User talk:69.157.122.195

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Neanderthals

I never said neanderthals weren't the ancestors of modern europeans. If they were then it is you who are the assimilationist, and us humans that are freely interbreeding promiscuous organisms. So it kind of goes against your opinion about "races" not mixing doesn't it? It means it's natural for us to reproduce with any and all hominids. Alun 06:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually no it doesn't, it just goes to show that populations and races already have significant genetic and/or physical diversity due to geographic proximities and earlier archaic human populations. The intermixing with hominids is restricted to differences between locales, i.e. with Chinese Erectus in Asia, Neanderthal in Europe, possible other Erectus sub-species in Africa, India, Australasia, etc. I never doubted gene flow between modern human populations, only that there are pronounced and sudden differences between certain regions and populations. Stop deleting what I put on your talk page bro, just read it a bit. Thanks, 69.157.122.195 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually it means that we have all been shagging each other ragged. We don't have a great deal of genetic diversity, this must either be because we have a recent common origin, or because gene transfer has been very large between different geographical regions. So we are recent, or we are promiscuous, these are the only conclusions that can be drawn, otherwise the assimilationist model would not work. The assimilationist model is based on the assumption that erectus in asia and neanderthal in europe have biologically contributed to modern humans. If this is true it means we are a hybrid species that is derived from a promiscuous past, it's our nature to be such in this case. There is little variation or diversity in human genetics, to claim otherwise is to dispute all available genetic evidence. So we are either promiscuous and descended from an outbreading event, or we have a recent common origin. Neither of these scenarios really fits with your "racialist" or "segregationist" points of view.

Alun 07:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Those are not the only conclusions that can be made and we do have significant genetic diversity(less than 1% again is quite a bit considering we only have a 2% difference with Chimpanzees who are VERY distant from Homo Sapiens, Erectus, or Neanderthals). I do not doubt we have "recent" origins from Africa but we also have origins from other species in different geographic regions. I do not understand what you mean by "recent" anyways since many of the groups have been separated for over 50,000 years since they migrated out of Africa (eg. A Brit with all ancestors from Europe and a South African with all ancestors from South Africa). That is a long time for popualtions to develop distinct differences through isolation and adaptation. "There is little variation or diversity in human genetics, to claim otherwise is to dispute all available genetic evidence": What evidence are you reading ? Have you actually looked at the data collected by Cavalli-Sforza and Jensen's analysis of it ? Most data has only been based on Y-chromosomes, MtDNA, and some section of Autosomes, therefore ignoring X-chromosomes and large remaining sections of Autosomes to be untested. However, some recent studies have come out or are coming out on these sections which are giving further credit to Cavalli-Sforza's analysis that there is significant genetic difference between certain populations, supporting the 5-race model. As for our archaic human origins and us being "promiscuous", that only applies to certain groups (Chinese Erectus in Asia, Neanderthals in Europe, etc.) which only furthers the distinctiveness between populations who have also been largely separated from each other for tens of thousdands of years. Even in Africa, there is a sharp difference between the populations of North Africa (Caucasoid) and Sub-Saharan Africa (Negroid and Capoid), marked by the Sahara desert. There is a sharp difference even though they are geographically closer than say a Brit and an African or an Afghan and an Australian aborigine. Both the recent Out-of-Africa and Archaic Homo species influence fit into the origins of modern humans. My view is not "racialist" or "segregationalist", and the gene flow between the major racial groupings has been limited and largely confined to certain regions (Eastern Europe-Central Asia, North Africa, India, Indonesia), etc. and still does not account for stark and sudden differences between populations/races that exist in those regions. 69.157.122.195 07:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I said for the time being, but i didn't know you were gonna delete everything you and I posted. Did you read any of what I put below ? Peace. 69.157.122.195 07:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Useful links for race: Outbreeding depression, race, genetic genealogy, Craniofacial Anthropometry, Carleton Coon, User talk:Wobble, Carleton S. Coon, Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, "Racial Reality", "The Races of Europe"

[edit] Continuation from section of archive 2 of User talk:Wobble that was deleted

Conclusion

1. There is no consensus about human origins. Science works by observing phenomena and developing theories to explain those phenomena. Experimentation can never prove any theory, but it can disprove a theory. Currently it seems the weight of evidence is with the Out of Africa 2 model, this may not remain the case and there is some genetic evidence for the assimilationist model. The more evidence that comes to light to support any given model, the less likely another model is of representing the truth. The original multiregional hypothesis seems to be dead, it's derivative model, the assimilationist model may be better, though it involves the admixture of two apparently very different hominid groups, something you have stated on numerous occasions is a bad thing. I refer you to your repeated mention of outbreeding depression and derogatory comments about my assimilationism. It seems that by supporting this hypothesis it is you that are the assimilationist. On the other hand the assimilationist model may imply that "archaic" and AMH were actually much closer biologically than has been previously thought, freely exchanging genetic material. Whatever our origins neither model really provides evidence for a deep and ancient "difference" between "races". On the one hand we have a recent origin hypothesis that supports the idea that all humans are closely related because we are of recent origin. On the other we have an assimilation model that supports the idea that all humans are genetically similar because hominids are naturally promiscuous and freely procreate with each other. Neither model is an endorsement of "seperatism" either from the point of view of origins nor from the point of view of behaviour.

2. The concept of "race" is as contentious as ever, there is no real evidence of races from a genetic point of view, simply continuously distributed genetic variation. Some scientists see a structure to this variation that they attempt to categorise as "race", the boundaries to these "races" are arbitrary, and often populations do not fit deffinitively into one or another pre-determined "race", but rather display characteristics of two or more "races". Most of your statements do not seem to represent the academic mainstream as you claim. I can only assume that this claim is due to a determination to ignore evidence that does not fit with your distorted view of the world. Your beliefs are based on faith more than science, you want there to be races, you want humans to have evolved seperately, you want this to be true. Sorry but it's not. We are all the same and you can never change that. We can never go back to the sort of ignorance that we had in the past, however much you might like to. Your biggoted ideas about "race" and "diversity" (which you seem to use as a proxy for "racial purity") and your tacit support for segregationism shows you for what you really are. There are many more scientific papers that I could have used, but it would have taken much longer to cite them all. Alun 09:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Reaction:

  • You really are amusing at times and I just laugh at how you love to modify and organize my edits to fit you own responses, rather than leaving them how they initially were. Yes, there are a few more scientific papers you could of used, but they're all based on relatively few studies of the human genome done by a couple groups of researchers. Regardless of this, the genetic evidence supports the 5-race model of physical anthropology. As I have said time and time again, you have only interpreted the data (or certain phrases from the sources containing the data) in a manner to conform to your own pre-conceived, anti-racial opinions that do not follow the hard facts. Whatever the origins of human races and populations, genetic differences do exist between them (this is obvious since every individual, family, ethnic group, population, race etc. has a unique genetic combination) and fall in line with the massive physical variation. People within a group are more related to each other than they are to other human groups for obvious reasons, since they have a recent common ancestor or ancestors not shared with other groups. The genetic variation between individuals either within or without the group is greater which is also obvious, but two individuals of the same group are more genetically alike than they are with someone from a separate one. Northern Europeans have physical and genetic traits not shared with Sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians have traits not shared with Southern Indians and the same can be said about all the other groups. The only issue here is how people perceive "race" and biological classification in general by trying to decipher what traits are associated with what hypothetical "group", "species" or "division" that in every case is a human construct. There are populations in certain regions (eg. Central Asia) who share traits from different groups, but this still does not account for the sudden and distinct genetic and physical differences between racial regions, for example Europe/North Africa (Caucasoids) and Sub-Saharan Africa/Negroids; Southwestern Africa/Capoids and Sub-Saharan Africans; East Asians/Mongoloids and Australoids (this is most notable in the sharp difference between immediately neighbouring Malays and native Papuans on New Guinea). All those examples and the genetic evidence on those populations as provided from some of the sources below (I advise you to read all the content in each study, not just excerpts which support any anti-racial BS) washes away any theory of constant "gradual clines" of human genetic variation and any ridiculous supposition that all populatons inter-mix with each other freely (in the process this claim ignores several factors that have been constant throughout most of human history 1) geographic proximity between all groups (i.e., the recent common ancestor [excluding the archaic human element] between a Northern European and a sub-saharan African would have to go back tens of thousands of years, thats alot of time of genetic isolation and adaptation for a population; 2) socio-cultural constraints encouraging endogamy within the group; 3) common ancestry also encouraging endogamy within the group by inidviduals choosing to breed with members of more similar biological and socio-behavioural features. You would sound like a fool by claiming that a Danish person with ancestry solely to Denmark and Europe for tens of thousands of years has the same level of similarity with a native Japanese person than he does with another indigenous Dane. I do not think you are trying to say this Wobbs, but in fact I know that you are trying to downplay the genetic isolation and differences between these or any human groups. "Race" as you say is a contentious issue, but I think you'd agree that to say it does not exist would be to say that "sub-species" or any other classifcation beyond "species" does not exist, which is quite proposterous and un-scientific. The only statement a true and impartial academic can make on the issue of race is that it is a subjective concept that is difficult to define. Those who ignorantly say on a whim that it does not "exist", such as the American Athropological Association (though as polls have shown, they do not speak for the majority of academics who believe race does exist) are not speaking in an impartial manner and have a political influence or sensitivity on the topic. Such claims are just as "pseudo-scientific" as those researchers who accentuate the differences to such a degree that it would seem populations and races are almost different species, lol. I think there is much we agree on here Wobbs, but I think we both have different interpretations on how to perceive the evidence, you choosing to focus on the unity between human populations while I am trying to focus on the differences and preservation of genetic and physical diversity between them. Btw, I never said we should "force" people to breed within their respective races or ethnic groups, I only said that too much breeding outside the group is not good for a groups cultural or genetic/physical uniqueness (not to mention any outcomes of outbreeding depression, though you also have to mind the equal possibilities of inbreeding depresson). Most people in the world feel strongly about preserving such diversity and identity, even if its apparent some groups more than others. Hey guy, I don't think much more can be said on this debate, so I'm pretty much done with this for the time being. See ya. 69.157.122.195 05:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


  • Sub-Saharan African or Negroid skull.
  • Typical Negroid skull
  • Distribution of Neanderthals and modern human populations.
  • Distribution of the Neanderthals
This map shows the racial classification scheme of Carleton S. Coon circa 1960 [1].
This map shows the racial classification scheme of
Carleton S. Coon circa 1960 [1].
  Caucasoid race
  Congoid race
  Capoid race
  Mongoloid race
  Australoid race


  • 69.157.122.195 06:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish people page

I think you are interested in the Spanish people's page. Keep an eye on it then, because some users have been trying to push their extreme point of view all the time. Veritas et Severitas 02:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/9/2E/User_talk%7E69.157.122.195.html"