[perryp]

Please entertain me - what euphemism would you use for '"five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans." It's a big mouthful - wouldn't the word "race" be better - or are you frightened of it?

Now a minute ago you claimed that you and no one else on this board would think that an African and an Aborigine were of the same race. You go on to make a "rough match" which would put Aborigines in the "Australoids = INHABITANTS OF NEW GUINEA AND MELANESIA" category. And now you say that a Melanesian can look like a West African.

Not at all. I understand the word race to mean genotype, not phenotype.

As I mentioned earlier when my hair was still growing it was straight and curly ... not the stereotypical "nappy" associated with the so-called "Negroid" or "black" race. My point is that if you washed the tribal markings from his face this guy would look like a family member. Or if you dressed me up like him I would fit right in with his people from an appearance standpoint. And if you shaved his head you'd be looking at someone that looks uncannily like me ... from skin tone, to facial features, facial hair texture ... even build.... On the one hand I'm "Negroid" because I'm without question a dark skinned black male of West African descent with full lips and a broad nose. But maybe I"m an "Australoid" because I have (or had) straight curly hair?

You keep writing about what you look like. Perhaps you're missing your mirror. I'm not interested what you look like. I'm talking about genotype.

Let me put it to you this way. Dress this guy up like the typical "brother" in America and let me and him go hang out at a bar filled with white people and start hitting on some white women .... successfully. I guarantee you that a certain percentage of the white males in that room will refer to us both as n*gger! Perhaps under their breath so as not to catch a beat down ... but you can best believe no distinction will be made between us because we would definitely be considered to be of the same "race".

What have people in a bar got to do with genetics? Have you been drinking? It's time you went home - hitch a ride on Pangea.

So which group do Ethiopians and Somalians belong to? The "Sub-Saharan African"which would make them "Negroid" or the "Europeans and Asians ... blah blah blah ... Or does it?

Does blue not exist because some blues are close to green? Does a Labrador not exist because some look a little Alsatian?

"1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics."

...So we can see that the primary definition or commonly held notion when it comes to the term "race" is based upon grouping people by shared physical characteristics.

No it says 'A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics'. You left out 'genetically transmitted'.

Sounds awfully familiar to the concept of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. 2000 years have gone by and He's a no show. "Well the Bible says ....'No one knows the hour ...'". 10,000 years have gone by and He still hasn't showed up. "Well the Bible says .... 'No one knows the hour ...'". 100,000 years have gone by and still no dice. "Well the Bible says .... 'No one knows the hour ...'". Awfully convenient isn't it?

You're clearly a loony. Perhaps if you put on your tin foil hat you can find the fossilized remains of christ.

[theolein]

Originally posted by perryp:
....



I've never been on safari, except in the browser sense. And I'm not a 'great white hunter'. Where did I say that the Tswana are Bushmen? What has pronunciation got to do with the argument? What was your point? Have you got one?


Where did I suggest this?

Originally you posted this statement:

As a South African, you will know that the darker skinned Bantu tribes of Southern Africa are more recent settlers than the lighter skinned (Bushmen for instance).

That was after I posted this:

Even amongst black Africans you get a sort of racism (nothing as pronounced or as viscious as what the whites did but it's there). The Zulus, for instance, a tribe with a very aggressive and proud martial history (they wiped out a number of other tribes in Southern Africa in a number of their military campaigns before the whites arrived and started treating all blacks like dirt) tend to look down, traditionally, on so called weaker tribes like the Tswana (and the Tswana are traditionally the ones with the lighter skin) because the Tswana were not as good at fighting as the Zulus were.

Perryp, young man, don't you think that being able to remember (or at least read) what you yourself posted in response to other people's posts would give you a certain sense of enhanced credibility currently lacking in your posts?

[perryp]

Originally posted by theolein:
Originally you posted this statement:

That was after I posted this:

Perryp, young man, don't you think that being able to remember (or at least read) what you yourself posted in response to other people's posts would give you a certain sense of enhanced credibility currently lacking in your posts?

Again, Where did I say that the Tswana are Bushmen? What has pronunciation got to do with the argument? What was your point? Have you got one?

[theolein]

Originally posted by perryp:
Again, Where did I say that the Tswana are Bushmen? What has pronunciation got to do with the argument? What was your point? Have you got one?

My point, young man, was that the Tswana and the Zulu both belong to the same language group. They are both descendants of the bantu tribes that moved south into Southern Africa. Yet the Zulu (and take note this time please) are generally darker in skin tone that the Tswana, and also look more traditionally "negroid".

You posted about the darker bantus and the lighter Khoi-San. This is simply false. There are large variations in skin tone and features amongst the bantu peoples, which you would have noticed had you actually bothered to look.

My post was about one group, the Zulus, looking down on another group, the Tswana, both of which are members of the bantu group.

Your post specifically mentioned the Khoi-San as being light skinned and the bantu peoples being dark skinned and arriving later in Southern Afrtica and itself made no point whatsoever, unless you were attempting to state that the Tswana (lighter skinned) were in fact the Khoi-San, which is what I assumed, and which you rigorously deny.

Apart from that, you referred to the Khoi-San peoples as Bushmen, which is an outdated term for the two specific groups of the Khoi and the San, which made me think that you don't really know what you were talking about, which is why I asked you to pronounce it, because I got irritated when you started to correct me on the people of Southern Africa.

[perryp]

Originally posted by theolein:
My point, young man, was that the Tswana and the Zulu both belong to the same language group. They are both descendants of the bantu tribes that moved south into Southern Africa. Yet the Zulu (and take note this time please) are generally darker in skin tone that the Tswana, and also look more traditionally "negroid".

And?

Originally posted by theolein:
You posted about the darker bantus and the lighter Khoi-San. This is simply false. There are large variations in skin tone and features amongst the bantu peoples, which you would have noticed had you actually bothered to look.

Have I said there was no variation? All I said was that Bushmen were generally lighter than Bantus. Do you seriously dispute this?

Originally posted by theolein:
My post was about one group, the Zulus, looking down on another group, the Tswana, both of which are members of the bantu group.

Which doesn't invalidate anything I've said - in fact I wrote that the darker Yoruba look down on the lighter Hausa (in West Africa)

Originally posted by theolein:
Your post specifically mentioned the Khoi-San as being light skinned and the bantu peoples being dark skinned and arriving later in Southern Afrtica and itself made no point whatsoever, unless you were attempting to state that the Tswana (lighter skinned) were in fact the Khoi-San, which is what I assumed, and which you rigorously deny.

The idea that I said Tswana were Khoi-San is too ridiculous to 'rigorously deny'. Please indicate - with quotation - where I said the Tswana were Khoi-San.

Originally posted by theolein:
Apart from that, you referred to the Khoi-San peoples as Bushmen, which is an outdated term for the two specific groups of the Khoi and the San, which made me think that you don't really know what you were talking about, which is why I asked you to pronounce it, because I got irritated when you started to correct me on the people of Southern Africa.

I still don't see what pronunciation has to do with your case. Additionally, any serious scholar knows that Bushmen and Khoi-San are not exact synonyms.

[theolein]

I'm still challenged as to how you came to mention the Khoi-San (You know, the peoples "serious scholars" refer to as "Bushmen") as a response to what I posted about the Tswana and the Zulus. The only thing that comes to mind is that you, being a "serious scholar", had the idea that Tswana meant people from Botswana, the country where the majority of the population speak either Tswana and Setswana but where there is also the largest concentration of Khoisan peoples in Southern Africa.

I suppose you realised your mistake after doing a google safari in Safari.

In fact the Tswana are also a major ethnic group in South Africa itself, mainly in the area of South Africa where I grew up (The province of South Africa known as North-West, formerly the Western Transvaal).

Indeed, a scholar (or anyone else for that matter) who had an interest in being serious would have perhaps extended his Safari google safari to a site such as Khoisan.org from which I quote the description of the peoples' names:

Khoisan is a general term which linguists use for the click language of southern Africa. Physical anthropologists use it as a biological term to distinguish the aboriginal people of southern Africa from their black African farming neighbours.

and from the same page:

The name 'Bushman' or 'Bossiesman' was given to low status people by the Dutch settlers in the 1600's, and referred to those who collected their food off the land and had no domestic animals.

This would lead one to believe that the term Bushman is fact refering to the same people as the term Khoisan, or in serious scholar notation: Bushmen = Khoisan. In South Africa itself the term Bushmen is considered to be slightly condescending and is not officially used.

-Yours Truly
-Serious Scholar

[perryp]

Originally posted by theolein:
I'm still challenged as to how you came to mention the Khoi-San (You know, the peoples "serious scholars" refer to as "Bushmen")

Mr Theolein, you are not only grasping at straws, but grasping at illusory straws. Read what I wrote - I said 'Additionally, any serious scholar knows that Bushmen and Khoi-San are not exact synonyms'. Mr Theolein, your scholarship is fraudulent - you invent things that I have not said in order to discredit them. Do you know what a synonym is?
Read this links, Mr Theolein:
http://www.encounter.co.za/html/khoisan.html

What does it say? Khoi and Hottentot are synonyms, San and Bushmen are synonyms. Only the most confused or ignorant scholar would think Khoi-San and Bushmen were synonyms.

Originally posted by theolein:
The only thing that comes to mind is that you, being a "serious scholar", had the idea that Tswana meant people from Botswana,

Mr Theolein, I'm embarrassed on your behalf. You still haven't indicated where I said Tswana were Khoi-San, at yet you continue. As I said before PLEASE QUOTE ME WHERE I SAID THIS.

Originally posted by theolein:
Indeed, a scholar (or anyone else for that matter) who had an interest in being serious would have perhaps extended his Safari google safari to a site such as Khoisan.org from which I quote the description of the peoples' names

Mr Theolein, the very page you link to indicates that Khoi (Hottentot) and San (Bushmen) are different peoples. And yet you still maintain that Bushmen=Khoi-San.

Originally posted by theolein:
You posted about the darker bantus and the lighter Khoi-San. This is simply false. There are large variations in skin tone and features amongst the bantu peoples, which you would have noticed had you actually bothered to look.

Have I said there was no variation? All I said was that Bushmen were generally lighter than Bantus. Do you seriously dispute this? Look again again at this article: http://www.encounter.co.za/html/khoisan.html
"Khoisan is the name by which the lighter skinned indigenous peoples of southern Africa"

Originally posted by theolein:
Apart from that, you referred to the Khoi-San peoples as Bushmen, which is an outdated term for the two specific groups of the Khoi and the San, which made me think that you don't really know what you were talking about, which is why I asked you to pronounce it, because I got irritated when you started to correct me on the people of Southern Africa

Mr Theolein, please read this carefully. I didn't refer to Khoi-San as Bushmen - that was an invention of your imagination - I simply referred to Bushmen. You don't know what your talking about and I think that's pretty terrible.

I've read your posts very carefully and there's only one conclusion that can be made. Please don't take this as a personal attack, but I think your childlike mistakes raise very serious questions about your intellectual honesty. I would find your poor scholarship astonishing coming a child in a remedial school, but it is simply astounding coming from an adult who has apparently lived in South Africa.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
None of that stops red being red.

au contraire, that's exactly what it does.

give it up. "humans" can't be defined into clearly distinct categories when looking at the COMPLETE GENETIC CODE (that which we know of at least) as a matter of fact, the colser you look (and the more we know) it becomes almost impossible to draw any clear distinctions.

the quote you are refering to ad nauseam, is a reference to research done into a particular aspect of geneology!

as i've said before, by this token you could also look at another aspect of the genetic code and come up with a completely differnt set of "categories"!

do you understand what that means?

[perryp]

Originally posted by deekay1:
au contraire, that's exactly what it does.

So now you are arguing that red isn't red? This isn't Fantasy Island - stick to the facts.

Originally posted by deekay1:
as i've said before, by this token you could also look at another aspect of the genetic code and come up with a completely differnt set of "categories"!

But when it is averaged out?.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
But when it is averaged out?

that's exactly the point.

there_is_no_averaging_out, because who's to say where to draw the line?

[perryp]

Originally posted by deekay1:
there_is_no_averaging_out, because who's to say where to draw the line?

What line? If you pick a hundred random people in the world and measure their height, and then you get an average figure from that then the result is going to be very similar as if you chose 200.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
What line? If you pick a hundred random people in the world and measure their height, and then you get an average figure from that then the result is going to be very similar as if you chose 200.

nope.

measuring a person's hight is something very different than "analyzing" the gentic code in humans and "drawing conclusions" from the patterns you find.

measuring hight is something very clearly defined in terms of outcome. you agree on a measure (say inches), you agree to apply that measurement from "head to tow", take the figures and calculate the average.

so, to draw the analogy to genetics, - what are you "measuring"?

[perryp]

Originally posted by deekay1:
measuring hight is something very clearly defined in terms of outcome. you agree on a measure (say inches), you agree to apply that measurement from "head to tow", take the figures and calculate the average.

If analysing DNA for racial origin is so unclear then how come there are several reputable companies offering DNA analysis for racial origin?

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
If analysing DNA for racial origin is so unclear then how come there are several reputable companies offering DNA analysis for racial origin?

links please.

[perryp]

^^^^^^^
believes red is not red

do you know how to use google?

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
^^^^^^^
believes red is not red

do you know how to use google?

do you know how to post links?

[perryp]

Originally posted by deekay1:
do you know how to post links?

I'm not wasting my time looking thing up for someone who believes red is not red

[deekay1]

Originally posted by perryp:
I'm not wasting my time looking thing up for someone who believes red is not red

pffff i'm outta here

oh, and QED.

[OAW]

perryp,

As I said before, your ability to be obtuse is just utterly astounding!

You know that the commonly held notion .... the primary and secondary dictionary definition of the term "race" is based upon phenotype. That has been thoroughly demonstrated and most definitely not refuted. You also know that the term "phenotype" essentially refers to the observable physical appearance as determined by an organisms genetic makeup and environmental influences. Yet for some strange and unknown reason you choose to dispute a statement that says that "there is no biological basis for race" ... when you know good and damned well that the term is being used in the phenotypical sense. The commonly held sense. The dictionary sense. The observable physical characteristic sense. The "Negroid. Mongoloid. What are white people?" sense! Then you try to justify this foolishness by saying ....

"I understand the word race to mean genotype, not phenotype."

Well DUH ... that's the point! People in general ... do not use the term to mean "genotype"! That is why your own source contained statements that said the same thing that I've been saying! Your own source explicitly did not use the term "race" to describe these groupings for this very reason. Why? Because the authors knew that when the term "race" is used it will in all likelihood be understood in a manner other than what they are intending. So what if you understand the word "race" to mean genotype. What difference does that make if 95+ percent of the rest of the population doesn't understand it to mean that?

Suppose there was a discussion going on about the existence of Atlantis and someone expressed the view that "There is no historical evidence to support the existence of Atlantis. It's just a myth." And then you take exception and claim that "Atlantis does exist!" The debate goes around and around until you finally reveal that "I understand the word Atlantis to mean the city in Florida, not the legendary island in the Atlantic." Rather foolish, n'est pas?

Furthermore, you keep harping about how I " ... left out 'genetically transmitted'." All I can say to that is please provide an example of a physical characteristic (not including injury or deliberate body modification) that is not "genetically transmitted"!

Finally, the point that deekay1 is making that apparently is just flying right over your head is that these "groups" you keep talking about .... the ones that are based on genotype .... are arbitrary in and of themselves. There are two factors involved. 1) What genetic characteristics are being tracked for differences?, and 2) How far back do you want to take the analysis? Depending upon the answers to those two questions there can be 100, 50, 33, 22, 12, 5, or even 1 "group" that you insist on calling "races".

I will leave you with this ....

Previous studies have reported that about 85% of human diversity at Short Tandem Repeat (STR) and Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) autosomal loci is due to differences between individuals of the same population, whereas differences among continental groups account for only 10% of the overall genetic variance. These findings conflict with popular notions of distinct and relatively homogeneous human races, and may also call into question the apparent usefulness of ethnic classification in, for example, medical diagnostics. Here, we present new data on 21_Alu insertions in 32_populations. We analyze these data along with three other large, globally dispersed data sets consisting of apparently neutral biallelic nuclear markers, as well as with a -globin data set possibly subject to selection. We confirm the previous results for the autosomal data, and find a higher diversity among continents for Y-chromosome loci. We also extend the analyses to address two questions: (1) whether differences between continental groups, although small, are nevertheless large enough to confidently assign individuals to their continent on the basis of their genotypes; (2) whether the observed genotypes naturally cluster into continental or population groups when the sample source location is ignored. Using a range of statistical methods, we show that classification errors are at best around 30% for autosomal biallelic polymorphisms and 27% for the Y chromosome. Two data sets suggest the existence of three and four major groups of genotypes worldwide, respectively, and the two groupings are inconsistent. These results suggest that, at random biallelic loci, there is little evidence, if any, of a clear subdivision of humans into biologically defined groups."

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/602

So we see that there is more genetic diversity within human population groups than between them. The classification of a particular individual to his/her continent of origin based upon their genotype has an approximately 30% error rate. So even on the basis of genotype ... there is still no "clear subdivision of humans into biologically defined groups" ... or races as you like to call it.

Having said all that, it really appears that you are being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

OAW

[perryp]

Is Pangea some kind of flying carpet?

[theolein]

Originally posted by perryp:
Mr Theolein, you are not only grasping at straws, but grasping at illusory straws. Read what I wrote - I said 'Additionally, any serious scholar knows that Bushmen and Khoi-San are not exact synonyms'. Mr Theolein, your scholarship is fraudulent - you invent things that I have not said in order to discredit them. Do you know what a synonym is?
Read this links, Mr Theolein:
http://www.encounter.co.za/html/khoisan.html

What does it say? Khoi and Hottentot are synonyms, San and Bushmen are synonyms. Only the most confused or ignorant scholar would think Khoi-San and Bushmen were synonyms.


Mr Theolein, I'm embarrassed on your behalf. You still haven't indicated where I said Tswana were Khoi-San, at yet you continue. As I said before PLEASE QUOTE ME WHERE I SAID THIS.


Mr Theolein, the very page you link to indicates that Khoi (Hottentot) and San (Bushmen) are different peoples. And yet you still maintain that Bushmen=Khoi-San.


Have I said there was no variation? All I said was that Bushmen were generally lighter than Bantus. Do you seriously dispute this? Look again again at this article: http://www.encounter.co.za/html/khoisan.html
"Khoisan is the name by which the lighter skinned indigenous peoples of southern Africa"


Mr Theolein, please read this carefully. I didn't refer to Khoi-San as Bushmen - that was an invention of your imagination - I simply referred to Bushmen. You don't know what your talking about and I think that's pretty terrible.

I've read your posts very carefully and there's only one conclusion that can be made. Please don't take this as a personal attack, but I think your childlike mistakes raise very serious questions about your intellectual honesty. I would find your poor scholarship astonishing coming a child in a remedial school, but it is simply astounding coming from an adult who has apparently lived in South Africa.

A few words for you, from a serious, lighter skinned Southern African native in a language of the region: Jy's so bang dat iemand sal kon sien wat 'n onoosel stuk kak jy eintlik is dat jy skaam sou wees om jouself 'n lid van die beskaawing te noem.

Maar die lewe is moeilik als 'n erns wetensskapliker, of nie?

[perryp]

Originally posted by theolein:
A few words for you, from a serious, lighter skinned Southern African native in a language of the region: Kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak

Kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak?

Mr Theolein, I understand why you resort to another language. I sympathise. You have lost the argument in English, and so writing in a language I don't know is the only way you can guarantee I can't refute what you say. None the less, it does add more proof about your lack of intellectual honesty, your fraudulent scholarship, and your confused and ignorant thought processes.

[theolein]

Originally posted by perryp:
Mr Theolein, I understand why you resort to another language. I sympathise. You have lost the argument in English, and so writing in a language I don't know is the only way you can guarantee I can't refute what you say. None the less, it does add more proof about your lack of intellectual honesty, your fraudulent scholarship, and your confused and ignorant thought processes.

I'm not the one claiming to be a scholar, young man, much less a serious one. Not to mention that your idea of intellectual honesty is what most people would actually refer to as being afraid of being exposed for the fraud you actually are.

You are obviously one of those people that dodges answering direct questions that would expose your juvenile fantasies.

[perryp]

Originally posted by theolein:
I'm not the one claiming to be a scholar, young man, much less a serious one. Not to mention that your idea of intellectual honesty is what most people would actually refer to as being afraid of being exposed for the fraud you actually are.

You are obviously one of those people that dodges answering direct questions that would expose your juvenile fantasies.

Mr Theolein, I have answered all of your questions. In fact you quoted me above answering them - but you shied away from answering any of mine, and chose to write in a different language. I am glad you don't claim to be a scholar anymore, despite having signed yourself as a 'serious scholar' before.

[theolein]

Originally posted by perryp:
Mr Theolein, I have answered all of your questions. In fact you quoted me above answering them - but you shied away from answering any of mine, and chose to write in a different language. I am glad you don't claim to be a scholar anymore, despite having signed yourself as a 'serious scholar' before.

Recognising sarcasm is not your strong point, now is it?

[perryp]

Originally posted by theolein:
Kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak kak

What?

[Gene Jockey]

Fixed.

--J

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:
Is Pangea some kind of flying carpet?

Since this is your "response" to my last post that thoroughly debunked your contention that people can be accurately identified to be of a particular "race" even the genotype level .... I'll just let it speak for itself.

At this point, I'm content to let the audience decide for themselves who presented the most convincing case.

OAW

[perryp]

Originally posted by OAW:
Since this is your "response" to my last post that thoroughly debunked your contention that people can be accurately identified to be of a particular "race" even the genotype level .... I'll just let it speak for itself.

At this point, I'm content to let the audience decide for themselves who presented the most convincing case.

But you haven't got a case. Your only ideas are that humans 'hitched a ride on Pangea' and that 'evolution doesn't exist'. When you try an build a case on those 'facts' it's like building a house on sand. No foundation. The idea that you have 'thoroughly debunked' the facts by believing that evolution does not exist is absurd. As for letting the audience decide, OAW, I'm not writing for an audience. I'm not on a stage. I'm not flying on the magic carpet of Pangea. This is not Disney's Aladdin. I'm simply stating the facts. Considering the amount of make-believe ideas in your posts, I can see why you would consider yourself an actor or storyteller.

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:
But you haven't got a case. Your only ideas are that humans 'hitched a ride on Pangea' and that 'evolution doesn't exist'. When you try an build a case on those 'facts' it's like building a house on sand. No foundation. The idea that you have 'thoroughly debunked' the facts by believing that evolution does not exist is absurd. As for letting the audience decide, OAW, I'm not writing for an audience. I'm not on a stage. I'm not flying on the magic carpet of Pangea. This is not Disney's Aladdin. I'm simply stating the facts. Considering the amount of make-believe ideas in your posts, I can see why you would consider yourself an actor or storyteller.

1. I have presented a voluminous amount of information in this thread going back and forth with you. My comment that brought up the "Pangea" discussion was but half of one sentence. BlackGriffen presented information to the contrary ... and I conceded that point to him with the following ....

I stand corrected on that one. I wasn't sure when I wrote it which was why I was careful to use the word or in the sentence instead of and. But regardless, your point is well taken.

Now that was waaaaaay back on Page 2 of this thread. We are now well into Page 4. So why are you still harping on this irrelevant issue? Why are you making statements that my discussion with you is based upon this idea (which it's not) when I acknowledged my error on that particular point before you had even made a single statement in this thread?

2. As for the evolution issue, all I said was that there is no evidence of inter-species evolution. That is one species "evolving" into another. You certainly haven't presented any. So that is why it is still considered the Theory of Evolution. There's a difference between a "theory" and a "fact". But apparently you choose to blindly accept a theory as fact just like some accept blindly accept religious scriptures as the unvarnished truth. Regardless, the whole issue of evolution is tangential to this entire debate that you and I are having. Nothing that I've said about evolution is even applicable to the discussion we are having because the last time I checked all humans belonged to the same species.

So we can all see that you are grasping at straws ... because in your last series of posts you certainly haven't even attempted to refute the information I presented that contradicted your contention that humans can be identified as a particular "race" based upon their genotype.

These results suggest that, at random biallelic loci, there is little evidence, if any, of a clear subdivision of humans into biologically defined groups.

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/602

Apparently you can't dispute the facts ... so you desperately try to change the subject. But I suppose you thought no one would notice.

OAW

[perryp]

So why are you still harping on this irrelevant issue?

Mr Pangea, it's not an irrelevant issue. It shows your fundamental lack of knowledge.

So that is why it is still considered the Theory of Evolution. There's a difference between a "theory" and a "fact". But apparently you choose to blindly accept a theory as fact just like some accept blindly accept religious scriptures as the unvarnished truth

So now you regard evolution as a religious theory? Mr Pangea, I don't know if you went to school, but the ideas you are coming up with suggest you skipped a few classes.

So we can all see that you are grasping at straws ... because in your last series of posts you certainly haven't even attempted to refute the information I presented that contradicted your contention that humans can be identified as a particular "race" based upon their genotype.

Mr Pangea, there is only so many minutes in a day, so it is best not to waste too many arguing with idiots who, for instance, believe evolution is analogous to religious scripture. But since you insist, Mr Pangea, please look at the New York Times article below, from here: http://webdev.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinge...786/5-Pops.htm

--------------------------------
Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations
By NICHOLAS WADE

Scientists studying the DNA of 52 human groups from around the world have concludedthat people belong to five principal groups corresponding to the major geographical regions of the world: Africa, Europe, Asia, Melanesia and the Americas.

The study, based on scans of the whole human genome, is the most thorough to look for patterns corresponding to major geographical regions. These regions broadly correspond with popular notions of race, the researchers said in interviews.

The researchers did not analyze genes but rather short segments of DNA known as markers, similar to those used in DNA fingerprinting tests, that have no apparent function in the body.

"What this study says is that if you look at enough markers you can identify the geographic region a person comes from," said Dr. Kenneth Kidd of Yale University, an author of the report.

The issue of race and ethnicity has forced itself to biomedical researchers' attention because human populations have different patterns of disease, and advances in decoding DNA have made it possible to try and correlate disease with genetics.

The study, published today in Science, finds that "self-reported population ancestry likely provides a suitable proxy for genetic ancestry." In other words, someone saying he is of European ancestry will have genetic similarities to other Europeans.

Using self-reported ancestry "is less expensive and less intrusive" said Dr. Marcus Feldman of Stanford University, the senior author of the study. Rather than analyzing a person's DNA, a doctor could simply ask his race or continent of origin and gain useful information about their genetic make-up.

Several scientific journal editors have said references to race should be avoided. But a leading population geneticist, Dr. Neil Risch of Stanford University, argued recently that race was a valid area of medical research because it reflects the genetic differences that arose on each continent after the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.

"Neil's article was theoretical and this is the data that backs up what he said," Dr. Feldman said.

The new result is based on blood samples gathered from around the world as part of the Human Genome Diversity Project, though on a much less ambitious scale than originally intended. Dr. Feldman and his colleagues analyzed the DNA of more than 1,000 people at some 400 markers. Because the sites have no particular function, they are free to change or mutate without harming the individual, and can become quite different over the generations.

The Science authors concluded that 95 percent of the genetic variations in the human genome is found in people all over the world, as might be expected for a small ancestral population that dispersed perhaps as recently as 50,000 years ago.

But as the first human populations started reproducing independently from one another, each started to develop its own pattern of genetic differences. The five major continental groups now differ to a small degree, the Science article says, as judged by the markers. The DNA in the genes is subject to different pressures, like those of natural selection.

Similar divisions of the world's population have been implied by earlier studies based on the Y chromosome, carried by males, and on mitochondrial DNA, bequeathed through the female line. But both elements constitute a tiny fraction of the human genome and it was not clear how well they might represent the behavior of the rest of the genome.

Despite the large shared pool of genetic variation, the small number of differences allows the separate genetic history of each major group to be traced. Even though this split broadly corresponds with popular notions of race, the authors of Science article avoid using the word, referring to the genetic patterning they have found with words like "population structure" and "self-reported population ancestry."

But Dr. Feldman said the finding essentially confirmed the popular conception of race. He said precautions should be taken to make sure the new data coming out of genetic studies were not abused.

"We need to get a team of ethicists and anthropologists and some physicians together to address what the consequences of the next phase of genetic analysis is going to be," he said.

Some diseases are much commoner among some ethnic groups than others. Sickle cell anemia is common among Africans, while hemochromatosis, an iron metabolism disorder, occurs in 7.5 percent of Swedes. It can therefore be useful for a doctor to consider a patient's race in diagnosing disease. Researchers seeking the genetic variants that cause such diseases must take race into account because a mixed population may confound their studies.

The new medical interest in race and genetics has left many sociologists and anthropologists beating a different drum in their assertions that race is a cultural idea, not a biological one. The American Sociological Association, for instance, said in a recent statement that "race is a social construct" and warned of the "danger of contributing to the popular conception of race as biological."

Dr. Alan Goodman, a physical anthropologist at Hampshire College and an adviser to the association, said, "there is no biological basis for race." The clusters shown in the Science article were driven by geography, not race, he said.

But Dr. Troy Duster, a sociologist at New York University and chairman of the committee that wrote the sociologists' statement on race, said it was meant to talk about the sociological implications of classifying people by race and was not intended to discuss the genetics.

"Sociologists don't have the competence to go there," he said.




--------------------------------
And so you see, Mr Pangea, the only people who claim that there is no biological basis for race are the people who have no competence for biology.

[OAW]

Originally posted by perryp:
Mr Pangea, there is only so many minutes in a day, so it is best not to waste too many arguing with idiots who, for instance, believe evolution is analogous to religious scripture.

First of all, if you are going to call someone an "idiot" it might be a good idea to make sure that you don't make a grade school level grammatical error in the same sentence.

" .... there is only so many minutes in a day ..."

I suppose such an error " .... shows your fundamental lack of knowledge."

Originally posted by perryp:

But since you insist, Mr Pangea, please look at the New York Times article below, from here: http://webdev.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinge...786/5-Pops.htm


.
.
.

And so you see, Mr Pangea, the only people who claim that there is no biological basis for race are the people who have no competence for biology.

OIC. So in response to my post where I referenced information from geneticists that contradicted your contention ...

http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/602

.... you choose to post a newspaper article that is merely reporting on the study that you've been referencing throughout this thread. IOW, all you've done is repeat yourself. You have not in any way, shape, form or fashion rebutted these excerpts from the link above ...

These findings conflict with popular notions of distinct and relatively homogeneous human races, and may also call into question the apparent usefulness of ethnic classification in, for example, medical diagnostics.

Using a range of statistical methods, we show that classification errors are at best around 30% for autosomal biallelic polymorphisms and 27% for the Y chromosome.

These results suggest that, at random biallelic loci, there is little evidence, if any, of a clear subdivision of humans into biologically defined groups.

Additionally, with regard to the usefulness of self-reported ancestry mentioned in your reference above there are a few observations I'd like to make ...

As your own reference again stated, the authors did not use the word "race" in their report. In interviews, some of the authors said that these "population groups" broadly corresponded to the term "race". IOW, in the most general, wide-ranging sense of the term. Of course, we all know that in the real-world usage of the term it is a lot more specific than that. For example, "black" people are typically identified as such ... regardless of where they are from because there are "black" people all over the world. In all the major continental groups identified in that study. Either as a result of migration or by always being there.

In addition to the study I referenced above which stated that the error rate when classifying a particular individual to their "continental or population group" is at best 30% ... we also have to consider the following:

A. Most people can't prove their own ancestry beyond several generations.

B. A person's self-reported ancestry and their actual genetic background are often two different things.

But America already has almost 400 years of race mixing behind it, beginning with that first slave ship that sailed into Jamestown harbor carrying slaves who were already pregnant by members of the crew. Americans have grudgingly accepted the fact that sex between masters and slaves such as Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings was frequent, leading to a many-hued race of people who do not look African at all, even though they call themselves "African-American." Outside of recent African immigrants to the United States, there are virtually no black Americans of purely African descent, which is to say no black people who lack white ancestry, left in this country.

http://slate.msn.com/id/35817/

In addition to nearly every "black" American having "white" ancestry, a significant percentage has Native American ancestry. Yet the overwhelming majority of "blacks" in this country would "self-report" themselves into the "African" group. The same phenomenon presents itself among "whites" as well ...

Four centuries of race mixing have had a similar impact on Americans who define themselves as white. Convincing estimates show that by 1950 about one in five white Americans had some African ancestry. This inheritance most often arrived at the bedroom door in the form of a fair-skinned black person who had slipped over the color line to live as white. Put another way, most Americans with African blood in their veins think of themselves as white and conduct themselves as such--and check "white" when they fill out census forms.

Why did this come to be? Because of the socio-political nature of "race". A term whose meaning has changed as the political winds shifted ....

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_03_c-godeeper.htm

As the above link mentioned, the infamous "one drop" rule that stated that any African or "black" ancestry made you "black" in this country regardless of your physical appearance. More on that here ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...d/onedrop.html

Given the history of racial oppression in this country and others, this created a powerful incentive to "pass" as "white" to avoid the negative ramifications of being considered "black" in a society where "white" supremacy .... legalized or otherwise ... was the order of the day. And millions did ....

The most interesting document listed in the amicus briefs for Loving vs. Virginia is a statistical study called "African Ancestry of the White American Population" by Robert Stuckert, a sociologist and anthropologist from Ohio State University. Stuckert's statistical models are tough going, but eye-opening for what they show. Simply put, he examined census and fertility data to arrive at estimates of how many white Americans had African blood lines and how many fair-skinned blacks had crossed over the line to live as white. Stuckert's tables show that during the 1940s alone, roughly 15,550 fair-skinned blacks per year slipped across the color line--about 155,500 for the decade. Stuckert estimates that by 1950 about 21 percent of the whites--or about 28 million of the 135 million persons classified as "white" in the census--had black ancestry within the last four generations. He predicted that the proportion would only grow in the coming decades. The belief that one's ancestors are "racially uniform" is a basic American fiction, Stuckert wrote, but a fiction nonetheless.

http://slate.msn.com/id/35817/

This is the socio-political dimension of "race" that simply can't be ignored. There are realities about the concept of "race" that have nothing to do with one's DNA. And the reliance upon "self reported ancestry" will be problematic indeed.

Finally, I found this portion of the article you referenced to be quite interesting ...

The researchers did not analyze genes but rather short segments of DNA known as markers, similar to those used in DNA fingerprinting tests, that have no apparent function in the body.

So these researchers divide people into "population groups" based upon differences in markers ... not genes ... that have "no apparent function in the body". Yet they want to use these identifications ... the ones with the 30+ percent error rate from DNA analysis ... the ones with the "anybody's guess" error rate from "self reported ancestry" .... to seek the genetic variants that cause disease? IOW, use an error prone identification process based upon "markers" that do nothing to find genes that do something. You never know ... using error-ridden correlative factors to identify the causative factors of disease just might work.

OAW

[perryp]

Mr Pangea, you seem to have ignored the article, so I will post it again


--------------------------------
Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations
By NICHOLAS WADE

Scientists studying the DNA of 52 human groups from around the world have concludedthat people belong to five principal groups corresponding to the major geographical regions of the world: Africa, Europe, Asia, Melanesia and the Americas.

The study, based on scans of the whole human genome, is the most thorough to look for patterns corresponding to major geographical regions. These regions broadly correspond with popular notions of race, the researchers said in interviews.

The researchers did not analyze genes but rather short segments of DNA known as markers, similar to those used in DNA fingerprinting tests, that have no apparent function in the body.

"What this study says is that if you look at enough markers you can identify the geographic region a person comes from," said Dr. Kenneth Kidd of Yale University, an author of the report.

The issue of race and ethnicity has forced itself to biomedical researchers' attention because human populations have different patterns of disease, and advances in decoding DNA have made it possible to try and correlate disease with genetics.

The study, published today in Science, finds that "self-reported population ancestry likely provides a suitable proxy for genetic ancestry." In other words, someone saying he is of European ancestry will have genetic similarities to other Europeans.

Using self-reported ancestry "is less expensive and less intrusive" said Dr. Marcus Feldman of Stanford University, the senior author of the study. Rather than analyzing a person's DNA, a doctor could simply ask his race or continent of origin and gain useful information about their genetic make-up.

Several scientific journal editors have said references to race should be avoided. But a leading population geneticist, Dr. Neil Risch of Stanford University, argued recently that race was a valid area of medical research because it reflects the genetic differences that arose on each continent after the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.

"Neil's article was theoretical and this is the data that backs up what he said," Dr. Feldman said.

The new result is based on blood samples gathered from around the world as part of the Human Genome Diversity Project, though on a much less ambitious scale than originally intended. Dr. Feldman and his colleagues analyzed the DNA of more than 1,000 people at some 400 markers. Because the sites have no particular function, they are free to change or mutate without harming the individual, and can become quite different over the generations.

The Science authors concluded that 95 percent of the genetic variations in the human genome is found in people all over the world, as might be expected for a small ancestral population that dispersed perhaps as recently as 50,000 years ago.

But as the first human populations started reproducing independently from one another, each started to develop its own pattern of genetic differences. The five major continental groups now differ to a small degree, the Science article says, as judged by the markers. The DNA in the genes is subject to different pressures, like those of natural selection.

Similar divisions of the world's population have been implied by earlier studies based on the Y chromosome, carried by males, and on mitochondrial DNA, bequeathed through the female line. But both elements constitute a tiny fraction of the human genome and it was not clear how well they might represent the behavior of the rest of the genome.

Despite the large shared pool of genetic variation, the small number of differences allows the separate genetic history of each major group to be traced. Even though this split broadly corresponds with popular notions of race, the authors of Science article avoid using the word, referring to the genetic patterning they have found with words like "population structure" and "self-reported population ancestry."

But Dr. Feldman said the finding essentially confirmed the popular conception of race. He said precautions should be taken to make sure the new data coming out of genetic studies were not abused.

"We need to get a team of ethicists and anthropologists and some physicians together to address what the consequences of the next phase of genetic analysis is going to be," he said.

Some diseases are much commoner among some ethnic groups than others. Sickle cell anemia is common among Africans, while hemochromatosis, an iron metabolism disorder, occurs in 7.5 percent of Swedes. It can therefore be useful for a doctor to consider a patient's race in diagnosing disease. Researchers seeking the genetic variants that cause such diseases must take race into account because a mixed population may confound their studies.

The new medical interest in race and genetics has left many sociologists and anthropologists beating a different drum in their assertions that race is a cultural idea, not a biological one. The American Sociological Association, for instance, said in a recent statement that "race is a social construct" and warned of the "danger of contributing to the popular conception of race as biological."

Dr. Alan Goodman, a physical anthropologist at Hampshire College and an adviser to the association, said, "there is no biological basis for race." The clusters shown in the Science article were driven by geography, not race, he said.

But Dr. Troy Duster, a sociologist at New York University and chairman of the committee that wrote the sociologists' statement on race, said it was meant to talk about the sociological implications of classifying people by race and was not intended to discuss the genetics.

"Sociologists don't have the competence to go there," he said.




--------------------------------
And so you see, Mr Pangea, the only people who claim that there is no biological basis for race are the people who have no competence for biology.