User talk:69.157.122.195

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[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] 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)