quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The radical facial differentiation of these LSA peoples relative to MSA predecessors may represent a parallel evolution event as they have a plethora of traits that are peculiar to them and are not seen in Ethio-Semitic and Cushitic speakers.
quote:All the Upper Paleolithic peoples of Kenya were of Caucasoid or proto-Hamitic stock; they are represented by the Gamble's Cave and Naivasha skeletons, as well as the skeleton from Olduvai in northern Tanganyika. They were tall and dolichocephalic, with long face and narrow nose (the 'Elmenteitan type'); the other is brachycephalic, with a shorter face but also with a narrow nose. These two types are represented by Elmenteita A and F1 (Fig. 5 (2 and 3)) from Bromhead's site. The same types persist into the Neolithic, but now a third variation appears in the ultra-dolichocephalic skulls from Willey's kopje (Fig. 5 (4)); these differ from the Elmenteitan type by having a shorter face, a more prominent nose, and a different kind of mandible.
--Sonia Cole, 1954
Now that two years have passed since this post, would you maintain the features identified as "proto-Hamitic" by Sonia Cole represent a local evolution peculiar to these Late Stone Age people? Or might they possibly represent some affinity, distant or not, with "pre-OOA" Eastern Saharans?
I wonder, where these would fit?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture throughout the African continent
M. Gallego Llorente et al
Characterizing genetic diversity in Africa is a crucial step for most analyses reconstructing the evolutionary history of anatomically modern humans. However, historic migrations from Eurasia into Africa have affected many contemporary populations, confounding inferences. Here, we present a 12.5x coverage ancient genome of an Ethiopian male (‘Mota’) who lived approximately 4,500 years ago. We use this genome to demonstrate that the Eurasian backflow into Africa came from a population closely related to Early Neolithic farmers, who had colonized Europe 4,000 years earlier. The extent of this backflow was much greater than previously reported, reaching all the way to Central, West and Southern Africa, affecting even populations such as Yoruba and Mbuti, previously thought to be relatively unadmixed, who harbor 6-7% Eurasian ancestry
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Nobody is ignoring anything. I merely gave my opinion based on sound logic. Geneticists are quick to label autosomal genetic components found in ancient Africans as "Eurasian". This same tactic was applied to Y-chromosomal markers such as hg E in the past, but recent studies have debunked the "Eurasian" claims and confirmed what many have suspected all along that they were African. So if you want to believe that Africans from Pygmies to Khoisan are "Eurasian-mixed", then that's your prerogative.
The above abstract says Yoruba and Mbuti are of 6-7% Eurasian ancestry. Assuming that Khosians average a similar low percentage (and they do have low frequencies of R clades) and considering that African Americans average around 20% Eurasian I would not characterize Khosians or AA as a "mixed people" though they do have some admixture
"Mixed people" are genrally regarded as more around 50/50 or 60/40
You are still ignoring the 7 mutations. Why?
What is "eurasian", see this is where is gets fussy and obfuscated.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Do you realize how idiotic you sound?? "Mixed" means exactly what it means regardless of actual percentage. Thus, many studies show that a third of Europeans have recent African admixture confirmed by Y-chromosome (hg E) . The study you cite, based on autosomal alleles says Mbuti, (a Pygmy group) is Eurasian mixed. You do realize there is NO presence of hg R or any Eurasian lineage among Mbuti Pygmies or in Khoisan either yet the latter are also said to be "Eurasian" mixed. So how do you explain this?? This is why I don't hold a pinch of salt to admixture studies based on autosomes without further context of other factors, and this is especially true of African populations due to the reasons I stated above.
The whole "they are mixed" thing is becoming absurdly.
What they claim is the when an African American procreates with an indigenous African (let's say from Congo for convenience), those children are therefore "eurasian mixed". This then becomes a eurasian black migration.
I recently saw a prologue by Spencer Wells, warning for this method and way of reasoning.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed. That's why I just laugh at Lioness when she presents studies like the one in the OP. It's just more white-wash hogwash. This reminds me how when past geneticists tried to claim YAP as 'Eurasian' thus all DE derived clades including hg E is not really African but Eurasian and thus viola, the vast majority of Sub-Saharans are Eurasian-mixed!
As I said, many of these experts don't even know what the exact dividing line between African and Eurasian even is!
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I really don't trust some of these 'studies'. The amount of claimed 'Eurasian' admixture in the Fulani people seems a little high. I'm referring to the genetic studies on the Sudanese Fula.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I prefer to trust science than a racist idiot like Djehuti.
Racists on this website are just mad because those latest researches show us that Eurasian admixtures in the Northeast African region, including Ancient Egypt, was absent or rare before 3000 years ago. and thus rare or absent during the foundation of Ancient Egypt around 6000 years ago. Confirming yet again, Ancient Egyptians to be indigenous Africans. Biologically, historically and culturally Africans.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LMAO You keep accusing me of being "racist" yet you NEVER are able to prove it! In fact YOU are the idiot as you say you trust science yet Lioness cites a scientific study claiming Eurasian admixture throughout much of Sub-Saharan Africa!!
I simply disagree with their findings and suggest the opposite of what they say yet you accuse me of saying the opposite!! You are obviously a sick psychopath and need professional help, bro. Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I really don't trust some of these 'studies'. The amount of claimed 'Eurasian' admixture in the Fulani people seems a little high. I'm referring to the genetic studies on the Sudanese Fula.
Was this study done on autosomes? I don't know if you realize this but Sudanese Fula as well as various other groups in the Horn carry hg T in the Y-chromosome. Many use this as proof of Eurasian admixture but there are West Africans who carry R, and some Somalis who carry hg K. So clearly this is evidence of "Eurasian" input, but my question is were these Eurasians actually different from Africans??
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LMAO You keep accusing me of being "racist" yet you NEVER are able to prove it! In fact YOU are the idiot as you say you trust science yet Lioness cites a scientific study claiming Eurasian admixture throughout much of Sub-Saharan Africa!!
I simply disagree with their findings and suggest the opposite of what they say yet you accuse me of saying the opposite!! You are obviously a sick psychopath and need professional help, bro.
No matter, I still trust science more than you. You're obviously a white idiot claiming to be East Asian. Pathetic.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed. That's why I just laugh at Lioness when she presents studies like the one in the OP. It's just more white-wash hogwash. This reminds me how when past geneticists tried to claim YAP as 'Eurasian' thus all DE derived clades including hg E is not really African but Eurasian and thus viola, the vast majority of Sub-Saharans are Eurasian-mixed!
As I said, many of these experts don't even know what the exact dividing line between African and Eurasian even is!
Yes, I hear this often coming from eurocentrics. Had they get really hateful in their ways too. Phoenician7 has video like that, all the cohorts except it like drones. I then show them different and they get more upset. Is if it should matter anyway.
This whole Eurasian vs Africa is getting out of controls, and has nothing to do with science, it has more to do with an agenda then anything else. And that agenda started decades ago perhaps centuries, at Egypt is from Caucasoid, Egypt is Eurasian. Everything in these social sciences is based on that philosophy.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
I really don't trust some of these 'studies'. The amount of claimed 'Eurasian' admixture in the Fulani people seems a little high. I'm referring to the genetic studies on the Sudanese Fula.
I consign. As Doug M stated, also modern scientists can be racist (prejudice). And he is right about that. I have encountered quite a few on line racists who claimed to have some sort of academic degree.
An old human genome project by Spencer Wells, showed that the Tubu are predominately "middle eastern from a genetic Piont of view". However, they themselves went back into Africa, Sahara. He said tens of tousands of years ago. And they look mostly like the stereotype sub-Sahara African.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
I really don't trust some of these 'studies'. The amount of claimed 'Eurasian' admixture in the Fulani people seems a little high. I'm referring to the genetic studies on the Sudanese Fula.
Was this study done on autosomes? I don't know if you realize this but Sudanese Fula as well as various other groups in the Horn carry hg T in the Y-chromosome. Many use this as proof of Eurasian admixture but there are West Africans who carry R, and some Somalis who carry hg K. So clearly this is evidence of "Eurasian" input, but my question is were these Eurasians actually different from Africans??
According to your logic, scientists can't be racist and or prejudice.
Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than
One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.
The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of "scientific racism".
Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.
Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.
"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."
The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.
But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."
In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that "stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."
The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.
Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."
Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I prefer to trust science than a racist idiot like Djehuti.
Racists on this website are just mad because those latest researches show us that Eurasian admixtures in the Northeast African region, including Ancient Egypt, was absent or rare before 3000 years ago. and thus rare or absent during the foundation of Ancient Egypt around 6000 years ago. Confirming yet again, Ancient Egyptians to be indigenous Africans. Biologically, historically and culturally Africans.
Are you kidding? Ask lioness to provide you the opposite.
What they claim is that when you marry an Igbo, your offspring then will be Eurasian mixed, due to back migration.
For the record, you claim to be a "pure" African.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
I really don't trust some of these 'studies'. The amount of claimed 'Eurasian' admixture in the Fulani people seems a little high. I'm referring to the genetic studies on the Sudanese Fula.
Was this study done on autosomes? I don't know if you realize this but Sudanese Fula as well as various other groups in the Horn carry hg T in the Y-chromosome. Many use this as proof of Eurasian admixture but there are West Africans who carry R, and some Somalis who carry hg K. So clearly this is evidence of "Eurasian" input, but my question is were these Eurasians actually different from Africans??
Years ago I saw this documentary, in it was the advisor of the Royal house of Saudi. He stated that all over the Red Sea the same people were living on both sides of the sea. This was long before I knew anything about what Dana was saying. We know what Al Jahiz stated on the population at that region.
Head of a Syrian KhM 3896a TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
I really don't trust some of these 'studies'. The amount of claimed 'Eurasian' admixture in the Fulani people seems a little high. I'm referring to the genetic studies on the Sudanese Fula.
Was this study done on autosomes? I don't know if you realize this but Sudanese Fula as well as various other groups in the Horn carry hg T in the Y-chromosome. Many use this as proof of Eurasian admixture but there are West Africans who carry R, and some Somalis who carry hg K. So clearly this is evidence of "Eurasian" input, but my question is were these Eurasians actually different from Africans??
According to your logic, scientists can't be racist and or prejudice.
Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than
One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.
The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of "scientific racism".
Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.
Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.
"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."
The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.
But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."
In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that "stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."
The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.
Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."
Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."
I never said scientists can't be racist or prejudice!! Of course they can! They are humans prone human weakness also. In fact, where do you think scientific racism came from?? Perhaps you need to tell this to Ahamanuttheultimate who keeps talking about trusting science as if science is without flaw. All science is based on human endeavor.
About my response to Sudaniya, Y-chromosome hg T is found throughout western Eurasia both in Europe and the Middle East at low frequencies but it seems to have it's highest occurrence in Eritrea and the Horn. It's second highest occurrence is in eastern India. Now that I think about it, I believe hg T's occurrence in Africa does overlap with areas where the so-called 'Eurasian' autosomal alleles occur both in Central Africa and Southern Africa. However, as you pointed out the 'Eurasian' Mota is a carrier of E1b1. This is why I asked Sudaniya what the study on Sudanese Fula is based on.
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Mota does not have any significant Eurasian ancestry though (as measured by a lack of Neanderthal ancestry). The claim is that he represents people in NE Africa BEFORE a big Eurasian incoming ~3,000. So no, there's no need to call him "Eurasian" even sarcastically.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Years ago I saw this documentary, in it was the advisor of the Royal house of Saudi. He stated that all over the Red Sea the same people were living on both sides of the sea. This was long before I knew anything about what Dana was saying. We know what Al Jahiz stated on the population at that region.
Head of a Syrian KhM 3896a TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
The funny thing is that the above figures you posted are individuals from the Levant, NORTH of Arabia and the Red Sea. Since Arabia is in the same latitude as both Egypt and Sudan, it is no surprise that the indigenous peoples of the region were indeed black and still are today though to a lesser extent.
I myself have been gathering sources for the past couple of years on the population history of Arabia which I plan to discuss in the future. In the mean time I suggest you also contact Dana's friend Tariq Beri on this issue as well. While I don't agree with everything he says, his blog 'Save the True Arabs' does have a lot of interesting information on description of Arab tribes and individuals and he even has a lot of TV footage from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and other Gulf Arab states showing black natives. Tariq has even explained that the Arab media is no different from that of Indian media where the movie and TV stars are usually fair-skinned 'Caucasian' looking but when you see footage of rural areas of Arabia there is a stark contrast of how the natives really look.
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Djehuti Don't be stupid, this is a scientific forum. What do you use to base your opinion on if not science? Only white racist like you base their opinion on nothing and prejudice instead.
For population genetics, I always analyze the Data myself instead of leaning on the studies authors interpretation of them (which are sometimes great sometime erroneous as any theory). For example, it's easy to see the proportion of African-Eurasian admixtures in each populations using the Admixture software at k=2. Other things like sample representativity must also be checked out and we must remember those are only estimates which varies (usually slightly) from one study to another.
The Aamu/Hyksos/West Asians were painted white by Ancient Egyptians themselves. They were considered different people called Aamu.
I really don't trust some of these 'studies'. The amount of claimed 'Eurasian' admixture in the Fulani people seems a little high. I'm referring to the genetic studies on the Sudanese Fula.
Was this study done on autosomes? I don't know if you realize this but Sudanese Fula as well as various other groups in the Horn carry hg T in the Y-chromosome. Many use this as proof of Eurasian admixture but there are West Africans who carry R, and some Somalis who carry hg K. So clearly this is evidence of "Eurasian" input, but my question is were these Eurasians actually different from Africans??
According to your logic, scientists can't be racist and or prejudice.
Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than
One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.
The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks "in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of "scientific racism".
Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.
Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.
"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."
The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.
But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."
In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that "stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."
The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.
Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."
Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."
I never said scientists can't be racist or prejudice!! Of course they can! They are humans prone human weakness also. In fact, where do you think scientific racism came from?? Perhaps you need to tell this to Ahamanuttheultimate who keeps talking about trusting science as if science is without flaw. All science is based on human endeavor.
About my response to Sudaniya, Y-chromosome hg T is found throughout western Eurasia both in Europe and the Middle East at low frequencies but it seems to have it's highest occurrence in Eritrea and the Horn. It's second highest occurrence is in eastern India. Now that I think about it, I believe hg T's occurrence in Africa does overlap with areas where the so-called 'Eurasian' autosomal alleles occur both in Central Africa and Southern Africa. However, as you pointed out the 'Eurasian' Mota is a carrier of E1b1. This is why I asked Sudaniya what the study on Sudanese Fula is based on.
I had your screen name mixed up, with someone else's.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Years ago I saw this documentary, in it was the advisor of the Royal house of Saudi. He stated that all over the Red Sea the same people were living on both sides of the sea. This was long before I knew anything about what Dana was saying. We know what Al Jahiz stated on the population at that region.
Head of a Syrian KhM 3896a TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN
The funny thing is that the above figures you posted are individuals from the Levant, NORTH of Arabia and the Red Sea. Since Arabia is in the same latitude as both Egypt and Sudan, it is no surprise that the indigenous peoples of the region were indeed black and still are today though to a lesser extent.
I myself have been gathering sources for the past couple of years on the population history of Arabia which I plan to discuss in the future. In the mean time I suggest you also contact Dana's friend Tariq Beri on this issue as well. While I don't agree with everything he says, his blog 'Save the True Arabs' does have a lot of interesting information on description of Arab tribes and individuals and he even has a lot of TV footage from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and other Gulf Arab states showing black natives. Tariq has even explained that the Arab media is no different from that of Indian media where the movie and TV stars are usually fair-skinned 'Caucasian' looking but when you see footage of rural areas of Arabia there is a stark contrast of how the natives really look.
Dana Marniche on the Ethnohistory of the Moors Berbers and true Arabians
About ten years or so ago, there was this tv-special on a Saudi Prince and his 18 female assistance. They also showed rural places. These people all could "pass" for blacks in various degrees. Even most of the assistance. The whole (Eurasian) non-African vs Africa thing is a game.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: @Djehuti Don't be stupid, this is a scientific forum. What do you use to base your opinion on if not science? Only white racist like you base their opinion on nothing and prejudice instead.
For population genetics, I always analyze the Data myself instead of leaning on the studies authors interpretation of them (which are sometimes great sometime erroneous as any theory). For example, it's easy to see the proportion of African-Eurasian admixtures in each populations using the Admixture software at k=2. Other things like sample representativity must also be checked out and we must remember those are only estimates which varies (usually slightly) from one study to another.
The Aamu/Hyksos/West Asians were painted white by Ancient Egyptians themselves. They were considered different people called Aamu.
This depiction of a Hyksos has been circling around, ...
The top row, is considered Hyksos.
? Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
"A mid 2nd Millennium BCE painted limestone stele showing a Syrian mercenary drinking beer. The mercenary;s name is Terura and his wife's name is Arbura. His facial features and dress clearly identify him as a Syrian. While his wife is also Syrian, she wears the traditional Egyptian attire and wig. Terura drinks wine (less probably beer) through a long curved lead tube from an amphora. The long lance behind him and the dagger in his belt suggest that he is a soldier; Syrian mercenaries were incorporated in large number in the Egyptian army during the New Kingdom.
The scene reflects a festive event and that the stele was placed in a house rather than inside a tomb. Probably from Amarna, Egypt. New Kingdom, 18th Dynasty, reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten), 1351-1334 BCE. It is on display at the Neues Museum, Berlin, Germany." https://www.ancient.eu/image/11155/egyptian-stele-of-a-syrian-mercenary/Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: Negroes......nothing but Negroes....
This was the ideal and most common way to depict Northeast African (Egyptian) females throughout all dynasties. So, we can consider that they took this as the standard of beauty. What do you think?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
You keep accusing me of being "racist" yet you NEVER are able to prove it! In fact YOU are the idiot as you say you trust science yet Lioness cites a scientific study claiming Eurasian admixture throughout much of Sub-Saharan Africa!! 
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic