|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 21, 2005 16:46:55 GMT -5
I repeat, if you try to correlate phenotypic traits[not arbitrarily predefined races] with this genetic study you are going to have discordance, thus as the authors have even said, this study should *NOT* be used for racial clusters, thats intentionally misinterpreting this study. Incorrect, genetic cluster membership has been found to correlate with skin color, i.e., phenotype.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 21, 2005 16:50:19 GMT -5
Melanesians share a great deal of physical traits with sub-Saharan Africans but you would not know that by looking at this study because genetically there is a huge distance between them. Incorrect, you are basing your ideas on old-fashioned ad-hoc observations based on a few physical traits. When Howells clustered Melanesian samples on a large number of variables, they aligned themselves with Australians and not with Negroids.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 22, 2005 1:29:49 GMT -5
I repeat, if you try to correlate phenotypic traits[not arbitrarily predefined races] with this genetic study you are going to have discordance, thus as the authors have even said, this study should *NOT* be used for racial clusters, thats intentionally misinterpreting this study. Incorrect, genetic cluster membership has been found to correlate with skin color, i.e., phenotype. Skin color doesn't correlate with race Pontikos, unless you want to say the darker someone is the more sub-Saharan lineages they have.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 22, 2005 1:32:11 GMT -5
That isn't "racial clustering" Pontikos, read: " Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of “biological race.”It is not evidence for any particular concept of biological race. The authors neither deny nor affirm the existence of biological race, which they view as orthogonal to their work. Of course, the fact that geographical origin and self-identification has been found to map nearly 100% to old notions of "race" "disproves" the existence of race. So, does the observation that clustering occurs because of sharp genetic change in the Himalayas and the Sahara, which just happen, by "accident" to be the traditionally accepted limits of the major races. The Sahara doesn't limit races, thats what you fail to understand. During the eraly Mesolithic and Neolithic there was no Sahara and its commonly believed that the Sahara was Negroid. At any rate, the authors were *NOT* manifesting racial clusters.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 22, 2005 5:02:26 GMT -5
Skin color doesn't correlate with race Pontikos, unless you want to say the darker someone is the more sub-Saharan lineages they have. Spoken truly as someone who doesn't understand what "correlation" is.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 22, 2005 5:04:25 GMT -5
The Sahara doesn't limit races, thats what you fail to understand. During the eraly Mesolithic and Neolithic there was no Sahara and its commonly believed that the Sahara was Negroid. At any rate, the authors were *NOT* manifesting racial clusters. Incorrect. North Africans are more similar genetically to Afghanis and Indians than they are to their geographically closer Sub-Saharan African neighbors. This is due to the fact that the Sahara is a genetic barrier: to its north are mainly found populations of Caucasoid race, and to the south are mainly found Negroid populations.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 22, 2005 5:09:48 GMT -5
The Sahara doesn't limit races, thats what you fail to understand. During the eraly Mesolithic and Neolithic there was no Sahara and its commonly believed that the Sahara was Negroid. At any rate, the authors were *NOT* manifesting racial clusters. Incorrect. North Africans are more similar genetically to Afghanis and Indians than they are to their geographically closer Sub-Saharan African neighbors. This is due to the fact that the Sahara is a genetic barrier: to its north are mainly found populations of Caucasoid race, and to the south are mainly found Negroid populations. North Africans are genetically closer to East Africans than to Afghans, you can't even back up what you say. I imagine Afghans would be closer, right?
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Dec 22, 2005 6:00:27 GMT -5
Whoever spoke of Y-chromosome haplogroups? You mix and match whatever comes handy. Are you saying that modern North Africans and Egyptians are Negroid? lol
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 22, 2005 6:07:01 GMT -5
Whoever spoke of Y-chromosome haplogroups? You mix and match whatever comes handy. Are you saying that modern North Africans and Egyptians are Negroid? lol You're mixing and matching genetics with anthropological terms, there are no Negroid or Caucasoid genes. I simply stated that North Africans are genetically closer to East Africans than to Afghans, which you couldn't back up. Speaking of miss-matching, you did that with Joel Irish's studies on dental traits when the studies you referred to had different samples, plus you used one dental study to prove Egyptians were not Negroids and ignored cranimetric and limb ratio evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 22, 2005 6:12:48 GMT -5
Incorrect, you are basing your ideas on old-fashioned ad-hoc observations based on a few physical traits. . I did this? LOL, you did this with that Egyptian dental trait study by saying there was evidence for Negroid Egyptians based solely on a dental study.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 22, 2005 6:15:44 GMT -5
The Sahara doesn't limit races, thats what you fail to understand. During the eraly Mesolithic and Neolithic there was no Sahara and its commonly believed that the Sahara was Negroid. At any rate, the authors were *NOT* manifesting racial clusters. Incorrect. North Africans are more similar genetically to Afghanis and Indians than they are to their geographically closer Sub-Saharan African neighbors. This is due to the fact that the Sahara is a genetic barrier: to its north are mainly found populations of Caucasoid race, and to the south are mainly found Negroid populations. The Sahara was a barrier right? "White populations arrived in the Sahara from the North or East and either mixed with or replaced the areas first inhabitants who were Black. The darker groups may be more direct descendants of the Saharan potters whose work predates the ceramic industry of the Middle East. Cavalli Sforza- Genes, languages and Peoples, 1997, pg. 122.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Dec 22, 2005 8:34:41 GMT -5
Mechta-Afalou like variants are closer to Europids than to Negroids obviously and East Africans like the Amhara are a bad example anyway since they are no real Negrids in the narrower sense at all.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 22, 2005 8:45:41 GMT -5
Mechta-Afalou like variants are closer to Europids than to Negroids obviously and East Africans like the Amhara are a bad example anyway since they are no real Negrids in the narrower sense at all. Afalou was intermediate between Caucasoids and Negroids, LOL, I even read a study on Afalou by Colin Groves. He sees them as evidence that the Negroid-Caucasoid boundary" we observe in modern times was much farter North.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Dec 22, 2005 11:49:24 GMT -5
Mechta-Afalou like variants are closer to Europids than to Negroids obviously and East Africans like the Amhara are a bad example anyway since they are no real Negrids in the narrower sense at all. Afalou was intermediate between Caucasoids and Negroids, LOL, I even read a study on Afalou by Colin Groves. He sees them as evidence that the Negroid-Caucasoid boundary" we observe in modern times was much farter North. I will post some quotes when I'm at home. The general Europid-Cromagnoid character of NA is clear if looking at the remains, even the earlier ones.
|
|
|
Post by Polako on Dec 22, 2005 13:58:21 GMT -5
Whoever spoke of Y-chromosome haplogroups? You mix and match whatever comes handy. Are you saying that modern North Africans and Egyptians are Negroid? lol You're mixing and matching genetics with anthropological terms, there are no Negroid or Caucasoid genes. I simply stated that North Africans are genetically closer to East Africans than to Afghans, which you couldn't back up. Speaking of miss-matching, you did that with Joel Irish's studies on dental traits when the studies you referred to had different samples, plus you used one dental study to prove Egyptians were not Negroids and ignored cranimetric and limb ratio evidence. Don't confuse paternal markers with Autosomal DNA. You keep doing that. Why?
|
|