Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations

New York Times ^ | 12-20-02 | Nicholas Wade

[Tench_Coxe]

I'll have to try your link at another time. But the information you present looks interesting. I'll check it out. Thanks.

[AFreeBird]

Scientists studying the DNA of 52 human groups from around the world have concluded that people belong to five principal groups corresponding to the major geographical regions of the world: Africa, Europe, Asia, Melanesia and the Americas.

Geez, it took them all that time and money studying DNA to figure out what most people have known by observation for some time. Amazing.

[Pharmboy]

You would think so; however, take a look at some of the posts on this thread and you will see that there are still non-believers of this stuff right here in Freeperland.

[Little Bill]

.....the Americas

That statement could lead to some interesting arguemants

[blam]

"Mountains would work in that respect. Thinking of 5 or so bands of humans, separated by entire continents for a few 1000 years."

You understand it. My son (visiting from LA) said cannabilism...probably some of that too.

[PatrickHenry]

My son (visiting from LA) said cannabilism ...

I hope you keep plenty of food in the house while that kid's around. He could be dangerous. We probably all have the tendency in our genes.

[ghostrider]

With the Feds and research grants to professors, it just gets worse and worse!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/811259/posts

[gore3000]

"And the loss is documented where? What species died from it? "-me-

I don't care enough about convincing you to do the work required.

In other words you were bluffing. You made the claim, you are that is supposed to back it up. As usual when evolutionists are asked to back up what they say they get insulted, insult the questioner and make excuses. The whole nonsense on the next few posts has nothing to do with whether the fauna died. This is therefore just more evolutionist nonsense, totally made up with no substance in fact.

[gore3000]

Man was pushed to the edge of extinction, the population forced down to just a couple of thousand. Three quarters of all plants in the northern hemisphere were killed.

Says who? TalkOrigins? You do not even give the source. This is totally made up stuff. BTW - how many plants were there in the Northern Hemisphere? Who counted them? Also the radius of the fall of what was spewed by the volcano was only some 1000 miles around. Hardly far enough to do that kind of damage. And of course that was not lava that was thrown off 1000 miles, so it might have polluted quite a bit, but would not have been an ecological disaster that far out.

[gore3000]

Geez, it took them all that time and money studying DNA to figure out what most people have known by observation for some time. Amazing.

As I pointed out in post #145, the study is garbage. We do not know that the DNA that they selected is truly useless. We do know that each time evolutionists have said that something is useless and proves evolution real science has shown it to be false. Also with some 3 billion DNA base pairs in humans, the selection of sites was bound to be very subjective. That the sites in question are totally meaningless also makes this study a true waste of money. All it does is for a while try to promote the lie that racist evolutionism is true.

Also it should be noted that while evolutionists all claim that evolution is not racist and that it did not inspire Hitler and other mass murderers, it seems that all evolutionists are on the side of this racist research.

[Ahban]

You are letting them off of the hook too easily. The simplest explaination for our lack of genetic diversity compared to other primates is that the human race was created far more recently than other primates.

The idea that Toba wiped out most of mankind and thereby restricted our genetic variablity is hard to reconcile with the facts. Why is MAN the ONLY primate whose genetic diversity was greately reduced by this event?

Why do they not accept the obvious? Toba, while a significant event, did not greatly reduce the genetic variability of any primate living today - much less humans (there is little to no evidence human beings even existed until tens of thousands of years after Toba).

[Doctor Stochastic]

As the first poster to gratuitously bring Hitler into the discussion, Godiwn's rule is automatically invoked.

[Black Agnes]

But skin tone doesn't make a race ----I've seen siblings with the same parents have different needs for suntan lotion. In the same family there can be very fair skinned, blue eyed blonds and dark complected. And then there are those very pale skin, freckled red heads that almost all look like they're from the same family or race but are born to all different kinds of families.

Sounds like there might actually be another race lurking in the family tree someplace. My family is mixed Scots/Cherokee/Choctaw and we have all sorts of color combinations, including my redheaded (yes, redheaded) olive skinned cousin. When you mix the races (in this case, European and NA) and stir for a couple hundred years, your kids are like a box of chocolates...you never know what you're gonna get.

[CobaltBlue]

I know what you're talking about.

My husband is half German, half Brit. He was born with blond hair and grey eyes - his hair is now brown, his eyes still grey.

I have dark eyes, dark hair but fair skin.

Our first son has similar coloring to mine, dark hair, dark eyes, fair skin.

Our second son was born with blue eyes, blond hair, fair skin.

Why? Because I have ancestors with red hair and green eyes.

[FITZ]

I think red-heads are pretty interesting ---the pure ones with carrot hair, freckles, and pale skin. I've seen them from families where everyone else had dark hair and eyes, and from families where the rest were blonds, ----and you could put them all together and they look like they'd be from the same family. I guess race is just about genetic variety but there's a lot of genetic variety within a family.

[unspun]

Dr. Alan Goodman, a physical anthropologist at Hampshire College and an adviser to the association, said, "there is no biological basis for race." The clusters shown in the Science article were driven by geography, not race, he said.

They seem to be defining "race" in a more distinctive way than I've generally seen it defined (basically, an ethnic group).

BTW aren't we supposed to "celebrate ethnicity" while we're deploring distinctions between "races?" [sigh] "'tis a puzzlement."

[Pharmboy]

Yes...you are absolutely correct! Celebrate diversity while denying it exists...oh the contortions the lefties must go through on every issue they embrace. Pity.

[blam]

Ping.

[Cronos]

Africa, Europe, Asia, Melanesia and the Americas

There is a big problem with this classification -- What about the Caucasians from North Africa and Asia? Most of the belt from India to Morocco is Caucasian.

[Cronos]

Or from Persians and Arabs? Or are Persians an Asian race? I've read people from India are considered Caucasians which makes sense I guess but racially they seems different than your Scandinavians

Persians, Indians, Arabs are all Caucasians. Persians and Indians are members of the Aryan race from which the Germanic, Slavic, Italic and other members are derived.