population. A summary of the major problems with using race are as follows. First, imposing
the classically defined race structure on populations causes us to estimate less diversity for the species as a whole than does allowing all populations to link back to a common base population in an unrestricted hierarchy. Second, using the race pattern causes us to estimate excess diversity within non-sub- Saharan African populations, but it estimates a deficit of diversity within sub-Saharan African populations. Third, the supposition of races forces all continental populations to diverge equally from a single ancestral node, whereas an unrestricted hierarchy places the basal split within Africa. Fourth, in the classical race framework European and Asian populations diverge from African populations independently, but the unrestricted hierarchy shows that European and East Asian populations link together before either links to sub-Saharan Africans

---

Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^^
Stop playing games Lioness, you know damn well I don't uphold Negro or Mongoloid.

Race does not exist on a Biological Level Lioness this is a very basic fact of modern Biology and Anthroplogy etc. Anyone who uses such terms and calls them selves or their blog "Anthropology" is misleading and has an Agenda.

---

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

"The reader must assume, as apparently do the authors, that the "coarseness" or "fineness" of hair can readily distinguish races and that hair is dichotomized into these categories. Problematically, however, virtually all who have studied hair morphology in relation to race since the 1920’s to the present have rejected such a characterization .. Hausman, as early as 1925, stated that it is "not possible to identify individuals from samples of their hair, basing identification upon histological similarities in the structure of scales and medullas, since these may differ in hairs from the same head or in different parts of the same hair". Rook (1975) pointed out nearly 50 years later out that "Negroid and Caucasoid hair" are "chemically indistinguishable".

---

Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
[QB] /QB]

---

Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:


Some on ES have suggested that Caucasians shouldn't have a separate category that they are hybrids of Negroids and Asians.

---

I've seen the result of negroids that have mixed with asians, the offspring doesn't look the typical caucasian.

Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Your reading comprehension is low so I will post again..

Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races

Jeffrey C. Long1 and Rick A. Kittles2 (2003)


Update to Long and Kittles’s “Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races” (2003): Fixation on an Index

Jeffrey C. Long1 (2010)


Where is the Rebuttal to the above..

the only "Valid" thing you posted is..

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sfroza made in 1994..Fail

The Rest of your B.S does not adress the above

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
[QB] /QB]

---

---

Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

You offer no rebuttal nothing but outsated spams..

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza debunks your premise, as Europeans according to him are Asian/African Hybrids..




You have not even posted an article, the link you posted is not an Article..

quote:

---

Summary

Promoting biological sameness in humans is illogical, even dangerous
To ignore the possibility of group diversity is to do poor science and poor medicine
A robust moral position is one that embraces this diversity as among humanity's great assets

---

quote:

---

can be reduced to simple statistical partitions has limited our understanding of diversity and thwarted training in biological anthropology. For example, a current textbook (Boyd and Silk 2000) states, “Geneticists computed the amount of variation in
these characters within each local group, among groups within each race, and among the races. They found that there is much more genetic variation within local groups than there is among local groups or among races themselves. Differences within local groups account for about 85% of all the variation in the human
species. To put this another way, suppose a malevolent extraterrestrial wiped out the entire human species except for one local group, which it preserved in an extraterrestrial zoo. The alien could pick any local group at random—the Efe, the Inuit, the citizens of Ames, Iowa, or the people of Patagonia—and then wipe out the rest of the humans on the planet. This group would still contain on average 85% of the genetic variation that exists in the entire human species.” However, our analysis indicates that it would make a great difference which group is
chosen. For example, no gene diversity would be lost if the Sokoto were chosen while nearly one-third would be lost by choosing the subpopulation from Papua New Guinea. It is important to point out here that the rich genetic diversity within Africans is a robust finding that is not peculiar to the loci or specific samples analyzed here. Recently, Yu et al. (2002) assayed nucleotide substitutions in 50
randomly chosen noncoding DNA segments (~500 base pairs) in 30 individuals: 10 Africans, 10 Europeans, and 10 Asians. The subjects within each continent were chosen widely from dispersed geographic locations. Interestingly, nucleotide
diversity was greater within the Africans than within either Asians or Europeans. More importantly, the nucleotide diversity was greater within Africans than between Europeans and Asians.

