Why the Kennewick man plaintiffs were disingenuous, and their claims spurious
MIB529
review the actual skeleton. Here are all relevant traits of Chatters:
"This was a male of late middle age (40-55 years), and tall (170 to
176 cm ), slender build."
Naturally, this is a largely environmental trait, but it favors
Indians.
"The lack of head flattening from cradle board use,"
Cultural.
"minimal arthritis in weight-bearing bones, and the unusually light
wear on his teeth"
Yeah, Indians always lived on half-rotten Spam, even before the BIA
existed! LOL
"The skull is dolichocranic (cranial index 73.8) rather than
brachycranic"
One: It's quite appropriate that Chatters uses this measure on the
hundredth anniversary of its having been discredited. Of course,
maximum cranial breadth and maximum cranial length are fairly
ambiguous measures anyway. Two: Chatters could've gotten a 'caucasoid'
result either way. Three: My own cephalic index is .714 Note that I'm
in my twenties, and that it decreases with age.
"the face narrow and prognathous rather than broad and flat."
Once again, this describes me. Also, prognathy is typically NOT a
white trait.
"Cheek bones recede slightly and lack an inferior zygomatic
projection; the lower rim of the orbit is even with the upper."
The former might be a problem, but not enough. Especially since the
latter is once again typical of Indians.
"Other features are a long, broad nose that projects markedly from the
face and high, round orbits."
More typical Indian features.
"The mandible is v-shaped,with a pronounced, deep chin."
And?
"Many of these characteristics are definitive of modern-day caucasoid
peoples, while others, such as the orbits are typical of neither
race."
Ah, yes, use the long-discredited ethnology of Arthur de Gobineau. And
most of those traits are NOT caucasoid by any possible standard.
"Dental characteristics fit Turner's (1983) Sundadont pattern,
indicating possible relationship to south Asian peoples."
One: Turner didn't ever measure Indians. I've read his paper; Indians
don't really fit the sinodont pattern at all. Two: Chatters only
checked a few traits. Three: Some work with European populations shows
major sinodont affinities, at least in terms of the traits that
Chatters checked.
People's Commissar
"MIB529" <man_in_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ad78f65.04020...@posting.google.com...
What's the latest on this issue anyway? Also, I saw this from an old thread
on here, it's the one about clovis. Snip most, here is something:
Prehistoric White settlements in the Americas could explain many
things, from Central American Indian myths of bearded White gods who
brought knowledge -- to the presence of lighter skin, light eyes,
and more European-looking features among a few North American
Amerindians, characteristics noted by 17th and 18th century European
explorers and pioneers.
Note: there are no myths of bearded white gods - that was invented by heh,
bearded 20th century white men?
Very light skin and occasional light eyes is also common in Altaic
populations that are not "mixed" with anything. The same factors probably
cause that in all populations. The Manchu do have a myth or oral story
about crossing over, as was posted before on here - they are also quite
light, lighter than Southern Europeans, that's for sure.
I think the image of Quetzalcoatl? was unearthed and it turns out that this
man looks like a Chinese person or that type - he doesn't look like a white
man.
That NA are genetically related to Altaic people is proven by genetic
testing.
deowll
"People's Commissar" <tjs...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:NLzUb.15521$uM2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
A few viking genes seem to have made it into the North Eastern part of North
America but that is about it. The earliest groups from Asia didn't look like
moderns except for a few people in the extreme of South America and maybe a
few scattered groups that retained some gentic data from the first ones. I
don't know much about any but the one South American group.
Face fuzz seems to vary a lot. Maybe a few locals had some or wore fake
beards. Some Africans claim their people made the voyage but proving it is
another story.
People's Commissar
"deowll" <deo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:j5DUb.9771$Rl4....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> A few viking genes seem to have made it into the North Eastern part of
North
> America but that is about it. The earliest groups from Asia didn't look
like
> moderns except for a few people in the extreme of South America and maybe
a
> few scattered groups that retained some gentic data from the first ones. I
> don't know much about any but the one South American group.
Well, if you consider Altaic people (Turko-Tatar type) to be Asians, then
they did make it to the Americas - a LONG time ago. I found a RECORDED
version of that Manchu story that comes from a Jesuit that recorded it, or
something like it, in 1600 before anyone had any ideas about Ice Bridges. >
> Face fuzz seems to vary a lot. Maybe a few locals had some or wore fake
> beards. Some Africans claim their people made the voyage but proving it is
> another story.
The problem I see with all this analysis is that no one seems to view human
populations in motion. The weather changed. People moved, traveled. Who's
to say that MANY people didn't come to the Americas, in waves, and by
various routes?
As far as anyone looking like anyone else after that long a time - consider
sexual selection - that quickly changes a population.
You know - consider all the people who died during the black plague. That
entire gene pool was wiped out. They have no descendents.
The hairy body theory - well - as far as I know, Africans dont' have much
body hair. But neither do my people and neither do the regular Asians.
Seems to me that the haryest people are in South western Europe and the
middle east.
They don't find African haplotypes in Asia. Means no one mixed for a long
time.
The idea that humans couldn't have gone that far is bs - because the
Australian aborigines were able to go that far, over ocean, 60 thousand
years ago. Sure humans could do it. And they probably DID do it.
Obviously - Native Americans did not evolve in the Americas. Their
ancestors got here somehow.
>
>
MIB529
Form the folks at WhiteHistory, I'm sure - the same people as Kennewick.
> Note: there are no myths of bearded white gods - that was invented by heh,
> bearded 20th century white men?
>
> Very light skin and occasional light eyes is also common in Altaic
> populations that are not "mixed" with anything. The same factors probably
> cause that in all populations. The Manchu do have a myth or oral story
> about crossing over, as was posted before on here - they are also quite
> light, lighter than Southern Europeans, that's for sure.
Indians vary a lot in skin tone. My father's full-blood, and his skin's
about the same as an old penny. So once again, you're wrong. LOL
> I think the image of Quetzalcoatl? was unearthed and it turns out that this
> man looks like a Chinese person or that type - he doesn't look like a white
> man.
Doesn't look like anything to me: His face was obscured by a mask.
> That NA are genetically related to Altaic people is proven by genetic
> testing.
Actually, no. First of, the big mistake they used wsa using the Y
chromosome. Great, in cases of patrilineal, patrilocal populations.
But what about matrilineal, matrilocal populations?
MIB529
And they use the same methodology as Chatters, just so you know.
MIB529
And if your name's Philip Deitiker, you're trying to decide if we're
descended from orangutans, gibbons, or rhesus monkeys. LOL
People's Commissar
? I don't get it. LMAO. Sounds funny tho. NO, I'm not Deitiker, but I
recognize that name from this NG for years. I dont' get it.. Please
explain - sounds funny.
People's Commissar
Mmmm, I'm not following all that, but quite many NA today look like Altaic
people TODAY - including my NA inlaws who blend in with us with no problem
at all. Some of the NA I see here, Miki.. forgot name, part of Seminole -
look like off the boat from China - but they're tall, like N. Chinese maybe
or Manchu-Chinese would be. Some NA I've seen look nothing like us. But
some of them really do - and yeah, we sure thought it was remarkable. I
think in ww2 one Navajo soldier dressed up like a Japanese and infiltrated
to blow something up - and the Japanese couldn't tell the difference at all.
Some do - and some don't - look that way. I don't think all the NA I've
seen look similar enough to be one group - like the Chinese look similar to
each other pretty much. I've seen too many different types of NA. I'd
attach photos of some relatives (in laws) if it would go - I'd have to scan
them and then make them small kB - but it won't post. I tried posting
photos before - it won't go.
People's Commissar
"MIB529" <man_in_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ad78f65.04020...@posting.google.com...
> "People's Commissar" <tjs...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:<NLzUb.15521$uM2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > "MIB529" <man_in_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4ad78f65.04020...@posting.google.com...
> > > Caucasoid, caucasoid, caucasoid, that's all we hear anymore. So let's
> > > review the actual skeleton. Here are all relevant traits of Chatters:
> > >
> > > "This was a male of late middle age (40-55 years), and tall (170 to
> > > 176 cm ), slender build."
> > >
> > > Naturally, this is a largely environmental trait, but it favors
> > > Indians.
> > >
> > > "The lack of head flattening from cradle board use,"
What means head flattening? It's not "brachycephalic" - Brachy is not from
anything like that - we brachys have nice ROUND heads. Not bullet heads.
:) Do they mean like the Mayans used to do?
> > >
> > > Cultural.
> > >
> > > "minimal arthritis in weight-bearing bones, and the unusually light
> > > wear on his teeth"
Uh, that kind of thing happened during the public health disaster called
AGRICULTURE. Whether or not people have these things depends on what they
EAT.
> > >
> > > Yeah, Indians always lived on half-rotten Spam, even before the BIA
> > > existed! LOL
LMAO.
> > >
> > > "The skull is dolichocranic (cranial index 73.8) rather than
> > > brachycranic"
> > >
> > > One: It's quite appropriate that Chatters uses this measure on the
> > > hundredth anniversary of its having been discredited. Of course,
> > > maximum cranial breadth and maximum cranial length are fairly
> > > ambiguous measures anyway. Two: Chatters could've gotten a 'caucasoid'
> > > result either way. Three: My own cephalic index is .714 Note that I'm
> > > in my twenties, and that it decreases with age.
Mose "caucasoids" - by that I mean EUROPEANS - are not all that
dolichocephalic in the first place. Lots of Africans are dolichocephalic.
You have a long head? Hmm, odd! Those measurements have to be taken
precisely - and I think on skeletons - not living people, no?
> > >
> > > "the face narrow and prognathous rather than broad and flat."
> > >
> > > Once again, this describes me. Also, prognathy is typically NOT a
> > > white trait.
MIB, are you part black?
> > >
> > > "Cheek bones recede slightly and lack an inferior zygomatic
> > > projection; the lower rim of the orbit is even with the upper."
Most NA I've met and known close have high cheekbones (so do I) - and almond
eyes (so do I). They have high-bridged noses that stick out. In fact,
that's HOW the Han Chinese know Manchus from themselves - the NOSE. Manchus
have noses like mine. There's some snubbness to Altaic most noses, too.
Not so with Manchus tho - they have longer noses but they do stick out -
they have sharper features than the Han Chinese.
> > >
> > > The former might be a problem, but not enough. Especially since the
> > > latter is once again typical of Indians.
> > >
> > > "Other features are a long, broad nose that projects markedly from the
> > > face and high, round orbits."
Most NA I've met had slitty eyes, like mine - mine also actually DO tilt ip
on an angle - they are slanted upward. As I said, NA are pretty people.
HA!
> > >
> > > More typical Indian features.
> > >
> > > "The mandible is v-shaped,with a pronounced, deep chin."
> > >
> > > And?
> > >
> > > "Many of these characteristics are definitive of modern-day caucasoid
> > > peoples, while others, such as the orbits are typical of neither
> > > race."
Well, I don't understand what some of the technical terms mean - but I saw
the DRAWING they made and they said he looked like Patrick Stewart. Now -
here's the problem. Patrick Stewart looks like a E. European or Central
Asian type - that is, a person with a lot of Altaic mixture - OR an Altaic
person. Put black hair and a top-knot on Pat Stewart and dress him up like
a Mongol - and BINGO - he'd pass. I've seen that actor since I'm a Trek
fan. HE doesn't look "caucasoid" to me at all. His cheekbones and his eyes
are more like ours. I think someone has REdefined "white." Put Patrick
Stewart in NA clothing and he'd pass. Take a good look at that man - watch
him in motion on Trek. His eyes, his expressions, his cheekbones. White
folks, as everyone knows, are ROUND EYES, even bug eyed.
> > >
> > > Ah, yes, use the long-discredited ethnology of Arthur de Gobineau. And
> > > most of those traits are NOT caucasoid by any possible standard.
Patrick Stewart doesn't look caucasoid by Gobineau's standards.
I didn't say NA. I said Manchu and Altaic. I'm right about the Altaics.
I've seen NA of all colors too - very dark and very light. But Manchu are
pretty light compared to S. Europeans. So am I btw. I can GET very dark -
like a person from India - and I never burn. But otherwise, I can also get
very light. I have a coppery color when I'm darker and always a kind of
yellowish too - but it's light when not tanned. I get tan FAST from sun -
and I'm in tropics.
>
> > I think the image of Quetzalcoatl? was unearthed and it turns out that
this
> > man looks like a Chinese person or that type - he doesn't look like a
white
> > man.
>
> Doesn't look like anything to me: His face was obscured by a mask.
The one I saw on History channel - I think it was Quetzal - and a LOT of the
stuff about it - the Chinese said that it was VERY similar to Tang Dynasty
Chinese stuff. It's possible that one more group of people arrived. Why
not? One thing we know about humans: they travel.
>
> > That NA are genetically related to Altaic people is proven by genetic
> > testing.
>
> Actually, no. First of, the big mistake they used wsa using the Y
> chromosome. Great, in cases of patrilineal, patrilocal populations.
> But what about matrilineal, matrilocal populations?
We ARE matrilineal! I don't know if the Manchu are. I'd guess they used to
be like us - we had polygamy and polyandry in our culture. And we were VERY
exogamic! I would wager a guess that some NA came over that ice bridge -
especially since the Manchu have a version of their own people find it and
crossing over it to find better weather. They'd have followed the animals -
they were nomads. I know that some NA genes were found in RUSSIAN people
that never left that area. So that means that the road was traveled TWO
ways, not one way. I'd venture to guess that some came by sea and that all
of them did not come at the same time. Some of the people that migrated in
more than one wave to all those Islands - including Easter Island - would
have continued on - probably blended in with others already here. That IS
kinda what humans tend to do. It makes sense. It would explain why the
stuff's not easy to sort out, too. You can find LOTS of Altaic genes in the
Han Chinese. But you won't find too many Han genes in Altaic populations.
Why? Because Altaics went to China, even ruled it half the time - and they
blended in, mixed. Chinese never went to Altaic homelands. The difference
is endogamic people, versus exogamic people. Altaic people tend to merge
with any people they settle in with - if they can - and it seems to me they
COULD. Altaic people were wanderers, they went ALL over the place. Chinese
Han people did not tend to do that. We know that the SE Asians did it -
from the Polynesian islands being populated.
MIB529
> > And if your name's Philip Deitiker, you're trying to decide if we're
> > descended from orangutans, gibbons, or rhesus monkeys. LOL
>
> ? I don't get it. LMAO. Sounds funny tho. NO, I'm not Deitiker, but I
> recognize that name from this NG for years. I dont' get it.. Please
> explain - sounds funny.
Philip Deitiker, a troll on sci.anthropology.paleo who's always been
trying to start a war between them and talk.origins He typically changes
his email address to evade killfiles, and then calls everyone else
loons.
MIB529
> > > > Caucasoid, caucasoid, caucasoid, that's all we hear anymore. So let's
> > > > review the actual skeleton. Here are all relevant traits of Chatters:
> > > >
> > > > "This was a male of late middle age (40-55 years), and tall (170 to
> > > > 176 cm ), slender build."
> > > >
> > > > Naturally, this is a largely environmental trait, but it favors
> > > > Indians.
> > > >
> > > > "The lack of head flattening from cradle board use,"
>
> What means head flattening? It's not "brachycephalic" - Brachy is not from
> anything like that - we brachys have nice ROUND heads. Not bullet heads.
> :) Do they mean like the Mayans used to do?
Head flattening was a side-effect of a particular device so that
Indian mothers in some areas could be more mobile. Basically, the
device looked something like this:
/
/
/ Baby here, safely strapped in
/
/__________________________
Strapped to mother's back here
The side effect, of course, is that the infant's skull can't grow
back, and
thus can only grow to the sides or up. As it grows up, that favors the
brachycephalic type because it's adding roughly an equal amount to
cranial length and breadth, and to use a math formula.
x x + a
- < -----
y y + a
where a>0
Growing to the sides should be obvious.
Mayans also did cranial deformation as a mark of class, along with
filing down
the teeth to a point and putting jade where the bone used to be.
> > > > Cultural.
> > > >
> > > > "minimal arthritis in weight-bearing bones, and the unusually light
> > > > wear on his teeth"
>
> Uh, that kind of thing happened during the public health disaster called
> AGRICULTURE. Whether or not people have these things depends on what they
> EAT.
Well, Chatters thought that it was proof that Kennewick man wasn't
Indian.
> > > > Yeah, Indians always lived on half-rotten Spam, even before the BIA
> > > > existed! LOL
>
> LMAO.
I thought that was funny.
> > > > "The skull is dolichocranic (cranial index 73.8) rather than
> > > > brachycranic"
> > > >
> > > > One: It's quite appropriate that Chatters uses this measure on the
> > > > hundredth anniversary of its having been discredited. Of course,
> > > > maximum cranial breadth and maximum cranial length are fairly
> > > > ambiguous measures anyway. Two: Chatters could've gotten a 'caucasoid'
> > > > result either way. Three: My own cephalic index is .714 Note that I'm
> > > > in my twenties, and that it decreases with age.
>
> Mose "caucasoids" - by that I mean EUROPEANS - are not all that
> dolichocephalic in the first place. Lots of Africans are dolichocephalic.
> You have a long head? Hmm, odd! Those measurements have to be taken
> precisely - and I think on skeletons - not living people, no?
You can measure on living people too; that's what it was originally
designed for. It's pretty easy to find the proper points on any head.
He could've gotten a 'caucasoid' result by comparing to northern
Europeans and Mexican Indians if
it was dolicho, and a 'caucasoid' result by comparing to southern
Europeans and
North or South American Indians if it was brachy.
What's weird is, the cephalic index was shown to be extremely plastic
in 1896, with a study of Europeans.
> > > > "the face narrow and prognathous rather than broad and flat."
> > > >
> > > > Once again, this describes me. Also, prognathy is typically NOT a
> > > > white trait.
>
> MIB, are you part black?
It also describes my father, who's full-blooded.
> > > > "Cheek bones recede slightly and lack an inferior zygomatic
> > > > projection; the lower rim of the orbit is even with the upper."
>
> Most NA I've met and known close have high cheekbones (so do I) - and almond
> eyes (so do I). They have high-bridged noses that stick out. In fact,
> that's HOW the Han Chinese know Manchus from themselves - the NOSE. Manchus
> have noses like mine. There's some snubbness to Altaic most noses, too.
> Not so with Manchus tho - they have longer noses but they do stick out -
> they have sharper features than the Han Chinese.
I've noticed that similarity too. It's probably from the drier
environment in
Nei Monggol compared to other provinces.
> > > > The former might be a problem, but not enough. Especially since the
> > > > latter is once again typical of Indians.
> > > >
> > > > "Other features are a long, broad nose that projects markedly from the
> > > > face and high, round orbits."
>
> Most NA I've met had slitty eyes, like mine - mine also actually DO tilt ip
> on an angle - they are slanted upward. As I said, NA are pretty people.
> HA!
My eyes don't tilt. I've seen one who did. He was Down syndrome, which
of
course causes a general retention of fetal traits, including the
epicanthic
eyefold. (In fact, that's why its original name, mongoloid or
something like
that: Brachycephaly, flat face, megacephaly, epicanthic eyefold - of
course,
Down children also typically have very light skin. Oddly, the guy who
named it
was a liberal because he had shown that all the races were nearly the
same, in
terms of appearance, in the womb.)
> > > > More typical Indian features.
> > > >
> > > > "The mandible is v-shaped,with a pronounced, deep chin."
> > > >
> > > > And?
> > > >
> > > > "Many of these characteristics are definitive of modern-day caucasoid
> > > > peoples, while others, such as the orbits are typical of neither
> > > > race."
>
> Well, I don't understand what some of the technical terms mean - but I saw
> the DRAWING they made and they said he looked like Patrick Stewart. Now -
> here's the problem. Patrick Stewart looks like a E. European or Central
> Asian type - that is, a person with a lot of Altaic mixture - OR an Altaic
> person. Put black hair and a top-knot on Pat Stewart and dress him up like
> a Mongol - and BINGO - he'd pass. I've seen that actor since I'm a Trek
> fan. HE doesn't look "caucasoid" to me at all. His cheekbones and his eyes
> are more like ours. I think someone has REdefined "white." Put Patrick
> Stewart in NA clothing and he'd pass. Take a good look at that man - watch
> him in motion on Trek. His eyes, his expressions, his cheekbones. White
> folks, as everyone knows, are ROUND EYES, even bug eyed.
Stewart was chosen in part because of his racial ambiguity. Same
reason Nimoy
was chosen for TOS. (Don't get me started in talking about Star Trek.
I usually
end up with a rant about how V'ger belongs on UPN with all those other
loser
shows.)
> > > Note: there are no myths of bearded white gods - that was invented by
> heh,
> > > bearded 20th century white men?
> > >
> > > Very light skin and occasional light eyes is also common in Altaic
> > > populations that are not "mixed" with anything. The same factors
> probably
> > > cause that in all populations. The Manchu do have a myth or oral story
> > > about crossing over, as was posted before on here - they are also quite
> > > light, lighter than Southern Europeans, that's for sure.
> >
> > Indians vary a lot in skin tone. My father's full-blood, and his skin's
> > about the same as an old penny. So once again, you're wrong. LOL
>
> I didn't say NA. I said Manchu and Altaic.
I know, I was just explaining about Indians. You're usually more able
to tell
if someone, especially a man, is full-blood by body hair, or lack
thereof.
> I'm right about the Altaics.
> I've seen NA of all colors too - very dark and very light. But Manchu are
> pretty light compared to S. Europeans. So am I btw. I can GET very dark -
> like a person from India - and I never burn. But otherwise, I can also get
> very light. I have a coppery color when I'm darker and always a kind of
> yellowish too - but it's light when not tanned. I get tan FAST from sun -
> and I'm in tropics.
> >
> > > I think the image of Quetzalcoatl? was unearthed and it turns out that
> this
> > > man looks like a Chinese person or that type - he doesn't look like a
> white
> > > man.
> >
> > Doesn't look like anything to me: His face was obscured by a mask.
>
> The one I saw on History channel - I think it was Quetzal - and a LOT of the
> stuff about it - the Chinese said that it was VERY similar to Tang Dynasty
> Chinese stuff. It's possible that one more group of people arrived. Why
> not? One thing we know about humans: they travel.
Well, the difficulty is, there's a history of 'anyone but Indians'
building
Mexico. Of course, they still claim that we invented the human
sacrifice. LOL
> > > That NA are genetically related to Altaic people is proven by genetic
> > > testing.
> >
> > Actually, no. First of, the big mistake they used wsa using the Y
> > chromosome. Great, in cases of patrilineal, patrilocal populations.
> > But what about matrilineal, matrilocal populations?
>
> We ARE matrilineal!
I know, but the geneticists seem to like the Y chromosome because the
majority of the world is patrilineal.
> I don't know if the Manchu are. I'd guess they used to
> be like us - we had polygamy and polyandry in our culture.
Ditto for us. (BTW, the word for a man with two women is polygyny.
Polygamy
just means having several spouses.)
> And we were VERY
> exogamic!
Ditto here. Any blood relative was wrong. (We were always surprised
and even
disgusted by white cousin-marriage. Even today, I'm surprised that
many of them
project their perversions onto Indians.)
> I would wager a guess that some NA came over that ice bridge -
> especially since the Manchu have a version of their own people find it and
> crossing over it to find better weather.
I can't imagine going north to find better weather, personally. I
certainly
can't imagine going into glaciers for better weather.
> They'd have followed the animals -
> they were nomads. I know that some NA genes were found in RUSSIAN people
> that never left that area. So that means that the road was traveled TWO
> ways, not one way. I'd venture to guess that some came by sea and that all
> of them did not come at the same time. Some of the people that migrated in
> more than one wave to all those Islands - including Easter Island - would
> have continued on - probably blended in with others already here. That IS
> kinda what humans tend to do. It makes sense.
In fact, psychologists debate over whether the prohibition on incest
is for
genetic reasons or just because incest causes competition between
relatives.
Or if it's simply becasue family structure would be too confusing if
your
mother was also your sister.
> It would explain why the
> stuff's not easy to sort out, too. You can find LOTS of Altaic genes in the
> Han Chinese. But you won't find too many Han genes in Altaic populations.
> Why? Because Altaics went to China, even ruled it half the time - and they
> blended in, mixed. Chinese never went to Altaic homelands. The difference
> is endogamic people, versus exogamic people. Altaic people tend to merge
> with any people they settle in with - if they can - and it seems to me they
> COULD. Altaic people were wanderers, they went ALL over the place. Chinese
> Han people did not tend to do that. We know that the SE Asians did it -
> from the Polynesian islands being populated.
I always thought endogamy meant marrying someone who was of the same
class,
maybe even a cousin or something like that. Or is that homogamy?
People's Commissar
news:<_LoVb.15887$F23....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> Indian mothers in some areas could be more mobile. Basically, the
> device looked something like this:
>
> /
> /
> / Baby here, safely strapped in
> /
> /__________________________
>
> Strapped to mother's back here
AH, I know what that is. Hell, NA aren't the only folks that did that. But
the baby wasn't always in that pouch.
>
> Mayans also did cranial deformation as a mark of class, along with
> filing down
> the teeth to a point and putting jade where the bone used to be.
OOOW that musta HURT.
> >
> > Mose "caucasoids" - by that I mean EUROPEANS - are not all that
> > dolichocephalic in the first place. Lots of Africans are
dolichocephalic.
> > You have a long head? Hmm, odd! Those measurements have to be taken
> > precisely - and I think on skeletons - not living people, no?
>
> You can measure on living people too; that's what it was originally
> designed for. It's pretty easy to find the proper points on any head.
> He could've gotten a 'caucasoid' result by comparing to northern
> Europeans and Mexican Indians if
> it was dolicho, and a 'caucasoid' result by comparing to southern
> Europeans and
> North or South American Indians if it was brachy.
Fact is, most northern Europeans are not dolichocephalic. There is more
dolicho in the mediterrean areas, like with Italians. Scandinavians are not
all that dolicho at all. That old data was a myth. The actual measurements
show S. Europeans to be more bullet headed than N. Europeans. And MOST E.
Europeans are Brachy, like us. My people are sort of brachy or meso? Round
heads :) It's easy to see from up top the head if you cut hair :)
>
> What's weird is, the cephalic index was shown to be extremely plastic
> in 1896, with a study of Europeans.
Yah, it would depend on who you mate with. Maybe N. Europeans used to be
dolicho - but they sure ain't now. Neither are Germans. Slavs definitely
aren't. Blacks ARE VERY dolicho.
>
> > > > > "the face narrow and prognathous rather than broad and flat."
Prognathus is more like Africans have too. We don't have that at all,
neither do Europeans.
> > > > >
> > > > > Once again, this describes me. Also, prognathy is typically NOT a
> > > > > white trait.
> >
> > MIB, are you part black?
>
> It also describes my father, who's full-blooded.
You got a picture? You can see me, here is url:
http://www.geocities.com/trip_to_innsmouth/tani.jpg
I have on pretty make up in that photo - just delete it in your mind's eye.
>
> >
> > Most NA I've met and known close have high cheekbones (so do I) - and
almond
> > eyes (so do I). They have high-bridged noses that stick out. In fact,
> > that's HOW the Han Chinese know Manchus from themselves - the NOSE.
Manchus
> > have noses like mine. There's some snubbness to Altaic most noses, too.
> > Not so with Manchus tho - they have longer noses but they do stick out -
> > they have sharper features than the Han Chinese.
>
> I've noticed that similarity too. It's probably from the drier
> environment in
> Nei Monggol compared to other provinces.
> >
> > Most NA I've met had slitty eyes, like mine - mine also actually DO tilt
ip
> > on an angle - they are slanted upward. As I said, NA are pretty people.
> > HA!
>
> My eyes don't tilt. I've seen one who did. He was Down syndrome, which
> of
> course causes a general retention of fetal traits, including the
> epicanthic
> eyefold.
Well, our eyes do tilt, measurably too - and as kids we have full eye folds
because the nose is not fully "out" up at the top. I can scan a photo of me
as a 16 year old and email you it if you want. I had that full eye fold
until my 20's. All the kids have that, then the noses develop later on and
they have it like mine now. I still have an eye fold, but it's not a fold
that starts at the beginning of the eye that's closest to the nose anymore.
It folds over the whole rest of my eye tho. We also have DEEP set eyes.
Han Chinese DO NOT! Manchus do! OH yeah. (BEUTIFUL eyes, imo!!) Han
Chinese tend to have bulgy eyes, even big ones with no tilt to them at all -
but they have full eye-folds. You know, the appearance of tilt doesn't
necessarily mean there IS a tilt. Full eye folds make tilted eyes look very
much more tilted. (As such, in HS, my nick name was Ms. Spock). Their
features are a LOT LOT softer, noses are more pushed down too. Their whole
faces are softer. Ours are very "hard" featured, like angular, pointy.
MOST NA that I'm familiar with are hard featured like us. I've seen some
soft featured ones down here in FL. Keep in mind, Tatars are related to the
TURKS, not to the Chinese. OH, also, unlike many NA and unlike the Chinese,
we can DRINK! LMAO. Kumiss makes 100 proof vodka seem weak. LMAO. We
aren't drunks, tho, I mean, not like the Russians, LOL. But we CAN drink.
I'm a coffee drinker. Funny story. Once at the dance club this Irish guy
was bragging about his ability to hold - and mocking out my drink as a
"lady's drink." Well heh, MY drink had 4 shots in it. His only had one.
And so. After he drank two of what I had, he was head down cold out the
whole night. I was still like a sober person, walking straight, ballroom
dancing, etc. And consider, I'm not even a drinker normally. I DO drink
when I go out like that, party. But body hair: I have only body hair under
arms - very very scanty, and pubic - scanty. None on my legs or arms. Very
scanty eyebrows. I used to heh, color them in to make them less slanty as a
teen.
(In fact, that's why its original name, mongoloid or
> something like
> that: Brachycephaly, flat face, megacephaly, epicanthic eyefold - of
> course,
> Down children also typically have very light skin. Oddly, the guy who
> named it
> was a liberal because he had shown that all the races were nearly the
> same, in
> terms of appearance, in the womb.)
Well, any race can have Down's babies.
OH NO. I LOVE all the Treks. Voyager was good after they got rid of that
Kaison and Seska shit and brought in the BORG. I love Star Trek and Gene's
philosophy. I'd rather watch the shows on UPN, like Smallville, Buffy
(hilarious show) than the main channels. And SCI FI channel rules! I LOVE
7 of 9 and the Vulcans.
>
> >
> > I didn't say NA. I said Manchu and Altaic.
>
> I know, I was just explaining about Indians. You're usually more able
> to tell
> if someone, especially a man, is full-blood by body hair, or lack
> thereof.
We lack the body hair, as said above. Our men too. NICE!
>
> > I'm right about the Altaics.
> > I've seen NA of all colors too - very dark and very light. But Manchu
are
> > pretty light compared to S. Europeans. So am I btw. I can GET very
dark -
> > like a person from India - and I never burn. But otherwise, I can also
get
> > very light. I have a coppery color when I'm darker and always a kind of
> > yellowish too - but it's light when not tanned. I get tan FAST from
sun -
> > and I'm in tropics.
> > >
> > The one I saw on History channel - I think it was Quetzal - and a LOT of
the
> > stuff about it - the Chinese said that it was VERY similar to Tang
Dynasty
> > Chinese stuff. It's possible that one more group of people arrived.
Why
> > not? One thing we know about humans: they travel.
>
> Well, the difficulty is, there's a history of 'anyone but Indians'
> building
> Mexico. Of course, they still claim that we invented the human
> sacrifice. LOL
LMAO. I think the problem is that they are considering WHERE the NA got to
here FROM, further back in time. How can anyone say you invented sacrifice
when those old pagan civilizations used to all do it? Afrocentrics claim
that blacks built Mexico, they claim they were the Olmecs. I've seen a LOT
of literature about that.
>
> > > > That NA are genetically related to Altaic people is proven by
genetic
> > > > testing.
