The scatter plot of the first two PCs from the PCA of the European and HapMap populations combined showing (a) all samples and (b) European samples only. Human races are poorly defined by 20th-century scientists and ethnic diversity cannot be fully explained by the simple colour coding scheme originally invented by French anthropologist Vallois in 1948 (i.e. Black, Yellow and White.) The PCA chart above shows that the Japanese are located between the Chinese and Europeans because the Hokkaido Ainu are closely related to the Russians as both descended from Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), a mysterious common ancestor group of Uralic-speaking peoples such as the Finns and Hungarians, and 40-60% of the Japanese population harbours Ainu ancestry. The Indians share many haplogroups with Europeans due to their common Indo-European ancestry and should fall between somewhere between the Japanese (JPT) and Europeans. In India, Haplogroup H represents the most frequently occurring haplogroup (40.14%) followed by groups R (28.17%), J (10.21%) and C (8.45%) respectively. Haplogroups H, R and J are considered to be West Eurasian haplogroups commonly found in Europe, while Haplogroup C is an East Asian haplogroup. The following PCA analysis points to genetic continuity between Europeans and the Indians and a previous study showed that upper-caste Indians are genetically identical with Eastern Europeans with the shared haplogroup R1a.
my chinese wife had her dna tested for ancestry, 45% northern asian ancestry/35% southern asian, she shares a genetic link to people in finland...and my very pale northern euro arse has a genetic link with people in the manchuria region of china ...and my wife and I share a commom grandfather in central asia about 40k yrs ago, so it appears I married my cousin...
the best evidence says that were lots of humans running around Africa. a very small group of them, living in the northeast, moved to Asia through the Red Sea. this very small group mutated into present-day East Asians, South-Central Asians, EuroAsians, and AustraloAsians. this why Africans have the largest amount of genetic diversity, and everyone else has a lot less
The frequencies of Haplogroup N are as high as 15% in China and 8% in northern Japan where those with Ainu heritage live and this northern Eurasian haplogroup must have been common among Ancient North Eurasians (ANE). Haplogroup N is normally classified as a West Eurasian haplogroup because it can be found at high frequencies in Finns (60%), East Germans (28%) and Russians (20%), which represents close ancestral ties between Northern Europeans and Asians.
Nice link perhaps they over state the "asian" look a bit to much, for those who read national geographic will recall this Sami, far from asian in appearance IMO no doubt if you did a photo study of indigenous peoples from japan to the sami you would see a nice transition of appearances... and epicanthal folds are also found among the San of south west africa so not an exclusive asian trait...sexual selection and and evironmental adaptation combined are powerful influences on appearance
There has been many different migrations of different population groups throughout history, and much mixing. It's not all random, and the present geographic distribution of different ethnic groups and their lineage is very complex. It's really an interesting topic people could spend a lot of time reading about and speculating. In fact, that's what they do in this forum: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/forum.php
Sure...he wrote entire books about this subject and maintains such as position because he's afraid of an imaginary conspiracy theory against racialists. Does anyone else think that Mikemikev's claim is preposterous? No, there isn't. The claim that Africans have an IQ of 70 is almost entirely based on the research of Richard Lynn which was shown to be invalid. https://abagond.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/the-average-african-iq-is-70/ Evolution is not a religion. Creationism is pseudoscience. Creationism only follows evidence so long as it comports with the religious views of Christians. That's not scientific.
Zealous atheists have turned it into one. Let's not forget, evolution is a theory. There's no way to actually go back and test it. Many evolution supporters are just as guilty. (I know it's especially true of global warming believers)
Creationists treat it like two competing religious beliefs but if you talk to scientists with an expertise in evolutionary biology as opposed to zealous atheists many of them will tell you that evolution doesn't necessarily refute the existence of a God. It may conflict with literal interpretations of the Bible but believing in evolution doesn't automatically mean you reject God. You can test evolutionary hypotheses to see if they fit the available data. [video=youtube;i1fGkFuHIu0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0[/video] Most evolutionary scientists follow the scientific method. Creationists generally do not. Evidence has to fit the Bible narrative otherwise it gets discarded. When you let your religious beliefs override your objectivity you are no longer conducting science.
Technically they don't. Human biological variation exists it's just not structured in to biological races. [video=youtube;lUjo31DChcE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUjo31DChcE[/video]
Dr Schweitzer (an evolutionist herself, although a fideistic theistic version) remarked, “I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible … . I wrote back and said, ‘Well what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’” (Not exactly a scientific comment on the reviewer’s part.)
Your DOT com source doesn't substantiate its claim most IQ studies on Black Africans were done by Lynn.
What relevance does this quote have? This doesn't represent the views of most evolutionary scientists. Into clines, clusters and ecotypes. It confirms that most of the research estimating an average IQ of 70 or lower for African nations is based on the research of Richard Lynn.
science doesn't recognize any taxonomic categories for humans beyond the sub-species known as Homo sapien sapiens.
science does not recognize any taxonomic categories for humans beyond Homo sapien sapiens. why? cause an honest and intelligent look at the human race shows no hard lines between different human populations, genetically nor phenotypically. unlike with dogs, the genetic and phenotypic difference between humans are gradual and progressive and follow geography.
You were asked to back that up with data and failed. Even if true, which it isn't, it's a continuum fallacy. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=387415&page=2&p=1064610009#post1064610009 - - - Updated - - - Does "correlation" mean clear distinction or tendency? Further is it referring to the distribution of a single trait or the, uh, correlation between traits?
