|
Post by Faelcind on Oct 11, 2004 22:38:53 GMT -5
Crimson guard. You are betraying a lack in depth understanding of anthropology literature. There have been no total studies of the human genome comparing regional areas and determining there level of relatedness. What are studied is specific regions, and they often do not reflect the same results. Just because Sicilians to do not have appear to have recent links to sub-saharan african in a specific gene systems indicates relatively little about their overall genetic make up. Virtually every major published author in human genetics does not subscribe to the concept of race. Genetics systems are allmost allways clinal in charecter and there is and has consisently been gene flow throughout the human population. Sicilians being closer to africa are going to be closer in any number of charecteristics to africans than people farther north, they certainly cluster with europeans both genetically and morphometrically but then theu are in europe but the certainly have had gene flow from north africa, and north africa has gene flow from sub-saharan africa.
The disturbing thing is you say seem to be offended by this simple logic, and accuse english people of having "negroid blood." So what. There is has been a much higher population of recent sub-saharan africans in england so it should logically be easier to identify there genes. It certainly doesn't make English people on the whole closer to africans sicilians, but what would it matter if it did. You realize we all orginated in africa right?
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Oct 11, 2004 23:30:45 GMT -5
<<You are betraying a lack in depth understanding of anthropology literature.>>
Your kidding right?? Stop it with your corny dialogue.You use the same opening to everyone of your posts when someone shoots you down and refutes you into the ground.
All of that with what you said,means nothing..The fact of the matter is Sicilians have no Sub-Sarharan African Admixture..Theirs no arguements,cause it doenst exist..What dont you want to understand???
So get your head out of the 19th century backwater and into up-to-date material and information.Your misinformed,and dont know what your talkin about.
The problem with you is that you have your "opinion",which you turn into your own "facts".
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Oct 11, 2004 23:37:14 GMT -5
<<You realize we all orginated in africa right? >>
You realize that,thats nothing more than a "Popular Theory",with very little evidence to support.Another theory also one which claims Asia asa the origin.
this by the way has nothing to do with the Sicilians.
I mentioned the English,cause i think your confusing your countries and your facts...
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Oct 12, 2004 1:09:12 GMT -5
Listen Crimson I happen to spend just about every weekends sifting through reports about MTdna, Y chromsome, hyper variable regions, and multivariate analysis and evolutionary theory. If you think the story is as simple as a few reports you have read on internet blogs your kidding yourself. Here is link refering to an good source showing there is african MTdna admixture. www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/sicily.html#15Secondly I assume you were talking about MTdna since the are the most common and easily acommplished. The are also a tiny portion of the human genome, and it has been conclusively shown that the pattern seen in a single genetic system does not correlate with the history of the whole system. Look at the differences between Y chromsome and MTdna coalescence www.nature.com/ng/press_release/ng1100.htmlScroll down. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_EveAs Milford wolpoff said the history of genetic system is not the history of population. Also your logic is completely inconsistent since the data on African admixture is based on MTdna. You are assuming two different premises to support your arguments first that MTdna data are hard facts about population history to support the position that Sicilians have no sub-saharan genetics. But then that it is not good evidence when you reject recent african origins which MTdna supports. Come on at least be consistent. I don't have the time nor the inclination to educate you about basic evolutionary and genetic theory. If you are interested in educating yourself on it as applied to humans check out , John B. Relethford "reflections of our past", Luca Cavalli Sforza "the Human Diasporas", and Jared Diamonds, "Guns Germs and Steel" and the "Third Chimpanzee". They are all easily accesible to the lay reader. If you wanna delve deeper check out Alan R. Templeton, he hasn't published any books but he has published heavily in journals like nature and science.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Oct 12, 2004 4:37:26 GMT -5
Nope! Still have no idea what your talking about.First you talk Sicilians then you jump it another altogether Broader arguement to try and prove your nonexistant fact ,with this out of Africa "theory" Bullshit. Ok,YOu obviously cant prove your stupid point about Silicians,so you bring up now,that all Europeans(human for that matter) are African by blood anyway(By african you mean Negroid),so it dont matter. I'am sorry but your spaced out or smoking something... Nowhere on that web-site about Sicilians does it say anything to what your talking about.It actually says what i'am saying. *Only "one" test in 2003 showed an admixture level at 0.65% of Sub-saraharan DNA,sample, *which is comparable to admixture levels for Western and Northern Europe. Thank you very much! orignially,You made a statement/arguement on Sicilians having higher Negroid DNA than Norwegians fore sure,when in reality is about the same or is the same.HAHAHAHA YOUR A MORON!Dont ever speak to me like you know what your talking about,in fact dont speak to me again! BTW...For the record only for the "sicilian" case,that one test's 0.65%,which is less than 1%,which means its next to nothing.So I think the test probably could have limated to one particular city or such,where it was isolated,or it have been a mutation or the test results got screwed up,who knows,who cares.Their's no Negroid blood in the Sicilian Genetic's as that site illustrates. So theirs absolutly no basis of an arguement with that.
