who is more closely related to one another?

[byz]

I agree with Dienekes - genetic distance is supposed to be greatest between East Asian people and Europeans and Africans, because it is believed that East Asian people were among the first to migrate out of Africa and have been significantly isolated from European and African populations since - I think Cavalli-Sforza actually says this in "Genes, Peoples and Languages".

[Polako]

admin said:

polako said:

Exactly, I think Cavalli-Sforza even said that the north Chinese could even be considered part of the Caucasoud group based on his analysis.

This begs the question: what the hell is Dienekes all about here???

All evidence I've seen points to sub-Saharan Africans being the most distinct group.

Incorrect, Rosenberg's studies are quite clear that when individuals are clustered in two groups, the main distinction is between Mongoloids and the rest.

How do you interpret that diagram to show that Mongoloids are the most distinct group?

All other studies show that Africans are most distinct.

[Polako]

byz said:

I agree with Dienekes - genetic distance is supposed to be greatest between East Asian people and Europeans and Africans, because it is believed that East Asian people were among the first to migrate out of Africa and have been significantly isolated from European and African populations since - I think Cavalli-Sforza actually says this in "Genes, Peoples and Languages".

No he doesn't. He says the north Chinese are strikingly similar to Europeans.

[gelaye]

i think one of the reasons africans have always been considered 'savage' and bottom of the 'pile' even in comparison to amerindians for example (who didn't accomplish as much in terms of civilisation as some SSA empires) is because of hair texture - european beauty ideal is soft silky hair......not what Africans have.....east asians on the other hand have soft silky hair as do amerindians, which is why they weren't treated as if they were completely alien and like animals.

[Dagaalyahan]

gelaye said:

i think one of the reasons africans have always been considered 'savage' and bottom of the 'pile' even in comparison to amerindians for example (who didn't accomplish as much in terms of civilisation as some SSA empires) is because of hair texture - european beauty ideal is soft silky hair......not what Africans have.....east asians on the other hand have soft silky hair as do amerindians, which is why they weren't treated as if they were completely alien and like animals.

1) not all africans have nappy hair.

2) Dont you think you're over-simplifying this whole thing? LOL