> > >
> > > Actually, no. First of, the big mistake they used wsa using the Y
> > > chromosome. Great, in cases of patrilineal, patrilocal populations.
> > > But what about matrilineal, matrilocal populations?
> >
> > We ARE matrilineal!
>
> I know, but the geneticists seem to like the Y chromosome because the
> majority of the world is patrilineal.
They also use mtDNA data.
>
> > I don't know if the Manchu are. I'd guess they used to
> > be like us - we had polygamy and polyandry in our culture.
>
> Ditto for us. (BTW, the word for a man with two women is polygyny.
> Polygamy
> just means having several spouses.)
Yeah, women have several husbands, man have several wives. With us - or er,
before the USSR outlawed it.
>
> > And we were VERY
> > exogamic!
>
> Ditto here. Any blood relative was wrong. (We were always surprised
> and even
> disgusted by white cousin-marriage. Even today, I'm surprised that
> many of them
> project their perversions onto Indians.)
>
> > I would wager a guess that some NA came over that ice bridge -
> > especially since the Manchu have a version of their own people find it
and
> > crossing over it to find better weather.
>
> I can't imagine going north to find better weather,
LMAO they didn't! They were already WAY up north. They went EAST. And
they did find better weather! Do you have any idea how COLD it is where we
come from? It's not cold like that ANYWHERE in the Americas, not in Canada
either. No way! We come from where it's night for 8 months and beyond
imagining cold. And we are STILL THERE - I think 30 million of us last time
the USSR did a count.
personally. I
> certainly
> can't imagine going into glaciers for better weather.
Well, heh, there werent glaciers. The ice bridge was wide and it was just
more "land" as they'd have seen it. Animals went, so they followed. They
went EAST across land (ice) that they were already living in. Our people
STILL LIVE in those areas in the xUSSR. Mib, there is no place anywhere
where people live that's that cold, even today. They went in search of
warmer WIND by going EAST --- NOT North! It's wasn't way up by the North
Pole either. It was pretty much on the same east to west lattitude as they
were already living.
>
> > They'd have followed the animals -
> > they were nomads. I know that some NA genes were found in RUSSIAN
people
> > that never left that area. So that means that the road was traveled TWO
> > ways, not one way. I'd venture to guess that some came by sea and that
all
> > of them did not come at the same time. Some of the people that migrated
in
> > more than one wave to all those Islands - including Easter Island -
would
> > have continued on - probably blended in with others already here. That
IS
> > kinda what humans tend to do. It makes sense.
>
> In fact, psychologists debate over whether the prohibition on incest
> is for
> genetic reasons or just because incest causes competition between
> relatives.
> Or if it's simply becasue family structure would be too confusing if
> your
> mother was also your sister.
Well, they'd be able to see things going wrong - they wouldn't have to know
genetics. It's odd but every single nomadic people on the planet- or
agrarian types too, have this clan and moeti thing (spelling?) like rules
of who you can or can't marry. The British Royalty used to marry their
cousins a lot - so did the Egyptian Pharaohs.
>
> > It would explain why the
> > stuff's not easy to sort out, too. You can find LOTS of Altaic genes in
the
> > Han Chinese. But you won't find too many Han genes in Altaic
populations.
> > Why? Because Altaics went to China, even ruled it half the time - and
they
> > blended in, mixed. Chinese never went to Altaic homelands. The
difference
> > is endogamic people, versus exogamic people. Altaic people tend to
merge
> > with any people they settle in with - if they can - and it seems to me
they
> > COULD. Altaic people were wanderers, they went ALL over the place.
Chinese
> > Han people did not tend to do that. We know that the SE Asians did it -
> > from the Polynesian islands being populated.
>
> I always thought endogamy meant marrying someone who was of the same
> class,
> maybe even a cousin or something like that.
Endogamy is marrying within your own people or nation or race. Exogamy is
marrying outside. Exogamic people tend to be INCLUSIVE - endogamic people
are exclusive. I'll explain. British man mixes with Celtic woman. The
offspring is HERS - his people reject it since it's half Celtic. Or take
blacks and whites. Blacks INCLUDE people into the "black" no matter if they
are 1/16th black. Don't matter if the person is 15/16 ENGLISH - the English
will never see him as English unless they lie thru their teeth these days to
be PC. Thailand people do not consider Tiget Woods to be Thai - period.
They say so when asked. Blacks consider Tiger Woods to be black - no
questions asked. No doubts. Blacks are inclusive. Thai are exclusive. In
other words, ok - here's a GOOD example, better one from history. Europeans
conquer people. They often mix with them (their males, with the conquered
females - the idea of their European females playing around is unheard of,
absolutely forbidden) but the children are "bastards" and not accepted as
Europeans. Europeans put upon them labels "half breed" and such things.
They just are never considered European, no matter what. Turanians (Altaic
people) have conquered people forever in history - we have a rep for it big
time. We immediately mix with them - both ways, males and females do it.
Our females MARRY their men, I mean, actually marry and it's accepted as
normal - and our men marry their females. The offspring are considered US.
We include them into US. The people we are living amongst may NOT include
them into themselves. Or they might (depends on who the people are). At
least, not for a long long time if they look different.. Manchu and Han
Chinese are a good example. To this day, the Han can tell a Manchu from
themselves. Yet Nim considered himself Chinese. IS HE? He probably is 99%
Han - I don't know. Maybe not! Maybe he is not Han at all or just 1/2. I
don't know. The Manchu ruled China up until the early 1900's - but those
Manchu were very mixed up with Han already. And their culture is 100% pure
Chinese. Another weird thing, when Turanians conquered Semites big time -
or slaughtered Europeans big time, we never thought that they were shitty
fighters because they had round eyes and were hairy bodied. We consiered
they fought like shit because they LIVED a life that was way too soft in a
way too easy environment. We come from HARSH where Darwin rules hard core.
The unfit DIE. Simple as that. It's not a choice! When Europeans
conquered the Polynesians, they immediately thought the polynesians were
inferior because they had cheekbones and tilted tyes. BIG difference in
thinking there. It makes me wonder if this kind of thinking is innate with
some and not with others. When Turanians conquered, we made rules of
tolerance toward folkways and adopted some ourselves, even Arabs say and
write that things were way more TOLERANT under Tatar rulers than they were
before under their own Arab rulers. When Europeans conquered, they banned
all fun things that brought joy, like dancing and DRUMS.... and they
enforced a sterile sick Christianity on people. That makes me wanna froth.
Or is that homogamy?
No, endogamy and exogamy. But it's more than just that. Inclusive and
exclusive - that's there too. I have no idea if Africans - or the tribes
the ones here came from, were exogamic - but they sure are now. The problem
is - the people they live among are NOT so exogamic at all. THAT is a big
problem! Take that down to the one on one. Guy is attracted to girl - but
she can't stand the sight of him and wants to stay away from him. Or vice
versa, girl is attracted - guy is not. Same situation. A LOT of the people
my people intermarried with here, if they didn't marry within group in the
USA - were NA or Slavic or a few rare times with Tibetans (just 2 families I
knew of). Chinese, even here, are exclusive BIG time and didn't live near
us anyway. There are a lot more Slavic people around than NA or Tibetans -
so... Also, due to Stalin, ALL of the people that came here spoke Russian
and other Slavic languages too! You gotta be able to TALK to people you
marry :) But the next generation spoke English and all the ones coming here
learned English pretty fast. Most of them these days only know English -
nothing else, those are the ones that were like 9 years old when I was in my
20s. My uncle speaks 6 languages fluently, including English. His wife is
NA. I think Cherokee, not really sure - but she looks like US big time.
His kids speak English only. As my uncle said about regular white people -
like western Europeans, it just doen't work out for marriage. Our women
don't like their men and our men don't like their women (I mean sexual
attraction - we like some of them otherwise OK). My uncle took to making
his own little study of this because coming here, he saw so many kinds of
people that it boggled his mind. We liked Italians. Italians did not like
us too much - not for marriage. NO NO NO!! LMAO. Oh god. The whole HEAPS
of other Tatars are Moslems and they just live with and blend in with other
Moslems and usually just say they are TURKS to make things clear - don't
matter where they are from, Uzbekistan, Turkey, or any of the other "stan"
places that used to be "Turkistan." ALL Tatar Moslems. Turks from Turkey
can NOT understand their language, tho. I used to hang with 2 wild cousins
for a few years - both Moslems. Went to belly dancing places up in Passaic
NJ and hung around with their friends - Egyptians, Syrians, Palestinian
(Samir - a Palestinian became a very good friend until he went back to Mid
East and maybe I shouldn't post about that these days.... ) and all such
people - from everywhere - all Moslem. All spoke English to each other and
to me. I had some of the wildest party times with these people. I guess
they marry within Moslem immigrant population.
Philip Deitiker
<tjs...@spam.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
>> And if your name's Philip Deitiker, you're trying to decide if we're
>> descended from orangutans, gibbons, or rhesus monkeys. LOL
>
>? I don't get it. LMAO. Sounds funny tho. NO, I'm not Deitiker, but I
>recognize that name from this NG for years. I dont' get it.. Please
>explain - sounds funny.
I can help, on MIB's last visit to the dentist, he was
playing with a drill and drilled a hole in the front of his
head. Then he found an eggbeater bit and attached it to the
front of the drill and stuck it in the hole and whipped
until he could feel no more pain. In this light everything
he says will make sense. ;^).
MIB529
> "MIB529" <man_in_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4ad78f65.04020...@posting.google.com...
> > "People's Commissar" <tjs...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:<_LoVb.15887$F23....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > Head flattening was a side-effect of a particular device so that
> > Indian mothers in some areas could be more mobile. Basically, the
> > device looked something like this:
> >
> > /
> > /
> > / Baby here, safely strapped in
> > /
> > /__________________________
> >
> > Strapped to mother's back here
>
> AH, I know what that is. Hell, NA aren't the only folks that did that. But
> the baby wasn't always in that pouch.
But it still affects cranial growth.
> > Mayans also did cranial deformation as a mark of class, along with
> > filing down
> > the teeth to a point and putting jade where the bone used to be.
>
> OOOW that musta HURT.
You'd be surprised how many societies have developed painful beauty
marks like that. The Masai pierce the lips, the Chinese used to bind
feet (and now they break their legs and then stretch them in order
to become taller), and so on. Why, even Americans starve themselves
or induce vomiting.
> > > Mose "caucasoids" - by that I mean EUROPEANS - are not all that
> > > dolichocephalic in the first place. Lots of Africans are
> dolichocephalic.
> > > You have a long head? Hmm, odd! Those measurements have to be taken
> > > precisely - and I think on skeletons - not living people, no?
> >
> > You can measure on living people too; that's what it was originally
> > designed for. It's pretty easy to find the proper points on any head.
> > He could've gotten a 'caucasoid' result by comparing to northern
> > Europeans and Mexican Indians if
> > it was dolicho, and a 'caucasoid' result by comparing to southern
> > Europeans and
> > North or South American Indians if it was brachy.
>
> Fact is, most northern Europeans are not dolichocephalic. There is more
> dolicho in the mediterrean areas, like with Italians. Scandinavians are not
> all that dolicho at all. That old data was a myth. The actual measurements
> show S. Europeans to be more bullet headed than N. Europeans. And MOST E.
> Europeans are Brachy, like us. My people are sort of brachy or meso? Round
> heads :) It's easy to see from up top the head if you cut hair :)
Oh, I guess I had it reversed. Thanks for the explanation. Either way, he
could've gotten the same bias either way.
> > What's weird is, the cephalic index was shown to be extremely plastic
> > in 1896, with a study of Europeans.
>
> Yah, it would depend on who you mate with. Maybe N. Europeans used to be
> dolicho - but they sure ain't now. Neither are Germans. Slavs definitely
> aren't. Blacks ARE VERY dolicho.
What I meant was a study of European immigrants showed that it basically
more environment than any particular gene.
> > > > > > "the face narrow and prognathous rather than broad and flat."
>
> Prognathus is more like Africans have too. We don't have that at all,
> neither do Europeans.
Some Indians are more prognathous. It's ALMOST NEVER found in Europe,
though. (I only say 'almost never' to spite nitpickers.)
> > > > > > Once again, this describes me. Also, prognathy is typically NOT a
> > > > > > white trait.
> > >
> > > MIB, are you part black?
> >
> > It also describes my father, who's full-blooded.
>
> You got a picture? You can see me, here is url:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/trip_to_innsmouth/tani.jpg
>
> I have on pretty make up in that photo - just delete it in your mind's eye.
Couldn't see a picture. Also, I don't have a scanner or a digital camera or a
scanner. (Yeah, I'm living in the stone age, whatever.)
> > > Most NA I've met had slitty eyes, like mine - mine also actually DO tilt
> ip
> > > on an angle - they are slanted upward. As I said, NA are pretty people.
> > > HA!
> >
> > My eyes don't tilt. I've seen one who did. He was Down syndrome, which
> > of
> > course causes a general retention of fetal traits, including the
> > epicanthic
> > eyefold.
>
> Well, our eyes do tilt, measurably too - and as kids we have full eye folds
> because the nose is not fully "out" up at the top. I can scan a photo of me
> as a 16 year old and email you it if you want. I had that full eye fold
> until my 20's. All the kids have that, then the noses develop later on and
> they have it like mine now. I still have an eye fold, but it's not a fold
> that starts at the beginning of the eye that's closest to the nose anymore.
> It folds over the whole rest of my eye tho. We also have DEEP set eyes.
> Han Chinese DO NOT! Manchus do! OH yeah. (BEUTIFUL eyes, imo!!) Han
> Chinese tend to have bulgy eyes, even big ones with no tilt to them at all -
> but they have full eye-folds. You know, the appearance of tilt doesn't
> necessarily mean there IS a tilt. Full eye folds make tilted eyes look very
> much more tilted. (As such, in HS, my nick name was Ms. Spock). Their
> features are a LOT LOT softer, noses are more pushed down too. Their whole
> faces are softer. Ours are very "hard" featured, like angular, pointy.
> MOST NA that I'm familiar with are hard featured like us.
Some hard features, but at the same time some soft features. At least that's
my experience. The appearance is almost feminine. (For example, MANY full-
bloods have thick lips. It's actually one of the reasons mixed types refer
to them as niggers.)
> I've seen some
> soft featured ones down here in FL. Keep in mind, Tatars are related to the
> TURKS, not to the Chinese. OH, also, unlike many NA and unlike the Chinese,
> we can DRINK! LMAO. Kumiss makes 100 proof vodka seem weak. LMAO. We
> aren't drunks, tho, I mean, not like the Russians, LOL. But we CAN drink.
> I'm a coffee drinker. Funny story. Once at the dance club this Irish guy
> was bragging about his ability to hold - and mocking out my drink as a
> "lady's drink." Well heh, MY drink had 4 shots in it. His only had one.
> And so. After he drank two of what I had, he was head down cold out the
> whole night. I was still like a sober person, walking straight, ballroom
> dancing, etc. And consider, I'm not even a drinker normally. I DO drink
> when I go out like that, party.
I don't drink at all, personally. (Oh, there's a whole bunch of border towns
set out near Indian reservations where they sell booze to Indians. It starts
out that they sell to children, and go from there. I swear it's like the
Opium War.)
> But body hair: I have only body hair under
> arms - very very scanty, and pubic - scanty. None on my legs or arms. Very
> scanty eyebrows. I used to heh, color them in to make them less slanty as a
> teen.
Slanty or scanty? Difficult spellings. I have some thick eyebrows, maybe about
five hairs under each arm, and a moderate amount of pubic hair. (Generally
speaking, I always bring up body hair whenever any racist trolls here compare
a particular race to apes.)
> (In fact, that's why its original name, mongoloid or
> > something like
> > that: Brachycephaly, flat face, megacephaly, epicanthic eyefold - of
> > course,
> > Down children also typically have very light skin. Oddly, the guy who
> > named it
> > was a liberal because he had shown that all the races were nearly the
> > same, in
> > terms of appearance, in the womb.)
>
> Well, any race can have Down's babies.
Back then there was this belief that embryos repeated ancestral forms. So
someone closer to a fetus was thus 'less evolved'. A lot of racism from
that era. When it was discovered that the opposite, neoteny, could also
occur, the choice of features was changed. While the full beard, thin lips
and Grecian nose were preferred before, lactose tolerance and skin color
became the ideal racial traits under neoteny.
> > > I didn't say NA. I said Manchu and Altaic.
> >
> > I know, I was just explaining about Indians. You're usually more able
> > to tell
> > if someone, especially a man, is full-blood by body hair, or lack
> > thereof.
>
> We lack the body hair, as said above. Our men too. NICE!
It seems to be associated with humid environments.
I agree that body hair's kinda ugly. But then again, I'm male, so I
would think so. LOL
Afrocentrics claim blacks, with some Chinese influence too. White racists
claim everyone else -- save for Indians. There was even one guy, Erich von
Daniken, who claimed ALIENS did it.
Oh, one of my favorite Afrocentrics claimed Thanksgiving began to celebrate
the end of the Crusades, hence serving a turkey. (I had fun explaining that
the turkey is a North American animal, and that it would be another some
300 years before anyone in Europe would see one.)
> > > > > That NA are genetically related to Altaic people is proven by
> genetic
> > > > > testing.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, no. First of, the big mistake they used wsa using the Y
> > > > chromosome. Great, in cases of patrilineal, patrilocal populations.
> > > > But what about matrilineal, matrilocal populations?
> > >
> > > We ARE matrilineal!
> >
> > I know, but the geneticists seem to like the Y chromosome because the
> > majority of the world is patrilineal.
>
> They also use mtDNA data.
Not that much. From what I've read, they prefer the Y chromosome because the
phyletic splits are later. Whether this is to combat Carleton Coon-style
racists or to favor Stormfront-style racists is yet to be decided. (Usually,
they explain the genetic differences such as the absence of the B blood group
which reaches its highest rates in Mongolia and Siberia [I honestly can't
think of a selection for blood types.] as 'Orientals later replaced Indians
because they're more inteligent' or some equally racist nonsense.)
> > > I don't know if the Manchu are. I'd guess they used to
> > > be like us - we had polygamy and polyandry in our culture.
> >
> > Ditto for us. (BTW, the word for a man with two women is polygyny.
> > Polygamy
> > just means having several spouses.)
>
> Yeah, women have several husbands, man have several wives. With us - or er,
> before the USSR outlawed it.
US outlawed it too. Or rather, the states did. (The Feds have no control of
marriage.) Utah's trying to legalize polygamy again, and maybe an earlier age
of marital consent. (Very typical of Mormons: Marry five or six girls who
just reached menarche a couple months ago.)
> > > I would wager a guess that some NA came over that ice bridge -
> > > especially since the Manchu have a version of their own people find it
> and
> > > crossing over it to find better weather.
> >
> > I can't imagine going north to find better weather,
>
> LMAO they didn't! They were already WAY up north. They went EAST. And
> they did find better weather! Do you have any idea how COLD it is where we
> come from? It's not cold like that ANYWHERE in the Americas, not in Canada
> either. No way! We come from where it's night for 8 months and beyond
> imagining cold. And we are STILL THERE - I think 30 million of us last time
> the USSR did a count.
You should see the Wisconsonian/Würm climates before you say that. Pretty much
the only part of Alaska not covered by ice was the extreme north, and it was
still very cold. The difficulty is, there's plenty of evidence in South
America before anyone could get there. LOL It's even more difficult because
habitation of Chukotka and Kamchatka apparently is only some 10,000 years ago.
From an evolutionary perspective, it also makes very little sense to choose
Alaska as a point of origin: Indians are clearly more adapted to the tropics,
even as far north as the Dakotas.
> > > They'd have followed the animals -
> > > they were nomads. I know that some NA genes were found in RUSSIAN
> people
> > > that never left that area. So that means that the road was traveled TWO
> > > ways, not one way. I'd venture to guess that some came by sea and that
> all
> > > of them did not come at the same time. Some of the people that migrated
> in
> > > more than one wave to all those Islands - including Easter Island -
> would
> > > have continued on - probably blended in with others already here. That
> IS
> > > kinda what humans tend to do. It makes sense.
> >
> > In fact, psychologists debate over whether the prohibition on incest
> > is for
> > genetic reasons or just because incest causes competition between
> > relatives.
> > Or if it's simply becasue family structure would be too confusing if
> > your
> > mother was also your sister.
>
> Well, they'd be able to see things going wrong - they wouldn't have to know
> genetics.
What I meant was innately genetic because the people who did those things
were less able to survive.
> It's odd but every single nomadic people on the planet- or
> agrarian types too, have this clan and moeti thing (spelling?) like rules
> of who you can or can't marry.
Moiety. It means one of two descent groups. The classic moiety system is
probably the Yanomamo: They occasionally marry other allies, but mostly
within the other moiety. The result is:
,-------. ,-------.
! ! ! !
Alice Bob Carol Dave
! ! ! !
! `------' !
! ,' !
`-------,'-------------'
,' `.
,' `.
,-------. ,------.
! ! ! !
Emily Frank Gladys Harold
! ! ! !
! `-------' !
! !
`----------------------'
Et cetera. You'll notice cousin marriage in the system. That isn't as bad,
genetically speaking. Also, the names I used are just metasyntactic
variables like John Doe; you can use any names.
> The British Royalty used to marry their
> cousins a lot - so did the Egyptian Pharaohs.
Inbreeding is typically associated with eugenic patterns, IIRC.
<snipped long explanation of endogamy/exogamy>
As I understand it, endogamy can be any group. For example, in India,
it's by class.
In Mexico, they typically used half-breeds as an intermediate class.
But as I said, endogamy is typically associated with eugenics.
People's Commissar
"MIB529" <man_in_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ad78f65.04020...@posting.google.com...
> "People's Commissar" <tjs...@spam.com> wrote in message news:<aWCVb.16940>
You'd be surprised how many societies have developed painful beauty
> marks like that. The Masai pierce the lips, the Chinese used to bind
> feet (and now they break their legs and then stretch them in order
> to become taller), and so on. Why, even Americans starve themselves
> or induce vomiting.
I know.
>
>
> What I meant was a study of European immigrants showed that it basically
> more environment than any particular gene.
Listen to THIS - you see my post on the dogs before? Shows that quite a few
breeds were around long before man was around - coyote, jackal, wolf, dog
are all different species - but they are all totally cross fertile - that
post. Well, Animal Planet had a show on dogs called the "Wolf Within" and
they talked about dogs getting friendly with humans. They cited an
experiment done in Russia with all wild foxes. All were wild but some of
course behaved a bit friendly, others totally not friendly. They took the
most friendly ones and simply bred for friendliness to see what would
happen. At that point, they all looked like pretty uniform foxes. In about
TWO GENERATIONS the friendly offspring LOOKED different - markedly
different! So then, for some unknown (yet unknown) reason, simply breeding
"friendlier types" produced a different phenotypical APPEARANCE - and it was
a definite difference. That's why I harp always on sexual selection that
humans HAVE DONE - definitely done. That's the same as breeding an animal -
humans are animals too. HELL yes it can change the appearance - so can what
you eat change how the jaw develops after you are born and all that.
You know, that one thing I posted on the canine genus - imo, is better than
ALL this anthropology talk because it's objective - there is no agenda. Can
different species of mammals breed and make highly fertile offspring? HELL
YES - and that article I posted had hard core genetic data on these animals.
I find that AMAZING - I mean REALLY amazing. You know, there are two ways
to think on the wolf. Sure, most wolves are gone now - but they LIVE in the
dogs. And heh, well humans form strong bonds with dogs. Dog puppies cared
for by humans have a high survival rate. In the wild, however, a lot of
them perish. So it's a two way thing. My people have oral stories about
our connection to our totem, the WOLF - and I was clapping that the show
actually pointed out the human partnership with the wolf. We befriended
them - they lived LIKE us, they hunted LIKE us and well, heh, they kinda ate
the same food too :( Sometimes we ate them. And sometimes they ate us -
even bigger :( Then one day, it is said, a woman saved a lost wolf baby's
life and a mother wolf nursed a lost human baby. Thus was the partnership
born and the wolf was ANDA (blood brother). Also, that wolf was MOTHER of
that baby, as we see it. I don't know the whole story of it like Nim wrote
the story of his ancestors, or like I wrote down "Bogdan and Shulam" story -
I had to phone up relatives to get details of that. But what I just said is
the story. The wolf and us - we are BROTHERS from that day on. Heh, man
that had to be a LONG time ago, LOL. I think that Europeans have a hard
time "believing" that anyone can have something like an oral story last that
long - THOUSANDS of years - but they have NO problem accepting that "the
Hebrew religion is oldest in the world." Heh. NO IT AINT.
>
> Some Indians are more prognathous. It's ALMOST NEVER found in Europe,
> though. (I only say 'almost never' to spite nitpickers.)
Afrocentrics often point to stuff like that to claim that the Africans
taught the Indians everything they know. You know, the WANNABE never ceases
to amaze me.
>
> >
> > You got a picture? You can see me, here is url:
> >
http://www.geocities.com/trip_to_innsmouth/tani.jpg
> >
> > I have on pretty make up in that photo - just delete it in your mind's
eye.
>
> Couldn't see a picture. Also, I don't have a scanner or a digital camera
or a
> scanner. (Yeah, I'm living in the stone age, whatever.)
You can't see my picture from there? Hmm. Yeah, the link works - just
checked it.
I just got a scanner for 19 bucks - it also has copy like xerox and OCR! 19
bucks. www.pricewatch.com I had to, either that or pay thru my teeth to
get anything scanned or have to mail thru slow regular mail to someone who
did and that's kind of bugging people. 19 bucks! Workd great! HIGH RES
too!
Hmm, my uncle was called a n**ger once in his life. He was quite dark from
the sun at the time. Our lips tend to be pouted sort of. Some fuller, some
smaller. Varies. Like bow-shaped if we smile like {) I don't see any
resemblence, tho.
OH yeah - and then the Brits bitched cause they felt that they "lost" China.
LMAO. God, the arrogance is FUNNY.
>
> > But body hair: I have only body hair under
> > arms - very very scanty, and pubic - scanty. None on my legs or arms.
Very
> > scanty eyebrows. I used to heh, color them in to make them less slanty
as a
> > teen.
>
> Slanty or scanty?
Slanty, and scanty. My eyebrows are both slanted and scant. Try see
picture again.
http://www.geocities.com/trip_to_innsmouth/tani.jpg
Paste it into the IE and try. It's there. Maybe geocities was down.
Difficult spellings. I have some thick eyebrows, maybe about
> five hairs under each arm, and a moderate amount of pubic hair. (Generally
> speaking, I always bring up body hair whenever any racist trolls here
compare
> a particular race to apes.)
Lmao OH, I do too if the person flaming me is white. I try to TAILOR my
flames - if you remember :) Whites are easy to trash: here goes one:
"your women try to look like us with blusher to make fake cheekbones where
there aren't any and that disgusting revolting habit of SHAVING legs and the
hurtful plucking of eyebrows." LMAO.
>
> >
> > Well, any race can have Down's babies.
>
> Back then there was this belief that embryos repeated ancestral forms. So
> someone closer to a fetus was thus 'less evolved'. A lot of racism from
> that era.
Heh, actually, someone closer to a neotanized form (like a baby) tends to be
kinda smarter! Down's is from a chromosome problem, not from neotany.
When it was discovered that the opposite, neoteny, could also
> occur, the choice of features was changed. While the full beard, thin lips
> and Grecian nose were preferred before, lactose tolerance and skin color
> became the ideal racial traits under neoteny.
We have lactose tolerance - we pretty much live on ALL milk products
(including from horse) and meat.
>
> > We lack the body hair, as said above. Our men too. NICE!
>
> It seems to be associated with humid environments.
Hmm, we come from very COLD environment - cold like you can't imagine! The
subcutaneous body fat is what keeps people warm - and we have it. I'm VERY
bouyant! I think it's why we look a lot younger than we actually are, too.
>
> I agree that body hair's kinda ugly. But then again, I'm male, so I
> would think so. LOL
I think it is too. I can't stand commercials about women shaving legs -
somehow, it seems WRONG that women have hair like that. That IS a racial
bias on my part - definitely. I don't lilke hairy men either. YUCH.
>
> >
> > LMAO. I think the problem is that they are considering WHERE the NA got
to
> > here FROM, further back in time. How can anyone say you invented
sacrifice
> > when those old pagan civilizations used to all do it? Afrocentrics
claim
> > that blacks built Mexico, they claim they were the Olmecs. I've seen a
LOT
> > of literature about that.
>
> Afrocentrics claim blacks, with some Chinese influence too. White racists
> claim everyone else -- save for Indians. There was even one guy, Erich von
> Daniken, who claimed ALIENS did it.
OH, Danniken is crackpot.
>
> Oh, one of my favorite Afrocentrics claimed Thanksgiving began to
celebrate
> the end of the Crusades, hence serving a turkey. (I had fun explaining
that
> the turkey is a North American animal, and that it would be another some
> 300 years before anyone in Europe would see one.)
>
> > They also use mtDNA data.
>
> Not that much. From what I've read, they prefer the Y chromosome because
the
> phyletic splits are later. Whether this is to combat Carleton Coon-style
> racists or to favor Stormfront-style racists is yet to be decided.
(Usually,
> they explain the genetic differences such as the absence of the B blood
group
> which reaches its highest rates in Mongolia and Siberia [I honestly can't
> think of a selection for blood types.] as 'Orientals later replaced
Indians
> because they're more inteligent' or some equally racist nonsense.)
Now they use haplotypes since mtDNA and nuclear DNA is not all that good. I
webbed good info on the latest on that from all the hooey I stirred up on
here LMAO - on my "fishing expedition." Well, heh, if I couldn't GET my
hands on it - I was determined to let the experts on here get it FOR ME.
And they did.
http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/variation.html
Seems that both sides liked this article :) As some pointed out, the parts
I wrote myself are a bit tricky.
>
> > Yeah, women have several husbands, man have several wives. With us - or
er,
> > before the USSR outlawed it.
>
> US outlawed it too.
Well, the USSR outlawed a "listed" marriage of more than one spouce since
housing was involved and they had to keep records. But the practice still
went on, I'm sure. That kinda was pretty bad if someone did something
illegal - the WHOLE family would be liquidated - and that was a lot of
people!
Or rather, the states did. (The Feds have no control of
> marriage.) Utah's trying to legalize polygamy again, and maybe an earlier
age
> of marital consent. (Very typical of Mormons: Marry five or six girls who
> just reached menarche a couple months ago.)
Well, we used to marry during puberty too - the thought being "if she
bleeds, she breeds." That was pretty standard practice. Grandma had 4 kids
when she was 16. She was normal. Consider that our culture doesn't believe
in extended childhood either. 13 year old us are pretty mature and capable
of working. I think Europeans used to do that too - yeah - definitely.
>
> > LMAO they didn't! They were already WAY up north. They went EAST. And
> > they did find better weather! Do you have any idea how COLD it is where
we
> > come from? It's not cold like that ANYWHERE in the Americas, not in
Canada
> > either. No way! We come from where it's night for 8 months and beyond
> > imagining cold. And we are STILL THERE - I think 30 million of us last
time
> > the USSR did a count.
>
> You should see the Wisconsonian/Würm climates before you say that. Pretty
much
> the only part of Alaska not covered by ice was the extreme north, and it
was
> still very cold.
Kolyma is the coldest place on earth, Mib. But back then, a lot further
south from there was also cold - very cold. Going east to find better
WINDS - that's what they did.
The difficulty is, there's plenty of evidence in South
> America before anyone could get there. LOL It's even more difficult
because
> habitation of Chukotka and Kamchatka apparently is only some 10,000 years
ago.
> From an evolutionary perspective, it also makes very little sense to
choose
> Alaska as a point of origin: Indians are clearly more adapted to the
tropics,
> even as far north as the Dakotas.
I think LOTS of Indians came by ocean to the Americas and spread south long
before the people came from the northern part of Asia. Just my opinion.
The polynesian islands were people'd - and I think long before anyone knows
of it. So was Australia - 60 THOUSAND years ago! Indians may have been in
the Americas 40,000 years ago for all we know. I think so. I think waves
and waves or more people came over time.
