|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 8, 2005 9:53:50 GMT -5
No you are wrong. This is a human biodiversity forum which includes genetics as well as religion, culture and other topics. I can discuss genetics till my hair turns gray. All you have done is just state your views with little if no genetics in your arguments. Before Franklins' photograph, Watson and Crick did not know the structure of DNA. That was not a very long ago in time. Nucleotides, codons, genes, mRNA, alleles, inversions and such things as wobbling are all younger than your parents. Yes and comparatively genes, alleles and some other genetic terms are as old as genetics gets, which is an enfant science.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 8, 2005 12:43:16 GMT -5
And Topdogs argument of geographic and climatic differences does not account for the obvious physical differences between Africans who live in close proximity to each other. Twa pygmies, Tutsi, Hutus all live in the same geographic and climatic zones. If you've read anything about about the above three populations, you would know that Twa Pygmies were the original inhabitants of Rwanda and Hutus arrived later followed by Tutsis. Nobody has suggested that these three populations evovled in their present biotopes together. You seem to forget about migrations within Africa. Bantu speakers migrated into Kenya later than Maasai, I don't see what point you are trying to make here. Nilotes originated in southern Sudan from whence they have migrated. Some live in Ethiopia, some even live in Eritrea. They've migrated as far as Uganda and Tanzania. Migrations and movements of peoples accounts for their present places of inhabitation, people didn't just sit around in one place the entire time. West-central Africans[Bantu speakers] didn't migrate into the Horn of Africa, Egypt, and Northeast Africa. The genetic evidence isn't in agreement with what you say. There is no evidence that west-central Africans interbred with peoples in the areas you mentioned and spread ‘Negroid’ traits. The idea that ‘Negroids’ originated in one place only[west-central] and spread their traits all around Africa is ludicrous and cannot be supported in fossil record nor genetics. You even stated that ‘west African Negroids’ migrated into Nubia(?). Subtypes of Negroids have evolved and their features are shaped by environment and climate as well as intra-African interbreeding.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Apr 8, 2005 18:34:29 GMT -5
So, it looks as if M originated in Asia, then returned to NE Africa (and is there classified as M1.) That could explain the common "Indian" appearance that many people in that area show.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Apr 8, 2005 19:04:59 GMT -5
And also, if you can't agree, drop it. The point is not to argue and win but to learn and discuss. I really like this mentality. Too often discussion about this kind of topic results in needless personal insults and ego wars. It's just race. Some people take it too personal, which I think is an unconsciously natural racist inclination.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Apr 8, 2005 19:25:01 GMT -5
Did anyone post this new 2004-submitted/2005-published study yet? www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-5-26.pdfAlso, this whole question of where it originated is moot. Modern Indians are a mixture of "Caucasians" (a modern post-glacial phenomenon) with Indian aborigines, who resemble Australian aborigines. If M1 did to back to Africa, the time estimate is ~30,000 (according to the one I read). THERE WERE NO CAUCASIANS THEN. WHAT DOES IT MATTER AN AUSTRALIAN-LOOKING group mixed with the locals? I really don't know the specifics of this but I've had similar debates with Caucasians. For example, this notion of modern SE Asians as paleo-"Mongoloids"... first osteologically Mongoloid people, AFAIK, are found around 8,000 in the Americas, and prior there is fossils resembling it even in very northwestern regions of Eurasia in UP as well as implied evidence of the Polynesian/Ainu-like finds (mixtures) in the Americas ~12,000. "Australoid"/"Negritoid" types are still found in the southern half of China 7,000 years ago. It's clear that modern SE Asians are a mixture. Osteology, paleontology, genetics, archeology, linguistics are support this, and yet it's still that crap about Caucasians in the north (China/Siberia) being swamped by "Mongoloids". I really can't get into this debate since I don't know enough about the subject, but my advice to everyone is to be objective. And also, if you can't agree, drop it. The point is not to argue and win but to learn and discuss. I guess you are doing a monologue. Very cryptic though.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Apr 8, 2005 19:31:05 GMT -5
Igu, I never have any idea what the hell is going on in your image signatures.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Apr 8, 2005 19:32:35 GMT -5
I really like this mentality. Too often discussion about this kind of topic results in needless personal insults and ego wars. It's just race. Some people take it too personal, which I think is an unconsciously natural racist inclination. I take it personal because some Brainless AfroAmericans with no heritage claim that I'm arab and not a Berber. I can't accept it, especially from people who have nothing to do with North Africa.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Apr 8, 2005 19:34:01 GMT -5
Igu, I never have any idea what the hell is going on in your image signatures. I changed it ;D
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Apr 8, 2005 19:48:08 GMT -5
Yeah, but getting all flustered over the claims of those idiots is only hurting you in the long run by making your blood pressure go up. Best thing to do is to relate the truth and when they persist, mock them mercilessly and make sport of it. Otherwise they'll think by making you angry that they're on to some kind of great white conspiracy. These kinds of thoughts are programmed into their brains. Best thing to do is make fun of them. Oh, and kickass signature. Very nice.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Apr 8, 2005 20:11:27 GMT -5
Yeah, but getting all flustered over the claims of those idiots is only hurting you in the long run by making your blood pressure go up. Best thing to do is to relate the truth and when they persist, mock them mercilessly and make sport of it. Otherwise they'll think by making you angry that they're on to some kind of great white conspiracy. These kinds of thoughts are programmed into their brains. Best thing to do is make fun of them. Oh, and kickass signature. Very nice. It's hard man! sometimes I prefer not to answer instead of using some crappy words. Ps:The signature was made By a website, not me.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Apr 8, 2005 20:42:04 GMT -5
Race defines how you look, how you act, what you're good at, how you're viewed, and oftentimes who you spend time with. It's not a "just".
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Apr 8, 2005 21:08:31 GMT -5
Race defines how you look, how you act, what you're good at, how you're viewed, and oftentimes who you spend time with. It's not a "just". My race does not define how I act. If I woke up as an Australian aborigine tomorrow I would be the same person with the same values. Same if I woke up as a black man I would not be walking around with two layers of silver chains around my neck braggin' about big pimpin'. It does determine how you look. But that's not important. It doesn't determine what you are good at. It does determine how your viewed and often who you hang out with, but it shouldn't. So let me rephrase: if race isn't a just, then it SHOULD be a just.
|
|
|
Post by Igu on Apr 8, 2005 21:12:35 GMT -5
Race defines how you look, how you act, what you're good at, how you're viewed, and oftentimes who you spend time with. It's not a "just". Excuse me, but race is not a species.
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 8, 2005 21:20:38 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with M1. It could have been any haplogroup found in Eurasia. It just happens to be M1. Because it is found in the Afrocentrist Eden of NE Africa it has to be negroid and African. Everything found in Africa is negroid. Right? I only hope that the Afrocentrists turn their attention to the real negroid Africa and those ethnic groups and nationalities which are totally negroid in appearance without any caucasoid like features. They could start with the pygmy groups.
|
|
|
Post by kir on Apr 8, 2005 23:04:34 GMT -5
Did anyone post this new 2004-submitted/2005-published study yet? www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-5-26.pdfAlso, this whole question of where it originated is moot. Modern Indians are a mixture of "Caucasians" (a modern post-glacial phenomenon) with Indian aborigines, who resemble Australian aborigines. If M1 did to back to Africa, the time estimate is ~30,000 (according to the one I read). THERE WERE NO CAUCASIANS THEN. WHAT DOES IT MATTER AN AUSTRALIAN-LOOKING group mixed with the locals? 1)Actually M1 DID migrate back to Africa, that is what the paper proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore M1 isn’t Negroid. 2)The Age of M1’s expansion back to Africa isn’t 30,000 bp. This is an outdated overestimate A better approximation is around 12,000. As you said “first osteologically Mongoloid people, AFAIK, are found around 8,000 in the Americas, and prior there is fossils resembling it even in very northwestern regions of Eurasia in UP as well as implied evidence of the Polynesian/Ainu-like finds (mixtures) in the Americas ~12,000.”<br> Yeah around 12,000 bp mongoloids, a Eurasian race, expanded into Southeast Asia(Haplogroup B) and the Americas, the same holds true for haplogroup M1 which also expanded back to Africa at the same time. So you didn’t rule out that M1=Caucasian or Indian or anything else. Given that the Indian M’s are the closest to Africa, it’s possible that M1 could have branched off one of the Indian M’s, and back migrated 12,000ybp. The reason we don’t know if this is true is because the Indian M lineages was superficially described early on. However, from the new paper, the Indian M’s are in the process of fully being sequenced. We will probably see later.
|
|