|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 17, 2006 2:54:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 17, 2006 2:56:22 GMT -5
Look where Eurasians and Europeans are in the phenetic tree
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 17, 2006 3:40:55 GMT -5
Yeah but posted a picture wider than that when you tried refuting me on Egyptians with Hanihara's plot. The truth is not coming to light Pontikos.
|
|
king
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by king on Jan 17, 2006 15:14:04 GMT -5
Of course east africans cluster with other africans. The only people who say otherwise are fools. East africans are black africans they cluster with other black africans. The people who try to make east africa white need a reality check. Good post Planet Asia.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 17, 2006 15:31:13 GMT -5
Of course east africans cluster with other africans. The only people who say otherwise are fools. East africans are black africans they cluster with other black africans. The people who try to make east africa white need a reality check. Good post Planet Asia. Still failing to convince yourself I see?!
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 18, 2006 1:53:54 GMT -5
edited
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 18, 2006 2:18:52 GMT -5
Link is wrong and no citation given.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 18, 2006 3:01:48 GMT -5
Link is fixed
Russian Journal of Genetics, Vol. 41, No. 9, 2005, pp. 1046–1054.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Jan 18, 2006 18:21:02 GMT -5
I've been absent for a while, but I see that the same issues never go away. BTW, all these genetic trees are based on co-efficiency of co-ancestry numbers. They're statistically constructed from the bottom-up, i. e. inductively, not from the impulse to plug people into some Platonic, essential race.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 19, 2006 2:39:17 GMT -5
I've been absent for a while, but I see that the same issues never go away. BTW, all these genetic trees are based on co-efficiency of co-ancestry numbers. They're statistically constructed from the bottom-up, i. e. inductively, not from the impulse to plug people into some Platonic, essential race. So what exactly is your point? Are you on to something or are you here to blow smoke as usual?
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Jan 19, 2006 3:01:01 GMT -5
I've been absent for a while, but I see that the same issues never go away. BTW, all these genetic trees are based on co-efficiency of co-ancestry numbers. They're statistically constructed from the bottom-up, i. e. inductively, not from the impulse to plug people into some Platonic, essential race. So what exactly is your point? Are you on to something or are you here to blow smoke as usual? Who are you? The genetic trees are constructed from hard numbers-- co-efficients of ancestry. None of this should be impressionistic, whoever you are. Give me hard, quantitative numbers for the argument you're trying to make, whatever that is. And minus irrelevant insults--- which is usually relied upon by those who can't put across a scientific-- which means quantitative-- statement. My point, since you didn't infer it, was that you're trying to force people into some race-essentialist category. All you can state from the evidence is how close someone is related to someone else compared to how closely related they are to a third someone else. You can create whatever labels you want for all these "someones" as long as your scheme is logically and quantitatively coherent i.e. your labels correspond to similar quantitative genetic distances. BTW, phylogenetic trees are not the same as "clusters", which show genetic distances through spatial corelation.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 19, 2006 3:20:27 GMT -5
So what exactly is your point? Are you on to something or are you here to blow smoke as usual? Who are you? The genetic trees are constructed from hard numbers-- co-efficients of ancestry. None of this should be impressionistic, whoever you are. Give me hard, quantitative numbers for the argument you're trying to make, whatever that is. And minus irrelevant insults--- which is usually relied upon by those who can't put across a scientific-- which means quantitative-- statement. My point, since you didn't infer it, was that you're trying to force people into some race-essentialist category. All you can state from the evidence is how close someone is related to someone else compared to how closely related they are to a third someone else. You can create whatever labels you want for all these "someones" as long as your scheme is logically and quantitatively coherent i.e. your labels correspond to similar quantitative genetic distances. BTW, phylogenetic trees are not the same as "clusters", which show genetic distances through spatial corelation. My name is Charlie. What hard proof do you want to see? East Africans do cluster with other Africans, this plot is based on non-metric traits.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Jan 19, 2006 8:44:50 GMT -5
Who are you? The genetic trees are constructed from hard numbers-- co-efficients of ancestry. None of this should be impressionistic, whoever you are. Give me hard, quantitative numbers for the argument you're trying to make, whatever that is. And minus irrelevant insults--- which is usually relied upon by those who can't put across a scientific-- which means quantitative-- statement. My point, since you didn't infer it, was that you're trying to force people into some race-essentialist category. All you can state from the evidence is how close someone is related to someone else compared to how closely related they are to a third someone else. You can create whatever labels you want for all these "someones" as long as your scheme is logically and quantitatively coherent i.e. your labels correspond to similar quantitative genetic distances. BTW, phylogenetic trees are not the same as "clusters", which show genetic distances through spatial corelation. My name is Charlie. What hard proof do you want to see? East Africans do cluster with other Africans, this plot is based on non-metric traits. / It's you, always the contentious Charlie Bass. Give the genetic distances between the Horn of Africa people and others. Your tree (once again not the same thing as clustering, for which you need to know genetic distances) comes from Cavalli-Sforza, who acknowledges that the H of A people are intermediate between West Eurasians and other SS Africans but places them in his tree as you showed because they were slightly closer to other SS Africans than to West Eurasians. That's about it. You can read it in HGHG. How do you define a major cluster? Within what genetic distance do groups have to stay within to be part of the same cluster? Give numbers. Correction: Yes, phylogenetic trees show relative closeness of ancestry also, but they're a simplification of the genetic distances that give structure to clustering.
|
|
truedat
New Member
I've got carpal tunnel!
Posts: 7
|
Post by truedat on Jan 23, 2006 18:04:18 GMT -5
His point is that East Africans are just as "Negro" as the Yoruba. ;D stupid.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on Jan 23, 2006 23:47:25 GMT -5
His point is that East Africans are just as "Negro" as the Yoruba. ;D stupid. / Now that's an intelligent response.
|
|