>
> >
> > Well, they'd be able to see things going wrong - they wouldn't have to
know
> > genetics.
>
> What I meant was innately genetic because the people who did those things
> were less able to survive.
Yeah, probably so.
Polynesians have that too.
>
> > The British Royalty used to marry their
> > cousins a lot - so did the Egyptian Pharaohs.
>
> Inbreeding is typically associated with eugenic patterns, IIRC.
>
> <snipped long explanation of endogamy/exogamy>
>
> As I understand it, endogamy can be any group. For example, in India,
> it's by class.
Yup.
>
> In Mexico, they typically used half-breeds as an intermediate class.
> But as I said, endogamy is typically associated with eugenics.
I'd not make that association. CHINA put into law positive/negative
eugenics a few years ago. It's not racist tho. It's like family health
stuff. I think eugenics got a bad name. Also, heterozygocity is what's
healthy - exogamy.
baiyaan
> That NA are genetically related to Altaic people is proven by genetic
> testing.
Not really. Some living in altai mountain region have the genetic
signiture similar to NA but your bullshit is far more broad-brush.
baiyaan
> Well, if you consider Altaic people (Turko-Tatar type) to be Asians, then
> they did make it to the Americas - a LONG time ago. I found a RECORDED
> version of that Manchu story that comes from a Jesuit that recorded it, or
> something like it, in 1600 before anyone had any ideas about Ice Bridges.
Aren't you the troll who bullshited around sci.lang last year?
Manchu would have nothing to do with "your people" except their language is
often classified as altaic.
To others: if she did not change her opinion from last year, she still
thinks that modern Mongols are a very bastadized version of chinese. She
thinks that "the original mongols" looked pretty much like modernday
Russians etc.
I hope she comes here often. Unless she babbles too much she can be quite
entertaining.
baiyaan
> Mmmm, I'm not following all that, but quite many NA today look like Altaic
> people TODAY - including my NA inlaws who blend in with us with no problem
> at all. Some of the NA I see here, Miki.. forgot name, part of Seminole -
> look like off the boat from China - but they're tall, like N. Chinese
maybe
... your info is about 100 years too old. Modern day chinese, even
northern chinese are quite a bit shorter than even the south Koreans.
> or Manchu-Chinese would be.
I doubt you have ever seen a real full blooded manchu. They should be
taller than chinese genetically but their pheno type doesn't fit your
fantasy. They are kind of midway between Mongols and Koreans phenotypically
except that they are a bit taller than either of the others.
> Some NA I've seen look nothing like us.
who is "us" here? You don't look asian at all. You should not be
apologetic for your people's mixed heritage especially if it entails
insulting the real Mongol people.
>But
> some of them really do - and yeah, we sure thought it was remarkable. I
> think in ww2 one Navajo soldier dressed up like a Japanese and infiltrated
> to blow something up - and the Japanese couldn't tell the difference at
all.
> Some do - and some don't - look that way. I don't think all the NA I've
> seen look similar enough to be one group - like the Chinese look similar
to
> each other pretty much.
If chinese look similar to each other.... what about the Mongols(I mean
the REAL mongols, not your half-breed tribal men) or Koreans etc. Are they
like carbon-copies of each other?
baiyaan
> Most NA I've met and known close have high cheekbones (so do I) - and
almond
> eyes (so do I). They have high-bridged noses that stick out. In fact,
> that's HOW the Han Chinese know Manchus from themselves - the NOSE.
Manchus
> have noses like mine.
wwwwhhhhhhhhaaaaaaat? I have a way of distinguishing han chinese from the
manchus. The shape of the nose is not one of them. It works a bit better
with the mongols but not always. Many tungusic peoples (linguistic and
possibly genetic relatives of manchus) have the flattest nose in entire
asia. Also buriats also have flat noses even though they are close
relatives of the mainstream mongols(khalka etc).
And in the case of ngasan(uralic speakers I think) etc living in northern
asiatic russia today, the flatness is kind of frightening. I genuinely
worried about their health when I looked at their photos.
I have actual anthropological data to back this up. Those interested
should take a look at the data gathered by that Hani-guy from Japan(
American Journal of Physical Anthropology Jan 2000 or so).
> Well, I don't understand what some of the technical terms mean - but I
saw
> the DRAWING they made and they said he looked like Patrick Stewart. Now -
> here's the problem. Patrick Stewart looks like a E. European or Central
> Asian type - that is, a person with a lot of Altaic mixture - OR an Altaic
> person. Put black hair and a top-knot on Pat Stewart and dress him up
like
> a Mongol - and BINGO - he'd pass.
I don't think so.
> We ARE matrilineal! I don't know if the Manchu are.
They are not. In fact, patrilineage is the distinguishing
characteristics of all tungusic peoples. If you are matrilineal... I don't
know what "altaic" people you belong to.
> I'd guess they used to
> be like us - we had polygamy and polyandry in our culture. And we were
VERY
> exogamic! I would wager a guess that some NA came over that ice bridge -
> especially since the Manchu have a version of their own people find it and
> crossing over it to find better weather.
So far not a single speciemen of manchus was found with the typical NA
y-chromosome.
They'd have followed the animals -
> they were nomads. I know that some NA genes were found in RUSSIAN people
> that never left that area. So that means that the road was traveled TWO
> ways, not one way.
Awww shut up if you don't know what you are talking about.
I'd venture to guess that some came by sea and that all
> of them did not come at the same time. Some of the people that migrated
in
> more than one wave to all those Islands - including Easter Island - would
> have continued on - probably blended in with others already here. That IS
> kinda what humans tend to do. It makes sense. It would explain why the
> stuff's not easy to sort out, too. You can find LOTS of Altaic genes in
the
> Han Chinese. But you won't find too many Han genes in Altaic populations.
You will be surprised if I show you my data. ....though I think those
genes are not directly from chinese but from the unknown people of Hongshan
and Longshan culture now absorbed by chinese. Nevetheless... And as for
the altaic genes among chinese, they are mostly found among chinese around
the border area(the infamous Genghis khan y-chromosome star-cluster etc.).
But there is surprising lack of mongol evidences among the rest of chinese.
Frankly I was surprised myself. I thought I would find more. I guess the
population density has something to do with this. The same force is in work
in the case of Turks(of Turkey), Iranians etc. They are mostly near
easterners, not central asians in their genetic profile.
> Why? Because Altaics went to China, even ruled it half the time - and
they
> blended in, mixed. Chinese never went to Altaic homelands. The
difference
> is endogamic people, versus exogamic people. Altaic people tend to merge
> with any people they settle in with - if they can - and it seems to me
they
> COULD. Altaic people were wanderers, they went ALL over the place.
Chinese
> Han people did not tend to do that. We know that the SE Asians did it -
> from the Polynesian islands being populated.
It is not as simple as that. Do you think there is any genetic signiture
of Mongols on Koreans for instance(whom they had subjugated for a good 100
years or more)? Koreans unlike chinese have quite a bit of RPS4Y711T
lineage that constitues more than 50 % of the mongols. However they are not
very closely related to the Mongols'. The coalescence time is >4000 years
meaning that these are probably due to common ancestry rather than from
direct influence in recent years(<1000 years). As for the famous Genghis
Khan Y-chromosome cluster, none has been found among Koreans so far.
Philip Deitiker
<bai...@yahoo.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
Mongolians can be divided into three groups of people, the
Kalkhans, Tsaastans and Oold. The Tsaatans appear to be
slightly more similar to the chinese, which is not
surprising since this is the group that appears to have
invaded china on many occasions, but the similarities run
deeper than that. The Oold appear to be genetically more
related to the northern siberians, and the Tsaatans more
closely related to tibetans and western chinese of the
Uygars and other spotty ethic groups in western china.
There is no doubt that there as been post settlement west
eurasian contribution to both the tibetian plateau but also
eastern siberia and including the mongols. The level of
contribution however appears to be peak in the kor-mongol
population which show a closer genetic relationship to the
Orochon and Ainu and Nivetian, and of course the
relationship with these peoples at all genetic levels to
northern and highland populations of native americans in
undeniable. The Ainu show an extensive cluster of HLA types
that are of west eurasian origin, many that they share with
koreans some that they don't, and some they also share with
mongolian. Indeed the HLADQ4 type found peaks in the south
american highlands and in mexico highlands and the specific
DQ/DR haplotype is found at maximal levels in the Ainu. I
strongly suggest that the Ainu and/or the related peoples of
eastern siberia are the progenitors of protoclovis culture
in the new world, and the migration from western europe
prior to the last glacial maximum along with some gene flow
from africa to the middle east carried west eurasian
technologies, trivially changed to east asia and the new
world, via a southern path along the indian ocean and a
northern track that extends through the transbiakal regiona
and overlapped with mongolia. Thus it does appear that
mongolians are a population derived from ancient admixture,
from the west via recent migrations and from the south via
ancient austronesian and indochinese migrations. There is
evidence that the patterns of WEAs in asia were more
prominent >2000 years ago than present. HLA also suggests an
outward radial migration from the S. china, myanmar region
that was largely displacive since the end of the last ice
age, and in all probability the sinitic character in
mongolians is the result of northward migration of desparate
hunter/gatherers displaced by successful wet rice farming
southeast asians. From this point of veiw one might look at
the inhabitants of the region as looking more caucasian from
2000 to 18000 years ago, however prior to 18,000 years ago
the inhabitants appear to have come from SE asia and
retreated prior to the last glacial maximum.
As far as looking russian the stereotypical russian
appears to favor much influence by the norse and vikings
from the west, and the swedes BY HLA appear to be a
derivative of the older Irish/COrnish cluster, and the HLA
data is very clear that these peoples were locked away from
eastward migration until a few thousand years ago, with
ancestry of both groups clustering along the western
european coastline. Therefore I would be very surprised if
the C. 18 kya transbiakal dwellers looked like modern day
russians, if you told me they looked like modern day french,
iberians, italians, greeks, romanians it might be somewhat
more palitable.
I think the craniofacial features of KW man also weigh in
on this also. But one also has to factor in that by the time
the grand american expansion begins these people appear of
have entered asia some 5000 years previous and the gradient
of genetics from ryukyu, korea-subtracted japanese, ainu
suggest a level of intermixing that probably was pronounced
by the time pottery appeared some 16,000 years ago.
Therefore, it is likely that Kenniwick Man represents the
WEA origins with some admixture (as with Ainu) of peoples of
austronesian origin and of protosinitic origins, just like
the mongols.
Further complicating matters is that while the Japanese
and ryukyuans reflect an outer pacific rim migrations that
appear to run down deep into the indonesia, the koreans and
orochon, mongolians and tibetians all seem to reflect
origins that run through coastal china and have more direct
connection with the current tiawan aboriginals. This would
be convinient but there is also evidence of counter current
gene flow from basically siberia (WEA) streaking down at
different times into indonesians and is reflected in the
more sinitic phenotype indonesian population.
The homogenous appearance of sinitic chinese, at least in
my bias, was the result of apparent isolation in china, this
appears however not to be the case, the homogeneity of
chinese particularly of certain ethnic groups is likely due
to the assymetric expansion from a small population because
of proprietary technological advantage. The link with HLA
and the preponderance of certain HLA in wet-rice farming
versus those in dry-rice farming that adopted wet-rice
farming (korea and japan) suggest there may be selective
advantages to HLA possessed by the expansive groups and a
reason why the culture did not transfer well to non-agrarian
peoples of asia. Therefore if a region was adaptable to wet
rice farming individuals who had the HLA types (most notably
the B46 allele) would end up dominating that region if no
other grain agriculture was present. This expansion, outside
of agrarian times is unusual and prior to this period and
throughout pastoral and H/G parts of asia the norm has been
admixture. In fact the applies for most of the americas,
most of siberia including japan, manchuria, northern china,
western china, the turkic states, tibet, northern india, the
middle east most of europe, north africa, west africa, east
africa and southern africa.
The exceptions are the Irish/Nordic assymetric expansion,
the isolated pygmy tribes in africa, certain riparian tribes
in south america, and certain negrito tribes in austronesia.
By and large the genetic mileu of the mongols is
representative of most of the pre-agrarian populations of
the world.
> I hope she comes here often. Unless she babbles too much she can be quite
>entertaining.
Maybe so, but I think you are biased to ignore possible
'truths' within those explanations. One thing I noted in my
HLA studies, the haplotypes in the Uralic people that many
noted as intermediate between east and west asian showed
themselves to be devoid of many of the haplotypes that
characterized the migration from west to east. Further
examination showed that poles, saami, uralic, and finnic
peoples clustered outside of the WEA groups that had the
ability to be clustered to East asian alleles. Therefore the
migratory path appears not to have been direct, or the
chronological population of northern eurasia is alot more
complex than current research would have on beleive. From an
HLA point of view the ability to trace the migration from
italy begins to loose cohesion eastward and the trial
regains cohesion in northern pakistan (afganistan is
untyped), uzbekistan is poorly typed, and hints from the
caucasus and tibet suggest that these places at least
bordered the migration. There is also evidence from
archeological structures in northern Japan that there was
some cultural flow from persia, linguistic evidence of
linguistic flow from northern iberia and southern france.
However to date the linguistic evidence is very
controvertable because it suggests both a southern and
northern route (via india and via northern china).
If the haplotype analysis from Iran and from Afganistan
reinforce the border patterns then this would really harden
the idea of a southwestern west to east and northeastern
west to east migration with the pivotal migration north
being west of the indus river and circumnavigating mongolia.
If so the consideration of ural-altaic associations may be
more superficial than meet the eye.
baiyaan
> You got a picture? You can see me, here is url:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/trip_to_innsmouth/tani.jpg
Now.... I am 100% certain that you are or your tribe is of mixed
heritage.
In fact you could pass for an east-european. You definitely would be
considered a foreigner just by the look if you were put in the middle of
ulan baator.
> Well, our eyes do tilt, measurably too - and as kids we have full eye
folds
> because the nose is not fully "out" up at the top. I can scan a photo of
me
> as a 16 year old and email you it if you want. I had that full eye fold
> until my 20's. All the kids have that, then the noses develop later on
and
> they have it like mine now. I still have an eye fold, but it's not a fold
> that starts at the beginning of the eye that's closest to the nose
anymore.
> It folds over the whole rest of my eye tho. We also have DEEP set eyes.
> Han Chinese DO NOT! Manchus do!
No. not always. Also oceanic negritos etc have deep set eyes. And
chinese ,having been a southern people originally, have less of the
mongoloid features and some especially extreme southerners have deeper set
eyes than the mongols for instance.
As far as Manchus are concerned..... they are genetically quite close to
the Koreans etc. Now you are clearly bullshitting.
>OH yeah. (BEUTIFUL eyes, imo!!) Han
> Chinese tend to have bulgy eyes, even big ones with no tilt to them at
all -
> but they have full eye-folds.
tehehehe. Acutally I have seen chinese making fun of their northen
neighbors' slant eyes with epicanthic folds etc. I beat them up but....
The percentage of chinese with epicanthic folds is less than that of the
mongols for instance.
You know, the appearance of tilt doesn't
> necessarily mean there IS a tilt. Full eye folds make tilted eyes look
very
> much more tilted. (As such, in HS, my nick name was Ms. Spock). Their
> features are a LOT LOT softer, noses are more pushed down too. Their
whole
> faces are softer. Ours are very "hard" featured, like angular, pointy.
> MOST NA that I'm familiar with are hard featured like us. I've seen some
> soft featured ones down here in FL. Keep in mind, Tatars are related to
the
> TURKS, not to the Chinese.
What turks? "turks" are not a single race. They range from mediterranean
to east european to full mongoloids like some altai-tribes(sayan mountain
etc) or yakuts.
OH, also, unlike many NA and unlike the Chinese,
> we can DRINK!
Wow such an accurate and meaningful anthopological feature!!!
Actually southern chinese can drink better than northern chinese.
SE asians like Thais are better drinkers than either of them.
>Europeans
> conquer people. They often mix with them (their males, with the conquered
> females - the idea of their European females playing around is unheard of,
> absolutely forbidden) but the children are "bastards" and not accepted as
> Europeans. Europeans put upon them labels "half breed" and such things.
> They just are never considered European, no matter what. Turanians
(Altaic
> people) have conquered people forever in history - we have a rep for it
big
> time. We immediately mix with them - both ways, males and females do it.
> Our females MARRY their men, I mean, actually marry and it's accepted as
> normal - and our men marry their females. The offspring are considered
US.
> We include them into US.
Then according to your logic, many chinese men must have married your
females and left genetic imprints on your people? No? I think you said the
contrary though. You are contradicting yourself.
I have yet to hear of a single mongol female marrying a chinese before the
20th century.(I am sure there were some but certainly very rare)
>... When Turanians conquered, we made rules of
> tolerance toward folkways and adopted some ourselves, even Arabs say and
> write that things were way more TOLERANT under Tatar rulers than they were
> before under their own Arab rulers.
Wow... what a parade of bullshit. Is that why mongols had 4 classes of
peoples and Jurchens(manchus) belonged to the second lowest?
> No, endogamy and exogamy. But it's more than just that. Inclusive and
> exclusive - that's there too. I have no idea if Africans - or the tribes
> the ones here came from, were exogamic - but they sure are now. The
problem
> is - the people they live among are NOT so exogamic at all. THAT is a big
>....................................friends - Egyptians, Syrians,
Palestinian
> (Samir - a Palestinian became a very good friend until he went back to Mid
> East and maybe I shouldn't post about that these days.... ) and all such
> people - from everywhere - all Moslem. All spoke English to each other
and
> to me. I had some of the wildest party times with these people. I guess
> they marry within Moslem immigrant population.
Are you a man? your photo looks like a woman's. You got a big hormone
problem.
MIB529
> > What I meant was a study of European immigrants showed that it basically
> > more environment than any particular gene.
>
> Listen to THIS - you see my post on the dogs before? Shows that quite a few
> breeds were around long before man was around - coyote, jackal, wolf, dog
> are all different species - but they are all totally cross fertile - that
> post.
At one time, they classified different breeds of dogs as different species.
(Even with coyotes and wolves as different species, you would have to count
the chihuahua as a coyote and all Eurasian dogs as wolves; after all,
polyphyletic categories are bad form.) Today, the definition of species, at
least here in the States, is by whether or not they can produce successful
offspring. Wolves and coyotes can, but because the wolves are more adapted
to northern climates and coyotes are more adapted to tropical latitudes,
they're called subspecies: The intermediate is Cl. rufus, or the red wolf,
found in most of North America.
> Well, Animal Planet had a show on dogs called the "Wolf Within" and
> they talked about dogs getting friendly with humans. They cited an
> experiment done in Russia with all wild foxes. All were wild but some of
> course behaved a bit friendly, others totally not friendly. They took the
> most friendly ones and simply bred for friendliness to see what would
> happen. At that point, they all looked like pretty uniform foxes. In about
> TWO GENERATIONS the friendly offspring LOOKED different - markedly
> different!
And the study of cephalic index was in one generation.
> So then, for some unknown (yet unknown) reason, simply breeding
> "friendlier types" produced a different phenotypical APPEARANCE - and it was
> a definite difference. That's why I harp always on sexual selection that
> humans HAVE DONE - definitely done.
I'll agree there. I mean, for example, there's absolutely no way to explain
why humans have larger breasts than other primates: I don't see an advantage,
other than extra milk.
> That's the same as breeding an animal -
> humans are animals too. HELL yes it can change the appearance - so can what
> you eat change how the jaw develops after you are born and all that.
I'll agree there too. Genes aren't the simple world of Mendel: Birth defects
are evidence of how much environmental influence exists even before birth.
It's called von Baer's law.
I think most sexual selection favors health. A bit of it can favor
adaptations to a particular environment too. Whatever the case, it seems to
be a much-ignored element. Particularly female sexual selection, since, in
mammals at least, females have to care for their young more than males.
> You know, that one thing I posted on the canine genus - imo, is better than
> ALL this anthropology talk because it's objective - there is no agenda. Can
> different species of mammals breed and make highly fertile offspring? HELL
> YES - and that article I posted had hard core genetic data on these animals.
> I find that AMAZING - I mean REALLY amazing. You know, there are two ways
> to think on the wolf. Sure, most wolves are gone now - but they LIVE in the
> dogs. And heh, well humans form strong bonds with dogs. Dog puppies cared
> for by humans have a high survival rate. In the wild, however, a lot of
> them perish. So it's a two way thing. My people have oral stories about
> our connection to our totem, the WOLF - and I was clapping that the show
> actually pointed out the human partnership with the wolf. We befriended
> them - they lived LIKE us, they hunted LIKE us and well, heh, they kinda ate
> the same food too :( Sometimes we ate them. And sometimes they ate us -
> even bigger :( Then one day, it is said, a woman saved a lost wolf baby's
> life and a mother wolf nursed a lost human baby. Thus was the partnership
> born and the wolf was ANDA (blood brother). Also, that wolf was MOTHER of
> that baby, as we see it. I don't know the whole story of it like Nim wrote
> the story of his ancestors, or like I wrote down "Bogdan and Shulam" story -
> I had to phone up relatives to get details of that. But what I just said is
> the story. The wolf and us - we are BROTHERS from that day on. Heh, man
> that had to be a LONG time ago, LOL. I think that Europeans have a hard
> time "believing" that anyone can have something like an oral story last that
> long - THOUSANDS of years - but they have NO problem accepting that "the
> Hebrew religion is oldest in the world." Heh. NO IT AINT.
What I find funny is that so many creationists make their stand at evolution;
evolution doesn't contradict the Bible any more than (say) the round earth
does.
> > Some Indians are more prognathous. It's ALMOST NEVER found in Europe,
> > though. (I only say 'almost never' to spite nitpickers.)
>
> Afrocentrics often point to stuff like that to claim that the Africans
> taught the Indians everything they know. You know, the WANNABE never ceases
> to amaze me.
Black, white . . . It's weird how Americans still believe the long-discredited
ethnology of race. The entire 'race' business is based on three areas: Western
Africa, Europe, and China.
> > > You got a picture? You can see me, here is url:
> > >
> http://www.geocities.com/trip_to_innsmouth/tani.jpg
> > >
> > > I have on pretty make up in that photo - just delete it in your mind's
> eye.
>
> >
> > Couldn't see a picture. Also, I don't have a scanner or a digital camera
> or a
> > scanner. (Yeah, I'm living in the stone age, whatever.)
>
> You can't see my picture from there? Hmm. Yeah, the link works - just
> checked it.
To quote the Geoshitties squad:
We're sorry, but this page is currently unavailable for viewing.
> I just got a scanner for 19 bucks - it also has copy like xerox and OCR! 19
> bucks. www.pricewatch.com I had to, either that or pay thru my teeth to
> get anything scanned or have to mail thru slow regular mail to someone who
> did and that's kind of bugging people. 19 bucks! Workd great! HIGH RES
> too!
I'll have ot get one. It's bad enough being Indian, but also a college
student! LOL
Well, the funny thing is, Indians typically have large ears. (I don't know if
this is an actual reason, but the physics of sound dictate that large ears
hear better.) Earlobe is not attached, before you ask.
Well, a lot of 'ethnic jokes' on reservations deal with white arrogance.
An example:
The Lone Ranger and Tonto are out camping. They wake up and they see the
stars.
Tonto: What this mean to you, Kemosabe?
LR: Well, Tonto, it reminds me of how infinite the universe is and how
small we are compared to its vastness.
Tonto: It mean someone steal our tent.
> > > But body hair: I have only body hair under
> > > arms - very very scanty, and pubic - scanty. None on my legs or arms.
> Very
> > > scanty eyebrows. I used to heh, color them in to make them less slanty
> as a
> > > teen.
> >
> > Slanty or scanty?
>
> Slanty, and scanty. My eyebrows are both slanted and scant. Try see
> picture again.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/trip_to_innsmouth/tani.jpg
>
> Paste it into the IE and try. It's there. Maybe geocities was down.
I don't use Internet Expirer, personally. Cases of Micro$haft not
listening to their customers could be a whole other thread.
> Difficult spellings. I have some thick eyebrows, maybe about
> > five hairs under each arm, and a moderate amount of pubic hair. (Generally
> > speaking, I always bring up body hair whenever any racist trolls here
> compare
> > a particular race to apes.)
>
> Lmao OH, I do too if the person flaming me is white. I try to TAILOR my
> flames - if you remember :) Whites are easy to trash: here goes one:
> "your women try to look like us with blusher to make fake cheekbones where
> there aren't any and that disgusting revolting habit of SHAVING legs and the
> hurtful plucking of eyebrows." LMAO.
<G>
> > > Well, any race can have Down's babies.
> >
> > Back then there was this belief that embryos repeated ancestral forms. So
> > someone closer to a fetus was thus 'less evolved'. A lot of racism from
> > that era.
>
> Heh, actually, someone closer to a neotanized form (like a baby) tends to be
> kinda smarter! Down's is from a chromosome problem, not from neotany.
I know. To be exact, an extra chromosome. But this was before DNA.
> When it was discovered that the opposite, neoteny, could also
> > occur, the choice of features was changed. While the full beard, thin lips
> > and Grecian nose were preferred before, lactose tolerance and skin color
> > became the ideal racial traits under neoteny.
>
> We have lactose tolerance - we pretty much live on ALL milk products
> (including from horse) and meat.
Well, it's fairly rare here.
> > > We lack the body hair, as said above. Our men too. NICE!
> >
> > It seems to be associated with humid environments.
>
> Hmm, we come from very COLD environment - cold like you can't imagine! The
> subcutaneous body fat is what keeps people warm - and we have it. I'm VERY
> bouyant! I think it's why we look a lot younger than we actually are, too.
Well, it's also a general rule that it's very easy to overestimate a white
woman's age if you're not used to them.
I personally am 6'7" and 170 lbs (or 2.0 m and 77 kg) The whole Dakotas area
seems to be notable for a genetic 'minimum' on height, similar to how pygmies
theoretically have a genetic 'maximum'.
> > > LMAO. I think the problem is that they are considering WHERE the NA got
> to
> > > here FROM, further back in time. How can anyone say you invented
> sacrifice
> > > when those old pagan civilizations used to all do it? Afrocentrics
> claim
> > > that blacks built Mexico, they claim they were the Olmecs. I've seen a
> LOT
> > > of literature about that.
> >
> > Afrocentrics claim blacks, with some Chinese influence too. White racists
> > claim everyone else -- save for Indians. There was even one guy, Erich von
> > Daniken, who claimed ALIENS did it.
>
> OH, Danniken is crackpot.
I agree. But he gets all the media coverage because he's a crackpot. (First
rule of American media: Abandon all common sense, ye who enter here.)
> > > They also use mtDNA data.
> >
> > Not that much. From what I've read, they prefer the Y chromosome because
> the
> > phyletic splits are later. Whether this is to combat Carleton Coon-style
> > racists or to favor Stormfront-style racists is yet to be decided.
> (Usually,
> > they explain the genetic differences such as the absence of the B blood
> group
> > which reaches its highest rates in Mongolia and Siberia [I honestly can't
> > think of a selection for blood types.] as 'Orientals later replaced
> Indians
> > because they're more inteligent' or some equally racist nonsense.)
>
> Now they use haplotypes since mtDNA and nuclear DNA is not all that good. I
> webbed good info on the latest on that from all the hooey I stirred up on
> here LMAO - on my "fishing expedition." Well, heh, if I couldn't GET my
> hands on it - I was determined to let the experts on here get it FOR ME.
> And they did.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/variation.html
>
> Seems that both sides liked this article :) As some pointed out, the parts
> I wrote myself are a bit tricky.
IIRC, Y-chromosome and mtDNA can only tell unilineal lines, and there's more
room for Mendelian drift in blood groups and other such neutral traits.
Most of the genetic trees I've seen look different from those, but it's hard
to come up with a phylogeny for interfertile groups, especially a species
like man which is innately exogamous.
> > > LMAO they didn't! They were already WAY up north. They went EAST. And
> > > they did find better weather! Do you have any idea how COLD it is where
> we
> > > come from? It's not cold like that ANYWHERE in the Americas, not in
> Canada
> > > either. No way! We come from where it's night for 8 months and beyond
> > > imagining cold. And we are STILL THERE - I think 30 million of us last
> time
> > > the USSR did a count.
> >
> > You should see the Wisconsonian/Würm climates before you say that. Pretty
> much
> > the only part of Alaska not covered by ice was the extreme north, and it
> was
> > still very cold.
>
> Kolyma is the coldest place on earth, Mib. But back then, a lot further
> south from there was also cold - very cold. Going east to find better
> WINDS - that's what they did.
Better winds sure as hell wouldn't be in North America. LOL Very strong
wind is quite typical.
> The difficulty is, there's plenty of evidence in South
> > America before anyone could get there. LOL It's even more difficult
> because
> > habitation of Chukotka and Kamchatka apparently is only some 10,000 years
> ago.
> > From an evolutionary perspective, it also makes very little sense to
> choose
> > Alaska as a point of origin: Indians are clearly more adapted to the
> tropics,
> > even as far north as the Dakotas.
>
> I think LOTS of Indians came by ocean to the Americas and spread south long
> before the people came from the northern part of Asia. Just my opinion.
> The polynesian islands were people'd - and I think long before anyone knows
> of it. So was Australia - 60 THOUSAND years ago! Indians may have been in
> the Americas 40,000 years ago for all we know. I think so. I think waves
> and waves or more people came over time.
That's more likely. After all, clearly the Indian Ocean wasn't much of a
barrier for Malayo-Polynesian speakers: There are some in Madagascar.
Perhaps across the Atlantic as well? Or the other way around? Of course,
either way, it'd have to drop the racial pretentiousness.
I used the Yanomamo example because it's the most classic. Granted, Chagnon
is controversial: As it turns out, he did do some things wrong, but Tierney
invented the whole paranoid conspiracy theory about the Atomic Energy
Commission. (What did I say about US media? Abandon all common sense, ye
who enter here.)
> > In Mexico, they typically used half-breeds as an intermediate class.
> > But as I said, endogamy is typically associated with eugenics.
>
> I'd not make that association. CHINA put into law positive/negative
> eugenics a few years ago. It's not racist tho. It's like family health
> stuff. I think eugenics got a bad name. Also, heterozygocity is what's
> healthy - exogamy.
I agree that eugenics got a bad name from Hitler and others. I mean, even
Montagu agreed with aborting certain birth defects. Many societies have
developed particular taboos which smack of eugenics, but they disguise it
in 'culture-talk', various beliefs about sex in general, semen in
particular. (Another way in which to defeat white racist trolls here:
Bring up r/K as it relates to postpartum taboos, polyandry, and other such
practices. Or just diabetes: It tends to relate to a lack of resources.)
People's Commissar
"baiyaan" <bai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4029525e$1...@marge.ic.sunysb.edu...
>
> "People's Commissar" <tjs...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:W21Vb.17556$uM2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Well, if you consider Altaic people (Turko-Tatar type) to be Asians,
then
> > they did make it to the Americas - a LONG time ago. I found a RECORDED
> > version of that Manchu story that comes from a Jesuit that recorded it,
or
> > something like it, in 1600 before anyone had any ideas about Ice
Bridges.
>
> Aren't you the troll who bullshited around sci.lang last year?
> Manchu would have nothing to do with "your people" except their language
is
> often classified as altaic.
I don't think so. I know of a poster on here who is "Manchu descent Chinese
American" - and since HE mentioned "shamanism" - I'd assume he knew what it
was. I'm not a troll. What the fuck is it with that word? I have no
problem communicating with MIB who is Oglala or the other NA on here who is
Lakota. I GOT the Manchu story from the Chinese that posted it on here.
>
> To others: if she did not change her opinion from last year, she still
> thinks that modern Mongols are a very bastadized version of chinese.
OH, I never fucking said anything like that. Mongols Turks and Tatars are
related people with related languages who originally were SAME people. They
are NOT CHINESE - and neither am I.
She
> thinks that "the original mongols" looked pretty much like modernday
> Russians etc.
I never said that either, but - Modernday Russians? Well, do you mean
LEBED? He's a Russian. Or do you mean some pale faced blonde? NO way. My
uncle Dawa was a "modern day Russian" since he was born in Russia and
considered Russian. Was he a modern day Russian? Yeah. OH, do you mean
his RACE? OH, he is Tatar.
>
> I hope she comes here often. Unless she babbles too much she can be
quite
> entertaining.
Either you have me confused with another person, or you are ASSuming a lot.
I am often on sci anthro,on and off.
You have a shitty day too, asshole.
>
>
>
People's Commissar
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
news:bami209ggd04ml2ml...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:56:51 -0800, "baiyaan"
> <bai...@yahoo.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
Interesting post to "rich guy" who I shall now rename khorsgoltoi chetger,
Your details are technical as hell. Hmm, makes me think about it.
My people are related, hands down, to the TURKS. Turko-Tatar. Nationalist
talk has us as "Turanian." I've seen Alberto use the word "Turan" and was
surprised. It's a political word, really. The difference for us in calling
ourselves either Altaic people or Tatar (tho that's a problem too), is that
"Turk" also means "ISLAMIC" in the culture - and we aren't Islamic. So if
you say "I'm a turk" you are also saying you are Islamic culture and
religion. It's AS-GIVEN. Like Italians? 99.999% chance they are from
Catholic. Right? Again, it's ethnic talk. Not anthropology talk.
Definitely not genetic talk.
The Manchu-Chinese guy on here, well, he was in the other thread with MIB
who is posting this now on this new thread - that guy is - CHINESE
(American born). That's what I was referring to, to MIB who is Oglala - he
is familiar with the convo from another thread or other posts. You will
notice I am answering MIB before khorsgoltoi chetger butted his face into
it. Mib is Oglala. The Chinese poster is not on this thread - but HE is of
Manchu descent and he knows what real shamanism is - opposed to the
"accepted" daffynition of it.
Anyway. I see a lot of Russians - they all claim to be Russian - here right
now. MANY of them look like me - that's to say, we BOTH seem to be taken
for Hispanics of a type - slanted eyes, cheekbones, that type - and then
Lebed who looks like Tatar. We can be fair, but we can also get very dark
and this IS SW Florida. What is a typical Russian? Some Britich Actor
playing a part? I see the almond eye, the cheekbones, certain "cast" of
features and I see "like us." (Blacks also see white skin, light hair and
eyes but if that person has a certain caste of feather, that person is BLACK
and accepted as black. OK? Genetically the person might be 98% Irish or
something, who cares. If the person LOOKS black by feature, set of
features, a "look" then that person is black here.) These people
definitely do not, I definitely do not, look CHINESE - no way. Could we
PASS as Japanese with the right hair dye and clothing? YES - I know I
could.
You need to understand that over there, USSR, a Russian was a person born in
Russia - it's not some kind of ethnic thing like it is here. I see blonde
blue Russians that look like Irish people. I see flat faced Russians that
look like Polish or something. And I see a lot that look like us, LOTS of
them, well, like Lebed as one famous example - and we are the ones that
every Hispanic that meets us thinks we speak Spanish and almost doesn't
believe we are NOT Hispanic of some kind. This is eye ball, daily LIFE here
in SW Florida now, where a LOT of these people are. We see what we see:
phenotype. We don't see genes.
I have no idea who this arrogant asshole is that assumes I'm someone from
language. I am not subscribed to a language group and I don't give a SHIT
about language except that I'm PRO ENGLISH for the USA. I have no idea what
the original pre-Chinese-involved Manchu were like - but I DO know that the
"Pan Turanian Movement" considered them to be "of Turan." They also
included Finns and Hungarians - SOME even included Austraians due to the
Avars having settled and married into the people there. It's called
"inclusiveness" in ethnic culture. I.e., WE TOO have our version of ONE
DROP. And if you got one drop - you are WITH US.
You know, you people talk about race and insist it's a SOCIAL construction?
How much more evidence do you need to prove it IS just that when we say
Hungarians, Manchus, Finns and Turks are THE SAME RACE and call that race
Turan? That's 100% social political construction. Not only that, but we
don't look like each other to OTHER PEOPLE that see us. OH, but we DO
resemble each other to OURSELVES. That's what is important. WE see
kinship. WE FEEL kinship. So then, khorsgoltoi chetger would be wise to
understand that LOOK-ISM is in the eye of the beholder.
A troll is an anonymous poster that is not involved in a LONG, ongoing
conversation. I am not anonymous and I have been in this convo, on various
threads, for months. HE is the troll. Mr. Rich Guy, HHHAAA.
As for the Manchu - according to US they are originaly JURCHEN - and that
means - they were originally US - Shamanistic Turks. Did some of them come
to the east (Americas) in search of better winds? YES. According to US.
We have OUR oral stories too.
People's Commissar
Hey rich guy. You gonna flame me again?
>
> "People's Commissar" <tjs...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:TBoVb.15886$F23....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Mmmm, I'm not following all that, but quite many NA today look like
Altaic
> > people TODAY - including my NA inlaws who blend in with us with no
problem
> > at all. Some of the NA I see here, Miki.. forgot name, part of
Seminole -
> > look like off the boat from China - but they're tall, like N. Chinese
> maybe
>
> ... your info is about 100 years too old. Modern day chinese, even
> northern chinese are quite a bit shorter than even the south Koreans.
My info is from today, eyeball sight, relatives, family and in-laws and
people I know and see. The people I've seen from Northern Chinese,
immigrated to Taiwan, including my HAN Chinese dentist are almost 6 feet
tall and/or over 6 feet tall. You gonna inform me that this is due to diet?
No shit. I KNOW that. My uncle Dawa, Turko-Tatar (not Islamic) is about 5
foot three. His wife is Cherokee and under 5 foot tall. His son Ernye was
over 6 foot 7 inches at the age of 17 and not skinny, he was BIG boned and
still growing. His son Tserin was 5 foot 6 inches tall, at the age of 9.
His daughter Sanderma was 5 foot 11 inches tall at the age of 13. It's
DIET. It's not like they "genetically" got the height from Cherokees or
Tatars. BOTH the mom and dad were pretty damned short. ALL the kids are
HUGE - and it's ALL, 100% diet.
> > or Manchu-Chinese would be.
>
> I doubt you have ever seen a real full blooded manchu.
Where did I ever claim I did? I probably never did, but I've seen Chinese
that claimed they were that, HA HA. Well, the one on here who is Chinese
American, Manchu descent (I never saw him claim he was pure Manchu - and
he's probably a small part but I'm guessing) is over 6 feet tall (and very
very VERY cute - or he was when he was younger....) Point being, there is
no way in hell he could EVER pass as a Turk-Tatar. No way. Not even with
make up.
They should be
> taller than chinese genetically but their pheno type doesn't fit your
> fantasy.
OH, I see khorsgoltoi chetger, you are flaming me. What a fucking ASSHOLE
you are. Do you know you are being an asshole? Mib and I are talking about
people we KNOW and can SEE. YOU are TROLLING. What the hell are YOU talking
about? YOUR fantasy? Some freaking statistical bullshit out there? What
do you mean "they SHOULD be taller than Chinese genetically" - what are you
talking about? HEIGHT is one thing we know for god damned sure is dependent
on DIET. The white nordics were, at one time, 4 foot 10 inches tall - it
can be known by their CLOTHING and armor. Later on, they were known to be
almost 7 feet tall. It's ALL diet.
WHY should Manchus be taller "genetically?" WHY? And someone p lease tell
me what that sentence even means? "Should be taller genetically." WHAT
does that even mean? You want to play shouda? Shouldn't folks from the
cold icy areas be short and stocky? After all, ain't blacks from the hot
and humid areas TALL and SKINNY? Well uh...., NOT ALL. What do you mean
"should be genetically?" That statement makes no sense. The "theory" goes
that ectomorphic bodies - tall and skinny, are adapted to heat and humidity.
That's the SHOULDA.
They are kind of midway between Mongols and Koreans phenotypically
> except that they are a bit taller than either of the others.
Oh please, and that they MIXED WITH Mongols and Koreans, AND a whole lot for
centuries with Chinese never occurred to you? What the hell makes you think
ANYONE today in Manchuria is pure Manchu? Betcha not one of them is. I
know this much - Mongols (the country Oiter Mongolia filled with one people,
the Khalka) are NO LONGER Turko-Tatar in appearance - not even close! THEY
USED TO BE.
>
> > > Some NA I've seen look nothing like us.
>
> who is "us" here? You don't look asian at all. You should not be
> apologetic for your people's mixed heritage especially if it entails
> insulting the real Mongol people.
Who is insulting anyone? Oh,YOU are insulting me or trying hard to do it.
What "real" Mongol people? CHINESE? I'm not insulting them. You mean
people in Outer Mongolia? They ARE Chinese now and usually look nothing
like the rest of us. I'm Turko-tatar NOT Islamic heritage. According to
the USA or other "groupings" we ARE Asiatic people - tho we aren't like the
Chinese. Nowadays, Turko-tatars are considered "white too." I know people
half Native American or even FULL Native American who are considered "white
too." It's just a definition, part of a SOCIAL ideology here - for the NA
it's based on where and how they live and self-identify! For us, they just
lump us in now with whites. Ask a Turk on a survey what race he is and give
him a choice - and he'll probably say "white." I'm freaking happy about my
heritage you moron and I also like the way I look, mmm hmmm. NO problems
there :-D I'm talking to an Oglala about types of people. I don't look
eh? Wanna see me in person? Dye my hair black - I pass for Japanese TO
JAPS. I also look like a VAMPIRE with black hair, LMAO. HA HAAAA. What
are real Mongol people? Lemme guess, no, I've met quite a few of them in NJ
too - so many of them are FAT... - MOST of them are CHINESE in fact, with
a Buddhist religion from Tibet and Tibetanized names. None of them are
Shamanist. I have some in-laws there....
You seem to forget that historically these nomadic shamanistic people were
described in DETAIL by the very literate and educated people they conquered
and well, the 1200s group of conquerers got lumped into the Tatar group
since Tatars outnumbered them. Meanwhile, Guz and Pechanegs were already
all over the place, so were Kumins and other Turks. BUT: Turks, Tatars and
Mongols BACK THEN were indisguishable from each other and there was no way
in hell ANYONE would mistake them for Chinese or anything like that - NOT
back then. Seems to me that the Mongols no longer look like the rest of US.
They look like Chinese people now. Let's see, Chinese nationalists used to
mate with the women after sending the men away. Centuries of mixing with
Chinese after the main groups went west and STAYED west. (well, Central
Asia West - TURKISTAN, the old name of a huge area before Lenin changed
things) Mongols today are basically Chinese/Khalka people that keep a
Tibetan culture. WE are Turko-Tatars - while most of us are Islamic, well,
some of us aren't.
That is who WE are - and if you weren't a troll, if you were speaking to MIB
and I, you'd have known all of this and not jumped into the convo with your
god damned flaming and nastiness. I remember a convo in a lunch room once
between a fat asshole named Badma with some Russianized last name and a
pretty girl named Nalefur (spelling) with an Islamized last name - She was
from what used to be Turkistan before Lenin changed things - her people
moved to Turkey. He was from Outer Mongolia. Each were arguing with each
other about WHO is a Tatar. I laughed my ass off. Well, she looked like
the whole rest of us. HE looked Chinese. End of argument. Historians
prove OUR side of it - there is no way we looked like Chinese people. I
already know that the ones that are 99% Chinese and only 1% Tatar (forget
about their culture or language) look Chinese because they stayed there and
mixed with Chinese for CENTURIES.
> >But
> > some of them really do - and yeah, we sure thought it was remarkable. I
> > think in ww2 one Navajo soldier dressed up like a Japanese and
infiltrated
> > to blow something up - and the Japanese couldn't tell the difference at
> all.
> > Some do - and some don't - look that way. I don't think all the NA
I've
> > seen look similar enough to be one group - like the Chinese look similar
> to
> > each other pretty much.
>
> If chinese look similar to each other.... what about the Mongols(I mean
> the REAL mongols, not your half-breed tribal men) or Koreans etc. Are
they
> like carbon-copies of each other?
oh ha ha, here we go. The REAL Turko-Tatar TURAN PEOPLE are NOT like the
99% Chinese 1% Khalka breeds in Mongolia today. Detailed historical
descriptions PROVE it - including some very old Chinese detailed
descriptions. Including some very old archival Russian descriptions. Give
it up. If you are from Outer Mongolia - chances are you are 90% Chinese and
probably no Turkish left at all. You might be wise to remember that Tatars
outnumberd Mongols WAY much - even during Temujin's time - and btw, we
consider Temujin one of us - for one thing he did NOT have black eyes (tho
most of us do have that) and in ONE instance, where a piece of his hair was
showing when he went north - the color of it is described in the "Secret
History" itself. It wasn't black. SO GO HOME khorsgoltoi chetger.
Remember this much, TRIBES were there - mostly Tatar. Hell, the Kerait and
Naiman were there - HUGE tribes known as TURKISH tribes and they were HUGE
tribes. Kerait people were also way in the west at the time - they were
spread out. You forget that these tribes wandered and were pretty well
known to their southern educated and literate neighbors who wrote things
about them in detail. Way way later on, after so much Chinese mixture and
conquest and LONG after the Turko-Tatars had LONG MOVED OUT of that place -
Mongolia became a SSR under Lenin and artificial boundary was drawn for one
people - the KHALKA - and they, in our opinion, are just Chinese people with
Tibetan culture. Now, my mother was born in Ulan Ude - father born in
Stalingrad. That only means they were BORN there. I DO have Islamic
relatives (quite a lot of them). So... most Turko-tatars are Islamic. My
mother's people are NOT - they are SHAMANistic - or Lamaist. Father's
people are "whatever" kinda atheistic but they know shamanism more than
anything else around. Batu Khan was IN NO WAY Chinese. He was
TURKO-Tatar and in NO way did he look anything like Chinese people. NOT ALL
of the people from that big clan became Islamic later on. Some moved away,
further north and stayed Shaman - or picked up some of the Lamaism. Hell,
my mom's father became a Lama even - but nah - he was Shaman at heart. He
sure the hell is NOT Tibetan. We don't even LIKE the Tibetans that much.
>
>
People's Commissar
> "People's Commissar" <tjs...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:<1aXVb.18001$F23....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
See below, I hope I can find the info again. The canines are same genus -
but they are different species and the first link on there to a pdf
articleis genetic and very technical. I'll past it on the bottom. I think
I can find it.
> I'll agree there. I mean, for example, there's absolutely no way to
explain
> why humans have larger breasts than other primates: I don't see an
advantage,
> other than extra milk.
You are a guy, right? LMAO. Ok. - sexual selection would be the answer to
why. Why do we tend to have full, up tilted breasts where as most anglos
are almost flat like boys and lots of southern europeans and such have
droopy breasts? Selection. Guys chose what they liked best! I know this -
women with almost no breasts told me that breastfeeding for them was very
painful so they stopped right away. This is NOT the experiences of our
women - and we tend to be pretty big according to American standards. For
our women, it's very pleasurable. Selection would then have been toward
women that wanted to feed by breasts and liked it - and maybe also due to
male preference. And that's not just an American thing.
>
> > That's the same as breeding an animal -
> > humans are animals too. HELL yes it can change the appearance - so can
what
> > you eat change how the jaw develops after you are born and all that.
>
> I'll agree there too. Genes aren't the simple world of Mendel: Birth
defects
> are evidence of how much environmental influence exists even before birth.
> It's called von Baer's law.
>
> I think most sexual selection favors health. A bit of it can favor
> adaptations to a particular environment too. Whatever the case, it seems
to
> be a much-ignored element. Particularly female sexual selection, since, in
> mammals at least, females have to care for their young more than males.
Sexual selection is ignored (get this) primarily by MALE European
anthropologists. LMAO. I can think of a LOT of reasons why they'd tend to
over look that. If I go into details, this post will become X-rated.
OH, creationism that insists that the planet is only 5 thousand years old
contradicts a LOT of stuff! That's what creationism is saying.
>
> Black, white . . . It's weird how Americans still believe the
long-discredited
> ethnology of race. The entire 'race' business is based on three areas:
Western
> Africa, Europe, and China.
Well, as I was pointing out just now to a TROLL, is anything could be shown
to be a social construction for "race" ideas - it's our own ideas regarding
Turan. That's PURE social stuff and I guess it has nothing to do with genes
at all.
>
>
> To quote the Geoshitties squad:
AH, I'll try emailing it and hope that's your real email. That's weird. It
will come from NAKIVED. I'll get it now. I just emailed it.
>
>
> Well, the funny thing is, Indians typically have large ears. (I don't know
if
> this is an actual reason, but the physics of sound dictate that large ears
> hear better.) Earlobe is not attached, before you ask.
My earlobe is attached and ears are smaller - but I have very VERY good
hearing - and pitch hearing too.
>
> > OH yeah - and then the Brits bitched cause they felt that they "lost"
China.
> > LMAO. God, the arrogance is FUNNY.
>
> Well, a lot of 'ethnic jokes' on reservations deal with white arrogance.
> An example:
>
> The Lone Ranger and Tonto are out camping. They wake up and they see the
> stars.
>
> Tonto: What this mean to you, Kemosabe?
> LR: Well, Tonto, it reminds me of how infinite the universe is and how
> small we are compared to its vastness.
> Tonto: It mean someone steal our tent.
HAAAAAAAAA - that's a good one.
>
> I don't use Internet Expirer, personally. Cases of Micro$haft not
> listening to their customers could be a whole other thread.
OH OH, I wonder if you can see any other photos on that website - Lemme
know - they are pictures of places
www.geocities.com/trip_to_innsmouth/index.html The photos are on the next
pages. Please let me know. You using netscape? Ie is good - and it is
also FREE. Why not just go get it?
>
>
> Well, it's also a general rule that it's very easy to overestimate a white
> woman's age if you're not used to them.
HA, sounds funny - but I don't get it. Lots of western whites, like irish,
their women look my age when they are in their late 20s - and that's pretty
pathetic!
>
> I personally am 6'7" and 170 lbs (or 2.0 m and 77 kg) The whole Dakotas
area
> seems to be notable for a genetic 'minimum' on height, similar to how
pygmies
> theoretically have a genetic 'maximum'.
SHEESH you are tall. You must be skinny too?
>
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/variation.html
> >
> > Seems that both sides liked this article :) As some pointed out, the
parts
> > I wrote myself are a bit tricky.
>
> IIRC, Y-chromosome and mtDNA can only tell unilineal lines, and there's
more
> room for Mendelian drift in blood groups and other such neutral traits.
>
> Most of the genetic trees I've seen look different from those, but it's
hard
> to come up with a phylogeny for interfertile groups, especially a species
> like man which is innately exogamous.
Well, at least I got them and this time, SAVED it and posted it.
>
> > Kolyma is the coldest place on earth, Mib. But back then, a lot further
> > south from there was also cold - very cold. Going east to find better
> > WINDS - that's what they did.
>
> Better winds sure as hell wouldn't be in North America. LOL Very strong
> wind is quite typical.
Well, maybe now. Also, what people say they went in search of - if they'd
have gone east and then south they'd find it - but if not - maybe they
didn't find warmer winds. Check Kolyma. Cold and wind - the place is
almost unliveable.
>
> >
> > I think LOTS of Indians came by ocean to the Americas and spread south
long
> > before the people came from the northern part of Asia. Just my opinion.
> > The polynesian islands were people'd - and I think long before anyone
knows
> > of it. So was Australia - 60 THOUSAND years ago! Indians may have been
in
> > the Americas 40,000 years ago for all we know. I think so. I think
waves
> > and waves or more people came over time.
>
> That's more likely. After all, clearly the Indian Ocean wasn't much of a
> barrier for Malayo-Polynesian speakers: There are some in Madagascar.
>
> Perhaps across the Atlantic as well? Or the other way around? Of course,
> either way, it'd have to drop the racial pretentiousness.
Yeah, I think so - people would have come from anywhere - the ice pushed
them south so they'd have to get moving.
>
> > Polynesians have that too.
>
> I used the Yanomamo example because it's the most classic. Granted,
Chagnon
> is controversial: As it turns out, he did do some things wrong, but
Tierney
> invented the whole paranoid conspiracy theory about the Atomic Energy
> Commission. (What did I say about US media? Abandon all common sense, ye
> who enter here.)
I never heard that conspiracy.
>
> > I'd not make that association. CHINA put into law positive/negative
> > eugenics a few years ago. It's not racist tho. It's like family health
> > stuff. I think eugenics got a bad name. Also, heterozygocity is what's
> > healthy - exogamy.
>
> I agree that eugenics got a bad name from Hitler and others. I mean, even
> Montagu agreed with aborting certain birth defects. Many societies have
> developed particular taboos which smack of eugenics, but they disguise it
> in 'culture-talk', various beliefs about sex in general, semen in
> particular. (Another way in which to defeat white racist trolls here:
> Bring up r/K as it relates to postpartum taboos, polyandry, and other such
> practices. Or just diabetes: It tends to relate to a lack of resources.)
OH, that R strategy stuff from Rushton is bs - that stuff applies to animals
that have HUNDREDS of offspring and then leave them - like some sea animals
do. I think ALL mammals are the other - forget which "r" it is. ALL
mammals tend to invest in offspring.
Here is the stuff on the canines - it's very good (INTERESTING!!)
These animals are different species and highly cross fertile. I read that
last article, printed it out. It's VERY GOOD and it's pure science, alright.
Dogs, left on their own, would NOT revert to wolves! What people thought
about dogs - ALL wrong. Article is a MUST READ if you like dogs.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Heredi
ty_Dog_Paper_1999.pdf
Watch the bottom of it if you go to get it, I can't paste it right. This
article is FASCINATING - and the rest of the info below is right too.
FASCINATING (Big Fan of Animal Planet here....) This is freaking
FASCINATING. Inspiring!
This is TRUE - all same GENUS - different SPECIES - see article. The coyote
is capable of breeding and producing *fertile* offspring with a number of
its cousins, including the domestic dog (the offspring of this type of
mating is referred to as a "coydog"), wild dogs, and wolves. The mixed
offspring of the coyote can present a good deal of confusion as to whether
or not a real coyote has been sighted in an area. Positive identification
can only be made by examination of the skull. Research has shown that in
Ohio, 98 percent of the animals sighted, captured, or killed are indeed
coyotes. Only a small portion (two percent) have been identified as a
coyote-dog mix.
Coy-wolves (Coyote/Wolf) have occurred in captivity or, rarely, where the
choice of same-species mates has been limited. Coyote/Red Wolf hybrids have
been found. Some consider the American Red Wolf is not to a true species
because it can hybridize with both the Grey Wolf and the Coyote; however it
is *now known* that hybridization between species (in general) happens more
often than previously thought.(!!!!) Some consider it a Grey Wolf/Coyote
hybrid and use this argument to prevent conservation of the Red Wolf. Some
hybridization occurred when pure Red Wolves were in decline and interbred
with more numerous Coyotes. More recent studies in many mammals shows that
*true species can and do hybridize* and that the species boundary is
preserved by geographic or behavioural separation, *not by genetic
separation* The converse mating results in a Dogote and there is currently
one known Dogote which arose from a male German Shepherd/female coyote
mating in the wild. Hybrid pups were found after a female coyote was shot.
The adult Dogote resembled a German Shepherd in colour.
The Wolf and Jackal (an African wild dog) can interbreed and produce
*fertile* hybrid offspring. In Russia, Dog/Jackal hybrids were bred as
sniffer dogs because Jackals have a superior sense of smell and Huskies are
good cold climate dogs. Male Jackal pups had to be fostered on a Husky bitch
in order to imprint the Jackals on dogs. Female Jackals accepted male
Huskies more easily. The half-bred Jackal-Dogs were hard to train and were
bred back to Huskies to produce quarter-bred hybrids (quadroons). These
hybrids were small, agile, trainable and had excellent noses. They are
called Sulimov Dogs after their creator and may one day be registered as a
working breed of dog.
Also, as stated in articile (read it!) these intermixings were going on LONG
before humans were breeding dogs - WAY WAY longer.
All of these below are considered separate species Even sub-genus. (!!) No
they have NOT changed the definition - these are SPECIES of the GENUS
Canus.!!
a.. C. simensis (Simien jackal), mountains of central Ethiopia; b.. C.
adustus (side-striped jackal), open country from Senegal to Somalia, and
south to northern Namibia and eastern South Africa; c.. C. mesomelas
(black-backed jackal), open country from Sudan to South Africa; d.. C.
aureus (golden jackal), Balkan Peninsula to Thailand and Sri Lanka, Morocco
to Egypt and northern Tanzania; e.. C. latrans (coyote), Alaska to Nova
Scotia and Panama; f.. C. rufus (red wolf), central Texas to southern
Pennsylvania and Florida; g.. C. lupus (gray wolf), Eurasia except
tropical forests of southeastern corner, Egypt and Libya, Alaska, Canada,
Greenland, conterminous United States except southeastern quarter and most
of California, highlands of Mexico; h.. C. familiaris (domestic dog),
worldwide in association with people, extensive feral populations in
Australia and New Guinea. Van Gelder (1977b, 1978) considered Canis to
comprise Vulpes (including Fennecus and Urocyon), Alopex, Lycalopex,
Pseudalopex, Dusicyon, Cerdocyon, and Atelocynus as subgenera. C. simensis
sometimes has been placed in a separate genus or subgenus, Simenia Gray,
1868. C. familiaris sometimes is included in C. lupus. The feral populations
of C. familiaris in Australia sometimes are considered to represent a
distinct species, C. dingo or C. antarcticus. Lawrence and Bossert (1967,
1975) suggested that C. rufus is not more than subspecifically distinct from
C. lupus. The presence of C. lupus in Egypt and Libya is based on Ferguson's
(1981) remarkable determination that the population formerly known as C.
aureus lupaster is actually a small wolf, rather than a large jackal.
The origin and taxonomy of the red wolf (Canis rufus) have been the subject
of considerable debate and it has been suggested that this taxon was
recently formed as a result of hybridization between the coyote and gray
wolf. Like the red wolf, the eastern Canadian wolf has been characterized as
a small "deer-eating" wolf that hybridizes with coyotes (Canis latrans).
While studying the population of eastern Canadian wolves in Algonquin
Provincial Park we recognized similarities to the red wolf, based on DNA
profiles at 8 microsatellite loci. We examined whether this relationship was
due to similar levels of introgressed coyote genetic material by comparing
the microsatellite alleles with those of other North American populations of
wolves and coyotes. These analyses indicated that it was not coyote genetic
material which led to the close genetic affinity between red wolves and
eastern Canadian wolves. We then examined the control region of the
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and confirmed the presence of coyote sequences in
both. However, we also found sequences in both that diverged by 150 000 -
300 000 years from sequences found in coyotes. None of the red wolves or
eastern Canadian wolf samples from the 1960s contained gray wolf (Canis
lupus) mtDNA sequences. The data are not consistent with the hypothesis that
the eastern Canadian wolf is a subspecies of gray wolf as it is presently
designated. We suggest that both the red wolf and the eastern Canadian wolf
evolved in North America sharing a common lineage with the coyote until 150
000 - 300 000 years ago. We propose that it retain its original species
designation, Canis lycaon.
That is fascinating. I knew of some other animals that could do wide
crossings and get fertile offspring, and I know plants can do it across
Family lines. But MAMMALS? YEAH! They can!
People's Commissar
>
> "People's Commissar" <tjs...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:aWCVb.16940$F23...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > You got a picture? You can see me, here is url:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/trip_to_innsmouth/tani.jpg
>
> Now.... I am 100% certain that you are or your tribe is of mixed
> heritage.
> In fact you could pass for an east-european. You definitely would be
> considered a foreigner just by the look if you were put in the middle of
> ulan baator.
As I thought, rich man. Ulaan Baator (Red Warrior) is in the land of the
KHALKA - and as I said in previous post, those people are 90% chinese from
centuries of mixture. I am TURKO-TATAR. The problem with the label "TURK"
is that it means Islamic within the culture. These days, Tatar does not
necessarily mean MOSLEM. If you had been following the convo - you'd have
read where people think I'm HISPANIC here and yes, lots of E. Europeans look
like us. Well, what the hey - we are all mixed for centuries. Khalka are
mixed with CHINESE and pretty much ONLY WITH Chinese. They don't look like
US anymore. I am most definitely probably a mixture of many Turkic tribes -
but I am NOT Chinese! You seem to be under some delusion that the people of
old looked like the Khalka today? NO - they did not. There are WAY too
many of us that were ONLY married into the known Turkic tribes that look
NOTHING like the Khalka - and it is just too well known that the Khalka are
90% Chinese with Tibetan culture now. yeah, you speak a language related to
the Turkish - so what? I speak English - doesn't mean I'm British.
For you to claim that the Khalka are pure Mongols like from Batu Khan's time
is BULLSHIT. There is no way in hell that Batu looked Chinese. Khalka LOOK
CHINESE. OK, TEMUR was found, dug up. Looks like typically us. Looks
NOTHING like a modern day Khalka or Chinese. No way. These people were
even described in detail BY the literate Chinese - and there is no way in
hell they looked similar.
>
> > Well, our eyes do tilt, measurably too - and as kids we have full eye
> folds
> > because the nose is not fully "out" up at the top. I can scan a photo
of
> me
> > as a 16 year old and email you it if you want. I had that full eye fold
> > until my 20's. All the kids have that, then the noses develop later on
> and
> > they have it like mine now. I still have an eye fold, but it's not a
fold
> > that starts at the beginning of the eye that's closest to the nose
> anymore.
> > It folds over the whole rest of my eye tho. We also have DEEP set eyes.
> > Han Chinese DO NOT! Manchus do!
>
> No. not always. Also oceanic negritos etc have deep set eyes. And
> chinese ,having been a southern people originally, have less of the
> mongoloid features and some especially extreme southerners have deeper set
> eyes than the mongols for instance.
Do you know what means deep set eyes? It means eyes not bulging out like
MOST Chinese have. I've seen people from Khalka - they look nothing like
us. They look Chinese. Oceanic negritos don't have deep set eyes. I don't
think you know what I mean. OK - try this. European people see that kind
of eyes and they don't trust it, they think it's sneaky looking and squinty
and mean. OK? LMAO.
>
> As far as Manchus are concerned..... they are genetically quite close to
> the Koreans etc. Now you are clearly bullshitting.
I am repeating what a Chinese of MANCHU DESCENT said since he's nowhere to
be seen lately. Now, you gonna go tell a Chinese person of Manchu descent
what he's close to? Maybe they ARE like the Koreans - TODAY - but today,
Chinese of Manchu descent - ARE CHINESE. And how do YOU know that the
JURCHEN PEOPLE weren't originally closer to the TURKS since that god damned
word IS TURKISH and so is the "mythical ancestor name" that the Chinese guy
wrote on here!
>
> >OH yeah. (BEUTIFUL eyes, imo!!) Han
> > Chinese tend to have bulgy eyes, even big ones with no tilt to them at
> all -
> > but they have full eye-folds.
>
> tehehehe. Acutally I have seen chinese making fun of their northen
> neighbors' slant eyes with epicanthic folds etc. I beat them up but....
> The percentage of chinese with epicanthic folds is less than that of the
> mongols for instance.
>
> You know, the appearance of tilt doesn't
> > necessarily mean there IS a tilt. Full eye folds make tilted eyes look
> very
> > much more tilted. (As such, in HS, my nick name was Ms. Spock). Their
> > features are a LOT LOT softer, noses are more pushed down too. Their
> whole
> > faces are softer. Ours are very "hard" featured, like angular, pointy.
> > MOST NA that I'm familiar with are hard featured like us. I've seen
some
> > soft featured ones down here in FL. Keep in mind, Tatars are related to
> the
> > TURKS, not to the Chinese.
>
> What turks? "turks" are not a single race. They range from
mediterranean
> to east european to full mongoloids like some altai-tribes(sayan mountain
> etc) or yakuts.
Honey, if you don't know what I mean by the word TURAN, then forget it.
Turks - Turko-Tatar PEOPLE and yeah, we are all over the place. Yakuts
ain't Turks. Khalka AINT TURKS either. Now - I have avoided that word due
to the RELIGIOUS affiliation. Sometimes we just say we are "Siberian." I
mean, people ask "what nationality are you" and well, I'm AMERICAN, LOL.
They don't mean that. If we say "TURK" they think ISLAM - and especially
now, that's a BAD connection. We are of the ALTAI - YES! And NO, the
Khalka are no longer what they used to be - which is a lot more like us.
You do know that Khalka are completely mixed with Chinese, right? You guys
even LOOK Chinese most of the time - I've seen Khalka people.
>
>
> OH, also, unlike many NA and unlike the Chinese,
> > we can DRINK!
>
> Wow such an accurate and meaningful anthopological feature!!!
From being honey, you are now khorsgoltoi chetger. You like to fight, eh?
It means we don't have a gene for alcoholism OR an allergy to it. So yeah,
it's meaningful. And I'm having a FRIENDLY conversation with MIB. YOU are
nosing in.
> Actually southern chinese can drink better than northern chinese.
> SE asians like Thais are better drinkers than either of them.
That wasn't my point.
>
> >Europeans
> > conquer people. They often mix with them (their males, with the
conquered
> > females - the idea of their European females playing around is unheard
of,
> > absolutely forbidden) but the children are "bastards" and not accepted
as
> > Europeans. Europeans put upon them labels "half breed" and such things.
> > They just are never considered European, no matter what. Turanians
> (Altaic
> > people) have conquered people forever in history - we have a rep for it
> big
> > time. We immediately mix with them - both ways, males and females do
it.
> > Our females MARRY their men, I mean, actually marry and it's accepted as
> > normal - and our men marry their females. The offspring are considered
> US.
> > We include them into US.
>
> Then according to your logic, many chinese men must have married your
> females and left genetic imprints on your people? No? I think you said
the
> contrary though. You are contradicting yourself.
Many Chinese intermarried with the Khalka for centuries to the point where
you guys ARE Chinese pretty much. Turko-Tatars intermarried with every
single nation they settled in and/or conquered. And don't let's forget, the
TURK and TATAR element to Mongol small tribe element was 99 to 1 back then.
AND Batu Khan was more like us than like any Khalka today.
>
> I have yet to hear of a single mongol female marrying a chinese before
the
> 20th century.(I am sure there were some but certainly very rare)
Bullshitter. What Mongol? Khalka? They are thoroughly mixed up due to
conquest - they didn't exactly marry them by CHOICE. Do you actually
imagine that you are a pure race of something? LMAO. NO ONE ON THE PLANET
is a pure race of something. But there ARE categories and most of them are
made by the people themselves.
>
>
> >... When Turanians conquered, we made rules of
> > tolerance toward folkways and adopted some ourselves, even Arabs say and
> > write that things were way more TOLERANT under Tatar rulers than they
were
> > before under their own Arab rulers.
>
> Wow... what a parade of bullshit. Is that why mongols had 4 classes of
> peoples and Jurchens(manchus) belonged to the second lowest?
I don't know about the Khalka - and I never heard that in my life about THEM
either. I know what educated Arab and other historians WROTE about their
conquerers. And keep in mind, buster, their conquerers did NOT look like
Khalka people. I DO know that the Tatars/Turks outnumbered everone and that
Naiman and Kerait and most tribes that happened to be living there at that
time were NOT like the Khalka. There are MANY Arabian written histories of
that entire time period.
>
> > No, endogamy and exogamy. But it's more than just that. Inclusive and
> > exclusive - that's there too. I have no idea if Africans - or the
tribes
> > the ones here came from, were exogamic - but they sure are now. The
> problem
> > is - the people they live among are NOT so exogamic at all. THAT is a
big
> >....................................friends - Egyptians, Syrians,
> Palestinian
> > (Samir - a Palestinian became a very good friend until he went back to
Mid
> > East and maybe I shouldn't post about that these days.... ) and all
such
> > people - from everywhere - all Moslem. All spoke English to each other
> and
> > to me. I had some of the wildest party times with these people. I
guess
> > they marry within Moslem immigrant population.
>
> Are you a man? your photo looks like a woman's. You got a big hormone
> problem.
You fucking moron. I'm a WOMAN. Where do I say I'm a man, or that everyone
in the crowd was male? You can't read too well, eh? Samir was a man.
Gitgidmek cehennem.
>
>
>
>
People's Commissar
>
> "People's Commissar" <tjs...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:_LoVb.15887$F23....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Most NA I've met and known close have high cheekbones (so do I) - and
> almond
> > eyes (so do I). They have high-bridged noses that stick out. In fact,
> > that's HOW the Han Chinese know Manchus from themselves - the NOSE.
> Manchus
> > have noses like mine.
>
> wwwwhhhhhhhhaaaaaaat?
So says educated Dr. Lu and his wife, also a doctor - from China. They can
tell that way they make a shape with their hands by their noses and say "the
nose." So have said every single Chinese person, educated or not, that I
ever met. So says the person who was posting on here who IS of Manchu
descent, Chinese American. I personally would not say that the guy has
noses like ours - but then again, the eye sees what it sees. HE sees a
similarity to mine. I see that HE looks Chinese. I think I know what he is
seeing - the TOP ROOT of the nose is high, like ours, like mine - higher
than temperate zone people have. But still, I don't think his nose looks
like ours. LMAO. Such is eyesight and perceptions of shapes and
recognition of types of features. Blacks might even say that he has a nose
like a specific black guy, you know, like Snoop Dog's nose. Who knows.
I have a way of distinguishing han chinese from the
> manchus. The shape of the nose is not one of them. It works a bit better
> with the mongols but not always. Many tungusic peoples (linguistic and
> possibly genetic relatives of manchus) have the flattest nose in entire
> asia. Also buriats also have flat noses even though they are close
> relatives of the mainstream mongols(khalka etc).
Chinese people say........ see above.
>
> And in the case of ngasan(uralic speakers I think) etc living in
northern
> asiatic russia today, the flatness is kind of frightening. I genuinely
> worried about their health when I looked at their photos.
>
> I have actual anthropological data to back this up. Those interested
> should take a look at the data gathered by that Hani-guy from Japan(
> American Journal of Physical Anthropology Jan 2000 or so).
>
>
> > Well, I don't understand what some of the technical terms mean - but I
> saw
> > the DRAWING they made and they said he looked like Patrick Stewart.
Now -
> > here's the problem. Patrick Stewart looks like a E. European or Central
> > Asian type - that is, a person with a lot of Altaic mixture - OR an
Altaic
> > person. Put black hair and a top-knot on Pat Stewart and dress him up
> like
> > a Mongol - and BINGO - he'd pass.
>
> I don't think so.
He looks very very much like Taiji Khan - almost a dead ringer. You mean,
he doesn't look like the mixed up Khalka there today. True, he doesn't.
But he doesn't look all that much like a "caucasoid" either. God that word
sounds like the name of a disease. Why don't they change it to "European"
and make it clear?
>
> > We ARE matrilineal! I don't know if the Manchu are.
>
> They are not. In fact, patrilineage is the distinguishing
> characteristics of all tungusic peoples. If you are matrilineal... I
don't
> know what "altaic" people you belong to.
I should have said USED TO BE TOTALLY matrilineal. According to even the
Chinese people I've known, if you go back in their own history, things were
not always patriarchal at all. Matrilineal primarily means like the JEWS
have it today. If your mother is - YOU ARE. Did you know that Jews, the
most patriarchal people on the planet, were MATRILINEAL?
>
> > I'd guess they used to
> > be like us - we had polygamy and polyandry in our culture. And we were
> VERY
> > exogamic! I would wager a guess that some NA came over that ice
bridge -
> > especially since the Manchu have a version of their own people find it
and
> > crossing over it to find better weather.
>
> So far not a single speciemen of manchus was found with the typical NA
> y-chromosome.
But were any NA found with similar to Manchu traits? Chinese guy posted the
oral legend they have, he mentioned Nurhachi (spelling?). In that legend,
people crossed over ice to the east in search of warmer wind when the
weather changed. Now - heh, maybe they got wiped out? Or maybe they did
stay here. I can tell you that NA genes WERE found in RUSSIANS IN MOSCOW
whose people never lived anywhere else.
>
> They'd have followed the animals -
> > they were nomads. I know that some NA genes were found in RUSSIAN
people
> > that never left that area. So that means that the road was traveled TWO
> > ways, not one way.
>
>
> Awww shut up if you don't know what you are talking about.
I do know what I'm talking about. You are just a bhuta who obviously has
not seen ALL the information. There is a place where a person CAN get a
test - people I personally know have even gotten it. LOTS of people got
it - including people overseas. Apparently you don't know about it. If you
were a nice person, I'd give you the info and url. But you are an asshole.
As such, let someone like Skept or Deitiker get it for you.
>
> I'd venture to guess that some came by sea and that all
> > of them did not come at the same time. Some of the people that migrated
> in
> > more than one wave to all those Islands - including Easter Island -
would
> > have continued on - probably blended in with others already here. That
IS
> > kinda what humans tend to do. It makes sense. It would explain why the
> > stuff's not easy to sort out, too. You can find LOTS of Altaic genes in
> the
> > Han Chinese. But you won't find too many Han genes in Altaic
populations.
I should 100% correct that statement. You'll find HEAPS of HAN genes in
populations that speak Altaic languages but are no longer Altaic - meaning
"Of Turan."
>
> You will be surprised if I show you my data. ....though I think those
> genes are not directly from chinese but from the unknown people of
Hongshan
> and Longshan culture now absorbed by chinese. Nevetheless... And as for
> the altaic genes among chinese, they are mostly found among chinese around
> the border area(the infamous Genghis khan y-chromosome star-cluster etc.).
Which gene also goes far west of that area. You know, he was just one guy
in a relatively small tribe, compared to the Turk and Tatar tribes around
him that joined up with him.
> But there is surprising lack of mongol evidences among the rest of
chinese.
> Frankly I was surprised myself. I thought I would find more.
Forget y nuclear and mtDNA. The NA genes in Russians is from HAPLOTYPE
information. And that information has replaced the silly nuclear Y or mtDNA
stuff. Russians GOT the test and some of them had significant percentages
of NA haplotype - and HEAPS of Altaic. Hey, you know, scratch a Russian
and you get a Tatar. The divide between Turko-Tatar and E. Slav today is
RELIGION.
Note that when I say Altaic, I don't mean people who are Chinese with
Tibetan culture who speak Khalka. I mean TURAN - and that is "Turkistan" -
the old name for it.
>
People's Commissar
"baiyaan" <bai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4029506e$1...@marge.ic.sunysb.edu...
Oh lords have mercy here - I managed to have gotten myself a FOLLOWER troll.
GO ARGUE IT WITH THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE GENETIC TREE - NOT based on the
stupid y or mtDNA only.
You are the only one on her spewing bullshit, trying to claim what, that you
are some kinda PURE race or something or you imagine, in your wildest
fantasies that YOU might resemble Batu or Timur or something? Sorry baby,
YOU DO NOT. Not even close. Too many people remember, too many civilized
literate people wrote down details and clearly, there was NO WAY IN HELL
anyone could or did mistake Turko-Tatar with ANY KIND of Chinese type. You
Khalkas - as far as anyone on the street is concerned, LOOK CHINESE. There
is no way in hell we look Chinese. Any Chinese here would mistake a Khalka
for Chinese. NOT SO with us. NOT SO with Batu, either. And even as that
Chinese guy said on here, when HE is walking down the street - people are
pretty damned sure he is CHINESE.
People's Commissar
....and I hope spam bots don't read that.
"MIB529" <man_in_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ad78f65.04021...@posting.google.com...
Philip Deitiker
<tjs...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
>news:bami209ggd04ml2ml...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:56:51 -0800, "baiyaan"
>> <bai...@yahoo.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
>
>Interesting post to "rich guy" who I shall now rename khorsgoltoi chetger,
>Your details are technical as hell. Hmm, makes me think about it.
>
>My people are related, hands down, to the TURKS. Turko-Tatar. Nationalist
>talk has us as "Turanian." I've seen Alberto use the word "Turan" and was
>surprised. It's a political word, really. The difference for us in calling
>ourselves either Altaic people or Tatar (tho that's a problem too), is that
>"Turk" also means "ISLAMIC" in the culture - and we aren't Islamic. So if
>you say "I'm a turk" you are also saying you are Islamic culture and
>religion. It's AS-GIVEN. Like Italians? 99.999% chance they are from
>Catholic. Right? Again, it's ethnic talk. Not anthropology talk.
>Definitely not genetic talk.
Cool your heals. The classically defined Uralic peoples are
the saami, finnic, baltic peoples. I have said nothing about
turks or turkic being a right hand of islam.
>The Manchu-Chinese guy on here, well, he was in the other thread with MIB
>who is posting this now on this new thread - that guy is - CHINESE
>(American born). That's what I was referring to, to MIB who is Oglala
MIB is a fruitloop. Any association he says he has with any
people is probably worth considering in light of the box he
comes out of. Enough said.
- he
>is familiar with the convo from another thread or other posts. You will
>notice I am answering MIB before khorsgoltoi chetger butted his face into
>it. Mib is Oglala. The Chinese poster is not on this thread - but HE is of
>Manchu descent and he knows what real shamanism is - opposed to the
>"accepted" daffynition of it.
Possibly true since we have seen MIB and this other fool
from alaska carrying on as if they have all the answers from
their shamans guide to the universe and other white
disasters.
>Anyway. I see a lot of Russians - they all claim to be Russian - here right
>now. MANY of them look like me - that's to say, we BOTH seem to be taken
>for Hispanics of a type - slanted eyes, cheekbones, that type - and then
>Lebed who looks like Tatar. We can be fair, but we can also get very dark
>and this IS SW Florida. What is a typical Russian?
Strictly speaking by historic terms a russian is anyone
whose ancestors came from a region between moscow and st.
petersberg. In terms of greater russian all bets are off.
I have found evidence of russian or norse DNA in people who
claim no russian or norse ancestry, but those HLA patterns
of DQ2.5 are pretty tell-tale of recent western ancestry. So
if not the russians, then the norse before them. However
those traces die down pretty sharply accross the mongolian
frontier and are absolutely absent in Japan. And this
suggest very strongly that the 'russian' influence is
recent.
But a different question was where there non-nordic
looking caucasian types spread polka-dot around siberia
prior to and after the reign of the golden hoard. The answer
is probably yes, but then the next question is how did they
get their. If you are talking about prior to and talking
about prehunnic peoples, I would stongly suggest that most
of what we call uralic probably came through central or
eastern europe at some point in the distant past with some
clues to admixture from eastern india and middle east, but
that this mixture occurred at a different time than gene
from from africa through the middle east to the west. It may
be a case of the same relative mixture between 2 ancestral
groups but along to completely different paths at different
times. Whereas the movement of alleles from west to east is
definable, the origins of the saami and related peoples are
not as easily defined because they simply do not fit nicely
into any good scenario. Problem is that the may be too mixed
to resolve.
> Some Britich Actor
>playing a part? I see the almond eye, the cheekbones, certain "cast" of
>features and I see "like us." (Blacks also see white skin, light hair and
>eyes but if that person has a certain caste of feather, that person is BLACK
>and accepted as black.
Plessy versus fergusin is a political defintion. From a
scientific point of veiw the eurasian groups with the most
recently detectable contribution from africa are middle
eastern and western europeans. In fact the A29 CW12 B44
haplotype that is nodal in the basque appears to have
originated within the last few thousand years in africa, is
found along the western coast of europe and including the
Irish, but not the swedes. Therefore what you define as
african and what I define as africa are two different
things. If I told you the basque had recent african
contribution you might beleive that, but if I told you the
Irish had also significant contribution you would poo-poo
that idea based on what you see in their phenotype.
> OK?
No.
> Genetically the person might be 98% Irish or
>something, who cares. If the person LOOKS black by feature, set of
>features, a "look" then that person is black here.)
I think its safe to say if one considers ancestry within the
last 10,000 years almost all Irish qualify as of african
ancestry, some individuals have 'considerable' african
ancestry and some have trace. Selection is one of the jokers
in nature, it sweeps away some traits rapidly and still
other linger. It was probably derivative africans who
introduced pastoral herding to Ireland.
> These people
>definitely do not, I definitely do not, look CHINESE - no way. Could we
>PASS as Japanese with the right hair dye and clothing? YES - I know I
>could.
You would be suprised just how weak the mongol traits are in
Japan, Japanese, unlike chinese are not homogeneous, to the
point one can argue that the Ainu are simply japanese
waiting to be assimilated as apparently 22% of the genetic
makeup of post Yayoi immigrants was. I have met
half-american half Japanese, some look more like mexicans,
others indistinguishably western eurasian. The same cannot
be said of 1' admixtures from vietnam or china since the
sinitic traits tend to dominate the 1'. I think that the
name mongol as the definition of east orientals in rather
unfair since the SE have stronger features that
phenotypically dilute less quickly relative to
mongol-siberians. Many many turks without giving their place
of origins would be characterized as caucasian.
The Japanese HLA group, which is extensive, almost 1000
samples was cleared of korean HLA types, while horia
predicted that 66% of japanese mtDNA were from korea, some
78% of HLA appear to have come from korea, this is highly
consistent with female to male breeding ratios, that
dominant culture males would accept more minority culture
females versus males. The remaining haplotypes in the
Japanese were amplified to reconstituted the preYayoi
Japanese, so called Jomonese. These haplotypes sit between
the ryukyuan and Ainu as expected. However when a blind
search of all the worlds populations was done for the
closest matches, two groups in the south american lowlands
were shown to be related with very good matching.
But do you know what a group intermediate between the Ainu
and Ryukyuan looked like. I am sure there are some Japanese
that would represent the pre-yayoi population and since I
have been to Japan and because I spend alot of time with
native americans, it is not hard at all to see the
similarities between Japanese and native americans if one
desires to look at similarities. But one does not need to do
this, because skeletal material from Japan also defines the
transition from pre-Yayoi to Yayoi and so that we KNOW that
morphology changed from being more native american like
peoples shorter in stature with syndonty to being slightly
taller, more gracile. These events by which YOU (repeat YOU)
internally create your biase are likely events that have
occurred since the 2 dynasty within china and large numbers
of asian peoples APPEAR to have been replaced, including the
morphotypes that lived in Japan. This is no secret, and
there is a developing archaeology in Japan that is
dissecting the PEOPLES of pre yayoi Japan, their cultures
and how and when they were displaced. While it may not seem
to be of any importance to your sort of introspective look
of the world, but the Jomonese were connected to the Amur
river culture of siberia, and apparently the Yangzhe river
culture of china, with the advent of pottery occuring in
southern japan 13,000 years ago and spreading radially there
after. This happened long before the wet-rice culture
spreads into and is suggestive of a preculture of people
different from the people that live in those places now.
Now if someone where to ask me a question; how did those
preclovis americans get to south america at a time when ice
generally blocked overland passage, and without knowing
anything about the DNA I was also told that a similar people
in asia had advented pottery 13 ky or more ago, that large
tuna bones were found in their garbage heaps, and that many
islands within a chain of culture (pebble later shell) were
inaccessible except by sea worthy boats, I would be inclined
that this people had the means. And if one adds the DNA then
one can argue that in fact that base molecular patterns of
most of the amazonian tribes are Jomon in nature.
That explains only part of the native american story,
undoubtedly these people were rich in austronesian ancestry.
But most native americans do not appear austronesian, in the
northwest their features are intermediate between sinitic
and caucasian. So the next part of the story is what
transforms the incipient Jomon to the Jomon. In that
instance the Ainu become representative of the westward
migration. And so if we are to look at the HLA two-component
plot off peoples the plot draws a very interesting and
unexpected picture. We have one very old line that draws
from austronesia and is difficult to connect to africa,
suggesting a very ancient african ancestry. But we have a
second line that fuses into this line and they produce a
line that is composed of native americans. One might think
that this line fuses in siberia or in north america, but it
does not the austronesian and afro-caucasian lines fuse in
korea, orochon, japanese and Ainu. Given the fact that the
HLA loci are far more representative of both sexes and
higher copy carrying capacity than mtDNA and Y and that
neither of the haploids present a convincing picture, I
happen to thing that when the dust settles we will be
looking at a 3 or 4 wave scenario and this is how I see it.
1st wave, from kyushu region of japan are seasonal H/G,
mostly fistherman. They fortuitously reach the new world.
They originated from the PNG region of indonesian and are
probably related to the people who produced the pebble
culture in that region 80 kya, by 45 to 35 kya they are in
Japan, at least 28 kya in ryukyu. genetic evidence suggest
taiwan as intermediate point for biforkating gene flow to
Japan and Korea, with korean gene flow proceeding into
siberia and also all the way to the tibetian plateau. The
possible reason is that at the LGM peoples living in the
transbiakal north were pushed south.
2nd wave. This wave is the wave that gives rise to kenniwick
man, its origins appear to have been from WEA/middle east
and revolutionary culture in east asia has long been
suspected of being tied to soluterean culture of western
europe as the LGM began to peak this culture disappeared, or
did it? There are a number of haplotypes from korea in
particular that have a high probability of being derived
from franco/german/italian/swiss/austrian peoples who all
but vanished (even by HLA) from europe, whereas europe was
largely repopulated from related groups on the periphery
(Irish/Cornish, Basque, Iberians, Middle eastern and
africans) traces of these groups still remain suggesting
small clusters of peoples survived the ice age in situ.
However the evidence from asia suggests a number of people
migrated. However was the second wave composed of western
europeans, the answer is probably yes and no, yes they would
have been primarily of WEA origin, but they were mixed with
austronesian types (such as paleolithic/mesolithic japanese)
and also people who migrated back into siberia. There is a
long time between the transbiakal post LGM transition and
the appearance of clovis in the new world, 5000 years means
alot of admixing occurred.
The second wave appears to have split however the first
wave, or the two split, because the genetic history of the
inuit contains both deep NA roots but also much recent
eurasian addition whereas in SA amazonian tribes the recent
eurasian trickle in.
3rd wave appears to have contributed DNA from korean to
transbiakal region as mongolians per-say, possibly direct
from an altaic culture. This would have brought more
advanced tool culture and the language may have dominantly
replaced older languages in some places. While the purest
examples of this migration appear along the pacific
northwest, I can trace some of these haplotypes into the
Oaxacan population and as far south as the andes. This is
not surprising in the new world however because examining
HLA groups reveals a great deal more mobility in the
highland populations than just about any other popualtion in
the world.
4th waves other waves. The eskimo/inuit like the Yakuts
appear to have picked up recent gene flow from the west,
this gene flow appears to have originated in the black sea
and is shared by the uygars of western china. This flux may
be associated with a potential WEA culture found in western
china that dates to 1000s of years ago. The gene flow is to
specific groups of siberians and not all siberians, and
there is possibly some back flow of inuit types into siberia
that cannot be resolved. Removal of this disticnt HLA types
from the Inuit reveals that up until recently they would
have been the oldest new world group, but only by the fact
that up until recently they have tended not to admix much
with other groups, almost all NA groups have had marked
admixture with other NA groups of different eurasian origin.
>You need to understand that over there, USSR, a Russian was a person born in
>Russia - it's not some kind of ethnic thing like it is here.
Drop the russian flag and tell all those people that russian
no longer exist and they will tell you who they really are.
You would be surprised how many ethic groups that live in
russia, east of the urals there are at least five language
families. The true russian is basically a moscovite. Russia
revolves around moscow. Unlike here there is LA, SF,
Houston, Chicago, New Orleans, New York, Phili, Boston, and
oh yeah Washington D.C.. One of the reasons that moscovites
are so hard on the chechans is that they know who they are,
the domino falls, then dominoes fall. To your average Yakut
or chuckchi it hardly matters because the russians cant tell
them what to do either way; but between the siberian tribes
and the ural mountains there are people who could give
moscow a great deal of trouble without much effort. Russia
has already lost much of its territory, and is further
divided within by autonomous republics. Russia is currently
fighting time, if it can't get it cards together soon don't
be real surprised if a new map of asia appears with several
new countries and 'russia' isolated on the west end of what
used to be russia. So what you are saying about russia is
not true, you may want it to be true but it is not.
> I see blonde
>blue Russians that look like Irish people.
Not surprising since they likely came from there
> I see flat faced Russians that
>look like Polish or something.
Not surprising since poland has a longer history and sits on
the borders.
> And I see a lot that look like us, LOTS of
>them, well, like Lebed as one famous example - and we are the ones that
>every Hispanic that meets us thinks we speak Spanish and almost doesn't
>believe we are NOT Hispanic of some kind.
How many times do you think hispanics have tried to speak to
my Japanese wife? Is that a fair judge??????? Hispanic in
terms of new world runs the gambit from almost pure eurasian
(in some cases germanic) to pure native american. Pure
native american in that context runs from the austronesian
looking south american lowlanders to the caucasian looking
southwestern highlanders, too even pockets of japanese
looking peoples in Oaxaca and southern california. That is a
huge array of phenotypes. What does it mean, absolutely
nothing.
> This is eye ball, daily LIFE here
>in SW Florida now, where a LOT of these people are. We see what we see:
>phenotype. We don't see genes.
SW florida's hispanics are far more derived from european
and african sources than the people who have been living and
come to south texas and the people I run into in northern
mexico. In SW florida a hispanic can be anything, from a
pure african to a pure iberian. You want to see native
americans in all their glory, go to the west side of houston
(say hillcroft and bellaire or the underpassed of 59) and
you will see Guatamalans, Hondurans, Mexicans from all kinds
of little villages, Salvadoriano's. Some look more like
chinese caucasian crosses some look more like middle
eastern/austronesian crosses. The guy I currently have
working for me is a Quichean from guatamala, he does have
sinitic features, and if you show me a russian that looked
like him I would be very surprised, not so surprised if you
showed me a half arab/half papua new guinean.
He is probably pure native, his wife certainly is. There
are many others who look like half vietnamese half americans
and could easily fit into japanese spectrum. So it is not
simple. The reason it is not simple is clear.
1. Native americans are mixed (here-here) by post-columbian
contact.
2. Native americans have complex ancestry from asia.
3. The extent of admixture is not uniform
4. and tracing ancestry back to say 40 kya would have on
placing lines of origin from PNG to North african and Many
points in between.
>I have no idea who this arrogant asshole is that assumes I'm someone from
>language. I am not subscribed to a language group and I don't give a SHIT
>about language except that I'm PRO ENGLISH for the USA. I have no idea what
>the original pre-Chinese-involved Manchu were like - but I DO know that the
>"Pan Turanian Movement" considered them to be "of Turan." They also
>included Finns and Hungarians - SOME even included Austraians due to the
>Avars having settled and married into the people there. It's called
>"inclusiveness" in ethnic culture. I.e., WE TOO have our version of ONE
>DROP. And if you got one drop - you are WITH US.
The manchu evolved from the Jurchen. If you are not familiar
with the culture of china then I can give my two cents. HLA
typing and mtDNA typing has revealed that the manchu are not
one people but many that allign to city regions. This makes
sense because prior to the rule of the yellow emperor the
han cities of northeastern china came under attack buy the
jurchen, and some appear to have been taken under control.
This was, prior to the definition of Huang do mearly warring
between city states with the southern states having more
unity to the south with a radiative culture that,
interestingly, radiated to the south. Whereas the han states
would have gained agriculture by inheritance the manchus
probably stole the technology and extensively copied the han
cities. This certainly appears to be true with respect to
korean and the jurchen and protokorean were probably in
kahoots with each other. In any case the yellow emperor put
a stop to alot of this by bridging the wall between cities
and extending the wall far into the regions claimed by the
jurchen. It should be interesting to not the the more rapid
settlement of Japan follows the building of the wall such
that the pushing of the jurchen in china probably pushed
kor-mongols into Japan.
The mtDNA type of the shandong peninsula has already
revealed that a cluster of people with WEA types probably
lived there, not surprising since this might be consistent
with a band of settlement to the north and west of the Jomon
culture of japan which became separated from Japan at the
end of the last ice age, current represented by the Ainu and
Koreans would represent that trisect I talked about with
HLA, it was the area of greatest mixing. The difference
however is that the Ainu remain H/G because the
unsuitability of their land to wet rice agriculture, the
koreans shifted the variety and method of farming, but the
shangdonites and jurchen suffered heavily as a result of han
domination, and you can see in the manchurians many
haplotypes derived from southern china in significant
percentages, the orochon, who live in northern manchuria
lack almost all of these. Therefore it appears that chinese
have painted a very favorable positin of themselves in the
history books, there was land suitable for wet rice farming,
and after many attempts they took it. This contrast with
mongolia, which is largely unsuitable, and low and behold
the haplotypes from southern china that dominate to a degree
in northern china and manchuria are also all but absent. So
one could look at the great wall of china as two fold. 1 was
to keep people out as in north western parts, but the other
function was to claim land such as in the shangdon region.
And still a third would be a facility to protect yourself
from attack at your convinience attack others. 700,000
people died in the building of the wall and you can bet that
many of those that died were not han by their own
proclamation.
I should add that the B46 allelotype which is found in a
great percentages in the wet-rice farming peoples of asia
and indonesia probably began its expansion from a group of
50 or so individuals less than 10,000 years ago, can be
found in about 1.5 billion asians today, with the highest
frequencies in the S. Han chinese and closely related tribal
groups. it is not found in native americans, and you can bet
that the expansion of rice agriculture in china had
something to do with the migrations to the new world within
the last 8ky. Keep this in mind when considering the
history and motives of chinese. Some groups of people other
than americans have a sense of manifest destiny and it is
easy enough to massage history to suit one desires. Not
knocking the chinese, per-say they have written top-notch
history for their periods, but the genetics also says their
may be more going on than what they have written. Also from
the perspective of the Japanese and if you look at thier
history there is a sense that japanese unity is spawned from
paranoia about chinese motivations.
>You know, you people talk about race and insist it's a SOCIAL construction?
>How much more evidence do you need to prove it IS just that when we say
>Hungarians, Manchus, Finns and Turks are THE SAME RACE and call that race
>Turan?
I can't define race. I can define nodes. I can define nodal
peaks and they usually sit a geographic endpoints. For
example europe has a node in Ireland that steps a little
down with the cornish, and a little more with the swedish,
the british are all mixed up, as with the french. There is a
secondary node in the basque. The dominant node in the
mediterranean is the sardinians, and spain and portugal have
several smaller nodes, everything else is so mixed up its
really hard to cipher. In northern asia the Yakuts represent
a node, as with the Ainu, the ryukyuans, the tw-aboriginals.
There is probably a nodal center in myanmar for all sinitic
peoples, can't asy for sure but haplotype diversity of B46
indicates the nodal center is intermediate between southern
china, thialand, vietnam and india. Nodality in this case in
not a sign of age but assymetric expansion from a small
group. Other nodes are the solomon islanders. In africa
mtDNA defines both the !kung and biaka as nodes. HLA suggest
that the !kung are less nodal however the biaka appear to be
core nodal to the entire human population, whereas the efe
might have represented a late split in this group. West
africans represent nodal groups such as senegalese. There is
evidence that the pre-slavetrade tenerife island are a node.
In the new world there are two nodal centers. The first are
a clustering of nodes in south american lowlands,
represented by the most extreme example of the Guayaki
indians who have the highest single DQ frequency for any
allele, DQ8 (DQA1*0301-DQB1*0302) as 74%, almost certainly
of jomonese origin. The nodal center for 04* is split
between south american highland and seri indians of mexico;
and the gradient goes through the Ainu and into western
europe were *04 is now trace. Both of these nodes are spread
diffusely over the entire new world amerind population. Such
gradients are characteristic of asia, though with study the
gradients are more punctuated by specific migratory events
relative to diffusion. Whereas in the southern part of asia
the gradients are not smooth and in africa gene flow appears
to be rather obstructed within SSA, and odd regional
allelotypes flourish, in some african groups it makes no
sense to talk about haplotypes because recombination has
been acting for such a long period that huge number of
alleles and all the combinations create few haplotypes
worthy of talking about.
