Racist?

Then you've misunderstood me. No, I was not implying that. I don't think they've stopped evolving.I used further as in further than they already have and not as in further than another group. That is the root of your misunderstanding.If you have group A split into A and B and then we're talking about how group B further evolves, say into B and C, then we are not saying that group A has stopped evolving. You got a source for that diversity?Look at the distribution of human mitochondrial DNA haplogroups: Are you saying there's more diversity within the L group than between all the other ones? That doesn't seem right.And actually, that pic helps explain my other point above.The L group evolves into the N which further evolves into the H U X T V W I J K ones. That is not saying that the L group has stopped evolving. Does that make sense?And further, my other point was that you were wrong to say that there should only be 2 races, because as we can see from the map, the second one continued to split up into more and more races so there is more than 2 now.I've also found Haplogroup A to be intersting. It seems that the sub-saharan africans really are distinct by the genetic evidence.Is that not a race with an objective line?

Certain "nobody's" either have prejudice/reading comprehension problems/ or haven't even read the thread. Certain nobody's are not being sincere. Yes, it is my business to determine who is being sincere when they are calling me a racist. I did not blame everybody, maybe you should go back and read the first couple lines of post #1.You are really just barking up the wrong tree ringo.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

Why point out that those Homo Sapiens who bred with Neanderthals further evolved if your argument now is that ALL Homo Sapiens continued evolving, which would not be disputed? At best you were needlessly inarticulate and if you are actually saying that group B further split into Group B and C, why wouldn’t Group A continue to split into Group A and D? In other words, why do you say that ALL Sub-saharan Africans can still be grouped into one race? First, it follows from our understanding of population genetics, genetic drift, anthropological data, and nuclear DNA and mtDNA analysis, etc. It isn’t in dispute.Second, for further reading:

quote:

---

African exodus: The Origins of Modern Humanity. Stringer, C. 1997. Henry Holt, New York.
Geography predicts neutral genetic diversity of human populations. Franck Prugnolle, Andrea Manica, and Franois Balloux. Curr Biol. 2005 March 8; 15(5): R159—R160.
Origins of Modern Humans: Multiregional or Out of Africa? Donald Johanson. http://www.actionbioscience.org/...tion/johanson.html#primer.
Home page | Institute of Human Origins

---

The list is endless and fascinating. Also some of the references I looked at from your own wiki link make clear about the great amount of diversity in African populations in their abstracts. Take the time to take a gander. No, what I am saying is that a contour map of genetic similarity will have roughly evenly spaced gradients. You will not see sharp boundaries between groups. Not only that, but there is no natural classification scheme that will categorize Homo Sapiens. Different characteristics have different groupings/geographic regions. There is more difference on average among individuals in a regional groups than there is between them and other regional groups.Second, you can have high genetic diversity while still possessing ancient mtDNA haplogroups. It isn’t an either/or situation.
All that being within a group that has the L haplogroup means is that you have an ancient lineage of mtDNA.Which leads me to ask. If you classify a group based on mtDNA Haplogroups, why not classify a group based on Hemoglobin S? Or why not the prevalence of the LAC*P gene? All three of these groups would have different geographical frequencies: or or Which one of these do you use to classify a group? How many groups would you have if you took each different gene and mapped it? How many overlaps would you have? How would you divide them? Then why contrast the one group with all others? Unless you are suggesting that the Group A population is now the Group D population and there are no other Group individuals left? Are you really suggesting that there would not be a Group E,F, or G population? If so, what is your evidence? Why would you support the idea that having neanderthal genes would make you distinct from this one group? I do not contend that there are two races. I was simply following the logic of AE’s argument: That one of the so-called multiple ways Africans are distinct from all others is that the others bred with Neanderthals. This kind of classification scheme leave you with two races. Ie. one group with Neanderthal genes and one without. See above. There are no sharp boundaries. There are only gradients of genetic similarity.I hope I have made myself more clear and have understood your argument as best I can for now.

