Posted: Aug 12, 2011 3:47 am
Biowatch wrote:Did you read the paper I cited above?
He doesn't have anything to say. I particularly like the way he - and you - seem to think you can just dismiss the idea that races have to be identifiably distinct groups.
Biowatch wrote:Population genetics studies consistently show that when you aggregate dna from individuals around the world they fall into identifiable groups/clusters - which correspond to commonly recognised human races. You can call them varieties if you prefer that term.
Do you dispute that the gene map is a series of multiple intersecting clines each following their own selective pressures? Such a pattern does allow an individual to be reliably triangulated to a population (but only if you use many thousands of markers) but that, clearly, is not race. If you used this as your definition of genetic uniqueness you would end up with hundreds of thousands of different races.
Biowatch wrote:http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2009/06/genetic-clustering-40-years-of-progress.html
Are you serious? "Some guy on a blog" is an authority on race?
Interesting reference to Cavalli-Sforza.
Do you know what he had to say about race? "The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin"
--Cavalli-Sforza
I also saw some ancient studies from the 1960's and 1970's but no mention of newer research. To be fair though, at least they were AD not BC.