When I see a race formalize I'll let you know.
> That's 100% social political construction. Not only that, but we
>don't look like each other to OTHER PEOPLE that see us. OH, but we DO
>resemble each other to OURSELVES. That's what is important. WE see
>kinship. WE FEEL kinship. So then, khorsgoltoi chetger would be wise to
>understand that LOOK-ISM is in the eye of the beholder.
Hmmm, sounds very confused. I don't see myself in every
native american, nor they me, If I had to define who I look
like I would say a very darked skins alsatian. However I
have no ancestors from that region of europe (that I know
of). Phenotype is tricky. I if I type 100 americans I could
probably find 5 or 6 who had native american ancestors that
didn't know it, probably 1 or 2 that had recent african
(slave) ancestors that didn't know it.
>A troll is an anonymous poster that is not involved in a LONG, ongoing
>conversation. I am not anonymous and I have been in this convo, on various
>threads, for months. HE is the troll. Mr. Rich Guy, HHHAAA.
Are you OK?
>As for the Manchu - according to US they are originaly JURCHEN - and that
>means - they were originally US - Shamanistic Turks. Did some of them come
>to the east (Americas) in search of better winds? YES. According to US.
>We have OUR oral stories too.
the Jurchen were probably agricultural people like the
koreans and japanese practicing light agriculture, however
the manchu were transformed by the chinese.
As for those stories, I have read some of them, I was not
impressed by their accuracy. I was able to trace the
mythical history of korea via certain chinese history and
the timeline of korean history deviates markedly. In fact
one wonders just how corrupted korea was by the invasion of
the khanates. Prior to the khanate period Japan and Korea
had a complex relationship in which korea appeared to be
much more advanced, that history is absent from the korean
perspective, and yet such things are recorded in the nihon
shoki. One is lead to believe that one very ego-centric
mongolian family who invaded manchuria and korea replaced a
history with a contrivation and embellishing history. I
should point out that Japan's Nihonshoki was facilitated by
chinese scholars sent to Japan from korea, which means in
the 4th and 5th century korea was literally ahead of Japan,
where is that history and the corresponding history of th
cities along the yellow sea? Difference between Korea and
Japan is that Japan was not invaded by the sinomongolian
forces and its culture and history was left intact. Now if
one is to look at korean HLA for instance I have at least 5%
input from specifically the Kalkhan (i.e. ghenghis khans
mongols) that are more or less within the last 2000 years.
None of these reach Japan. Interesting isn't it.
Truth lies at the intersection of perspectives, the more
credible the perspectives, the closer ones intersections
will lie to the truth. If you choose to bais your
perspectives with US/Them vision, I can't imagine what you
think will have anything to do with reality, or if so, only
by chance.
People's Commissar
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam> wrote in message
Oh, I know you didn't, but I mean, the reason why we are kinda up shit's
creek if asked "what ethnic group are you" is due to the damned Moslem bs.
Well, Turko-Tatar. That's Altaic - but it's not Chinese or anything like
that. I never said it was. I mean - the old places that used to be called
Turkistan. Not Turkey proper tho it would be included, for sure. .
>
> >The Manchu-Chinese guy on here, well, he was in the other thread with MIB
> >who is posting this now on this new thread - that guy is - CHINESE
> >(American born). That's what I was referring to, to MIB who is Oglala
>
> MIB is a fruitloop. Any association he says he has with any
> people is probably worth considering in light of the box he
> comes out of. Enough said.
He's Oglala. I think well, as an NA he reacts a LOT to what has come
before. Sort of like how people that are pro-black liberal really react to
it when I say "make a pill to control violent behavior" - and I mean, just
because THESE DAYS, blacks do a lot of crime here - - that's just these
days. There's one guy who's paranoid scared of nordic whites because of
what the Vikings did. And he considers himself an educator. Sheesh. Then
he goes off into "freedom" like "freedom to do violent acts?"
>
> - he
> >is familiar with the convo from another thread or other posts. You will
> >notice I am answering MIB before khorsgoltoi chetger butted his face into
> >it. Mib is Oglala. The Chinese poster is not on this thread - but HE is
of
> >Manchu descent and he knows what real shamanism is - opposed to the
> >"accepted" daffynition of it.
>
> Possibly true since we have seen MIB and this other fool
> from alaska carrying on as if they have all the answers from
> their shamans guide to the universe and other white
> disasters.
OH, no, that's not what happened. Chinese guy posted that the NAs were
Shamaistic. The NAs, including MIB took offense at that. So I, who come
from Shamanism, just wrote up something so that they'd know what it really
is. That calmed it all down a bit.
> >
> >Anyway. I see a lot of Russians - they all claim to be Russian - here
right
> >now. MANY of them look like me - that's to say, we BOTH seem to be taken
> >for Hispanics of a type - slanted eyes, cheekbones, that type - and then
> >Lebed who looks like Tatar. We can be fair, but we can also get very
dark
> >and this IS SW Florida. What is a typical Russian?
>
> Strictly speaking by historic terms a russian is anyone
> whose ancestors came from a region between moscow and st.
> petersberg. In terms of greater russian all bets are off.
> I have found evidence of russian or norse DNA in people who
> claim no russian or norse ancestry, but those HLA patterns
> of DQ2.5 are pretty tell-tale of recent western ancestry. So
> if not the russians, then the norse before them. However
> those traces die down pretty sharply accross the mongolian
> frontier and are absolutely absent in Japan. And this
> suggest very strongly that the 'russian' influence is
> recent.
OK, but you are talking genetics. I'm talking purely phenetics if that's a
word. Phenotype and inclusive cultures. Both Hungarians and Turks have
websites up now proclaiming Turan as their
ethnic group. So do we! Also, I think Lebed would claim he's Russian. He
sure doesn't look like anyone Scandinavian. Turkistani people are exogamic
by law, too. So that kind of thing has got to mess with gene studies - I'd
bet you'll find EVERYTHING in them. Also, how fast to haplotypes breed out
or get lost in a family? I mean, I don't know. This stuff is over mmy
head - BUT - I do know where a person can get tested now - and lots of
people have gotten the test. Russians showing up with NA haplotypes!
People who know their background is German and Irish, showing up with NA
haplotypes and E. Asian haplotypes? Where'd they get it?
> But a different question was where there non-nordic
> looking caucasian types spread polka-dot around siberia
> prior to and after the reign of the golden hoard.
Well, see the thing is, the Golden Horde were described by many literate
people and there is no way in hell anyone could mistake them for Chinese or
Jap or any of that. Those people were Turks - and yeah, they had a kinda
look to them that was not so round-eyed, but they did not look like Chinese
or such people at all. Even the Chinese have written records - some of
those people even had light hair, reddish colored unless they colored it
maybe. But the Chinese clearly distinguished them apart from themselves as
a no-brainer. Even the Pechenegs and Guz - records are there, "Russia and
the Golden Horde" details these. Slavs often dressed up in Pecheneg
clothing, spoke their Turkic language and passed as them - and vice versa.
They did that to spy on each other. You do have to look like the people you
are spying on! Batu and them pretty much did the same. They did NOT look
like Chinese. I do know that the Chinese heh - ABSORBED - anything and
anyone that stayed in China, tho. Our people had a saying about how the
Chinese did genocide (we didn't use that word). How the Chinese destroy us
and make us no longer who we are. Well, those people are lost, imo, as far
as the Turko-Tatar TURAN thing goes. They are no longer US. It's like the
person who'se 1/16 Cherokee - has blonde hair and blue eyes and looks
totally Anglo. They are no longer Indians. Same thing. That is a kind of
genocide - imo. We stayed the hell away from China. Those people can't
even eat the FOOD we eat! You know, you can conquer the Chinese - they are
SO patient and meek and all that. In the end, your grandkids will BE
Chinese. Never fails. It's not the same with Slavic or anyone else either.
Tho well, Islam kinda "conquered" a lot of my people. Not even by force!
They chose it.
The answer
> is probably yes, but then the next question is how did they
> get their. If you are talking about prior to and talking
> about prehunnic peoples,
But that's the thing again. Who says the Huns were like the Chinese? No
one described them that way and plenty of people wrote the stuff down and
saw the Huns in the flesh. Interacted with them.. I mean, if anyone saw
what we see today in East Asia - they'd have written it down pretty much how
we'd write it down. No one described the Turkic people like that.
I would stongly suggest that most
> of what we call uralic probably came through central or
> eastern europe at some point in the distant past with some
> clues to admixture from eastern india and middle east, but
> that this mixture occurred at a different time than gene
> from from africa through the middle east to the west. It may
> be a case of the same relative mixture between 2 ancestral
> groups but along to completely different paths at different
> times. Whereas the movement of alleles from west to east is
> definable, the origins of the saami and related peoples are
> not as easily defined because they simply do not fit nicely
> into any good scenario. Problem is that the may be too mixed
> to resolve.
How about this, it's from oral history, but give it a try. Temperate zone
people - they are well known, have big empires, riches and all that. But
north of that - a broad band of people that moved from east to west, west to
east and so forth - occasionally roaming south to whatever BIG RICH empire
was there and conquering or just staying there. That's from oral history
and well, we don't have written history about any of it. The people from
those big empires DO have a LOT of written history. Like with the Goths.
We know what happened, what the Romans did, where they went (Spain) and what
happened to them. But you know, we don't know all that FROM the Goths. We
know it from other civilized sources. Light eyes and lighter or reddish
hair comes into our people from ourselves. But the darker eyes and hair
comes from mixture with SOUTHERN people - not from Asian people. Also
consider dark is dominant. Let a black haired/eyed Turk marry an Irish and
you'll see quite a few kids, more than you's expect, come out pretty fair
hair/eyes. My cousin, black hair and eyes, his wife is blue eyed with sort
of blonde hair, like golden yellow blonde, very white skin; she's Slavic.
ALL his kids have light hair, from light brown to lighter and light eyes!
ALL of them. He has 6 kids!
>
> > Some Britich Actor
> >playing a part? I see the almond eye, the cheekbones, certain "cast" of
> >features and I see "like us." (Blacks also see white skin, light hair
and
> >eyes but if that person has a certain caste of feather, that person is
BLACK
> >and accepted as black.
>
> Plessy versus fergusin is a political defintion.
Definitely - that's what MIB and I are talking about - appearance and who
gets included into the group. I never said otherwise.
From a
> scientific point of veiw the eurasian groups with the most
> recently detectable contribution from africa are middle
> eastern and western europeans. In fact the A29 CW12 B44
> haplotype that is nodal in the basque appears to have
> originated within the last few thousand years in africa, is
> found along the western coast of europe and including the
> Irish, but not the swedes. Therefore what you define as
> african and what I define as africa are two different
> things.
Definitely, I know that. And well, if those people dealt with Africans,
that's how they got those genes! But did any Asians deal with Africans?
I'd be surprised if you didn't find African haplotypes in Turko-Tatar people
since we were ALL over the place and we are exogamic. We MIX. And turning
Islamic didn't change that. It's almost like - in general, there is a
"wild type" and that constitutes a "kind of LOOK" if you put us all together
in one place. It's not Chinese. It's not European. It's not "Semitic" and
it's not black. But it's a definite look. It's kinda Euroasian or down
here, kinda Hispanic. But yeah, even Hispanics have that look - the eyes,
cheekbones, like a "CAT" look to the face if you want to give it an animal
appearance. Do you know what I mean? So many people have it and we are the
ones MOST mixed up I think.
If I told you the basque had recent african
> contribution you might beleive that, but if I told you the
> Irish had also significant contribution you would poo-poo
> that idea based on what you see in their phenotype.
No I wouldn't. I know that what you see isn't necessarily what's there.
But when people say "my people" they mean what they see and include into
their ethnic groupings. I thought that the Irish represented an almost pure
"paleoeuropean" type with haplotypes. But then again, what about Moorish
influence in Ireland?
I noticed that with people I've seen. People that I've seen that are half
Japanese look a lot like me! And yeah, I look Hispanic, LOL. Too bad I
can't speak it - and I'm too dumb to learn it - probably too old too.
Many many turks without giving their place
> of origins would be characterized as caucasian.
>
> The Japanese HLA group, which is extensive, almost 1000
> samples was cleared of korean HLA types, while horia
> predicted that 66% of japanese mtDNA were from korea, some
> 78% of HLA appear to have come from korea, this is highly
> consistent with female to male breeding ratios, that
> dominant culture males would accept more minority culture
> females versus males. The remaining haplotypes in the
> Japanese were amplified to reconstituted the preYayoi
> Japanese, so called Jomonese. These haplotypes sit between
> the ryukyuan and Ainu as expected. However when a blind
> search of all the worlds populations was done for the
> closest matches, two groups in the south american lowlands
> were shown to be related with very good matching.
WOW!
Well, both me and MIB agree that people came to the Americas probably from
many places, including by sea. Some may have come from the Atlantic too.
> That explains only part of the native american story,
> undoubtedly these people were rich in austronesian ancestry.
> But most native americans do not appear austronesian, in the
> northwest their features are intermediate between sinitic
> and caucasian. So the next part of the story is what
> transforms the incipient Jomon to the Jomon. In that
> instance the Ainu become representative of the westward
> migration. And so if we are to look at the HLA two-component
> plot off peoples the plot draws a very interesting and
> unexpected picture. We have one very old line that draws
> from austronesia and is difficult to connect to africa,
> suggesting a very ancient african ancestry. But we have a
> second line that fuses into this line and they produce a
> line that is composed of native americans. One might think
> that this line fuses in siberia or in north america, but it
> does not the austronesian and afro-caucasian lines fuse in
> korea, orochon, japanese and Ainu. Given the fact that the
> HLA loci are far more representative of both sexes and
> higher copy carrying capacity than mtDNA and Y and that
> neither of the haploids present a convincing picture, I
> happen to thing that when the dust settles we will be
> looking at a 3 or 4 wave scenario and this is how I see it.
Yeah, me too. MIB agreed with that when I said it kinda another way. That
waves came here, from many places.
Intersting! VERY interesting.
>
> >You need to understand that over there, USSR, a Russian was a person born
in
> >Russia - it's not some kind of ethnic thing like it is here.
>
> Drop the russian flag and tell all those people that russian
> no longer exist and they will tell you who they really are.
> You would be surprised how many ethic groups that live in
> russia, east of the urals there are at least five language
> families. The true russian is basically a moscovite. Russia
> revolves around moscow. Unlike here there is LA, SF,
> Houston, Chicago, New Orleans, New York, Phili, Boston, and
> oh yeah Washington D.C.. One of the reasons that moscovites
> are so hard on the chechans is that they know who they are,
> the domino falls, then dominoes fall. To your average Yakut
> or chuckchi it hardly matters because the russians cant tell
> them what to do either way; but between the siberian tribes
> and the ural mountains there are people who could give
> moscow a great deal of trouble without much effort. Russia
> has already lost much of its territory, and is further
> divided within by autonomous republics. Russia is currently
> fighting time, if it can't get it cards together soon don't
> be real surprised if a new map of asia appears with several
> new countries and 'russia' isolated on the west end of what
> used to be russia. So what you are saying about russia is
> not true, you may want it to be true but it is not.
I don't care about Russia one way or the other, but someone mentioned that
turko-tatars do not look like Russians. I said SOME DO. But then wait,
they define themselves as Russian cause they were BORN there. Heh. It's
not ethnic. It's passport definition. I'm American. But I'm not NA.
OH, most of the ones here look a lot like me - my picture URL to it is up to
see - tho I do have makeup on. It's in my post to MIB. They don't look
black at all. They have that "cat" look. Sharp features.
OH, well, I know about the Chinese. I mean, I like them, but I'm not living
near China either. LOL. They are known as very cunning people! And I mean,
NONE of my relatives or kin have had ANY contact with Chinese in China,
well, one relative was born within their borders but wasn't there for long -
and yet the legends persist! They are to be FEARED - and they are probably
the only people on this earth that my people DO fear. I mean it. The
images I can conjure up, they are almost like genetic memory or something -
memes? - of THE BORG or something, like bug people. I don't hate them at
all, I think they are pretty people too - but still. They are like Vulcans
and the Borg combined - it's the only way I know how to explain it, using
something like that. SO different. And their language - man they talk in
TONES. TONES. I need only take a look at people like that idiot on here
who imagines he is a "PURE MONGOL" and I see what the CHINESE have done.
BORG man.
I'm fine, but that idiot talking about pure races and "real" mongols called
me a troll. OH, bayan means rich. LOL. His email address.
>
> >As for the Manchu - according to US they are originaly JURCHEN - and that
> >means - they were originally US - Shamanistic Turks. Did some of them
come
> >to the east (Americas) in search of better winds? YES. According to US.
> >We have OUR oral stories too.
>
> the Jurchen were probably agricultural people like the
> koreans and japanese practicing light agriculture, however
> the manchu were transformed by the chinese.
Yeah, I know. But I mean before that, way before that.
>
> As for those stories, I have read some of them, I was not
> impressed by their accuracy. I was able to trace the
> mythical history of korea via certain chinese history and
> the timeline of korean history deviates markedly. In fact
> one wonders just how corrupted korea was by the invasion of
> the khanates. Prior to the khanate period Japan and Korea
> had a complex relationship in which korea appeared to be
> much more advanced, that history is absent from the korean
> perspective, and yet such things are recorded in the nihon
> shoki. One is lead to believe that one very ego-centric
> mongolian family who invaded manchuria and korea replaced a
> history with a contrivation and embellishing history. I
> should point out that Japan's Nihonshoki was facilitated by
> chinese scholars sent to Japan from korea, which means in
> the 4th and 5th century korea was literally ahead of Japan,
> where is that history and the corresponding history of th
> cities along the yellow sea? Difference between Korea and
> Japan is that Japan was not invaded by the sinomongolian
> forces and its culture and history was left intact. Now if
> one is to look at korean HLA for instance I have at least 5%
> input from specifically the Kalkhan (i.e. ghenghis khans
> mongols) that are more or less within the last 2000 years.
> None of these reach Japan. Interesting isn't it.
Well, they didn't invade Japan. I think they did invade Korea. You know
the Timureds and Ottomans? They had big civilizations and well, they chose
Islam. But those are my people - same people. They aren't Mongols like the
Khalka. They are different people. And I know that Batu is the grandson of
Jenghis, but he was a Turk - not a Khalka type person at all.
>
> Truth lies at the intersection of perspectives, the more
> credible the perspectives, the closer ones intersections
> will lie to the truth. If you choose to bais your
> perspectives with US/Them vision, I can't imagine what you
> think will have anything to do with reality, or if so, only
> by chance.
I know what you mean. I don't do that unless "IT" comes up. Like some
freaking idiot ranting at me about how he's a pure mongol and I'm a half
breed whatever. Hello? Yeah, well, HE'S Chinese mostly - I'm Turko-Tatar
LOL. It's definitely an appearance thing, tho - no one is a pure anything.
This is interesting info here - I'm gonna copy/send this to a person I know
that was studying that haplotype stuff - but not he never found anything as
extensive as this. 80 thousand years ago is hard to even imagine.
>
>
Nim
>
>
> Wow... what a parade of bullshit. Is that why mongols had 4 classes of
> peoples and Jurchens(manchus) belonged to the second lowest?
I will address all of the intrusion - and nonsense - here.
Historically, your small band of people got their titles from the people who
ruled northern kingdoms in China. Half of the time, the rulers were not Han
per se. They were Jurchen who were already much mixed with Han.
Since the Chinese have been literate "forever," and your people were
nothing, I'll give you a short synopsis and point out which ruling dynasties
were Han and which were not, at least at first not..
Let us start the history lesson here:
The Five Emperors: 2697 BC - *Huang Ti*, Shao Hao, Chuan Hsu, Ti K'u and Ti
Chih. Huang Ti was called "Yellow Emperor."
Hsia Dynasty, 2205-1766 BC, founded by Emperor Yu. The *first* to use
a paternal line of descent in order to put his son in power.
2000 BC marks the time of the Lung-shan culture and this, more or less,
started patrilineal lines of descent as a norm.
Shang Dynasty, 1766-1121 BC, similar to the Lung-shan in culture. The first
capital city P'o was ruled by T'ang. Five other capitals existed, the last
capital of Shang was Yin, 1400 BC.
Chao Dynasty, 1121-255 BC. This was a dynasty ruled by non Han people from
the north often called Hsiung-nu and Tung-i. They had defeated the Shang.
History explains that these rulers were very different in appearance from
the Chinese Han. Some of them even had light or reddish hair.
If anything, one can start dating the *mxing* of "your people" and the Han
at this point because there was considerable mixing, by arrangement of
marriage (which was the norm for all peoples there). As such, "your women"
would not have had a *choice* in the matter and the men were more than
willing to mate with Han women. If, for instance, a person with three Han
grandparents and one "your people" grandparent later wanted to claim
allegiance to "your people," he was accepted without question. As such,
many men who were in fact mostly Han, but who sided with non-Han rulers,
were incorporated into the non-Han, whether they were racially something
else or not. And when the Han proper rebelled and took back China, many Han
people or partially Han people left with these northern barbarians. At the
same time, many former barbarians, civilized by Chinese culture, remained in
China with the rest of the Han people. They were, by then, Chinese.
Let's continue.
The Chou, by now thoroughly Chinese, pressed by yet other northern people,
moved their capital to Lo-yang. The Northern regions had the nations of
Yen, a newly named Chou, Wei and Han. The Middle nations were Ch'i, Lu and
Sung. The Southern nations were Ch'u, Wu and Yueh. The nation of Ch'in were
the lands of the Old Chao. The three southern lands had people in them that
did not speak Chinese and had non-Chinese customs. This is the Warring
States Period.
Ch'in Dynasty, 221-206 BC. The time of the great Emperor Chin (or Ch'in)
after which China is named. He also merged the walls that were partially
built during the Warring States period into one Great Wall.
Western Han Dynasty: 206 BC - 25 AD; Eastern Han Dynasty: 25-221 AD. The
Juan-juan and Hsiung-nu, around this time, these *would* have been "your
people," started to move slowly to the *West*, and settled in East and
Central Europe, I would imagine if Western history is correct. As Tani
(P.Comm) noted, these people and the rest of those invading China did *not*
resemble the Chinese at all. In other words, on the street, no one would
be confused about what kind of people they were *as they are* when they see
Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Tibetan, modern-day Outer Mongol and so forth
today. There are many written, detailed descriptions of them.
Next came the transition period of Three Kingdoms: 221-265 AD.
The Chin Dynasty (not Ch'in) 265-420 AD;
The Sung Dynasty 420-479 AD;
The Six Dynasties 470-581 AD;
At the same time, the Wei Dynasty of the Toba Turks ruled from 386-581 AD
I must stress again, that any of these people that didn't wander off away
from mainland China, would have intermarried with the Chinese Han. I must
stress again, that any of the people wanting to disassociate themselves from
the Han and unite with these others would have *become* the others. As
such, much mixture with Han continued to go on. The Han are not so
exogamous as you think; in fact, far from it. But "your people" most
definitely were and much Han admixture got into "your people" in this
manner.
The Sui Dynasty 581-618 AD;
The T'ang Dynasty 618-906 AD.
In NW China, the Uighur Turks had a Dynasty, 745-840 AD, which almost
destroyed the T'ang Dynasty.
In 843 AD the Sari-Uighur Turks and the Khirgiz Turks tried to take over the
Uighur Dynasty.
In 880 AD another group, the Sha-t'o or Toquz Oguz, a famous and very large
tribe of Turks led a revolt against the T'ang. These are the same Oguz
Turks that were in Eastern Europe.
The Five Dynasties 907-960 AD;
The Northern Sung Dynasty 960-1126 AD.
During this period the Liao or Khitai Turks ruled the whole north of China:
947-1125 AD. They also conquered the Uighur Dynasty and in 926, AD
destroyed the Korean kingdom of Pohai.
The Southern Sung Dynasty 1127-1279 AD. During this period the Chin or Kin,
and yes, these were the Jurchid people (Manchus) ruled the whole north:
1122-1234 AD. Along with them to the West was the Kingdom of the Hsi-hsia
or Tangut. Northwest of this was the Kara-Khitai Empire extending outside
of China and a smaller Kingdom of the Uighur closer inland in China.
Further west of the Kara-Khitai was the Khwarizmian Empire, an Islamic
Turkic empire that supplanted the previous Seljuk Turks.
Keep in mind that these Turkic peoples dealt with other of their own Turkic
people when they went anywhere outside of mainland China. Keep in mind that
the ones interacting with the Chinese, were mixing with them and, while many
people stayed in China to eventually become Chinese, many left China and
were accepted as part of the by-now, Chinese-mixed Turks in the East.
Next we have your Yuan or Mongol Dynasty 1260-1368, which united the whole
country of China again. By this time, the rest of the Turks who had been
wandering and conquering in more Westerly regions remained where they were;
they were not intermixing with the Han Chinese but were interacting with
other Turkic people who had been in Eastern and Central Europe from
centuries before, and with Slavs.
The Ming Dynasty 1368-1644 AD overthrew the Yuan Mongol Dynasty.
At that time there was also an Oirat Empire, 1434 AD, which extended from
Lake Baikal to just near the Great Wall. The "Mongol Empire," that is to
say, the Yuan, passed into the Oirat's control. At a time when most of the
other Turks had converted to the Moslem religion, the Oirat were
anti-Islamic.
The Ming were on the side of the Oirats against the E. Mongol Empire of the
so-called Kublaids. The Oirats were Turks. The Kublaids, by this time,
were *thoroughly* Chinese.
The Oirats tried to also take over the remnants of the Kublaid Empire in
Mongolia itself, 1470-1543 AD, but they were repulsed by Dayan Khan and
later by the Khalka Khans.
Dayan Khan's territory was just Mongolia.
The Khanates to succeed Dayan were the Ordos Khanate, whose members adopted
Lamaism in 1566 AD, and the Khalka Khanate.
The people of Outer Mongolia today are Khalka. The Kublaids, including the
Khalka, are very much Chinese people with a Tibetan-Buddhist culture.
These are the people that were dealing with and mixing with the Chinese, for
*centuries*. The rest had long left the area of Chinese influence.
Next came the Ch'ing or Manchu Dynasty, and according to what I know, the
name of these was Nuchen, 1644-1911 AD.
The Oirat or what was now called Jungarian Empire ended with Amursana who
was attacked. Amursana and his people took refuge with the Russians in
Siberia in 1757. Jungaria was annexed to the Chinese Ch'ing Empire and the
population, I regret to say, was exterminated and replaced with Turkic
Islamic settlers who were obviously not Chinese.
You need to understand that "your people," a people already dealing with the
Han for centuries, for thousands of years, even, and thoroughly mixed
(unless they left forever for the West where other Turks were) took many
wives among the Han and had many children. While the Han might not have
accepted them so readily, at least not the first half breeds, "your people"
most definitely *did* accept them as "your own." Understand that whenever
the *mothers* of these children were Han, the children were thoroughly
enculturated - their culture and language was Chinese and they were much
more readily accepted *as* Chinese. In a sense, one might say that this is
an excellent strategy for making your generations into us. And more than
that, if Han people, usually these were all male, hated their own Han
rulers, they very often fled out of mainland China for more northern parts
where they very easily blended in with and were accepted by the natives
there. The idea of "racial identity" didn't occur to "your people" until
very recently. Prior to that, we see thousands of years of "your people"
blending in with Han, to rule parts of China or not, but then constantly
setting anywhere to the north, outside of China. Soon after they rule
China, they *become* Chinese in culture, thinking, language and race. Next,
we can see them dealing with the remaining tribes north of China by setting
one tribe against another and doing things to keep them out of China. The
newly enculturated Chinese came to look upon "your people" as barbarians
they wanted to keep out. Those who have tried to conquer China and stayed,
have become Chinese.
Most of the Turkic tribes just left the area, as the history does show. I'm
sure European history would make mention of these, as would and as does
history written by Indians, Persians and Arabs. Your people had no history
to bring up; you had no literature. Chinese, on the other hand, kept
meticulous records. If you are Khalka, you are using Cyrillic as your
alphabet and that hardly originates with you. The only reason your people
even know how to read or write is because the Soviets forced you to learn.
From what I can see of this conversation, ManInBlack and Tani (P.Comm) are
talking about people they personally know, and their apperances. To my eye,
considering women color their hair (I'm ducking), PComm looks typically
Eurasian as do most Turks that I've seen. Such people can very easily pass
for a type of Hispanic, they can change their attire and pass as people from
any of the Islamic nations, too. They can change their hair and pass as
anyone from Eastern Europe. I can't see them passing for Irish or Anglo of
any kind. I can pass as Korean, Japanese, or any of the more northern
Asian types you can see that tend to be tall. So can you. Neither you nor
I, if you look like a Khalka, can pass as Turkic.
You may be interested to know that Smithsonian had an exhibit in a mall
recently wherein they had real Turkic-Tatar people dressed in authentic
clothing. These people controlled the entire silk route. And as has been
said on here, they were, indeed, meticulously described. They didn't look
like the people you can see today in Mongolia at all.
> Are you a man? your photo looks like a woman's. You got a big hormone
> problem.
Are you trying to prove that you are still incapable of reading, or that you
just infer things nowhere hinted to in the conversation?
> I doubt you have ever seen a real full blooded manchu. They should be
> taller than chinese genetically but their pheno type doesn't fit your
> fantasy. They are kind of midway between Mongols and Koreans
phenotypically
> except that they are a bit taller than either of the others.
I am of Manchu descent from my mother's side of the family. Her mother is
Manchu. I'd say she looks very much like a Korean and I certainly resemble
Koreans much moreso than anyone from Southern Asia (outside China). Do we
look like Khalka? No. Some Khalka *look like us*, more or less.
> who is "us" here? You don't look asian at all.
If you had been paying attention instead of intruding, you'd know. She
looks very much Eurasian to me. Then again, keep in mind that I distinguish
between so-called Southern Asian people as defined by Americans, and Chinese
proper or Northern Asians. We are not the same people.
>You should not be
> apologetic for your people's mixed heritage especially if it entails
> insulting the real Mongol people.
First point: You really don't know who you are talking to. Plainly put,
she's a person who never apologizes for anything, including near ripping my
head off verbally for using something of hers - as a *compliment* to
something she wrote that I enjoyed (and still enjoy) very much. Second
point: There is no such thing as "real Mongol people." You are no longer
what you once were. Your people have fought for your independence from
China, but you are Chinese, like it or not. Had your people gone to the
West with the rest of the Turks, back in time (like the Huns, for instance),
you'd be able to claim you are a "real" something. If anything, those
Turks, even with their Islamic religion, look like the real people and still
embody their health and their warrior spirit. The Khalka have been broken
and reduced to a pitiful state by Buddhism.
> If chinese look similar to each other.... what about the Mongols(I mean
> the REAL mongols, not your half-breed tribal men) or Koreans etc. Are
they
> like carbon-copies of each other?
Facts are facts. Even to most other Asians, it is not so easy to tell
Japanese, Koreans and Chinese apart. So yes, in that sense, Chinese can be
said to look similar to each other *as* Scandinavians look similar to each
other. In that *same* sence. No one here said anything about carbon copies
except you. There is no such thing as "REAL Mongols." You are all half
breeds and, due to *how* you got that way, (as the conquerered, after one
big spash of fame - the mistake of trying to conquer China) the word
"half-breed" is an epithet when you hurl it at someone else. I'm well
aware of the fact that, for a long time, due to the 20th century and its
rhetoric of "racial awareness," your people have tried to claim that you are
the true blue Mongols. But you are most definitely not. If anything, the
Turkic people that live away from China and away from the other Islamic
countries are a lot more like "REAL Mongols" than anyone today in Outer or
Inner Mongolia. But I note that PComm never used the term "Mongol" to refer
to herself or ethnic group.
> Now.... I am 100% certain that you are or your tribe is of mixed
> heritage.
> In fact you could pass for an east-european. You definitely would be
> considered a foreigner just by the look if you were put in the middle of
> ulan baator.
