tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post9152651921327874828..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: European population structure with 300K SNPs and 6,000 individualsDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger104125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28516990120396376192010-07-29T09:28:40.515+03:002010-07-29T09:28:40.515+03:00"Nonetheless, at a time when -due to a sort o...<i>"Nonetheless, at a time when -due to a sort of mental hysteresis- proclamations that "races are social constructs" are still routinely made, the discovery that not only races, but even closely related ethnic groups (e.g. Norwegians and Swedes) can be distinguished with greater than 90% accuracy, serves to illustrate the scientific irrelevance of the ethnic nihilists and the affirmation that nations are, at least in part, genetic entities."</i><br /><br />Sounds somewhat sensationalist and a bit of a strawman to me. <br /><br />I think that the main point of the people who say that "races are social constructs" is that, unlike many people seem to think, the biological differences between populations aren't expected to explain every difference we see between racial "lines" (or county lines), not that no one would ever find genetic markers on populations that have split some time ago, and things like that. Instead, things like that can be as easy to accept as different fingerprints for different persons. It's almost like "populational fingerprints", useful as such, but as fingerprints, not useful to explain much more, except in the heads of believers of palmistry. Similarly, 99,999% of people who mention even gender as a social construct are probably not saying that men can get pregnant as well, but only that the common roles of each gender aren't as biologically hardwired as the barking in the dog and the meowing in the cat.dschttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05153318861070317827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83118984551195893632010-02-02T14:43:29.601+02:002010-02-02T14:43:29.601+02:00Having been a part of the Online Universal Work Ma...Having been a part of the Online Universal Work Marketing team for 4 months now, I’m thankful for my fellow team members who have patiently shown me the ropes along the way and made me feel welcome<br /><br />www.onlineuniversalwork.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22829265345163485192009-03-08T16:21:00.000+02:002009-03-08T16:21:00.000+02:00this one is interesting! i really wonder where sou...this one is interesting! i really wonder where southern italians, sardinians and greeks woud be placed here on this map? more south and east then romanians? or more near iberians? hmmsardiniankidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985488612748758635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43330260056552512782009-01-02T09:42:00.000+02:002009-01-02T09:42:00.000+02:00They can?Yes, they can.What do they call these int...<I>They can?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, they can.<BR/><BR/><I>What do they call these interbreed mixes?</I><BR/><BR/>Dogs.<BR/><BR/><I>My family's mixed, ergo...</I><BR/><BR/>All families are mixed. There's no such thing as natural clonation in humans (except for identical twins).<BR/><BR/><I>If you have no race, I have no race!</I><BR/><BR/>You have no race: it's just an idea in your mind. Don't be ridiculous. <BR/><BR/><I>Numerically, -100,000,000 and 100,000,000 are 90% the same!</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that. And if you knew anything about genetics you'd know. <BR/><BR/>If humans would be 90% different, we would not be the same species. Such extreme differences can maybe exist between different biological kingdoms like plants and animals. Only that. Even chimps are more than 95% like us humans (from memry something like 98.5% actually). That means that all humans are at least 99.5% the same, probably more like 99.9%. <BR/><BR/>You are counting the difference between 1 billion sand grains and 1 billion and one. There's one grain of difference but only an obsessed mind can give it any importance at all. <BR/><BR/><I>Maju, do you mind if...</I><BR/><BR/>Well, to be honest, I mind that people like you exists alltogether but can't do much about it, except trying keep logic on, to prevent the cancer of irrational ideologies from spreading and going back to the times of the Inquisition and the Holocaust. <BR/><BR/>Sincerely I have no hope of persuading you: you do not think rationally, just use pseudo-logic to justify an ideology. If the world would work like people like you claim, Achilles would never reach the turtle. <BR/><BR/><I>if we can show that the genes that make Rottweilers Rottweilers and Poodles Poodles are some ostensibly small percentage of the total genetic makeup of Rottweilers and Poodles, then obviously dog breeds (and races!) don't exist.</I><BR/><BR/>Do they? Do dogs care about that? Obviously not (except maybe in matters of size, what in their world may mean power). Humans do not show such extreme size differences and even the extremes are not even twice the size of each other. This shows how dog races are a product of extreme artificial selection and only that and that, would dogs be allowed to reproduce freely, as humans mostly do, such races would quickly disappear. <BR/><BR/><I>This should be obvious! I'm not nearly as brilliant and erudite as Maju, but I think I can help against this racist Nazi bastard Svastikos:<BR/><BR/>Humans And Chimps Differ At Level Of Gene Splicing</I><BR/><BR/>Interesting but... so what? I tend to agree that a lot behind phenotypes is epigenetic and not merely genetic but this field is still in its infancy. We can't judge what we still know so little about (and I remind you that most of epigenetic effects are enviromentally influenced). <BR/><BR/>The more important epigenetics is, the less relevant genetically defined "races" would be. <BR/><BR/><I>Never mind all that mumbo-jumbo about expressed differences, the point is that Humans and Chimps are 99% the same.