Is race real or is it just a human invention?

Post Reply New Topic

Are they working when you do them?

The term Melanesians is current then in which discipline?
You appear to be out of your depth. Read up and come back.
Or just keep making sh!t up and looking foolish. It is your desiscion.

Pro-tip on Ad hom.
Me saying you are dumb for believing dumb stuff (like thinking I said Asians and Amerinds are not related.) is not the same as me saying your are wrong because you are dumb which would be a logical fallacy.

example:

I can tell that you are a freaking moron and intellectually lazy because of your views. (not ad hom)

Your views are wrong because you are an idiot (ad hom because idiots are not incapable of accidentally having correct views).

understand?

So your counter argument is to call my arguments dumb and then call me dumb for making them, eh?




Well howdy, pot! I'm Mr Kettle and I'm made of chrome.

No. I guess reading comprehension is not one of your strong points. Read through it again
(maybe get your mom to help) and come back when you understand it.

Your views are wrong not because you are an idiot but because.

1. There is no such thing as junk DNA.
2. The three race theory doesn't account for Indians, Andaman islanders, Australoids, The San and Mbuti people in a way that is useful or genetically defendable.
3. The Cephalic index has been shown to be bunk as far back as Boaz.
4. The categories Black, White and Asian becomes meaningless when the genitic diversity of Africa is figured in.

You are a moron because.

1. You use ad hom whilst saying it is wrong to use. The whole while not really understanding
what ad hominem means.
2. You assume scientists are stupid but your lazy survey is correct.
3. You ascribe ridiculous views to me. i.e Asians and Amerinds not being closely related. I don't know if this was an attempt at a straw man or just another example of your intellectual laziness.

make more sense now?

tldr;
You are wrong because of my completely amazing arguments.
You are stupid because you are lazy and are bad at making coherent points.

This is the point where you mis-state my views and pretend you are laughing at me.

No, I support reading papers and doing science, I would just like to see a scientific paper that analyzed only FUNCTIONAL DNA. Logic tells us that we would get very different genetic distances if we looked at functional DNA (which is influenced by natural selection) as opposed to non-functional DNA (which is immune to natural selection).

For example, if two populations separated a long time ago, but remained in similar environments, they should remain similar in FUNCTIONAL DNA (because they remain exposed to similar natural selections) but they will still be very genetically distant in NON-FUNCTIONAL DNA (because non-functional DNA is immune to natural selection and mutates at a regular rate, thus serving as an ideal molecular clock for when populations diverged).


Conversely, if we had some tribe in Africa migrate to Antarctica a few thousand years ago, non-functional DNA would proclaim them Africans since they ONLY left Africa a few thousand years ago so there was not enough time for their junk DNA to mutate significantly, HOWEVER functional DNA might proclaim them a wildly different race, because in the short time they've been out of Africa, they've experienced opposite selection pressures.

Lets find that paper then if we can't lets write it.
One issue is the selection of what is functional and what is non functional DNA.
Until we know exactly what each gene does we have to guess.
We could just choose DNA that does not code for a protien but then we run into the problem of messenger RNA being important <<mRNA and Autism>>
Lets start at the U of U paper that I cited earlier it used various methods not all of them non-functional DNA.


I think we should compromise and do complete dna comparisions + mitochondral just to be complete.

It would depend on how you're defining race, which I believe is the crux of the whole controversy. The general trend among evolutionary biologists is to classify species or populations according to phylogenetic ancestry, but you seem to work with a definition based entirely on similar physical adaptations regardless of phylogenetic relatedness. A similar position is advocated here:

I suppose that if you go by physical adaptations alone without taking phylogenetic ancestry into account, you could say Melanesians and Africans are both part of the "Negroid" race or ecotype. It would be very different from saying these groups are genetic kin however,

Great post. have to point out that Melaneasians and Africans don't live in similar climates and don't really look alike including the skin tone.

only one out of several kinds of non coding dna is immune to natural selection, that is defunct inherited parts(pseudogenes), they can however still have an impact on natural selection themselves, since some of them are easily mutated into their active counterparts, especially over anthropological time.

It was not I who said anything about junk DNA, nor did I fail to acknowledge the khoisan people and their genetic distinctiveness from other humans.

As for India, that country is multiracial and has caucasoid, negroid, and even mongoloid people. JakobVirgin, who is ret*d, keeps using strawman and strawman as his arguments become weaker and the best his ass can do is to call anyone who disagrees with his ass a "moron".
I guess he doesn't understand the concept of miscegenation. For example, some fools talk about the people of ethiopia and somalia as the "hamitic race" when in fact, these people have both caucasoid AND negroid ancestry.

The vast majority of modern humans fall into the 3 categories mentioned in this thread. I have already mentioned 2 groups that don't but they are very small in number and sadly, khoisan people are increasingly endangered as their population continues to decline.

Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid? Am I reading 8th edition Encyclopedia Britannica here?

What cracks me up is how that melanesian boy looks like a typical black boy of african descent with dyed blond hair!

The ancestors of the melanesians ALSO had strongly negroid features and once lived throughout southern asia. In ancient Iran, before the persians were a people called the Elamites who had strongly negroid features much like some tribes in southern India do(google: Bonda people). And what's more astonishing is that rather than crossing into Asia by land, they came by canoe following the coastline!

It was once theorized by anthropologists in the mid 20th century that melanesians branched of from caucasian peoples and had black features via convergent evolution. This however, has been debunked. Keep in mind that the melanesians and negritos ancestors were among the most recent migrations of modern humans out of Africa. The ancestors of white people left africa some 65,000 years earlier.

bolding mine.
<sigh>
from another thread, but worth repeating here:

Read a book buddy. Maybe one written after 1935 and not by the KKK. miscegenation?
Where is my straw man? Point it out not all of us are as clever as you.

You have yet to pose a single argument from science. Just some vague blubber about 3-races are easier and
Melanesians being somehow the current name for Australoids.

coupled with a huge misunderstanding of what ad hom means you are quite formidable.

The 3-race theory fails for the reasons I outlined before.
5 and 7 race theories are better but still quite weak.

LKL that is ad hom AspieRogue's racism may be the reason he believes stupid things but it is not the reason they are stupid. His stupidity most likely informs his racism as well but is certainly not the reason racism is wrong

That was said in the spirit of fun and comradeship as I admire you no small bit.
Great illustration I guess we have to go with the 14 race theory and the rest are mixes?

LKL: What gene frequencies specifically does that map you posted refer to?

Also, WHY is it "racist" to suggest that melanesians may be descended from black africans who left africa 60,000 years ago?


And JakobVirgin: If melanesians are indeed unrelated to black africans, then why do they have such similar facial features? Especially the Papuans, Andamanese, and Soloman islanders?

If you say that it's due to "convergent evolution do to a similar climate as equatorial africa, you're wrong.

I say they don't look alike so am I off the hook?
The Pacific Islands don't have a similar climate to equatorial Africa.
I would give a cultural solution to your question (hopefully I can avoid stepping into your "clever" trap). You think they look the same because you are part of a culture that needs them to look the same. So you value skin color but not Supraorbital ridges. Out dated head measurements and such -that have more to do with the mothers diet than genetics- than hair color.

Since Caucasoids and (at the risk of being called a b***h again) Austroloids have the biggest brow ridges and the skull anatomy to maintain them this coupled with the blond hair makes me think they look "White". Actually like Irish people who somehow obtained deep tans.

To me the nose shape of the folks you like to call Melanesians looks very different than that of a congoid African with a more pronounced and wider bridge.

Of course this is all subjective that is why genetic studies are more useful if what one wants is to figure out the settlement patterns of Homo.