The genomic history of the Aegean palatial civilizations.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've told you before; stop putting word's in my mouth or attributing racist motives to me. I wouldn't give a damn if I carried it, but carrying it doesn't mean one is African. It could be more than 200 years in the past and no trace of autosomal African dna could remain, as is the case in this situation.

Are you part of the agenda driven group of people on the internet who would love these people to have Levant and African dna? Sorry, whatever mtDna they carry, they DON'T. Period.

Btw, it's not having that kind of dna which is a problem; the problem is the motives of the people who WANT Southern Europeans to have it because they are secret racists, and you know it very well.

Give it up.

This is what always happens when ***mentation is discussed. People from both sides of the divide go mental.


Where is azurro why he is banned ?
He was a good member of the forum
Why :sad-2:
 
You have no evidence that there was a caste system akin to India in European societies.
 
I would like proof of that beyond his word.
Fine, here are all the other authors from the study, you can e-mail each one about it and they will tell you the same:

Iosif Lazaridis, Alissa Mittnik, Nick Patterson, Swapan Mallick, Nadin Rohland, Saskia Pfrengle, Anja Furtwängler, Alexander Peltzer, Cosimo Posth, Andonis Vasilakis, P. J. P. McGeorge, Eleni Konsolaki-Yannopoulou, George Korres, Holley Martlew, Manolis Michalodimitrakis, Mehmet Özsait, Nesrin Özsait, Anastasia Papathanasiou, Michael Richards, Songül Alpaslan Roodenberg, Yannis Tzedakis, Robert Arnott, Daniel M. Fernandes, Jeffery R. Hughey, Dimitra M. Lotakis, Patrick A. Navas, Yannis Maniatis, John A. Stamatoyannopoulos, Kristin Stewardson, Philipp Stockhammer, Ron Pinhasi, David Reich, Johannes Krause & George Stamatoyannopoulos
 
I've told you before; stop putting word's in my mouth or attributing racist motives to me. I wouldn't give a damn if I carried it, but carrying it doesn't mean one is African. It could be more than 200 years in the past and no trace of autosomal African dna could remain, as is the case in this situation.

Are you part of the agenda driven group of people on the internet who would love these people to have Levant and African dna? Sorry, whatever mtDna they carry, they DON'T. Period.

Btw, it's not having that kind of dna which is a problem; the problem is the motives of the people who WANT Southern Europeans to have it because they are secret racists, and you know it very well.

Give it up.

This is what always happens when ***mentation is discussed. People from both sides of the divide go mental.

I find it very interesting that multiple accounts from "Romanian t-roll" upvoted his post to build a false consensus. Perhaps he is colluding with him to try to ruin the website. Kingjohn claims to have been banned from Anthrogenica, yet he is re-posting posts from their members, and lamenting why we have banned disruptive people from there. All of this makes me highly suspicious of his motives.
 
I find it very interesting that multiple accounts from "Romanian t-roll" upvoted his post to build a false consensus. Perhaps he is colluding with him to try to ruin the website. Kingjohn claims to have been banned from Anthrogenica, yet he is re-posting posts from their members, and lamenting why we have banned disruptive people from there. All of this makes me highly suspicious of his motives.

That makes two of us.

Don't people ever tire of these childish, neurotic games?

Don't you feel a constant sense of deja-vu? :)

Don't you remember how all of Herodotus' tall tales about the Etruscans were supposed to be gospel truth.