Everyone on the planet earth is of mixed heritage; did you forget that? Do
you imagine in some fantasy world that any race or ethnic group is pure? We
all came from Africa. That should be a big clue. Then we selected and
changed.
*I* would not be considered a foreigner in Urga - now named Ula'an Ba'atur
after
the short-lived Sukhe Batur. And why is that? That is because the Khalka
look like Chinese people. I *am* Chinese.
> tehehehe. Acutally I have seen chinese making fun of their northen
> neighbors' slant eyes with epicanthic folds etc. I beat them up but....
> The percentage of chinese with epicanthic folds is less than that of the
> mongols for instance.
*All* Chinese have epicanthic folds. My eyes are also rather deep set and
long and they are tilted, but not nearly as deepset or tilted as PComm's.
I've seen other images of her, without makeup. I can't imagine a Khalka
beating up anyone Chinese. We have the *art* of Kung Fu. Khalka have
nothing.
> What turks? "turks" are not a single race. They range from
mediterranean
> to east european to full mongoloids like some altai-tribes(sayan mountain
> etc) or yakuts.
Full "mongoloids" are not Turks, obviously. The "Turkistani" people do
consider *themselves* a single group, just as the African Americans consider
themselves a group, despite much admixture with many other people including
Europeans in America.
> OH, also, unlike many NA and unlike the Chinese,
> > we can DRINK!
>
>Wow such an accurate and meaningful anthopological feature!!!
It is, when you consider allergies and genetic predispositions toward
alcoholism. This doesn't mean that such people avoid drinking.
> Then according to your logic, many chinese men must have married your
> females and left genetic imprints on your people? No? I think you said
the
> contrary though. You are contradicting yourself.
"Her females" weren't living anywhere near China. Let me make this clear,
if it is not already clear: those who tried to *conquer* China: *became
Chinese*. Her people, if you want to go back in time, may have tried to
conquer China. Their descendents are no longer "her people." That should
be perfectly clear.
>
> I have yet to hear of a single mongol female marrying a chinese before
the
> 20th century.(I am sure there were some but certainly very rare)
What you have heard are lies. Complete lies. Also, you've got not a shread
of written history. We Chinese have meticulous records. Your females and
males are thoroughly mixed with Han and even with Kin and Ch'ing Manchu
peoples (who themsleves were thoroughly Chinese-mixed) and have been for
*centuries*. Perhaps the other Turkic people were wise to get away from
China
and wise to stop trying to invade us. Invade China, and we will invade you,
through the proverbial front door - your gene pool. We did just that.
> Wow... what a parade of bullshit. Is that why mongols had 4 classes of
> peoples and Jurchens(manchus) belonged to the second lowest?
In what fairytale did you hear that? Both the Kin and Ch'ing Dynasties held
your people as vassals; and when you did "break a few Kin heads" in
retaliation for a massacre at dinnertime, we just absorbed you after Kublai
conquered. The Khalka, by the time of the 20th century, were so terrified
of the Chinese that you begged the Soviets to take you in as part of their
dictatorship. Considering that Mao wasn't even around at that time, that's
quite some fear.
> wwwwhhhhhhhhaaaaaaat? I have a way of distinguishing han chinese from the
> manchus. The shape of the nose is not one of them. It works a bit better
> with the mongols but not always. Many tungusic peoples (linguistic and
> possibly genetic relatives of manchus) have the flattest nose in entire
> asia. Also buriats also have flat noses even though they are close
> relatives of the mainstream mongols(khalka etc).
If you mean Chinese that are partially of Manchu descent, it is most
definitely the nose that everyone sees first. The bridge is high. Tallness
has nothing to do with it since many Han are tall people. Our cheekbones
are also more prominent, but just a bit. My grandmother's nose could have
easily passed for a European nose. Some of us even have hooked noses.
> They are not. In fact, patrilineage is the distinguishing
> characteristics of all tungusic peoples. If you are matrilineal... I
don't
> know what "altaic" people you belong to.
Well, that's a difficult one. I would be considered Manchu by some because
my *mother's* people and her *mother* from then on are Manchu. That is
matrilineal consideration. Otherwise, I am considered Chinese. So it's not
as clear cut as you'd make it out to be. Neither can you speak with any
written facts since, at least since your mass conversion to Buddhism, your
people were definitely patriarchal. You do realize, or perhaps you do not,
that *matrilineal* consideration was even used by Temur i lenk when he
linked himself to certain tribes; and consider he was a Moslem, a notably
patriarchal religion. Speaking of religion, anyone familiar with the Bible
knows that the Hebrew people are patriarchal. I was shocked quite a few
years ago to hear of a case in Israel. The *father* was a Rabbi with
impeccable geneology; they do keep records. The mother was originally from
the Christian religion. They moved to Israel and there, she conceived a
child. The child was not considered Jewish because the *mother* was not
Jewish and, furthermore, the child was not considered a citizen of Israel,
despite being born there. That was an eye opener. So things are not always
what they may appear to be.
> They'd have followed the animals -
> > they were nomads. I know that some NA genes were found in RUSSIAN
people
> > that never left that area. So that means that the road was traveled TWO
> > ways, not one way.
> >
> Awww shut up if you don't know what you are talking about.
You seem to be the only person intruding that has no idea what he's talking
about. I am the one that knows the Manchu legend of our beginnings. Not
PComm; though she obviously read what I wrote. People talking about genes
on here are referring to haplotypes.
If no African haplotypes are found in Asian populations, does that mean that
all humans did not come from Africa and at one time share haplotypes? Of
course not. It merely means that they were bred out of the population over
time.
> > That NA are genetically related to Altaic people is proven by genetic
> > testing.
>
> Not really. Some living in altai mountain region have the genetic
> signiture similar to NA but your bullshit is far more broad-brush.
They have not done haplotype studies on every human being alive. Now that
I've seen more on this thread, I suggest you read this post:
From: "Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam>
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.anthropology
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: Why the Kennewick man plaintiffs were disingenuous, and their
claims spurious
>
>
>
>
>
MIB529
> > "deowll" <deo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:<j5DUb.9771$Rl4....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> > > "People's Commissar" <tjs...@spam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:NLzUb.15521$uM2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...> > > > news:4ad78f65.04020...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > Caucasoid, caucasoid, caucasoid, that's all we hear anymore. So
> let's
> > > > > review the actual skeleton. Here are all relevant traits of
> Chatters:
> > > > >
> > > > > "This was a male of late middle age (40-55 years), and tall (170 to
> > > > > 176 cm ), slender build."
> > > > >
> > > > > Naturally, this is a largely environmental trait, but it favors
> > > > > Indians.
> > > > >
> > > > > "The lack of head flattening from cradle board use,"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "minimal arthritis in weight-bearing bones, and the unusually light
> > > > > wear on his teeth"
> > > > >
> > > > > existed! LOL
> > > > >
> > > > > brachycranic"
> > > > >
> > > > > One: It's quite appropriate that Chatters uses this measure on the
> > > > > hundredth anniversary of its having been discredited. Of course,
> > > > > maximum cranial breadth and maximum cranial length are fairly
> 'caucasoid'
> > > > > result either way. Three: My own cephalic index is .714 Note that
> I'm
> > > > > in my twenties, and that it decreases with age.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > white trait.
> > > > >
> > > > > projection; the lower rim of the orbit is even with the upper."
> > > > >
> > > > > latter is once again typical of Indians.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Other features are a long, broad nose that projects markedly from
> the
> > > > > face and high, round orbits."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "The mandible is v-shaped,with a pronounced, deep chin."
> > > > >
> > > > > And?
> > > > >
> > > > > "Many of these characteristics are definitive of modern-day
> caucasoid
> > > > > peoples, while others, such as the orbits are typical of neither
> > > > > race."
> > > > >
> And
> > > > > most of those traits are NOT caucasoid by any possible standard.
> > > > >
> > > > > indicating possible relationship to south Asian peoples."
> > > > >
> > > > > One: Turner didn't ever measure Indians. I've read his paper;
> Indians
> > > > > don't really fit the sinodont pattern at all. Two: Chatters only
> > > > > checked a few traits. Three: Some work with European populations
> shows
> > > > > major sinodont affinities, at least in terms of the traits that
> > > > > Chatters checked.
> > > >
> > > > What's the latest on this issue anyway? Also, I saw this from an old
> thread
> > > > on here, it's the one about clovis. Snip most, here is something:
> > > >
> > > > Prehistoric White settlements in the Americas could explain many
> > > > things, from Central American Indian myths of bearded White gods who
> > > > brought knowledge -- to the presence of lighter skin, light eyes,
> > > > and more European-looking features among a few North American
> > > > Amerindians, characteristics noted by 17th and 18th century European
> > > > explorers and pioneers.
> > > >
> heh,
> > > > bearded 20th century white men?
> > > >
> > > > Very light skin and occasional light eyes is also common in Altaic
> > > > populations that are not "mixed" with anything. The same factors
> probably
> > > > cause that in all populations. The Manchu do have a myth or oral
> story
> > > > about crossing over, as was posted before on here - they are also
> quite
> > > > light, lighter than Southern Europeans, that's for sure.
> > > >
> this
> white
> > > > man.
> > > >
> > > > That NA are genetically related to Altaic people is proven by genetic
> > > > testing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> North
> > > America but that is about it. The earliest groups from Asia didn't look
> like
> > > moderns except for a few people in the extreme of South America and
> maybe a
> > > few scattered groups that retained some gentic data from the first ones.
> I
> > > don't know much about any but the one South American group.
> > >
> > > Face fuzz seems to vary a lot. Maybe a few locals had some or wore fake
> > > beards. Some Africans claim their people made the voyage but proving it
> is
> > > another story.
> >
> > And they use the same methodology as Chatters, just so you know.
>
> Mmmm, I'm not following all that, but quite many NA today look like Altaic
> people TODAY - including my NA inlaws who blend in with us with no problem
> at all. Some of the NA I see here, Miki.. forgot name, part of Seminole -
> look like off the boat from China - but they're tall, like N. Chinese maybe
> some of them really do - and yeah, we sure thought it was remarkable. I
> think in ww2 one Navajo soldier dressed up like a Japanese and infiltrated
> to blow something up - and the Japanese couldn't tell the difference at all.
> Some do - and some don't - look that way. I don't think all the NA I've
> each other pretty much. I've seen too many different types of NA. I'd
> attach photos of some relatives (in laws) if it would go - I'd have to scan
> them and then make them small kB - but it won't post. I tried posting
> photos before - it won't go.
What I meant was they used the same mistaken methodology of relying on three
'races'. The most obvious clinal variation in Indians is stature, but there
are other differences. (I always tell my [white] roommate 'you all look alike
to me.')
MIB529
> See below, I hope I can find the info again. The canines are same genus -
> but they are different species and the first link on there to a pdf
> articleis genetic and very technical. I'll past it on the bottom. I think
> I can find it.
It gets confusing because of the way species is defined. This is especially
difficult, for example, with human remains.
> > I'll agree there. I mean, for example, there's absolutely no way to
> explain
> > why humans have larger breasts than other primates: I don't see an
> advantage,
> > other than extra milk.
>
> You are a guy, right? LMAO.
I was making a reference to sexual selection: There's no real adaptive
significance beyond that.
> Ok. - sexual selection would be the answer to
> why. Why do we tend to have full, up tilted breasts where as most anglos
> are almost flat like boys and lots of southern europeans and such have
> droopy breasts? Selection. Guys chose what they liked best! I know this -
> women with almost no breasts told me that breastfeeding for them was very
> painful so they stopped right away. This is NOT the experiences of our
> women - and we tend to be pretty big according to American standards. For
> our women, it's very pleasurable. Selection would then have been toward
> women that wanted to feed by breasts and liked it - and maybe also due to
> male preference. And that's not just an American thing.
I was thinking of male preference. I just couldn't think of any natural
selection, so I said sexual selection. (Which is also generally true for
sexual differences.)
> > > That's the same as breeding an animal -
> > > humans are animals too. HELL yes it can change the appearance - so can
> what
> > > you eat change how the jaw develops after you are born and all that.
> >
> > I'll agree there too. Genes aren't the simple world of Mendel: Birth
> defects
> > are evidence of how much environmental influence exists even before birth.
> > It's called von Baer's law.
> >
> > I think most sexual selection favors health. A bit of it can favor
> > adaptations to a particular environment too. Whatever the case, it seems
> to
> > be a much-ignored element. Particularly female sexual selection, since, in
> > mammals at least, females have to care for their young more than males.
>
> Sexual selection is ignored (get this) primarily by MALE European
> anthropologists. LMAO. I can think of a LOT of reasons why they'd tend to
> over look that. If I go into details, this post will become X-rated.
LOL It would be male ignorance. (It's easy to see how sexual selection could
favor most forms of human neoteny.)
I've found there are two types of white men: Those who refuse to consider
sex as a biological factor at all, and those who are obsessed with sex.
> > To quote the Geoshitties squad:
>
> AH, I'll try emailing it and hope that's your real email. That's weird. It
> will come from NAKIVED. I'll get it now. I just emailed it.
I stopped using it after someone was stalking me. Oh, and it got full of spam.
> > Well, the funny thing is, Indians typically have large ears. (I don't know
> if
> > this is an actual reason, but the physics of sound dictate that large ears
> > hear better.) Earlobe is not attached, before you ask.
>
> My earlobe is attached and ears are smaller - but I have very VERY good
> hearing - and pitch hearing too.
I figured your earlobe was attached. Another possibility might be another
climatic adaptation. Either way, no one has seriously suggested a reason for
it.
> > I don't use Internet Expirer, personally. Cases of Micro$haft not
> > listening to their customers could be a whole other thread.
>
> OH OH, I wonder if you can see any other photos on that website - Lemme
> know - they are pictures of places
>
> www.geocities.com/trip_to_innsmouth/index.html The photos are on the next
> pages. Please let me know. You using netscape? Ie is good - and it is
> also FREE. Why not just go get it?
Some of us don't like Billy-boy snooping around our systems. And we don't
like IE's tendency to crash. Oh, and here's an example of what that extra
RAM buys you:
http://www.pebwages.com/g.html
It wouldn't be so bad, if Bill gave Windows users a choice. Of course,
Windows is another case of proof that they don't listen to their customer.
Who would want to view their hard drive as a web page anyway? (It's pretty
easy to find a list of reasons to hate M$.)
> > Well, it's also a general rule that it's very easy to overestimate a white
> > woman's age if you're not used to them.
>
> HA, sounds funny - but I don't get it. Lots of western whites, like irish,
> their women look my age when they are in their late 20s - and that's pretty
> pathetic!
I didn't even realize you were female until just now. What I mean is, I
generally assume they're older than they really are. (This is another good
club to beat over the heads of racists: Neoteny.)
> > I personally am 6'7" and 170 lbs (or 2.0 m and 77 kg) The whole Dakotas
> area
> > seems to be notable for a genetic 'minimum' on height, similar to how
> pygmies
> > theoretically have a genetic 'maximum'.
>
> SHEESH you are tall. You must be skinny too?
Well, it's mostly because I have long arms and legs. It's still within
the healthy range. (As I said, most Indians are more adapted to tropical
climates.)
> > > http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/variation.html
> > >
> > > Seems that both sides liked this article :) As some pointed out, the
> parts
> > > I wrote myself are a bit tricky.
> >
> > IIRC, Y-chromosome and mtDNA can only tell unilineal lines, and there's
> more
> > room for Mendelian drift in blood groups and other such neutral traits.
> >
> > Most of the genetic trees I've seen look different from those, but it's
> hard
> > to come up with a phylogeny for interfertile groups, especially a species
> > like man which is innately exogamous.
>
> Well, at least I got them and this time, SAVED it and posted it.
Saving is important: Generally speaking, using all available archaeological
and molecular evidence, Indians are supposed to have split from Eurasians
before Austronesians did. (You notice I brought up the racial affiliations
of Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi, and Solutrean man to DrPostal: He didn't like that
very well.) Those cave paintings won't go away.
> > > Kolyma is the coldest place on earth, Mib. But back then, a lot further
> > > south from there was also cold - very cold. Going east to find better
> > > WINDS - that's what they did.
> >
> > Better winds sure as hell wouldn't be in North America. LOL Very strong
> > wind is quite typical.
>
> Well, maybe now. Also, what people say they went in search of - if they'd
> have gone east and then south they'd find it - but if not - maybe they
> didn't find warmer winds. Check Kolyma. Cold and wind - the place is
> almost unliveable.
Most of northern Eurasia is like that, IIRC.
> > > Polynesians have that too.
> >
> > I used the Yanomamo example because it's the most classic. Granted,
> Chagnon
> > is controversial: As it turns out, he did do some things wrong, but
> Tierney
> > invented the whole paranoid conspiracy theory about the Atomic Energy
> > Commission. (What did I say about US media? Abandon all common sense, ye
> > who enter here.)
>
> I never heard that conspiracy.
Well, basically, Chagnon was an anthropologist who studied the Yanomamo.
Apparently he translated all conflicts as 'war' and the amount he bartered
for films was directly proportional to how many people on film that each
actor killed. He's also not been forthcoming with his data.
Tierney went farther, spinning a conspiracy theory. Granted, Chagnon's
personal biases might've resulted in this, but it was likely all
subconscious.
> > > I'd not make that association. CHINA put into law positive/negative
> > > eugenics a few years ago. It's not racist tho. It's like family health
> > > stuff. I think eugenics got a bad name. Also, heterozygocity is what's
> > > healthy - exogamy.
> >
> > I agree that eugenics got a bad name from Hitler and others. I mean, even
> > Montagu agreed with aborting certain birth defects. Many societies have
> > developed particular taboos which smack of eugenics, but they disguise it
> > in 'culture-talk', various beliefs about sex in general, semen in
> > particular. (Another way in which to defeat white racist trolls here:
> > Bring up r/K as it relates to postpartum taboos, polyandry, and other such
> > practices. Or just diabetes: It tends to relate to a lack of resources.)
>
> OH, that R strategy stuff from Rushton is bs - that stuff applies to animals
> that have HUNDREDS of offspring and then leave them - like some sea animals
> do. I think ALL mammals are the other - forget which "r" it is. ALL
> mammals tend to invest in offspring.
I'd agree. r and K are actually ecological variables, but Rushton screws up
on what they mean. (I joked that all it proves is that he's hung like a
gorilla, and about half as smart.) Basically, a higher capacity K favors a
higher population growth rate r, but a lower K favors a lower r. And the
easiest adaptation to a lower K is to simply have a prolonged growth rate:
Longer gestation, later sexual maturity, etc. (Too bad for Rushton that
the latest average menarche is in Kenya, at 18.0 years!)
> Here is the stuff on the canines - it's very good (INTERESTING!!)
>
> These animals are different species and highly cross fertile. I read that
> last article, printed it out. It's VERY GOOD and it's pure science, alright.
> Dogs, left on their own, would NOT revert to wolves! What people thought
> about dogs - ALL wrong. Article is a MUST READ if you like dogs.
>
>
>
> http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Heredi
> ty_Dog_Paper_1999.pdf
>
>
>
> Watch the bottom of it if you go to get it, I can't paste it right. This
> article is FASCINATING - and the rest of the info below is right too.
> FASCINATING (Big Fan of Animal Planet here....) This is freaking
> FASCINATING. Inspiring!
Use tinyurl.
> This is TRUE - all same GENUS - different SPECIES - see article. The coyote
> is capable of breeding and producing *fertile* offspring with a number of
> its cousins, including the domestic dog (the offspring of this type of
> mating is referred to as a "coydog"), wild dogs, and wolves. The mixed
> offspring of the coyote can present a good deal of confusion as to whether
> or not a real coyote has been sighted in an area. Positive identification
> can only be made by examination of the skull. Research has shown that in
> Ohio, 98 percent of the animals sighted, captured, or killed are indeed
> coyotes. Only a small portion (two percent) have been identified as a
> coyote-dog mix.
It might be proper to say subspecies: It's used for cases of highly
successful hybrids where there are clearly defined differences.
> Coy-wolves (Coyote/Wolf) have occurred in captivity or, rarely, where the
> choice of same-species mates has been limited. Coyote/Red Wolf hybrids have
> been found. Some consider the American Red Wolf is not to a true species
> because it can hybridize with both the Grey Wolf and the Coyote; however it
> is *now known* that hybridization between species (in general) happens more
> often than previously thought.(!!!!) Some consider it a Grey Wolf/Coyote
> hybrid and use this argument to prevent conservation of the Red Wolf. Some
> hybridization occurred when pure Red Wolves were in decline and interbred
> with more numerous Coyotes. More recent studies in many mammals shows that
> *true species can and do hybridize* and that the species boundary is
> preserved by geographic or behavioural separation, *not by genetic
> separation* The converse mating results in a Dogote and there is currently
> one known Dogote which arose from a male German Shepherd/female coyote
> mating in the wild. Hybrid pups were found after a female coyote was shot.
> The adult Dogote resembled a German Shepherd in colour.
It all depends on one's definition of species: Even higher taxa of plants
can hybridize; the highest I've heard is two different families. Dawkins
probably has the best genetic definition of species: The same number and
shape of chromosomes. (Most genetic disorders where these don't match
the mother, save for the sex chromosomes, are aborted.)
MIB529
> What's your email? The mail bounced back. I'm at nakived at juno dot com
> ....and I hope spam bots don't read that.
MIB529
baiyaan
news:s9qWb.41$WW...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Historically, your small band of people got their titles from the people
who
> ruled northern kingdoms in China. Half of the time, the rulers were not
Han
> per se. They were Jurchen who were already much mixed with Han.
Fantasy has been chinese favorite passtime, I gather. More by necessity
than by choice though.
>
> Since the Chinese have been literate "forever," and your people were
> nothing, I'll give you a short synopsis and point out which ruling
dynasties
> were Han and which were not, at least at first not..
Hehehe, are you trying to look imposing and talk down to me? If that is
the case you were born into the most disadvantaged race imaginable for such
endeavor.
>
> Let us start the history lesson here:
>
> The Five Emperors: 2697 BC - *Huang Ti*, Shao Hao, Chuan Hsu, Ti K'u and
Ti
> Chih. Huang Ti was called "Yellow Emperor."
>
> Hsia Dynasty, 2205-1766 BC, founded by Emperor Yu. The *first* to use
> a paternal line of descent in order to put his son in power.
>
> 2000 BC marks the time of the Lung-shan culture and this, more or less,
> started patrilineal lines of descent as a norm.
You forgot the bit about Atlantis and how they kowtowed to the all mighty
chinese.
>
> Shang Dynasty, 1766-1121 BC, similar to the Lung-shan in culture. The
first
> capital city P'o was ruled by T'ang. Five other capitals existed, the
last
> capital of Shang was Yin, 1400 BC.
Strongly suspected of being non-chinese.
>
> Chao Dynasty, 1121-255 BC. This was a dynasty ruled by non Han people from
> the north often called Hsiung-nu and Tung-i. They had defeated the Shang.
> History explains that these rulers were very different in appearance from
> the Chinese Han. Some of them even had light or reddish hair.
You got this reversed for your own convinience. Zhou is considered more
akin to Han chinese than shang or yin.
>
> If anything, one can start dating the *mxing* of "your people" and the Han
> at this point because there was considerable mixing, by arrangement of
> marriage (which was the norm for all peoples there). As such, "your
women"
> would not have had a *choice* in the matter and the men were more than
> willing to mate with Han women.
>......
zzzzz Did you finish jerking off?
> Ch'in Dynasty, 221-206 BC. The time of the great Emperor Chin (or Ch'in)
> after which China is named. He also merged the walls that were partially
> built during the Warring States period into one Great Wall.
Not necessarily chinese.
>
> Western Han Dynasty: 206 BC - 25 AD; Eastern Han Dynasty: 25-221 AD.
Now you finally got to something more or less chinese(unfortunately one of
only the few that were genuinely chinese).
> The
> Juan-juan and Hsiung-nu, around this time, these *would* have been "your
> people," started to move slowly to the *West*, and settled in East and
> Central Europe, I would imagine if Western history is correct. As Tani
> (P.Comm) noted, these people and the rest of those invading China did
*not*
> resemble the Chinese at all. In other words, on the street, no one would
> be confused about what kind of people they were *as they are* when they
see
> Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Tibetan, modern-day Outer Mongol and so forth
> today. There are many written, detailed descriptions of them.
What you hear in your grandma's lap is not anthropology nor history. Have
you heard of "urban tales"?
>
> Next came the transition period of Three Kingdoms: 221-265 AD.
>...
All the natinalistic bullcrap snipped.
> .....
> Next came the Ch'ing or Manchu Dynasty, and according to what I know,
which is nothing.
>....Jungaria was annexed to the Chinese Ch'ing Empire
I never heard of any such(neither anyone except chinese). There was
Manchu or Jurchen(or Nurchen) Ching if that is what you mean.
> You need to understand that "your people," a people already dealing with
the
> Han for centuries, for thousands of years, even, and thoroughly mixed
> (unless they left forever for the West where other Turks were) took many
> wives among the Han and had many children. While the Han might not have
> accepted them so readily,
You had no choice. You were lower than dirt in their eyes.
>.... at least not the first half breeds, "your people"
> most definitely *did* accept them as "your own."
>.....to keep out. Those who have tried to conquer China and stayed,
> have become Chinese.
Gosh!!!! the pain, the agony, that hurt pride!!!! You must be crying
inside out. The image of your grandmas coyly serving as public toilets for
the ejaculatory urges of the barbarians!!! hmph!! I am sorry to tell you
though they kinda enjoyed it though. Anything looks better than limp and
pea-sized dicks of your effete and effeminate mud kicking peasant ancestors.
>
> Most of the Turkic tribes just left the area, ..
> They can change their hair and pass as
> anyone from Eastern Europe. I can't see them passing for Irish or Anglo
of
> any kind. I can pass as Korean, Japanese, or any of the more northern
> Asian types you can see that tend to be tall.
Don't flatter yourself.
>So can you. Neither you nor
> I, if you look like a Khalka, can pass as Turkic.
>...
>
>.... And as has been
> said on here, they were, indeed, meticulously described. They didn't look
> like the people you can see today in Mongolia at all.
This boy is a loon. I am not going to waste my professional time on his
day dream routine.
>
> > Are you a man? your photo looks like a woman's. You got a big hormone
> > problem.
>
> Are you trying to prove that you are still incapable of reading, or that
you
> just infer things nowhere hinted to in the conversation?
Are you trying to ..... flame me? Where did you get the cute idea that
with such words like "infer" you would look more inteligent than you really
are.(I am sure that you are a type who uses "logically" in every
sentence(quite inappropriately) trying to emulate spock) Tehehehe.. really
cute, this boy.
> I am of Manchu descent from my mother's side of the family. Her mother is
> Manchu.
Then you are just a chinese, the ordinary garden-variety mud kicking
chinese. NO ONE considers you a manchu. Please come back to the reality.
> I'd say she looks very much like a Korean and I certainly resemble
> Koreans much moreso than anyone from Southern Asia (outside China).
I don't think Koreans would consider you looking much like themselves
though.
> Do we
> look like Khalka? No. Some Khalka *look like us*, more or less.
It is actually the other way around. ALL full blooded Khalka can pass for
Koreans(Daghur, even more so. I myself can distinguish though, using
anthropometric measurements like cephalic index). Ask any Korean. Bring
him here if someone says otherwise.
Most Koreans can pass for Khalka but not all. And many Japanese and chinese
would not pass for khalka.
>
> > who is "us" here? You don't look asian at all.
>
> If you had been paying attention instead of intruding, you'd know. She
> looks very much Eurasian to me. Then again, keep in mind that I
distinguish
> between so-called Southern Asian people as defined by Americans, and
Chinese
> proper or Northern Asians. We are not the same people.
You are not. But then there is widely acknowledged truth that southern
chinese represent the "original" or "real" chinese. When Liao and Jin
dynasty took over the northern china the whole area is said to have been
vacated. somewhat exaggerated but there is an element of truth there. It
is accepted even by geneticists like cavalli sforza(not that I regard him
too highly).
> Facts are facts. Even to most other Asians, it is not so easy to tell
> Japanese, Koreans and Chinese apart.
Tehheheheh. Don't flatter yourself.
>So yes, in that sense, Chinese ......
> But I note that PComm never used the term "Mongol" to refer
> to herself or ethnic group.
I think she did. using a different email address but with the same
"people's commissar".
I will post her babble later on.
> *I* would not be considered a foreigner in Urga - now named Ula'an Ba'atur
> after
> the short-lived Sukhe Batur. And why is that? That is because the
Khalka
> look like Chinese people. I *am* Chinese.
Listen moron, you don't know who you are talking to.
You know next to nothing about genetics. Especially ancient DNA.
> *All* Chinese have epicanthic folds. My eyes are also rather deep set and
> long and they are tilted, but not nearly as deepset or tilted as PComm's.
> I've seen other images of her, without makeup. I can't imagine a Khalka
> beating up anyone Chinese.
In all fairness, I should point out that I am not a Khalka. But I don't
have to imagine anything as far as physical toughness goes. Mongols beat up
chinese regularly in sports like boxing, wrestling, with a population 1/600
of yours. You are a joke to the rest of the asian community.
>We have the *art* of Kung Fu. Khalka have
> nothing.
tehehehe. If I saw you in a dark alley... and you went through all those
cheesy Kung Fu moves, I would be laughing as soon as I ascertained that you
were not carrying a gun.
You are like a little chiwawa raised among mastiff. You are not a
manchu(not that they would scare me anyway). Rememeber that if you want to
keep your health and bodily structural integrity.
> What you have heard are lies. Complete lies.
..... hope... hope.... hope....
Also, you've got not a shread
> of written history. We Chinese have meticulous records. Your females and
> males are thoroughly mixed with Han and even with Kin and Ch'ing Manchu
> peoples (who themsleves were thoroughly Chinese-mixed) and have been for
> *centuries*. Perhaps the other Turkic people were wise to get away from
> China
> and wise to stop trying to invade us. Invade China, and we will invade
you,
> through the proverbial front door - your gene pool. We did just that.
Geez, but that invasion failed to show up in most genetic studies though.
The difference between mongols and chinese is quite huge especially in
y-chromosome profiles. It seems that your theory has natural habitat only
inside your pulped up brain and anywhere else, has tendency to cause
laughter followed by quick dismissal.
> In what fairytale did you hear that? Both the Kin and Ch'ing Dynasties
held
> your people as vassals; and when you did "break a few Kin heads" in
> retaliation for a massacre at dinnertime, we just absorbed you after
Kublai
> conquered. The Khalka, by the time of the 20th century, were so terrified
> of the Chinese that you begged the Soviets to take you in as part of their
> dictatorship. Considering that Mao wasn't even around at that time,
that's
> quite some fear.
That is some creative interpretation. I know you desperately need that.
> If you mean Chinese that are partially of Manchu descent, it is most
> definitely the nose that everyone sees first. The bridge is high.
Tallness
> has nothing to do with it since many Han are tall people. Our cheekbones
> are also more prominent, but just a bit. My grandmother's nose could have
> easily passed for a European nose. Some of us even have hooked noses.
Listen boy,....... this is sci.anthropology* , not
urbantales.chinese.stupidfantasy
You are not a manchu. How many times do I have to tell you? From what you
said, it is clear that an average Korean would be far closer to the manchus
than you could ever be. genetically.
> Well, that's a difficult one. I would be considered Manchu by some
because
> my *mother's* people and her *mother* from then on are Manchu.
No one does. except occasionally by PRC who simply makes manchu or
whatever out of Han chinese according to their political expediency. This
is true and I am in the process of alerting my collegues of this travesty.
> matrilineal consideration. Otherwise, I am considered Chinese.
Yes you are. And it is not something to be proud of in the eyes of the
REST OF THE WORLD.
> You seem to be the only person intruding that has no idea what he's
talking
> about. I am the one that knows the Manchu legend of our beginnings.
Geez. You mean manchus have the legend about the beginning of han-chinese?
> Not
> PComm; though she obviously read what I wrote. People talking about genes
> on here are referring to haplotypes.
Obviously you don't know what "haplotype" means.