I've read them and it's pretty clear what you're saying. People who think you're a racist are wrong and you're right. I repeat, you've learned nothing and it seems pretty clear that you're determined to learn nothing. You'll never know why people think you're a racist.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

I'm trying. I think I've got most of it but there's still a little that is unclear to me. I didn't get very deep into population genetics and I hated stats, so... I didn't quite see that supported, but I can grant that. My point doesn't rely on sharp boundaries nor lack of gradients. Sure, and the one with (as well as the ones without) could continue to divide further into more races, so there could be more that two. BUT, yes, we could classify race in a way that allows for these to be the two races. Because that's the group that was being talked about. There's not really a reason other than that. I suppose those could be helpful too. I chose the basis that google lead me to. From the wiki page on haplogroup I was just stumbling through where it says:

quote:

---

In human genetics, the haplogroups most commonly studied are Y-chromosome (Y-DNA) haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups, both of which can be used to define genetic populations.

---

If you go to that first link to Y-DNA, and scroll down, you'll find this:

quote:

---

Haplogroups A and B are only found in sub-Saharan Africa (and in populations extracted from there in modern times, primarily via the Atlantic slave trade and Arab slave trade). The first to branch off was A, with defining mutation M91. All other haplogroups are summarized as BT (also referred to as YxA).

---

So I'm just reading around, I don't have any reason to "choose" any particular grouping. You know, I see this parroted quite often, but I'm really sure what it is saying.Is it that if you have group A and group B, then a comparison of two individuals from group A will be more different that one individual from group A and one from group B? That doesn't see right. And it does say "on average". So is it that an average of the differences between the members of group A is higher than the average of the differences between A and B?I don't think that matters much for the point being made.There exists a group in sub-saharan africa that lacks the mutation M91 and there are multiple groups outside of sub-saharan africa that all contain that mutation. Right? Regardless of how diverse the sub-saharan africa group is, there is an objective difference dividing these groups. Is there not?I'm not exactly sure how that relates to AE's original link with the Neanderthal genome. But that one was saying that the sub-saharan africans lacked the genes we got from the Neanderthals, so that too is a measurable difference between a person who is in the sub-saharan african group and one who is in one of the groups that did get those genes.How is that not a line between these two groups? I don't see why the reasons matter.But, at face value, it does look like there's difference races. People say that there are no lines n'stuff, but it looks like the genetics does show that real differences do exist.

Then I will never know why most people don't think I am a racist.

That's true. If you're determined to learn nothing, you'll probably succeed.You're doing it the hard way, though. You really don't have to start new topics to learn nothing.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Ok ringo, enough BS. I've entertained your little game on this long enough. That was a dumb thing you just said. I mean it is pretty obvious why I started the topic. Throughout this topic, I just confirmed what I already thought to be true. It's not me who is a racist. It is other peoples short comings, and prejudices. (Not every one, just certain people). These certain people think I am racist, because they are the ones with the problems. In almost 6000 posts, I never once talked about race, or ever gave a single reason for any one here to think I was racist, or a bigot. Even you, have not given me one single reason why I would be considered a racist, or given me a single quote from any of my posts why I would be considered a racist. There is way too much assuming that goes on in this forum. I have also been called a racist (hardly ever) because that's what people do to win an argument. They deviate from the topic, and say something completely irrelevant, and put you down. They attack the person, instead of the issue. I am not, or have never been, or will ever be a racist. I've spent a good amount of my valuable time reading, and posting in this thread, and I haven't learned anything that I already didn't know. Except to be refreshed by a few peoples comments on the subject, and to have a few people tell me that they don't think I am a racist. I am not trying to be a know it all, nothing could be further from the truth if you think that. You are guilty of what other people here are guilty of. You assume too much, and you make leaps, then attack the person instead of the topic. The topic is racism, not riverrats learning curve. Maybe it's you that needs to learn something here. Your the one doing the finger pointing. Maybe you need to learn that people lie here, and make stuff up.

I also don't want people to think that last statement of mine is an end-all to the subject. I remain open to ideas, and willing to learn. I am thankful for a good portion of comments, and discussions I've had throughout the years, and I have been educated by quite a few people here. I am grateful for the time they taken to explain things, or point out when I was wrong, without insulting. As I see it, I've been one of the very few people to ever admit he was wrong about something. You just don't see that here.

