With which Y DNA was the proto caucausoid/mongoloid?
- Thread starter motzart
- Start date
JS Bach
Regular Member
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 0
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b-Z8
- mtDNA haplogroup
- K
Yes, although I'd be surprised if that fully characterized it. Those ancient Swedish dna links I gave in my last post also give breakdowns with k=13 and other clustering/classification algorithms.
Aberdeen
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,835
- Reaction score
- 380
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Scottish, English and German
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I1
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H4
Someone has come up with yet another theory about the depigmentation of people living in northern Europe - they evolved that way because pigmentation simply wasn't as necessary any more. Of course, linking it to high latitudes creates obvious problems in terms of explaining dark skin among Inuit and Native Americans, so I'm not sure I buy it but here's the link.
"http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11692-014-9282-7
And here's a copy of the abstract.
"Skin pigmentation lightened progressively to a variable extent, as modern humans emigrated out of Africa, but extreme lightening occurred only in northern Europeans. Yet, loss of pigmentation alone cannot suffice to sustain cutaneous vitamin D3 (VD3) formation at the high latitudes of northern Europe. We hypothesized that loss-of-function mutations in the epidermal structural protein, filaggrin (FLG), could have evolved to sustain adequate VD3 status. Loss of FLG results in reduced generation of trans-urocanic acid, the principal endogenous ultraviolet-B (UV-B) filter in lightly-pigmented individuals. Accordingly, we identified a higher prevalence of FLG mutations in northern European populations when compared to more southern European, Asian and African populations that correlates significantly with differences in circulating 25-OH-VD3 levels in these same populations. By allowing additional UV-B penetration and intracutaneous VD3 formation, the latitude-dependent gradient in FLG mutations, likely together with other concurrent mutations in VD3 metabolic pathways, provide a non-pigment-based mechanism that sustains higher levels of circulating VD3 in northern Europeans. At the time that FLG mutations evolved, xerosis due to FLG deficiency was a lesser price to pay for enhanced VD3 production. Yet, the increase in FLG mutations has inadvertently contributed to an epidemic of atopic diseases that has emerged in recent decades."
There are no races?
You have been brainwashed by propaganda.
The Liberal Myth that Race Isn't a Biological Reality
Here is a recent article spreading the myth that race is a myth:
http://www.helium.com/items/1625402-why-race-is-a-social-term-rather-than-a-biological-reality
A recent liberal racist propaganda piece put out over television was "Race, the Power of an Illusion"
http://newsreel.org/transcripts/race1.htm
"OSSORIO: All of our genetics now is telling us that that's not the case. We can't find any genetic markers that are in everybody of a particular race and in nobody of some other race. We can't find any genetic markers that define race." LIE
"ALAN GOODMAN, Biological Anthropologist: To understand why the idea of race is a biological myth requires a major paradigm shift, an absolute paradigm shift, a shift in perspective. And for me, it's like seeing, you know, what it must have been like to understand that the world isn't flat. And perhaps I can invite you to a mountain top and you can look out the window and at the horizon and see, "oh what I thought was flat I can see a curve in now," that the world is much more complicated. In fact, that race is not based on biology but race is rather an idea that we ascribe to biology." LIE
If race were not a biological reality, it would not be possible to determine a person's race from a skull or a mouth swab.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/racism13
http://forums.delphiforums.com/chromosome
You have been brainwashed by propaganda.
The Liberal Myth that Race Isn't a Biological Reality
Here is a recent article spreading the myth that race is a myth:
http://www.helium.com/items/1625402-why-race-is-a-social-term-rather-than-a-biological-reality
A recent liberal racist propaganda piece put out over television was "Race, the Power of an Illusion"
http://newsreel.org/transcripts/race1.htm
"OSSORIO: All of our genetics now is telling us that that's not the case. We can't find any genetic markers that are in everybody of a particular race and in nobody of some other race. We can't find any genetic markers that define race." LIE
"ALAN GOODMAN, Biological Anthropologist: To understand why the idea of race is a biological myth requires a major paradigm shift, an absolute paradigm shift, a shift in perspective. And for me, it's like seeing, you know, what it must have been like to understand that the world isn't flat. And perhaps I can invite you to a mountain top and you can look out the window and at the horizon and see, "oh what I thought was flat I can see a curve in now," that the world is much more complicated. In fact, that race is not based on biology but race is rather an idea that we ascribe to biology." LIE
If race were not a biological reality, it would not be possible to determine a person's race from a skull or a mouth swab.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/racism13
http://forums.delphiforums.com/chromosome
DNA Confirms Lewontin's Fallacy
Jewish Marxist scientists Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould and Jewish liberal popular science writer Jared Diamond claimed that race is not a biological concept, because most of the genetic variation is between individuals and not between races.
Nicholas Wade, former chief science writer for the New York Times, explains why this is wrong in his new book, A TROUBLESOME INHERITANCE; GENES, RACE AND HUMAN HISTORY. New York, the Penguin Press, 2014.
Page 120: "Lewontin's argument has other problems, including a subtle error of statistical reasoning named Lewontin's fallacy. The fallacy is to assume that the genetic differences between populations are uncorrelated with one another; if they are correlated, they become much more significant. As the geneticist A.W.F. Edwards wrote, 'Most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data,'" The 15% genetic difference between races, in other words, is not random noise but contains information about how individuals are more closely related to members of the same race than those of other races."
Page 121: "...races are identified by clusters of traits, and to belong to a certain race, it's not necessary to possess all of the identifying traits. To take a practical example of what the anthropologists are talking about, most East Asians have the sinodont form of dentition, but not all do. Most have the EDAR-V370A allele of the EDAR gene, but not all do. Most have the dry earwax allele of the ABCC11 gene, but not all do. Nonetheless, East Asian is a perfectly valid racial category, and most people in East Asia can be assigned to it."
Even a small child or a dog can instantly tell the difference between Africans, Chinese, and whites. Only liberals and liberal scientists seem to have difficulty distinguishing races.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss]Lewontin's Fallacy
Richard Lewontin, like Stephen Jay Gould, were Marxist anti-Darwinian scientists.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/dar3-j19.shtml
" Evolutionary psychology and its antecedent socio-biology were vigorously opposed by radical scientists, often calling themselves Marxists. Biologists like Richard Lewontin in the US and Steven Rose in the UK, as well as the US palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould, were part of an organization called Science for the People. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/"Human_genetic_diversity:_Lewontin's_fallacy"_(scientific_paper)
[/FONT]
Lewontin claimed that race was not a biological concept. This was disproved by A.W.F. Edwards. "Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles (variants of a particular gene) at individual locus (the location of a particular gene) between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100% when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time. This happens because differences in the frequency of alleles at different loci are correlated across populations — the alleles that are more frequent in a population at two or more loci are correlated when we consider the two populations simultaneously. Or in other words, the frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations.[8]
"In Edwards' words, 'most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data.' These relationships can be extracted using commonly-usedordination and cluster analysis techniques. Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on the frequency of alleles at a single locus is as high as 30% (as Lewontin reported in 1972), the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough loci are studied.[9]"
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss]Razib Khan Puts Richard Lewontin in His Place
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss]http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/11/lewontin-against-the-age/[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss]Richard Lewontin is a Marxist molecular biologist who is famous for attempting to prevent research on race and intelligence and claiming that race doesn't exist. He still has a great deal of influence in the AAAS and American universities.[/FONT]
His latest diatribe against science contains some amazing scientific errors, such as confusing ribosomes with mitochondrial DNA and asking "Is there a Jewish gene?" Of course, it is now well proven that there are a whole host of genes which identify Ashkenazi Jews, but that is no one single "Jewish gene."
Razib Khan, a scientist of Bangladeshi decent, has done an excellent job of defeating Lewontin, the old leader of racist liberals in science.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss]http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/11/lewontin-against-the-age/[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss]"[/FONT]The key is “for political reasons.” The title of The New York Review of Books piece by Lewontin is “Is There a Jewish Gene?” Titles are often placed there by editors, but in this case I wouldn’t be surprised if this Lewontin was responsible for this. Much of his line of attack against modern genetics which displeases him is to construct a strawman of monogenic models, when the reality is that polygenic variation is widely acknowledged and understood, within the academy! Not so in the public and popular press, and Lewontin fans the flames of that confusion, because he knows that there isn’t a “Jewish gene,” or an “intelligence gene.”
Also, I actually saw Harry Oster speak at ASHG, and it seems likely to me that Richard Lewontin is not painting an accurate portrait of the book he is reviewing here. Oster’s view of genetics and ancestry is subtle and nuanced. In any case, of the myriad issues which Lewontin mangles, the primary one I need to point out is that the most powerful evidence for the genetic affinity of the Jewish people is not in uniparental markers, as asserted in the review, but autosomal genomic tracts which indicate descent from a relatively small number of people over and over across the past 1,000 years. This is where Lewontin’s thought experiment of dilution over the generations falters; the strong stamp of Jewishness which binds Ashkenazim in particular manifests in the fact that genealogies coalesce over and over again toward the same relatively small number of people 500-1,000 years ago. This is a major avenue of research. If Richard Lewontin had gone to ASHG 2012 he would have been treated to a lot of “Jewish genes.”
[/FONT]
http://forums.delphiforums.com/paleogenetics1
http://forums.delphiforums.com/racism13
http://forums.delphiforums.com/physanthro
http://forums.delphiforums.com/chromosome
http://forums.delphiforums.com/truthseekers23
Jewish Marxist scientists Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould and Jewish liberal popular science writer Jared Diamond claimed that race is not a biological concept, because most of the genetic variation is between individuals and not between races.
Nicholas Wade, former chief science writer for the New York Times, explains why this is wrong in his new book, A TROUBLESOME INHERITANCE; GENES, RACE AND HUMAN HISTORY. New York, the Penguin Press, 2014.
Page 120: "Lewontin's argument has other problems, including a subtle error of statistical reasoning named Lewontin's fallacy. The fallacy is to assume that the genetic differences between populations are uncorrelated with one another; if they are correlated, they become much more significant. As the geneticist A.W.F. Edwards wrote, 'Most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data,'" The 15% genetic difference between races, in other words, is not random noise but contains information about how individuals are more closely related to members of the same race than those of other races."
Page 121: "...races are identified by clusters of traits, and to belong to a certain race, it's not necessary to possess all of the identifying traits. To take a practical example of what the anthropologists are talking about, most East Asians have the sinodont form of dentition, but not all do. Most have the EDAR-V370A allele of the EDAR gene, but not all do. Most have the dry earwax allele of the ABCC11 gene, but not all do. Nonetheless, East Asian is a perfectly valid racial category, and most people in East Asia can be assigned to it."
Even a small child or a dog can instantly tell the difference between Africans, Chinese, and whites. Only liberals and liberal scientists seem to have difficulty distinguishing races.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss]Lewontin's Fallacy
Richard Lewontin, like Stephen Jay Gould, were Marxist anti-Darwinian scientists.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/dar3-j19.shtml
" Evolutionary psychology and its antecedent socio-biology were vigorously opposed by radical scientists, often calling themselves Marxists. Biologists like Richard Lewontin in the US and Steven Rose in the UK, as well as the US palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould, were part of an organization called Science for the People. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/"Human_genetic_diversity:_Lewontin's_fallacy"_(scientific_paper)
[/FONT]
Lewontin claimed that race was not a biological concept. This was disproved by A.W.F. Edwards. "Edwards argued that while Lewontin's statements on variability are correct when examining the frequency of different alleles (variants of a particular gene) at individual locus (the location of a particular gene) between individuals, it is nonetheless possible to classify individuals into different racial groups with an accuracy that approaches 100% when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time. This happens because differences in the frequency of alleles at different loci are correlated across populations — the alleles that are more frequent in a population at two or more loci are correlated when we consider the two populations simultaneously. Or in other words, the frequency of the alleles tends to cluster differently for different populations.[8]
"In Edwards' words, 'most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data.' These relationships can be extracted using commonly-usedordination and cluster analysis techniques. Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on the frequency of alleles at a single locus is as high as 30% (as Lewontin reported in 1972), the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough loci are studied.[9]"
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss]Razib Khan Puts Richard Lewontin in His Place
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss]http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/11/lewontin-against-the-age/[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss]Richard Lewontin is a Marxist molecular biologist who is famous for attempting to prevent research on race and intelligence and claiming that race doesn't exist. He still has a great deal of influence in the AAAS and American universities.[/FONT]
His latest diatribe against science contains some amazing scientific errors, such as confusing ribosomes with mitochondrial DNA and asking "Is there a Jewish gene?" Of course, it is now well proven that there are a whole host of genes which identify Ashkenazi Jews, but that is no one single "Jewish gene."
Razib Khan, a scientist of Bangladeshi decent, has done an excellent job of defeating Lewontin, the old leader of racist liberals in science.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss]http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/11/lewontin-against-the-age/[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss]"[/FONT]The key is “for political reasons.” The title of The New York Review of Books piece by Lewontin is “Is There a Jewish Gene?” Titles are often placed there by editors, but in this case I wouldn’t be surprised if this Lewontin was responsible for this. Much of his line of attack against modern genetics which displeases him is to construct a strawman of monogenic models, when the reality is that polygenic variation is widely acknowledged and understood, within the academy! Not so in the public and popular press, and Lewontin fans the flames of that confusion, because he knows that there isn’t a “Jewish gene,” or an “intelligence gene.”
Also, I actually saw Harry Oster speak at ASHG, and it seems likely to me that Richard Lewontin is not painting an accurate portrait of the book he is reviewing here. Oster’s view of genetics and ancestry is subtle and nuanced. In any case, of the myriad issues which Lewontin mangles, the primary one I need to point out is that the most powerful evidence for the genetic affinity of the Jewish people is not in uniparental markers, as asserted in the review, but autosomal genomic tracts which indicate descent from a relatively small number of people over and over across the past 1,000 years. This is where Lewontin’s thought experiment of dilution over the generations falters; the strong stamp of Jewishness which binds Ashkenazim in particular manifests in the fact that genealogies coalesce over and over again toward the same relatively small number of people 500-1,000 years ago. This is a major avenue of research. If Richard Lewontin had gone to ASHG 2012 he would have been treated to a lot of “Jewish genes.”
[/FONT]
http://forums.delphiforums.com/paleogenetics1
http://forums.delphiforums.com/racism13
http://forums.delphiforums.com/physanthro
http://forums.delphiforums.com/chromosome
http://forums.delphiforums.com/truthseekers23
| Craig Venter's Racial DNA Hoax Liberals and Marxists opposed the Human Genome Project as being "racist" and tried to deny it funding. To counter this, Craig Venter claimed that there is no such thing as race and the DNA would be taken from each of the major human races, because race doesn't matter. Actually, the project would have failed if he had actually done this. He really just used his own DNA. This is explained in a biography called THE GENOME WAR, HOW CRAIG VENTER TRIED TO CAPTURE THE CODE OF LIFE AND SAVE THE WORLD, by James Shreeve. New York, Ballantine Books, 2005.
. |
Fire Haired14
Banned
- Messages
- 2,185
- Reaction score
- 582
- Points
- 0
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b DF27*
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U5b2a2b1
Theodorik, thanks for helping make people aware of the propaganda and lies many high ranking people in the west make. People who ignore genetic differences between differnt human populations are driven by fear not logic. Westerners reaction to raciest mistakes made in the past is way to extreme, and it has permanently scared the minds and culture of the west. I think most people in the west have some type of raciest tendency, I know I did, and there is no turning back to the innocence people had 500 years ago. In my opinion most racism in the west falls under two categories one on the far right and one on the far left.
Far left version: People start out with a just reaction to racism or any type of discrimination done towards non traditional western people: non-Christians, non-Europeans, non-western morality, indigenous people(usually defined as primitive people, who lived in an area before European colonization). But their feelings get so strong, that they develop a hate for anything that represents stero typical traditional westernism or "conservatism". They become obsessed with condemning the mistakes of traditional westernism, and begin to discriminate conservatives. Out of this comes political correctness, anti-patriotism, etc.
Far right version: It either develops from a reaction to the far left version, or prejudices and just hate towards non-traditional western things. A reaction to the far left version can trigger racism, and hate they already had inside them, and in their minds they trick themselves to think they are not raciest and hateful. Just like with the far left their political ideology becomes obsessed with condemning non-westernism and or the far left.
Of course though it is not black and white, there are many shades of grey in between. Both forms get on my nerves, and people who think you're some type of crazy political extremist if you even mention racism or anything controversial. Sometimes they're right but sometimes they have their own problem of being scared of talking about it.
Far left version: People start out with a just reaction to racism or any type of discrimination done towards non traditional western people: non-Christians, non-Europeans, non-western morality, indigenous people(usually defined as primitive people, who lived in an area before European colonization). But their feelings get so strong, that they develop a hate for anything that represents stero typical traditional westernism or "conservatism". They become obsessed with condemning the mistakes of traditional westernism, and begin to discriminate conservatives. Out of this comes political correctness, anti-patriotism, etc.
Far right version: It either develops from a reaction to the far left version, or prejudices and just hate towards non-traditional western things. A reaction to the far left version can trigger racism, and hate they already had inside them, and in their minds they trick themselves to think they are not raciest and hateful. Just like with the far left their political ideology becomes obsessed with condemning non-westernism and or the far left.
Of course though it is not black and white, there are many shades of grey in between. Both forms get on my nerves, and people who think you're some type of crazy political extremist if you even mention racism or anything controversial. Sometimes they're right but sometimes they have their own problem of being scared of talking about it.
This thread has been viewed 61594 times.