</I><BR/><BR/>Almost. More like 98.5%. This is no surprise, right? We share so many things with human and bonobos that no other animal has... I don't care if they are low vaulted an hairy, they are so terribly human anyhow!<BR/><BR/><I>Never mind any of that crap about "vast differences" and "wide anatomic and behavioral differences" between Humans and Chimps. The point is, Humans and Chimps are 99% similar.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, if you think about it, we are also extremely similar in phenotype and behaviour. Maybe you like more lions or eagles for heraldic/ideal reasons... but these animals (still relatively close to us in comparison to, say, grasshoppers or sharks) are "ETs" when compared to the Pan/Homo genus.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that you're being extremely homocentric here, probably bacause of the Judaistic background of modern European culture and all that legend of being made "to the likehood of god". Such detachment from Nature is sick and has many negative consequences, beginning with a bad understanding of who we are, where we come from and what the heck are we doing here in life.<BR/><BR/><I>So there you have it. Humans and chimps do not exist!</I><BR/><BR/>We have been separated by like 8 million years, possibly more. In comparison humankind has only existed for some 200,000 years and the groups you now call "races" only began to diverge some 120-60,000 years ago (depending on the model). So, in terms of time, differences between humans are of four or rather five orders of magnitude the differences between chimps/bonobos and us. <BR/><BR/>So, yes, if we take humankind as reference (and not the whole animal kingdom or even mammals or even primates... or even great apes), humans an chimps/bonobos are pretty much different. <BR/><BR/>But you cannot use those differences to argue for the ones we find within humans. They are totally different scales. Galaxies and atoms again.<BR/><BR/><I>I certainly know better than to think you've assayed your family, and projected the results onto the world in an attempt at self-legitimization</I><BR/><BR/>I need to legitimaze nothing. Anyhow my full family would be considered "caucasian" (ahem: Caucasian are people from the Caucasus region, what you mean is "Caucasoid") by your racist standards. I also see that in so many other people all through Europe. I.e. documentary on Norwegian fishermen and the guy looks a tall Greek, so many Brits that look Spaniard, Scots that look Basque, Germans that look Italian... it's all around. Dunno, some Black Africans look like dark Caucasoids, while some Caucasoids look depygmented versions of Mongoloids or Polynesians, etc. <BR/><BR/>Your neatly packed boxes are nowhere: diversity and remote likeness is what I see more. I can see the differences you see too but they are not, never, in neatly packed boxes. Genes are just too wild for that, and phenotypes even wilder. <BR/><BR/><I>Indeed! Which means that race does not exist, obviously, as I showed above with my brilliant Human/Chimp analogy.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>As mentioned it depends on the viewpoint. From a wide biological perspective chimps and humans are almost the same but from a narrow homocentric perspective, they are very different. But you have to be extremely race-centric to emphasize the ridiculous microscopic differences within humankind. <BR/><BR/>When compared with our closest known relatives, Neanderthals, humans (fossil and living) display differences that are very small in comparison. And Neanderthals were very much like ourselves. Even the most extreme human differential type (probably Mungo Man) was really close to the main human cluster in comparison, not with chimps, but with Neanders.<BR/><BR/>You just like to emphasize differences that are basically subjective. I bet you can stay hours arguing wether turqoise color is blue or green. <BR/><BR/><I>You can see that Human and Chimp are the same!</I><BR/><BR/>Almost the same.<BR/><BR/><I>How often does your teevee tell you...</I><BR/><BR/>I watch very little TV, honestly. It's boring. <BR/><BR/><I>Could you tell me what this Svastikos' ideology is?</I><BR/><BR/>Sure, I could...<BR/><BR/><I>Could you elaborate? </I><BR/><BR/>Maybe when you stop using sarcasm and allow normal discussion to happen. <BR/><BR/><I>... but you didn't respond to my idea of flooding Israel with Bantus</I><BR/><BR/>If you read my blog (what I'm sure you don't), you'd know that I'm against the very existence of Israel, which I think it's comparable to Nazi Germany or, maybe more properly, Apartheid South Africa. The last European (or should I say US-American?) colonial project, a neo-crusade, a doomed yet painfully racist project. <BR/><BR/>I am also against some Judaistic influences, specially Christian and Islamic religions. But I'm not anti-Semitic, as I admire many Jews, like Spinoza, Marx, Reich, Einstein, Chaplin... you know. <BR/><BR/>But Zionism is a crime against Humanity and the JCM religious complex that has dominated Western Eurasian culture/s in the last 2000 years is an insult to intelligence and a burden of sexual and intellectual repression that only gradually we manage to overcome now. It must be said that, among others, many Jews have helped in this path to Illustration and Humanism. <BR/><BR/>I'm balanced in all this: you can't really accuse me of antisemitism or semitism. I don't judge people because of their ethnicity, though I know that cultural background can be very influential.