---

quote:

---

Now, with more genetic data and more populations sampled, we are able to revisit the race problem with greater accuracy. Recently, my colleagues and I have tested the usefulness of race as a way to describe genetic differences among populations by contrasting the results of racial classification with those from generalized
hierarchical models (Long et al. 2009). Race fails! Figure 3 diagrams the contrast for a data set consisting of complete DNA sequences for 64 autosomal loci (38,000 bp total). Four resequenced individuals represent each population. A summary of the major problems with using race are as follows. First, imposing
the classically defined race structure on populations causes us to estimate less diversity for the species as a whole than does allowing all populations to link back to a common base population in an unrestricted hierarchy. Second, using the race pattern causes us to estimate excess diversity within non-sub- Saharan African populations, but it estimates a deficit of diversity within sub-Saharan African populations. Third, the supposition of races forces all continental populations to diverge equally from a single ancestral node, whereas an unrestricted hierarchy places the basal split within Africa. Fourth, in the classical race framework European and Asian populations diverge from African populations independently, but the unrestricted hierarchy shows that European and East Asian populations link together before either links to sub-Saharan Africans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
[QB] /QB]

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
Above you claimed what i posted is 'outdated' from the 19th century. Completely wrong, it is from modern anthropology and forensic science papers. As far as these experts are concerned, Caucasoid is a legitimate racial classification based on their distinct crania and phenotypic traits. Contrary to what you posted these sources also reveal that hair is useful in determining race. Different races have different hair follicle shapes, which effects the hair texture and growth.

---

Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

Is this what you call a peer review study, retarded redneck?

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
Caucasoid is scientifically valid and is used in racial typology within physical antrhopology and forensic science.

There are specific Caucasoid traits of course only found in Caucasoids, one being the nasal sill.

Carefully observe the base of the nasal aperture [nasal cavity or opening]. With your pencil … resting against the bone of the maxilla just below the nasal opening, try to run the pencil … gently into the nasal opening. In Caucasoids there is usually a dam (nasal sill) that will stop the … pencil. In Negroid skulls there is no dam or nasal sill, and the pen[cil] easily will glide into the nasal aperture. (Bass 1986:83)

Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Negroid differences -

nasal index

Caucasoid - less than 48, leptorrhinic (narrow)
Mongoloid - greater than 53, platyrrhinic (wide)
Negroid - 48 to 53, mesorrhinic (intermediate)

nasal cavity shape

Caucasoid - tear shaped
Mongoloid - oval shaped
Negroid - rounded and wide

Sagittal contour

Caucasoid - arched
Mongoloid - arched
Negroid - flat

Wormian bones

Caucasoid - absent
Mongoloid - present
Negroid - absent

Many more here:

http://www.revisionrhinoplasty.com/anatomy.html

Caucasoids in general are defined by their orthognathic faces (no prognathism), thin leptorrhinic noses, tear-shaped nasal cavity, 'wavy'-straight hair and light pigmentation (pale white to olive).

---

@ this retarded redneck.


Negroid - 48 to 53, mesorrhinic (intermediate)



There goes your racist theory.

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Simple Girl:
These idiots don't know what they are talking about.Does the offspring of a black African and an Asian look like a typical blonde haired Swede?

---

Copycat, at times yes.



Is it a miracle?

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Your reading comprehension is low so I will post again..

Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races

Jeffrey C. Long1 and Rick A. Kittles2 (2003)


Update to Long and Kittles’s “Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races” (2003): Fixation on an Index

Jeffrey C. Long1 (2010)


Where is the Rebuttal to the above..

the only "Valid" thing you posted is..

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sfroza made in 1994..Fail

The Rest of your B.S does not adress the above

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
[QB] /QB]

---

---

This is a 2009 paper written claiming races are a biological reality -

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/full/461726a.html

There is a whole tun of similar scientific articles as so forth which have reached the same conclusions.

Its not up to race believers to prove race exists. The same would be to ask someone to prove the world is a globe.

The people who need evidence are the race deniers as they are challenging an orthodox view.

---

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
You offer no rebuttal nothing but outsated spams..

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza debunks your premise, as Europeans according to him are Asian/African Hybrids..