I don't think I've called you a racist. Feel free to take your own advice and point out where I have.I've called myself a bigot because I'm willing to admit that and try to improve myself.All I've tried to do in this thread is help you understand why some people might think you're a racist. You're welcome.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Ok, I never said you did. That's great. You are truly trying to be humble I suppose. As Christians we should be humble. I consider being humble equal with being open minded.
But you can be overly humble too, which can lead (for lack of a better word) to a low self esteem.We are all racist to a point, I did admit that with onifire at one point in the thread. But acting on those impulses is what I avoid. It is a life principal, and moral that I live by. I don't think you have. You have only accused me of not being able to learn, and telling me that I think I perfect. You've gone on with that for quite a few posts. Of course the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, but that is not the problem here.If you have something of value to say, about why people would consider me a racist (because of something I did, or said) then say it. I always respect what you have to say. If you can't find anything, then you need to examine more closely why people do that, and you just might find that it is them, not me.

If you really wish to understand the position that there is no such thing as ‘race’, you might want to look into population genetics and stats, etcThat doesn’t mean you couldn’t understand it if you decided not to look into these things, but it would help you in formulating a knowledgeable position. Your point does rely on sharp boundaries, you just don’t realize it. If we are looking for evidence of a division of humans into races then we would expect that there would be sharp boundaries between the ‘races’, and that is not the case. Instead we see gradients of diversity. That is basically the point. What would make you choose one scheme over another? The fact is that if you DO choose one classification scheme over another you get a DIFFERENT grouping for the people. If I chose resistance to Malaria as a way to classify Group A, I couldn’t use Lactose tolerance to justify the same group because not all individuals in Group A would be Lactose tolerant. I’m not sure I appreciate being called a parrot. What it is saying is that if you took a sample of a local group of people you would capture the majority (~85%) of variation within our genome. Basically, if you took two individuals from some localized group you would most likely find that they are less related to each other than they are to individuals from another localized group on the other-side of the world. There are a few reasons for this. One, we are a relatively new species. Natural selection and genetic drift hasn’t had enough time to create differences between humans. Second, we are a gregarious species and tend to migrate which has allowed for a generous amount of gene flow. Third, we have a LARGE population which tends to genetically drown out any major differences that crop up. Because while you can go deep into the genome of individuals and classify them according to whether they have one gene or another, it doesn’t lead to any one group having such a large difference from another group that you could classify them by race. Just because they have a Haplogroup A carrying individual doesn’t mean that he also has Hemoglobin S. In fact you can find Haplogroup A in all so-called racial groups. Any division by genetic difference would lead to an amazing diversity of groups which doesn’t help you at all. It would be meaningless. Because if ALL humans have continued to evolve how can you seperate ALL sub-saharan Africans into ONE race?The fact is that genetics DO NOT support racial classifications. There are NO sharp boundaries that would support classifying races by genetic differences.P.S. As an example, people from Northern China are more similar genetically to European populations than they are to Southeast Asian populations.

Quoted for irony.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

I am not sure What Catholic Scientist was saying, but the whole reason I brought up the Neaderthal mixing was to show that there were genetic differences. going further to assume that I meant there are only two races is going way to far. The point was, that there is a difference between Europeans, and Sub-Sharan Africans genetically. I am not sure if I should say most primitive, but the oldest people genetically on earth are the Khoisan peoples. They didn't regulary mix with the Bantu-people (Black Africans of the area), and instead were displaced, usually into less hospitable environments, which is where they exist today (the Kalahari - Namibia, Botswana, South Africa). the two groups mentioned, with and without neaderthal genes are broad groups indeed, and within those groups are other groups, and I would guess that there are other differences between groups inside the two groups. I do not think that it really followed my logic, as there are already clearly two distinct groups in Sub-haran Africa. I would even Consider the Mbuti, and possibly the Hazda two other distinct ancient genetic groups, bringing the number to at least 4 in Sub Saharan Africa alone, and still not even looking at the groups in West Africa.Sub-Saharan Africans are a diverse group as a whole (there is a lot of land there and many ecological niches to fill), to assume I meant two races, and that one is more elvolved is not close to what I was saying, sorry if that is how you read into it.

There was no irony. The irony is: telling someone for 50 posts that THEY have a problem, without saying what the problem is.