African Presence in Pre-Columbian Times

[Unkotare]

I thought I very clearly outlined in my OP what i was talking about until you decided to champion Columbus as some hero .

Show me where I called him a "hero," you lying sack of shit.

When you man up and answer questions directly i will address you. Until then you are dismissed.

You're a lying sack of shit and everyone here knows it.

 

[Asclepias]

Pretty interesting link I found. This pretty much proves there were Black Africans in the Americas way before Columbus. There is also a population on the Pacific coast of Mexico called the NegroCostaChicanos. Many of them claim to never have been slaves.

Skulls in South America Tell New Migration Tale | LiveScience

 

[ThirdTerm]

Another study (Friedlaender et al. 2007) found the spotty distribution of E1b in New Britain (the Papuan-speaking Ata and Sulka) and across a number of Oceanic speaking groups in the region and some of those Melanesians are partially of African descent. But it's unlikely that they had reached Americas via the Bering Strait prior to North Asian migrations as the Live Science article suggests and they may have migrated to Latin America by taking sea routes and there is no evidence of Melanesian colonisation in North America.

The haplogroup variation in the core region of Northern Island Melanesia (table S2 shows the actual haplogroup incidences). While there is an island-by-island distinction, New Britain is considerably more internally diverse than Bougainville, with both New Ireland and Malaita considerably less so.

Spatial frequency distribution of haplogroup E1b in Island Southeast Asia and the western Pacific (7a), and details for Northern Island Melanesia (7b).

PLOS ONE: Melanesian mtDNA Complexity

 

[Asclepias]

Another study (Friedlaender et al. 2007) found the spotty distribution of E1b in New Britain (the Papuan-speaking Ata and Sulka) and across a number of Oceanic speaking groups in the region and some of those Melanesians are partially of African descent. But it's unlikely that they had reached Americas via the Bering Strait prior to North Asian migrations as the Live Science article suggests and they may have migrated to Latin America by taking sea routes and there is no evidence of Melanesian colonisation in North America.

The haplogroup variation in the core region of Northern Island Melanesia (table S2 shows the actual haplogroup incidences). While there is an island-by-island distinction, New Britain is considerably more internally diverse than Bougainville, with both New Ireland and Malaita considerably less so.

Spatial frequency distribution of haplogroup E1b in Island Southeast Asia and the western Pacific (7a), and details for Northern Island Melanesia (7b).

PLOS ONE: Melanesian mtDNA Complexity

I don't think they came via the Bering Strait. During the ice age that access was blocked. Africans were there before that opened up. The easiest way from point A to point B in this case is Africa to South America by boat across the Ethiopic/Atlantic ocean. This has happened by accident before. i'm sure if someone purposely attempted to do it they would make it. Such a crossing would also make sense as to why Columbus himself wrote that the natives told him that they traded with Black Africans from the South East across the ocean.

 

[Unkotare]

I don't think they came via the Bering Strait. During the ice age that access was blocked. .

Huh?

 

[abu afak]

My grand parents on both sides told me stories of Native American ancestors and also Africans that were here before Europeans found their way over. I am not descended from any of the original Blacks that I know of but I was wondering if anyone else was aware of this?

There is a tribe in Louisiana that won a US court case and was given some of their land back and they are Africans. Officially they are not recognized by the US despite this court case but are recognized by the UN.
RaceandHistory.com - BLACK CIVILIZATIONS OF ANCIENT AMERICA

You're a stupid guy - a racist. And like all racists, you're a complete and utter moron.
There were Negroid people in America before the Asiatics arrived, this is well know, anthropological fact.
BBC News | Sci/Tech | 'First Americans were Australian'

BUT the idiocy you promote that some African group circumnavigated the globe before the Europeans is an absurdity.

The black race in the Americas was indigenous, and related to Australian aborigines rather than to Africans. The Asiatic invaders (American Indians) engaged in a near total genocide of these first people.

Why are the Aborigines called Australian? Because white people made up racial categories. Thats why. I preface this by saying we already know this is Wrong so how are you going to base anything on something thats Wrong?

This guy isnt Black?

or this blond child?

Asclepias, You post on Race alot, and from an afro-centric racialist reference point of view.
Your posts are comical though.
Willy Nilly Claiming great cultures, peoples, etc.
Fabricated BS throughout.

Now you unwittingly go Off the deep end.
Though one can use 'Black' and 'African' somewhat interchangeably in the Sub-Saharan African/Black-American context...
'Black' is NOT a Singular group for the purpose of understanding Race in general.
'Black', or rather darker skin color, Can evolve separately (or stay because of) response to environment.. and did.

There is greater Genetic distance between sub-Saharan Africans and Australian Aboriginals than there is between either and Europeans.
In fact, I believe Suhsaharan Blacks and Australian aboriginals are The two genetically Furthest apart 'races.'
https://www.google.com/search?q=gen...+sub+saharans+aborigines+greatest&safe=active

'White' people didn't just "make that up", 'white' people Discovered and researched it.. like so much else Real knowledge on which the world lives today.
And with which we Help Sub-Saharan Africans through their perennial epidemics of disease, hunger, poverty, and ignorance. (on at least two continents)

So the upshot of all your anti-racist posting is YOU made a very telling Racist-like mistake of equating mere color as such in the name of claiming America for Black Africans. (and Central America too from a wide-nosed sculpture!)
The Irony and Hypocrisy of such posting is NOT to be underestimated.
`
`

 

[Asclepias]

You're a stupid guy - a racist. And like all racists, you're a complete and utter moron.
There were Negroid people in America before the Asiatics arrived, this is well know, anthropological fact.
BBC News | Sci/Tech | 'First Americans were Australian'

BUT the idiocy you promote that some African group circumnavigated the globe before the Europeans is an absurdity.

The black race in the Americas was indigenous, and related to Australian aborigines rather than to Africans. The Asiatic invaders (American Indians) engaged in a near total genocide of these first people.

Why are the Aborigines called Australian? Because white people made up racial categories. Thats why. I preface this by saying we already know this is wrong so how are you going to base anything on something thats wrong?

This guy isnt Black?

or this blond child?

You post on Race alot, and from an afro-centric racialist reference point of view.
Your posts are comical though.
Willy Nilly, Claiming great cultures, peoples, etc.
Fabricated BS throughout.

Now you really go unwittingly off the deep end.
Though one can use 'Black' and African' pretty interchangeably in the Sub-Saharan African/Black-American context...
'Black' is not a Race for the purpose of understanding Race in general.
Black, or rather darker skin color, Can evolve separately in response to environment.. and did.

There is greater Genetic distance between sub-Saharan Africans and Australian Aboriginals than there is between either and Europeans.
In fact, I believe Suhsaharan Blacks and Australian aboriginals are The two genetically Furthest apart 'races.'
https://www.google.com/search?q=gen...+sub+saharans+aborigines+greatest&safe=active

'White' people didn't just make that up, white people Discovered and researched it.. like so much else Real knowledge (and 98% of Science-based Nobel Prizes if you include Jews) on which the world lives today.
And with which we Help Sub Saharan Africans through there perennial epidemics of disease, hunger, poverty, and ignorance.

So the upshot of all your anti-racist posting is YOU made a very telling Racist-like mistake of equating mere color as such in the name of claiming America for Black Africans. (and South America too from a wide-nosed sculpture)
The Irony, Hypocrisy, and Ignorance of such posting is NOT to be underestimated.
`
`

Reading your post was very humorous. I appreciate your post so very much because it speaks resoundingly to the lengths that a person that is a racist will go to in an attempt to try and dictate the rules of reality.

Your premise depends on someone accepting that racist European historians and anthropologist actually had a clue. Its been proven that they don't. Its also been proven (for now) that all life originated in Africa. You can divide Black Africans anyway you want to but they still come out as Black Africans originating from the continent of Africa.

Lets go with your premise that genetically the Aborigines and the sub-saharan Africans are the farthest apart. What exactly do you think that proves? That tells me 2 things. You think that only one group of Africans can be called African/Black in origin and that the Aborigines made up the first wave of Black African people to leave Africa. Whats a head scratcher is if they left Africa and they retained their melanin content how did they turn into white people with a very dark tan and how are they suddenly not Black Africans? Can you explain that great mystery?

Now to address your statement about what whites made up and discovered. From what I remember DNA testing did not exist back when the "racial" groups were formed. What did these white people have to separate the supposed "races" but their prejudices? its glaringly obvious what their agenda was so I wouldn't be too hasty in proudly proclaiming that they fucked up massively and got caught in their racism. For christ sake they were claiming the Egyptians were white. Yet you are proud of this?

This was so priceless I had to quote it! You unwittingly revealed your inner big daddy with this one.

Though one can use 'Black' and African' pretty interchangeably in the Sub-Saharan African/Black-American context...
'Black' is not a Race for the purpose of understanding Race in general.

Who died and left you in charge? You don't dictate what people use for the purpose of understanding race. i dictate what I use. Whenever I as a black man allow a white person to dictate what is "acceptable" and what is not somehow I come out on the losing end. Funny how that happens isnt it?

In short your attempt to debunk is just that....another failed attempt.

Here are some more white people with intense tans.

the Agta tribe in the Philippines.

Solomon islands

Genetically distant Melanesian guy. I could easily pick this gut out at a MLK day parade!

 

[abu afak]

Reading your post was very humorous. I appreciate your post so very much because it speaks resoundingly to the lengths that a person that is a racist will go to in an attempt to try and dictate the rules of reality.

What do you mean by calling me "racist"?
(I may choose to own it (!) or reject it depending on your usage, but lets have it)
What I see in this string and others is YOU taking afro-centrism to new and absurd highs in .. umm.. "RACIAL pride".
I'm not "dictating anything, Though I, at least, Back my opinions with logic or links.

Your premise depends on someone accepting that racist European historians and anthropologist actually had a clue. Its been proven that they don't. Its also been proven (for now) that all life originated in Africa. You can divide Black Africans anyway you want to but they still come out as Black Africans originating from the continent of Africa.

Huh?
Because life originated in Africa doesn't mean there aren't races. (!)
Because life started with one cell animals doesn't mean we are one cell animals either.
comprende?
Apparently not.
Early Euros were indeed "racist" in a superiority sense, but then again, look at what you're attempting in your own posts.

Lets go with your premise that genetically the Aborigines and the sub-saharan Africans are the farthest apart. What exactly do you think that proves? That tells me 2 things. You think that only one group of Africans can be called African/Black in origin...

That's again a Nonsensical/moot claim.
No one is arguing our journey from primates to humans to races thereof didn't start in Africa.
This 'argument' is So transparently bad one wonders if it's ignorance or disingenuity.

and that the Aborigines made up the first wave of Black African people to leave Africa.Whats a head scratcher is if they left Africa and they retained their melanin content how did they turn into white people with a very dark tan and how are they suddenly not Black Africans? Can you explain that great mystery?

It's very Possible they migrated North first and through the Middle East and Asia. Some continued south and East over the generations, while others staid and got lighter in tone, especially those who moved further North and got lighter yet. Equatorial peoples tend to be dark; adaptation to the strong sun.

Now to address your statement about what whites made up and discovered. From what I remember DNA testing did not exist back when the "racial" groups were formed. What did these white people have to separate the supposed "races" but their prejudices? its glaringly obvious what their agenda was so I wouldn't be too hasty in proudly proclaiming that they fucked up massively and got caught in their racism. For christ sake they were claiming the Egyptians were white. Yet you are proud of this?

Early on, 'White' people, indeed Euro-centric, made almost the same race-simplism mistakes you do. (tho not so bad). They did have agendas. Yours are blatant and far worse ....at THIS stage in history, where science can and has identified races.

This was so priceless I had to quote it! You unwittingly revealed your inner big daddy with this one.

Though one can use 'Black' and African' pretty interchangeably in the Sub-Saharan African/Black-American context...
'Black' is not a Race for the purpose of understanding Race in general.

Who died and left you in charge? You don't dictate what people use for the purpose of understanding race. i dictate what I use. Whenever I as a black man allow a white person to dictate what is "acceptable" and what is not somehow I come out on the losing end. Funny how that happens isnt it?

I'm not "dictating", I'm explaining the Genetic basis for race while you say/img "Oh look, he's dark, he's on my team".
Then, when caught in your Goofy inaccuracy, you Revert to the childish/meaningLess pointing out that humanity started in Africa.
I explained the fallaciousness of that red herring above. (with "one cell" example)

I might also add, these early and admittedly Eurocentrics, basically had it right because Race/Subspecie delineation IS Dictated merely by morphological differences among the same Specie of animals in different geography.
Even before Darwins Finches, where Mere small beak size differences gave these animals different subspecie/race, there was delineation.

Indeed, there are greater Morphological differences among human Races than there are among Gorilla and Chimp species/subspecies. But in the case of the latter there isn't the PC politics of humanity, just unemotional taxonomy.
But there are certainly races.

I must say I've never seen such Blatant, even simplistic racism ("Oh he looks dark, he's my team") in someone claiming to be anti-racist while accusing others.
`

 

[Asclepias]

What do you mean by calling me a "racist"?
(I may choose to own it or reject it depending on your usage, but lets have it)
What I see in this string and others is YOU taking afro-centrism to new and absurd highs in .. umm.. "RACIAL pride".
I'm not "dictating anything, Though I, at least, Back my opinions with logic or links.
"everyone is entitled to his own opinion but Not his own facts"

Fair enough. If you are not a racist, your comments certainly appeared headed in that direction. I can admit it was a knee jerk assumption on my part.

Huh?
Because life originated in Africa doesn't mean there aren't races. (!)
Because life started with one cell animals doesn't mean we are one cell animals either.
comprende?
Apparently not.
Early Euros were indeed "racist" in a superiority sense, but then again, look at what you're attempting in your own posts.

There are other races but homo sapiens sapiens are what all currently living humans fall under. Therefore if there is no full blooded 100% neanderthal man walking around somewhere we are all the same race.

Really?
LINK?

No problem. Aborigines: The First Out of Africa, the First in Asia and Australia - Hans Villarica - The Atlantic

Early on, White people, indeed Euro-centric, made almost the same race-simplism mistakes you do. (ths not so bad). They did have agendas. Yours are blatant and far worse and funnier ....at THIS stage in history, where science can and has identified races.

I'm glad i was able to amuse you. You are pretty amusing yourself.

]I'm not "dictating, I'm explaining the Genetic basis for race while you say "Oh look, he's dark, he must be African".
Then, when caught in your Goofy inaccuracy, you Revert to the childish/meaningLess pointing out that humanity started in Africa.
I explained that fallaciousness of that red herring above. (with "one cell" example)

I might also add, these early and admittedly Eurocentrics basically had it right because Race/Subspecie delineation IS Dictated merely by morphological differences among the same Specie of animals in different geography.
It started with Darwins Finches. Mere small beak size differences gave these animals different subspecie/race.

Indeed, there iare greater Morphological differences among human Races than there are among Gorilla and Chimp species/subspecies. But in the case of the latter there isn't the PC politics of humanity, just unemotional taxonomy.
But there are certainly races.

I must say I've never seen such Blatant, even simplistic racism ("Oh he looks black, he's mine") in someone claiming to be anti-racist while accusing others.
`

In order to explain something you would need to know what you are talking about. Its pretty apparent that you don't but think you do. This is one of the reasons I assumed you are racist. Most come with this sense of speaking their version of the truth not realizing its ...really just their version. Your use of subspecies/race to prove your point was... puerile to say the least. Its not the same thing. For example a bulldog and a poodle is the exact same species. Race is a social or political construct used to differentiate physical differences in humans. Lets use something a little more relevant to the complexities of human beings. Myself and my 2 brothers have as parents the same 2 people with the last name of Africa. We may have different hair textures or my arms may be longer than his. Point being we are not carbon copies physically. We all move to different parts of the globe and populate the earth. How are we not the same? The genetic distance issue is only because my 2 brothers were isolated and unable to return to the family get togethers. Does that turn my brothers into a different race? The answer is a resounding hell no.

Your confusion about "Black" is also amusing. I cant fault you because you just dont know what you dont know. Tell me if I'm wrong or not. Do you think that "Black" only applies to African Americans or sub-saharan Africans? You would be badly mistaken if you do. I have to admit you didn't fall into the usual blathering I have come to expect of some people on this board. I really hope you have some surprises in store for me that can further outline the truth.

 

[abu afak]

There are other races but homo sapiens sapiens are what all currently living humans fall under. Therefore if there is no full blooded 100% neanderthal man walking around somewhere we are all the same race.

Yes and I Already explained why.
It's a Political decision more than a scientific/taxonomic one.
If the same or even less differentials were seen in Other animals/Species they would, and DO get subspecie/race designation. Race and subspecie are basically interchangeable.
more later.

In order to explain something you would need to know what you are talking about. Its pretty apparent that you don't but think you do. This is one of the reasons I assumed you are racist. Most come with this sense of speaking their version of the truth not realizing its ...really just their version. Your use of subspecies/race to prove your point was... puerile to say the least. Its not the same thing. For example a bulldog and a poodle is the exact same species.

Race and subspecie are indeed the same/interchangeable terms
The Dogs you name are 'Breeds', a short term human-created different appearance.

This whole thing is beyond absurd if you are familiar with any other group of plants or animals.
I am. I collect seashells. At the drop of a hat (add a single dot to ten and move over ten miles) and they'll pop another subspecie/race on it.
You couldn't tell em apart. There are thousands and more created all the time.
I also gave the example of Finches and Chimps/gorillas.

Race is a social or political construct used to differentiate physical differences in humans.

This is, again, wrong.
I'll give you some more easy examples, less muddied than your anecdote below.

In a room with 300 Naked people: 100 Finns, 100 Japanese, 100 Pygmies, what do you suppose your error rate would be in telling them apart?
ZERO
Why? Because of Race. You think that's a social/political construct?
In order to avoid being called a Racist should we say "Pygmies are just Coincidentally/Perchance short Black people".. OR... is there Genetic Group Determinism involved?
That's Race/subspecie.
(in ALL Other flora and fauna)

Lets use something a little more relevant to the complexities of human beings. Myself and my 2 brothers have as parents the same 2 people with the last name of Africa. We may have different hair textures or my arms may be longer than his. Point being we are not carbon copies physically. We all move to different parts of the globe and populate the earth. How are we not the same? The genetic distance issue is only because my 2 brothers were isolated and unable to return to the family get togethers. Does that turn my brothers into a different race? The answer is a resounding hell no.

But Races were determined Before common World travel!
They are indeed mixing now.
Again, Would someone confuse you or Any of your brothers with Mongols? Scandinavians?

In fact, if you send your Blood and $130 into National Geographic's Genographic project, they'll send you back a letter telling you what Percent of each more technically and PC "Indigenous people"/RACE (11) you are.
No 'social construct' in Blood.

Your confusion about "Black" is also amusing. I cant fault you because you just dont know what you dont know. Tell me if I'm wrong or not. Do you think that "Black" only applies to African Americans or sub-saharan Africans? You would be badly mistaken if you do. I have to admit you didn't fall into the usual blathering I have come to expect of some people on this board. I really hope you have some surprises in store for me that can further outline the truth.

You were using 'Black', indeed this string and others, as in African accomplishment, until Censor brought up it was the Aborigines who populated North America early. I was the one who made the discernment that many peoples are "dark", especially in the equatorial belt. That doesn't mean they are of the same Race.
That was the point you're mixing and matching now.
`
More later in article/best authority form
`

 

[Asclepias]

Yes and I Already explained why.
It's a Political decision more than a scientific/taxonomic one.
If the same or even less differentials were seen in Other animals/Species they would, and DO get subspecie/race designation. Race and subspecie are basically interchangeable.
more later.

Except its not. Race is actually a more specific definition than subspecies that again is political and applies to absolutely no one. Homo sapiens sapiens itself is a subspecies of homo sapiens. In my research I have found that basically all this stuff is political posturing but at some point we have to agree on a common point to start discussing it.

Race and subspecie are indeed the same/interchangeable terms
The Dogs you name are 'Breeds', a short term human-created different appearance.

This whole thing is beyond absurd if you are familiar with any other group of plants or animals.
I am. I collect seashells. At the drop of a hat (add a single dot to ten and move over ten miles) and they'll pop another subspecie/race on it.
You couldn't tell em apart. There are thousands and more created all the time.
I also gave the example of Finches and Chimps/gorillas.

Sorry but breeds would be more analogous with race. Canis lupus familiaris (dog) is the subspecies of Canis lupus (wolf). Look it up. Its freely available on the internet. I grow plants and raise dogs. I am very familiar with the terminology. Never ever heard anyone refer to a specific dog breed as a subspecies/race or a cultivar as a subspecies/race.

In a room with 300 Naked people: 100 Finns, 100 Japanese, 100 Pygmies, what do you suppose your error rate would be in telling them apart?
ZERO
Why? Because of Race. You think that's a social/political construct?
In order to avoid being called a Racist should we say "Pygmies are just Coincidentally/Perchance short Black people".. OR... is there Genetic Group Determinism involved?
That's Race/subspecie.
(in ALL Other flora and fauna)

Your example is severely flawed. In the first 2 groups you have used nationalities and confused them with what you call races. For example we could have a African Bushman (pygmy) that has citizenship in Finland or Japan. In the last group, pygmies are in several different places in the world and may look entirely different from each other. The Japanese can look like any of the other Asian ethnicities which coincidently can look like a Negrito which is a name used to describe some South east asian pygmies and literally means little Negro.

But Races were determined Before common World travel!
They are indeed mixing now.
Again, Would someone confuse you or Any of your brothers with Mongols? Scandinavians?

What does when the races were determined have to do with it? Also what makes you think you know when people first traveled the globe? Yes some of my brothers could be confused with Mongols and or Scandinavians.

In fact, if you send your Blood and $130 into National Geographic's Genographic project, they'll send you back a letter telling you what Percent of each more technically and PC "Indigenous people"/RACE (11) you are.
No 'social construct' in Blood.

I am well aware of that. What does that have to do with the fact that they decided to say for whatever reason that Black Africans that left Africa early are not African and expect me to believe it when they blend in with my people spiritually and physically? When you look at those photos I posted what clue do you have that they are genetically distant from say an African American and what does that actually mean? There is greater genetic diversity on the sub-saharan part of Africa than any other place in the world combined. Why are these guys different because the moved out of the neighborhood? Why is it racist to call these people Black?

You were using 'Black', indeed this string and others, as in African accomplishment, until Censor brought up it was the Aborigines who populated North America early. I was the one who made the discernment that many peoples are "dark", especially in the equatorial belt. That doesn't mean they are of the same Race.
That was the point you're mixing and matching now.
`

Its not an accomplishment its a description of our spirit and physical attributes. Where did you get the idea i was using a stroke of evolutionary genius by mother nature to pat my own back? Its an all encompassing term that I personally dont allow others to define for me. Those dark people you are speaking about all descended from Africans and have maintained their ability to produce melanin at whatever rate is necessary to keep their skin dark. Show me one dark ethnicity that did not descend from people first in Africa and you may have a case. There are also Black africans which are albino or light skinned.

 

[abu afak]

Yes and I Already explained why.
It's a Political decision more than a scientific/taxonomic one.
If the same or even less differentials were seen in Other animals/Species they would, and DO get subspecie/race designation. Race and subspecie are basically interchangeable.
more later.

Except its not. Race is actually a more specific definition than subspecies that again is political and applies to absolutely no one. Homo sapiens sapiens itself is a subspecies of homo sapiens. In my research I have found that basically all this stuff is political posturing but at some point we have to agree on a common point to start discussing it.

You understand how this/mb debate works?
Try a Link instead of your pointLess picture book.
I'm going to Bury you shortly.
Merely claiming something, especially when it's Laughable.. IS Laughable.

Race and subspecie are indeed the same/interchangeable terms
The Dogs you name are 'Breeds', a short term human-created different appearance.

This whole thing is beyond absurd if you are familiar with any other group of plants or animals.
I am. I collect seashells. At the drop of a hat (add a single dot to ten and move over ten miles) and they'll pop another subspecie/race on it.
You couldn't tell em apart. There are thousands and more created all the time.
I also gave the example of Finches and Chimps/gorillas.

Sorry but breeds would be more anaologous with race while Canis lupus familiaris (dog) is would be the subspecies of Canis lupus (wolf). Look it up. Its freely available on the internet. I grow plants and raise dogs. I am very familiar with the terminology. Never ever heard anyone refer to a specific dog breed as a subspecies or a cultivar as a subspecies.

This is wildly ignorant or Dishonest.
I already explained to you Why recently human-manipulated dog 'breeds' are Not analogous to subspecies in Nature.
I'm disappointed in your reply but not surprised.

Your example is severely flawed. In the first 2 groups you have used nationalities and confused them with what you call races. For example we could have a African Bushman (pygmy) that has citizenship in Finland or Japan. In the last group, pygmies are in several different places in the world and may look entirely different from each other. The Japanese can look like any of the other Asian ethnicities which coincidently can look like a Negrito which is a name used to describe some South east asian pygmies.

I tried to make it simple for you.
It works just a well with Scandinavians/N. Euro; East Asians; and Pygmies.
You Wasted yet more space being Disingenuous.

In fact, if you send your Blood and $130 into National Geographic's Genographic project, they'll send you back a letter telling you what Percent of each more technically and PC "Indigenous people"/RACE (11) you are.
No 'social construct' in Blood.

I am well aware of that. What does that have to do with the fact that they decided to say for whatever reason that Black Africans that left Africa early are not African and expect me to believe it when they blend in with my people spiritually and physically? When you look at those photos I posted what clue do you have that they are genetically distant from say an African American and what does that actually mean? There is greater genetic diversity on the sub-saharan part of Africa than any other place in the world combined. Why are these guys different because the moved out of the neighborhood? Why is it racist to call these people Black?

No you weren't well aware of it.
If you were and still are you are being Dishonest because there is, again, NO'social construct' in Blood. NatGeo in fact is quite careful to get pure 'native populations/Races.
You Lose.. Officially now.

You were using 'Black', indeed this string and others, as in African accomplishment, until Censor brought up it was the Aborigines who populated North America early. I was the one who made the discernment that many peoples are "dark", especially in the equatorial belt. That doesn't mean they are of the same Race.
That was the point you're mixing and matching now.
`

Its not an accomplishment its a description of our spirit and physical attributes. Where did you get the idea i was using a stroke of evolutionary genius by mother nature to pat my own back? Its an all encompassing term that I personally dont allow others to define for me. Those dark people you are speaking about all descended from Africans and have maintained their ability to produce melanin at whatever rate is necessary to keep their skin dark. Show me one dark ethnicity that did not descend from people first in Africa and you may have a case. There are also Black africans which are albino or light skinned.

More, now Dishonest, argumentative non sequitur.
AGAIN, the fact that humans came out of Africa does NOT preclude Races/subspecies any more than it does in Apes and Chimps.
This is Clownish and increasingly Dishonest posting/gratuitous Last-wording.



EDIT:
Note the Clownish one-liners/gratuitous but empty last-wording that Asclepias has been Reduced to.
He was utterly Porked... Again
Not only not in my league, but not in any league.
`
`

 

[Asclepias]

You understand how this/mb debate works?
Try a Link.
I'm going to bury you shortly.
Merely claiming something, especially when it's Laughable.. IS Laughable.

You need to watch that pesky big daddy complex. It turns me off to further debate. I keep telling you that you dont define the rules. I was waiting for you to post a link that had something in it backing up your claim. You cant bury anything until you have a shovel and the object you are burying is dead. You fail on both counts.

This is wildly ignorant or Dishonest.
I explained to you why recently human-manipulated dog 'breeds' are Not analogous to subspecies in Nature.
I'm disappointed in your reply but not surprised.

And I explained to you that you cant explain anything until you know what you are talking about. I am sorely disappointed in your lack of ability to comprehend this sticking point. I never said breeds were analogous to subspecies. In fact I pointed out that they were more analogous to race.

I tried to make it simple for you.

You merely made it wildly irrelevant and down right scatter brained without any substance at all. You are beginning to waste my time.

No you weren't well aware of it.
If you were and still are you are being Dishonest because there is, again, NO'social construct' in Blood. NatGeo in fact is quite careful to get pure 'native populations/Races.
You Lose.. Officially now.

That was almost convincing. i almost believed I lost....just kidding.

More now Dishonest, argumentative non sequitur.
AGAIN, the fact that humans came out of Africa does NOT preclude Races/subspecies any more than it does in Apes and Chimps.
This is Clownish and increasingly Dishonest posting/gratuitous Last-wording.

Except it does preclude that. Those Aborigines left as homo sapiens sapiens. You have Aborigines that left Africa first and remained isolated. They represent a branch of Black Africans. What are you missing on this? Please lets not talk about dishonesty. I noticed you removed your request for a link regarding the Aborigines after i had already started working on my reply. Why did you do that? Did you think I wouldn't notice? You lose on that rookie move alone.

 

[Asclepias]

on the "Subspecie/Race" points:
Perhaps the countries Foremost expert on Evolution and AUTHOR of the Standard text 'Speciation'.
It doesn't get any better than this guy.

Credentials:
Why Evolution is True: About the Author

....

Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D is a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and a member of both the Committee on Genetics and the Committee on Evolutionary Biology.
Coyne received a B.S. in Biology from the College of William and Mary.
He then earned a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology at Harvard University in 1998, working in the laboratory of Richard Lewontin.
After a postdoctoral fellowship in Timothy Prout's laboratory at The University of California at Davis, he took his first academic position as assistant professor in the Department of Zoology at The University of Maryland.
In 1996 he joined the faculty of The University of Chicago.

Coyne's work is focused on understanding the origin of species: the evolutionary process that produces discrete groups in nature. To do this, he uses a variety of genetic analyses to locate and identify the genes that produce reproductive barriers between distinct species of the fruit fly Drosophila: barriers like hybrid sterility, ecological differentiation, and mate discrimination. Through finding patterns in the location and action of such genes, he hopes to work out the evolutionary processes that originally produced genetic change, and to determine whether different pairs of Species may show similar genetic patterns, implying similar routes to Speciation.

Coyne has written over 110 refereed scientific papers and 80 other articles, book reviews, and columns, as well as a scholarly book about his field (Speciation, co-authored with H. Allen Orr). He is a frequent contributor to The New Republic, The Times Literary Supplement, and other popular periodicals.
.."

Credentials II: Wiki

Jerry Allen Coyne (born December 30, 1949[2]) is an American professor of biology, known for his commentary on the intelligent design debate. A prolific scientist, he has published dozens of papers, elucidating on the theory of evolution. He is currently a professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution. His concentration is speciation and ecological and evolutionary genetics, particularly as they involve the fruit fly, Drosophila.[3] He is the author of the standard text 'Speciation' and the bestselling science popularization Why Evolution Is True and maintains a website by the same name.

Coyne graduated with a B.S. in biology from the College of William & Mary in 1971. He started graduate work at Rockefeller University under Theodosius Dobzhansky before logistical complications (draft) forced a hiatus.
He then earned a Ph.D. in biology at Harvard University, studying under Richard Lewontin, and went on to do a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California, Davis with Timothy Prout.

He was awarded the Guggenheim Fellowship in 1989, was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2007, and received the "Emperor Has No Clothes" award from the Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2011.

Coyne has served as President (2011) and Vice President (1996) of the Society for the Study of Evolution, and as Associate Editor of Evolution (1985–1988; 1994–2000) and The American Naturalist (1990–1993).
He currently teaches evolutionary biology, Speciation, genetic analysis, social issues and scientific knowledge, and scientific speaking and writing.

His work is widely published in scientific journals as well as in such mainstream venues as 'The New York Times, the Times Literary Supplement', and The New Republic.
His research interests include population and evolutionary genetics, Speciation, ecological and quantitative genetics, chromosome evolution, and sperm competition.
Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

The Ecuadoran frog Atelopus coynei is named after Coyne. He collected the holotype in a swamp on a frogging trip to western Ecuador as a student in the late 1970s.[8][...]

Article
Are there human races? « Why Evolution Is True
Jerry Coyne

Are there human Races?

One of the touchiest subjects in human evolutionary biology —or human biology in general — is the question of whether there are human races. Back in the bad old days, it was taken for granted that the answer was not only “yes,” but that there was a ranking of races (invariably done by white biologists), with Caucasians on top, Asians a bit lower, and blacks invariably on the bottom. The sad history of biologically based racism has been documented in many places, including Steve Gould’s book The Mismeasure of Man (yes, I know it’s flawed).

But from that sordid scientific past has come a Backlash: the subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become Taboo. And this Despite the Palpable morphological Differences between human groups — differences that MUST be based on Genetic Differences and Would, if seen in Other species, lead to their classification as either Races or Subspecies (the terms are pretty interchangeable in biology). Racial delimitation could, critics say, lead to a resurgence of racism, racial profiling, or even eugenics.

(abu note: that's Double refutation of Asclepias: Subspecie being pretty interchangeable with Race AND the fact there Are human Races)

So do races exist? The answer of Jan Sapp, a biology professor at York University in Toronto, is a firm “no”, as given in his new American Scientistpiece “Race finished,” a review of two new books on human races (Race?: Debunking a Scientific Myth by Ian Tattersall and Rob DeSalle and Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture, edited by Sheldon Krimsky and Kathleen Sloan). As Sapp notes, and supports his conclusion throughout the review: Although biologists and cultural anthropologists long supposed that human races—genetically distinct populations within the same species—have a true existence in nature, many social scientists and geneticists maintain today that there simply is no valid biological basis for the concept. The consensus among Western researchers today is that human races are sociocultural constructs. Well, if that’s the consensus, I am an outlier. I do think that human races exist in the sense that biologists apply the term to animals, though I don’t think the genetic differences between those races are profound, nor do I think there is a finite and easily delimitable number of human races. Let me give my view as responses to a series of questions...

What are races?

In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race.
Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.

Under that criterion, are there human Races?
Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups.

How many human races are there?
That’s pretty much unanswerable, because human variation is nested in groups, for their ancestry, which is based on evolutionary differences, is nested in groups. So, for example, one could delimit “Caucasians” as a race, but within that group there are genetically different and morphologically different subgroups, including Finns, southern Europeans, Bedouins, and the like. The number of human races delimited by biologists has ranged from three to over 30.

How different are the races genetically?
Not very different. As has been known for a while, DNA and other genetic analyses have shown that most of the variation in the human species occurs within a given human ethnic group, and only a small fraction between different races. That means that on average, there is more genetic difference between individuals within a race than there is between races themselves. Nevertheless, there are some genes (including the genes for morphological differences such as body shape, facial features, skin pigmentation, hair texture, and the like) that have not yet been subject to DNA sequencing, and if one looked only at those genes, one would obviously find more genetic differences. But since the delimitation of Races has historically depended Not on the degree of underlying genetic differences but Only on the existence of Some genetic difference that causes morphological difference, the genetic similarity of Races Does Not mean that they Don’t exist...."
`

So because we are humans and have an unfortunate 20th C politics/history, the human species has avoided what certainly would qualify as Race/subspecie in other animals.
As someone who as I already elucidated, collects seashells, I can assure what is said above is true. You add an extra spot and move over ten miles.. they'll pop another sub-species or even species.
There are Many subspecies much closer than the so-called single human subspecie.

`

I think you will find as you grow up and become an adult that people have a hard time agreeing on terms because they are words and subject to human interpretation. I really dont know how to put this to you but I am sorely disappointed in this conversation. You posted and typed all that but managed to link me to someone that merely has a different interpretation of what "race" means. He said nothing in that link that I don't already know about. Not to say I agree with all of it but I understand where he is coming from. One day when you can think for yourself please stop elevating someone elses opinion over your own. There is only one race. There is no difference in people genetically of any consequence. .1% differences is nothing to get excited about. There is nothing I can do that you cant and vice versa. Wake up and stay away from Storm Front.

 

[abu afak]

on the "Subspecie/Race" points:
Perhaps the countries Foremost expert on Evolution and AUTHOR of the Standard text 'Speciation'.
It doesn't get any better than this.

Credentials:
Why Evolution is True: About the Author

....

Jerry A. Coyne, Ph.D is a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and a member of both the Committee on Genetics and the Committee on Evolutionary Biology.
Coyne received a B.S. in Biology from the College of William and Mary.
He then earned a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology at Harvard University in 1998, working in the laboratory of Richard Lewontin.
After a postdoctoral fellowship in Timothy Prout's laboratory at The University of California at Davis, he took his first academic position as assistant professor in the Department of Zoology at The University of Maryland.
In 1996 he joined the faculty of The University of Chicago.

Coyne's work is focused on understanding the origin of species: the evolutionary process that produces discrete groups in nature. To do this, he uses a variety of genetic analyses to locate and identify the genes that produce reproductive barriers between distinct species of the fruit fly Drosophila: barriers like hybrid sterility, ecological differentiation, and mate discrimination. Through finding patterns in the location and action of such genes, he hopes to work out the evolutionary processes that originally produced genetic change, and to determine whether different pairs of Species may show similar genetic patterns, implying similar routes to Speciation.

Coyne has written over 110 refereed scientific papers and 80 other articles, book reviews, and columns, as well as a scholarly book about his field (Speciation, co-authored with H. Allen Orr). He is a frequent contributor to The New Republic, The Times Literary Supplement, and other popular periodicals.
.."

Credentials II: Wiki

Jerry Allen Coyne (born December 30, 1949[2]) is an American professor of biology, known for his commentary on the intelligent design debate. A prolific scientist, he has published dozens of papers, elucidating on the theory of evolution. He is currently a professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution. His concentration is speciation and ecological and evolutionary genetics, particularly as they involve the fruit fly, Drosophila.[3] He is the author of the standard text 'Speciation' and the bestselling science popularization Why Evolution Is True and maintains a website by the same name.

Coyne graduated with a B.S. in biology from the College of William & Mary in 1971. He started graduate work at Rockefeller University under Theodosius Dobzhansky before logistical complications (draft) forced a hiatus.
He then earned a Ph.D. in biology at Harvard University, studying under Richard Lewontin, and went on to do a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California, Davis with Timothy Prout.

He was awarded the Guggenheim Fellowship in 1989, was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2007, and received the "Emperor Has No Clothes" award from the Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2011.

Coyne has served as President (2011) and Vice President (1996) of the Society for the Study of Evolution, and as Associate Editor of Evolution (1985–1988; 1994–2000) and The American Naturalist (1990–1993).
He currently teaches evolutionary biology, Speciation, genetic analysis, social issues and scientific knowledge, and scientific speaking and writing.

His work is widely published in scientific journals as well as in such mainstream venues as 'The New York Times, the Times Literary Supplement', and The New Republic.
His research interests include population and evolutionary genetics, Speciation, ecological and quantitative genetics, chromosome evolution, and sperm competition.
Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7]

The Ecuadoran frog Atelopus coynei is named after Coyne. He collected the holotype in a swamp on a frogging trip to western Ecuador as a student in the late 1970s.[8][...]

Article
Are there human races? « Why Evolution Is True
Jerry Coyne

Are there human Races?

One of the touchiest subjects in human evolutionary biology —or human biology in general — is the question of whether there are human races. Back in the bad old days, it was taken for granted that the answer was not only “yes,” but that there was a ranking of races (invariably done by white biologists), with Caucasians on top, Asians a bit lower, and blacks invariably on the bottom. The sad history of biologically based racism has been documented in many places, including Steve Gould’s book The Mismeasure of Man (yes, I know it’s flawed).

But from that sordid scientific past has come a Backlash: the subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become Taboo. And this Despite the Palpable morphological Differences between human groups — differences that MUST be based on Genetic Differences and Would, if seen in Other species, lead to their classification as either Races or Subspecies (the terms are pretty interchangeable in biology). Racial delimitation could, critics say, lead to a resurgence of racism, racial profiling, or even eugenics.

(abu note: that's Double refutation of Asclepias: Subspecie being pretty interchangeable with Race AND the fact there Are human Races)

So do races exist? The answer of Jan Sapp, a biology professor at York University in Toronto, is a firm “no”, as given in his new American Scientistpiece “Race finished,” a review of two new books on human races (Race?: Debunking a Scientific Myth by Ian Tattersall and Rob DeSalle and Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture, edited by Sheldon Krimsky and Kathleen Sloan). As Sapp notes, and supports his conclusion throughout the review: Although biologists and cultural anthropologists long supposed that human races—genetically distinct populations within the same species—have a true existence in nature, many social scientists and geneticists maintain today that there simply is no valid biological basis for the concept. The consensus among Western researchers today is that human races are sociocultural constructs. Well, if that’s the consensus, I am an outlier. I do think that human races exist in the sense that biologists apply the term to animals, though I don’t think the genetic differences between those races are profound, nor do I think there is a finite and easily delimitable number of human races. Let me give my view as responses to a series of questions...

What are races?

In my own field of evolutionary biology, Races of animals (Also called “Subspecies” or “ecotypes&#8221 are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race.
Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.

Under that criterion, are there human Races?
Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups.

How many human races are there?
That’s pretty much unanswerable, because human variation is nested in groups, for their ancestry, which is based on evolutionary differences, is nested in groups. So, for example, one could delimit “Caucasians” as a race, but within that group there are genetically different and morphologically different subgroups, including Finns, southern Europeans, Bedouins, and the like. The number of human races delimited by biologists has ranged from three to over 30.

How different are the races genetically?
Not very different. As has been known for a while, DNA and other genetic analyses have shown that most of the variation in the human species occurs within a given human ethnic group, and only a small fraction between different races. That means that on average, there is more genetic difference between individuals within a race than there is between races themselves. Nevertheless, there are some genes (including the genes for morphological differences such as body shape, facial features, skin pigmentation, hair texture, and the like) that have not yet been subject to DNA sequencing, and if one looked only at those genes, one would obviously find more genetic differences. But since the delimitation of Races has historically depended Not on the degree of underlying genetic differences but Only on the existence of Some genetic difference that causes morphological difference, the genetic similarity of Races Does Not mean that they Don’t exist...."
`

So because we are humans and have an unfortunate 20th C politics/history, the human species has avoided what certainly would qualify as Race/subspecie in other animals.
As someone who as I already elucidated, collects seashells, I can assure what is said above is true. You add an extra spot and move over ten miles.. they'll pop another sub-species or even species.
There are Many subspecies much closer than the so-called single human subspecie.

I hope you learning something even whille being Emptily argumentative.
Nah, I really don't care, just wanted to hold your genetic Ignorance and grotesque afrocentric racial bias posts up for the abuse they deserve.

EDIT:
More Clownery/Another Goofy non sequitur picture below.
we do NOT know the ancestry, recent or otherwise, of the subjects. (!)
Asclepias could NOT answer me and certainly not a 1000% Rebuttal from a good a source as there is on the Planet.
Perhaps he'd like this 'debate' scored by a mod or group of them?
I would.
`

 

[Asclepias]

FYI abu afa. The reason I use pictures is to frustrate the crap out of people that like to use extremely long and elaborate ruses to try and convince people to believe in Storm Front theories and those that try and define others realities. They say a picture is worth a thousand words and leaves a hell of a mental imprint. it wakes them up to how stupid people like you sound. Thats why TV is so effective in moving the masses. So when you say things like Melanesians and Aborigines are the furthest away genetically from Africans I post pictures and say so what? They still look like my homies or home girls that lives down the street. Does that make sense?

Warning! These people are not Africans. They are Melanesian. They are genetically the furthest from Africans.

Sombody tell these indigenous guys from India they are not African at all. They are called the Andamanese. They are Negrito which means "Little negro" but not the black kind from Africa. Wait...what?

 

[Asclepias]

I hope you learning something even whille being Emptily argumentative.
Nah, I really don't care, just wanted to hold your genetic Ignorance and grotesque afrocentric racial bias posts up for the abuse they deserve.

EDIT:
More Clownery/Another Goofy non sequitur picture below.
we do NOT know the ancestry, recent or otherwise, of the subjects. (!)
Asclepias could NOT answer me and certainly not a 1000% Rebuttal from a good a source as there is on the Planet.
Perhaps he'd like this 'debate' scored by a mod or group of them?
I would.
`

I only learned that you are another in a long line of clowns that believe whatever instead of trusting your common sense, eyes, and God given intellect. Understand that your "sources" are human and prone to having biases just like you and I. They put on their pants on just like you do.

I have no problem having someone score this "debate" as you call it. i'm sure it will either lower your self worth or raise it. Unfortunately it wont do anything for me regardless of the outcome. That will be the day I seek validation on a message board! You have officially become a loser with that statement. You are free to drag the photos into Google images or do your own research on the names I provided. Again the information is freely available on the internet. You have to be willfully stupid to miss it.

 

[abu afak]

I hope you learning something even while being Emptily argumentative.
Nah, I really don't care, just wanted to hold your genetic Ignorance and grotesque afrocentric racial bias posts up for the abuse they deserve.

EDIT:
More Clownery/Another Goofy non sequitur picture below.
we do NOT know the ancestry, recent or otherwise, of the subjects. (!)
Asclepias could NOT answer me and certainly not a 1000% Rebuttal from a good a source as there is on the Planet.
Perhaps he'd like this 'debate' scored by a mod or group of them?
I would.
`

I only learned that you are another in a long line of clowns that believe whatever instead of trusting your common sense, eyes, and God given intellect. Understand that your "sources" are human and prone to having biases just like you and I. They put on their pants on just like you do.

I have no problem having someone score this "debate" as you call it. i'm sure it will either lower your self worth or raise it. Unfortunately it wont do anything for me regardless of the outcome. That will be the day I seek validation on a message board! You have officially become a loser with that statement. You are free to drag the photos into Google images or do your own research on the names I provided. Again the information is freely available on the internet. You have to be willfully stupid to miss it.

1. As to "seeking validation" here.
YOU have made 4000 posts in under 4 months here, avg 33.6 a day!
Me? 387 posts in 7+ Years.

2. It's illogical to use any 'dark' people as proof they are closely related to other different Race of same or more closely related than they are to other lighter groups.
Darkness, as I said, earlier can evolve independently.
It's rather Ironic we have black person claiming: All blacks look alike.

2a. If one understands this, and still then goes out and Cherry Picks a few pictures from hundreds to 'prove' his point, it's Grossly Dishonest.
All your posts are Fallacies that are so bad even you must understand they are intentionally deceptive non sequiturs.

2c. [Even] if one as to "trust his lyin eyes" then YOU would have to acknowledge MY example of the even More obvious Racial differences between N Euros/Scandies vs East Asians vs Pygmies.
Instead you dishonestly pointed to nationality to try and get off the hook.

As to the specific case of Melanesians v subsaharans:

Global genetic variation at OAS1 provides evidence of archaic admixture in Melanesian populations.[Mol Biol Evol. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

Mol Biol Evol. 2012 Jun;29(6):1513-20. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msr301. Epub 2012 Jan 16.
Global genetic variation at OAS1 provides evidence of archaic admixture in Melanesian populations.
Mendez FL, Watkins JC, Hammer MF.
Source
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, USA.
Abstract

Recent analysis of DNA extracted from two Eurasian forms of archaic human shows that more genetic variants are shared with humans currently living in Eurasia than with anatomically modern humans in sub-Saharan Africa. Although these genome-wide average measures of genetic similarity are consistent with the hypothesis of archaic admixture in Eurasia, analyses of individual loci exhibiting the signal of archaic introgression are needed to test alternative hypotheses and investigate the admixture process. Here, we provide a detailed sequence analysis of the innate immune gene OAS1, a locus with a divergent Melanesian haplotype that is very similar to the Denisova sequence from the Altai region of Siberia. We resequenced a 7-kb region encompassing the OAS1 gene in 88 individuals from six Old World populations (San, Biaka, Mandenka, French Basque, Han Chinese, and Papua New Guineans) and discovered previously unknown and ancient genetic variation. The 5' region of this gene has unusual patterns of diversity, including
1) higher levels of nucleotide diversity in Papuans than in sub-Saharan Africans, 2) very deep ancestry with an estimated time to the most recent common ancestor of >3 myr, and 3) a basal branching pattern with Papuan individuals on either side of the rooted network. A global geographic survey of >1,500 individuals showed that the divergent Papuan haplotype is nearly restricted to populations from eastern Indonesia and Melanesia. Polymorphic sites within this haplotype are shared with the draft Denisova genome over a span of ∼90 kb and are associated with an extended block of linkage disequilibrium, supporting the hypothesis that this haplotype introgressed from an archaic source that likely lived in Eurasia.

Yes, Another big Oucher for you.
Research/Google for me is finding great science, for you it's Disingenuously cherry-picking look-alikes from a larger set of Non-look-alikes.

Of course, even Honest Amateurs understand the 'all blacks are not alike'/necessarily more closely related than some are to ie Eurasians just because one can find look alike pictures.

From Topix African-American Forum.
OP and some selected replies
Papua New Guineans (Melanesian)...African descendents? - Topix

Papua New Guineans (Melanesian)...African descendents?
Posted in the African-American Forum

East Lansing, MI
1Sep 12, 2008
Judged: Clueless4 Spam3 Disagree3

Here are some example pictures:
Desert Culture: Festival of the Sahara | The Official Globe Trekker WebsiteThe Official Globe Trekker Website...
http://www.journeys.tr avel/images/countries/photos/p apua_new_guinea.jpg
Stock Photography - Search 16.8 Million Stock Photos, Stock Footage Video Clips, Royalty Free Images, and Illustrations...
It's not so much based on skin color but physical appearance. Some have the various Sub-Saharan and Afro-Asiatic features. Hell, I even seen some that look like African-Americans of mixed Native American and European ancestry at various degrees.
According to some anthropological studies, Melanesians do not have African lineage.=(
What do you think?

That's because Melanesians are black Asians parenthetically related to all other East Asians just like the Negritos and Australian Aborigines are as well.

i've seen some that look alot blacker than that...personally i think thier black cause they look to much like us to not be black...damn what Whitey says cause they just trying to play the divide and conquer

imo aboriginals are also some kind of black for the same reason...you can't look so much like us and not be black...and for the people that claim that some blacks think all dark people are black..i don't think Indians or Sri Linkins are black

Amissville, VA

Papuans are most closely related to the peoples of their region, in other words, other islanders, Australians, and SE Asians.

Their habitat did not necessitate lightening of skin. Habitat forms human appearance.
In the case of Papuans, their appearance which is African-like does Not mean a thing regarding their relationships.

In fact, a Papuan is more closely related to a blonde Swede than to an African. Papuans, like Australians, are a subset of Eurasians.

This is genetics. It has nothing to do with whether the geneticist analyzing the genome is black or white!

Multo Bravo above, that's what I said! and ..
Bravo below too.

There are other places on this planet where people of a darker hue have thrived, developed and evolved other than in sub Sahara Africa. It is a moot point to debate the origin..Migration patterns over more than 40 thousands years will attest to that... therefore natural adaptation, and genetic changes have occurred and cultural patterns emerged.

Bottom line, all people(s) of a darker hue are not sub Sahara Africans, and all people of a lighter hue are not from the the so called European countries.

So even among non-pure-science replies in a community of black posters we have some very logical straightforward people.
I bet they don't claim the Olmecs either because of a broad-nosed sculpture.
How grotesquely Dishonest your posts are in the service of Afro-centrism/race.
`

 

[Sunshine]

Actually if you know about the currents in the Atlantic ocean (formerly the Ethiopian Ocean)

LOL......the 'Ethiopian' Ocean.......

Now I have heard it all .

[MENTION=11674]Sunni Man[/MENTION]

Isn't that the God's honest truth.
No doubt in Ethiopia they thought a good sized pond was an ocean. Blacks like to claim that the slave traders nabbed them and tied them up on ships to bring them here. Then in the same breath they will claim that the yam was brought here by slaves. WTF? Did the potential slaves say, 'whoa dar, le' me go grab my yams fo' we go.' ??? They are beyond stupid. And I am amazed at the number of people who believe their bullshit. Blacks were sold by other blacks for liquor. And the sellers would drink it on the shore so they wouldn't have to share it. The broken glass where they smashed the bottles is still there.

 

[Asclepias]

1. As to "seeking validation" here.
YOU have made 4000 posts in under 4 months here, avg 33.6 a day.
Me? 387 posts in 7+ Years.

2. It's illogical to use any 'dark' people as proof they are closely related to other different Race of same or more closely related than they are to other lighter groups.
Darkness, as I said, earlier can evolve independently.
It's rather Ironic we have black person claiming: All blacks look alike.

2a. If one understands this, and then goes out and Cherry picks a few pictures from hundreds to 'prove' his point, it's Grossly Dishonest.
All your posts are Fallacies that are so bad even you must understand they are intentionally deceptive non sequiturs.

2c. [Even] if one as to "trust his lyin eyes" then YOU would have to acknowledge MY example of the even More obvious Racial differences between N Euros/Scandies vs East Asians vs Pygmies.
Instead you dishonestly pointed to nationality to try and get off the hook.

1. Yes you seek validation. You want a 3rd party to prove you right. You dont have enough within yourself to know you are right. The difference is i do I post because its fun and because I can make my money from anywhere but preferable home. Posting is a pastime for me. I have never once asked for assistance in proving I won a debate. Thats loser language. You have totally destroyed any respect I had for your opinions.

2. I already explained to you that there is no such thing as different races. There is only one. There is no difference of any consequences in what you call races. I cant force you to be intelligent but please understand that the use of that terminology is risible to say the least. What you are doing is setting the ground work for more racism. Name 1 thing that I can do that you cant?

All Blacks do not look alike. We are the most varied looking group on the planet even in Africa. Stooping to lying about what i said pretty much seals your fate.

Why dont you just admit you screwed up and confused nationality with race? As you have now changed the question you are still wrong for reasons I have already outlined. So no... I dont have to acknowledge your poor attempt to piece together something that you screwed up and now are trying to change to fit your aborted argument.

Now what i am going to do is show you how its done rookie. If you take a Melanesian, an African American and a sub-saharan African what degree of confidence will you have that you can put them in the right category without bleeding them out for their haplogroup?

As to the specific case of Melanesians v subsaharans:

Global genetic variation at OAS1 provides evidence of archaic admixture in Melanesian populations.[Mol Biol Evol. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

Please understand this same information has already been posted in this thread. You are trying way too hard and failing mightily. i am afraid you are going to pop a blood vessel in your eye dude.

Yes, Another big Oucher for you.

Of course, even Honest Amateurs understand the 'all blacks are not alike'/necessarily more closely related than some are to ie Eurasians just because one can find look alike pictures.

I dont think you get how this works. What you have to do is show me where the Aborigines, Negritos or Melanesians did not migrate from Africa. if you can pull that off you wont have to type an encyclopedia everytime you post. Showing me testimonials does not sway me one bit. Show me something that proves that those groups do not share the same DNA I do at all. Can you accomplish your mission?