You have not even posted an article, the link you posted is not an Article..

quote:

---

Summary

Promoting biological sameness in humans is illogical, even dangerous
To ignore the possibility of group diversity is to do poor science and poor medicine
A robust moral position is one that embraces this diversity as among humanity's great assets

---

This does not even come close to debunking

1) Genetic Variation is greater within groups than between so called races..

quote:

---

can be reduced to simple statistical partitions has limited our understanding of diversity and thwarted training in biological anthropology. For example, a current textbook (Boyd and Silk 2000) states, “Geneticists computed the amount of variation in
these characters within each local group, among groups within each race, and among the races. They found that there is much more genetic variation within local groups than there is among local groups or among races themselves. Differences within local groups account for about 85% of all the variation in the human
species. To put this another way, suppose a malevolent extraterrestrial wiped out the entire human species except for one local group, which it preserved in an extraterrestrial zoo. The alien could pick any local group at random—the Efe, the Inuit, the citizens of Ames, Iowa, or the people of Patagonia—and then wipe out the rest of the humans on the planet. This group would still contain on average 85% of the genetic variation that exists in the entire human species.” However, our analysis indicates that it would make a great difference which group is
chosen. For example, no gene diversity would be lost if the Sokoto were chosen while nearly one-third would be lost by choosing the subpopulation from Papua New Guinea. It is important to point out here that the rich genetic diversity within Africans is a robust finding that is not peculiar to the loci or specific samples analyzed here. Recently, Yu et al. (2002) assayed nucleotide substitutions in 50
randomly chosen noncoding DNA segments (~500 base pairs) in 30 individuals: 10 Africans, 10 Europeans, and 10 Asians. The subjects within each continent were chosen widely from dispersed geographic locations. Interestingly, nucleotide
diversity was greater within the Africans than within either Asians or Europeans. More importantly, the nucleotide diversity was greater within Africans than between Europeans and Asians.

---

Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races

Jeffrey C. Long1 and Rick A. Kittles2 (2003)


Disprove the greatest variation is between Africans..

quote:

---

Now, with more genetic data and more populations sampled, we are able to revisit the race problem with greater accuracy. Recently, my colleagues and I have tested the usefulness of race as a way to describe genetic differences among populations by contrasting the results of racial classification with those from generalized
hierarchical models (Long et al. 2009). Race fails! Figure 3 diagrams the contrast for a data set consisting of complete DNA sequences for 64 autosomal loci (38,000 bp total). Four resequenced individuals represent each population. A summary of the major problems with using race are as follows. First, imposing
the classically defined race structure on populations causes us to estimate less diversity for the species as a whole than does allowing all populations to link back to a common base population in an unrestricted hierarchy. Second, using the race pattern causes us to estimate excess diversity within non-sub- Saharan African populations, but it estimates a deficit of diversity within sub-Saharan African populations. Third, the supposition of races forces all continental populations to diverge equally from a single ancestral node, whereas an unrestricted hierarchy places the basal split within Africa. Fourth, in the classical race framework European and Asian populations diverge from African populations independently, but the unrestricted hierarchy shows that European and East Asian populations link together before either links to sub-Saharan Africans

---

Update to Long and Kittles’s “Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races” (2003): Fixation on an Index

Jeffrey C. Long1 (2010)

Read and Weap, neither is arguing for "Genetic Sameness" but infact corroborates Genetic Diversity among humans esp. Africans and esp Within so called Racial groups.

As I asked, provide a Peer Reviewd, Scientific rebuttal to the above points.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
[QB] /QB]

---

---

This is a 2009 paper written claiming races are a biological reality -

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/full/461726a.html
/QB]

---

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Your reading comprehension is low so I will post again..

Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races

Jeffrey C. Long1 and Rick A. Kittles2 (2003)


Update to Long and Kittles’s “Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races” (2003): Fixation on an Index

Jeffrey C. Long1 (2010)


Where is the Rebuttal to the above..

the only "Valid" thing you posted is..

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sfroza made in 1994..Fail

The Rest of your B.S does not adress the above

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
[QB] /QB]

---

---

This is a 2009 paper written claiming races are a biological reality -

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7265/full/461726a.html

There is a whole tun of similar scientific articles as so forth which have reached the same conclusions.

Its not up to race believers to prove race exists. The same would be to ask someone to prove the world is a globe.

The people who need evidence are the race deniers as they are challenging an orthodox view.

---

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
''First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80 percent accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations.

"The 'reality of race' therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether 'real' or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is 'only skin deep' is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.

"Morphological characteristics...like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.) As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies [used to deny race] are not shaped by these same climatic factors.

"Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the clinal perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the 'race denial' faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in 'race denial' are in 'reality denial' as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence."

- Gill, George W. Does Race Exist? A Proponent's Perspective. University of Wyoming, 2000

---

Look, this is from your own post, dumb bastard.


" Morphological characteristics ...like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones . This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.) As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies are not shaped by these same climatic factors.


Even your nazi propaganda can't help you.

