Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Human family Tree
- Thread starter Zylstra
- Start date
DerivedApe
New Member
Does anyone know whether anyone's put this new study's results die-by-side with those from The Journey of Man yet?
Well that was kinda vague start for a thread.
Which study do you mean? the one that studied the wrist and manual morphology that was just published in PNAS?
I also don't quite understand what you mean by journey of man. Is it some research project that has produced some new phylogenetic data on hominins? or are you talking about the iconic figure of decent of man which features human evolution in single line?
The History Channel's been talking about a new genetic study into the history of human migration.DerivedApe said:Well that was kinda vague start for a thread.
Which study do you mean? the one that studied the wrist and manual morphology that was just published in PNAS?
I also don't quite understand what you mean by journey of man. Is it some research project that has produced some new phylogenetic data on hominins? or are you talking about the iconic figure of decent of man which features human evolution in single line?
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/human-family-tree
I'm curious as to whether the results are consider with an earlier study
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Journey_of_Man:_A_Genetic_Odyssey
I would prefer spencer wells hadn't been involved with the new study
StevoDog21
New Member
Zylstra-
The Journal of Paleoanthropology says the Genographic Project is simply a fleshed-out and greatly expanded version of the sampling Wells did for the Journey of Man, using sampling of the female mitochondrial DNA as well as male Y-chromosome. There are no discrepancies with the original study, which had been verfied previously by many groups around the world since it was first done. The numbers of samples are far greater, which gives better resolution to dates of appearance and divergence of the genetic markers, and the effects of genetic drift are better explained.
But yes, the new study sharpens and confirms the patterns of human migration expounded by Wells in his earlier effort. I'm not sure why you would have preferred that he not be involved in this, but he could hardly not have been since it was his idea. He's the head of National Geographics genetic exploration department, and the director of the Genographic Project. He's wrote another companion book called Deep Ancestry-Inside the Genographic Project which has gotten excellent scientific reviews. (And of course, he does not test the samples, and is not the only one who sees the results, if you're worried about impartiality).
National Geographic will air the show about the Genographic Project, The Human Family Tree, on Sunday August 30th
I highly recommend it, for everyone.
The more people understand about genetics and genographics, the more obvious it will be how outmoded and meaningless concepts like "different races" and "different peoples" really are.
The Journal of Paleoanthropology says the Genographic Project is simply a fleshed-out and greatly expanded version of the sampling Wells did for the Journey of Man, using sampling of the female mitochondrial DNA as well as male Y-chromosome. There are no discrepancies with the original study, which had been verfied previously by many groups around the world since it was first done. The numbers of samples are far greater, which gives better resolution to dates of appearance and divergence of the genetic markers, and the effects of genetic drift are better explained.
But yes, the new study sharpens and confirms the patterns of human migration expounded by Wells in his earlier effort. I'm not sure why you would have preferred that he not be involved in this, but he could hardly not have been since it was his idea. He's the head of National Geographics genetic exploration department, and the director of the Genographic Project. He's wrote another companion book called Deep Ancestry-Inside the Genographic Project which has gotten excellent scientific reviews. (And of course, he does not test the samples, and is not the only one who sees the results, if you're worried about impartiality).
National Geographic will air the show about the Genographic Project, The Human Family Tree, on Sunday August 30th
I highly recommend it, for everyone.
The more people understand about genetics and genographics, the more obvious it will be how outmoded and meaningless concepts like "different races" and "different peoples" really are.
Thank you! I wasn't aware others had verified it, either. Might you have the link to the article from JoP?
It's always good to get confirmation from studies performed by wholly different parties.
That was, in fact, my concern. Do you know whether many of the same persons are involved in the sampling and other aspects of the study?
I disagree with that statement. This information demonstrates the reality and importance of race when it is properly understood as a 'gradient' of genetic differences between populations from differing geographical; regions and ancestoeries useful in the understanding of medical risks in populations and individuals, as revealed by Bidol and the US Army's old anti-malarial (the name of which I forget).
To say that this gradient demonstrates a non-existence of racial differences is ignorant and illogical and paramount to stating that ring species demonstrate a non-existence of speciation and the concept of 'different species'. Rather, both are examples of the true nature of these matters as gradual things rather than wholly distinct and sudden differentiation. They both are to be expected, as both the presence of race 9as it exists) and 'ring species' are predicted by the theory of evolution through genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection.
I'm not sure why you would have preferred that he not be involved in this,
It's always good to get confirmation from studies performed by wholly different parties.
(And of course, he does not test the samples, and is not the only one who sees the results, if you're worried about impartiality).
That was, in fact, my concern. Do you know whether many of the same persons are involved in the sampling and other aspects of the study?
The more people understand about genetics and genographics, the more obvious it will be how outmoded and meaningless concepts like "different races" and "different peoples" really are
I disagree with that statement. This information demonstrates the reality and importance of race when it is properly understood as a 'gradient' of genetic differences between populations from differing geographical; regions and ancestoeries useful in the understanding of medical risks in populations and individuals, as revealed by Bidol and the US Army's old anti-malarial (the name of which I forget).
To say that this gradient demonstrates a non-existence of racial differences is ignorant and illogical and paramount to stating that ring species demonstrate a non-existence of speciation and the concept of 'different species'. Rather, both are examples of the true nature of these matters as gradual things rather than wholly distinct and sudden differentiation. They both are to be expected, as both the presence of race 9as it exists) and 'ring species' are predicted by the theory of evolution through genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection.
StevoDog21
New Member
Zylstra-
The reality and importance of "race"?
I beg to differ.
A "gradient of genetic differences between populations from differing geographical regions and ancestries" is exactly that- it applies to different POPULATIONS, not "races". None of these differences is common to all members of any "race". Nor does this amount to a denial of speciation. "Race" does not equate to species, or subspecies. Had they been given more time in isolation from other populations, some populations may well have evolved into truly different species, but they didn't, and never will now. There are no "racial differences" because there is no meaningful definition of "race". That's why it's not a concept recognized in modern biology. Anytime you have a system of grouping with more variation within your groups than there is between them, the system of grouping is mathematically meaningless. Ancestry IS important in medical diagnosis and treatment because it can tell us something about the probability of certain genetic information, but it's the genetic information that's significant- not the ancestry. And, obviously, trying to classify "races" by genetic similarities would entail hundreds of overlapping and contradictory classifications, depending on exactly what genetic similarity was used.
"Race" is a meaningless, illogical and outmoded concept.
The reality and importance of "race"?
I beg to differ.
A "gradient of genetic differences between populations from differing geographical regions and ancestries" is exactly that- it applies to different POPULATIONS, not "races". None of these differences is common to all members of any "race". Nor does this amount to a denial of speciation. "Race" does not equate to species, or subspecies. Had they been given more time in isolation from other populations, some populations may well have evolved into truly different species, but they didn't, and never will now. There are no "racial differences" because there is no meaningful definition of "race". That's why it's not a concept recognized in modern biology. Anytime you have a system of grouping with more variation within your groups than there is between them, the system of grouping is mathematically meaningless. Ancestry IS important in medical diagnosis and treatment because it can tell us something about the probability of certain genetic information, but it's the genetic information that's significant- not the ancestry. And, obviously, trying to classify "races" by genetic similarities would entail hundreds of overlapping and contradictory classifications, depending on exactly what genetic similarity was used.
"Race" is a meaningless, illogical and outmoded concept.
StevoDog21 said:None of these differences is common to all members of any "race".
If that were true, the study discussed in this very thread would not have been possible.
Nor does this amount to a denial of speciation. "Race" does not equate to species, or subspecies. Had they been given more time in isolation from other populations, some populations may well have evolved into truly different species, but they didn't,
I refer you once again the the phenmomanon of ring species, where each 'species' iw one 'species' capable of interbreeding as a single population, yet those which are far enough apart are different 'species' incapable of breeding successfully- a gradient of genetic change analogous the he minor human 'races' (though not as extreme in humans, due to more interbreeding). You seem to be stuck in the ignorant mindset of thinking of 'distinct' 'major races'.
There are no "racial differences" because there is no meaningful definition of "race".
That's why it's not a concept recognized in modern biology
See: Bidil
http://www.forbes.com/2005/05/10/cx_mh_0509racemedicine.html
http://www.bidil.com/
Racial differences:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/110/5/911
NATURE article expanding upon what i have said regarding race
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html
Evolution, race, and medicine
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/health/11heart.html?_r=2
. Anytime you have a system of grouping with more variation within your groups than there is between them, the system of grouping is mathematically meaningless. Ancestry IS important in medical diagnosis and treatment because it can tell us something about the probability of certain genetic information, but it's the genetic information that's significant- not the ancestry.
The ancestry cannot be separated from the genetic information. The ancestry is the clue to the genetic information for which to look, just as the individual's medical history is relevant to preexisting medical conditions.
And, obviously, trying to classify "races" by genetic similarities would entail hundreds of overlapping and contradictory classifications, depending on exactly what genetic similarity was used.
Um... wrong. It's on;y 'contradicting' if one is ignorant and stuck in the mindset of 'distinct' 'major instead of the reality of a series of gradients of overlapping heritage. Only those ignorant fools who look at race as a static and 'neat' thing [those persons mostly being those who wish for a neat set of classes by which they might discriminate] will have any problem understanding. The complexity of racial groups is only a problem insomuch as the existence of ring species area problem to the concept of species (and subspecies).
"Race" is a meaningless, illogical and outmoded concept.
Only your ignorant concept of race is outmoded and meaningless.
StevoDog21
New Member
Zylstra-
You can call me an ignorant fool as many times as you like- it does nothing to improve your illogical argument.
I repeat: "Race" is a meaningless concept, and is not recognized in modern biology.
You cannot give a scientific definition of "race", or of any particular alleged "race", nor can you tell me how many alleged "races" there are. In otherwords: meaningless.
Humanity is ONE species, and we all interbreed without difficulty to produce perfectly viable offspring; it has nothing whatsoever to do with "ring species", and your repeated allusion to it implies either a desperate dishonesty, or a near-total ignorance of the concept.
You may believe what you wish. I can't say I'm greatly concerned about your beliefs.
I can only express my surprise that anyone with any knowledge of modern science at all, far more anyone in the League of Reason, would subscribe to such a ridiculous notion.
You can call me an ignorant fool as many times as you like- it does nothing to improve your illogical argument.
I repeat: "Race" is a meaningless concept, and is not recognized in modern biology.
You cannot give a scientific definition of "race", or of any particular alleged "race", nor can you tell me how many alleged "races" there are. In otherwords: meaningless.
Humanity is ONE species, and we all interbreed without difficulty to produce perfectly viable offspring; it has nothing whatsoever to do with "ring species", and your repeated allusion to it implies either a desperate dishonesty, or a near-total ignorance of the concept.
You may believe what you wish. I can't say I'm greatly concerned about your beliefs.
I can only express my surprise that anyone with any knowledge of modern science at all, far more anyone in the League of Reason, would subscribe to such a ridiculous notion.
Is that really be best you can do?FCAAP_Dan said:I have an orange house cat and a black and white house cat. I keep them separate but equal.
See how silly that sounds?
If I tell you to bring me the Greyhound and not the pitbull, can you tell the difference?
What I'm saying is my two house cats (same species) are different colors. It's close to two humans being different colors.
There's much bigger difference between a greyhound and pitbull.
I'm trying to make the point that under the fur we're all the same.
There's much bigger difference between a greyhound and pitbull.
I'm trying to make the point that under the fur we're all the same.
FCAAP_Dan said:What I'm saying is my two house cats (same species) are different colors. It's close to two humans being different colors.
There's much bigger difference between a greyhound and pitbull.
I'm trying to make the point that under the fur we're all the same.
You have fur? :ugeek:
dissonance
New Member
Man this really gets my goat. Its denialisim akin to YEC level. Varities exist - deal with it. Its what is used to determine the difference between a granny smith and a pink lady apple, which incidentally can cross-pollinate but are undeniably different.
The fact that sub-species-level genetic variations in humans (routinely called races) have traditionally been used with bigoted overtones is no reason to deny that they exist. FFS people, its ok to use the word 'race'. Lead by example and use the term with its proper intention and levels of respect... or come up with a new term - variety, flavour... whatever... but dont stoop to that level of intellectual denailisim.
The fact that sub-species-level genetic variations in humans (routinely called races) have traditionally been used with bigoted overtones is no reason to deny that they exist. FFS people, its ok to use the word 'race'. Lead by example and use the term with its proper intention and levels of respect... or come up with a new term - variety, flavour... whatever... but dont stoop to that level of intellectual denailisim.
dissonance said:The fact that sub-species-level genetic variations in humans (routinely called races) have traditionally been used with bigoted overtones is no reason to deny that they exist. FFS people, its ok to use the word 'race'. Lead by example and use the term with its proper intention and levels of respect... or come up with a new term - variety, flavour... whatever... but dont stoop to that level of intellectual denailisim.
I bolded the inaccurate part.
dissonance
New Member
Hang on, there are definately genetic adaptions that occur in isolated populations, below the species level. Accumulation of these variations / adaptions is what nomally leads to speciation... but in humans speciation hasnt occured yet. Nor probably will due to breaking down the isolation before enough have accumulated.
The racial markers that are being used to trace ancestory as per the thread are all examples of variations that arent speciating but definately distinct... ie below the species level. My terminology might not be 100% accurate (or nouveau 'PC' - gasp) but surely its not that far wrong.
Isnt this the whole point of the cumulative steps of evolution - they occur sub-species until there is a speciation?
The racial markers that are being used to trace ancestory as per the thread are all examples of variations that arent speciating but definately distinct... ie below the species level. My terminology might not be 100% accurate (or nouveau 'PC' - gasp) but surely its not that far wrong.
Isnt this the whole point of the cumulative steps of evolution - they occur sub-species until there is a speciation?