I have never read Keita, so I had no idea what an Ass he was.
In the video he asserts that though the Paupan/New Guineas look like Africans, they are NOT related to Africans.
He says they are "polytopic". The Definition of POLYTOPIC is: "occurring or originating in two or more disjunct areas." DISJUNCT means: discontinuous.
THIS IS STRAIGHT FROM THE WIKI:
New Guinea and Indonesian Papua; is a large Island in the southwest Pacific Ocean. It is the world's second-largest island, after Greenland, covering a land area of 786,000 km
The human presence on the island dates back at least 40,000 years to the oldest human migrations out of Africa. Research indicates that the highlands were an early and independent center of agriculture, with evidence of irrigation going back at least 10,000 years. Because of the time depth of its inhabitation and its highly fractured landscape, an unusually high number of languages are spoken on the island, with some 1,000 languages (a figure higher than that of most continents) having been catalogued out of an estimated world-wide pre-Columbian total of 6,000 human dialects. Most are classified as Papuan languages, a generally accepted geographical term that a minority of authors hold to be a genetic one. A number of Austronesian languages are spoken on the coast and on offshore islands.
In more recent millennia, another wave of people arrived on the shores of New Guinea. These were the Austronesian people, who had spread down from Taiwan, through the South-east Asian archipelago, colonising many of the islands on the way. The Austronesian people had technology and skills extremely well adapted to ocean voyaging and Austronesian language speaking people are present along much of the coastal areas and islands of New Guinea. These Austronesian migrants are considered the ancestors of most people in insular Southeast Asia, from Sumatra and Java to Borneo and Sulawesi, as well as coastal new Guinea.
In a 2005 study of ASPM gene variants, Mekel-Bobrov et al. found that the Papuan people have among the highest rate of the newly evolved ASPM haplogroup D, at 59.4% occurrence of the approximately 6,000-year-old allele. While it is not yet known exactly what selective advantage is provided by this gene variant, the haplogroup D allele is thought to be positively selected in populations and to confer some substantial advantage that has caused its frequency to rapidly increase.
According to various studies, Papuan people, other Melanesians, and Aboriginal Australians are the only known modern humans whose prehistoric ancestors interbred with the Denisova hominin, with whom they share 3–5% of their genome.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the Video Dr. Keita attempts to explain Polytopicity , by claiming that although the Melanesians and Africans look similar they are not related because they speak different languages and possess disimilar genes.
Use of melanesians and Africans to exemplify Polytopicity was a bad analogy, because Africans and Melanesians are not only Negroes, they also share genes, placenames and language.
There is constant changes in the terminology for haplogroups as researchers attempt to imply that Africans carry one set of genes, and other populations outside Africa carry a different and unique set of genes. Although this is the case in many cases the populations are carrying African genes--whoes name has been changed to erase any unity between Sub-Saharan Africa and everyone else.
For example, Africans and Melanesians share haplogroups.
In fact, they also share common placenames. Shared place names in Melanesia suggest that the Melanesians recently came to the Pacific from Africa, as claimed by the Fijians.
The Melanesians probably belonged to the Niger-Congo and Dravidian speaking communities that formerly lived in the Sahara-Sahel region until 5-6kya. The Melanesians formerly lived in Africa and/or South China/Southeast Asia before they sailed to the Pacific Islans, probably as part of the Lapita migrations.
In figure 3 we see cognate Mande and Melanesian terms for vase, pot, arrow, cattle/ox, and fish. They also shared agricultural terms as well
Polynesian English Manding *talun fallow, land daa *tanem to plant daa *suluq torch, flame suu *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku
As you can see the Melanesians and Africans are not only negroid they also share genes, placenames and culture terms. Obviously, use of Melanesians and Africans does not support Polytopicity.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^So your feeling is that Keita merely misspoke, rather than having a fundamental lack of understanding for the subject matter?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^So your feeling is that Keita merely misspoke, rather than having a fundamental lack of understanding for the subject matter?
No I feel that Keita does not want to rock the boat. keita knows what he is saying is false; but like most Afro-American academics he is afraid to tell the truth and he keeps us ignorant about the real relationship between African people and so-called Eurasian genes.
