User talk:Centrum99

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Centrum99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - UtherSRG (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image tagging for Image:J1-JM267.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:J1-JM267.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:E1-EM33.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:E1-EM33.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Hhaplogroup.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hhaplogroup.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:I1aHAPLOGROUP.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:I1aHAPLOGROUP.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:I1b1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:I1b1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Lhaplogroup.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lhaplogroup.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:I1b2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:I1b2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:BoobooTop30Graph.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BoobooTop30Graph.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright policy

I noticed that you have uploaded a number of figures from copyright sources. You should not be uploading copyright material to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Thanks. Guettarda 21:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if I list the source and the author? Then I don't undestand, why the studies are made. It is natural to ask for allowance in the case of some demanding, sophisticated works, but if I contacted every author with a request for allowance of some triviality , I couldn't have time to do anything else. The articles about Y-haplogroups would look much worse without the maps. If you want, I can contact the authors and ask them for allowance. But how to contact John M Tanner, if I doesn't know, if he is still alive? Authors of old anthropological books from which I plan to take maps - like Coon, Biasutti or Lundman - are certainly dead already. Centrum99 20:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some pointers that you may need to understand Wkipedia better

Hello Centrum99! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Personal Attacks - Warning

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Strothra 01:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Strothra 02:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. Shell babelfish 12:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Black versus white.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Black versus white.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Strothra 05:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Black versus white.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Black versus white.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Strothra 06:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that while you did provide the source of the image you did NOT comply with the NLD tag. You must provide liscencing information in addition to source information. You must also put a copyright tag on the image so that copyright may be easily determined. Further removal of the tags without compliance will be considered vadalism. --Strothra 06:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for making repeated personal attacks

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Gwernol 13:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you've edited anonymously to avoid your block, the block has been reset. Further attempts to evade the block will result in lengthening the block. Shell babelfish 16:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't edit anonymously. I edited from a different setting of my computer. Hence my nickname didn't appear in the discussion. Centrum99 20:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:E2-EM75.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:E2-EM75.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On wars

Dealing with antropology and anything related to human races is hard to impossible due to sensitivity of the topic in the US and abundance of warriors here. I saw several absurd wars taking months and unless one is prepared to invest _lot of_ time it is futile to get involved in them.

It may be possible to cover these topics oneday when (if) mechanisms for atracting and identifying experts will be implemented.

Zdravim, Pavel Vozenilek 23:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your race model

I noticed you claim the following core races existed and formed all the populations of today:

THE AFRICAN GROUPS ("PALEONEGRIDS"):

1/ Proto-Khoisan groups in South Africa characterized by Y-haplogroup A and mtDNA haplogroups L1d/L1k (there are new discoveries of archaic mtDNA haplogroups and their system has been constantly changing). They are the oldest human group that diverged from the rest of mankind perhaps 100.000 years ago

2/ Proto-Nilotes in the south-east Sahara bearing a subclade of A (A3b2) - thus they were distantly related to Khoisan and represent a population that diverged from Khoisan a long time ago, headed for north, and developed extreme physical adaptation to the hot climate of the Sahara

3/ Proto-Pygmies in the forests of West-Central Africa (Y-haplogroup B+mtDNA haplogroups L1+L2). The second oldest human lineage; the dates of approximate divergence vary, but it was about 60 000-80 000 years ago

THE NON-AFRICAN GROUPS - belonging to the same Y-chromosomal lineage that separated maybe more than 70 000 years ago and - with one exception - left Africa:

4/ Neonegrids in the Sahara (E3a+L3), a dark population with somewhat Europoid traits that will head for south in the next 10 000 years and will play a key role in the formation of the "Negroid race". They were the only people of the non-African lineage that stayed in Africa.

5/ Paleoeuropids in the Near East (Y-macrohaplogroup F) that then massively expanded to Central Asia, Europe, India, even south-east Asia (New Guinea) and will continue to America

6/ Australoid groups in South Asia and Australasia (C+M) - a very broad cathegory for archaic forms, descendants of the first human wave (the so-called "Coastal Clan") probably more than 60 000 years ago

7/ Paleomongolids in east-central Asia (Mongolia, northern China) (C+M) - distantly related to Australoids, actually a cold-adapted form of Australoids that may have also penetrated to America 32 000 years ago

8/ Paleoainids in the Far East and also elsewhere (Andaman Islands) (Y-haplogroup D)

Why do you put them into 2 categories: Africans and non-Africans? Are you saying that there are really only 2 races and races 1 through 3 are just subraces of the African race and races 4 through 8 are just sub-races of the non-African race or were all 8 separate races? Also, you claim races 1 and 3 are the 2 oldest races. What is the third oldest of those 8 core races and which races are newest? Timelist 05:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I created the model according to the lineages of Y-haplogroups. All "Non-African groups" belong to the same lineage that (except one case) left Africa and, later than the African groups, radiated into many lineages within a relatively short time. You can take all eight groups as "separate races"; it is true that here the racial classification is a matter of opinion. One can argue that the most important thing is the length of time separation, another will argue that it's the magnitude of physical differences that is the key. But obviously, we can't take the length of time separation and common origin in one lineage as the most important thing, if any racial classification should make sense. Otherwise we would have to group mongol(o)ids like Buryats together with Australian Aboriginals into one "Coastal Clan-race". Centrum99 20:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Biasutti-african_races.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Biasutti-african_races.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:E3b.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:E3b.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Editing a closed AfD

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Do not edit an AfD discussion after it has been closed. This is vandalism. --Strothra 02:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:I1b1a.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:I1b1a.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:I1b2a.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:I1b2a.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rushton's theory on race

You seem to be quite an expert on the modern genetics of race. I was wondering what you make of the controversial race theory of J. Phillipe Rushton[[1]]. Rushton claims that mongolids are advanced race (i.e. largest brain but smallest sex organs) that negroids are the primitive race (smallest brain but biggest sex organs) and caucasoids are in the middle. Rushton believes that these racial differences are partly explained by the time period when archaic forms of the three major races branched off of the human evolutionary tree, whith newer forms being the most advanced. He the cites the Out of Africa model to argue that archaic Africans (later negroids) are the oldest branch of the human tree, and caucasoids are the second oldest branch of the human tree, and that mongoloids are the most recent and most advanced race. I know you argue that the modern races are primarily mixtures of older lineages, but if humans lived in Africa first, does that mean that the lineages that merged together to form the negroid race are generally the oldest lineages, and are the lineages that form the mongoloid race the newest human lineages? Minorcorrections 20:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you should read my statements more carefully. There you will find answers to your questions. There basically exist no "new" and "old" lineages. The Europid race diverged ca. 45 000 years ago in the Near East and between 38-30 000 years ago expanded to the whole Eurasia and later (in a partly mixed form) as far as to America. The Mongolid race originated from one branch of the "Coastal Clan I", i.e. factually from one branch of the "australoid race". So far I haven't studied, when it happened, but it must have been quite shortly after they reached South-East Asia, i.e. some 60-50 000 years ago. When they came into contact with old europids (O+N+Q Y-lineages) about 35 000 years ago, they must have been already well adapted to the Siberian climate. The degree of adaptation to the cold climate in mongolids is higher, because they have been exposed to it maybe 20 000 years longer than Europeans, and, of course, the Siberian climate may have been even generally harsher than in Europe. Centrum99 08:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. What you are saying seems to contradict Rushton's data (though Rushton based his theory on genetic data that was available in 1989). According to Rushton mongoloids are more evolved than caucasoids who are more evolved than negroids because of the time period when archaic forms of these three main races emerged. According to Rushton negroids emerged 200,000 years ago, caucasoids emerged 110,000 years ago, and mongoloids emerged 41,000 years ago.[[2]] Rushton concluded that archaic negroids emerged 200,000 years ago because that is the date when modern humans first appeared in Africa (i.e. that's the age of the mitochondrial Eve). Since fossil evidence shows that anatomically modern humans first appeared in the middle east (a caucasoid region of the world) about 110,000 years ago, Rushton seems to have concluded that the earliest forms of the caucasoid race emerged 110,000 years ago. And since geneticist had concluded that there was a caucasoid/mongoloid split 41,000 years ago, Rushton concluded that mongoloids emerged 41,000 years ago. But the dates you provide are all more recent, and you are saying that mongoloids branched off of australoids, not caucasoids. But this seems to contradict the chart by Cavali-Sforza which is more consistent with Rushton's model:

Image:DNAtree.gif

I realize that the major races of physical anthropology are kind of simplistic in light of all the new information about various clans and lineages, but since all these clans and lineages just ended up interbreeding with others in their geographic region, doesn't it make most sense to simply define race by the geographic region of ones ancestors. If so, when did modern humans first appear in the negroid regions of the world (sub-Saharan Africa), when did modern humans first appear in a caucasoid region of the world (middle east, Europe, South Asia) and when did modern humans first appear in the mongoloid region of the world (North East Asia, the America). Minorcorrections 03:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The "racial tree" is absolutely non-sensical. It erroneously connects groups that are partly mixed, but who have no common origin. For example, Ethiopians and Khoisans are grouped together due to the presence of A-paternal lineages in their gene pool, yet these lineages in Ethiopians are of minor importance. Nilotes and Bantus have nothing in common historically, the only thing that can group them together are paternal Bantu lineages in some Nilotic tribes (hence it also depends on, what Nilotes were studied). South Chinese and Thais are grouped together with Pacific Islanders and Aborigines due to their common maternal M-lineages. On the other hand, in other Mongoloid groups, the dominant connecting factors with Caucasoids were paternal lineages (N+O+Q) etc. It simply depends on, what genes you choose and what an importance you attribute to them. A racial classification done by this method is misleading and even absurd. By the way, grouping Mongols close to Caucasians is an utter nonsense that probably results from the choice of tested subjects, who can't be representative of the Mongolian population.

I talked about the human genetic tree elsewhere, so I think you should read it one more carefully. But as for Europoids (Caucasoids), it can be said that they came into being ca. 45 000 years ago somewhere in the Near East, because they all share some Y-haplogroups of Y-macrohaplogroup F that originated in that area at this time. Between ca. 38-30 000 years ago they grandiosely expanded to Asia and Europe (and later even to America, albeit somewhat mixed with paleomongolids).

Europeans came into being as a mixture of three Caucasoid Y-lineages (R1b, R1a, I) during the last ice age (30-8 000 years ago). Hence they have a common history 20 000 years long. They were only recently (8000 years ago) influenced by a new Caucasoid wave from Anatolia bringing Y-haplogroups J and E3b1. This mixture is present in modern Europeans at various percentages, quite strong in Greece, Albania or South Italy, but very weak or non-existent in isolated regions of Western Europe. The average contribution is ca. 20%. Thus, modern Europeans are still predominantly European Ice Age Hunters. Centrum99 22:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

With regards to your comments on Talk:Caucasoid race: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Strothra 12:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some General Comments & Questions Directed to Centrum99

Centrum's Race Model 1. So basically you have the following ancient lineages: Proto-Khoisan (Boskopid or "Capoid"), Proto-pygmies (you might call this group "pygmoid" but I prefer Paleocongid), Proto-Nilotes, Neonegrids (I prefer "Neafrids" not only because of offensive connotations, but feel that it is a better term: Neo (new) + Africa), Australoids (really descendents of the Coastal Clan peoples), Paleomongolids (actually a sub-group of Australoids), Paleoeuropids, Paleoainuids (Perhaps two races: Ainu and Andaman-Nicobar Islanders, presumably related to coastal clan). From these 7-9 racial linneages (8 in your count, all depending on whether one groups Mongolids with Australoids or Andamanids with Ainuids). Of course depending on how one reads it, there could be as few as four races three African groups (whom you call Paleonegrids, but I prefer the term Paleoafricoid) and one non-African linneage. One could also say that all humans belong to one race, the African race (which is technically true consider the recent-single origin theory). I see validity in all these perspectives but I do not deny the validity of race. What I do think is flatly incorrect is the division of humans between an African and non-African race, which Cavalli-Sforza's research seems to suggest, but is contradicted by better genetic studies. Of course there are numerous mixed races which you listed in brief, as there are probably no racially pure people alive today. My questions follow:

  • What is the relationship between Y-chromosomal macrohaplogroups DE & F? Are they by chance more closely related to eachother than they are to Y-haplogroup C for instance? (This could explain why the relation between "Caucasians" and Africans is a bit closer than that between Asians/Australoids and Africans, as well as the superficially Europoid looks, not limited to Europids (Y macrohaplogroup F), but are also seen in Somalis/Cushites (Yhg E) and Ainu (Yhg D), all of whom the racist Carleton Coon considered at least part white. Perhaps europoid traits predate paleoeuropids.) Is the phylogenetic relationship between these Y-chromosomal haplogroups known?
  • While using mt-DNA and Y-chromosomal haplogroups might be the best route (essentially since race is a lineage), one needs to consider the limitations. This works better for males, who always have a Y-chromosome but not well for females who, except in rare cases such as a missing or non-working SRY gene, lack Y-chromosomes. Trouble is this only yields no more than two lines, which limits the effectiveness for determining ancestry in its entirety. The number of ancestors increases exponentially by generation by a factor of 2^n, where n is the number of generations. Using such methods one could only determine 1/(2^n) of a female's ancestry and only 2/(2^n) or 1/(2^(n-1)) of a male's ancestry. For instance, after 4 generations, one could count 16 great-great grandparents. A female could trace 1/16 of her ancestry, and a male could trace 1/8 of his. Of course, this does not hold the further one goes back, since the backwards exponential increase exceeds the population then, and indeed now, thus one concludes that these lineages converge. Still fact remains, a man can not trace Y-chromosomal and mt-DNA inheritance to his father's mother or his mother's father, and a female could not determine any of her paternal ancestry. This allows for plenty of variables. Likewise, in populations, using only mtDNA and Y haplogroups might not reveal hidden admixture. The autosomal DNA in one's genome, however records 100% of a person's ancestry. Of course mtDNA and Y-chromosomal lineages are a great place to start and provide a solid framework, but autosomal DNA is needed to supplement the data. On the other hand an analysis based purely on autosomal DNA is poor as it is often difficult to interpret (Cavalli-Sorza's work for instance). Either of these approaches is far far FAR better than superficial phenotypical analysis, such as that done by Coon. My question in light of these limitations, do you, Centrum, plan to supplement your Y-chromosome and mtDNA lineage studies with autosomal data? Do you have other methods to supplement and better complete the data? Perhaps my knowledge of population genetics is not strong enough.
  • Case in point, autosomal genes are fuzzier, whereas haplogroups draw sharper lines. Even so, while peoples such as the Khoi-Khoi, San, Pygmies, a few Nilotes, Australian aborigines, Andamanese, and Veddoids kept relatively pure, many presumably pure groups have high percentages of foreign lineages. Case in point: see http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf for mor info. Notice how the Buryats and Mongols (who you consider true Mongolids) have europid y-haplogroups N & O respectively in fairly high percentages (though C is still in the majority). Is this a recent phenomenon? If so, then how do you obtain data on the ancient presences or abscences and their distribution of Y-chromosomal and mtDNA haplogroups throughout the world? When comparing haplogroup frequencies, do you restrict this to living peoples, or do you have ample aDNA studies to back the data up.
  • Another curiousity. The phylogenetic relationships between mtDNA lines is not as clear as Y-chromosomal lines (which are often identified by distinguishing mutations). What is known is the mitochondrial lineage of all living humans converges at L0 + L1, with L0 being a sepparate linneage, L2, being a branch of L1, and L3 another branch of L1. M & N are offshoots of L3. Did N branch off directly from L3 or from M?
  • I am curious why, when listing the modern races of man (including stabilized mixtures), you seemed to ommit two: the Neoeuropoid and Turanid (Turkic) races. The neoeuropids resulted from a post-Ice Age migration of ancient Cushites (Neafrids) bearing subclade E3b1 to the Middle East near the end of the Upper Paleolithic. These migrants left their genetic stamp on the aboriginal Europids of the Mideast in late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic times, as well as a linguistic stamp, an imposition of their Afro-Asiatic language on the peoples (who presumably spoke a language related to Indo-European, Cartvellian, Eteo-Cretan, and/or Etruscan prior to this), from where the Semitic languages originate. These neoeuropoids were largely responsible for the Levantine Agricultural Revolution, and via demic diffusion, spread to Europe via Anatolia and northern Syria. From here the population of the Middle East as well as the Neolithic and post-Neolithic population of Europe descends (including the original Indo-Europeans). Of course you mentioned this with regards to the Semites, but failed to include for example: "Neoeuropoids (Europid x Neafrid)" or whatever terms you wish to use. Similarly, you forgot to mention the forming of the Turanid race, which was formed durring historic times. Mongolid nomads diffused westward into Central Asia, imposing their Altaic (Turkic) language on a previously Indo-European speaking europid population (mainly Irano-Scythian, Tocharian, and proto-Slavic peoples from Ukraine to western China). From this mixture arose the Uighurs, Bulgars, Turkomen, Oghuz, Khazars, Uzbek, Kyrghiz, Tatars, and other Turkic peoples, also some non-Turkic peoples including the Tadjik, who kept their Iranian language. The Turanids are characterized by Y-chromosomal haplogroup C but with Europid mtDNA haplogroups descended from N. (Sort of a mirror image of the "mongoloid" race.) Historical examples of Turkic and Mongolian invaders out of Central Asia/Siberia includes the Hsiungnu (Huns), Gokturks (from whom the Khazars, Turkomen/Oghuz, and Kazakh descend), and later the Mongols under Genghis Khan. So in addition to Mongolids, "Mongoloids", Amerinds, and Malays/Polynesias, turanid peoples have a category. Needless to say, I did not see "Turanids (Mongolid x Europid)". My question, is this merely because the intention was to show the formation of racial groups before the end of the last Ice Age? Or was there some more sinister factor involved, perhaps "Europid supremacy" or unwillingness to admit that at some point foreign populations imposed their genes on europids?
  • Another thing I noticed. You seem to accept that the modern population of Europe is mostly of Upper Paleolithic origin (mostly Cromagnids + Gravettians). Be forwarned, not to accept the 80% paleolithic, 20% neolithic ancestry stat as gospel truth. Remember that the origin of various Europid haplogroups descended from Y macrohaplogroup F is up for debate! On the other hand, it is much more clear that many of the descendents of K (particularly NO and Q are of Central Asian origin), though the origins of K itself (as well as R) are more disputed. Perhaps a group of paleoeuropids with sub-haplogroups of K migrated to Central Asia from the Near East alongside others, and after the Cro-Magnon people moved west, these bearers of haplogroup K or its descendents underwent tight genetic bottleneck events, and their descendents, founders of N, O, and Q, moved towards Eastern Siberia. Y-haplogroups I, J, K, and R seem to have had a pan-europid distribution, being found at fairly significant levels in both Middle Easterners and Paleolithic Europeans. Even so, there is no guarantee of continuity see: "We Are Not Our Ancestors" (http://www.jogg.info/22/Coffman.htm) for more info. New research indicates that UP ancestry in Europe is much lower than previously expected, a minority through much of Europe. Some populations such as the Greeks and Albanians are of purely neolithic Anatolian origin, while others such as the Basque and Welsh are almost entirely of paleolithic origin. Even the Basques are not so continuous with their ancestors (despite strict endogamy). Generally, UP ancestry is higher in Western Europe (southern Britain and parts of France and Iberia), and lower further South and East, being lowest in the Mediterranean. All this genetic data demonstrates a major demic diffusion from the Middle East to Europe in neolithic times. Strangely, you appear to be marginalizing the role of Neolithic demic diffusion in Europe, but exaggerating it in North Africa and the Indian subcontinent (even suggesting that the Dravidians originated, not from the paleolithic europoid-veddoid population, but mostly from late Stone Age migrations predating the Aryans), almost as if you were trying to steal the Harappan (Indus Valley) civilization for the whites.

2. What about the relation between racial groups and ethno-linguistic groups? Or the relations between races and subraces and world languages? Fact is, one can not deny that there is a strong correlation between languages and genetic ancestry (including race).

  • As it turns out the original speakers of the Afro-Asiatic language family (including the Semitic subfamily) were of the Neafrid (neonegrid). Similarly, the original speakers of Indo-European, Basque, and Cartvellian were Europids. The Khoisan, Andamanese, and Australian aborgines and some New Guineans retained their ancient languages. But where did the Niger-Kordofanian & Bantu languages originate? Among the Neafrid settlers bearing E3a, or among the indigneous Paleocongid population (pygmoids)? What about the Nilo-Saharan languages? I presume their origin was with Nilotid peoples? What was the original language of the African pygmies anyways? Today, most of them speak Niger-Kongo languages. Were they original speakers of the language, whose language was adopted by Sahelid (Neafrids bearing E3a) invaders or were such West-Central African languages of foreign orgin? If the latter, did the pygmies speak a click language like the Khoisan and Hadzabe?
  • Likewise, Cavalli-Sforza and others seem to link the Sino-Tibetan languages with the Na-Dene language family as well as Basque and Cartvellian into a Dene-Caucasian superfamily. At first this was surprising, but considering, for instance, the europid ancestry in the Chinese, perhaps this language family was spoken by Central Asian Paleoeuropids (proto-Cromagnoids) who propogated it. Of course, the linguistic merits behind this hypothesis seem shaky. It seems fairly clear that the Altaic languages originated in paleomongolids, as all the Mongolid groups (Mongolians, Buryats, Yakuts, etc.) are speakers of Turko-Mongolic or Tungusic languages. What about the Uralic and Yukaghir languages. Many people propose a Uralo-Altaic or Uralic-Yukaghir hypothesis, or combine all three language families into the mix. Sometimes they will include, Korean, Japanese, or the Chukchi-Kamchatcan and Eskaleut languages. Were the Uralic languages native to the paleomongolid population from whom the Samoyed and Ugro-Finns descend or were the languages brought by paleoeuropid invaders bearing Y-haplogroup N? Similarly, what of Paleosiberian languages such as Yukaghir, Chukchi, Kamchatcan, and Eskimo-Aleut? Were they indigenous to Siberian paleomongolids, or were they brought by paleoeuropid settlers (presumably possessing Y-haplogroup Q)? Also, did the Dravidian languages such as Tamil originate among the Australoid population or was it brought by paleoeuropids bearing Y-haplogroup H? Or were they of a more recent origin?

(NOTE: On the subject of Indo-European origins, I am strongly in favor of Colin Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis. I-E languages were most likely brought to Europe from Anatolia through the Balkans after the Neolithic revolution. I hope you do not favor Marija Gimbutas' fanciful Nazi-friendly Kurgan hypothesis, which has absolutely no basis in linguistic, archaeological, or genetic evidence.)

General Concerns Attention Centrum99/Yahooman/Cartouche! Yes, it is abundantly clear that you have been posting under all those names at Wikipedia and elsewhere (Human Biodiversity Forum, Skadi, AmRen, etc.). Your usage of neologisms makes you easy to find with Google. All I could say is, there is no doubt that your hypothesis has attracted attention_both positive and negative_from Wikipedia users. I for one was interested in your studies, and provided positive comments, as well as negative ones on the Talk:race page. The fact is, your attitude seems to reppel potentially interested people (i.e. Shoebill, Paul B). My concern is your often rabid racism and general arrogance. Take this as an insult, take it as advice, take it how you will...

  • On your racialist outlook. I do not deny that humans could be identified in terms of race. I acknowledge the biological reality of race. Races could also be socially constructed as well (example, the lumping of all sub-Saharan Africans under a single category, the concept of a "Latino" or "Hispanic" race in the U.S.). I even understand that human racial groups differ in physical traits. Some, such as height, coloration, body build, etc. are obvious. Others such as athletic abilities are much more controversial (though readily observable). Alleged racial differences in intelligence and behavior however, have no basis in reality and are purely fictitious. Granted, many sources are tainted by a politically correct outlook, offer me sources which have not used absolutely piss-poor research with an obviously racist agenda to come to conclusions. I agree that intelligence and behavior are largely genetic, but to the extent that they are hereditary, these hereditary differences do NOT correlate with race. Allegedly racial differences in such features as employment, income, crime rate, education, etc. are found to have purely social roots, not biological ones, or at least not hereditary causes. It is clear to me that living in Czechoslovakia, you have not met many people of color. It also helps, that people coming from post-Iron Curtain Eastern Europe have been so put off by communism so as to blindly embrace social darwinist ideology as you have done. Therefore, any purely hereditarian (and racist) explanation for social behavior or intelligence is automatically scientifically correct and any sociological study attempting to find cultural or economic foundations for the same is automatically "neo-Marxist". What's wrong, am I over-generalizing, am I pre-judging you because of your national origin? Well maybe think before you post all that racist horseshit you so expertly spew on Wikipedia Talk pages as well as neo-fascist sites such as American Rennaissance and Skadi.
  • As a remedy, I recommend reading Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man and especially, Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. Granted you might be tempted to dismiss such work as Nu Left propagandha, particularly Gould, whom you might be tempted to dismiss as a loony liberal, but read with an open mind and perhaps a grain of salt. Mismeasure of Man has plenty accounts of all the stupid shit 19th century pseudoscientists believed, including phrenology, and how some such pseudoscience (including right-wing eugenics) survives to the present day. Guns, Germs, and Steel explains precisely why certain nations ended up the way they did. Of course if you already read either of the above, you might want to try again, this time with a crowbar on hand in case you need to pry your head out of your ass. (Medical scientists have proven: Inserting one's head rectally is the number one cause of fascism!)
  • On the subject of intelligent testing. Know that scientists to this day have no idea what the hell intelligence is! Some think that maybe such a concept as general intelligence may never be found. There are so many types of intelligence (logical-mathematical, visuo-spatial, bodily-kinesthetic/tactual, linguistic, musical, etc. etc.) that it makes it extremely difficult to identify generic intelligence. In either case, Arthur Jensen (despite his claim to having found general intelligence, or the "g factor"), is aside from being racist, full of shit and constantly talking out of his ass. First off, when people speak of IQ (assuming intelligence in general is measurable), what do they mean? If they define IQ as mental age divided by actual age, then they are giving a nonsense definition! Aside from the fact that people develop at very different rates, this definition is obviously stupid, because it assumes that mental development increases indefinitely, thus making IQ completely meaningless for anyone over 20 years of age. Others might prefer to define IQ as a relative measure (a sort of normal distribution) with 100 defined as the mean and median. Even so, who will create the tests, and who will take them. How will the test not only handle the poorly understood complexity of human thought, but barriers such as literacy, education level, intellectual stimulation, etc. Cultural factors DO impact IQ. You should be suspicious of any IQ "study" which finds the average IQ of a nation to be in the functionally retarded range! And remember any source which uses SAT/ACT or other standardized test scores as evidence is completely full of shit and not to be taken seriously. Standardized testing is inherently racist, it was specifically designed to prove that whites are superior and blacks are inferior, so using an intentionally biased test to prove your point is circular reasoning. I mean, my cousin, who is a complete imbecile with zero common sense scored very high on a college placement exam, and two years before most people do it! Many highly intelligent people do not do so well on such tests, but my cousin, a fat idiot, scored high! This is probably because she (a) was given educational priviledges she earned not through intelligence or hard work but through wealth, (b) believes herself to be super-intelligent (though she is anything but), and (c) belongs to a very bourgoise rung of society, white families who make more than $100,000 per year.
  • As for your belief that apartheid is a fundamentally good idea? I suggest you read up on this clusterfuck of a political organization.
  • And regarding your creepy fascination with Carleton Coon, exemplified by your shock when someone misread something you wrote, and regarding him as "the greatest physical anthropologist"? LOL, ROFL! Carleton Coon was a pseudoscientist and a charlatan. He was a fraud! If you actually looked at TROE and TROM, you would see how poorly his descriptions matched his plates! He used deliberately skewed observations, probably was not very professional in his measurements, and all sorts of statistical tricks to come to preconcieved conclusions! Most of all you know, I know, pretty much everyone knows that he was wrong wrong WRONG WRONG! About almost everything! And then you cite him as a reliable source on the human biodiversity forum on the origin of non-brown eye color. (As if he could know. From what? Skeletal remains?!) His entire system was based on the cephalic index yet many years ago Franz Boas proved that cephalic index is largely environmental, and most later research provides even more evidence! (Ignore the loony revisionist study purporting to have undermined Boas' work!) For more on this nut (and the infamous Karleton Koon Klassification System):

http://unauthorised.org/anthropology/anthro-l/november-1995/0332.html

  • If you want to be taken seriously, it would do you best, to AVOID uber-Fascist forums such as Skadi and American Rennaissance! If not than do not expect to be taken seriously!
  • For more info on race, see: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000873.html Note: the blogger is NOT arguing against the biological reality of race! Also, Steve Sailer occasionally says something intelligent, but most of the time he is just an asshole. Incidentally, it seems that you and him would get along well most of the time and agree on much!
  • Understand that race differences does not mean superiority or inferiority. In this respect, the racialist right and "race-does-not-exist" left have much in common! Racists see differneces in humans and assume a hierarchy. Race deniers believe that if we notice differences then we will automatically conclude that some groups are better or worse. I say DIFFERENT DOES NOT MEAN BETTER OR WORSE! Different is just different. Overall diversity is a good thing! Without it, there would be NO EVOLUTION! Just replicating molecules... (I am assuming, Centrum that you are not some whackjob creationist.)
  • Finally, when the politically correct nuts debate, I am sure it is frustrating, but try to avoid personal attacks! It would help if you did not act like such a dick!

[edit] Does Centrum Even Think When He Types?

Or is his typing merely an autonomous response from his reptillian brain (brain stem/medulla-pons)? The anonymous poster above seems to hold the belief that somehow Centrum99 could change. It appears to me that Centrum/Yahooman needs to lay off whatever he is on! An example of a classic Centrum quote:

"Mr Templeton is right, when he says that Y-chromosome and mtDNA lineages don't match current racial distribution, but one must consider ways, how these racial characteristics were spread. For example, Europeans came into being as a mixture of two different stocks - Cro-Magnid men from Central Asia and Near Eastern women. Thus the "europoid" look of Europeans and Near Easterners has one common source - Near Eastern women. On the other hand, "europoid" features in India were mostly spread by male invasions. And I could even list one more example: Indians Na-Dene in North America have Y-lineages of the same origin like aboriginal Australians. Yet they certainly are not dark and don't look like Australoids. They still have Y-lineages of Australoids, but their repeated female admixtures "erased" the physical appearance of Australians thousands of years ago. Hence Y-lineages can be used as a trace of human invasions, but their ability to "distinguish" race is very limited."

Thus completely contradicting EVERYTHING you attempt to do when trying to trace racial lineages with haplogroups! I thought that Cro-Magnon man WAS a subpopulation of paleoeuropids, so would already have europoid features! (Although Arctic climate selected for slightly "pseudo-mongoloid" features in UP Europeans, who did not tend to look particularly European. This could be seen in today's Basques and Welsh who, being primarily of autocthonious Paleolithic origin often possess superficially Amerind or Asiatic features.) Wouldn't much of this similarity predate the end of the Ice Age? And also, I thought you said that despite having the same origins as Australasians, Na-Dene (and other paleomongolid-descended people including Mongolians, Turks, Buryats, Yakuts, Manchus, etc.) already lost their Australoid features, including very dark skin, tens of thousands of years ago (adapting to the Arctic climate of East Eurasia), not do to admixture between the Na-Dene and other groups. If Y-lineages have a "very limited ability to distinguish race" then so much for your work! Seeing you contradict yourself in such a profound way made me wonder. Do you ever post when you're high?

'Man, I see that you are somewhat obsessed by me. Why do the posts from "Anonymous I 192.234.16.2" and "Anonymous II 192.234.16.2" go from the same IP address? Are you the same person or does your younger anti-racist brother abuse your computer? You should realize that my posts on the "Gypsy page" are dated to August 2006, when I only started to learn mutual relationships of haplogroups in Africa and Europe and I didn't study the situation in Asia yet. Hence I relied on a misleading scientific article that only shows that today's scientific community is not capable to write anything intellingent on the relationship between race and haplogroups. I thought that it was too trivial to bother with correcting the post, but now I see that I should have done it immediately. At least I wouldn't be accused of being a reptile.' Centrum99 09:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Somewhat obsessed with you? I would not say so. After all, you did look up the IP address. I was (at first anyways) intrigued by your attempt to delineate human racial ancestry, but then I am also quite disgusted by your open racism. Yes, I promise, that I am the SAME person! Seeing though, as you like to make up your own reality and may not believe me, if you prefer to believe that my "evil twin" wrote this section, go ahead! I am curious though, why you prefer to address these more aggressive critiques to the more open ones presented by my "evil twin" above. (Damn I forgot which "twin" was the evil one!) Granted, my specific point on your haplogroups and race model is irrelevant, but my conclusion, that you are willing to jump to conclusions, often on flimsy evidence stands. (Btw, this was not in response to the WP gypsy page, but to posts I accidentally came accross on idebate.org). As for that whole comment, I thought I was clear but it would be unfair to blame you for misunderstanding what I meant by "centrum99's reptillian brain". I did not mean "reptillian centrum's" brain, I was referring to what some scientists call the reptillian brain. In terms of the triune brain theory, everyone has a "reptillian brain" or R-complex compsosed of the brainstem (medulla omblagata, midbrain, pons) and related structures and the cerebellum. Along with the mammalian brain (limbic system) and neo-mammalian or primate brain (cerebral region). The R-complex is involved with involuntary actions, reflexes, instinct, aggression, etc. Thus it seems that at least some of your posts were generated in your R-complex rather than with forethought.

"Due to more or less isolation, races thus differ, for example, in the proportions of their body (linear Nilotes and Australoids, stocky mongoloids), relative length of limbs (again, the longest in Nilotes and Australoids, the shortest in the Japanese), muscularity (massive Polynesians, slender Nilotes), proportion of fast-twitch fibres in muscles (their predominance in the leg muscle of West Africans is the cause of their dominance in sprints)..."

I understand that much of this has been observed and is well documented (except for the fact of Japanese having the shortest legs, which is far more environmental than genetic seeing as younger generations are growing taller with better nutrition, also I thought groups such as the Tibetans, Yukaghir, or Andean Indians for instance had shorter leg proportions than the Japanese...) but as for the other material...

Relative leg length decreases as a consequence of bad nutrition. Hence in some industrialized nations it has risen somewhat during the last century, but since it is also determined genetically, it gradually stops. Specially in Japan, the growth of relative leg length stopped in the generation born in late sixties. (A. Ali, T. Uetake, F. Ohtsuki: Secular changes in relative leg length in Post-War Japan. American Journal of Human Biology, vol. 12, 2000, p. 405-416)Centrum99 10:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Assuming this leg length measurement average is coming to a plataeu, I still find it doubtful that the Japanese are the single shortest-legged people. Nonetheless correction appreciated.

"...intelligence and the size of the brain (Asians on the top, Australoids, Pygmies and Sans on the bottom)..."

As for the alleged brain size differences, since pygmoid peoples are present in both African and Australasian populations, then it is not surprising that some populations might have somewhat smaller average brain sizes. NO FUCKING SHIT! People like the Mbuti pygmies or the Indo-Pacific negrito will have smaller brain size because they have smaller heads, trunks, and limbs. Smaller bodies! Therefore this brain size stat is out of context! Just how women have smaller brains than men and kids have smaller brains than adults. Does this mean women are less intelligent than men? Fuck no! These are just averages anyway, and brain sizes differ nearly as much within a population as they do between populations. The difference in average size is largely exagerated anyways (usually with intentionally bad measuring and selective bias). It does not correlate with race, but with latitude. (Higher temperatures require a more compact cranium to protect from heat damage, whereas lower temperatures require a bulkier one to retain heat.) Evidence for a corelation between brain size and intelligence in humans is unfound, and in fact, all evidence points against such a corelation! After all many animals have enormous brains. Nor does brain-to-body mass ratio have much to do with it either. Tree shrews have a much greater ratio of brain mass to their body mass than humans. Do shrews strike you as being particularly intelligent? What about the degree of convolution (surface area-to-volume ratio)? Dolphins have much more convoluted cortexes than humans do? Ever met a dolphin Einstein, Shakespeare, or Bach? Perhaps you did on whatever drugs you trip on when writing such nonsense! Not to mention, if comparisons with nonhuman animals is invalid, what about the Neanderthals, a human species with similar body size to our species, but significantly larger brains. If they are SO smart, why are they not around? As for the matter of intelligence, what strong evidence do you have? IQ tests? Maybe some day when somebody develops a culturally universal intelligence measuring system we could make such judgements. Until then, we are SOL! Not to mention that intelligence tests are invariably biased in favor of the literate (naturally) and given that most of the white and yellow nations have ample education, whereas many of the non-white ones have higher poverty levels and thus do not have access to education, they will have higher illiteracy rates. Not to mention nutrition! This might have an impact on brain development, and would technically be biological, but this difference is environmental, not genetic, thus not racial.

I am not specially interested in the correlation between IQ and the size of the brain. (Although the low brain volume in tropical groups is well established and you can find it even in politically correct books.) If brain volume correlates with lattitude, so does IQ. What was first? A han or an egg? What is the most important is the documented values of IQ in different human groups. And here you fight a lost battle. Even undernourished Chinese score far higher than black Africans. The effort to create an "unbiased" IQ test, in which all human groups would achieve the same IQ, desperately fails. I wonder that some people still can oppose the burden of evidence. Centrum99 10:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No maybe you are not interested in correlation between brain size and intelligence (which appears to be nonexistent in the long run), but then why even cite such correlation? You know it does not mean shit! Of course saying "low brain volume in tropical groups is well established" is misleading, because the average brain size difference (especially when corrected for body size) is still small. The only reluctance to document such measurements is the failure to educate idiots who believe that brain size really matters that much. Even so, you imply that intelligence correlates with race (i.e. linneage, ancestry) as if humanity could be divided into subspecies of greater or lesser intelligence. Now you come around and say IQ is a function of latitude? I will say it again, intelligence difference is neither caused by or a cause of brain size differences. Geographical mean brain size differences are a result of thermoregulation. Regardless, you have provided no reason, not even a hypothetical one, to believe that climate would select for different intelligence levels! Ergo, this leads me to conclude that you are completely full of shit!

"...behaviour (higher concentration of blood testosterone in West Africans is the source of their aggressive and criminal behaviour)... Well, I could continue for one hour... And these certainly aren't "slight" differences. For example, black Americans are 9-times more likely to commit a violent crime than whites. Is this a "slight difference"?"

Where do you get this shit? Higher blood testosterone? Nine times higher rate of violent crime? Are you going to be a good scientist and cite sources and references or are you just going to continue blowing smoke out of your ass? Even so, what leads you to think that such a difference is genetic or at least biological? Ever consider social factors? Or would you prefer social darwinist explanations?

Your ignorance really surprises me.
Concentration of free testosterone in young black and white males
Ross et al. 1986: white males (n=50) 556,9 ng/L, black males (n=50) 660,5 ng/L
Ellis, Nyborg 1992: white military veterans (n=3654) 637 ng/L, black military veterans (n=525) 657 ng/L
Ettinger et al. 1997: white males (n=114) 549 ng/L, black males (n=109) 595 ng/L
Winters et al. 2001: white males (n=23) 538 ng/L, black males (n=23) 673 ng/L.
The similarity of the concentrations in military veterans is remarkable; it actually shows that the average concentration of testosterone in American blacks roughly equals the concentration of testosterone in a soldier. The hormonal system of blacks is thus predisposed for aggressive behaviour and high sexual drive. The offical stats of the American government on crime are here:
http://amren.com/colorofcrime/color.pdf
Of course, it was written by "racist" Jared Taylor, but as you probably know, numbers are not racist, but neutral. The pattern of crime rate (with black Africans unrivalled on the top and East Asians on the bottom) naturally occurs worldwide. Look also on the Wikipedia page about race and crime. It is no secret that the presence of blacks means a rapid explosion of violent crime. But some people think that it is not true and that their membership in a high school diversity council saves them from assault: http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/02/victims_speak_i.php Centrum99 10:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
In answer to your precious studies, I think first one should consider the possibility of selective bias. For instance, the range of average testosterone levels in white civilians given by the three studies was 18.9 and in black civilians the range was 78, or over four times the range! The maximum measured level in black civilians, 673, is yielded by the Winters study, which also includes the minimum level in white civilians, 538, providing a whopping range of 135! Compared with the range of the Ross study (103.6), which yielded the maximum level in white civilians, and that of the Ettinger study (50), which yielded the minimum level in black civilians. Also, consider that in all but the Ettinger study, the testosterone level in black civilians exceeds that in both white AND black veterans, whereas in Ettinger's studies the testosterone levels of black civilians is lower than that of soldiers of either group. As such, at least one, probably two of the studies should be thrown out for poor research methods (presumably biased sample selection). Not to mention, that the range between testosterone levels in white and black soldiers is 20, But the mean white civilian testosterone level (from all three studies is 548, and deviates from the military veterans by 89 ng/L. Thus there are non-hereditary factors affecting testosterone levels! As for your crime statistics, the fact that you cite American Rennaissance, a neo-Fascist organization astounds me. You could probably find more balanced accounts in Mein Kampf than in AmRen! Granted, statistics do show higher prevalence of crime among American blacks, it is not the data which is racist, it is biased interpretations of the data! Factors influencing this difference include poverty, lack of education, and cultural conditions, all of which are ignored by such social darwinist studies. The premises may be perfectly sound, but the conclusion is fucked! Not to mention that the crime rate might not be as different. Consider the affects of racial profiling, and the fact that African Americans tend to get caught more often whereas whites tend to get away more often. There is an institutional bias in the American government, which provides a very small yet significant factor in more reported crimes being committed by blacks.

And this chestnut: "Gypsies, who "advance among non-Roma", usually want to forget their Gypsy origin as fast as possible, and they don't want to be associated with their kinsmen anymore, because they are deeply ashamed of them."

Here you admit, that the difference in attitudes and behavior may not be genetic after all, but socio-cultural. Roma who integrate with mainstream society might not wish to identify with most Roman (and indeed renounce their former culture), but I doubt their genetics magically change! But then from what you said later in that it post it seems to imply that such Roma often have more European admixture, as if European genes are magical and superior... Is that why the admixture with bearers of Y-haplogroup E3b1 did not alter the European character? (Actually, interestingly enough, the population shift which brought an African haplogroup to Europids in the Near East happened shortly before the Neolithic Revolution. So according to the infamous one-drop-rule (which you, a proponent of apartheid, would support) the originators of Western civilization were black (even though they would appear to be light-medium brown Caucasians).)

Here I really don't see your point. Gypsies capable of living in the European society integrate among the European society. Those, who are not capable of it, live in slums.
The point is, that some Gypsies ARE capable of living in European society, even YOU agree! My point is that if you accept that perhaps this capability is not a racial matter but simply, a socio-economic and cultural matter. Similarly, I do not care what Jared Fucking Taylor has to say concerning black crime versus white crime! Granted some left-wingers might avoid it, you right-wing lunatics assume a hereditarian explanation for it. Given proper resources, education, alleviation of poverty, human rights and dignity, etc. I think crime could be lowered among "minority" groups. You do not agree, because you are nothing more than a reactionary. I do not know what goes on behind the Iron Curtain, but here in America, we care about our people, regardless of race. Of course, there is a cultural component as well, but as ethnic groups become more integrated into society, they would shed maladaptive cultural traits.
Skeletal material from the neolithic era in Europe shows the presence of "Negroid" traits among the first European agriculturalists, but these traits later completely disappear.
C. L. Brace et al.: The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, PNAS, vol. 103/1, 2006
I find this particular statement puzzling and doubt its credibility. First of all, what do you mean by "negroid" skeletal traits? You even said so yourself, that there is no such thing as a "negroid race." Even so, consider the following quote from the Wikipedia article on races of craniofacial anthropology: "For example, racial categorization by craniofacial type will categorize some East and South Indians to have "Negroid" skulls and others to have "Caucasoid" skulls, for example, while Ethiopians, Somalis, and some Zulus have "Caucasoid" skulls, and the Khoisan of southwestern Africa have "Mongoloid" skulls." Granted, the focus was on the crude Caucasoid-Negroid-Mongoloid scheme. And I suppose the "Mongoloid" Khoisan skulls are of the Boskopid or Capoid type. Still, you claim that the "Negroid" type corresponds with the West African race, whereas Neafrids (or Neonegrids as you call them) have Europoid features. Even your racist friend Carleton Coon considered Ethiopians and other peoples from the African Horn as "caucasoid" though possibly to steal the Egyptian, Cushite, and Axumite culture for the whites. Although craniofacially, such groups might be metrically caucasoid, genetic research proves they are not, and that "caucasoid" features are not of caucasoid or europid origin, but predates the Europid race. Not to mention that whatever "negroid" features this Cushitic race possessed would have been lost within a couple generations of admixture with the Europids in the Middle East (Arabian penninsula, Sinai penninsula, Jordan, the Levant). The Cushitic speakers of this Afroasiatic language then imposed their language on the people with whom they assimilated, forming a stabilized mixture from whence came the Semites. The Europids living on the fringes of the Middle East (Anatolia, northern Syria, the southern Caucasus, who spread into Southern Europe) absorbed genes from this population. Thus Cushitid (Neafrid/Neonegrid) admixture in Southern Europe and Asia Minor is indirect, as if between Europeans and Arabs or North Africans, not between whites and Somalis. Even so, the mixture between the native Semites and Cushites was already fairly homogenous, and African gene flow probably arrived in northern Syria and Asia Minor indirectly through this mixed group. As such in Southern Europeans (and in somewhat lower levels throughout all of Europe), this admixture is minor and homogenously distributed though nonetheless present. Still, given how small and homogenous this admixture is, and how even relatively pure Neafrids (Somalis) appear more Caucasoid than Negroid (though they are undoubtedly black Africans), I find it surprising that there would be any detectable negroid traits in Neolithic Europe. After all, African-Americans still possess West African craniofacial features, but they are considerably less pronounced due to white and Amerindian admixture. One would expect to find zero evidence of such admixture in the skeletal remains, but supporting evidence in the genes (Y chromosome haplogroup E3b1, sickle cell). Curiously, you used C. Loring Brace as a source. Read the following article: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/brace.html
For more on the Cushitic racial type visit:
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_archive.html
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_culture&Number=294966687&page=&view=&sb=&o=&part=1&vc=1&t=0
See specifically, what was said about mixing between Somalis and Europeans. Anyways, as far as I know the only prehistoric European remains with Africoid features that I am aware of are the so-called Grimaldi negroids, although I now think they may share a connection with the Australian aborigines but that is a different story.
It is still debated, if there exists "an IQ continuum" in the Balkans created by these agriculturalists. We know that the Turks have a "national IQ" roughly around 90 points and results from the Balkans tend to be somewhat lower than in the rest of Europe, rather around 95 points. Centrum99 10:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I imagined, that since neafrid admixture was probably very dilute in the Neolithic colonists of Europe (having probably gone through the people of Arabia and the southern regions of the Levant before arriving in northerly regions of the Levant and Asia Minor), admittedly, autosomally, Europeans probably have little African ancestry. Nevertheless male paternal lineages which could be traced to the Horn of Africa probably penetrated into Europe through the Semites, following a clinal pattern, but Y-chromosomal markers might over-estimate sub-Saharan admixture. Regardless, you missed my point entirely, and that is that racial admixture did NOT have an affect on the European character. And that there is no guarantee of racial purity anywhere! I exaggerated the African ancestral element in Neolithic and post-Neolithic Europeans mostly with sarcastic intent. I find it surprising that you actually seriously consider this small African admixture having had an effect on the intelligence of Europeans. But if your bigotry towards black Africans was that strong... The point is that, all of the Neolithic colonization of Europe originates in the same region, and so any African admixture should be found THROUGHOUT Europe. Naturally, in some places this neolithic ancestry was slightly diluted by incorporation of Upper Paleolithic remnants. See this link for more info: http://racialreality.sitesled.com/genetic_variation.html and http://racialreality.sitesled.com/neolithic.html
"Geneticist L. L. Cavalli-Sforza has used autosomal DNA to determine and map the five principal components that account for genetic variation in Europe. As it turns out, African ancestry is not one of them, meaning that it's as negligible in the South as it is in the North. Asian (Uralic) ancestry, however, is one of them, and it follows a clear Northeast to Southwest gradient, with its highest levels existing in Northern Scandinavia."
As for the alleged IQ difference, see the following link: http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/articles/greekiq/ Note that more urbanized nations tend to have slightly higher mean IQ's. Note also, that the alleged "Mongoloid supremacy" which your favorite researchers found did not affect the Turks...

"Thank you, comrades, but people here in Czech republic have enough 40 years of Communism and they are not interested in any NeoMarxist trumpery coming from the western borders."

Funny how you think everything to the left of Nazism is "Marxist". I suppose you think the real culprits are the Jews?

You yourself celebrate the Neo-Marxist religion. And it doesn't matter if you are aware of it or not. Centrum99 11:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct! I am an adherent of Neo-Marxism! I await the arrival of Neo-Lenin to lead us Neo-Masses of Neo-Proletarians to create a world Neo-Communist state. So neo-comrades, take up your Neo-AK-47's. But you know of our sinister Neo-plans so you shall be taken to the Neo-wall to be Neo-shot!

"If Gypsy children posess IQ 80, then they are, where they belong. ...Thank you, but I really don't see any reason why to devastate our school system to help mentally incapable people in getting some "grade"."

Classic social darwinist (non)thinking!

We see how the school system was devastated in countries blessed by "enriching diversity"!
Apparently our education has been "devastated" because we believe in such crazy ideas as equal rights, fair treatment, and the like. We no longer uphold such "enlightened" ideals as slavery, segregation, or apartheid. We also believe in stupid things like science, and logic, and reason, so we do not engage in the "higher arts" as insults, ad hominems, zany conspiracy theories, non-sequitors, circular reasoning, tautologies, strawmen, red herrings, generally incoherent rants, and other glorious fallacies. That is why America has achieved nothing of importance scientifically. Why we never landed a man on the Moon and why we never invented the very Internet with which you communicate.

"I didn't speak about inferior races; that's only the popular vocabulary of your propaganda that you so passionately put in your opponent's mouth."

Funny you said, "that people are not equal in their capabilities, which is valid both in the case of individuals and races." If this is not talk of inferior races, I do not know what is! Perhaps YOU are the one with IQ of 80. Now continue with you paranoid conspiracy theories.

You can charge evolution with racism, if you want. But some Neo-Marxist advocate must plead you at the bar. Centrum99 11:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Evolution is not racist! Do you mistake me for a creationist? It is your interpretation of facts which is fundamentally racist. Forget Stephen J. Gould! Ever read Richard Dawkins? Perhaps the greatest evolutionary biologist alive today. I doubt HE endorses a racialist view! (Or is he part of the Neo-Marxit/Jewish conspiracy?) You are missing the point, fucktard, and that is that you denied speaking of inferior or superior races on that idebate.org messageboard when that is precisely what you spoke of when you cited "different racial groups not being equal in capabilities." Just because English is not your first language does excuse you from contradicting yourself.

"...human populations evolved in different enviroments and due to natural selection, they have acquired different physical and mental qualities that enabled them to survive in these enviroments."

I do not understand how different environments would require differences in intelligence or behavior.

Don't worry. You do not understand much more things. Centrum99 11:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I guess not! Sorry, neither I nor most of my leftist co-conspirators on Wikipedia possess your lofty intelligence and wisdom! Hahaha! Seriously, why don't you EXPLAIN in basic terms WHY tropical climates magically delay evolutionary development of the mind, while arctic climates magically accelerate it. Is it because us dumb critics would not understand? Or is it because, I don't know, it's BULLSHIT!

If anything, the population explosion since the Agricultural Revoluition from which "whites" had the longest "benefit" would losen the demand for intelligence or nonviolent conflict resolution. (I suggest you read Guns, Germs, and Steel)

"Yes, communism was a similar halucination, but after its inevitable end, we still have preserved our civilization."

So that's why you prefer fascism? Ironically, as a Czech (Czechoslovakia is thought to possess higher Slavic ancesty), your fellow Nazis would not be too fond of you...

"The truth is that if we don't stop their breeding, some Europeans states like Romania, Slovakia or Bulgaria may get on the brink of civil war."

More paranoid delusions? What are you on now? It must be some heavy shit, not just cannabis.

O.K., I am smoking cannabis night and day. But when I am clean, I can find enough time to watch TV and read newspapers
http://www.alter.most.org.pl/fa/php/showart.php?artid=91
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3518347.stm
Well at least you admit it. Good for you! The first step to recovery from addiction is to admit said addiction

"And by the way, calling someone "Nazi" or "fascist" is today so profaned that it usually shows the lack of any counterargument."

I anticipate such criticism! Yet you fail to demonstrate otherwise! (I.e. that you are not a racist/fascist/Nazi/asshole)

"What you present is the traditional "calling somebody names", a strategy that the so-called activists and multiculturalists prefer, when they have no real arguments on their side and are pushed to the corner."

You do the same. You have no real sources (except Hitler, Rushton, Jensen, etc.)

If I call somebody names, it is only in the case of such dumb and brainwashed people that any honest debate with them is futile. You yourself gradually fall into the same cathegory. Centrum99 11:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess maybe sometimes I do fall into that CATEGORY (not cathegory). At least I still know how to spell! But seriously, ALL I ever see you do is call someone names! I am waiting to see you engage in honest debate!

"Previously we thought that it was Aryans, who established a caste apartheid in India and segregated from the dalits. But it's not true. The caste system was already established by Dravidian agriculturalists, who penetrated into the Indus Valley from Baluchistan during the 4th millenium BC."

Evidence? The caste system was first mentioned in the Veddas (which ironically have nothing to do with Veddoids). The Veddas were written by the Aryans, not the Harappans (Dravidians).

S. Sengupta et al.: Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists. The American Journal of Human Genetics Volume 78 February 2006. The admixture of male H-lineages in Dravidian upper castes in even lower than in the Aryan ones. Centrum99 11:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps I was wrong. After all, elements of the Hindu culture predate the Aryan settlement...

"The key for understanding this problem lies in the understanding of the term "mental age". Since results achieved in IQ tests increase with increasing age, they are calibrated for each age specially. For example, if a 11-years' old child achieves the same result like an adult, they won't get the same points. If the 11-years' old child gets 100 points, the adult with the same result will get 70 points. Do you understand? An adult Gypsy with IQ 70 mentally functions like an average 11-years' old child. He functions well, he is not mentally retarded, he is not sick, but we must view his low IQ from the perspective of a 11-years' old child."

Too bad, even most specialists who still accept the IQ concept do not agree with the rediculous notion of "mental age." Logic says that were this true, since intellectual development tends to plataeu between 19 and 30, after a certain age, one's IQ would go down. As such IQ is not an absolute measure, but a relative one. (Although age difference remains a factor in non-adult IQ's.)

"In fact, modern genetics confirmed very old roots of traditional anthropological division that goes as far as 100 000 years back."

Yes indeed. Still a long shot from the half million or so years of isolated development which your god, Carleton Coon hypothesized.

Too short time for you? There is no difference between a Pygmy and an Eskimo? Centrum99 11:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I was mostly fucking with you! The point remains that tens of thousands of years (as opposed to hundreds) are enough time for "races" to form, but your favorite anthropologist is a staunch supporter of the multiregional hypothesis, which is wrong! All humans have a recent common origin in Africa, that goes back at least 100,000 years ago (perhaps 130,000? perhaps more?) to the origin of modern homo sapiens (H. sapiens sapiens), the species itself being little over 200,000 years old. The fact is, the only known subspecies of H. sapiens is Homo sapiens idaltu, now extinct. The bottleneck event from which all humans today descend (so-called "Mitochondrial Eve") may be 100,000-130,000 years ago. Fact is that there are no true subspecies in living humans, that "races" whatever they be, could not be considered taxonomic categories (otherwise they would be sub-sub-species), that fundamentally we are all human and in a sense all the same. When H. sapiens emerged 200,000 years ago, they were fully human (let alone the living subspecies which emerged later to which all modern humans belong) so no races or linneages are more or less evolved than others. All have equal capacity for intelligence and spirituality. But this is NOT to say that there is not a TREMENDOUS difference between a Pygmy and an Eskimo. This difference however, is purely physical. If asked which was better adapted to the arctic and which to the tropics, the answer would be obvious. If asked who is more at risk for frostbite and who is more at risk for sunburn, the answer would again be obvious. But if asked if one were more human than the other I would say, "HELL NO!"

"...in which East Asians routinely outscore Europeans, but in which Thirdworlders routinely fail. Damn, it is a strange coincidence that East Asians living in Europe or America have higher per capita income than native whites, and the Third World people, who fail in these tests arte on the bottom of the social ladder, isn't it? But it is certainly some global conspiracy of ugly, racist whites, who opress all other minorities except East Asians, don't they?"

Then by your own logic, you should kill yourself Centrum, considering that you are an "inferior white man", not an "advanced Asian".

I think that at first, people like you should kill theirselves or each other mutually. Then they wouldn't poison Western societies with social chimeras that will bring another suffering to millions of people. Centrum99 11:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Well aint that fucking considerate of you? I do not recall seriously suggesting suicide, merely pointing out the inherent stupidity of your attempt at reasoning. If we pretend that your racial science is correct, and you and a whole bunch of Czechs and Slovakis move to China or Japan and fail to perform as well as the native population in schools due to "lower innate intelligence" or have a higher crime rate due to "innate savagery and/or barbarism" does that then give their government (or a mob of their citizens) the right to force you and your people into ghettos, forcibly deport them, enslave them, even exterminate them? If you answered yes to any of these questions, then apply to be classified as legally retarded, and you recieve my pity. If you answered no to all of the above, then you are truly a hypocrite and a complete douche! So apparently people who respect human rights and dignity should die to prevent the suffering of millions? WOW, you are a fucking genius! Because people who resist bigorty, prejudice, discrimation, totalitarianism, and injustice cause ALL the suffering, not you and your ilk. P.S. Ever heard of a little thing called the Holocaust? Or was it all a hoax created by the Jews who run the world?

"Sometimes I enjoy discussion with narrow-minded multi-culti humanrightists, because they are only medieval religious fanatics dressed in jeans and I can make fun of their naivety and ignorance."

I think we know who the real medieval fanatic is, don't we? P.S. I was not aware how narrow-minded it is to support human rights.

You should be aware that I also enjoy discussing with you.
Very well, you give me a link to published scientific racism or some Stormfront thread while I prepare a stake and pitch-coated kindling! Let's play "Who Wants to Burn at the Stake?"

"Hardly anybody in the Western world was discriminated more than the Jews, yet they succeeded better than those who "discriminated" them. In fact, their remarkable success and striking overrepresentation in many areas of the civil life was the reason, why they were so universally hated."

So I guess your some kind of progressive Nazi who no longer believes Jews to be inferior...

"Dear Janette, you mistake causes for consequences. The low IQ of Gypsies is responsible for their bad living conditions and these bad living conditions can further lower their IQ values. We already know that the genetic IQ of Sub-Saharan Africans is probably considerably higher than 70 points (ca. 80 points), but how to improve their living conditions, when they alone are not able to do it just because of their too low IQ values? It's a vicious circle."

It is you who confuse causation and corelation and resort to circular reasoning! Such social darwinist racial science is an excuse by right-wing lunatics to impose discrimination and avoid responsibly helping society.

Before posting another emotional vomitus, make general order in your brain. Centrum99 11:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
As long as you remain a human volcano of liquid hate who spews malice and lies I will return the favor with more rants, I can try to make general order in my brain, but then I wonder if you are capable of doing the same!

[edit] Warning: do not edit the comments of others in Talk Pages

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Race, you will be blocked.

That was my own comment! Centrum99 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/e/n/User_talk%7ECentrum99_1f8c.html"