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5005203583189877702009-01-01T08:28:00.000+02:002009-01-01T08:28:00.000+02:00Btw Maju, I know it must be my fault because you'r...Btw Maju, I know it must be my fault because you're so scientifically-minded, and obviously smarter and more learned than I, but you didn't respond to my idea of flooding Israel with Bantus. Personally I think it's a marvelous idea, but I'd like your feedback.Svigorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397917915404344439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62668226170541102502009-01-01T08:18:00.000+02:002009-01-01T08:18:00.000+02:00What really shows your ignorance only. All dogs ca...<I>What really shows your ignorance only. All dogs can interbreed (though guess there can be some difficulties if there's important size difference) and they actually do.</I><BR/><BR/>They can? What do they call these interbreed mixes? I never heard of such a thing! Gosh, I guess that shows my ignorance plainly! I sure have a lot to learn!<BR/><BR/>Guess that proves how different dog breeds and human races are for me, right there!<BR/><BR/><B>I see no differences between Bantus and Ashkenazi Jews.</B><BR/><BR/><I>Certainly not many. I come from a family where, as in many other European families, you can find almost all shades of skin color, presence and absence of epicanthic fold, nearly all kind of hair color and textures, not to mention eyes: from deep brown to light blue. And we all share a good deal of the tiny variable fraction of human genes (roughly 50% with 1st degree relatives, 25% with 2nd degree, etc., though there is randomness going on).</I><BR/><BR/>See, this is the kind of rigorous scientific thinking I come to Dienekes blog for! "My family's mixed, ergo, Bantus and Ashkenazis are the same"! Profound!<BR/><BR/><I>So what does make me similar to any other European, Basque or whatever? They are not my direct or even distant relatives in most cases, our genetic share is surely virtually null beyond what makes us humans. And yes that's like 99% (can't recall) - but that's precisely the non-variable part of the genome.</I><BR/><BR/>Brilliant! If you have no race, I have no race! I'm beginning to understand now.<BR/><BR/>Numerically, -100,000,000 and 100,000,000 are 90% the same! One little symbol in the front is changed, and that's it! Ergo, it makes no difference which figure represents your ledger for the past year! Brilliant! Profound! It just keeps getting better and better with you guys!<BR/><BR/>Maju, do you mind if I quote you on other sites from time to time?<BR/><BR/><I>There are a handful of genes that because founder effects, drift or whatever have become regionally fixated or common, while elsewhere they are rare. Can you tell me, Svastikos, what percentage of the human genome do they make? It must be a extremely low ammount, probably less of what separates me and my mother (who according to your shallow visual perception should be of different races, no matter that we share some 50% of all variable genes).</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, Svastikos should answer your penetrating questions immediately. I want to know how that bastard responds. I mean clearly, if we can show that the genes that make Rottweilers Rottweilers and Poodles Poodles are some ostensibly small percentage of the total genetic makeup of Rottweilers and Poodles, then obviously dog breeds (and races!) don't exist.<BR/><BR/>This should be obvious! I'm not nearly as brilliant and erudite as Maju, but I think I can help against this racist Nazi bastard Svastikos:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114151513.htm" REL="nofollow">Humans And Chimps Differ At Level Of Gene Splicing</A><BR/><BR/><I>Researchers are closer to understanding why humans differ so greatly from chimpanzees in the way they look, behave, think, and fight off disease, despite having genes that are nearly 99% identical.</I><BR/><BR/>Never mind all that mumbo-jumbo about expressed differences, the point is that Humans and Chimps are 99% the same.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2006/20060309-chimp.html" REL="nofollow">Most human-chimp differences due to gene regulation--not genes</A><BR/><BR/><I>The vast differences between humans and chimpanzees are due more to changes in gene regulation than differences in individual genes themselves...That 1975 paper documented the 99-percent similarity of genes from humans and chimps and suggested that altered gene regulation, rather than changes in coding, might explain how so few genetic changes could produce the wide anatomic and behavioral differences between the two.</I><BR/><BR/>Never mind any of that crap about "vast differences" and "wide anatomic and behavioral differences" between Humans and Chimps. The point is, Humans and Chimps are 99% similar. <BR/><BR/>So there you have it. Humans and chimps do not exist! So OBVIOUSLY human races (and "population groups," for you lab-coat-wearing racists) don't exist (this is the kind of logic I'm learning here, so I want to repeat how grateful I am for the help of honest brokers of information and science, like Maju and Ren).<BR/><BR/><B>Which reminds me, how come the American federal government is so racist as to categorize people into "black," "white," "hispanic," etc.</B><BR/><BR/><I>I agree that's racist, and the British do it too, btw, probably because of US influence - I read that in the past "race" in Britain, at least in the army, meant: Eglish, Welsh, Scottish or Irish. "Jewish? That race does not exist, boy. That's a religion".</I><BR/><BR/>Of course we agree. This only serves to highlight the good sense of our open, honest, well-intentioned (I mean, <B>I</B> certainly know better than to think you've assayed your family, and projected the results onto the world in an attempt at self-legitimization) discussion, while the world organizes around something that doesn't exist. I think it's almost as significant as Nero fiddling while Rome burned.<BR/><BR/><B>Those clusters of "members" of "groups," each with their own color, each falling in their own spaces on the graphs, REALLY DRIVES HOME how we're all the same.</B><BR/><BR/><I>Those graphics account only for a minimal ammount of the whole genome.</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed! Which means that race does not exist, obviously, as I showed above with my brilliant Human/Chimp analogy.<BR/><BR/><I>But if you have an ideology, you don't care: you'll look for anything that justifies it. When you have an ideology like yours the goal justifies any methods, but when you approach things with scientific mind it's the methods what matter, as there is no goal but the truth.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree. When you have this ideology blinding you, you "see" race. When you don't, you can see clearly enough to NOT project assays of your family onto the world. You can see that Human and Chimp are the same!<BR/><BR/>Clearly, all the honest brokers are on our side, because we're all about science. And what a cozy coincidence that our position is that of the western zeitgeist and elite. How often does your teevee tell you EXACTLY what the science tells you (AND was telling you for decades before genetics had anything much to say)? And just as clearly, all the dishonest, ideologically blinded sorts fall on the other side of the argument (maybe that's why most sites censor this kind of argument? Because they know better than to waste time with these sorts?). Those bastards!<BR/><BR/>Oh, Maju - I try to do my own homework, but I confess I'm not as bright as you. Could you tell me what this Svastikos' ideology is? I mean, I don't have a clue beyond following what I perceived to be your lead (e.g., he's a racist Nazi bastard), but I'd like to have more than that if he shows up again. What IS his ideology, precisely? I ask because you seem to have a pretty good handle on it; you know enough about it to know this racist Nazi bastard is blinded and stuff, so I figure you have a flying, cartwheeling, backflipping clue as to what that ideology is. Could you elaborate?Svigorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397917915404344439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-57056828041440668112008-12-31T11:15:00.000+02:002008-12-31T11:15:00.000+02:00Which is clearly ridiculous because Rottweilers, P...<I>Which is clearly ridiculous because Rottweilers, Pekinese, and terriers can't interbreed!</I><BR/><BR/>What really shows your ignorance only. All dogs can interbreed (though guess there can be some difficulties if there's important size difference) and they actually do. They can also interbreed with wolves and even with foxes (though in the last case at least the hybrids are definitively not domestic: they will eat your chicken with all likehood). <BR/><BR/><I>I see no differences between Bantus and Ashkenazi Jews.</I><BR/><BR/>Certainly not many. I come from a family where, as in many other European families, you can find almost all shades of skin color, presence and absence of epicanthic fold, nearly all kind of hair color and textures, not to mention eyes: from deep brown to light blue. And we all share a good deal of the tiny variable fraction of human genes (roughly 50% with 1st degree relatives, 25% with 2nd degree, etc., though there is randomness going on). <BR/><BR/>So what does make me similar to any other European, Basque or whatever? They are not my direct or even distant relatives in most cases, our genetic share is surely virtually null beyond what makes us humans. And yes that's like 99% (can't recall) - but that's precisely the non-variable part of the genome. <BR/><BR/>There are a handful of genes that because founder effects, drift or whatever have become regionally fixated or common, while elsewhere they are rare. Can you tell me, Svastikos, what percentage of the human genome do they make? It must be a extremely low ammount, probably less of what separates me and my mother (who according to your shallow visual perception should be of different races, no matter that we share some 50% of all variable genes). <BR/><BR/><I>Which reminds me, how come the American federal government is so racist as to categorize people into "black," "white," "hispanic," etc.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree that's racist, and the British do it too, btw, probably because of US influence - I read that in the past "race" in Britain, at least in the army, meant: Eglish, Welsh, Scottish or Irish. "Jewish? That race does not exist, boy. That's a religion". <BR/><BR/><I>Those clusters of "members" of "groups," each with their own color, each falling in their own spaces on the graphs, REALLY DRIVES HOME how we're all the same.</I><BR/><BR/>Those graphics account only for a minimal ammount of the whole genome. The very vast majority is shared, so it gves no info about the differences and is discarded. All variability that does not cluster is also discarded (PCs seldom represent more than 10 or 20% of all the variable genes - never did my homewrok for this but it's like that). The result, representing the minimal regionally clustered variability is what is plotted. Nothing else.<BR/><BR/>You can get even lower level plots, you can get clusters even in such a homogeneous region as Europe or among Native Americans. And guess you would get clusters in even tiny homogeneous territories like Iceland or Luxemburg. You get them for Finland and Scandinavia certainly. <BR/><BR/>There's always some alelles that are more common here than there. They would appear to show some founder effects of sorts or homogeneization along time (drift) but they always represent only a tiny part of the human genome necesarily. <BR/><BR/>If you get Japanese, Nigerians, Britons and chimpanzees you will necesarily see that all humans cluster at one extreme of the PC1, and very tightly. In fact, that's what happened when they compared Neanderthal and H. sapiens' mtDNA: the main difference, by a lot, was between Neanders and all humans, living or fossil. <BR/><BR/>Clusters and PCs are relative. You need a perspective to know what they really mean. <BR/><BR/>But if you have an ideology, you don't care: you'll look for anything that justifies it. When you have an ideology like yours the goal justifies any methods, but when you approach things with scientific mind it's the methods what matter, as there is no goal but the truth.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34462138868951029642008-12-31T07:57:00.000+02:002008-12-31T07:57:00.000+02:00Btw, I think it's great that all these studies com...Btw, I think it's great that all these studies come with graphs, plotting the Xs and Ys of where "members" of "groups" fall.<BR/><BR/>Those clusters of "members" of "groups," each with their own color, each falling in their own spaces on the graphs, REALLY DRIVES HOME how we're all the same.<BR/><BR/>Cheers!Svigorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397917915404344439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-20145150328994670622008-12-31T07:52:00.000+02:002008-12-31T07:52:00.000+02:00Sorry, I managed to accidentally edit out part of ...Sorry, I managed to accidentally edit out part of my response:<BR/><BR/><I>Ren is right in this. I argue a lot with him but he's right in differences being gradual.</I><BR/><BR/>He's right, and you've <B>clearly</B> put your finger on where I disagreed with him (<B>obviously</B> it wasn't some different point, about how the distinctions involving race scale up and down from the macro to the micro, and how that makes race and family analogous, and does nothing whatever for race denial, or anything like that), so my mistake. I'm trying to learn from you guys, but I have my work cut out for me, that's for sure!Svigorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397917915404344439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-19011579995393472752008-12-31T07:45:00.000+02:002008-12-31T07:45:00.000+02:00Additionally, I'd say that they are somewhat chaot...<I>Additionally, I'd say that they are somewhat chaotic, as ancestry is very complex in every case, and genes recombine at every generation (not counting mutations).</I><BR/><BR/>Again, a devastating argument for race denial. Thanks!<BR/><BR/><I>Racialists, and specially these aggresive and sardonic racists, want humans to be like dogs, neatly divided in rottweilers, pekinese and terriers (among other groups)</I><BR/><BR/>Which is clearly ridiculous because Rottweilers, Pekinese, and terriers can't interbreed! And even if they could, Rottweilers, Pekinese, and terriers don't exist! It's all the same species, and it all comes down to clines and peaks and valleys and chaos and such. Any dog breeder can tell you as much. With a bit of training, a Poodle makes an excellent game dog.<BR/><BR/><I>but forget that the very creation of these races is due to extreme and persistent practices of intentional breeding, exterminating all the "undesirable" offspring. This race breeding just does not exist among humans.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, I mean everyone knows that humans don't self-select. I mean, even people in prison get conjugal visits.<BR/><BR/><I>And anyhow, a dog is a dog is a dog.</I><BR/><BR/>LOL! See? I just said the very same thing above! Great minds think alike!<BR/><BR/>Now, if I can only straighten out the artists. They think there's red, and orange, and blue, and stuff. Don't they know there's no clear, bright line between orange and red, and therefore there's no orange, and no red? In fact there's no way to distinguish where red ends and orange begins, but they go right on using these dangerous distinctions. Bunch of Philistines I tell you, but we'll get them thinking the right way eventually.<BR/><BR/>And the auto makers, now that I think about it. Who the hell do they think they are, with their "categories" of automobile? Cars, trucks, SUVs? What utter rot. What's an El Camino then? Pack of degenerates, but they'll get what's coming to them.<BR/><BR/>And since I'm on a roll, I think families should start looking over their shoulders, too. We're all mutts, street dogs, and a dog is a dog is a dog. Who is Mr. Jones to bequeath his worldly goods to his offspring? We're all the same, and Mr. Jones should share. There's no difference whatever between Mr. Jones' "children" and a Bantu. Jones has no right to discriminate in that way. Families! Bunch of Amalekites, I tell you. They'd better watch their step, we're going to have to straighten them out soon.<BR/><BR/><I>We are just all "street dogs", or something very similar.</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed. I see no differences between Bantus and Ashkenazi Jews. In fact, I think Israel should be filled with Bantus, right up to the brim.<BR/><BR/>Some might say that, if we're all the same, then what's the point of diversity, affirmative action, and all the rest, but I'm not one of those. Which reminds me, how come the American federal government is so racist as to categorize people into "black," "white," "hispanic," etc., for the purposes of handing out favors? I mean, we're obviously all indistinguishable, so where do they get off? They're going to need sorting out as well, I suppose.Svigorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397917915404344439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34534493303561380012008-12-30T14:04:00.000+02:002008-12-30T14:04:00.000+02:00Ren is right in this. I argue a lot with him but h...Ren is right in this. I argue a lot with him but he's right in differences being gradual. <BR/><BR/>Additionally, I'd say that they are somewhat chaotic, as ancestry is very complex in every case, and genes recombine at every generation (not counting mutations). <BR/><BR/>Racialists, and specially these aggresive and sardonic racists, want humans to be like dogs, neatly divided in rottweilers, pekinese and terriers (among other groups) but forget that the very creation of these races is due to extreme and persistent practices of intentional breeding, exterminating all the "undesirable" offspring. This race breeding just does not exist among humans. <BR/><BR/>And anyhow, a dog is a dog is a dog. <BR/><BR/>We are just all "street dogs", or something very similar.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24709772071107744282008-12-30T13:39:00.000+02:002008-12-30T13:39:00.000+02:00Some really smart comments here, particularly by t...Some really smart comments here, particularly by those who further race-denial (a daring, iconoclastic position BTW) with the argument (forgive me if I get it wrong, I'm probably just not smart, patient, or whatever enough to understand, as suggested by "ren" several times above):<BR/><BR/>"The distinctions can be followed from the top (supposed "race") all the way down to the family level; are families races too?"<BR/><BR/>Now that is effing brilliant, not remarkably stupid or anything like that.<BR/><BR/>THAT's the way to stick it to racists; prove that race is analogous to family, with the difference being primarily one of scale.<BR/><BR/>Can you guys recommend some study guides, you know, where you learned your tricks of the trade...some source I can use to become just as clever? Other examples include ren's brilliant "I'd explain how your logic's circular, but you wouldn't understand," and "those scientists have poor reputations in the press," both instant classics!Svigorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397917915404344439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-60430578563675613532008-11-29T14:44:00.000+02:002008-11-29T14:44:00.000+02:00The former reply was meant for Deienekes. You guys...The former reply was meant for Deienekes. You guys post really fast. <BR/><BR/>To Ebizur: I'm following the quite mainstream thory that believes the Xiongnu as ancestors of the Turkic peoples, including the Huns. The Altai was, like Central Asia, prior to Hunnic/Turkic expansion an Indoeuropean region, so it's very hard to imagine the Turkic peoples pouring directly from there. <BR/><BR/><I>Very few Turkic populations have ever dwelt in East Asia.</I><BR/><BR/>Hmmm... Not just the Xiongnu but also the Göktürks controlled what is now Mongolia. They also expanded into Eastern Siberia (Yakuts).<BR/><BR/><I>The haplogroup that is most widely and frequently shared among Turkic populations is R1a1-M17, with haplogroups J2 and R1b also being quite common among them.</I><BR/><BR/>All those are Western Eurasian haplogroups clearly. R1a is widely accepted as an Indoeuropean marker, J2 as West Asian and R1b depends of subclade (the Central Asian subclade appears to have expanded with Tocharians, while the major subclade is clearly West Eurasian, mostly European). <BR/><BR/>What you are describing, in very misleading terms by the way (specially as Anatolian Turks make up almost 50% of all Turkic speakers worldwide), is the result of almost 2000 years of admixture with West Eurasian natives, who were obviously assimilated in most cases. The best "purebreed" representatives of the original Turks are surely Khazaks (if not Mongols, paradoxically), the rest are all (or most) basically absorbed or heavily admixed peoples. <BR/><BR/><I>he majority of Kazakh males belong to haplogroup C3c, but this haplogroup is practically absent from most other Turkic populations, and it likely reflects a Mongolic, rather than Turkic, origin of Kazakh patrilineal ancestors.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure why Mongols and Turks (both micro-Altaic, a rather solid linguistic grouping) should be from different stock, moreso when the homeland of Turks appears to have been Mongolia. If anything it would show that Mongols have Turkic or Turkic-like patrilieal ancestors largely. <BR/><BR/>Also the Turkic expansion has taken many many centuries, while the Mongol expansion was a brief epysode, mostly manned by Turks. <BR/><BR/><I>If you find data on the Y-DNA of ancient Turkic populations that demonstrate conclusively that they possessed "East Asian haplogroups" rather than the haplogroups possessed by modern Turkic peoples, then I will give your claims some consideration. </I><BR/><BR/>If the Xiongnu are not Turks for you, then it will be difficult. I dont know of any such studies anyhow. You seem to want to limit the origin of Turkic peoples to just Göktürks, who were surely only a second moment in Turkic expansion (after Xiongnu/Huns) but I doubt that is valid at all. <BR/><BR/>Naturally the Turks that arrived at Anatolia were already mixed with West Eurasians but still the modern Turkish of West Asia (Azeris included) seem to be almost exclusively local Turkified peoples. After all, how would a buch of nomads alter meaningfully the genetic landscape of a densely populated agricultural area substantively? If they ever could, that would the exception, not the rule.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-2378374916980199242008-11-29T13:36:00.000+02:002008-11-29T13:36:00.000+02:00Must be a specific paper I haven't checked myself ...Must be a specific paper I haven't checked myself (what I've seen does not seem to agree with that). Anyhow, what you say, Dienekes, is absolutely logical (it's an issue that pops up in all autosomal studies actually: sample size does matter a lot).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-12482465035324307662008-11-29T08:19:00.000+02:002008-11-29T08:19:00.000+02:00Maju wrote, "Grow up you man (you're incredibly ar...Maju wrote, <BR/>"Grow up you man (you're incredibly arrogant and Sinocentric, you should be more balanced and, yes, mature)."<BR/><BR/>How many times have you attacked me with accusations before you ever found out the facts, calmed yourself down and thought about it? <BR/><BR/>Grow up. This message to get well shouldn't be coming from someone who is a lot younger than you.renhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04377460204421275833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-2280787953598230112008-11-29T04:35:00.000+02:002008-11-29T04:35:00.000+02:00Maju said,"Yes I do have an idea and in many cases...Maju said,<BR/><BR/>"Yes I do have an idea and in many cases they appear to be only partly Turkic/East Asian. The main exception would be Khazaks, where Eastern Y-DNA is clearly dominant. That's logical, because of the different enviroments and original settler density these different ethnicities/republics represent (for instance Uzbekistan has a very ancient presence, because of being an area much better suited for agriculture than the steppe)."<BR/><BR/>It was a rhetorical question, maju. I obviously know much more about the Y-DNA pools of Turkic populations than you do.<BR/><BR/>The earliest historically recorded Turkic populations are from southern Siberia (especially the area around the Altai Mountains and the headwaters of the Yenisei River) and Central Asia (especially the area of modern Kyrgyzstan). Very few Turkic populations have ever dwelt in East Asia.<BR/><BR/>The haplogroup that is most widely and frequently shared among Turkic populations is R1a1-M17, with haplogroups J2 and R1b also being quite common among them. The majority of Kazakh males belong to haplogroup C3c, but this haplogroup is practically absent from most other Turkic populations, and it likely reflects a Mongolic, rather than Turkic, origin of Kazakh patrilineal ancestors.<BR/><BR/>If you find data on the Y-DNA of ancient Turkic populations that demonstrate conclusively that they possessed "East Asian haplogroups" rather than the haplogroups possessed by modern Turkic peoples, then I will give your claims some consideration.Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7233139519829759422008-11-28T14:59:00.000+02:002008-11-28T14:59:00.000+02:00The dividing line is indeed between Eura-Africans ...<I>The dividing line is indeed between Eura-Africans and Amerasians in the case of SNP clusters. </I><BR/><BR/>That is correct, although it does not reflect the phylogeny in which Caucasoids and Mongoloids are more related to each other than they are to Negroids. The reason is quite simple: the HGDP panel is heavy on Caucasoid and Mongoloid populations and light on Sub-Saharans, so the first split capturing most information is between Caucasoids and Mongoloids; Negroids get bundled with Caucasoids since they are indeed closer to them than they are to Mongoloids.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-69789577515406590862008-11-28T14:51:00.000+02:002008-11-28T14:51:00.000+02:00Grow up you man (you're incredibly arrogant and Si...Grow up you man (you're incredibly arrogant and Sinocentric, you should be more balanced and, yes, mature). <BR/><BR/>There's no simple dividing line (there are many and many "bridges" too) but anyhow the main division fund in ALL studies is between Africans and non-Africans, what is in full ageement with everything we know. Now, I'd agree that I feel more identified instictively with Africans than East Asians often (probably because they have big round eyes, like most West Eurasians - but that's just a minor matter). I'd also agree that West Eurasians are somewhat closer to Tropical Africans than East Eruasians... but both Eurasian groups are overall closer to each other anyhow.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-41593813646769838772008-11-28T12:13:00.000+02:002008-11-28T12:13:00.000+02:00Maju wrote, "Hmmm, isn't it more like Tropical Afr...Maju wrote, <BR/>"Hmmm, isn't it more like Tropical Africans and Eurasians+Oceanians+Americans? You never stop surprising me, Ren, sincerely."<BR/><BR/>The dividing line is indeed between Eura-Africans and Amerasians in the case of SNP clusters. <BR/><BR/>Grow up.renhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04377460204421275833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-27545649606720001022008-11-28T07:21:00.000+02:002008-11-28T07:21:00.000+02:00Eurologist: I can agree in principle with Latin/It...Eurologist: I can agree in principle with Latin/Italic being originally related to Celtic and Illyrian (though we just know too little of Illyrian and of Italic languages other than Latin) in the context of Central European cultural complexes (Tumuli-Urnfields-Hallstatt) pre-dating protohistorical Celts. But it's a debatable matter in any case. <BR/><BR/>But how do you relate those with Dacians, genenrally assumed to be closer to Thracians or to Eastern European groups, still beats me. <BR/><BR/><I>We don't currently know for sure the complex ethnic makeup of Romanians, and how much of a continuity from (satem IE) Dacians actually persists to the presence.</I><BR/><BR/>Probably all or most. Sure, they were once and again invaded by other peoples but none of them appears to have left much of a mark, excepting Romans (language) and Hungarians (plenty of minority settlements) maybe. In any case all those invaders, except Romans, have an Eastern origin. That cannot explain that they appear relatively "western".<BR/><BR/>Actually, from other studies Rumanians are not really distinct from other Balcanic peoples, so I think you should stop looking at them as "Latin" and begin looking at them as the only representative of the Balcans in this study.<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/><I>At two clusters, humans fall into African-West Eurasian and an East Eurasian-American pools.</I><BR/><BR/>Hmmm, isn't it more like Tropical Africans and Eurasians+Oceanians+Americans? You never stop surprising me, Ren, sincerely. <BR/><BR/>Now I'd agree that the major divide within the Eurasian-plus pool is among Western (South Asians included) and Eastern (Oceanians and Native Americans included) sets. That's what the data I have seen once and again says.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55810798001273746362008-11-27T13:29:00.000+02:002008-11-27T13:29:00.000+02:00In the context of: "It's curious though that by Fs...<B>In the context of: </B><BR/><BR/>"It's curious though that by Fst Rumanians appear pretty much distant from Poles and Russians (more than to Spain and UK) what makes them appear somewhat "western" in the whole context (also reflected in the graph)."<BR/><BR/><B>Maju said:</B> <I>Dacians did not spoke Gallic. The relation of Gaelic with Latin is not straightforward either. The reason why Romania speaks a romance language and not Slavic, Turkic or Hungarian beats me really. It's one of those unimaginable oddities of history, specially if you ponder that Dacia was part of the Roman Empire for a rather short period and had no Catholic influence...<BR/><BR/>...I have not the slightest idea why do you associate Romania with the Alps and Celts, really. </I><BR/><BR/>Long before Hun, Slav, Langobard, and Goth invasion, the vast area of the Illyrians was influenced by Celtic rulership and language in the north and northwest (Noricum), and by Roman intrusion and language from the west and south. Eventually, even Noricum was fully romanized. Here you have an example of a (at the time, just recently) Celtic speaking population, and one whose language is unknown but very likely was centum IE - both were romanized in short time likely due to the fact that their language had close affinity, in the first place - similar to the situation in cisalpine Gallia and in Rhaetia.<BR/><BR/>In fact, if you think about the origin of Latin: you had centum Celtic to the west and north, and centum Illyrian and Greek to the East. Makes sense that ~2,500 to 2,000 years ago, these were still fairly close to each other. I wouldn't be surprised if the southern pan-alpine Celtic at one point was almost as close to Latin as it was remote from Brythonic and island Celtic.<BR/><BR/>We don't currently know for sure the complex ethnic makeup of Romanians, and how much of a continuity from (satem IE) Dacians actually persists to the presence. But in addition to elements form the invaders listed above, and remaining groups as well as Latin-speaking Black Sea harbor inhabitants, it makes sense to me that there is also this large former Illyrian group: people who fled the above invaders by moving just a couple of hundred miles east, into the (after Roman retreat) sparsely populated and easily defensible deep forests and mountains of Romania. In fact, what other place did these people have, to go to? One thing we know for sure: they (conveniently) already spoke the vulgar Latin from which Romanian is derived, and for longer and more easily so than the Dacians.<BR/><BR/>I am sure we will know more in just a few years.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-12514741701176412462008-11-27T13:14:00.000+02:002008-11-27T13:14:00.000+02:00...if you use even more SNP data, we can predict t...<I>...if you use even more SNP data, we can predict the region someone comes from, down to the village, the clan...<BR/><BR/>Now, if clusters can separate two families, does that mean they are two different races? </I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Exactly what I said, while worded differently: "...basically distinguishing what is left over and commingled from extended families of the agricultural expansion. That's not races, that's cousins who outmarried."eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-38526717850952242572008-11-27T11:50:00.000+02:002008-11-27T11:50:00.000+02:00And some are just not intelligent enough... though...And some are just not intelligent enough... though it won't stop them from posting their 2 cents on here...renhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04377460204421275833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32909558781631113692008-11-27T11:48:00.000+02:002008-11-27T11:48:00.000+02:00Above is pure logic... but something tells me you ...Above is pure logic... but something tells me you guys are too busy to understand...renhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04377460204421275833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70301024938980021702008-11-27T11:43:00.000+02:002008-11-27T11:43:00.000+02:00Now, Dienekes, and the rest of you Occidentals, he...Now, Dienekes, and the rest of you Occidentals, hehe...<BR/>the point is, SNP clustering can't define races. At two clusters, humans fall into African-West Eurasian and an East Eurasian-American pools. This fine enough; we can say that these are two macro-races that can be broken down into smaller races. But the problem is there is no natural point where ever finer, more numerous clusters cease to become nonsensical, where we can define race. Clusters can go on into predicting ethnic groups, we we can see now, and the trend is that if you use even more SNP data, we can predict the region someone comes from, down to the village, the clan, for those places where there is still a lack of mobility.<BR/><BR/>Now, if clusters can separate two families, does that mean they are two different races? <BR/><BR/>There is no natural point, finer resolution where SNP clusters stop to make sense beyond the regional, ethnic level, as it can go on to cluster down to towns, villages, clans. This is why it can't define race and why Swedes and Norwegians are not sub-races.renhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04377460204421275833noreply@blogger.com