race baiters and liberals get ready to start crying
 

http://www.amazon.com/Troublesome-In.../dp/1594204462

Drawing on startling new evidence from the mapping of the genome, an explosive new account of the genetic basis of race and its role in the human story


Fewer ideas have been more toxic or harmful than the idea of the biological reality of race, and with it the idea that humans of different races are biologically different from one another. For this understandable reason, the idea has been banished from polite academic conversation. Arguing that race is more than just a social construct can get a scholar run out of town, or at least off campus, on a rail. Human evolution, the consensus view insists, ended in prehistory.

Inconveniently, as Nicholas Wade argues in A Troublesome Inheritance, the consensus view cannot be right. And in fact, we know that populations have changed in the past few thousand years—to be lactose tolerant, for example, and to survive at high altitudes. Race is not a bright-line distinction; by definition it means that the more human populations are kept apart, the more they evolve their own distinct traits under the selective pressure known as Darwinian evolution. For many thousands of years, most human populations stayed where they were and grew distinct, not just in outward appearance but in deeper senses as well.

Wade, the longtime journalist covering genetic advances for The New York Times, draws widely on the work of scientists who have made crucial breakthroughs in establishing the reality of recent human evolution. The most provocative claims in this book involve the genetic basis of human social habits. What we might call middle-class social traits—thrift, docility, nonviolence—have been slowly but surely inculcated genetically within agrarian societies, Wade argues. These “values” obviously had a strong cultural component, but Wade points to evidence that agrarian societies evolved away from hunter-gatherer societies in some crucial respects. Also controversial are his findings regarding the genetic basis of traits we associate with intelligence, such as literacy and numeracy, in certain ethnic populations, including the Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews.

Wade believes deeply in the fundamental equality of all human peoples. He also believes that science is best served by pursuing the truth without fear, and if his mission to arrive at a coherent summa of what the new genetic science does and does not tell us about race and human history leads straight into a minefield, then so be it. This will not be the last word on the subject, but it will begin a powerful and overdue conversation.

this might be interesting to read.. one thing for sure, since I'm not a bigot, I'll be able to read this with an open mind and be willing to discuss the subject with other unbiased individuals... might be 5-6 here at GFY.... think?

was brushing up recently about the Amerindians DNA's distinct lack of other population's chromosones, i.e, they didn't migrate to the Americas, they started off here. They are their own distinct race. The human connection to Neanderthal and the Denosivan, a newly discovered population, is also fascinating

I am great at it. I am a master baiter.

Not sure what you mean by 'Amerindians didn't migrate to the Americas'. All Native Indians in North and South America are descended from people who crossed the Bering ice and land bridge connecting what's now Siberia and Alaska. From there many different cultures/people developed over thousands of years all over North and South America. So if you wanted to say that the Navajo or Inuits started off here that's true but are they 'a distinct race'? Depends on what definition of 'race' you're using.

"Three major migrations occurred, as traced by linguistic and genetic data; the early Paleoamericans soon spread throughout the Americas, diversifying into many hundreds of culturally distinct nations and tribes."

I mean scientist have shown they didn't migrate here. seems quite clear to me. and the science shows they are a distinct race.

Amerindians are separated from other world populations on Y chromosome haplogroups. This is consistent with findings which points to either an "authoctonous" origin for Amerindians or to a very long isolation.
This is not concordant with the theory that present day Amerindians came from Siberia through the Bering strait
http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2008-10-25.pdf

au·toch·tho·nous
ôˈtäkTHənəs/Submit
adjective
(of an inhabitant of a place) indigenous rather than descended from migrants or colonists.

They were in isolation for a very long time, at minimum 11,000 years since that's how far back they've dated the Clovis culture found here in North America, potentially as long as 45,000 years ago. So enough differentiation to be considered a race the same way Asians are a seperate race. But no race is indigenous to any part of the world other than the entire human race is indigenous to Africa. All humans migrated out of Africa.

Of course science can be proven wrong - by better and newer scientific discoveries.

Here's the Wall Street Journal review of the book.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...21482247869874

I think the Clovis are the culture where the science splits. pre-Clovis artifacts being discovered in Texas, if I recall........but first, I'm not claiming being knowledgeable on this, I certainly do not understand all I know about it.

But I had an understanding the pre-Clovis discovery showed that the DNA was here long before the first migration and how the DNA is found with Euro DNA elsewhere suggests a reverse migration out of the Americas via the Bering strait. I think i recall that meaning that native Americans made a full loop of a migration around and many ended up back here after CLovis.

that's a regurgitation of what I recollect, btw.

Oh., the biggest part of that being that the "out of Africa" theory is proven invalid as a consequence.

I'm not an expert either but I've never seen a hypothesis for how people first got to the Americas other than the Bering Strait one.

I'm thinking of snagging this, looks like an interesting read

from the review

sorry, didn't mean to imply you are acting like an expert, just covering my ass in case anyone thinks I'm acting like one. it's a really complex topic and the science is certainly unsettled, although I had assumed, perhaps wrongly so, that the pre-Clovis discovery had answered some questions, it probably created more questions than answers.

DNA studies have proven you are incorrect. Mutt is right. the path has been mapped from Africa to Australia then back out of Australia through se asia then left and right. Peru was the last place to be inhabited.

An experiment was done about 4 years ago. They began with the earliest known location in Africa then took DNA samples of a few hundred to a few thousand. They looked for the anomaly. They travel until they get one. Universities all over the world were involved.

I'm no expert I watched the PBS series about the experiment. It was pretty cool.

End conclusion. Everyone should chill out about race. People adapt to their environments to survive.

This is a wiki about the program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Journey_of_Man

You are too funny... :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh



:stoned

ADG

It's not my work, so it's not a matter of my being correct or not. As I stated, I am simply regurgitating what I've read and the simple fact is you're wrong, the science is not settled on the matter, the origin of our species in the Americas is still cloudy.

cool wiki page though, I watched that documentary a long time ago, and it's very old dated science, 10 year old dated science. the pre-Clovis discovery was made 3 years ago, DNA research levels have increased leaps and bounds since 2003 also.

and I'm quite chill about race. :)

:1orglaugh

Just did a quick google, there are no less than 4 theories currently circulating that attempt to explain the original population of America. While most scientist agree on the land bridge, it is still just a theory and glacier timetables suggest there are some concerns that a land bridge was open the years it would have needed to be.

it also appears to be a hotly debated topic amongst scientists.

Stone tools have been found in the eastern US that match those found in Europe for the same period. One theory is that early Europeans came to the Americas during the ice age.

that is interesting... much to learn for sure.. this guy is interesting....

thanks Mutt,... strange review... the reviewer states the premise for the book is false .....

The title gives fair warning: "A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History." At the heart of the book, stated quietly but with command of the technical literature, is a bombshell. It is now known with a high level of scientific confidence that both tenets of the orthodoxy are wrong.

yet ....

So one way or another, "A Troublesome Inheritance" will be historic. Its proper reception would mean enduring fame as the book that marked a turning point in social scientists' willingness to explore the way the world really works. But there is a depressing alternative: that social scientists will continue to predict planetary movements using Ptolemaic equations, as it were, and that their refusal to come to grips with "A Troublesome Inheritance" will be seen a century from now as proof of this era's intellectual corruption..

But I thought the world was created 6000 years ago by the great white wizard ?

it really is very interesting and I agree, I think a lot more is and will be revealed, like this scientist's view that the fossil record shows bipedalism developing much earlier than currently theorized.

I read the reviewer as having a dire view of modern day POLITICIZED science(intellectual corruption). And I tend to agree, like this science is settled nonsense going around. what a scary scary phrase and I'm staggered to see it embraced by scientists and people like obama and bill clinton.

Science has always been politicized :2 cents:

I understand that, one only need a brief look at history to see science squelched time and again. nevertheless, science is not immune to the current day levels of what I simply reiterated from the reviewer's article.


The reviewer seems smart enough, he wrote about the intellectual corruption that will hinder widespread acceptance, I agree. I think the expression the science is settled is a clear example of it.

There are some small genetic differences. Europeans have neanderthal DNA, melanesians have more denisovan as do southeast asians, subsaharan africans have an admixture of of roughly 2% from an archaic population

The original stamp seems to have been a light Ethiopian <- but that is just conjecture on my part since genetic and archaeological evidence points to migration through Ethiopia

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-69vovG97Jv...ntmyo1_500.png

Some crazy shit. But I still fucked your mother.

look Larry you can pull stuff out of context all you want you... you're a fucking bigot and you know it, and typically your contribution to any thread with a different point of view than yours is name calling and slander.. :thumbsup

what makes me wonder is the amount of time you spent on that or do you book mark stuff ??? dude get a fucking life

...and by boat. People keep ignoring this simple option, because they think man was incapable of crossing the oceans at that early of a time. However just a few weeks ago, a Polish man crossed the Atlantic traveling over 5 thousand miles by kayak. He was not the first to do this but the third.

This shows that man is quite capable of crossing the oceans in very small and simple boats. It may not be what we have today but it's dumb to think they were incompetent and incapable of mastering sea travel.

why not to cultures devising stone tools? simplest solution isn't it?

You're right. There have been millions spent with years of study by many reputable scientists in the field and like you said, many universities involved to show what you just mentioned above.

But nobody paid any attention to what you said in this thread.

Instead, (some) just keep hammering home what ONE man wrote about in ONE book and ignore everything else.

AND ... let's make this a Left/right issue to boot!!

Honestly.

I will say outright that I am not conservative but if after a long period of sound scientific scrutiny and peer review that what the author N. Wade wrote about is true, then I am prepared to accept it. Otherwise it's just one man's theory for now whether he's an ultra left-winged commie or on the other extreme.

theory is not fact. that's why we call it theory and not fact.