Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:05, 8 November 2007

Misleading (or rather demogogic) statements in the article

"Scientific support for the Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid terminology of racial classification has diminished over the past century. These terms originally denoted skull types and sprang from the technique known as craniofacial anthropometry, but these disciplines have been abandoned by the mainstream scientific community. Today...they are used in forensic anthropology as an indicator of ethnicity of skeletal remains." So the terms were abandoned, because craniofacial anthropometry was abandoned as irrelevant, but people can be classified into these types on the basis of anthropometry? Welcome in the mental house! Centrum99 82.100.61.114 14:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph "The Marketing of Race: genetic lineages as social lineages" must have been obviously written by an ideologically motivated retard and is a good example of the game full of half-truths and "little shifts" with which left-wing agitators brainwash uninformed people. Since a man with an average intelligence can understand that certain populations share specific haplogroups and when these populations mix, the resulting ratio of haplogroups can give a fairly accurate idea about the genetic composition of the sample when taken as a whole (although the haplogroups may not identify genetic origin in individual cases). So the percentage of European haplogroups in African-Americans is 18-24% (=21%) and European admixture in African-Americans was estimated at 19% based on In autosomal genes. Obviously, these numbers are almost identical. When one studies the topic in depth, he can see the influence of genetic drift and explain, why certain phenotypic traits predominate despite the lack of support by haplogroups. For example, North African Berbers have about 80-90% Y-haplogroups and 20-25% mtDNA haplogroups of Sub-Saharan origin, yet they are traditionally taken as Caucasoids, which is confirmed by 80% Caucasoid origin by autosomes. Why? Simply because the Y-haplogroup situation is a result of genetic drift and the mtDNA percentages reflect the real genetic composition of Berbers very well.

The question, if racial classification has any relevance in humans is actually irrelevant; we all know that humans can be classified to well-defined groups both on the basis of external appearance and genetics. The differences between human groups from extreme climatic regions are so huge that these groups could be separated as single species by an extra-terrestial observer. So the classification of humans is perfectly substantianted. The real reason, why the word "race" is being abandoned in this case is purely political and all the discussion around is a worthles game with words. I must actually check the original sources to the information about "~6-10% variation between groups within the same continent", because I strongly suspect that it was abused by some leftie ignorant, who grouped separated racial groups into one. Since the real racial picture is as follows:

A key piece of information: How human races actually came into being

The oldest separation of modern humans (according to Y-chromozomes and mtDNA) occured more than 100 000 years ago, and as the branching suggests, it very probably happened not in East Africa, but in south Africa. The group that headed north is classified as "haplogroup BR" by modern geneticists. The groups that stayed in south Africa were characterized by deeply branched Y-haplogroup A and mtDNA haplogroup L0. During the Middle Paleolithic, they further separated into two distinct branches: while Y-haplogroup A3b2 + mtDNA haplogroups L0a/L0f headed north, all remaining A-lineages and mtDNA haplogroups L0d/L0k remained in south Africa.

The group with A+L0d/L0k lineages that stayed in south Africa developed into today's Khoisans. They are subtle people (150-160 cm) with body proportions similar to that of Europeans (trunk index ca. 52%), yellowish skin, "peppercorn" hair and the presence of epicanthus, among other things. During the last millenium, they were significantly influenced by Bantus from the paternal side and from this mixture, a taller subgroup (Khoi/Hottentots) came into being. The presence of "clicks" in Khoisan language supports the idea that these sounds were present in the oldest human "Ur-sprache".

The group that headed north sometimes around 50 000 years BP and bore A3B2+L0a/L0f developed in the dry savannah of south-east Sahara. Today we know them as Nilotes, representatives of the most extreme adaptation to hot, dry climate on Earth (matched only by some Australian tribes). Their trunk index 48% betrays extremely long limbs that dissipate heat more efficiently, their skin is extremely dark, skull is long and narrow (again an adaptation reducing the influence of sun heat). Among pastoral Nilotic tribes we can find the tallest people in the world, whose average height exceeds 180 cm. On the other hand, some agricultural tribes are rather small, 170-175 cm. This is explained as a consequence of the specific diet of pastoral tribes containing lots of milk and heance a lot of calcium.

The people bearing Y-haplogroup BR headed to East Africa. Here they further diverged into two basic lineages marked by Y-haplogroups B and CR. It would be interesting to find out, if this divergence has anything to do with the explosion of Mt. Toba on Sumatra 71-73 500 years ago that was followed by an extremely dry and cold phase. It is possible that bearers of Y-haplogroup B were pushed to the forests in West-Central Africa by the extreme drought, because these rainy and wet places aren't just of the most pleasant ones. This is, after all, clear from the influence that this climate had on their phenotype: Today we know them as small Pygmies, only 145-160 cm tall humans with dark skin, long arms and relatively short legs (trunk index 52-53%), with highly mobile muscle morphology suited for fast movement in the jungle. Besides Y-haplogroup B, they also bear typical mtDNA haplogroups L1 and L2. However, it is interesting to note that the same haplogroups are present in Tanzanian Hadzabe, who were traditionally grouped with Khoisan on the basis of the presence of clicks in their language. Yet the Hadzabe obviously have nothing in common with Khoisan genetically, so this is another evidence that "clicks" were present in the original language of humans.

The branch CR probably stayed in East Africa until the end of the cold phase 60 000 years ago. It is logical to assume that the first migration out of Africa occured just at this time, when the climate on the Northern hemisphere mildened. These humans bearing Y-haplogroup C and mtDNA haplogroup M (a subbranch of L3) crossed the Bab al Mandab strait to Arabia and then followed the South Asian coast to India. They probably weren't capable to compete with Neanderthals in the Near and Middle East yet. The "C-clan" (also called the "Coastal Clan") diverged into several geographically differentiated "sub-clans": C5 in India (Veddids), C3 in East Asia/Siberia (Mongoloids), C4 in Australia (Aborigines), C2 in South-East Asia (negritos, Papuans, Melanesians). Hence, from the genetic point of view, they represent the ancestors of modern Mongoloids and dark groups traditionally classified into the Australoid race (Veddas, negritos, Papuans, Australian aborigines).

About 50 000 years ago, when more sophisticated Upper Paleolithic technologies appear in the Horn of Africa, another group from the branch CR decided to leave Africa and conquer Eurasia. These people were the ancestors of modern Caucasians (Europoids) and bore Y-haplogroup F and mtDNA haplogroup N. Although the first traces of Upper Paleolithic technologies were found in the Levant 47 000 years ago and certainly belong to this "F-clan", the branching of its lineages suggests that the first migration center was somewhere in the Middle East, perhaps in Iran, and the Levantine population is only a result of a secondary migration. After all, the mtDNA lineages coming from N in the Near East originate virtually only from one subbranch of N (R). About 45 000 years ago, during a warm interstadial, the people of the "F-clan" massively expanded from South-West Asia to Central Asia, Europe, North Africa and even East and South-East Asia, where they mixed with local populations of the "Coastal Clan" and created intermediate groups (Polynesians, American Indians, Papuan highlanders, partly even some mongoloid groups). These Proto-Caucasoids were obviously more capable than their Proto-Australoid predecessors and they successfully competed with the Neanderthals - until they completely eradicated them from the planet Earth.

File:World-Old Worldmag.jpg

What about the CR-people that stayed in Africa? Well, their fate was very intersting. About 45 000 years ago, when the Saharan plateuau was green and full of lakes, they expanded from the Horn of Africa northwards and westwards. At this time, their L3 maternal lineages were accompanied by a dominant Y-haplogroup E that prevailed after the Proto-Caucasoid's departure. However, about 25 000 years BP, during the advance of the new Ice Age, these people were virtually torn apart by the dissicating Sahara: clans marked by Y-haplogroups E1 and E2 headed to North-West Africa, clan E3a to the lowlands of West Africa, and clan E3b radiated between the Horn of Africa, the Nile Valley and North-West Africa. The bearers of E3a soon came into contact with forest Pygmies and mixed with their women (about 75% West African mtDNA lineages are of Pygmy origin). From this mixture today's "Negroids" (traditionally understood African blacks) speaking Niger-Congo languages, came into being. As the Bantus they later further expanded southwards and largely absorbed their archaic relatives (Pygmies, Khoisan). People from the clan E3b in the Horn of Africa (belonging to its subbranch E3b1) probably bore Afro-Asiatic languages and spreaded them northwards after the end of the Ice Age 8000 BC. Another subbranch E3b2 was already present in North-West Africa, where a mixture of these Sub-Saharans and Caucasoids created modern Berbers. It is very interesting to note that the "purest" descendants of the clan E in Africa are Somalis - they posess 78% E3b1 and 70% L3, by far the highest percentages of these "CR-clan"-lineages documented in Sub-Saharan Africa. This also has far-reaching consequences for the anthropology of Sub-Saharan Africa, because it means that the "Caucasoid profile" of Somalis is a local development and Somalis thus make up a distinct racial group. By the way, it also indirectly indicates that some incipient features of Caucasoid race may have been already present in East Africa 50 000 years ago. The current anthropological picture of the Upper Paleolithic is still very foggy, however, and there doesn't exist much support for this claim. I should also add that Somalis received a certain supply of (Proto-)Caucasoid genes in the Upper Paleolithic (10-15% K2 and pre-HV).

From this description it is clear that the traditional anthropological classification needs a fundamental revision. Only in Sub-Saharan Africa we can find four distinct phenotypes with very deep roots that could be classified as separated racial groups (Khoisan, Nilotes, Pygmies, Somalis). Besides another two mixed racial groups emerge there (West Africans/Bantus, Ethiopids). The non-African human groups make up two basic lineages: the Caucasoid and the Australoid/Mongoloid one. Further, there exist their mixtures (that are predominantly Australoid/Mongoloid in origin): American Indians, Polynesians, many Papuan tribes, Indian outcaste groups, partly even Mongoloids from South-East Asia and Australian Aborigines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.100.61.114 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The detailed anthropological description of non-African groups would take too much time, so I won't go into detail now. But I can add some information on request. Centrum99 82.100.61.114 16:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A case of discrimination: Do tigers have a stronger racial lobby?

Dear Mr. Leftie, this is not a personal essay. Reserve several years of your life for checking the data! But as we know, you lefties need no facts; you comfortably manage with fabricated fantasies that have no support in the reality!

As for the variability data showing that 15% genetic variation occurs between human populations, this number betrays "moderate variability" in the animal world and is comparable with the interracial variability in species such as coyotes in North America or Asian dogs, as listed by John Goodrum here: http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html

In fact, it seems that humans are even older and more diverse than tigers, who have the privilege to be grouped into distinct subspecies: http://biology.plosjournals.org/archive/1545-7885/2/12/pdf/10.1371_journal.pbio.0020442-S.pdf I suppose that some wealthy tiger currupted academic elites, otherwise such a grouping would have to be taken as tigerracist.

It is incredibly funny and bizarre, how all those authors mapping human genetic clusters write about the very high accuracy of human classification, yet they warn against "potential hazards" that these discoveries could cause in the society. Obviously, anti-racial mythologists are faced with the reality of human differences and they suddenly don't know, how to get out of it without disgrace.

Extreme examples of human phenotypic diversity

But we shouldn't forget that the degree of genetic diversity may not be identical with the degree of phenotypic diversity. I could list many good examples of distinct "species", e.g. South American fishes Loricariidae that are so similar that they can't be distinguished without the knowledge of their origin. Since many laymen have no idea, how large the human phenotypic differences are, I would list several extreme examples to illustrate it.

First, if we take height into consideration, the smallest average height can be found in the Mbuti Pygmies from Zaire (145 cm). The tallest human (sub)group in the world are European Caucasians and pastoral Nilotes with 180+ cm. More specifically, the tallest of the tallest are the inhabitants of the Dinaric Alps with 186 cm. This is a difference of 41 cm or 28%, which is roughly 6 standard deviations of a normal European sample.

As for weight, we can again compare the lightest ones (small Pygmies with 45 kg) to the most robust human population in the world, Pacific Islanders (~90-100 kg at 173-179 cm). This is practically 100% difference in weight.

And we can list even another important factor - limb proportions that are tightly bound with adaptations to climate. As for trunk index (the ratio between trunk length/body height), we can find heat-adapted extremes like African Nilotes and Australian Aborigines with trunk index roughly 48%, and cold-adapted extremes like Siberian Mongoloids, the Ainu and especially Patagonians with trunk index 54% or even higher. If we take a hypothetical average Nilote with 175 cm height and a hypothetical average Patagonian of the same height, the Patagonian will have 10.5 cm shorter legs than the Nilote. This may equal roughly to 6 standard deviations of the Nilotic population. Obviously, we could hardly find a Nilotic man with the average Patagonian value. In fact, their Gaussian bell curves hardly touch at all.

From memory, I can also list differences in body width, which is again a factor resulting from climatic adaptation. According to "Dupertuis structural profile" (that can be found in the internet), an average Japanese male (i.e. a cold-adapted Mongoloid) matched for height has bitrochanteric width (i.e. hip width) roughly 103% of the average European value. On the other hand, an average youngster from the Ivory Coast has only 93% of the European value. This body width may be typical for all linear African populations.

I hope this will help those, who are looking for information of this sort. Unfortunately, I expect that I will have to regularly revert this text due to repeated sabotages of Mr. Leftie, who created this page. Centrum99 82.100.61.114 01:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A message to self-identified anarchist/extreme left-winger and saboteur Wobble-Alun

Wobble, if you have something against these my posts, discuss it here. I understand that erasing opinions that don't agree with your view is in perfect accordance with the left-wing conception of free speech, but I think that Misplaced Pages is an international web that is not owned by any Neomarxist organization, so every contribution to the topic should be appropriately discussed. Centrum99 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I archived these ramblings for several reasons.

• They do not seem to make reference to the content of the article, and cannot be used to improve the article, in which case they should not be here.WP:TALK#How_to_use_article_talk_pages
• They are the personal opinions of a specific editor, and therefore irrelevant and represent little more than rather uninformed opinion and distortions of science.WP:V
• Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox.WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
• Misplaced Pages is not a forum for discussing personal theories.WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_social_networking.2C_or_memorial_site
• Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought.WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
• These personal essays are riddled with pompous personal attacks (for example obviously written by an ideologically motivated retard something you repeatedly do and have been blocked for in the past ) and factual inaccuracies (for example we all know that humans can be classified to well-defined groups both on the basis of external appearance and genetics. check out any reliable source and it is apparent that this statement is incorrect, people cannot be well classified into a few discrete groups. variation is gradual and clinal) Your comments represent a distorted and unbalanced view by a person with a self confessed racist agenda to push.
• As you state I removed these opinions, but not because they "disagree with my view", but because they are simply what you claim, keeyour opinions. If I were the sort of editor who erased any opinion that I disagreed with, then I would have been permanently blocked many years ago, there are a multitude of articles that contain information I disagree with totally, but clearly I haven't gone around removing information from them. Alun 10:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As for my politics, so what? I freely admit I am a political person, it is absurd to try to claim that you are apolitical, looking at the pov you are pushing and the aggressiveness of your messages it is clear that you are far more pushing a political agenda than I am. I know what your political agenda is, but I don't resort to impugning your motives, this is because I am on safe scientific ground, whereas you are pushing a personal racist-political agenda with no science to support your claims, therefore you are left with nothing but the figleaf of innuendo and personal attack. Alun 10:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Although your ramblings have little or no merit with regards to the article I don't see the point in edit warring over them. They have no use and when the page fills up with proper discussion regarding the article then they can be archived. Alun 10:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course Centrum99, Wobble doesn't consider himself bound by these rules. Savignac 17:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

All wikipedians are equally bound, you have no justification for making such comments. Alun 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted this, because it is absolutely fundemental for the understanding of the origin of human variation. It is a simple synthesis of what has been collected in genetics, anthropology and archeology up to the beginning of the 21th century. NOWHERE it appears in the internet, not speaking about Misplaced Pages. Why? WHY??? This is a mystery for me. If you have any concrete objection against it, please let me know. I will be glad, if I improve the model. But I am afraid that you are unable to add anything fundamental to it, because it needs knowledge from more fields than just genetics. Hence the empty claims like "a distorted and unbalanced view", "personal opinions of a specific editor" blah blah blah etc. (But if you can really object something concrete, it would be a nice surprise.)

I have about 700 articles about population genetics and anthropology saved on my computer, and from what I have read, I would like to ask you: IS THERE ANY LARGE-SCALE GENETIC STUDY THAT WASN'T ABLE TO CLASSIFY PEOPLE INTO WELL-DEFINED POPULATIONS? I mean except the nice try of Serre and Paabo, who lowered the number of their samples to create a "smooth cline". The clusters may differ a little bit from study to study, but it is understandable for those, who know the mixed genetic history of some populations. The "cline model" is again a mythology that is never explained in detail. During the last Ice Age, there were no "clines", but clearly separated refugial groups, who were isolated from others for many thousands of years. For example, since the arrival of the Gravettian culture ca. 29 000 BP, there was no further significant migration to Europe until 8000 BP. This means that Europeans have been separated from the rest of humankind for 21 000 years. The same is valid for other refugial groups that are ALL CHARACTERIZED BY A SPECIFIC Y-HAPLOGROUP that prevailed in the isolated area during the time. The fact that populations from these refugiums can mix and create intermediate mixed areas is a proof that these populations are races, not different species.

As for my "aggressivenes", yes, I am irritated by liars and drugged fanatics building shining multicultural utopias that will inevitably collapse in rivers of blood. But perhaps I should calm down. The excitement that these experiments will bring to Europe may not be bad for people loving a lot of adrenaline, after all. And I wonder, what you mean by "safe scientific ground". I am not aware of any scientific research that would support your ideology. All evidence that has been collected so far speaks otherwise. Maybe you should reveal your secret sources to us all here, who are curious about the latest scientific progress. Centrum99 82.100.61.114 23:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You have clearly stated that the opinions you have given are your own synthesis of the papers you have read. Therefore they are clearly irrelevant to Misplaced Pages, as is your own personal opinion that just because Ice Age refuges may have existed this "proves" that race is real, I know of no mainstream academic who has made such a claim based on genetics. If you can cite one than please do. Ice Age refuges may or may not have existed, but no one has claimed that there was no migration between these refuges at all. The clinality of human genetics is not in dispute, some genes are clinal and some are clustered, clearly this is what one would expect, I don't think anyone has ever claimed that mutation has suddenly halted as the world has become more populated, clearly more recent mutations are likely to be more geographically localised, and therefore clustered. Serre and Pääbo's paper is very interesting, but clearly because it does not support your personal beliefs you have chosen to dismiss it. It is the cherry piking of science that yu personally think supports your racist pov that is unacceptable. Besides much of the claims you make are not supported by mainstream science. Your attempts to link Y chromosome haplotypes with specific ancient material culture is just plain daft. Y chromosome/mtDNA haplotypes represent only a tiny proportion of any individual's ancestors, coupled with the known high extinction rate of Y chromosome haplotypes and the slower, but still high extinction rates of mtDNA haplogroups, it is impossible to know what the Y chromosome or mtDNA composition was for the founders of any given population. Furthermore if you care to read Bauchet or Seldin you will observe that their clusters are generally north-south ans support a demic diffusion in the neolithic, indicating that the European population is probably an admixed population of paleolithic hunter gatherers and middle eastern neolithic farmers. Also the distribution of Y chromosomes is clearly clinal, as one would expect, Y chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups act like single genes when it comes to heredity, so claiming that they can help to define "races" is lieke claiming that everyone with haemoglobinS belongs to a single "race". Y chromosome haplogroups are distributed in an east-west cline in Europe, and what do we see when we look at clustering analyses of autosomal data? We see a north south cline, so these systems clearly do not show a similar patterns of genetic variation. If you want to know about clustering analyses you should read the paper "What is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity" You should also understand that sample collection has been highly criticised for the HGDP which are the samples used for most clustering analyses. Sampling by "ethnic group" is considered to give biased results. Whether you like it or not these claims have been made by reputable scientists and published in reliable sources. Until you can cite reliable sources to support your claims, which appear to be your personal opinion, then they cannot be included in Misplaced Pages. Your constant personal attacks are simply unacceptable, if you want to contribute to Misplaced Pages then you need to learn to work with people who hold different opinions to you, if you cannot be civil, then you will get blocked again. Please think about what you want to do. If you have as great a knowledge as you claim, then you need to understand that you should be including the conclusions nd results from the scientific papers you cite, and not your on synthesis of thes epapers, even if you do not like the conclusions the papers draw. All the best. Alun 08:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with bell curve studies, but I don't share Wobble's insistence on corrective racism either. This is why I will vouch for neither of you raving racists. 'Nuff said! Savignac 07:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wobble wants you to goose step in line with him; don't march to the beat of a different drum. Savignac 08:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)