|
Post by galvez on Mar 4, 2004 14:03:34 GMT -5
Some Russians, for example living in Bashkiria, have more Mongoloid mtDNa than Meds - 6%. Some (Central Russia) have less or no Mongoloid mtDNA than Meds. Are you trying to say that Southern Europeans have more Mongoloid than Russians? Not even the most extreme of Nordicists fixated on pink skin and depigmentation make this claim. By the way, single marker studies are almost meaningless. A person inheriting a sex chromosome gets it from his parent (1/2), who got it from his parent (1/4), who got it from his parent (1/8), and so on -- thus the further back you go the less it tells you of a person's ancestry, because the ancestry is multiplied by two each generation. Autosomal tests, despite a small margin of error, give you more complete information. It's precisely these single marker studies that are used by extreme liberals to disprove the idea of "race." And funny that they are used by Russian Nordicists (LOL -- that's like Polynesian members of the Black Panther Party). There are negligible amounts of non-Caucasoid DNA in various parts of Europe. Those secure about themselves don't have to smear other groups to prove they hold some rank -- in a ranking system defined by people who laugh at the Russian Nordicist idea. Seriously, it's surprising that a nation with nuclear weapons has individual members online trying to apply the racial models of people who look down on them and tried to exterminate them or use them as slaves just over 50 years ago. Neolithic DNA? This seems like the latest fad in Nordicism. Those secure about themselves don't need to imply others are less European than themselves, especially if those who are supposedly less European civilized them and built their cities. This is internet childishness. The Slavic Nordicists (and I am not talking about the mixed-race types pretending to be Slavic) are about as laughable as the Mediterranean hard-core Aryanists. They need to get a life and build up their self-esteem, and quit with the fetishism. In the end, the Nordicists are the saddest of all, because as even Coon acknowledged, most are not even Nordic. Just look at the photo section of Skadi (no offense to the members there).
|
|
Rarog
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by Rarog on Mar 4, 2004 14:31:18 GMT -5
>>>Are you trying to say that Southern Europeans have more Mongoloid than Russians? Not even the most extreme of Nordicists fixated on pink skin and depigmentation make this claim.
I just post FACTS.
>>>By the way, single marker studies are almost meaningless. A person inheriting a sex chromosome gets it from his parent (1/2), who got it from his parent (1/4), who got it from his parent (1/8), ad infinitum -- thus the further back you go the less it tells you of a person's ancestry, because the ancestry is multiplied by two each generation.
Actually, I believe that on the population level such tests are ok. However, that's not the point. The point is that available data shows what it hows.
>>> Autosomal tests, despite a small margin of error, give you more complete information.
You're welcomed to post available data.
>>>It's precisely these single marker studies that are used by extreme liberals to disprove the idea of "race." And funny that they are used by Russian Nordicists (LOL -- that's like Polynesian members of the Black Panther Party).
I'm not Nordicist, technically. I'm Battle-Axist/Cordicist/Balticist :-)
Well, in terms of pimentation both Germans and Scandinavians are closer to Polynesians than Russians.
>>>There are negligible amounts of non-Caucasoid DNA in various parts of Europe.
Sure.
>>> Those secure about themselves don't have to smear other groups to prove they hold some rank
I don't smear anybody
>>> -- in a ranking system defined by people who laugh at the Russian Nordicist idea.
Those who used to laugh now have their teeth out :-)
>>> Seriously, it's surprising that a nation with nuclear weapons has individual members online trying to fit the racial models of people who look down on them and tried to exterminate them or use them as slaves just over 50 years ago.
Actually, currently I'm considering whether to accept Northern Germans as our racial brothers or no (Southern and Central Germans are of little interest). Their pigmentation is as with SE European groups - intermediate. And not very many Nordics, to put it mildly. Presence of Negroid DNA is another problem.
>>>Neolithic DNA? This seems like the latest fad in Nordicism. Those secure about themselves don't need to imply others are less European than themselves, especially if those who are supposedly less European civilized them and built their cities. This is internet childishness.
no comment
>>>The Slavic Nordicists (and I am not talking about the mixed-race types pretending to be Slavic) are about as laughable as the Mediterranean hard-core Aryanists. They need to get a life and build up their self-esteem, and quit with the fetishism.
You repeat yourself.
>>>In the end, the Nordicists are the saddest of all, because as even Coon acknowledged, most are not even Nordic. Just look at the photo section of Skadi (no offense to the members there).
Coon acknowledged what? Late night last night, galvez? :-)
|
|
|
Post by galvez on Mar 4, 2004 14:42:04 GMT -5
This has turned into a freak thread. Considering whether or not the Germans are racial brothers? Eh hem -- the East Europeans have tried and continue to try as hard as they can to fit into Western Europe and especially the EU. This is a source of enormous tension in East Europe right now.
This thread merely shows how twisted people can become by the fantasies in the online world.
|
|
Rarog
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by Rarog on Mar 4, 2004 14:56:04 GMT -5
>>>This has turned into a freak thread.
Your efforts were not futile, of course :-)
>>> Considering whether or not the Germans are racial brothers?
Northern Germans. Yeah, I'm very preoccupied with this question.
>>> Eh hem -- the East Europeans have tried and continue to try as hard as they can to fit into Western Europe and especially the EU. This is a source of enormous tension in East Europe right now.
What does it have to do with the question of whether Northern Germans are Northern European enough to be racial brothers of Northern Slavs?
>>>This thread merely shows how twisted people can become by the fantasies in the online world.
Yes, I especially liked Gaerr. Such personalities are rare now.
|
|
|
Post by galvez on Mar 4, 2004 20:30:31 GMT -5
You are just a racist, pure and very simple. I think Near Eastern is better than Far Eastern which you are. It is interesting that had Hitler succeeded this discussion would be moot as you would not exist. Hitler considered Slavs to be inferior sub humans fit only to be farm labourers, in Brave New World terms, Epsilons. I never thought I would ever concur with Hitler, but in your case, yes. Graeme: these types of comments are not going to elevate the discussions here or add to your credibility. I suspect you have been spending too much time debating idiots, and unfortunately their tactics have rubbed off on you.
|
|
|
Post by galvez on Mar 4, 2004 20:51:35 GMT -5
A single DNA analysis proves nothing. Two DNA analysis prove nothing. According to some DNA analysis some sub-saharan tribes are closer to Japanese than to their neighbours. My perception is that these single marker studies (Y-chromosome and mtDNA) are almost worthless for proving who is or isn't pure. You see these studies cited by racialists and those trying to combat them, but in the end perhaps they should be relegated as "junk science" except for limited purposes by scientists who use these data in a knowledgeable way and with the proper caveats. Citing which groups have more of a certain type of mtDNA or Y-chromosome to draw conclusions as to how pure they are is almost like citing a flat-earth manual to describe geologic activities. These studies have their uses but they are being thrown around by racialists who are clueless as to how to properly interpret their data. Additionally, some data are selectively omitted whereas other data are overemphasized to suit political purposes. Autosomal tests, which detect ancestry up to a specified number of generations back in a more thorough manner, are far more useful in these discussions. It seems that these studies are either scarcely done or not widely published.
|
|
|
Post by Racial Reality on Mar 5, 2004 9:15:58 GMT -5
Most of mtDNA markers are assigned to different racial groups. Can you show me the source which assigns "M" to Caucasoids? I didn't say it was Caucasoid. I said it wasn't Mongoloid. It's proto-Asian, ~50,000 years old and ancestral to Mongoloid haplogroups. Today, it has its highest frequencies in India, but remains distributed throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Don't play dumb. You're well aware of the research cited by Dr. Frudakis. Autosomal DNA is confirming that Mongoloid ancestry is, of course, higher in N and E Europe than it is in S and W Europe:
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Mar 5, 2004 10:01:58 GMT -5
galvez: I just couldn't resist the dig. I take this thread tongue in cheek. Mongoloids in Italy is as credible as a aliens being Nordics. Rarog is just stirring up dissention, it is the want-to-be Nordic ploy, but I have had fun drawing his hatred of Italians out of him. I don't care if every Italians' paternal ancestor was related to Bjork and his maternal ancestor to an Australian aborigine. I just dislike racist BS. It is a fact that the most anti Slav group was Hitler and his cronies. I believe Rarog is one of those non Nordic Nordicists, and he lives in America.
|
|
|
Post by geirr on Mar 5, 2004 10:35:50 GMT -5
Yes, I especially liked Gaerr. Such personalities are rare now. I have no problem listening to someone talk about a supposed mongloid strain in Italy but I don't think that a Russian (or anybody) should be refering to anyone as tri-racial if they are not.
|
|
Rarog
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by Rarog on Mar 5, 2004 10:53:38 GMT -5
I have no problem listening to someone talk about a supposed mongloid strain in Italy but I don't think that a Russian (or anybody) should be refering to anyone as tri-racial if they are not. I was not refering to you, but to that groaning bull-dog :-)
|
|
Rarog
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by Rarog on Mar 5, 2004 11:16:01 GMT -5
>>>I didn't say it was Caucasoid. I said it wasn't Mongoloid. It's proto-Asian, ~50,000 years old and ancestral to Mongoloid haplogroups. Today, it has its highest frequencies in India, but remains distributed throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Okey, let's wait for more data to determine whether this lineage was brought to Italy by Mongoloids or Proto-Asians. Still we have those East-Asian specific markers in Italy, right? At least 0.35% by your Richardson and in the French/Italian sample by Helgason - 0.8% of C and D. And if "M" is not Mongoloid - Mongoloid admixture in Russians is not 1% and 1.5% but 0.5% and 1% resp. And in Russians of Oshevensk it's not 2.6% but 1.3%, and in Bashkirian Russians not 6% but ONLY 1.2%! So it's Russian 0.5%-1.2% vs Italian 0.35%-0.8%. Hmmm... Italians WIN! Congratulations. And Spaniards win the bronze medal :-) I love this game. Incidentally, more than a half of Mongoloid markers in Russians are "M". >>>Don't play dumb. You're well aware of the research cited by Dr. Frudakis. Autosomal DNA is confirming that Mongoloid ancestry is, of course, higher in N and E Europe than it is in S and W Europe: I kindly asked you for a study. If you do not know, it's a scientific writing published in a scientific journal. When you'll have one, let me know.
|
|
|
Post by galvez on Mar 5, 2004 14:20:01 GMT -5
Also, Dr. Frudakis noted studies at Yale and Stanford which showed "considerable East Asian admixture in Eastern European, Russian and Northern European populations". The article is by Noah A. Rosenberg et al., "Genetic Structure of Human Populations", Science, Vol. 298, (2003), pp. 2381-2385. Don't get me wrong, Racial Reality, I like your posts and I find them to be very informative, but Dr. Frudakis should note that in these populations of Eastern Europe there are many minorities who are not ethnic Russians. These minorities like to call themselves "Russians" to boost their self-esteem or adapt to the mainstream. There is a lot of politics involved by researchers, many of whom are not racially pure themselves, so they are out to "prove" everyone else is impure. Researchers can have their own agendas. These studies claiming Northeast Slavs are "considerabl[y] East Asian" are poisonous because they distort the reality of Northeast European peoples and play into the hands of those who claim that they are decadent and inferior. But this is not the reason why such conclusions are flawed: they are flawed precisely because Northeast Europeans are as Caucasoid as any other European group, as can be seen by basic samples of their populations and by common sense. There might be a slightly higher amount of non-Caucasoid DNA in some parts of Europe, but these are in very tiny amounts. The supposed "Ladogans" of Eastern Europe are largely genetic recombinations or pseudo-Mongoloids, because these peoples adapted themselves to a different environment. So yes, there is non-Caucasoid DNA in Eastern Europe but, again, in negligible amounts. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass for the Russian Nordicists, because they make their group look bad, but Frudakis is being irresponsible by claiming that Northeast Europeans are Asiatic. It's a politically correct lie, and a rather nasty one.
|
|
|
Post by Racial Reality on Mar 6, 2004 8:48:53 GMT -5
Okey, let's wait for more data to determine whether this lineage was brought to Italy by Mongoloids or Proto-Asians. It doesn't matter who brought it. It's a proto-Asian marker, which means that it represents only proto-Asian ancestry. If we want to assess Mongoloid ancestry, then we have to look at Mongoloid markers, not proto-Asian ones. With that said, bear in mind that Sicilians have 'M's at low frequencies but none of the Mongoloid lineages. Therefore, a Near Eastern or North African transmission in prehistory is the only reasonable scenario. And I kindly provided you with such. You need only read the passage I quoted. If you don't know, that's done by moving your eyes across the screen from left to right, and then down and back every time you reach the end of a line. ". . . Dr. Frudakis noted studies at Yale and Stanford . . ."
". . . The article is by Noah A. Rosenberg et al., "Genetic Structure of Human Populations", Science, Vol. 298, (2003), pp. 2381-2385 . . ."
|
|
|
Post by Racial Reality on Mar 6, 2004 8:59:11 GMT -5
Dr. Frudakis should note that in these populations of Eastern Europe there are many minorities who are not ethnic Russians. You're starting to sound like the paranoid Russian Nordniks. Give geneticists a little credit for making sure to exclude ethnic minorities when selecting their sample populations. Usually they look for subjects who are of native stock dating back to at least their grand- or great grandparents. Well, we don't know exactly how much "considerable" is yet. We'll find out as more studies are conducted. But the point is, autosomes show that East Asian ancestry exists at elevated levels in Eastern Europe, but not in Southern Europe. This disproves Rarog's ridiculous assertion of the opposite that started this whole pointless discussion.
|
|
Rarog
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by Rarog on Mar 6, 2004 9:15:20 GMT -5
>>>It doesn't matter who brought it. It's a proto-Asian marker, which means that it represents only proto-Asian ancestry. If we want to assess Mongoloid ancestry, then we have to look at Mongoloid markers, not proto-Asian ones.
Well, the marker itself can be Europid, but it does not mean it could not have been brought by partially Mongoloid people. Thus it may reflect presence of Mongoloid DNA.
>>>With that said, bear in mind that Sicilians have 'M's at low frequencies but none of the Mongoloid lineages. Therefore, a Near Eastern or North African transmission in prehistory is the only reasonable scenario.
Well, as you refer now to probabilities, and not talking about "M" being not Mongoloid, I may refer to the fact that there are about 2.5% of 100% Mongoloid DNA in Spain and Portugal. It's even less probable than 2% of "M" being not brought by Mongoloids, don't you think so? If Spain and Portugal have 2.5%, why Italy can not have 2%?
>>>And I kindly provided you with such. You need only read the passage I quoted. If you don't know, that's done by moving your eyes across the screen from left to right, and then down and back every time you reach the end of a line.
It would be even greater if those lines contained some proof that "M" was not brought to Italy by Mongoloids.
>>>
". . . Dr. Frudakis noted studies at Yale and Stanford . . ."
". . . The article is by Noah A. Rosenberg et al., "Genetic Structure of Human Populations", Science, Vol. 298, (2003), pp. 2381-2385 . . ."[/quote]
Yeah, I've read the study. Sorry, it does not back what Dr. Frudakis is talking, if it's the study he kept in mind.
I'm sure you have it (if not I can share it with you) and you're welcomed to post some quotes to back your assertions.
|
|