It is pathetic that for the past 200 years Europeans acknowledged that Melanesian art, culture and etc. was an extention of African art, culture and etc. Now to try and isolate Africans--who they attempt to claim are the true Negroes--and preserve the idea that their are specific Eurasian genes they change the script. For example,mtDNA M1, is called haplogroup D in Eurasia.
I am sorry to say, you can not expect professional Afro-American and African archaeologists and geneticists to tell us the truth about these fields and how they relate to African people. This was true in DuBois day, and it continues to be true today. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, as I have previously related: many years ago when I was first starting out, I attempted to jump start my own research by reading already published Black anthropological material.
I quickly found it to be lacking in common sense, even to a novice. That was the end of that, but in hindsight, if I had known about van Sertima, Chancellor Williams, and the like, I might have read them.
Now alas, all we have are shills like Skippy Gates, Keita, and let us not forget Kittles.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afrocentrism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Some critics of Afrocentrism note that the Afrocentric designation of Southeast Asians and Melanesians as "African diaspora" is made without reference to the self-identities of the peoples in question. They may not identify themselves as African, as they have tens of thousands of years of history in the places where they live, like people of Papa New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. In the largest sense, all humans are descended from ancestors in Africa but cultures and civilizations have aisen around the world that distinguish themselves as separate. Anthropologists note that modern man is the product of evolution of populations in many different areas of the globe after the migrations out of Africa.
So then, because lioness self-identifies (at least here on ES), as Black, that overrides the fact that in appearance and genetically, she is an Albino?????Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: Rick Kittles....
His work is supbar ? Or intentionally deceptive ??
I would not say that it is subpar. What we are talking about is that these fellows stay in the "Black" lane in otherwords. They will write about things that agree with the status quo, for example all Blacks in America were slaves, Blacks are not related to Native Americans and etc., even if they know it is false.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Yeah but Clyde posts there too and serious posters of Egyptology have left that forum as of late
But feel free to repost it in Egyptology and see if it sparks something
serious posters currently in Egyptology forum who are they?
You got a point there but between Ancient Egypt and Egyptology, Egyptology would have been a better forum to post this. Just saying.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Good explanation. Thank you for posting this.
Yeah, especially the part on North Africans.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
My personal experience with the Guinea man (Papua New Guinea) is despite tribal lore in terms of modern science they recognize an African origin but politically it'd be suicide to not keep up the indigenous origin explanation less they have no more claim than the latest interlopers there.
A book from my now mostly lost personal library by Doc Ben (rip) dealing with Oceana - western Blacks is the 2 vol set "They all look alike! all of them?": From Egypt to Papua New Guinea with ben-Jochannan.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: A book from my now mostly lost personal library by Doc Ben (rip) dealing with Oceana - western Blacks is the 2 vol set "They all look alike! all of them?": From Egypt to Papua New Guinea with ben-Jochannan.
As explained by Keita in the video. Some people can share some physical traits (thus looking the same in some fashion) and still not be related to each other historically or genetically by what is called polytopicity.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: A book from my now mostly lost personal library by Doc Ben (rip) dealing with Oceana - western Blacks is the 2 vol set "They all look alike! all of them?": From Egypt to Papua New Guinea with ben-Jochannan.
As explained by Keita in the video. Some people can share some physical traits (thus looking the same in some fashion) and still not be related to each other historically or genetically by what is called polytopicity.
If you believe this is true please provide an example because Pacific Islanders and Sub-Saharan Africans are related.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: A book from my now mostly lost personal library by Doc Ben (rip) dealing with Oceana - western Blacks is the 2 vol set "They all look alike! all of them?": From Egypt to Papua New Guinea with ben-Jochannan.
As explained by Keita in the video. Some people can share some physical traits (thus looking the same in some fashion) and still not be related to each other historically or genetically by what is called polytopicity.
.
Yeah and so what? It's old news.
Where were you years ago when many others made that self-same declaration? Oh, I know. You were lurking and taking notes so you could later regurgitate it like it was some breakthrough you discovered.