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on Oct 12, 2004 12:44:22 GMT -5
Whoa c'mon, everybody just chill LOL. I agree that there is a very small sub-Saharan admixture level in all European populations, and that's just how it is. Also, there's nothing wrong with having black ancestry. I understand what Falecind is trying to say, and it's true that we Sicilians have some North African admixture (but it's obviously minimal compared to the Greek/Italian ancestry that predominates in Sicilians). North Africans are also Caucasoid, but I'm a realist, there has been some gene flow across the Sahara from sub-Saharan Africans. That said, of course the admixture levels are really low in Sicilians because the overall genetic admixture from North Africans is also pretty small.
So Crimson, relax, we are of essentially Greco-Roman stock, but the fact is there is some North African admixture in many of us. What I was arguing against was those foolish people who believe that Sicilians are half black, ya know, the nordicists and other rednecks ;D. Ciao!
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Oct 12, 2004 22:34:56 GMT -5
Wow I didn't mean to provoke such a reaction. Who would have thought a little debate about population genetics could cause such a reaction hmm I wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Oct 13, 2004 3:31:31 GMT -5
<<So Crimson, relax, we are of essentially Greco-Roman stock, but the fact is there is some North African admixture in many of us. What I was arguing against was those foolish people who believe that Sicilians are half black, ya know, the nordicists and other rednecks .
Buddy! The arguement wasnt about nor based on "North African" admixture.Your missing the point.I wasnt talkin about North African mixtures,nor was he.I know their are some levels....i couldnt care less.
The Arguement with Mr.Failcind,was when he brought up that ,"Sub-Saraharan(Negroid)" admixture in Sicilians is surley the most Negroid DNA in Europe".He also made the comparison between Sicilians and Norwegians,to make some kindve point.
So thats what it was all about,so for all i know he can be Nordicist or not,or whatver..but cleary hes a low-forehead,thats for sure.
Dont confuse North African with Sub-Saraharan,their not the same thing,like this guy did.
|
|
|
Post by buddyrydell on Oct 13, 2004 16:03:26 GMT -5
<<So Crimson, relax, we are of essentially Greco-Roman stock, but the fact is there is some North African admixture in many of us. What I was arguing against was those foolish people who believe that Sicilians are half black, ya know, the nordicists and other rednecks . Buddy! The arguement wasnt about nor based on "North African" admixture.Your missing the point.I wasnt talkin about North African mixtures,nor was he.I know their are some levels....i couldnt care less. The Arguement with Mr.Failcind,was when he brought up that ,"Sub-Saraharan(Negroid)" admixture in Sicilians is surley the most Negroid DNA in Europe".He also made the comparison between Sicilians and Norwegians,to make some kindve point. So thats what it was all about,so for all i know he can be Nordicist or not,or whatver..but cleary hes a low-forehead,thats for sure. Dont confuse North African with Sub-Saraharan,their not the same thing,like this guy did. How did I miss the point? If the argument was about sub-Saharan admixture levels in Sicilians, it indirectly relates (albeit to a small degree) with the North African admixture. North Africans, though fundamentally Caucasoid in origin (and genetically closer to Europeans than sub-Saharan Africans), have some admixture from sub-Saharans, though more today than when they conquered Sicily. Even so however, there was most likely a small sub-Saharan component to the North African invaders of Sicily, and Sicilians have a minor amount of North African admixture, like Spaniards or Portuguese. Therefore, yes the sub-Saharan admixture level is negligible, but it's just that nobody is "pure." It is logical to conclude that the geographical proximity to Africa may indicate a slightly higher input of sub-Saharan genes into Sicily, but populations all over Europe and the rest of the world show small admixture levels from other populations. For example, I'm sure sub-Saharans as a whole have low levels of Caucasoid (both North African and European) admixture. To use Scandinavians as an example again, well I'm sure they have higher levels of Asiatic/Siberian admixture from the Lapps and just because of their being closer to Asia, whereas the Mongoloid component in Sicilians is much smaller. It's all relative. We all know Sicilians aren't realistically part black or half Arab, that was the whole point of my thread here!
|
|
|
Post by Faelcind on Oct 13, 2004 22:57:16 GMT -5
Exactly Buddy.
|
|
|
Post by One Humanity on Oct 14, 2004 7:41:23 GMT -5
It's all relative. We all know Sicilians aren't realistically part black or half Arab, that was the whole point of my thread here! But Arabs are Caucasoid, what is so different with their biology in comparison to Berbers, dinaricized Meds or Armenoids? I know a Turkish girl that looks oriental.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Oct 14, 2004 9:12:12 GMT -5
How did I miss the point? If the argument was about sub-Saharan admixture levels in Sicilians, it indirectly relates (albeit to a small degree) with the North African admixture. North Africans, though fundamentally Caucasoid in origin (and genetically closer to Europeans than sub-Saharan Africans), have some admixture from sub-Saharans, though more today than when they conquered Sicily. Even so however, there was most likely a small sub-Saharan component to the North African invaders of Sicily, and Sicilians have a minor amount of North African admixture, like Spaniards or Portuguese. Therefore, yes the sub-Saharan admixture level is negligible, but it's just that nobody is "pure." It is logical to conclude that the geographical proximity to Africa may indicate a slightly higher input of sub-Saharan genes into Sicily, but populations all over Europe and the rest of the world show small admixture levels from other populations. For example, I'm sure sub-Saharans as a whole have low levels of Caucasoid (both North African and European) admixture. To use Scandinavians as an example again, well I'm sure they have higher levels of Asiatic/Siberian admixture from the Lapps and just because of their being closer to Asia, whereas the Mongoloid component in Sicilians is much smaller. It's all relative. We all know Sicilians aren't realistically part black or half Arab, that was the whole point of my thread here! Buddy you are Assuming everthing in this quaote.Thats nothing more than very bad speculation ,doent mean jack.Your going from point A and jumping alll the way over to point D. Your missing the "point" because you dont have one.This disscussion by the way was about Negroid DNA admixture,not North African or how it/they got their. If you Read Racial Reality ,if you Read that Sicilian link,then you would know that the North African(even the negroid) admixture only left a "Negligible" mark on the Sicilian gene pool" regardless. *Definition of Negligible-so small as to be meaningless; insignificant not worth considering.Near nothing. You even pointed that the North African where Causaoid.Which they where,especially those that invaded Sicily at that time in history .Again Causaoid as in Carthagian and Saracen(Arab).They where not black nor where they mixed. None of this supports your interpretation of the data. Thats the cold hard facts,they are not argueable or debatable,thats the way it IS! The Sicilians for all intents and purposes are "pure",when your discussing Arab's and/or Negroids admixture levels on the DNA. Sicily should not be compared to Portuagal or Spain.Because those countries have differences,mainly in Portuagals case.Again nothing negative is meant by thism,but their not the same ...
|
|
|
Post by Springa on Oct 14, 2004 9:54:24 GMT -5
You didn't really contradict anything he said. Buddy you are Assuming everthing in this quaote.Thats nothing more than very bad speculation ,doent mean jack.Your going from point A and jumping alll the way over to point D. Your missing the "point" because you dont have one.This disscussion by the way was about Negroid DNA admixture,not North African or how it/they got their. If you Read Racial Reality ,if you Read that Sicilian link,then you would know that the North African(even the negroid) admixture only left a "Negligible" mark on the Sicilian gene pool" regardless. *Definition of Negligible-so small as to be meaningless; insignificant not worth considering.Near nothing. You even pointed that the North African where Causaoid.Which they where,especially those that invaded Sicily at that time in history .Again Causaoid as in Carthagian and Saracen(Arab).They where not black nor where they mixed. None of this supports your interpretation of the data. Thats the cold hard facts,they are not argueable or debatable,thats the way it IS! The Sicilians for all intents and purposes are "pure",when your discussing Arab's and/or Negroids admixture levels on the DNA. Sicily should not be compared to Portuagal or Spain.Because those countries have differences,mainly in Portuagals case.Again nothing negative is meant by thism,but their not the same ...
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Oct 14, 2004 10:44:40 GMT -5
How you figure? He's "Assuming" that the North Africans most of have been carrying Sub-Saraharn DNA,he and his friend are even going a step further,is saying that its found in higher leveld than the rest of Europe. Which it certainly is not! This is bad specualtion and opinion,guess work not fact,hes presuming this.Theirs no evidence of them (Saracens,Carthangians)carrying it..its that simple. On top of this,The North African impact on the Sicilian DNA was "negligible". Again the North African DNA is in reality basically non-existant on Sicily,so how do honestly expect to find highter levels of Negroid DNA becasue of them?On top of this the north Africans hes referring to on Sicily where Saracen's(arabs from the Middle East),and before them Carthagians. Dont understand whats so hard to believe? << It is logical to conclude that the geographical proximity to Africa may indicate a slightly higher input of sub-Saharan genes into Sicily,>> Again He's assuming adn drawing hasty conclusions and generalizations based on nonsence: This is the most moronic thing i ever heard.This is what hes is really saying,"Oh Sicily is closer to Africa,oh so they most have higher negroid genes" . That is not logical,its completly silly.It doenst even rate as educated conjecture. (That is pure 100% Bullshit and stupity at the same time.) England has 1% negroid DNA,which is higher,much higher than Sicily(in sicily its near nothing,not worth mentioning),how do you explain that, using your "Logical Geographical conclusion" You cant,because its not logical,your using a dumb out-dated opinion/view,a fallacy. If you make illogical conclusions or make stupid unfounded opinionated remarks,I will call you on it!
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Oct 14, 2004 10:58:53 GMT -5
Crimsonguard, it doesn't matter that Sicily has 'higher Negroid DNA' if it's still statistically insignificant. What the hell is the problem?
|
|