...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
The 3 streams of thought within the Black Genetics paradigm
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [qb] [b]3. Archeology and Linguistics have little to no bearing on analysis of genetic data[/b] This seems rather dubious- another strawman set up to later "refute" as to what the alleged "Afrocentrics believe"? Precisely what Eurocentric academics think Archeology and Linguistics have little to no bearing on analysis of genetic data? To the contrary they often try to shoehorn archaeology and linguistic data into their genetic constructs. Some of their attempt fail, but not for lack of trying. Cavalli-Sforza's Genes, People, Language is a classic example and he tried to work in archaeo and linguistic data aplenty. So where are these reputed "Eurocentrcs" who say it has "no bearing"? [b]So the second reason that Eurocentrics use genetics is to combat social ideological enemies that they consider are toxic to the legacy of African people; mainly Hebrew Isrealites and Moors. They use Genetic data to try to debunk the beliefs of these ideologues.[/b] Equally dubious. "Genetic data" is not needed to debunk notions about black "Hee-brew Israelites" originating in ancient West Africa. It doesn't even pass the smell test with basic historic and archaeo data. Likewise exactly what "genetic data" supposedly "combats" that some Moors were from North Africa and that among them were persons with common DNA markers found in African populations? XYZ's posted studies on the Iberian peninsula's profile on into the historic era confirm the case. So exactly what does alleged genetic data "combat" as to these two items? [b]Archeogenticists These are scholars that combine archeology and linguistics in genetics from an African centered prospective and seek to understand genetic data from the perspective of the original African blueprint of humanity. [/b] ^^This is shaky too for many so-called "archaeogenticists" are not operating from any African centered perspective, and are manipulating data and models to maintain stereotypical racial constructs. Cavalli-Sforza again is a classic example. He is a legit scholar with some credible info but also falls into certain stereotypical thinking traps. Some in this alleged stream of archaeogenetic thought are very Eurocentric. The article below debunks notions of "archaeogenticists" necessarily providing any more balanced treatment of Africa and Africans. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10768880 [i]Curr Anthropol. 2000 Jun;41(3):357-384. Genes, Tribes, and African History. MacEachern S. Abstract Over the past 40 years, traditional perspectives on the constitution of human groups have been subjected to stringent critique within anthropology. This began with the dismantling of accepted "race" divisions after World War II and continued with analyses of the meaning and reality of African "tribal" distinctions from the 1960s until the present. Archaeologists, ethnographers, linguists, and historians of Africa now work within a research milieu where social interactions, cultural exchange, and the dynamic nature of group identifications are accepted as a normal part of the human experience. At the same time, new techniques have been developed for the examination of human history, techniques based upon an expanding repertoire of tools for the analysis of genetic variability in human populations. Perhaps the most striking result of this research has been Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza's The History and Geography of Human Genes. Rather less attention has been paid, however, to the conceptual relationships between the human groups defined through such analyses, in Africa and elsewhere, and those defined through other kinds of research. This paper is a preliminary examination of the fit between genetic, archaeological, and ethnographic data on the African past."[/i] [IMG]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7apday5zcAc/VLawuYJsPKI/AAAAAAAABSc/d-OsltIZ4Sk/s1600/researchproblems3.jpg[/IMG] ^^ANd there are plenty of archaeogenetic games being played with Africa and Africans.. [/qb][/QUOTE]There are no archaeogenetics games being played against Black people. The article you cite fail to support you proposition. Below is the abstract [QUOTE] Format: AbstractSend to Curr Anthropol. 2000 Jun;41(3):357-384. Genes, Tribes, and African History. MacEachern S. Abstract Over the past 40 years, traditional perspectives on the constitution of human groups have been subjected to stringent critique within anthropology. This began with the dismantling of accepted "race" divisions after World War II and continued with analyses of the meaning and reality of African "tribal" distinctions from the 1960s until the present.[b] Archaeologists, ethnographers, linguists, and historians of Africa[/b] now work within a research milieu where social interactions, cultural exchange, and the dynamic nature of group identifications are accepted as a normal part of the human experience. At the same time, new techniques have been developed for the examination of human history, techniques based upon an expanding repertoire of tools for the analysis of genetic variability in human populations. Perhaps the most striking result of this research has been Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza's The History and Geography of Human Genes. Rather less attention has been paid, however, to the conceptual relationships between the human groups defined through such analyses, in Africa and elsewhere, and those defined through other kinds of research. [b]This paper is a preliminary examination of the fit between genetic, archaeological, and ethnographic data on the African past.[/b] [/QUOTE]As you can see this paper supports archeogenetics. The vast majority of geneticists use Bayesian statistics to "prove" their hypothesis. Bayesian is based on the personal belief of the researcher. [QUOTE] Bayesian probability is one interpretation of the concept of probability. In contrast to interpreting probability as the "frequency" or "propensity" of some phenomenon, Bayesian probability is a quantity that we assign for the purpose of representing a state of knowledge, or a state of belief. [/QUOTE]This means that researchers using Bayesian statistics are just confirming what they already believe. As a result, when Eurocentrist, and 'go-along' AA geneticist make claims about the phylogeography of Afro-Americans and Africans their results are going to be biased, an infer that Black people are isolated and retricted to Africa; and that if black haplogroups appear outside Africa they are the result of slavery. Archaeogenetics is the only way you can support any hypothesis relating to population migrations and admixture studies. Ray and Excoffier argue that to build a reliable model of population dispersal researchers must combine genetic data and archaeological (or historical and linguistic) data . Using the method of research advocated by Ray and Excoffier demands that we reconsider the origin of the Dravidian and Aryan populations of India. The methods of Ray and Excoffier are in conformity with basic archaeogenetic research methods. The Archaeogenetic method suggest that coupling the archaeological data with genetic data is a powerful way to infer population migration . In summary you don't know what you're talking about. Bayesian studies discriminate against Blacks, not archaeogenetics. Bayesian just confirm every evidence of Black genes outside Africa, date to the European spread of African people during slavery.It is due to archaeogenetics that we can prove/confirm that the Paleoamericans and first Europeans were Black. . [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3