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
Frontal and Facial Flatness of Major Human Populations

Tsunehiko Hanihara (2000)
Am J Phys Anthro

The results presented herein suggest that the features relating to frontal and facial flatness are largely confined to populations from differing world regions: 1) the considerable flatness of the faces of east/northeast Asians, and to a lesser extent, of southeast Asians;2) morphological complexes such as a deep infraglabellar notch and sagittally flat frontal bone with facial prognathism in Australians and Melanesians; 3) rounded forehead comparable to that in northeast Asians and transversely projecting faces as in Europeans found in the New World populations; 4) eastern Asian-like features in Polynesians and Micronesians, except for a projecting zygomaxillary region; 5) midfacial projection without prognathism in Europeans and related populations such as south and west Asians as well as north Africans; and 6) remarkable prognathism and very flat nasal bones in SubSaharan Africans.

=========

Negroids (top) - Prognathic
Caucasoids (bottom) - Orthognathic



And the blacks look hideous with their prognathism. No afronut however can ever admit that this is a Negroid racial trait.

---

Hi there again, retarded redneck.


Prognathism has been discussed and explained already a dozen times. So I will not go over it again, in detail.


What you shown is not representative for sub Saharan Africans.

Negroid - 48 to 53, mesorrhinic (intermediate). lol

This also goes for prognathism. As has been shown many times before, this too is intermediate. lol





"Morphological characteristics ...like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones . This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.) As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies are not shaped by these same climatic factors.


Hideous thread.

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
Two recent autosomal DNA studies (Rosenberg et al. 2002 and Hua Tang et al. 2005) have established a genetic basis for traditional racial categories. Here's another, similar study that adds to the growing body of evidence:

Analisi di 5 microsatelliti nelle tre maggiori isole del Mediterraneo Occidentale

Calò et al. (2001)
Antropo

ABSTRACT:

''About 360 unrelated individuals from the three largest islands of the Western Mediterranean: Sardinia (Italy), Sicily (Italy) and Corsica (France) were examined. The DNA was amplified by means of PCR and the fragments were separated using a polyacrylamide gel. The microsatellites analysed in the present work are: GABRB3, D15S108, LIPC, D13S115, D13S270. The allele frequencies distribution showed significant differences between the islands. The 5 microsatellites have a high discrimination power (PD) and a high Polymorphic Information Content (PIC). The highest discrimination power was found for GABRB3 and secondarily for D13S115, which also showed the highest values of PIC. The comparison with other populations underlined the populations from the same continent cluster together. Particularly Europeans shows a less genetic heterogeneity than other continents.''

---

lol, just as I posted before:


"Particularly Europeans shows a less genetic heterogeneity than".


Why, because they do not all form the same basal. Like for example Africans from North, East, South, West and Central Africa, who do.


Again,


-Morphological characteristics ...like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones .

-This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.)

- As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies are not shaped by these same climatic factors.

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease

Neil Risch, Esteban Burchard, Elad Ziv, and Hua Tang
Genome Biology, 2002

''Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry - namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American.''

''...racial groups were easily distinguishable on the basis of even a modest number of random genetic markers; furthermore, categorization is extremely resistant to variation according to the type of markers used (for example, RFLPs, microsatellites or SNPs).''

---

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ If Jari and I are the same person, then how is it we have totally different IP addresses from different areas, dummy?? You are messed up idiot.

To Troll Patrol, what good does it do citing all this evidence to castratedhide, when he'll just ignore it??

---

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease

Neil Risch, Esteban Burchard, Elad Ziv, and Hua Tang
Genome Biology, 2002

''Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry - namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American.''

''...racial groups were easily distinguishable on the basis of even a modest number of random genetic markers; furthermore, categorization is extremely resistant to variation according to the type of markers used (for example, RFLPs, microsatellites or SNPs).''

---

"continental ancestry..."


Again,


- Morphological characteristics ... like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones.

-This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.)

- As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies are not shaped by these same climatic factors.

---

Indeed, and continental groups" do not automatically
translate into 'races.'

1-



2

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease

Neil Risch, Esteban Burchard, Elad Ziv, and Hua Tang
Genome Biology, 2002

''Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry - namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American.''

''...racial groups were easily distinguishable on the basis of even a modest number of random genetic markers; furthermore, categorization is extremely resistant to variation according to the type of markers used (for example, RFLPs, microsatellites or SNPs).''

---

"continental ancestry..."


Again,


- Morphological characteristics ... like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones.

-This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.)

- As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies are not shaped by these same climatic factors.

---

Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^^
Stop playing games Lioness, you know damn well I don't uphold Negro or Mongoloid. If you want to prove or dispove Negroid or Mongoloid have at it hoss.

Race does not exist on a Biological Level Lioness this is a very basic fact of modern Biology and Anthroplogy etc. Anyone who uses such terms and calls them selves or their blog "Anthropology" is misleading and has an Agenda.

How are "Australiods" not part of a "Mongoloid" race?? When the So called Australiod is the Aboriginal Asian and are genetically similar to other Asian populations..??

Where is you data peer reviewed and or scientifically sound that supports race Lioness??

---

Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassiterides:
Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease

Neil Risch, Esteban Burchard, Elad Ziv, and Hua Tang
Genome Biology, 2002

''Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry - namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American.''

''...racial groups were easily distinguishable on the basis of even a modest number of random genetic markers; furthermore, categorization is extremely resistant to variation according to the type of markers used (for example, RFLPs, microsatellites or SNPs).''

---

"continental ancestry..."


Again,


- Morphological characteristics ... like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones.

-This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.)

- As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies are not shaped by these same climatic factors.

---

No, not just climate but also diet. I would also contend culture.

---

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally Posted my Melchior7:Dude, these terms refer to physical characterustics not genetics, and they are valid insofar as people can agree to their meaning.

---

quote:

---

Melchior7:Your sole purpose here is erase any distinctions among the various peoples in Africa so you can claim them and illegitimately bask in their hsitorical acheivements.

---

quote:

---

Race whether biologically supported or not, is part of a socio-cultrual reality that we experience everyday.

---

quote:

---

Meclchior7: The majority will never cede with your desperate views

---

quote:

---

nor will they ever do away with the notion of Sub Saharan.

---

quote:

---

Give it up already.

---

Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

The source is Cavalli-Sforza's book on the Pygmies entitled 'African pygmies' (Academic Press, 1986).

This work shows that Negroids mutated from an ancestral pygmy population around 9,000 BC in West Africa. So the 'true' Black African today is a recent mutation. Caucasoids and Mongoloids predate them. [Wink] Negroids only migrated into other parts of Africa during the Bantu expansion or slightly earlier. Prior to them, Caucasoids inhabited North Africa and Bushmen (Capoids) to the south who were displaced by the Caucasoids from the Mediterranean around 12,000 BC.

---

^^A bogus reference.
Why should anyone take your word for it given
past bogus references? Quote where Cavalli-Sforza
says these so-called "negroids" "mutated" from
Pygmies. The burden of proof is on you, since you made
the claim.

While you scurry to cover your tracks with yet
more bogus claims, Cavali Sforza, in his well
known The History and Geography of Human Genes,
1994 Cavalli-Sforza summarizes his 1986 work on
Pygmies and specifically debunks the "Pygmy as ancestor"
theory held by other older writings. QUOTE:


"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place
of origin for the Negroid type which includes all
West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many
earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are
not good candidates for a proto-African population."

--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194


SO much for your lying claims of "mutations" from "Pygymy" ancestors.
In short, you lied about Cavalli-Sforza, creating a falsified
claim and a bogus "supporting" reference to a claim that is
nowhere supported in his work. You are once again
exposed as yet another racist, who relies on bogus
"evidence" to advance, dubious and debunked claims.
You are not fooling anyone.



------------------------

YOu then tried to cover up your lie with even
more bogus nformation and STILL fail

You "modified" your Cavalli Sforza claim by including
page numbers, and then changing some wording to
"adaptive radiation" hoping to divert attention
from your exposure.. lmao..

However pages 361-362 of Cavalli Sforza's 1986 book
says absolutely nothing about any Negroes "mutating" from
pygmies, nor any "adaptive radiation." It merely
discusses Pygmy history and geography. You
picked out a page at random, not knowing it can be
verified via Google Books. You were asked to provide
a direct quote but are still running. Now why is that?

""It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place
of origin for the Negroid type which includes all
West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many
earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are
not good candidates for a proto-African population."

--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194

[/QB][/QUOTE]

--------------------------------------

And Your pathetic "modification" STILL turned
out to be bogus. You then said:

[b]"True" Black Africans appear as a recent
adaptive radiation apparently branching off from
an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of
ancestry also indicated by osteological data
(Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996).


^^But in fact, Watson 1996 has nothing to do with
osteological data and does not even mention it. It
has to do with mtDNA.




What a pathetic liar, digging an ever deeper hole for himself ...

--------------------
Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began..

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged |