Is race real or is it just a human invention?
I am using that old of reference to show just how out of date your thinking is.
You might as well be citing phrenology books.
But since you are much to slow to understand this.
Heredity, Environment, and Cranial Form:
A Reanalysis of Boas’s Immigrant Data
(Gravlee et al 2003)
Franz Boas’s classic study, Changes in bodily form of descendants of
immigrants, is a landmark in the history of anthropology. More than any single study, it
undermined racial typology in physical anthropology and helped turn the tide against
early-20th century scientific racism. In 1928, Boas responded to critics of the immigrant
study by publishing the raw data set as Materials for the Study of Inheritance in Man.
Here we present a reanalysis of that long-neglected data set. Using methods that were
unavailable to Boas, we test his main conclusion that cranial form changed in response to
environmental influences within a single generation of European immigrants to the U.S. In
general, we conclude that Boas got it right. However, we demonstrate that modern
analytical methods provide stronger support for Boas’s conclusion than did the tools at
his disposal.
http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ufruss/documents/boaspaper.pdf
so you are using methods discarded 100 years ago.
Quit it it makes you look dumb.
maybe you could change the subject to baseball I know jack-sh!t about baseball.
more sad news for both of us as I am a fan of neanderthal sapiens admixture
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt207073.html
to applies to your buddies the Melanesian and their Australian cousins as well.
You know what this suggests Europeans and dudes in the antipodes got their manly brows
from the same store.
Oh I see............Them melaneezhins, they be caucayzhuns n shiit!
Overall, the shape of the human skull, whether quantified using linear measurements or three-dimensional landmarks, reflects population history to a large degree [1–9]. Much of the microevolutionary history of this region, in particular the temporal bone and upper face, has involved largely neutral mechanisms and therefore reflects population history.
You need to do a little background study on DNA: specifically, educate yourself on genes, promoters, and operators, epigentics, and what 'coding' and 'non-coding' mean. You might specifically look into the research of the last 5 years or so on DNA methylation, and the differences between genetically-determined and epigenetically-determined phenotypes.
edit: a couple of widely-publicized papers on the topic recently:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/12/144/abstract
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/inf ... en.1001316
If you're into books, a good popular-press book is Sean Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful.
I am using that old of reference to show just how out of date your thinking is.
You might as well be citing phrenology books.
But since you are much to slow to understand this.
Heredity, Environment, and Cranial Form:
A Reanalysis of Boas’s Immigrant Data
(Gravlee et al 2003)
Franz Boas’s classic study, Changes in bodily form of descendants of
immigrants, is a landmark in the history of anthropology. More than any single study, it
undermined racial typology in physical anthropology and helped turn the tide against
early-20th century scientific racism. In 1928, Boas responded to critics of the immigrant
study by publishing the raw data set as Materials for the Study of Inheritance in Man.
Here we present a reanalysis of that long-neglected data set. Using methods that were
unavailable to Boas, we test his main conclusion that cranial form changed in response to
environmental influences within a single generation of European immigrants to the U.S. In
general, we conclude that Boas got it right. However, we demonstrate that modern
analytical methods provide stronger support for Boas’s conclusion than did the tools at
his disposal.
http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ufruss/documents/boaspaper.pdf
so you are using methods discarded 100 years ago.
Quit it it makes you look dumb.
maybe you could change the subject to baseball I know jack-sh!t about baseball.
more sad news for both of us as I am a fan of neanderthal sapiens admixture
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt207073.html
to applies to your buddies the Melanesian and their Australian cousins as well.
You know what this suggests Europeans and dudes in the antipodes got their manly brows
from the same store.
Oh I see............Them melaneezhins, they be caucayzhuns n shiit!
Overall, the shape of the human skull, whether quantified using linear measurements or three-dimensional landmarks, reflects population history to a large degree [1–9]. Much of the microevolutionary history of this region, in particular the temporal bone and upper face, has involved largely neutral mechanisms and therefore reflects population history.
cool copy and paste without reading It. I guess you proved me and mainstream anthropology wrong.
The morphologies they are talking about are not the cephalic index .
That is the bullsh!t you keep saying brachycephalic, dolichocephalic,mesocephalic
the last anthropologist of reputation to use them was Carleton Coon an american who was actively racist and a segregationist. Ghostwriting racist pamphlets.
You are just looking dumber and dumber.
So is that your answer to may assertion that the brow is likely to have the same origin in Caucasians and Astroliods if the Erectus store was closed. But ignore that and call me stupid.
If you can't keep up with the conversation maybe you should quit.
If you feel you need your inane arguments to be respected maybe I am not the one to be talking to.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
I think I derailed this discussion by using the term junk DNA. Perhaps my arguments would have been more palatable had I instead spoke of neutral DNA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_mutation
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
which is even worse.
the concept itself is valid but, due to our gap of knowledge and the indications of even the most inactive types we know to have an effect over time, means that in the end there are no purely "neutral DNA"
you might in the future find relatively small areas where that is true, at least at any fixed point in time, looked over llarger times it would still be hard to distinguish.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
the concept itself is valid but, due to our gap of knowledge and the indications of even the most inactive types we know to have an effect over time, means that in the end there are no purely "neutral DNA"
you might in the future find relatively small areas where that is true, at least at any fixed point in time, looked over llarger times it would still be hard to distinguish.
Maybe there's no such thing as purely neutral DNA in the strictest sense, however when scientists calculate the genetic distance between different populations, I suspect they do so with a special effort to sample DNA that is RELATIVELY neutral (as far as they know).
My hypothesis is that if instead scientists intentionally tried to sample only the LEAST neutral DNA they could find, the genetic distance clusters that emerged would confirm much more closely to the 3 race theory of old.
the concept itself is valid but, due to our gap of knowledge and the indications of even the most inactive types we know to have an effect over time, means that in the end there are no purely "neutral DNA"
you might in the future find relatively small areas where that is true, at least at any fixed point in time, looked over llarger times it would still be hard to distinguish.
Maybe there's no such thing as purely neutral DNA in the strictest sense, however when scientists calculate the genetic distance between different populations, I suspect they do so with a special effort to sample DNA that is RELATIVELY neutral (as far as they know).
My hypothesis is that if instead scientists intentionally tried to sample only the LEAST neutral DNA they could find, the genetic distance clusters that emerged would confirm much more closely to the 3 race theory of old.
There is still a problem of selection bias.
even if they solved that.
I think they would find 7 to 28 racial clusters that look nothing anything Carleton_S._Coon ever dreamed of.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_mutation
FFS, dude, a neutral mutation can take place anywhere in the genome- even within a gene-coding section. 'Neutral mutations' can, for example, substitute one nucleic acid for another that does not change the amino acid that is 'read' by the ribosome, as there is some codon redundancy. This does NOT mean that the DNA at that point is 'neutral' for phenotype or even for genotype.
Please, please, if you want to argue genetics, get yourself a recent (5 years or younger) textbook of basic genetics and then come back to us.
the concept itself is valid but, due to our gap of knowledge and the indications of even the most inactive types we know to have an effect over time, means that in the end there are no purely "neutral DNA"
you might in the future find relatively small areas where that is true, at least at any fixed point in time, looked over llarger times it would still be hard to distinguish.
Maybe there's no such thing as purely neutral DNA in the strictest sense, however when scientists calculate the genetic distance between different populations, I suspect they do so with a special effort to sample DNA that is RELATIVELY neutral (as far as they know).
My hypothesis is that if instead scientists intentionally tried to sample only the LEAST neutral DNA they could find, the genetic distance clusters that emerged would confirm much more closely to the 3 race theory of old.
There is still a problem of selection bias.
even if they solved that.
I think they would find 7 to 28 racial clusters that look nothing anything Carleton_S._Coon ever dreamed of.
The only selection bias is that they should select the DNA that matters most, based on objective criteria.
Btw is coon the father of the 3 race theory? I thought he proposed 5 races: mongoloid, caucasoid, australoid, congoid and capoid. I can't seem to find if and where the 3 race theory originated but I've always loved it. Maybe it even comes from the bible.
From the article linked in my prior post:
'DNA that matters most...'
for what? there is DNA that is highly conserved for every single eukaryotic organism on the planet, and there is DNA that varies from one person to the next; some of it controls outward appearance, some of it controls brain characteristics, and some of it likely influences personality, but we don't know much about that yet. What aspects do you consider most important for 'race,' the shape of the skull? The phylogeny? The brain? All of these things could be found with some degree of objectivity (phylogeny is what current anthropology is based on), depending on what the researchers found most important.
'DNA that matters most...'
for what? there is DNA that is highly conserved for every single eukaryotic organism on the planet, and there is DNA that varies from one person to the next; some of it controls outward appearance, some of it controls brain characteristics, and some of it likely influences personality, but we don't know much about that yet. What aspects do you consider most important for 'race,' the shape of the skull? The phylogeny? The brain? All of these things could be found with some degree of objectivity (phylogeny is what current anthropology is based on), depending on what the researchers found most important.
Mattered most for genetic fitness
the concept itself is valid but, due to our gap of knowledge and the indications of even the most inactive types we know to have an effect over time, means that in the end there are no purely "neutral DNA"
you might in the future find relatively small areas where that is true, at least at any fixed point in time, looked over llarger times it would still be hard to distinguish.
Maybe there's no such thing as purely neutral DNA in the strictest sense, however when scientists calculate the genetic distance between different populations, I suspect they do so with a special effort to sample DNA that is RELATIVELY neutral (as far as they know).
My hypothesis is that if instead scientists intentionally tried to sample only the LEAST neutral DNA they could find, the genetic distance clusters that emerged would confirm much more closely to the 3 race theory of old.
There is still a problem of selection bias.
even if they solved that.
I think they would find 7 to 28 racial clusters that look nothing anything Carleton_S._Coon ever dreamed of.
The only selection bias is that they should select the DNA that matters most, based on objective criteria.
Btw is coon the father of the 3 race theory? I thought he proposed 5 races: mongoloid, caucasoid, australoid, congoid and capoid. I can't seem to find if and where the 3 race theory originated but I've always loved it. Maybe it even comes from the bible.
Coon it turn out ghost wrote pro-segregation propaganda. He was the last major anthropologist to do the cephalic index thing and the last purely racist proponent of race theory working in the field.
3-races prolly goes back to Shem Ham and Japeth so it is biblical like a lot of silly things tend to be. Sorry if that came out ad hom.
_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??
http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
'DNA that matters most...'
for what? there is DNA that is highly conserved for every single eukaryotic organism on the planet, and there is DNA that varies from one person to the next; some of it controls outward appearance, some of it controls brain characteristics, and some of it likely influences personality, but we don't know much about that yet. What aspects do you consider most important for 'race,' the shape of the skull? The phylogeny? The brain? All of these things could be found with some degree of objectivity (phylogeny is what current anthropology is based on), depending on what the researchers found most important.
Mattered most for genetic fitness
and we are getting even vaguer,
in the sense of modern man there is very few variables we even have a chance of understanding today, much less make even a dodgy guess at what constitutes genetic fitness in that context.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
DeSantis Quits Race, endorses Trump |
21 Jan 2024, 11:45 pm |
White House Wants a Standard Moon Time for New Space Race |
04 Apr 2024, 7:39 pm |
First human implanted with neuralink |
03 Feb 2024, 6:55 pm |
Scientists Discover The Human Brain Is Even More Powerful |
05 Mar 2024, 3:38 am |