...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Because some fools don't know how to make their own thread about the race of kemet
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cass/: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku: [qb] @ Cass - You are still talking about Skulls, I am talking about DNA. I dont know the specific measurements of the Native American skulls, i do know what I have read about the skulls and what has been talked about in literature (hence the links showing Early Natives look like Africans/Melanesians.) I dont really care, all i know is they are not US (Africans) and they are at the opposite end of the genetic spectrum. You are really arguing a weak Point, looks like its the only one you know. If you want to know how Caucasoid looking populations can have a genetic affinity to Sub Saharan Africans just check out the results released by DNA tribes, or look at any of the other genetic data I just posted. This is actually DNA from Egyptian mummies. Why are you focusing your attention on skulls of native Americans to prove a point while avoiding the DNA results from the actual mummies you are arguing about? You are wasting your breath attempting to explain how your old guard craniometic bullshit is still relevant in the age of Genetic science that is LEAPS and BOUNDS over that old data in showing real genetic affinities between humans groups. How exactly are you different from Afro-Loons when saying "hey we must be related because they look kinda like me....DNA be damned." [/qb][/QUOTE]"The idea that morphological variation is less precise at untangling population relationships goes back to the birth of anthropological genetics, where the benefits of studying blood types were lauded over analysis of metric traits (Boyd, 1950). Over the next few decades, new technologies gave way to numerous red (and white) blood cell polymorphisms becoming state of the art, which in turn were largely replaced by the host of new DNA markers available since the late 1980s. Given this history, it is not a surprise that research on craniometrics and other metric traits seems archaic to many (Relethford, 2007). Indeed, I recall mentioning my research on cranial variation to a non-anthropologist and then being asked, “Isn’t that nineteenth century?” The past decade has seen a resurgence in studies of metric traits in studies of human v ariation and evolution (Relethford, 2007; Roseman and Weaver, 2007; von Cramon-Taubadel and Weaver, 2009). The results of such work, some of which has been reviewed in this chapter, shows that craniometric traits can and do provide us with a useful tool for analyzing population structure and history. The molecular revolution has helped lead to this reassessment by providing data from which to derive expectations under a neutral model. This does not mean that craniometric variation is entirely neutral or that natural selection and developmental processes have no influence. Far from it. The point is that although such influences can sometimes obscure underlying population history, they do not erase it. As shown in this chapter, we are still able to see the genetic signatures of human variation produced by our species’ history of an African origin and dispersion. Although deviations from a neutral model occur (most notably size-related variation in extremely cold climates), the overall pattern of craniometric variation is remarkably similar to that seen in DNA markers: higher variation in Africa, an out-of-Africa gradient in within-group variation, and a close correspondence of among-group variation and geography constrained by known migration routes. This is not to dismiss the obvious advantages of DNA markers over craniometric traits. However, on the same hand, the advances in DNA technology should not take away from our appreciation of the wealth of information that we can learn from studying cranial variation. The battles of past decades over whether one should use genetics or anatomy to reconstruct population history are no longer appropriate. Both sources of data tell us something about evolutionary past and present. This new view on cranial variation is best described by the title of Roseman and Weaver’s (2007) review paper, which shows that this is not an either/or s ituation—“Molecules versus Morphology? Not for the Human Cranium." - Understanding Human Cranial Variation in Light of Modern Human Origins (2013) John H. Relethford [/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