Remember us talking about convergent evolution and state versus descent? Well a similar principle applies humans but we know Asian blacks come from Pleistocene Africans who after ~10k years arrived at least as far east as Australia all the while retaining some physical features from Africa.
Other peoples of the earth cannot make that same claim. That is why when interacting day to day personal experience levels we have a kinship vibe.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Convergent evolution or polyplicity? DD'En made an interesting point that got my attention awhile back(one of the few times).
He said, is it convergent evolution or retention of traits?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Did you read me above:
Asian blacks come from Pleistocene Africans who after ~10k years arrived at least as far east as Australia all the while retaining some physical features from Africa
posted
Proto-Papuans branched northwards (at Euphrates?) from the proto-India/Andaman/Queensland pygmies who followed the Indian Ocean coasts. Some of these Proto-Papuans may have remained in Europe, while others met Denisovans and kept eastwardly to China coast and Mamanwa/Papua.
- - -
Convergent evolution commonly occurs in natural selection, 2 different types of animals that seem to become more similar with time due to influence of similar environment. Tasmanian wolf looked like European wolf, but was not at all closely related genetically, but both were carnivores that ate large prey. Tasmanian wolf and Papuan tree kangaroo both descend from a South American marsupial proto-opossum that coasted Antarctica to Australia-Papua before the big freeze-up there; New World monkeys and Cavy rodents may have done the same from Africa to South America.
Convergence can be detected by examining the fossil chain, 2 taxa that start similar but with time diverge in form may be close genetic kin; 2 taxa that end similar but have dissimilar fossil forms have less close genetic kinship.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Convergent evolution or polyplicity? DD'En made an interesting point that got my attention awhile back(one of the few times).
He said, is it convergent evolution or retention of traits?
Polyplicity like parallel mutation usually can not be verified because it lacks any material basis. Scientist , in my opinion use this theory when they donot want to see a relationship between populations and groups. In most cases there is no archaeogenetic evidence to support this phenomena. For this phenomena to exist there has to be no evidence of contact between the populations that share similar features.
Keita, used the Pacific Islanders because he believed that the revisionist view that just because people look negroid, they are not African to justify his proposition. It was a proposition that was easily falified by looking at the archaeology and history of Asia. As I noted earlier, a genetic theory can not be confirmed if it lacks archaeological and craniometric evidence to support it. See:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Did you read me above:
Asian blacks come from Pleistocene Africans who after ~10k years arrived at least as far east as Australia all the while retaining some physical features from Africa
According to the video of Keita above. We don't know yet if they retained physical features or are an example of convergent evolution (due to living in the same tropical environment).
Although Keita makes it clear those populations from Oceania who looks like Africans in some fashion are not historically, genetically or linguistically Africans. They are an example of polytopicity.
They left Africa at about the same time as the Eurasian and Native American populations.
We can note, this is not the case with Ancient Egyptians. They were related to other Africans much after the OOA migrations (aka their are indigenous Africans). And they also possess DNA which are Africans (E1b1a, autosomal STR, etc).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [qb] Did you read me above:
Asian blacks come from Pleistocene Africans who after ~10k years arrived at least as far east as Australia all the while retaining some physical features from Africa
According to the video of Keita above. We don't know yet if they retained physical features or are an example of convergent evolution (due to living in the same tropical environment).
Although Keita makes it clear those populations from Oceania who looks like Africans in some fashion are not historically, genetically or linguistically Africans. They are an example of polytopicity.
They left Africa at about the same time as the Eurasian and Native American populations.
Clyde argues that is not true because of this:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
^^^ Clyde, what article is this from?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde argues
And what do *you* argue?
I'm still studying the Y and mtDNA frequencies
Well, according to Keita, the video you posted, Oceanians are not historically, linguistically or genetically related to Africans.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Did you read me above:
Asian blacks come from Pleistocene Africans who after ~10k years arrived at least as far east as Australia all the while retaining some physical features from Africa
According to the video of Keita above. We don't know yet if they retained physical features or are an example of convergent evolution (due to living in the same tropical environment).
