...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Clyde Winters, you still believe biological race exists?

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Clyde Winters, you still believe biological race exists?
.Charlie Bass.
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for .Charlie Bass.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This pdf should help you to see that biological race doesn't exist.

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/courses/2005-06/Spring/An101/lectures/Lecture%206%20Modern%20Human%20Variation%20web.pdf

Posts: 2197 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes I still believe in race. Thanks for the information.
Posts: 8859 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
.Charlie Bass.
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for .Charlie Bass.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Yes I still believe in race. Thanks for the information.

My question is why do you believe in biological races? Does biological race serve any purpose? That study dispels the notion of race biologically.
Posts: 2197 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe in biological races first because as we discussed in an earlier thread forensic scientists have made a convincing argument to me that they exist.

Many people believe that writing history is objective. This is untrue. This is why Amos Wilson, in The Falsification of Afrikan Consiousness, asked the question "Why is it that the European wants to take our history away from us?"(p.15) He answers this question as follows: " apparently the rewriting , the distortion and the stealing of our history must serve vital economic, political and social functions for the Europeans or else he would not bother and try so hard to keep our history away from us, and to distort it in our own minds"(p.15).

Michael Parenti, in History as Mystery, maintains that history is not neutral. In his opinion history is written by the ruling class, to solidify their position. He observed that "much written history is an ideologically safe commodity. It might best be caled "mainstream history", "orthodox history", "conventional history", and even "ruling class history because it presents the dominant perspective of the affluent and influential people who preside over the major institutions of society" (p.xi).

Wilson notes that "people who are ahistorical, who have little knowledge of history are people who are more gullible, more easily manipulated and people who can be more easily adaped to the capitalists machine than people who are historically knowledgeable"(p.18).

Due to racism and Eurocentrism Parenti argues that we have learned a "disinformational history, which represents the views of the ruleing class rather than real history (Parenti,p.10). As a result, we have "consensus history textbooks that teach history from a distorted base.

In this consensus history the civilization of Blacks began with the rise of Kush and the Meroitic civilization. This view was not the history known to the Classical weriters or found in the Bible.

The Classical writers and even the Bible made it clear that Negroes, the Blacks, the sons of Ham were the founders of the first civilizations. Western scholars changed this truth.


Secondly race is important in writing history. For centuries Europeans have claimed that civilization was founded by white or "near whites" like the Arabs, Ethiopians and Indo-Aryan speakers of India. Granted these people are very dark skinned, but propaganda has made them "whites" and bestowed on them the right to be recognized as ancient civilization builders.

Granted, these same historians do allow Africans and AmerIdians to be credited as civilization builders during the medieval period, yet ancient civilizations are credited to other races.

To support this view they first used cranometric and blood evidence. This was fine until people like Diop and DuBois looked at this evidence and discovered that the measurements and blood types pointed to the fact that many ancient people such as the Elamites, Sumerians and Egyptians shared cranimetric measurements with Africans and Afro-Americans.

This along with blood type sampling of Indians which placed them in the same race as Africans forced many researchers to attempt to destroy the notion of race as a biological construct, since it was making it clear that the vast majority of ancient civilizations were founded by people who were Black/African/Indian and as a result, "whites" were being erased from ancient history and popularization of the fact that ancient European history began with living in caves and being Barbaric for much of the ancient history of the world until they came into contact with Black/African/Indian peoples.

Posts: 8859 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I believe in biological races first because as we discussed in an earlier thread forensic scientists have made a convincing argument to me that they exist.

Actually most biologist do not agree.

The prior discussion with you on this subject indicated a lack of scientific evidence in support of your view.

Also evidenced was and a priori' ideological commitment to the outdated concepts of race.

"Races really have no meaning biologically, certainly not genetically." - Havard Geneticist, Spencer Wells.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This along with blood type sampling of Indians which placed them in the same race as Africans forced many researchers to attempt to destroy the notion of race as a biological construct.
This is typical of the pseudo-scientific misinformation that passes for 'proof of races'.

ABO blood type frequencies - of which there are only 4, A, B, AB and O, can easily match in given populations without being indicative of recent shared ancestry.

That's why they have been largely usurped in population genetics by use of chromosomal study.


There is not a single current biologist who supports the view that Indians belong to some specific 'race' with Africans, because of blood types.

If Dr. Winters wishes to dispute - he may provide the name of a current Biologist and current peer reviewed study in support of his stated view.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
.Charlie Bass.
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for .Charlie Bass.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I believe in biological races first because as we discussed in an earlier thread forensic scientists have made a convincing argument to me that they exist.

Forensi scientists haven't proven that biological race exists Clyde, they've simply magnified the now obsolete typological approach to human variation and used it to justify their line of work. Using their logic, Ethiopians, Eritreans and Sudanese were classified as "dark Caucasians" and not "Negroid". If you buy into their line of reasoning you're simply agreeing with all the outdated anthropology of old that classified all Africans that we call black as "Hamitic Caucasoids" and dark-Whites. Did you read that study on how Howells Spanish crania were misclassified?


quote:
Secondly race is important in writing history. For centuries Europeans have claimed that civilization was founded by white or "near whites" like the Arabs, Ethiopians and Indo-Aryan speakers of India. Granted these people are very dark skinned, but propaganda has made them "whites" and bestowed on them the right to be recognized as ancient civilization builders.
Race isn't necessary in writing history or re-writing it. Genetics, archaeology and bioanthropology can establish the origins and population affinities of people in history. The "race" concept has changed throughout history, look at how Hamties started out as black then shifted to "Caucasoid" to deny African history.


quote:
To support this view they first used cranometric and blood evidence. This was fine until people like Diop and DuBois looked at this evidence and discovered that the measurements and blood types pointed to the fact that many ancient people such as the Elamites, Sumerians and Egyptians shared cranimetric measurements with Africans and Afro-Americans.
Proof? I need to see evidence for this.

Aside from that, using "biological race" to claim history is absurd because it isn't necessary. Eurocentrists were wrong so why follow their blueprint?

Posts: 2197 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you buy into their line of reasoning you're simply agreeing with all the outdated anthropology of old that classified all Africans that we call black as "Hamitic Caucasoids" and dark-Whites. Did you read that study on how Howells Spanish crania were misclassified?
A good point, which neither Winters nor Wally will allow themselves to understand.

All crania vary and African crania moreso than others, for the primary reason that non African variation tends to be a sub-set of African variation.

Given this, it's extremely foolish for Africanists to attempt classify crania into races.

Such a method can only falsely divide native African peoples into 'foreign' non African race catagories.

In this method Tutsi are misclassified as Hamite Caucasoids, and San are misclassified as proto-Mongoloids.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
.Charlie Bass.
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for .Charlie Bass.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
quote:
This along with blood type sampling of Indians which placed them in the same race as Africans forced many researchers to attempt to destroy the notion of race as a biological construct.
This is typical of the pseudo-scientific misinformation that passes for 'proof of races'.

ABO blood type frequencies - of which there are only 4, A, B, AB and O, can easily match in given populations without being indicative of recent shared ancestry.

That's why they have been largely usurped in population genetics by use of chromosomal study.


There is not a single current biologist who supports the view that Indians belong to some specific 'race' with Africans, because of blood types.

If Dr. Winters wishes to dispute - he may provide the name of a current Biologist and current peer reviewed study in support of his stated view.

An example of this fallacy of using bllod groupings as race identifiers was when L. Cabot-Briigs stated that Teda are Negroes with "Berber Blood" and the Maurs of Mauritania and Morocco were whites with "Negroid blood groups". Thats total madness.
Posts: 2197 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You asked my opinion I have given it. I do not plan to discuss the issue of the existence of race further.

History as written today is nothing but falsehood. For example, here is a Sumerian:
 -

But instead of showing Sumerians in textbooks scholars provide pictures of Gutians from Lagash:

 -

 -

Without the concept of race the lie being taught that the Sumerians were non-Blacks--Gutians-- will exist forever, since text book publishers only publish what they want us to believe.You can continue to follow the Eurocentrists propaganda that erases Blacks from ancient history--I would rather stick to reality.


.


.

Posts: 8859 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
.Charlie Bass.
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for .Charlie Bass.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is a refutation of why blood grouping cannot be used to identify race

http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_3.htm

Posts: 2197 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
X-ras
quote:

Here is a refutation of why blood grouping cannot be used to identify race

http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_3.htm


This paper is double talk. On the one hand it declares that:
quote:

The distribution patterns for the Diego blood system are even more striking. Evidently, all Africans, Europeans, East Indians, Australian Aborigines, and Polynesians are Diego negative. The only populations with Diego positive people may be Native Americans (2-46%) and East Asians (3-12%). This nonrandom distribution pattern fits well with the hypothesis of an East Asian origin for Native Americans.

Here the author states clear that:"This nonrandom distribution pattern fits well with the hypothesis of an East Asian origin for Native Americans. " Yet, although he notes that the "Africans, Europeans, East Indians, Australian Aborigines, and Polynesians are Diego negative"; he fails to note they have traditionally been classified as Blacks.

This is especially true of East-Indians.
Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).


This author, given the evidence, does not make the claim that these populations which are predominately Black which show Diego negative are related, and therefore support a "Negro" existence of these people because Europeans also show this trait.

This use of blood typing to support a status quo hypothesis of origin for Amerindians shows the bias of this author, who refuses to use the same evidence to acknowledge the existence of the Negro group. All of these people have traditionally been classified as Negro.

References:

Aravanan, K P , "Physical and cultural similarities between Dravidians and Africans", Journal of Tamil Studies 10,(1976)pages 23-27.

Aravanan, K P , Dravidians and Africans , Madras, 1979.

Aravanan,K.P. Notable negroid elements in Dravidian India, Journal
of Tamil Studies, 1980, pp.20-45.


.

Posts: 8859 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 11 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by X-Ras:

Aside from that, using "biological race" to claim history is absurd because it isn't necessary. Eurocentrists were wrong so why follow their blueprint?

Why ask questions that you know the answers to, especially if those answers have been provided to you by Clyde many times, including right before you asked the question! [Big Grin]

Clyde's Afrocentric pseudo-scholarship is a blind reaction plain and simple to Eurocentric psuedo-scholarship plain and simple. He doesn't realize that he is just as wrong as the Eurocentrics and no different but only the inverse. Whereas Eurocentrics have used 'racial' typology to claim every advanced culture as k-zoid, now Clyde uses it to claim every advanced culture as n-groid.

He cannot accept the fact that black Dravidians are NOT African, or at least as much as other Asians. If you recall, he even claims that Cro-magnons as African even though they are the first Europeans? Note that he is silent on where white Europeans came from, but only says that they were the Indo-Europeans who quickly took over Europe. What became of the 'original' black inhabitants? If all these people from Cro-magnons to Siberians were black, then where did whites originate? Is he aware that whites are non other than the direct descendants of European 'Cro-magnon'??

Thus he runs into the same old dead-ends (fallacies) that Eurocentrics have run into. Why? Because, pseudo-science contradicts itself. [Wink]

Posts: 22724 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Here the author states clear that:"This nonrandom distribution pattern fits well with the hypothesis of an East Asian origin for Native Americans. " Yet, although he notes that the "Africans, Europeans, East Indians, Australian Aborigines, and Polynesians are Diego negative"; he fails to note they have traditionally been classified as Blacks.
1) Europeans have traditionally been classified as Blacks? Explain.

2) Surely you understand that classification into "Black" is based on skin color and not ABO blood type? And skin color does not reveal phylo-genetic relationships. [per Nina Jablonski]

3) The article is consistent - it does not deny that ABO blood types are *ever* indicative of common ancestry, but it does demonstrate that ABO frequencies are not concordant to race classifications, hence the similarity cited between Africans and Europeans contradicts race typology.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is especially true of East-Indians.
Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263), platyrrhine nasal index ]

Two problems.

1) All Africans don't have platyrrhine [broad] noses, some have narrow noses, by your logic this would make narrow nosed Africans 'racially' unrelated to broad nosed Africans...and instead 'racially' related to Europeans.

2) Nasal index are regarded by modern AFRICAN scienticists such as Keita and Kittles as subject to strong environmental selection, thus platyrrhine noses are common in almost all tropical wet environments.

This is why you can easily show pictures of tropical Americans and falsly claim that their noses prove they are of recent 'African' ancestry. It does not. It only proves adaptation to tropical humid environment. Modern scienticists do not claim that nose width is racial, with the exception of fringe white supremacists like George Gill.

Care to cite him, again?

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mansa Musa
Moderator
Member # 6800

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mansa Musa     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Modern scienticists do not claim that nose width is racial, with the exception of fringe white supremacists like George Gill.

Care to cite him, again?

Rasol, I agree with most of what you and X-ras have said in this thread. But what is the basis for calling Dr. Gill a White Supremacist?

I have no doubt that there are White Supremacists working within the scientific community (Philip Rushton comes to mind), especially when it comes to the subject of anthropology, which has historically been as much a hotbed for scientific racists as the Catholic Priesthood for pedophiles.

But I am curious as to what you see in his work that would warrant calling him a White Supremacist. I agree that his methodology in alot of his work is flawed but was never given the impression that he was a racist.

Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Arwa
Member
Member # 11172

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Arwa     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dr. Clyde Winters,

"Race" does not exist in science, and that is scientifically proven.

Posts: 2158 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mansa Musa
Moderator
Member # 6800

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mansa Musa     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suggest Dr. Winters review this study:

I recommend that Dr. Winters review this study and tell us where he disagrees with the research:

quote:
Abstract

What is the relationship between the patterns of biological and sociocultural variation in extant humans? Is this relationship accurately described, or best explained, by the term 'race' and the schema of 'racial' classification? What is the relationship between 'race', genetics and the demographic groups of society? Can extant humans be categorized into units that can scientifically be called 'races'? These questions underlie the discussions that address the explanations for the observed differences in many domains between named demographic groups across societies. These domains include disease incidence and prevalence and other variables studied by biologists and social scientists. Here, we offer a perspective on understanding human variation by exploring the meaning and use of the term 'race' and its relationship to a range of data. The quest is for a more useful approach with which to understand human biological variation, one that may provide better research designs and inform public policy.

Conceptualizing Human Variation Nature Genetic Supplement; Volume 36; Number 11; November 2004


quote:
Box 1 Summary Points


1. Modern human biological variation is not structured into phylogenetic subspecies ('races'), nor are the taxa of the standard anthropological 'racial' classifications breeding populations. The 'racial taxa' do not meet the phylogenetic criteria.

2. 'Race' denotes socially constructed units as a function of the incorrect usage of the term. US demographic units are not 'races'. But social units were politically constructed from the somatically defined 'races' of classical anthropology. In addition, rules of descent were created that delimited group membership based on some notion of desirability by those who created the laws.

3. Human geographical and group variation in health and disease are real and require study to partition, as much as possible, enviromental and genetic variance.

4. The absence of 'races' does not mean the absence of racism, or the structured inequality based on operationalized prejudice used to deprive people who are deemed to be fundamentally biologically different of social and economic justice. The 'no biological race' position does not exclude the idea that racism is a problem that needs to be addressed.

5. Group studies should obtain the specific ancestral histories of individuals. Ancestral histories are different from self-reported group membership, as some groups have multiple ancestral origins.

6. Many terms requiring definition for use describe demographic population groups better than the term 'race' because they invite examination of the criteria for classification. Population labels that may apply are 'ethnoancestral', 'bioethnic', 'ethnobiohistorical', 'ancestral-ethnic', 'social-designation', 'biocultural', 'biopopulation', 'ethnosocial', 'ancestral', 'ancestor-historical', 'origin group' and 'ethnogeographical'.

Conceptualizing Human Variation Nature Genetic Supplement; Volume 36; Number 11; November 2004

Also did I read correctly Dr. Winters that you think the "no biological race" position in science is a conspiracy to deny the racial makeup of certain ancient civilizations because the belief that they were Black was gaining ground?

As if scholars just decided to say "Hey there is no race so let's call it a draw".

If so I think that's absurd.

Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug Weller
Junior Member
Member # 11165

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug Weller     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Arguing with Clyde Winters is fruitless, although it may force you to learn more yourself and may help others learn more. He has his own way of twisting and ignoring evidence in a way reminiscent of religious fundamentalists. I know from bitter experience.

Anyway, I say that his arguments are really a smokescreen to hide the truth about Sumerians! Delving in hidden places I have finally found the truth about Sumerian civilization:

 -

Posts: 10 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ru2religious
Member
Member # 4547

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ru2religious     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug Weller:
Arguing with Clyde Winters is fruitless, although it may force you to learn more yourself and may help others learn more. He has his own way of twisting and ignoring evidence in a way reminiscent of religious fundamentalists. I know from bitter experience.

Anyway, I say that his arguments are really a smokescreen to hide the truth about Sumerians! Delving in hidden places I have finally found the truth about Sumerian civilization:

 -

What is your position on the ancient Sumerians civilization who called themselves the 'Zaggig'?

Surely you don't think that they are a nordic people do you???? lol

Posts: 950 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
'Race' denotes socially constructed units as a function of the incorrect usage of the term
This is true.

Recall:

In the previous round of this discussion race-advocates retreated behind the evasion that race is a "social science."

Well this is true, but misleading.

All that is needed for something to be a social science - is that a "belief" exist in society - at this point, one can study it socially - ie - sociology social + "ology" or science.

But here - communism, or nazism would also qualify as social sciences.

This should not be taken to imply that these theories are being 'validated' either scientifically, or politically, which has nothing to do with making and objective social study of them.

This is yet another mistake made by advocates of race.

ps - Saddest thing about many African advocates of race, is that they won't read Keita and Kittles. They actually prefer to get their ideology from outdated discredited Eurocentric texts. Maybe they'll quote Diop - but out of context - since Diop was grappling with oudated Eurocentric texts.

Keita and Kittles build on Diop's foundation....not lazily hide behind him, and that's the difference.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Indeed, Clyde and others are just are just fighting the air the same way Eurocentrics are.
Posts: 22724 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Race can be determined biologically according to these scientists!

******

Access to the full Nature article (free):

http://tinyurl. com/y4alme


[URL=http://tinyurl. com/y4alme]Nature Web Site[/URL] Overview today in the Independent (the best popular story I've seen so far):

http://tinyurl. com/yh7kp2


Genetic breakthrough that reveals the differences between humans
Scientists hail genetic discovery that will change human understanding

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 23 November 2006

Scientists have discovered a dramatic variation in the genetic make-up of humans that could lead to a fundamental reappraisal of what causes incurable diseases and could provide a greater understanding of mankind.

The discovery has astonished scientists studying the human genome - the genetic recipe of man. Until now it was believed the variation between people was due largely to differences in the sequences of the individual " letters" of the genome.

It now appears much of the variation is explained instead by people having multiple copies of some key genes that make up the human genome.

Until now it was assumed that the human genome, or "book of life", is largely the same for everyone, save for a few spelling differences in some of the words. Instead, the findings suggest that the book contains entire sentences, paragraphs or even whole pages that are repeated any number of times.

The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more different between one another than once thought - which could explain why some people are prone to serious diseases.

The studies published today have found that instead of having just two copies of each gene - one from each parent - people can carry many copies, but just how many can vary between one person and the next.

The studies suggest variations in the number of copies of genes is normal and healthy. But the scientists also believe many diseases may be triggered by an abnormal loss or gain in the copies of some key genes.

Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are more likely to be about 96 per cent similar.

The findings, published simultaneously in three leading science journals by scientists from 13 different research centres in Britain and America, were described as ground-breaking by leading scientists.

"I believe this research will change for ever the field of human genetics," said Professor James Lupski, a world authority on medical genetics at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Professor Lupski said the findings superseded the basic principles of human genetics that have been built up since the days of Gregor Mendel, the 19th century "father" of Mendelian genetics, and of Jim Watson and Francis Crick, who discovered the DNA double helix in 1953.

"One can no longer consider human traits as resulting primarily from [simple DNA] changes... With all respect to Watson and Crick, many Mendelian and complex traits, as well as sporadic diseases, may indeed result from structural variation of the genome," Professor Lupski said.

Deciphering the three billion letters in the sequence of the human genome was once likened to landing on the Moon. Having now arrived, scientists have found the "lunar landscape" of the genome is very different from what they expected.

Matthew Hurles, one of the project's leaders at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge, said the findings show each one of us has a unique pattern of gains and losses of entire sections of our DNA.

"One of the real surprises of these results was just how much of our DNA varies in copy number. We estimate this to be at least 12 per cent of the genome - that has never been shown before," Dr Hurles said.

Scientists have detected variation in the "copy number" of genes in some individuals before but the sheer scale of the variation now being discovered is dramatic.

"The copy number variation that researchers had seen before was simply the tip of the iceberg, while the bulk lay submerged, undetected," Dr Hurles said.

"We now appreciate the immense contribution of this phenomenon to genetic differences between individuals, " he said.

The studies involved a detailed and sophisticated analysis of the genomes of 270 people with Asian, African or European ancestry. It was important to include as wide a sample of the human gene pool as possible.

They found that 2,900 genes could vary in the number of copies possessed by the individuals. The genes involved multiple copies of stretches of DNA up to a million letters of the genetic code long.

"We used to think that if you had big changes like this, then they must be involved in disease. But we are showing that we can all have these changes," said Stephen Scherer of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

But it is also becoming apparent that many diseases appear to be influenced by the number of copies of certain key genes, said Charles Lee, another of the project's leaders at the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

"Many examples of diseases resulting from changes in copy number are emerging. A recent review lists 17 conditions of the nervous system alone, including Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's, that can result from such copy number changes," Professor Lee said.

"Indeed, medical research will benefit enormously from this map, which provides new ways for identifying genes involved in common diseases," he said.

Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust, the medical charity that funded much of the research, said: "This important work will help to identify genetic causes of many diseases."

The key questions answered

What have scientists discovered today?

They have found that each of us is more different genetically than we previously believed. Instead of being 99.9 per cent identical, it may turn out to be more like 99 per cent identical - enough of a difference to explain many variations in human traits. Instead of having just two copies of every gene - one from each parent - we have some genes that are multiplied several times. Furthermore these "multiple copy numbers" differ from one person to another, which could explain human physical and even mental variation.

Why does this matter?

One practical benefit is that it could lead to a new understanding of some of the most difficult, incurable diseases. Although it adds an extra layer of complexity to our understanding of the human genome, the discovery could lead eventually to new insights and medical treatments of conditions ranging from childhood disorders to senile dementia. Scientists are predicting for instance that the knowledge could lead to new diagnostic tests for such diseases as cancer.

How was this discovery made?

Scientists have developed sophisticated methods of analysing large segments of DNA over recent years. "In some ways the methods we have used are 'molecular microscopes' , which have transformed the techniques used since the foundation of clinical genetics where researchers used microscopes to look for visible deletions and rearrangements in chromosomes, " explained Nigel Carter of the Sanger Institute in Cambridge.

What genes are copied many times and why?

There are just under 30,000 genes in the human genome, which consists of about 3 billion "letters" of the DNA code. The scientists found that more than 10 per cent of these genes appear to be multiplied in the 270 people who took part in the study. They do not know why some genes are copied and some are not. One gene, called CCL3L1, which is copied many times in people of African descent, appears to confer resistance to HIV. Another gene involved in making a blood protein is copied many times in people from south-east Asia and seems to help against malaria. Other research has shown that variation in the number of copies of some genes is involved in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.

Are there any other practical applications?

The scientists looked at people from three broad racial groups - African, Asian and European. Although there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied, there were enough racial differences to assign every person bar one to their correct ethnic origin.This might help forensic scientists wishing to know more about the race of a suspect.

Who made the discovery and where can we read more about it?

Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, Nature Genetics and Genome Research.

Scientists have discovered a dramatic variation in the genetic make-up of humans that could lead to a fundamental reappraisal of what causes incurable diseases and could provide a greater understanding of mankind.

The discovery has astonished scientists studying the human genome - the genetic recipe of man. Until now it was believed the variation between people was due largely to differences in the sequences of the individual " letters" of the genome.

It now appears much of the variation is explained instead by people having multiple copies of some key genes that make up the human genome.

Until now it was assumed that the human genome, or "book of life", is largely the same for everyone, save for a few spelling differences in some of the words. Instead, the findings suggest that the book contains entire sentences, paragraphs or even whole pages that are repeated any number of times.

The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more different between one another than once thought - which could explain why some people are prone to serious diseases.

The studies published today have found that instead of having just two copies of each gene - one from each parent - people can carry many copies, but just how many can vary between one person and the next.

The studies suggest variations in the number of copies of genes is normal and healthy. But the scientists also believe many diseases may be triggered by an abnormal loss or gain in the copies of some key genes.

Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are more likely to be about 96 per cent similar.

The findings, published simultaneously in three leading science journals by scientists from 13 different research centres in Britain and America, were described as ground-breaking by leading scientists.

"I believe this research will change for ever the field of human genetics," said Professor James Lupski, a world authority on medical genetics at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Professor Lupski said the findings superseded the basic principles of human genetics that have been built up since the days of Gregor Mendel, the 19th century "father" of Mendelian genetics, and of Jim Watson and Francis Crick, who discovered the DNA double helix in 1953.

"One can no longer consider human traits as resulting primarily from [simple DNA] changes... With all respect to Watson and Crick, many Mendelian and complex traits, as well as sporadic diseases, may indeed result from structural variation of the genome," Professor Lupski said.

Deciphering the three billion letters in the sequence of the human genome was once likened to landing on the Moon. Having now arrived, scientists have found the "lunar landscape" of the genome is very different from what they expected.

Matthew Hurles, one of the project's leaders at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge, said the findings show each one of us has a unique pattern of gains and losses of entire sections of our DNA.

"One of the real surprises of these results was just how much of our DNA varies in copy number. We estimate this to be at least 12 per cent of the genome - that has never been shown before," Dr Hurles said.

Scientists have detected variation in the "copy number" of genes in some individuals before but the sheer scale of the variation now being discovered is dramatic.

"The copy number variation that researchers had seen before was simply the tip of the iceberg, while the bulk lay submerged, undetected," Dr Hurles said.

"We now appreciate the immense contribution of this phenomenon to genetic differences between individuals, " he said.

The studies involved a detailed and sophisticated analysis of the genomes of 270 people with Asian, African or European ancestry. It was important to include as wide a sample of the human gene pool as possible.

They found that 2,900 genes could vary in the number of copies possessed by the individuals. The genes involved multiple copies of stretches of DNA up to a million letters of the genetic code long.

"We used to think that if you had big changes like this, then they must be involved in disease. But we are showing that we can all have these changes," said Stephen Scherer of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Chevy Chase, Maryland.

But it is also becoming apparent that many diseases appear to be influenced by the number of copies of certain key genes, said Charles Lee, another of the project's leaders at the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

"Many examples of diseases resulting from changes in copy number are emerging. A recent review lists 17 conditions of the nervous system alone, including Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's, that can result from such copy number changes," Professor Lee said.

"Indeed, medical research will benefit enormously from this map, which provides new ways for identifying genes involved in common diseases," he said.

Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust, the medical charity that funded much of the research, said: "This important work will help to identify genetic causes of many diseases."

The key questions answered

What have scientists discovered today?

They have found that each of us is more different genetically than we previously believed. Instead of being 99.9 per cent identical, it may turn out to be more like 99 per cent identical - enough of a difference to explain many variations in human traits. Instead of having just two copies of every gene - one from each parent - we have some genes that are multiplied several times. Furthermore these "multiple copy numbers" differ from one person to another, which could explain human physical and even mental variation.

Why does this matter?

One practical benefit is that it could lead to a new understanding of some of the most difficult, incurable diseases. Although it adds an extra layer of complexity to our understanding of the human genome, the discovery could lead eventually to new insights and medical treatments of conditions ranging from childhood disorders to senile dementia. Scientists are predicting for instance that the knowledge could lead to new diagnostic tests for such diseases as cancer.

How was this discovery made?

Scientists have developed sophisticated methods of analysing large segments of DNA over recent years. "In some ways the methods we have used are 'molecular microscopes' , which have transformed the techniques used since the foundation of clinical genetics where researchers used microscopes to look for visible deletions and rearrangements in chromosomes, " explained Nigel Carter of the Sanger Institute in Cambridge.

What genes are copied many times and why?

There are just under 30,000 genes in the human genome, which consists of about 3 billion "letters" of the DNA code. The scientists found that more than 10 per cent of these genes appear to be multiplied in the 270 people who took part in the study. They do not know why some genes are copied and some are not. One gene, called CCL3L1, which is copied many times in people of African descent, appears to confer resistance to HIV. Another gene involved in making a blood protein is copied many times in people from south-east Asia and seems to help against malaria. Other research has shown that variation in the number of copies of some genes is involved in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.

Are there any other practical applications?

The scientists looked at people from three broad racial groups - African, Asian and European. Although there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied, there were enough racial differences to assign every person bar one to their correct ethnic origin. [Big Grin] This might help forensic scientists wishing to know more about the race of a suspect. [Big Grin]

Who made the discovery and where can we read more about it?

Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, Nature Genetics and Genome Research.

Posts: 8859 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:


Race can be determined biologically according to these scientists!


Are there any other practical applications?

The scientists looked at people from three broad racial groups - African, Asian and European. Although there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied, there were enough racial differences to assign every person bar one to their correct ethnic origin.This might help forensic scientists wishing to know more about the race of a suspect....


What genes are copied many times and why?

There are just under 30,000 genes in the human genome, which consists of about 3 billion "letters" of the DNA code. The scientists found that more than 10 per cent of these genes appear to be multiplied in the 270 people who took part in the study. They do not know why some genes are copied and some are not.


One gene, called CCL3L1, which is copied many times in people of African descent, appears to confer resistance to HIV. Another gene involved in making a blood protein is copied many times in people from south-east Asia and seems to help against malaria. Other research has shown that variation in the number of copies of some genes is involved in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.

Are there any other practical applications?

The scientists looked at people from three broad racial groups - African, Asian and European. Although there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied, there were enough racial differences to assign every person bar one to their correct ethnic origin. This might help forensic scientists wishing to know more about the race of a suspect. [Big Grin]

Clyde at it again, defending the biologically indefensible idea of human "races", and in doing so, grasping onto the idea that the number of "copies" of a gene marks "racial" difference. Meanwhile, things like this were overlooked...

there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied,...

They do not know why some genes are copied and some are not.


I wonder in what "race" would a European who, in recent history of the family tree, had an African ancestry, but wouldn't be 'physically' out of place with other 'white' Europeans, happened to inherit the 'number' of said genes from that African ancestor, be placed?...just as southern Europe has higher incidence of the Benin haplotype HbS.

For instance, if this were the case in the twins shown: here

[Smile]

Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Supercar

quote:


Clyde at it again, defending the biologically indefensible idea of human "races", and in doing so, grasping onto the idea that the number of "copies" of a gene marks "racial" difference. Meanwhile, things like this were overlooked...

there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied,...

They do not know why some genes are copied and some are not.



This is not my study. This study was conducted by the leading geneticists in the world who are claiming they can biologically differiate people along racial lines.

.

Posts: 8859 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Supercar
Member
Member # 6477

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Supercar         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

This is not my study. This study was conducted by the leading geneticists in the world who are claiming they can biologically differiate people along racial lines.

I know that it isn't your study, but I was wondering what motives you have for posting it, besides trying to defend the concept of human "races" as a biologically sensible concept?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The answer is obvious it shows that some geneticists believe that races exist biologically.

.

Posts: 8859 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
.Charlie Bass.
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for .Charlie Bass.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The answer is obvious it shows that some geneticists believe that races exist biologically.

.

The article makes no such claims. If you still believe that biological races exist or better yet, have been have been proven to exist, please post evidence and do not distort the words of a study.
Posts: 2197 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Article
quote:

In contrast to other classes of human genetic variation, the population genetics of copy number variation remains unexplored. The distribution of copy number variation within and among different populations is shaped by mutation, selection and demographic history. A range of polymorphisms, including SNPs25, microsatellites59 and Alu insertion variants60, has been used to investigate population structure. To demonstrate the utility of copy number variation genotypes for population genetic inference we performed population clustering61 on 67 genotyped biallelic CNVs. We obtained the optimal clustering with the assumption of three ancestral populations, with the African, European and Asian populations clearly differentiated (Fig. 7). Population differentiation of individual variants is commonly estimated by the statistic FST, which varies from 0 (undifferentiated) to 1 (population-specific)62. The average FST for the same 67 autosomal CNVs was 0.11, very similar to that observed for all autosomal Phase I HapMap SNPs (0.13)25.

Recent population-specific positive selection elevates population differentiation. To explore population differentiation at all CNVs, we devised a statistic, VST, that estimates population differentiation based on the quantitative intensity data and varies from 0 to 1, similar to FST (Supplementary Fig. 16). Estimating VST for all clones on the WGTP array and all CNVs on the 500K EA array revealed a number of outliers with levels of population differentiation suggestive of population-specific selective pressures (Fig. 8; see also Supplementary Table 20). Among these outliers were two CNVs previously demonstrated to have elevated population differentiation7, 19: UGT2B17 is a gene encoding a UDP-glucuronosyl transferase with roles in androgen metabolism and xenobiotic conjugation63, 64, and CCL3L1 is a chemokine-encoding multi-copy gene at which greater copy numbers protect against HIV-1 infection19.


X-Ras
quote:

The article makes no such claims. If you still believe that biological races exist or better yet, have been have been proven to exist, please post evidence and do not distort the words of a study.


This is the claim of geneticists from 13 leading research institutions. Are you saying these learned professionals are wrong while you and your friends on this forum are right?

quote:



http://tinyurl. com/yh7kp2


There are just under 30,000 genes in the human genome, which consists of about 3 billion "letters" of the DNA code. The scientists found that more than 10 per cent of these genes appear to be multiplied in the 270 people who took part in the study. They do not know why some genes are copied and some are not. One gene, called CCL3L1, which is copied many times in people of African descent, appears to confer resistance to HIV. Another gene involved in making a blood protein is copied many times in people from south-east Asia and seems to help against malaria. Other research has shown that variation in the number of copies of some genes is involved in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.

Are there any other practical applications?

The scientists looked at people from three broad racial groups - African, Asian and European. Although there was an underlying similarity in terms of how common it was for genes to be copied, there were enough racial differences to assign every person bar one to their correct ethnic origin. This might help forensic scientists wishing to know more about the race of a suspect.

Who made the discovery and where can we read more about it?

Scientists from 13 research centres were involved, including Britain's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, which also took a lead role in deciphering the human genome. The research is published in Nature, Nature Genetics and Genome Research.



Posts: 8859 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
.Charlie Bass.
Member
Member # 10328

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for .Charlie Bass.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Please post proof that the authors said or proed race exists with this study. You haven\'t show it at all.
Posts: 2197 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dr. Winters, much of what you cite actually contradicts your race thesis....

quote:
They do not know why some genes are copied and some are not. One gene, called CCL3L1, which is copied many times in people of African descent, appears to confer resistance to HIV.
Yet millions of Africans have died of HIV. Genes frequencies conferring resistence to disease are likely and adaptive response.

This doesn't prove race, or even that Africans are statisically less likely to get HIV. It only proves tha HIV or similar disease has killed enough people in parts of Africa to cause and adaptive response.

It's rather pathetic that you highlight this passage because you think it somehow 'proves' race.

quote:
Another gene involved in making a blood protein is copied many times in people from south-east Asia and seems to help against malaria.
Yet millions of South-East Asians die of Malaria.

Moreover the precense of this adaptive response distinguishes South-East Asians from NorthEast Asians or North American Indians, for the simple reason that there is little to no Malaria in the later two regions - yet in Doctor Winters race typology - *all these people belong to the 'same [mongoloid] race'.*

In fact, the precense of different gene frequencies in South-East Asians and North East Asians contradicts your simplistic notion that these people can be placed in *the same race*.

It's also important for medicine as it means you can't put all Asians in the same medical catagory and make assumptions about them. This is also true of Europeans, or Africans, or Blacks.

So desparate is Winters for evidence, that he does not even notice this contradiction in *his* race thesis.

Now that we have made him aware of it, would Winters care to explain it?

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^
I am not desparate for evidence I am just telling the truth. You attempt to lie to your followers on this forum and maintain that race does not exist biologically when scientists continue to show that it does.

I don't have to make-up this reality it is evident in the news. This new study showing that race exist was published in three different journals, and is the lead story in many newspapers around the world.

The only people who can continue to maintain the notion that races do not exist, given the prestige of the authors of this article are people who personally choose to live in a dream world. Do you really believe that scientists would allow a newspaper to make up untruths and publish them as true. No way. These scientists are claiming what we always knew. Race(s) exist biologically.

You act as though we live in some double speak world, where we ignore what is said and shown and only see what we want to believe.

You are just unhappy that geneticists continue to play the race card when you have attempted to claim race no longer exist.

Race will always exist biologically and socially as long as man exist, no matter what blinders you wear.

Some anthropologists dislike the notion of race because it affects the status quo. If you accept that races exist, then you have to accept that civilization was founded by Blacks, since the skeletal, and other evidence supports the view that the Egyptians, Harappans,Elamites, Xia (of China) and Sumerians were all genetically related to Black Africans as is their languages. Acceptance of this truth means that all that we have been taught to believe as history is a lie.

Diop, DuBois and others have always maintained that races exist because they knew that if you are going to truely show the great history of Blacks you have to look at the characteristics that distinguish us. It is these racial features that allow us to truely discuss the great history of Blacks.If it was not for the skeletal record of ancient Egypt would not be able to claim that the Egyptians were Black Africans, instead of Asians.

Your continued support of the idea that races do not exist biologically (while maintaining that Egyptians are Black Africans which in itself is use of race in the dertermination of the ethnic origin of the ancient Egyptian people) support the Eurocentrists and status quo who seek to deny any role of Blacks in history. You are just to blind to see. Your adherence to the idea that races don't exist helps Eurocentrists maintain the status quo not spread the truth.

.

Posts: 8859 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
X-Ras
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please post proof that the authors said or proed race exists with this study. You haven\'t show it at all.


I have cited the researchers claim that they can differiate races biologically. Why don't you prove that the passages I cited above do not exist in the forementioned study when it is obvious for any person to read for themselves.

It is not my fault you refuse to accept the findings of these scholars. Where is your evidence that the findings of geneticists from 13 of the leading institutions of the world are wrong, while you are right. Please cite the articles, you and Rasol have published that prove these scholars to be wrong.


.

Posts: 8859 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Apocalypse
Member
Member # 8587

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Apocalypse     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dr. Winters wrote:

quote:
since the skeletal, and other evidence supports the view that the Egyptians, Harappans,Elamites, Xia (of China) and Sumerians were all genetically related to Black Africans as is their languages
Which studies on the skeletal remains of Harrapans, and others mentioned, concluded that they were genetically related to Black Africans?
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Good question.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Apocalypse
Member
Member # 8587

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Apocalypse     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Thanks. I've learned a little from you and Supercar about the adherence to real science, versus obfuscating rhetoric, in debate.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Always a good method. When pressed for evidence, Winters will respond with emotional fanfare and attempt to draw us away from the questions at hand.....

quote:

Another gene involved in making a blood protein is copied many times in people from south-east Asia and seems to help against malaria.

Originally posted by rasol:

In fact, the precense of additional copies of this gene in South-East Asians but *not* North East Asians, Africans or Europeans *contradicts* your simplistic notion that all East Asians can be accurately placed in the same race typology based on gene frequency.

So desparate is Winters for evidence, that he does not even notice this contradiction in *his* race thesis.

Now that we have made him aware of it, would Winters care to explain it?

Since Dr. Winters does not know how to answer this question, let's help him.

Population genetics can sort population groups into different different gene frequencies. Of course this is the very basis of population genetics. This in no way confirms race.

Malaria is endemic to SouthEast Asia. SouthEast Asians have possibly developed a specific resistence response.

Malaria is not as common in NorthEast Asia or North America, therefore they have not developed the same response.

Another response to Malaria is sickle-cells, which are found in Africa and Europe.

Some Blacks of Melanesia have developed yet another response via high body temperature to ward off disease, but they do not have sickle cells.

Gene frequencies can indicate adaptive response to unique environment, which does not necessarily concord to race classifications derived from skull-shape, skin color, or other unrelated features.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Calypso
quote:

Which studies on the skeletal remains of Harrapans, and others mentioned, concluded that they were genetically related to Black Africans?


Ethically the ancient inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Indus Valley were round-headed Mediterraneans of the ancient variety. Around 7000 BC, Mediterraneans of a fairly tall stature not devoid of negroid characteristics appear in the Sahara at Capsa (now called Cafsa).

These Mediterraneans are called Capsians. This group flourished in an area extending from the western most borders of north Africa, into the southern Sahara.

Skeletons of the Mediterranean type have been found throughout Middle Africa, Southeast Asia, Mesopotamia, the Indo-Pakistan region and even Central Asia. It is no secret that the founders of ancient Egypt, Elam, Sumer and the Indus Valley were all of the Mediterranean type.
Proto-Sahara Website
.

Posts: 8859 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rasol
Member
Member # 4592

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rasol     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ translating Winters - Sorry I don't have any studies genetically relating India to Black Africa, and so I can't answer your question.

But I can indulge myself with 3 paragraphs of irrelevant nonsense, and then add a broken web link, symbolising my broken argument.

Sloppy work Dr. Winters. Please try again, otherwise Grade = F.

Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SEEKING
Member
Member # 10105

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for SEEKING     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rasol, the link is not broken.

The title of the article is "Proto-culture of the Dravidians, Manding, and Sumerians" by Clyde-Ahmad Winters.

PS: PDF format

Posts: 391 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 11 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ [Embarrassed] It doesn't matter because the material of that link is nonsense.

Dravidians are NOT descended from Saharan Mande as Winters fantasizes.

And biological races do NOT exist as we have expounded a hundred times on this forum.

The very sources he cites to 'back up' his claims only contradict him.

As Rasol says, his grade is F for failure to prove his point.

Posts: 22724 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2014 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3