All I know is that my batting record looks really good, and the t-rolls are, well, not even on the score board. :)
 
I find it very interesting that multiple accounts from "Romanian t-roll" upvoted his post to build a false consensus. Perhaps he is colluding with him to try to ruin the website. Kingjohn claims to have been banned from Anthrogenica, yet he is re-posting posts from their members, and lamenting why we have banned disruptive people from there. All of this makes me highly suspicious of his motives.
Thread: The genomic history of the Aegean palatial civilizations.
Helpful Answer Positive Rating
04-05-21 11:40
dutenpm
Thread: The genomic history of the Aegean palatial civilizations.
Helpful Answer Positive Rating
04-05-21 11:40
dutenpm
Thread: The genomic history of the Aegean palatial civilizations.
Helpful Answer Positive Rating
04-05-21 10:30
vladis
Thread: The genomic history of the Aegean palatial civilizations.
Helpful Answer Positive Rating
04-05-21 10:30
vladis
Thread: The genomic history of the Aegean palatial civilizations.
Helpful Answer Positive Rating
04-05-21 10:20
I()
Thread: The genomic history of the Aegean palatial civilizations.
Helpful Answer Positive Rating
04-05-21 10:19
I()

This is all from the same person that keeps making new accounts, in some futile attempt to t-roll us, which we simply delete. This is low IQ/ psychotic behavior. Not the best endorsement, Kingjohn.
 
For the record, since they don't want to be cancelled, geneticists don't use the term 'race' anymore. They call them "continental breeding populations". In other words they bred only with each other for long enough that they are different from one another. It's a neat little trick to avoid the roving Woke Revolution gangs. Let's hope they go the way of Mao's Cultural Revolution gangs, scurrying off under the rocks and hoping no one will remember what they said and did in their hey-dey.

You know what I sometimes think? All these names people use to t-roll here and on anthrogenica and eurogenes (oh yes, he comes here) and the apricity. It seems like dozens and dozens of people, right, maybe at least 100. It's probably 10 people living in their mothers' basements. It's really sad and pathetic if you think about it. You have to feel sorry for them, and at least they're not out shooting people if they're glued to their computers trying to keep track of all their socks. :)
 
For the record, since they don't want to be cancelled, geneticists don't use the term 'race' anymore. They call them "continental breeding populations". In other words they bred only with each other for long enough that they are different from one another. It's a neat little trick to avoid the roving Woke Revolution gangs. Let's hope they go the way of Mao's Cultural Revolution gangs, scurrying off under the rocks and hoping no one will remember what they said and did in their hey-dey.

You know what I sometimes think? All these names people use to t-roll here and on anthrogenica and eurogenes (oh yes, he comes here) and the apricity. It seems like dozens and dozens of people, right, maybe at least 100. It's probably 10 people living in their mothers' basements. It's really sad and pathetic if you think about it. You have to feel sorry for them, and at least they're not out shooting people if they're glued to their computers trying to keep track of all their socks. :)

Khk3KY6h.jpg


:grin:
 
Geneticists use the term "European", "African" or "East Asian" not merely in a geographical sense, for a reason.Europe, for instance, has low genetic diversity unlike Africa. Therefore, all Europeans cluster pretty close to each other. However, in Africa all of its completely indigenous genetic clusters are greatly divergent from the indigenous components found outside Africa. Aside from the people from the Horn of Africa, most SSA people have only minor admixture from outside Africa. The SSA populations clearly form a separate group of peoples and cluster very much away from Europeans. Although there is a great genetic diversity within SSA, the pattern is that all other human outside SSA cluster much closer to each other than to any of those, basically forming a separate branch of humankind. So, "European" and "African" is a broadly genetic component. Hence, you won't find, for example, a native African that has the genetic make of any European and vise versa.​


did geneticists cluster genomes and then label the resulting groups "european", "african", "east asian"? no they didn't. they sequenced genomes and then labeled them with their geographic origin. of course you will have a rough correlation with geography and genetics but those categories are based primarily on geography. if you would try to cluster the genomes you would get groups that do not correspond to geograhic borders. especially not "european" or "african".

"SSA" is not "african" btw.
 
For the record, since they don't want to be cancelled, geneticists don't use the term 'race' anymore. They call them "continental breeding populations". In other words they bred only with each other for long enough that they are different from one another.

never heard any geneticist use that term for human populations. can you give an example?

populations are different but different enough to call it race? if you had a "mixed race" sibling you would be more related to him/her than to any other person, including those you consider "your race", except maybe your close relatives. i think it was Krause who said, there are 4.1-4.2 million differences in the genomes of 2 random central europeans. there are 4.3-4.4 million differences between a random central european and someone from east asia.
 
never heard any geneticist use that term for human populations. can you give an example?

populations are different but different enough to call it race? if you had a "mixed race" sibling you would be more related to him/her than to any other person, including those you consider "your race", except maybe your close relatives. i think it was Krause who said, there are 4.1-4.2 million differences in the genomes of 2 random central europeans. there are 4.3-4.4 million differences between a random central european and someone from east asia.

Have to agree here. Have only heard "Breeding" used in relation to animals, wildlife, fish and birds.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=continental+breeding+populations&atb=v255-1&ia=web
 
"Walsh & Yun reviewed the literature in 2011 and reported that "Genetic studies using very few chromosomal loci find that genetic polymorphisms divide human populations into clusters with almost 100 percent accuracy and that they correspond to the traditional anthropological categories."[99]"

"
As anthropologists and other evolutionary scientists have shifted away from the language of race to the term
population to talk about genetic differences..."

Anyone interested can read David Reich's opinion piece in the New York Times. The only reason he got away with it is because of his stature and his connections.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

It would take someone of really limited intelligence not to see what this means. There are 3 poles.
u4JP9Kv.png


Now I'm out. This is OFF TOPIC

@Archetype One

E tu, Brute? :) You should know not to doubt me when I emphatically state something as fact. I do it only if I know absolutely that the proof exists. Otherwise, I qualify.

Read:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301492264_Do_Humans_Have_Continental_Populations
 
"Walsh & Yun reviewed the literature in 2011 and reported that "Genetic studies using very few chromosomal loci find that genetic polymorphisms divide human populations into clusters with almost 100 percent accuracy and that they correspond to the traditional anthropological categories."[99]"
"
As anthropologists and other evolutionary scientists have shifted away from the language of race to the term
population to talk about genetic differences..."
Anyone interested can read David Reich's opinion piece in the New York Times. The only reason he got away with it is because of his stature and his connections.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
It would take someone of really limited intelligence not to see what this means. There are 3 poles.
u4JP9Kv.png

Now I'm out. This is OFF TOPIC
@Archetype One
E tu, Brute? :) You should know not to doubt me when I emphatically state something as fact. I do it only if I know absolutely that the proof exists. Otherwise, I qualify.
Read:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301492264_Do_Humans_Have_Continental_Populations
Archetype has a bad habit of doing that it seems. He's done it to me too
 
"Walsh & Yun reviewed the literature in 2011 and reported that "Genetic studies using very few chromosomal loci find that genetic polymorphisms divide human populations into clusters with almost 100 percent accuracy and that they correspond to the traditional anthropological categories."[99]"

"
As anthropologists and other evolutionary scientists have shifted away from the language of race to the term
population to talk about genetic differences..."

Anyone interested can read David Reich's opinion piece in the New York Times. The only reason he got away with it is because of his stature and his connections.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

It would take someone of really limited intelligence not to see what this means. There are 3 poles.
u4JP9Kv.png


Now I'm out. This is OFF TOPIC

@Archetype One

E tu, Brute? :) You should know not to doubt me when I emphatically state something as fact. I do it only if I know absolutely that the proof exists. Otherwise, I qualify.

Read:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301492264_Do_Humans_Have_Continental_Populations

I mean... I didn't use any ad hominem, not sure about the Brutus analogy :( .
Just stated have not encountered it used in relation to humans. Have heard it in regards to dogs, cattle and horses... And after searching the first pages on interenet indexes it reinforced what I thought.

I still think there is no room for self censorship in science, it defeats the purpose. And can't say I fall into SJW crowd. So scientists can use whatever term they want as long as its well defined and serves a purpose. But still it kind of felt wrong to hear the term "human breeding", it almost reminded me of eugenics *yikes*. Again, please don't misunderstand me this is not directed at you. Surprising they used in that scientific article but after taking a look it makes sense. What surprises me more that the author states : "
yithpHY
sCWsNuN.png
".
So if I was to follow the logic, we as humans have breeds? Like here is a German Shepherd, and here is a Pomeranian, also on exhibit c we have a Husky. xD
That would make NA a different breed to SSA, to SEA etc. I cringed just writing that.

Hope you understand why it sounds so peculiar to me.
Yet, no one can say this scientist writing the paper is into eugenics ofc, I mean he is a poc, and it seems today that is enough alibi not to be referred to as a racist.

Now I can be Brutus, trying to backstab you. Or I could be saying what I believe the evidence suggests: One scientist mentions breeding populations as a term used by geneticists without naming those geneticists or even providing a reference to what he means.
Meanwhile (overwhelmingly) 6670 index pages of academic papers (didn't check them all ofc), in JStor relate such a term to animals, wildlife, fish and birds:
https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasi...reqid=search:f34eacf2eb8001e2afa18390c9f94d48

@Jovialis

Correct. But you know what I mean.
 
Archetype has a bad habit of doing that it seems. He's done it to me too

Man for how much power you mods wield in this forum you sure have such thin skin. Taking everything personal as if the whole world is against you.
Done what to you? Expressed my opinion? Isn't that the point of a public forum?

Next thing I know I get an infringement without offending anyone but simply stating facts. Land of the free, first amendment. Sure thing.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

The sad part is I exactly know your reaction, at this point it is predictable. No wonder most posters have migrated. And mind you those posters contributed their time and posts to this forum, driving up the traffic. No one wants to read a private Facebook chat group between mods. And that's where this is headed.

As for the predictability, you will delete this post giving me and infraction, cause truth stings.
 
@Archetype One,

Whether it makes people "cringe" or not, there are 3 "poles" of humanity. West Eurasian/East Asian/SSA. You might, if you want, add SA or Americas

That they are "different" from one another is a scientific fact, as one can see from the PCA. The differences arose over time because they only "admixed" with one another, if you prefer that word to "breeding". What do you think happened when the Indo-Europeans arrived? They "bred" with the locals, or "admixed", if you want to use that term.

I would suggest everyone read Reich's opinion piece carefully and take it to heart.

If we ignore science, we eventually go into the abyss.

I'm sorry to disturb your innocence, but being a "person of color" doesn't protect you if you don't hue to the "party line". Razib Khan, who is about as SA and "brown" as you can get, is called a "white supremacist" for his genetic writings.

This is what the "woke" crowd (often very leftist white Democrats who pay fortunes to live in certain neighborhoods so their kids needn't go to school with POC", say about Tim Scott, "BLACK" senator who happens to be a Republican, because he looked at the "economic" effects of the stimulus bill and the social effects of the rhetoric coming out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IiKcoTxZSs

I begin to have some hope for this country. Now that parents know what is in the newly adopted Education Dept curriculums, which schools have to except if they want federal funds, particularly the ones regarding race, they are absolutely crazed. In the grade one section, children are told to compare their skin color to a chart. If they are "darker" than a certain number they are to sit in a color "affiliated" group at lunch time. Mixed race children are told they MUST identify as "Black" and sit at that table because the "white" affiliated children will never accept them. In addition to being completely and demonstrably UNTRUE, it's evil and toxic and divisive. I thought the whole CIVIL RIGHTS movement was about the "content of one's character", not COLOR, and that it was also about Freedom of Choice of Affiliation. What am I missing?

Just so you know; I was kidding with the "E tu, Brute". That's why I put a smiley. It had to do with the fact that usually your commentary is more reason based than a lot of what I see here.

It's disheartening to read the majority of what is being posted here lately. It's a-scientific illogical nonsense, and I have less and less time for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 117510 times.

Back
Top