Although Keita makes it clear those populations from Oceania who looks like Africans in some fashion are not historically, genetically or linguistically Africans. They are an example of polytopicity.
They left Africa at about the same time as the Eurasian and Native American populations.
We can note, this is not the case with Ancient Egyptians. They were related to other Africans much after the OOA migrations (aka their are indigenous Africans). And they also possess DNA which are Africans (E1b1a, autosomal STR, etc).
Convergent evolution is just a theory. Up to now I have not seen any studies that confirm this theory. The two major studies which allegedly proved this phonomena was the presence of Dravidians in India and Sickle cell anemia among Indians. Both of these phenomenas could not be supported by archeogenetics.
There is no such thing as convergent evolution, like parallel mutation and advantageous genes this theory can not be supported by crainiometrics and archaeology. Researchers have tried to explain the presence of Dravidians in India as an example of parallel or convergent evolution, when the historical and archaeological evidence show that these people were part of the C-Group culture of Nubia. See:
. The Pacific Islanders did not leave Africa 60kya. There is no way the Melenesians could have left 60kya, when you find the same placenames in West Africa that exist in the Pacific, and similar languages related to the Niger Congo group. On many Pacific Islands you find Australoid people in the highlands, and Melanoids in the coastal area. See: http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=7003 . The Pacific Islanders came into the Pacific in two waves. The first group left Africa after 2000 spreading a megalithic culture.
.
.
. The second wave was spread of the Lapita culture. This is supported by archaeological evidence which indicates that Fiji, Futuna, Samoa, Tonga were settled 2,100–3,200 years ago by people from Southeast Asia and South China.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Why do you accept this statement when there is no evidence supporting Keita's claim?.
So would you say Polytopicty is a false concept, that people who look similar are closely related genetically?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So would you say Polytopicty is a false concept, that people who look similar are always closely related genetically?
Corrected that for you.
Polytopicity tells us this is not always the case.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So would you say Polytopicty is a false concept, that people who look similar are always closely related genetically?
Corrected that for you.
Polytopicity tells us this is not always the case.
Thanks for correcting that
But for Polytopicity to be true there has to be an example and in Egyptsearchology you can always backtrack genetic heritage to Africa so therefore it's not true, Iggy Azalea is a subset of African
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So would you say Polytopicty is a false concept, that people who look similar are always closely related genetically?
Corrected that for you.
Polytopicity tells us this is not always the case.
Thanks for correcting that
But for Polytopicity to be true there has to be an example and in Egyptsearchology you can always backtrack genetic heritage to Africa so therefore it's not true, Iggy Azalea is a subset of African
I don't know you but I rely on real science not egyptsearchology.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
People who bred dogs can certainly do a "convergent" evolution experiment--albeit an artificial one by "back-breeding" a Chow back to the original Wolf. That would be convergent evolution.
Are people of Melanesia examples of "convergent evolution"? Not really. It's more like "consistent evolution" with migrant groups maintaining parent traits over many millennia simply on the fact that the environments that they migrate to are ecologically similar. But because of the huge time time difference with their MRCA--many mutations take place thereby lending to the argument that such groups are not "genetically related" though phenotypically similar.
The confusion arises because people assume that there is something materially specific about the 4 nucleotide bases ATCG. When mutations occur--all that happens is a minor shuffling of the order and frequency of those 4 bases.
But in reality, what ultimately counts in nature is the selective impact of the environment on the living organism--genetic drift, bottle-necking, assorted mating, environmental isolation--thereby lending to new types, selected mating based on mere contingent aesthetics, etc.
The main thing about genotype analysis is that it mainly tells us about "separation times" and MRCA.
So do the Melanesians fall within the "African" ambit? Well yes. Proof of the Pudding: I have seen Fijian rugby teams play African teams from Kenya, Namibia, and South Africa. When they play Kenya and Namibia I can hardly tell the difference--same running styles and physiques combined with physiognomy and hair.
Point: the idea is NOT Africa-per se, but the PEOPLE who have evolved there.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Are people of Melanesia examples of "convergent evolution"? Not really. It's more like "consistent evolution" with migrant groups maintaining parent traits over many millennia simply on the fact that the environments that they migrate to are ecologically similar.
It's ok to give us your opinion. But in the video, the subject of this thread, Keita says both are possible and we don't know yet which one is true. That is both convergent evolution and the retainment of past traits are possible. Personally I think it's a little bit of both with the retainment of past traits being the most important factor in the polytopicity case here.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
A hypothesis is just a story, an untested explanation.
If a hypothesis is repeatedly tested using scientific method and found to explain without exception, it is a theory.
Scientists attempt to discover the laws of nature (patterns) which determine the substance (process) of the theory.
Or so.
Posts: 2021 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Did you read me above:
Asian blacks come from Pleistocene Africans who after ~10k years arrived at least as far east as Australia all the while retaining some physical features from Africa
According to the video of Keita above. We don't know yet if they retained physical features or are an example of convergent evolution (due to living in the same tropical environment).
Although Keita makes it clear those populations from Oceania who looks like Africans in some fashion are not historically, genetically or linguistically Africans. They are an example of polytopicity.
They left Africa at about the same time as the Eurasian and Native American populations.
We can note, this is not the case with Ancient Egyptians. They were related to other Africans much after the OOA migrations (aka their are indigenous Africans). And they also possess DNA which are Africans (E1b1a, autosomal STR, etc).
.
I see you still don't understand what Eurasian means nor the time periods humans spread to their current continental habitations.
Humanity spread from Africa to so-called SW Asia to South Asia and one branch therefrom toward Southwest Asia and Australia a good 20,000 years before there were any exodes to Europe but maybe a little earlier for ones to Central and East Asia.
I find it totally preposterous and absurd to believe Oceanans, some with DNA dating to 55,000 years ago, would have lost all African traits while their trek from Africa wandering thru Asia was completely south of 32° N, when the first people into Europe and the west of North Asia 40,000 years ago had physiognomies that were heavily African.
In other words, no. Those wandering Africans, Pleistocene or Holocene, who were to become the Melanesians never had an interval of time when they were other than black folk. Who could believe first they were black, then not black, then black again?
We know melanin loss has occured in Homo sapiens but I never heard of a non-melanated people turning black.
Anyway, morphometric comparisons of Africans and Melanesians would add another line of evidence, pro or con, to particularly compare to genetic data.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Never watched that video I prefer texts.
.
Fig. 1. Out-of-Africa dispersal models. Spheres are approximate centroids of populations sampled (Table 1), connecting lines are dispersal routes, and arrows are geographical waypoints (Table S4). The eastward expansion (EE) model connects populations primarily along a latitudinal axis (10, 12). The beachcomber single dispersal (BSD) model connects populations primarily along a coastal route (7). The multiple dispersals model (MD) connects hypothetical relic populations along a southern route (dotted lines) and north Eurasians along a northern route (13). The multiple dispersals with isolation (MDI) model assumes that only Australo-Melanesian populations retain a strong southern route biological signal (8). For simplicity, a Holocene map outline is shown
Reyes-Centeno et al. Genomic and cranial phenotype data support multiple modern human dispersals from Africa and a southern route into Asia 7248–7253 PNAS May 20, 2014 vol.111 no.20
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Never watched that video I prefer texts.
.
Fig. 1. Out-of-Africa dispersal models. Spheres are approximate centroids of populations sampled (Table 1), connecting lines are dispersal routes, and arrows are geographical waypoints (Table S4). The eastward expansion (EE) model connects populations primarily along a latitudinal axis (10, 12). The beachcomber single dispersal (BSD) model connects populations primarily along a coastal route (7). The multiple dispersals model (MD) connects hypothetical relic populations along a southern route (dotted lines) and north Eurasians along a northern route (13). The multiple dispersals with isolation (MDI) model assumes that only Australo-Melanesian populations retain a strong southern route biological signal (8). For simplicity, a Holocene map outline is shown
Reyes-Centeno et al. Genomic and cranial phenotype data support multiple modern human dispersals from Africa and a southern route into Asia 7248–7253 PNAS May 20, 2014 vol.111 no.20
The Reyes-Centeno et al use of the Melanesians in their study as evidence of a remnant population makes the study invalid, because the Melanesians only recently arrived in the Pacific. That's why I wrote the paper: African and Dravidian origin of the Melanesians:
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: Convergent evolution is just a theory.
Evolution is just a theory.
A hypothesis is just a story, an untested explanation.
If a hypothesis is repeatedly tested using scientific method and found to explain without exception, it is a theory.
Scientists attempt to discover the laws of nature (patterns) which determine the substance (process) of the theory.
Or so.
What is a Scientific Theory?
quote: The evolution of a scientific theory A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.
Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.
Some believe that theories become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A law is a description of an observed phenomenon that hold true every time it is tested. It doesn't explain why something is true; it just states that it is true. A theory, on the other hand, explains observations that are gathered during the scientific process. So, while law and theory are part of the scientific process, they are two very different aspects, according to the National Science Teachers Association.
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: b]What is a Scientific Theory?[/b]
quote: The evolution of a scientific theory A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.
Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.
Some believe that theories become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A law is a description of an observed phenomenon that hold true every time it is tested. It doesn't explain why something is true; it just states that it is true. A theory, on the other hand, explains observations that are gathered during the scientific process. So, while law and theory are part of the scientific process, they are two very different aspects, according to the National Science Teachers Association.
Correct. The theory of Convergent evolution, parallel evolution etc., have never been confirmed, just like the theory of evolution. The basic problem with trying to confirm these theories is that researchers attempt to use Black Dravidians and Black Melanesians as an example of this phenomena.
These are bad examples, because the archaeogenetic evidence, especially, language, placenames and crainiometrics does not support the claim. Moreover, the genetics don't support the theory either. If you look solely at the name for a haplogroup, e.g., haplogroup D and M1, you would think they are different until you look at the mutations in the haplogroup which show that they are identical.
Most people don't understand the process of science. In science you test hypotheses to confirm or disconfirm a theory. Above you accurately describe how a theory becomes a law. Just think about it, the theory of evolution is almost 200 years old but it has not become a law because it can not be confirmed.
Sadly, most people think that just because a theory is supported by the Academe it is a factual observation of a natural phenomena, when in reality it is just an idea or guess that has not been confirmed.That's why I made the Checklist to Evaluate Population Genetics Article See:
Papua New Guineans look like Africans but sometimes there are some slight differences. Papua New Guineans often have prominent brow ridges which are not common in Africans. Caucasian brow ridges are relatively more prominent but ot as prominent as the Oceania people. Papua New Guineans have the highest frequenices in the world of Neadnerthal DNA (the similar Denisova hominem) , about 5.5% admixture while Africans have the lowest (in most Africans, none) It means nothing to speculate that the Neanderthal/Denisova may have had dark skin, their bone structure was different, it's a different species. They have very prominent brow ridges for instance. You also find this in the Australians.
As for DNA alll the worlds people have some cross over. It's the frequency levels of the haplogroups that indicate differences. Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Man from Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guineans look like Africans but sometimes there are some slight differences. Papua New Guineans often have prominent brow ridges which are not common in Africans. Caucasian brow ridges are relatively more prominent but ot as prominent as the Oceania people. Papua New Guineans have the highest frequenices in the world of Neadnerthal DNA (the similar Denisova hominem) , about 5.5% admixture while Africans have the lowest (in most Africans, none) It means nothing to speculate that the Neanderthal/Denisova may have had dark skin, their bone structure was different, it's a different species. They have very prominent brow ridges for instance. You also find this in the Australians.
As for DNA alll the worlds people have some cross over. It's the frequency levels of the haplogroups that indicate differences.
The chart doesn't prove anything. The chart was created by the author of the article using Bayesian statistics, these statistics are used to verify an inference already held by the researcher.
To support the Bayesian statistic you need archaeological or crianiometric evidence.
On most Pacific Islands you find two diverse populations the Australoid people usually live in the highlands thy have the broad brow ridges. The Melanoid/African people live in the lowlands.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic