Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 264

Thread: "disconnecting the link between (European) DNA and Identity and Belonging"

  1. #201
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,841

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Er Monnezza View Post
    As much as I dislike the term "race", it is impossible not to see ideological bias in that post.

    In any PCA, Europeans and Asians never touch Sub-Saharan clusters.



    If we observe it in 3 dimensions, we can see even more discernable variation. Since 2D makes it seem like people just exist on a gradient between the three.

  2. #202
    Regular Member Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    1,111


    Country: Italy



    3 members found this post helpful.
    Two different approaches synthesized here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(...on)#Subspecies
    1) "The term race in biology is used with caution because it can be ambiguous. Generally, when it is used it is effectively a synonym of subspecies. (For animals, the only taxonomic unit below the species level is usually the subspecies; there are narrower infraspecific ranks in botany, and race does not correspond directly with any of them.) Traditionally, subspecies are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations. Studies of human genetic variation show that human populations are not geographically isolated, and their genetic differences are far smaller than those among comparable subspecies."

    2) "In 1978, Sewall Wright suggested that human populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered different subspecies by the criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection. Wright argued that, 'It does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair despite so much variability within each of these groups that every individual can easily be distinguished from every other.' While in practice subspecies are often defined by easily observable physical appearance, there is not necessarily any evolutionary significance to these observed differences, so this form of classification has become less acceptable to evolutionary biologists. Likewise this typological approach to race is generally regarded as discredited by biologists and anthropologists."

    --> Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races
    https://bioone.org/journals/human-bi...081.0621.short

    Fellows, as we see in the paper titled "Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations" (bold is mine):
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
    "In particular, the American Anthropological Association (1997, p. 1) stated that 'data also show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world´ (subsequently amended to 'about as different´). Similarly, educational material distributed by the Human Genome Project (2001, p. 812) states that ´two random individuals from any one group are almost as different [genetically] as any two random individuals from the entire world.´"

    It's an "oldie", but the assertion still makes sense in my opinion. They use "about as different" and "almost as different"; I believe that's what enables ancestry tools: "about" and "almost".

    Regarding "racial groups", well, first of all, the term race should be defined. People may casually use it for talking about different things, simulating a disagreement that is not necessarily there. Words matter, but they're subsidiary to meaning.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_a...#Defining_race

    I'm not a fan of separating the different groups in "biological races"; however, race is an informal group in taxonomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_group_(taxonomy), i.e., it's "a taxonomic rank that is not well defined".
    "Sometimes it is used to denote a level below that of subspecies, while at other times it is used as a synonym for subspecies."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(biology)

    We all probably agree that race has a connotative power. One may think of it as kind of an ecotype merely, which could be related to distinctive average tendencies, therefore races are below subspecies and, conciliated with our continuous clinal structure (generally associated to monotypic species) in the context of a certain set of SNPs, they could exist among modern humans.

    Ecotype: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotype
    "In evolutionary ecology, an ecotype, sometimes called ecospecies, describes a genetically distinct geographic variety, population, or race within a species, which is genotypically adapted to specific environmental conditions."

    Another one may think of it as a subspecies, therefore races probably don't exist among modern humans. I.e., while the term race can be used based mainly on phenotypic tendencies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...ypic_variation), and we probably agree they're not all easily observable, strictly a "biological race" may be seen as a subspecies. Then no; subspecies don't seem to exist among modern humans. Here, an example of a different subspecies could be perhaps the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (as firstly proposed by King back in 1864 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...ens_subspecies), with whom Homo sapiens sapiens generated fertile descendants, despite the hundreds of thousands of years separating us from them. Neanderthal's classification is also controversial though, since we don't know whether the individuals that resulted from that mix were generally fertile (justifying the mentioned rating) or if the fertile were exceptions (as in the mixing between different species of felines, for example), reinforcing the Homo neanderthalensis classification. Under the approach in question, a dog would be a Canis lupus familiaris rather than a Canis familiaris, with all its multiple "breeds" (generally resulted from a few "founders", intentionally determined by selective mixing, and generally associated with low genetic variation).This approach could come together with problems, like the one involving Denisovans. It's not crystal clear whether they could be called Homo sapiens altaiensis or not, however, importantly, there would have been Denisovan groups separated by ~350k years from each other: https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S...674(19)30218-1 . How could these different Denisovan groups be classified, assuming they belonged to our species? Could the term "race" help in situations like this? If so, it could be under subspecies and above an ecotype, complicating it a bit more. One way or another, even under this definition, its applicability could change as more data emerge. Also, a divergence of 350k years would be way higher than the divergence among modern human groups.
    How Neanderthals and Denisovans are rated is not mandatorily a condition for the (non-)applicability of subspecies to modern humans though. That said, I virtually always use the terms "ethnicity" (also debatable and flexible) or "population" or "groups" not only because I'm inclined to think biological race as an immediate denotation of subspecies or something close to - and the perspective I offer here is founded on this premise (which means I don't believe in biological races among modern humans) -, but also because they seem more secure, specific and significative imho. I mean, why use "race" under the risk of being misunderstood if we can use "group", "pop" or whatever with the assurance of being well comprehended? Again, this perspective shouldn't necessarily avoid us to use the term "mix". It's a matter of context, I believe.

    So, one may focus on the high genetic similarity between groups (ironically evidenced by the divergence within groups, almost equally high), and one may focus on certain genetic differences that generally correlate with actual ancestries. Under a genetic perspective, the term "mix" is inserted in the context of these aggregated properties of populations, not in familial mutations or segments erratically running in several pops. I think that Reich's article shared in the other thread is pretty good. He doesn't deny that race is a social construct, he doesn't deny the great similarity between modern humans either, and he does it without denying there are some differences with applicability to populational genetics, health science etc.
    That said, considering the known modern human variations within and between groups, virtually anyone should be closer to the biological parents, children, siblings and cousins than to any other individual, genetically, never mind certain physical traits and ethnic background. It's likely true for both coding and non-coding DNA.

    According to this Wikipedia article, a typical genome would differ from human reference at 4 to 5 million sites. Plus:
    "There are variations between human populations, so a SNP allele that is common in one geographical or ethnic group may be much rarer in another. However, this pattern of variation is relatively rare; in a global sample of 67.3 million SNPs, the Human Genome Diversity Project 'found no such private variants that are fixed in a given continent or major region. The highest frequencies are reached by a few tens of variants present at >70% (and a few thousands at >50%) in Africa, the Americas, and Oceania. By contrast, the highest frequency variants private to Europe, East Asia, the Middle East, or Central and South Asia reach just 10 to 30%'."
    Insights into human genetic variation and population history from 929 diverse genomes (Bergström et al., 2020)
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7115999/

    The text suggests shared variants that are virtually found only in Europe, for example, are present in 10 to 30% of Europeans only.
    One may also think about, say, rs1426654(A) - SLC24A5. It's found in virtually all Europeans, but it doesn't mean it's "private" to Europe - over 50% of the Maasai from Kinyawa, Kenya, would have a rs1426654(A) allele, let alone its high incidence in Middle East.
    We don't tend to be isolated. We're a mobile species.

    As I suggested, the calculators use aggregate properties of populations for identifying ancestries, not the whole genome. It'd be already difficult to point to subspecies in modern humans just looking at a PCA of human pops, characterized by a spectrum, with many overlaps. Anyway, (very) importantly, these abstractions don't need a very high number of SNPs for working decently, and actually they can't, because most of the SNPs are not informative of ancestry. So, a certain company which tests over 600k SNPs (for purposes of health, matching etc.) may use up to 60k for delivering ancestry results in specific (it's a real case). Actually just a few microsatellites would be needed if the goal is performing pop categorizations in continental level: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180234/

    It's true, however, that a given ethnically unmixed person (or whatever we wanna call it) tends to be a bit more similar, genetically, to people with the same ancestry, or from the same recognizable genetic cluster(s). We do use the terms "group", "population" etc., don't we? :) I probably tend to be genetically closer to other North Italians on average. So we should not automatically challenge assertions that group A is genetically closer to B overall, and it would not necessarily attest the existence of biological races among modern humans strictly as subspecies or something close to. Indeed, with 4 to 5 million SNPs varying from the reference in an individual on average (even from an individual of the same major cluster), with such a few fixed SNPs, the child of a full Swedish with a full Japanese will plot very far from these populations within a PCA; yet, his father and his mother will be way, way closer to him/her genetically than to any other individual from their own ethnicity (apart from other close relatives), because the child will inherit almost half of these 4 to 5 million SNPs, whereas the PCA can deal only with a fraction of them. Can we say each parent belongs to a different biological race - stricto sensu - from their ("mixed") child's, even with this extremely high genetic similarity between them (in relation to everybody else)? The assertion doesn't seem reconcilable, and "families" are not races. So, the father and the mother would be closer to members of their own ethnic group only in the context of a certain group of SNPs, informative of ancestry when taken together, and related to an ecotype. One may argue that their similarity involves familial SNPs mostly, not SNPs informative of ancestry when taken together, and that's true; however, this high similarity among humans, ironically defined by the high divergence within groups - comparable to those between groups -, causes such phenomenons, and it absolutely weakens the idea of subspecies among modern humans, or the idea of races when used in this sense.
    Endogamous populations don't seem to change the rule. Their members, sort of a "big family", may be closer to each other, but any two individuals within another given non-endogamous population may relate in a very different way to an individual from the endogamous group.

    *Obama's parents diverged from Obama by about 2 millions of SNPs only, also way less than their divergence to everybody else.
    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2011...OOK4-jumbo.jpg

    Now, the story may have been different when our ancestors mixed with Neanderthals. Considering our genetic divergence to them, the parents must have been pretty different from the child, in comparison to individuals of their own subespecies. Modern humans would differ at ~0.1% with each other, and ~0.3% to Neanderthals. Let's say, ~4 millions vs. ~12 millions. The child would be different from the sapiens sapiens parent at ~8 millions (since he'd inherit only half of the Neanderthal, and only half of the other parent would not be inherited). This is a high divergence, in harmony with the idea Neanderthal is on the threshold of a new species.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neande...genome_project
    In short, making it more objective, a test as the following could work (?):
    - Does the mix of two individuals representing the two different "tested" groups generally result in a fertile progeny?
    No -> they belong to different species.
    Yes -> they belong to the same species.
    - If the answer is yes, is each parent genetically closer to this child than to individuals from his/her own tested group (apart close relatives)?
    No -> the parents, or the groups they represent, belong to different subspecies.
    Yes -> they belong to the same subspecies.

    I know the relation between phenotype and genotype may be complex in each case. For example, if the father is CC for the rs4988235 in the lactase gene and the mother is TT, the child will be equally distant to his/her parents in genotype, but likely closer to the father in phenotype, due to the phenomenon of dominance. And certain genetic results may be more impactful than others. Anyway, in the universe of dozens of thousands of SNPs, we should generally expect some overall correspondence between the two dimensions, aside environmental factors and other variables.

    Situations like these tell us that a PCA is just a tool/representation that shows the relative distance between the elements involved, given a certain set of SNPs, chosen for certain purpose. For example, we want to understand ancient movements, and genetics are helping us on this job. We could build "PCAs" in a multitude of perspectives, and doing so they could usually become "chaotic" when seen under ethnical lens. In other words, the genetic clusters, as we know them, would be one way of categorizing people, and they could be even related to certain phenotypical tendencies (lato sensu - including those imperceptible through mere observation), regarding health (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health), physical traits and on and on; however, there would be other ways of doing it, as one wishes.
    "A cline refers to a spatial gradient in a specific, singular trait, rather than a collection of traits; a single population can therefore have as many clines as it has traits, at least in principle. Additionally, Huxley recognised that these multiple independent clines may not act in concordance with each other." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_(biology)

    Bottom line, I believe biological races, (when) seen as subspecies or something close to, demand a higher level of differentiation between groups (or a lower level within groups, if you prefer) than the one we see in present day humans.
    As this article says http://book.bionumbers.org/how-genet...random-people/ :
    "But this genetic similarity begs the question: how come we feel so different from that person we run into on the street? Well, keep on reading to learn of other genetic differences, but one should also appreciate how our brains are tuned to notice and amplify differences and dispense the unifying properties such as all of us having two hands, one nose, a big brain and so forth. To an alien we probably would all look identical, just like you may see two mice and if their fur coat is the same they would seem like clones even if one is the Richard Feynman of his clan and the other the Winston Churchill." :)

    Subspecies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies
    "A taxonomist decides whether to recognize a subspecies. A common criterion for recognizing two distinct populations as subspecies rather than full species is the ability of them to interbreed even if some male offspring may be sterile. In the wild, subspecies do not interbreed due to geographic isolation or sexual selection. The differences between subspecies are usually less distinct than the differences between species."
    (...)
    "In a monotypic species, all populations exhibit the same genetic and phenotypical characteristics. Monotypic species can occur in several ways:
    - All members of the species are very similar and cannot be sensibly divided into biologically significant subcategories.
    - The individuals vary considerably, but the variation is essentially random and largely meaningless so far as genetic transmission of these variations is concerned.
    - The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation always indicates substantial gene flow among the apparently separate groups that make up the population(s). Populations that have a steady, substantial gene flow among them are likely to represent a monotypic species, even when a fair degree of genetic variation is obvious."

  3. #203
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,897

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    @Regio X fine explorations! Thanks!

    - The variation among individuals is noticeable and follows a pattern, but there are no clear dividing lines among separate groups: they fade imperceptibly into one another. Such clinal variation always indicates substantial gene flow among the apparently separate groups that make up the population(s). Populations that have a steady, substantial gene flow among them are likely to represent a monotypic species, even when a fair degree of genetic variation is obvious."
    Doesn't this underline option C of the "OP"?


  4. #204
    Regular Member Salento's Avatar
    Join Date
    30-05-17
    Posts
    5,506

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H12a

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Maybe the supplement could be able to verify it.
    I think it's the Alpha sample, S2949 and I2949 aka Dzu2 both carry the same U6 mtDNA … too many coincidences, it must be the same sample.






    https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_...6&ybp=500000,0

  5. #205
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,841

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Interesting, thanks for sharing Salento.

    However, maybe because SAT29 is a low-quality sample, it is pretty different:

    Distance to: Pre-LGM_Caucasian:SAT29
    56.50605366 S2949_TWIST
    60.95537548 S2949_1240k
    67.01962101 S2949_ARBOR

    Here was the thread we had on SAT29:

    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...f-West-Eurasia

  6. #206
    Regular Member Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    1,111


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    @Regio X fine explorations! Thanks!



    Doesn't this underline option C of the "OP"?

    One of the things C seems to underline is that most of the variation found in Europe and Asia would also be found in Africa (which by the way does have the highest variation in the world).
    Naturally some SNPs* may be more frequent in one continent than another, but apparently this figure doesn't intend to represent it, nor maximize the average genetic differences.

    *A reminder: to be considered a SNP, the substitution must be present in a sufficiently large fraction of the population (generally 1% or more): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_..._polymorphisms . The typical base pair differences are higher than the typical SNP differences.

    Also, C may be related to this part of the same Wikipedia article:
    "The lack of discontinuities in genetic distances between human populations, absence of discrete branches in the human species, and striking homogeneity of human beings globally, imply that there is no scientific basis for inferring races or subspecies in humans, and for most traits, there is much more variation within populations than between them. Despite this, modern genetic studies have found substantial average genetic differences across human populations in traits such as skin colour, bodily dimensions, lactose and starch digestion, high altitude adaptions, and predisposition to developing particular diseases. The greatest diversity is found among populations in Africa, and gradually declines with increasing distance from the African continent, consistent with the Out of Africa theory of human origins."

    My goal, in short, was to show that
    1) Race is an informal term.
    2) It'd be a social construct, as Reich suggested.
    3) Its applicability depends on the way one defines it, naturally.
    4) It may be seen as something below subspecies, like an ecotype. Then ok, but there are more meaningful terms at our disposal imo.
    5) It's frequently seen as subespecies though.
    6) Subspecies likely don't exist among modern humans. There's no such thing as, say, Homo sapiens africanus, asiaticus or something.

  7. #207
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,841

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Here is an honest question:

    How could it be a social construct if we know for a fact that part of our differences are driven by the fact we are admixed with archaic humanoids who are an entirely different species at different percentages?

    Not just Neanderthal and Denisovan, but also other super archaic ghost populations that may include homo erectus, homo habilis, homo naledi, etc.

    Just look at all of the implications that just a little bit of Neanderthal DNA has for example on physical and psychological traits:

    https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S...297(17)30379-8

    The theory that race is just a social construct came out way before we even knew that we could confirm this kind of admixture in people.

    I think the real issue is people are hung up on semantics, because they're afraid the truth will be abused.

    People can cover up the truth all they want, but what goes on in the darkness will always come to light.

  8. #208
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    14-02-17
    Posts
    146


    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Because they want to iron-out everything. 3D--->2D .

    Instead of wrapping up this reality (yeah, sometimes they hate the word "diversity" ...and others that do not suit their agenda)...
    0EVaytS.png

    ...in the perfect sphere of our (God given) humanity , they keep changing the meaning of words every (other) generation.

    “When wоrds lоse thеir mеaning, peoрle lоse thеir frееdom” .


    I read the interview with the two of the group behind the proposed document a couple of days ago.


    https://phys.org/news/2021-10-procee...s-ancient.html


    As for the "technicalities" of collecting the samples-of course ,there should be a standard protocol, more or less.
    However....they did not declare it openly... but I got the impression that we, the mortals (or other interested parties) will be having the raw results of the studies (or the papers) after the "stakeholders" (good Lord...they could have picked some other term here) have "ironed out" the "controversies"(despite "the push for open data")...so the "stakeholders" will probably be exchanging emails back and forth before (if ever...! ) they decide to publish the paper/raw results lest anybody gets "offended". It might as well end up being locked up in the vault / or remain in "close circle" use because "somebody" of the "stakeholders" might get their feelings hurt by the conclusions of the scientists.
    And some of them scientists might (feel forced to) sacrifice reason and plain "interpret" the results according to the prevalent socio-political narrative...only to get the results public. Darkness...

  9. #209
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,841

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Here is a thread we have on African multi-regionalism:

    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post548663

  10. #210
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,897

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Here is an honest question:

    How could it be a social construct if we know for a fact that part of our differences are driven by the fact we are admixed with archaic humanoids who are an entirely different species at different percentages?

    Not just Neanderthal and Denisovan, but also other super archaic ghost populations that may include homo erectus, homo habilis, homo naledi, etc.

    Just look at all of the implications that just a little bit of Neanderthal DNA has for example on physical and psychological traits:

    https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S...297(17)30379-8

    The theory that race is just a social construct came out way before we even knew that we could confirm this kind of admixture in people.

    I think the real issue is people are hung up on semantics, because they're afraid the truth will be abused.

    People can cover up the truth all they want, but what goes on in the darkness will always come to light.
    We have got E=Mc2. No dispute. A given 'rule'.
    Classifications of race are under dispute. Your definition: dramatic genetic difference is not like E=Mc2.
    Because it's under dispute (not a given law) it is a social construct.
    The fact that it is a social construct doesn't mean that it's not real.

  11. #211
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,841

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    We have got E=Mc2. No dispute. A given 'rule'.
    Classifications of race are under dispute. Your definition Dramatic difference is not like E=Mc2.
    Because it's under dispute (not a given law) it is a social construct.
    The fact that it is a social construct doesn't mean that it's not real.
    Semantics are irrelevant.

    It sort of reminds me of the leftist argument about the word gender.

    It doesn't change the fact that 99.9% of people are born with either an X and Y chromosome, or two X chromosomes.

  12. #212
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,897

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Semantics are irrelevant.

    It sort of reminds me of the leftist argument about the word gender.

    It doesn't change the fact that 99.9% of people are born with either an X and Y chromosome, or two X chromosomes.
    I don't see this as a matter of semantics.

    You politicize this matter. This has nothing to do with leftist or right....apples and oranges.

  13. #213
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,841

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    I don't see this as a matter of semantics.

    You politicize this matter. This has nothing to do with leftist or right....apples and oranges.
    Thomas Booth in the video in his own words mentions a boogie man of nationalistic leaning people using aDNA to advance their goals, and that he must preemptively deny identity and belonging based on genetics.

    Therefore, the architects of the guidelines politicized it.

    My complaint is that it should be free of political bias, and the facts should be published. Instead, they have a goal to create a narrative; facts be damned.

  14. #214
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,897

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Thomas Booth in the video in his own words mentions a boogie man of nationalistic leaning people using aDNA to advance their goals, and that he must preemptively deny identity and belonging based on genetics.

    Therefore, the architects of the guidelines politicized it.

    My complaint is that it should be free of political bias, and the facts should be published. Instead, they have a goal to create a narrative; facts be damned.
    That is something different than race. He talks about the fact that the European populations have become more mixed. So my "Saxon" genes and heritage are not those of my neighbors, in the case of my parents and grandparents it was also of their neighbors.

    Regio X has made a magnificent exposé, please react on him because he has made imo an intelligent contribution!

  15. #215
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,841

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    That is something different than race. He talks about the fact that the European populations have become more mixed. So my "Saxon" genes and heritage are not those of my neighbors, in the case of my parents and grandparents it was also of their neighbors.

    Regio X has made a magnificent exposé, please react on him because he has made imo an intelligent contribution!
    I'm not inclined to do requests, and frankly, I skimmed through it, because I don't have the time or interest to read walls of text from wikipedia entries. Seems like the same old wiffle-waffle to me. No offense Regio X, but TLDR;

    What about the points I made, such as how could our differences be reduced to a social construct, if we know we are made up of different species. Who even a small contribution from has a big impact on our physical and psychological traits. I have supported my claims with two recent studies.

  16. #216
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,841

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Also you are the one that brought up race in response to the Richard Lewontin criticism. Of whom has many critics within his own field.


    It is always the same with people like you, a whole lot of Greek salad, and BS to justify your fluid mentality. Facts be damned.


    Tell me, are super archaic hominids a social construct too?

    Being an amalgamation of different species is a social construct?

    Physical and psychological byproducts from that admixture is a social construct?

  17. #217
    Elite member
    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    1,897

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    NW Euro
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Also you are the one that brought up race in response to the Richard Lewontin criticism. Of whom has many critics within his own field.

    It is always the same with people like you, a whole lot of Greek salad, and BS to justify your fluid mentality. Fact be damned.

    Tell me, are super archaic hominid a social construct too?
    It's a biological reality that I'm not a Greek salad, that's more your recipe, I'm a matjessalat! With North Sea herrings.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tIQNwXKCAo

  18. #218
    Banned
    Join Date
    17-01-18
    Posts
    177


    Country: Italy



    I would use the term race more to refer to Sapiens, Denisovans and Neanderthals.

    When did the last common ancestor among these 3 individuals live?

    Distance to: Ju_hoan_North:B_Ju_hoan_North-4
    1.19556746 Surui:HGDP00843
    1.19947345 Papuan:HGDP00552

    Distance to: Papuan:HGDP00552
    0.91477865 Surui:HGDP00843
    1.19947345 Ju_hoan_North:B_Ju_hoan_North-4

    Distance to: Surui:HGDP00843
    0.91477865 Papuan:HGDP00552
    1.19556746 Ju_hoan_North:B_Ju_hoan_North-4

  19. #219
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,841

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    It's a biological reality that I'm not a Greek salad, that's more your recipe, I'm a matjessalat! With North Sea herrings.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tIQNwXKCAo
    Throw some arugula in there, with Italian balsamic vinegar and olive oil too. Then that's my salad.

    At any rate, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. When Lewontin said race is a social construct, he didn't know of archaic hominid admixture in modern humans. That revelation was only made possible because of the aDNA revolution that happened only 10 years ago. We will most likely see more developments in the future, lest we succumb to a politically motivated narrative that endeavors to cover it up, or spin it to appease Lewontin's fallacy.

  20. #220
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,841

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Er Monnezza View Post
    I would use the term race more to refer to Sapiens, Denisovans and Neanderthals.

    When did the last common ancestor among these 3 individuals live?

    Distance to: Ju_hoan_North:B_Ju_hoan_North-4
    1.19556746 Surui:HGDP00843
    1.19947345 Papuan:HGDP00552

    Distance to: Papuan:HGDP00552
    0.91477865 Surui:HGDP00843
    1.19947345 Ju_hoan_North:B_Ju_hoan_North-4

    Distance to: Surui:HGDP00843
    0.91477865 Papuan:HGDP00552
    1.19556746 Ju_hoan_North:B_Ju_hoan_North-4
    Denisovan is a cousin of Neanderthal that mixed with yet another super archaic hominid.

    Homo erectus gave humanity genital herpes from having sex with other primates.

    https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...genital-herpes

  21. #221
    Banned
    Join Date
    17-01-18
    Posts
    177


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Denisovan is a cousin of Neanderthal that mixed with yet another super archaic hominid.

    Homo erectus gave humanity genital herpes from having sex with other primates.

    https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/...genital-herpes
    Ok, but a random Chinese and a random Nigerian today are genetically much more related to each other than a Neanderthal is to a Denisovan.

  22. #222
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,841

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Er Monnezza View Post
    Ok, but a random Chinese and a random Nigerian today are genetically much more related to each other than a Neanderthal is to a Denisovan.
    Nobody said Nigerian and Chinese are different species. They're augmented by different species however, and that imo helps to make them a different sub-species within modern humans. As Neanderthal admixed people are too.

  23. #223
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-11-19
    Posts
    490


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Nobody said Nigerian and Chinese are different species. They're augmented by different species however, and that imo helps to make them a different sub-species within modern humans. As Neanderthal admixed people are too.
    admixture may play a role, but I guess the main difference is 50 to 100.000 years of drift and living in a different environment since, hence different natural selection

    neanderthals and denisovans drifted apart from each other 5-600.000 years ago

  24. #224
    Banned
    Join Date
    18-03-17
    Posts
    858


    Ethnic group
    swiss,italian
    Country: Germany



    @Jovialis am i able to post comparisions of intra european genetic distances with european/non-european distances without you giving me infractions for hate speech against europeans again?

    why is this hate speech for you?

  25. #225
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    21,549


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    My God, through selection and drift in widely separated areas of the world, as Bicicleur stated, human beings fall into three major "poles" of variation, with everyone else being a mixture of those groups.

    I don't give a damn whether you call them races, or continental breeding groups, or a made up name of your choice. That's a FACT. Use your reason, logic, and just plain common sense and stop letting all your emotional or political orientations get in the way of an intellectual analysis.

    Differences within Europe are irrelevant. Most Europeans clump together in comparison to the rest of the world. Or, if you like, you could look at West Eurasians as a group. The only ones who then "pull away" a bit are those with Eastern Eurasian or SSA ancestry.

    It's so simple that a middle school student would be able to understand it yet it occasions all this sophistry and angst here.

    Is the ability to rationally look at data truly a thing of the past? Must everything be tainted by emotion and political agendas?


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •