Posted: Aug 19, 2011 2:24 pm
When my opponents spout PC bullshit, then of course I ignore them. Because they can't be taken seriously, since they've exchanged dispassionate scientific inquiry for passionate agendas.
Tiel wrote:You’re human family tree is oversimplified because its goal it to be focalised on the past mixing between Neanderthal, Denisova Man and non-africans populations. But as I said before with references there were far mor recent mixing between African and Non-African populations.
As Biowatch pointed out above (yet again) some mixing, especially at the boundaries, such as E. Africa, does NOT mean that the races are a mosaic, where anything goes: an Eskimo born to a Masai, or a Congo Pygmy born to a Chinaman....that is simply delusional, no matter what pretentious "authority" it comes from. That in itself is concrete evidence that there is no significant mosaic at the racial/subspecies level. Pretending otherwise is like saying that we are a mosaic genus with canines, because we both have eyes & ears & legs. If you're taking the mosaic concept up to the core, the 'type specimen' of distinct races, you may as well go the whole hog & say we're a mosaic with every living organism on earth, because we all have DNA. It makes the word 'mosaic' meaningless.
The population of England is a mosaic of Celts, Saxons, & Normans. But when you venture much further, the mosaicness diminishes, till you come across geographical boundaries such as mountains, large rivers, seas, deserts, dense jungle & such. At those barriers subspeciation is accelerated. The barriers are catalysts to the natural phenomenon of evolutionary divergence of competing organisms.
Tiel wrote:African and Non-African Populations Intermixed Well After Migration out of Africa 60,000 Years Ago, Genome Studies Show
Inference of human population history from individual whole-genome sequences
And do you remember th Haplogroup T estimed between 19,000-34,000 Before Present?
Your haplogroup map actually supports the fact of NO notable mosaic effect. Did you notice that it simply dies away within a few thousand kilometres of Djibouti & makes little inroad into Africa?
The map strongly supports what I wrote in my last, & previous posts; that an advantageous or neutral gene will propagate under the right environmental conditions. The fact that over these tens of thousands of years, that haplogroup T has only diffused strongly within just a few hundred km is a rebuttal of mosaic. By the time it gets to Europe we're talking of just 1 to 3%. The distant isolated cases are either by ancient trade routes, or from independent mutations, just as happened with some other genes, especially at fragile points of the DNA.
You should know by now that what I've said is correct, even if you have a cock-eyed view of that map; another indicator is that at the port towns of Eastern India, which did trade with Aden & Djibouti over hundreds of years, the haplogroup has stayed fixated on the coast at the contact points. In other words, it was quarantined by the Indian population. How? (they didn't know about haplogroups at the genetic level). They quarantined it subconsciously, due to the different appearance of those affected...they did not approve of the liaison between Arab traders & local prostitutes with the occasional half-breed. So the hybrids had a difficult time dispersing into the community; they were generally ostracised. That's why, over hundreds of years, there's bugger all to show for the contact; only local effects & little to no mosaic diffusion.
Tiel wrote:Galaxian wrote:Speciation is a law of Nature. I mentioned before that even if we seed an empty world with a totally homogenous population of absolutely identical clones, & we have perfect travel & communication between them. So long as there is no medical intervention, & forced eugenics programs, & forced social control; the population will fragment into different cultures & phenotypes & subspecies, then species. And that is with the above perfect scenario.
And so mixtures is a law of nature just as Speciation and in fact there’s were a lot of mixture in the history of human populations.
Yes, you have that correct. It is, as Professor Sumner Miller said, "A balance of forces" That's why, if there are no races on the planet, then they WILL develop. And if there are too many races, too close together, then some will be subsumed, some mixed, & some murdered....Unless they continue to develop on into a different species. Surely you're aware that closely related species generally are reluctant to inhabit the same ecological niche...they either fight to the death, disperse, or continue to diverge until they're no longer closely related.On ALL planets of the Galaxy which have life, there is an OPTIMUM range of varietal density. It differs from planet to planet depending on the conditions. In severe environments, the varietal density is low, in verdant places it is high.
Tiel wrote:And historically there were much forced social control to prohibit some unions and impose segregation and so go against what you have logically to call a “law of Nature”.
But perhaps will you say that http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... family.jpg these people are the result of the violation of the “law of Nature”?
The social controls & the cute photo, like the Danny De Vito one before, are irrelevant to the discussion