>
> If no African haplotypes are found in Asian populations, does that mean
that
> all humans did not come from Africa and at one time share haplotypes? Of
> course not. It merely means that they were bred out of the population over
> time.
Oh my god!!!! You transcend the limit and boundary of human stupidity.
> They have not done haplotype studies on every human being alive. Now that
> I've seen more on this thread, I suggest you read this post:
Do you ever fantasize about posing as a geneticist or a population
biologist? hmmm?
pehehehehe.
People's Commissar
> "People's Commissar" <tjs...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:<TBoVb.15886$F23....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > "MIB529" <man_in_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4ad78f65.0402...@posting.google.com...
> > > "deowll" <deo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:<j5DUb.9771$Rl4....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> > > > "People's Commissar" <tjs...@spam.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:NLzUb.15521$uM2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > > >
> What I meant was they used the same mistaken methodology of relying on
three
> 'races'. The most obvious clinal variation in Indians is stature, but
there
> are other differences. (I always tell my [white] roommate 'you all look
alike
> to me.')
Did you read what Deitiker wrote to me? PHEW heavy - they aren't relying on
3 races at all, and they are going back 80 thousand years with not just
haploid genes - back to people I never even heard of.
I really do think a lot of a type of white look alike - and in movies it
really sucks if one is the cop and the other is the bad guy and I can't tell
which is which. LOL.
baiyaan
> GO ARGUE IT WITH THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE GENETIC TREE - NOT based on the
> stupid y or mtDNA only.
hmmm. Don't you ever feel uneasy when you talk about things you know
nothing about?
>
> You are the only one on her spewing bullshit, trying to claim what, that
you
> are some kinda PURE race or something or you imagine, in your wildest
> fantasies that YOU might resemble Batu or Timur or something?
Batu was a Merkit bastard. so? (but even he did not look like you for
sure) Timur.... he was quite mixed, no one denies that.
Listen moron, calm down. It is more efficient as no one is scared by your
gesticulation.
You used to post with this (bogus) email address tanija...@www.com
And you claimed that Kubilai Khan's portrait by the Chinese painter was
rigged so as to make him look more chinese. He does not look very chinese
there to me.
Deitiker etc may sound supporting your bullshit but I doubt even he would
buy your "theory"(not that I give much thought to his "opinion").
To claim that Kubilai etc looked like you but mongols changed their
appearances in the last 700 years due to the admixture with chinese is
simply laughable. Nothing else. Why in the whole world not a single
serious scholar would go along with your epiphany?
> Sorry baby,
> YOU DO NOT. Not even close. Too many people remember, too many civilized
> literate people wrote down details and clearly, there was NO WAY IN HELL
> anyone could or did mistake Turko-Tatar with ANY KIND of Chinese type.
> You
> Khalkas - as far as anyone on the street is concerned, LOOK CHINESE.
There
> is no way in hell we look Chinese. Any Chinese here would mistake a
Khalka
> for Chinese. NOT SO with us. NOT SO with Batu, either. And even as that
> Chinese guy said on here, when HE is walking down the street - people are
> pretty damned sure he is CHINESE.
Does anyone remember the y-chromosome lineage putatively associated with
Jenghiz Khan that made a big sensation last year? That is in the
RPS4Y711T(M130)-M217 line. This is East Eurasian specific(has some
representatives even among some NA , notably Na Den speakers) and has the
highest frequencies among Tungusic peoples where it attains a near fixation.
Among Europeans the only people with any measurable frequency of this type
is the turks(wow so surprising. One may also guess hungarians or Sami etc
but no, I see nothing there. But Sami has other kinds of east eurasian
type of y-chromosomes:TatC linked to East Asian and SE asian M175 through a
common marker M214).
Neither is it found in any west asian or slavic people she so desperately
tries to find kinship with.(Well not quite. There were a single Lebanese,
several Iranians, a single Greek, a single Sardinian so far among "caucasoid
peoples")
And there is a very definitive written Roman portraiyal of Attila(who was
actually something like only 1/4 Hun) about which scholars have no doubt
that it depicted "mongoloid" physiology.
She is obviously a crack pot. Normally I do not need to point this out. I
thought I did not have to here either, having been fooled by that sci*
header.
Now bitch, you must remember that P Daniels called you an idiot when you
trolled there.
Google search under scythian, sci.lang and her above email address. If you
want to lie about this too then forget it.
People's Commissar
fuckspam and without. You should get it.
I wonder what else you can't see online?
"MIB529" <man_in_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ad78f65.04021...@posting.google.com...
People's Commissar
I would guess that the male preference for "more or a lot more than just a
handful" would be originally based on the idea of the babies. But it's a
guess. Back then, if you didn't breast feed, or couldn't due to pain - that
would have produced kids not so healthy. No bottles back then :)
>
> > Sexual selection is ignored (get this) primarily by MALE European
> > anthropologists. LMAO. I can think of a LOT of reasons why they'd tend
to
> > over look that. If I go into details, this post will become X-rated.
>
> LOL It would be male ignorance. (It's easy to see how sexual selection
could
> favor most forms of human neoteny.)
Oh yeah, neotany is CUTEness. Makes you want to hug the babies that have it
most. Heh, not all babies are cute!
>
> I've found there are two types of white men: Those who refuse to consider
> sex as a biological factor at all, and those who are obsessed with sex.
YEAH I AGREE!!! But I've known those that are what I'd call normal, too.
>
> I stopped using it after someone was stalking me. Oh, and it got full of
spam.
Email ME and lemme know it's you. I can then send you the photo. I'm
nakived at juno dot com.
Oh, never use real email on newsgroups - that's a sure way to get heaps of
spam.
> >
> > My earlobe is attached and ears are smaller - but I have very VERY good
> > hearing - and pitch hearing too.
>
> I figured your earlobe was attached. Another possibility might be another
> climatic adaptation. Either way, no one has seriously suggested a reason
for
> it.
>
> > OH OH, I wonder if you can see any other photos on that website - Lemme
> > know - they are pictures of places
> >
> > www.geocities.com/trip_to_innsmouth/index.html The photos are on the
next
> > pages. Please let me know. You using netscape? Ie is good - and it is
> > also FREE. Why not just go get it?
>
> Some of us don't like Billy-boy snooping around our systems. And we don't
> like IE's tendency to crash. Oh, and here's an example of what that extra
> RAM buys you:
I never crash - and I never even crashed a few months ago with 48 mB of ram
only and Win95 and 56K external modum!! I use IE all the time - no
crashing. They don't snoop if you get "spybot seek and destroy" and "ads be
gone" which also checks for spyware. I have a LOT of ram now and a very
very FAST puter. www.pricewatch.com $250 bucks! You can also always erase
cookies when you shut off and all temp files. Man, and I'm a puter DUMMY!!
Listen to me giving advice LOL! Yeah, I taught myself html in about 15 min
too! I LIKE doing that - it's fun!
>
> http://www.pebwages.com/g.html
>
> It wouldn't be so bad, if Bill gave Windows users a choice. Of course,
> Windows is another case of proof that they don't listen to their customer.
> Who would want to view their hard drive as a web page anyway? (It's pretty
> easy to find a list of reasons to hate M$.)
View the hd as a web....lemme go to that site and see what it says. Hmm, I
don't get it. I don't see my hd.
>
> > HA, sounds funny - but I don't get it. Lots of western whites, like
irish,
> > their women look my age when they are in their late 20s - and that's
pretty
> > pathetic!
>
> I didn't even realize you were female until just now. What I mean is, I
> generally assume they're older than they really are. (This is another good
> club to beat over the heads of racists: Neoteny.)
I'm 53. No secret. People think I'm in my 30's. I don't look young. THEY
look old.
>
> >
> > SHEESH you are tall. You must be skinny too?
>
> Well, it's mostly because I have long arms and legs. It's still within
> the healthy range. (As I said, most Indians are more adapted to tropical
> climates.)
>
> Saving is important: Generally speaking, using all available
archaeological
> and molecular evidence, Indians are supposed to have split from Eurasians
> before Austronesians did. (You notice I brought up the racial affiliations
> of Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi, and Solutrean man to DrPostal: He didn't like
that
> very well.) Those cave paintings won't go away.
Deitiker posted some complicated info in his last post to me - unless he
made another one since then. Well, those images for the website. Someone
emailed them to me and well, WHY is shit stuff so hard to get? It makes me
believe what MMD says - that it's being kept from the public. WHY?
>
>
> Most of northern Eurasia is like that, IIRC.
Nah, no it's not as bad as Kolyma. Lots of people live there in N.
Euroasia with no problem!
>
> >
> > I never heard that conspiracy.
>
> Well, basically, Chagnon was an anthropologist who studied the Yanomamo.
> Apparently he translated all conflicts as 'war' and the amount he bartered
> for films was directly proportional to how many people on film that each
> actor killed. He's also not been forthcoming with his data.
>
> Tierney went farther, spinning a conspiracy theory. Granted, Chagnon's
> personal biases might've resulted in this, but it was likely all
> subconscious.
>
> I'd agree. r and K are actually ecological variables, but Rushton screws
up
> on what they mean. (I joked that all it proves is that he's hung like a
> gorilla, and about half as smart.) Basically, a higher capacity K favors a
> higher population growth rate r, but a lower K favors a lower r. And the
> easiest adaptation to a lower K is to simply have a prolonged growth rate:
> Longer gestation, later sexual maturity, etc. (Too bad for Rushton that
> the latest average menarche is in Kenya, at 18.0 years!)
LMAO - well, I actually saw the man (Rushton) on TV when he barged into the
size of male penises like an innocent, naive fool. I just about fell off
the chair - like uh, does he KNOW what he just got himself into? LMAO. I
need mention one Anghlo: JOHN HOLMES. Case closed. Ha hAAAA... I mean,
what's wrong with me, why didn't I EXPECT the thunb-sized types to come up
with SOMETHING - like "higher IQ." I have known PLENTY of men, non-black,
with pretty god damned BIG organs - that were smart, high IQ the whole rest.
Talk about cerebroscrotal or gonadocephalic, LMAO. Rushton did it at that
point. And the audience, you should have seen the AUDIENCE. It was oh Phil
Donahue I think.
Well, they now say that mammals are cross fertile across species lines.
They are judging them species due to the genetics. I think it's awesome! I
know that PLANTS are cross fertile even across FAMILY!
OH, there is also this stuff "cytoplasmic inheritance" which doesn't mean
mtDNA. It's weird shit - like NON-genetic inheritance - and you can only
see it with wide crosses. It's not simple at all and not much as been
studied about it - TOO BAD! Botanists studied it and I tried looking up
stuff on it - but it was NOT simple like nuclear chromosome stuff at all.
It was over my head :(
People's Commissar
especially when they decide to do the netstalk act. My people are
Turkistani, what used to be called that..
And you guys well - you just ain't what we are anymore and yeah, definitely,
you guys are WAY mixed up with the Chinese. I know you love to deny that -
it's a major emotional issue for you guys and I heard that from the MOUTH of
Khalka older people.
Honey, on the street to good old White or Black Americans - YOU look like a
maybe Jap, Korean, Chinese whatever if you are tall. And a maybe Chinese,
Vietnames or whatever if you are short. Look in the mirror, DUDE.
Imo? The Chinese (NO offence intended here to anyone) are seriously scary
and cunning, like the god damned BORG. And YOU BET my people stayed the
fuck away from them - either that or we would not be WHO WE ARE for too
long. I mean, we may have impaled the Serbs - and they did shit to us too
let's not forget that part.... - but we have SOME concept of the sanctity
of OUR OWN kin's lives. My people may have been part of the Mongol
confederacy a LONG LONG time ago - but not anymore - not a chance. We are
TURKS (NOT Islamic, tho). The reason I say Turko-TATAR or just Tatar is
because of the Moslem connection with the word Turk. Get a clue.
Heh, you are trying hard to argue with a Chinese doctor? LMAO. Come to
think of it, I never saw such a COLD kind of post even when he almost flamed
Alberto and vice versa.
You know what Bayan (are you rich?) - The Chinese have had the oldest
civilization on earth - and Deitiker has the hard genetic data to point out
just who was or was not Chinese in fact. Face it, you guys have nothing.
You guys never had anything. I have no problem with that fact when it comes
to Tatars/Turks that GOT civilization when they stopped conquering and
roaming around. You DO have a problem with it.
Your peopole just aren't of Turan. We are. You people are like the Native
Americans in the state of Kentucky - they're all white folks. You guys are
simply just Chinese. You have some kind of problem with it, I know that.
Get over it.
I can't believe it - a Chinese guy and an Outer Mongolian going at it. I
see he was a perfect gentleman. You, on the other hand, are trashy - and OH
YEAH, I can be trashy TOO. Wanna see?
FUCK OFF, MOFO. You barged into a convo with me and a NA with your fucking
flaming shit, your fucking high falluting SNIDE shit - and you are FULLA
shit. Pure race my freaking ass. There ain't NO SUCH THING on the planet.
Oh yeah, right, you know more than Sforza, sure. Read what Deitiker posted
about the Chinese and others. HE has facts. You have nothing BUT oral
tradition - NO written history! And you are ASHAMED of it.
Now, you wanna get into it with a TURK over this shit? The Turk will KICK
YOUR ASS.
"baiyaan" <bai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:402ac...@marge.ic.sunysb.edu...
People's Commissar
He never said he was a Manchu. He said his GRANDMOTHER was.
You know - you are just a fucking MORON that can't even read.
My dentist, pure Chinese, is over 6 feet tall. N is over 6 feet tall. But
here you are, the dickless asshole with a diseased male ego, threatening a
person with a fist fight in the streets or dark alleys - yeah sure. Right.
Get laid, you pent up idiot. You are just a punk kid piece of gutter trash.
AND a troll.
"baiyaan" <bai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:402ac...@marge.ic.sunysb.edu...
People's Commissar
"baiyaan" <bai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:402ae28a$1...@marge.ic.sunysb.edu...
> "People's Commissar" <tjs...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:SVkWb.19604$F23....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > GO ARGUE IT WITH THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE GENETIC TREE - NOT based on the
> > stupid y or mtDNA only.
>
> hmmm. Don't you ever feel uneasy when you talk about things you know
> nothing about?
The people I got those charts from are The Experts - and the article I wrote
is VERY GOOD - better than any shit you can think to write up to educate
anyone. Considering my audience is primarily occult oriented - it's a good
thing to have info up there. NO ONE disagreed with the info on either side
of the issue. Your disagreement means nothing. Your threats mean nothing.
You are nothing.
>
> >
> > You are the only one on her spewing bullshit, trying to claim what, that
> you
> > are some kinda PURE race or something or you imagine, in your wildest
> > fantasies that YOU might resemble Batu or Timur or something?
Batu et al were Turkic people. NOTHING like Khalka.
>
> Batu was a Merkit bastard. so?
That's a very odd thing to say for people that are known to be exogamic. Oh
but right, YOU aren't the same people. What a backward Christian attitude
you have toward people. Batu was a TURK, typical of the Turkic people. And
yes, I think we are BEAUTIFUL people.
(but even he did not look like you for
> sure) Timur.... he was quite mixed, no one denies that.
> Listen moron, calm down. It is more efficient as no one is scared by your
> gesticulation.
What is it with you and treatening people, or imagining that I'm trying to
be threatening to anyone. I'm not. I don't make threats. Buster, I was
having a friendly chat with MIB. You decided to try to barge into the convo
with your fuckin threats and your fuckin bullshit.
>
> You used to post with this (bogus) email address tanija...@www.com
> And you claimed that Kubilai Khan's portrait by the Chinese painter was
> rigged so as to make him look more chinese. He does not look very chinese
> there to me.
OH, both the portraits of Jenghis and Kublai were drawn by Chinese and made
to look Chinese. The portraits of the people done by many Middle Eastern
people are a LOT more 3 dimentional and accurate - they didn't look anything
like Chinese - and by that I mean - unlike the Khalka - there is no way in
hell they could walk down the USA streets and have white or black folks
think they are Chinese or Japanese or Korean or any of that. Got it? LMAO.
Maybe you don't get it - but Koreans I personally know and even hang with
can't tell if a person is Chinese, Korean or Japanese by sight. NONE of
them can. At least they admit it. Some Koreans are very short - and some
are very tall. By the same token, no one ever thinks Turkic people are any
of that. They aren't sure what we are. Hispanics think we are Hispanic or
something similar to that. Period. This is across the board, boy. It's
street, eyeball sight.
> Deitiker etc may sound supporting your bullshit but I doubt even he would
> buy your "theory"(not that I give much thought to his "opinion").
He's an expert. You don't have an opinion. You have an agenda. Calling
Batu a Merkit bastard tops the cake. LMAO. You are one sick puppy with a
real problem about this shit. I'm just having a friendly chat with an
Oglala Indian on here.
>
> To claim that Kubilai etc looked like you
I doubt Kublai looked like me. He probably looked a lot MORE like Turks
than he looks like anyone in Outer Mongolia today - that's a no-brainer.
but mongols changed their
> appearances in the last 700 years due to the admixture with chinese is
> simply laughable. Nothing else.
Sorry, but it's not.
Why in the whole world not a single
> serious scholar would go along with your epiphany?
Oh yeah they do. And history, written history proves it.
> >
> > Sorry baby,
> > YOU DO NOT. Not even close. Too many people remember, too many
civilized
> > literate people wrote down details and clearly, there was NO WAY IN HELL
> > anyone could or did mistake Turko-Tatar with ANY KIND of Chinese type.
> > You
> > Khalkas - as far as anyone on the street is concerned, LOOK CHINESE.
> There
> > is no way in hell we look Chinese. Any Chinese here would mistake a
> Khalka
> > for Chinese. NOT SO with us. NOT SO with Batu, either. And even as
that
> > Chinese guy said on here, when HE is walking down the street - people
are
> > pretty damned sure he is CHINESE.
>
> Does anyone remember the y-chromosome lineage putatively associated with
> Jenghiz Khan that made a big sensation last year? That is in the
> RPS4Y711T(M130)-M217 line. This is East Eurasian specific(has some
> representatives even among some NA , notably Na Den speakers) and has the
> highest frequencies among Tungusic peoples where it attains a near
fixation.
> Among Europeans the only people with any measurable frequency of this type
> is the turks(wow so surprising.
That's cause those people WERE Turks - for the most part.
One may also guess hungarians or Sami etc
> but no, I see nothing there. But Sami has other kinds of east eurasian
> type of y-chromosomes:TatC linked to East Asian and SE asian M175 through
a
> common marker M214).
>
> Neither is it found in any west asian or slavic people she so desperately
> tries to find kinship with.(Well not quite. There were a single Lebanese,
> several Iranians, a single Greek, a single Sardinian so far among
"caucasoid
> peoples")
OH, they tested every human being, eh? Those Tatars were TURKS. Tatars
were the majority people in that confederation of many tribes - you forgot
that?
>
> And there is a very definitive written Roman portraiyal of Attila(who
was
> actually something like only 1/4 Hun) about which scholars have no doubt
> that it depicted "mongoloid" physiology.
Atilla was Turkic and everyone knows that. As Deitiker pointed out, the
strongest MONGOLIC tendencies are in SOUTH Asia.
>
> She is obviously a crack pot.
Nope, you are a freaking abusive troll with a real hang up.
>
> Now bitch, you must remember that P Daniels called you an idiot when you
> trolled there.
Maybe it got cross posted. I'm subbed to sci.anthro; not any language
group. I believe that people from a language group got all over me for
saying "URAL ALTAIC." Well, you know, some people say Ural Altaic is a
group connected to Finno Ugric - and others don't. I can agree to DISagree
on it. I have no problem with that.
YOU, on the other hand, have threatened a Chinese gentleman who did NOT
flame you (I read it - and it was not flame, it was just - COLD) to a
street alley fight, LMAO. You need to get laid, and then get a life (if you
can).
Of all things I've never imagined I'd hear: "Batu was a Merkit bastard."
(TM bayaan the wannabe RICH guy). Actually, Batu was Jochi's son and NO ONE
was a bastard. No such thing. Only in the Christian west and maybe with
ancient Hebrews, was someone a bastard.
There is no such thing as a pure race. That you think there is - is
COMICAL. Man, even the god damned RACISTS wouldn't be so dumb to say that.
baiyaan
> The people I got those charts from are The Experts
Wow so convincing and impressive. They are "like smart people who say
things like alpha , zeta and all that stuff" right? I am now utterly
convinced as you are just reiterating what you have heard from those "smart
people".
> - and the article I wrote
> is VERY GOOD -
You are the best judge of that estimation, I suppose.
better than any shit you can think to write up to educate
> anyone. Considering my audience is primarily occult oriented - it's a
good
> thing to have info up there. NO ONE disagreed with the info on either
side
> of the issue. Your disagreement means nothing. Your threats mean
nothing.
> You are nothing.
Goooosh I am sooooo hurt, bitch.
> > Batu was a Merkit bastard. so?
>
> That's a very odd thing to say for people that are known to be exogamic.
Right out of the mouth of chagatai. In reference to Jochi who was
Batu's father.
> (but even he did not look like you for
> > sure) Timur.... he was quite mixed, no one denies that.
> > Listen moron, calm down. It is more efficient as no one is scared by
your
> > gesticulation.
>
> What is it with you and treatening people, or imagining that I'm trying to
> be threatening to anyone. I'm not. I don't make threats. Buster, I was
> having a friendly chat with MIB. You decided to try to barge into the
convo
> with your fuckin threats and your fuckin bullshit.
Tehehehe. I don't think frequent use of "funkin" etc makes you look any
tougher. You are just a demented loon without even the ability to scare
anyone from your unpredictability and unbalancedness.
> >
> > You used to post with this (bogus) email address tanija...@www.com
> > And you claimed that Kubilai Khan's portrait by the Chinese painter was
> > rigged so as to make him look more chinese. He does not look very
chinese
> > there to me.
>
> OH, both the portraits of Jenghis and Kublai were drawn by Chinese .....
> This is across the board, boy. It's
> street, eyeball sight.
Listen loony bitch, have you seen yakuts? They are turkic speakers
alright. There is very little they share with chinese genetically. They
look nothing like you. How did that come about? How about all those
chukchi, itelman and all the other artic people?
How did they come to look like "chinese" without mixing with them hmmm?
>
> > Deitiker etc may sound supporting your bullshit but I doubt even he
would
> > buy your "theory"(not that I give much thought to his "opinion").
>
> He's an expert.
If you ask any of the top researchers his name, will they know him?
bhahahaha.
> I doubt Kublai looked like me. He probably looked a lot MORE like Turks
> than he looks like anyone in Outer Mongolia today - that's a no-brainer.
>
> but mongols changed their
> > appearances in the last 700 years due to the admixture with chinese is
> > simply laughable. Nothing else.
>
> Sorry, but it's not.
>
> Why in the whole world not a single
> > serious scholar would go along with your epiphany?
>
> Oh yeah they do. And history, written history proves it.
You are now decompensating.
> Atilla was Turkic and everyone knows that. As Deitiker pointed out, the
> strongest MONGOLIC tendencies are in SOUTH Asia.
The problem is... he is not considered seriously by any active researchers
in this field.
> >
> > She is obviously a crack pot.
>
> Nope, you are a freaking abusive troll with a real hang up.
I think successful trolling requires certain minimal verbal skills. So you
couldn't be a good troll even if you wanted to be.
>... There is no such thing as a pure race. That you think there is - is
> COMICAL. Man, even the god damned RACISTS wouldn't be so dumb to say
that.
If you want to know more about racists look at yourself and Nim.
Philip Deitiker
Refrain from using the F word in the sci groups please.
Philip Deitiker
<tjs...@spam.com> wrote:
>Read more.
>
>He never said he was a Manchu. He said his GRANDMOTHER was.
>
>You know - you are just a fucking MORON that can't even read.
>
>My dentist, pure Chinese, is over 6 feet tall. N is over 6 feet tall. But
>here you are, the dickless asshole with a diseased male ego,
You know with the proxy filters it has been a while since I
have had to do this, but every now and then one finds a
pee-witted individual who simply cannot control their mouth.
<plonk>
Philip Deitiker
What I was trying to say, which you did not capture, is that
the sinitic phenotype that everyone seems drawn to compared
to can be imagined as a bulge in the 2 dimensional
geographic profile of the earth bulging from southern china
close to the myanmar border that close to the border was
highly displacive, what that means is that the people who
were originally close to this group got pushed and shrank,
and some admixed. Those admixes themselves pushed outward,
displacing peoples on their fringes except the tibetian
plateau where wet rice agriculture was implausible.
I did not say the mongols were phenotypically Han, what I
said is there is signficant evidence for recent admixture.
If you look at some of the literature, some spotty groups in
southwestern china appear to be sources mongol HLA as on
occasion certain groups were not displaced by the expanding
bulge. When one gets to mongolia itself, while there is alot
of homogeneity within the mongolian groups, the HLA shows
mutliple regions of recent ancestry and I can show
convincing evidence that SW china, korea/tw aboriginals,
have contributed. On a sort of medium time fraim it is
possible to show there was older contribution from the
middle east and europe, and over the oldest time frames it
appears the korean/tw aborinal links are from austonesia.
The sinitic chinese, S. Han, are different in origin.
1. There are markedly fewer haplotypes that appear to have
come from western eurasia.
2. The haplotypes they have the look as if they might have
come from western eurasia appear to have come through south
asia.
3. There is less evidence of a west pacific rim austronesian
origin, and a different compliment of genes shared with
Tiawan aboriginals.
4. A close look at 3 subgroups of taiwan aboriginals and
chinese reveals that in all probability 2000 years ago the
coastal 'chinese' were not actually chinese, but other
ethnic groups. These ethnic groups had more in common with
koreans and japanese than the 'expanding' bulge population.
I strongly suspect after the time of Guang Di there were
migrations of these peoples into taiwan, ryuky, Japan, korea
and other points north.
I can give some exacts here.
The S.Han share alot haplotypes, some of the very long
haplotypes (indicating recent common ancestry) with the
Thai, with vietnamese, with certain indonesian groups. The
have similar haplotypes with tibetian; but the specifics of
those haplotypes reveal a much deeper branching (sister).
As one heads north this very 'popular' asian motives begin
to dilute and by the latitudes of mongolia, orochon, ainu
these patterns are not observed. However patterns observed
in the peoples who lived north of the bulge and are still
living approximately where their ancestors did (because the
microlocales where they live are not suitable for certain
agrarian practices) have haplotypes in common with the
mongols and other peoples to the north. What this means is
that the phenotype represented by the chinese is largely but
not completely the result of an essentially modern
techno/genetic expansion. Mongols were once much similar to
the peoples who lived in china 1000s of years ago, but over
time, these peoples were compressed northward. Therefore
central chinese are probably more representative of southern
chinese 10,000 years ago than modern chinese. Northern
chinese are more representative of central chinese 10,000
years ago relative to modern central chinese, and mongols
are probably more representative of northern chinese 10,000
years ago relative to northern chinese.
So now one gets into a semantics probably, just what is a
chinese and how do mongols fit into this equation.
Chinese represent a rather shallow gradient extending from
burma to mongol northsouth and from uygistan to taiwan
aboriginal eastwest. This shallow gradient is dominated in
the south by a common recent ancestral group, whereas in the
north the southern gradient extends into and admixes with
several groups, a pre-existing gradient. To cut into the
mongol issue as the chinese gradient approaches the
mongolian regions the gradient rapidly changes as if the
mongols represent a barrier to northward propogation of
certain haplotypes. From an east west perspective the same
thing occurs in taiwan/philipines/ryukyu and Japan. It is
beyonf the scope here to discuss the complexities in
indonesia.
So from a genetic point of veiw mongols are not chinese,
but the mongols are not free of recent genetic contribution
from regions in china; however, they are free of genetic
contribution of the major recent expanding groups in china.
Therefore mongols have common ancestry with the pre-han
chinese that were living in-situ.
There has been, until recent times geneflow from highland
regions of asia, in fact there are noted commonalities
between the koreans, orochon, manchu, mongolians, and
tibetians and I posit that at some point this may have been
a part of a long range interacting cluster of people.
Because of its proximity to india, genes from south asia and
middle east can be picked up and carried eastward, though
specific evidence for diffusion is weak.
What about europe. One can tract the european advance with
the HLA DQ set DQ2.5 (DQA1*0501-DQB1*0201) this set appears
to have spread from the western Ilses (at higher
frequencies) or the Basque at lower frequencies. The
settlement of scandavia appears to have been fed from the
west, probably a shrinking glacial-Ireland in response to
deglaciation. The swedes have what appears to be admix
between more or less Irish and eastern european haplotypes
(70 to 30% approximately). And the norse appear to have
carried the DQ2.5 with them whereever they traveled. This
haplotype reaches the eastern turkic republics but does not
significantly reach past the transbiakal region prior to
russian expansion. In essense we can disregard historic
migrations eastward from european peoples.
There is however evidence from more than one prehistoric
migrations. There appears to have been a migration from the
western black sea region eastward. The haplotypes are found
in the Inuit, similar to the Yakuts, and to uygars and these
are found spottily over siberia and in some mongolian
groups. This may be the 'red-haired' people found in western
china that are increasingly discussed.
The older migrations from europe and middle east have
previously been discussed. The haplotypes brought by this
people 'largely' differentiate southern han from mongolians.
Like it or not.
People's Commissar
first. What, you only get over on me for saying stuff back? In fact, the
guy is downright starting a fight for no reason at all - even challenging
people to a street alley fight. What, you have nothing to say to HIM?
Street talk has nothing to do with intelligence. It's street talk - nothing
more. Grasp that idea - it's even cultural with some folks and well, people
DO pick it up - especially if someone starts flaming me first.
Why do you focus ONLY on mine? I was having a friendly convo, before this
jerk butted in and started a fight. What, you can't see his posts? Take
issue with HIM. I hate bias.
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam> wrote in message
news:pohm201ld8g55rmqu...@4ax.com...
People's Commissar
you flamed me FIRST, is threatening? Are you off your medicine or
something? Are you completely insane? Do you think that calling me a bitch
is threatening? You gotta be kidding. We, little boy, are having a jello
fight. Nothing more. You started the fight with me. Fact.
There is nothing "bogus" about an email I used to have - again, you are
crazy. I abandoned it due to spam long ago.
My article on "Is there such a thing as Race" is very good. What are you,
jealous? What is your problem? It is obviously not written to a scientific
audience (considering where it is - LOL).
"baiyaan"
Why don't you change that little nick of yours to khorsgoltoi chetger.
<bai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:402b04ea$1...@marge.ic.sunysb.edu...
>
> "People's Commissar" <tjs...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:wcCWb.738$tL3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > The people I got those charts from are The Experts
>
>
> Wow so convincing and impressive.
Yes, the charts were made after extensive research not into y and mtDNA -
but into haplotypes and many many other factors that I point out in the
article I wrote. I give the sources on it. The stuff Deitiker is posting
spans way back in time - and is very interesting.
You seem to be taking issue with the fact that Tatars outnumbers, maybe 9 to
1, the small band of Mongols back then. Tatars are Turkish people. You
want to deny that fact, but too much history proves I'm right about it - and
I ought to know who we are. You now claim you aren't even Khalka. I
personally know some Khalka Mongols - Tochtoch Gyamcho is one and was kinda
a friend of mine back in the 1970's. Anyone, everyone who ever saw that man
thought he was either Chinese or Japanese or whatever. And he was quite
short. When once in a Chinese restaurant, the waiters, also my close
friends, came over to ask if I was going out to the club later and I ended
up making introductions. So they asked Tochtoch if he was Chinese. He got
as stiff bodied as any anal Japanese type setting out to war - it was weird,
and he burted out "I am Khalka Mongolian, but born in India." He said the
"born in India" really loud, emphatic. I thought it was odd. Very odd.
The Chinese responded with a smile and said, "Oh, you are Chinese. Well,
(turning to me and Phil) we'll see you later." Well, Tochtoch stewed the
entire night over what the Chinese said. I doubt the Chinese could have
cared less about it. Then he explained that this was an explosive political
statement that the Chinese had made. OH - like whatever. I said "get over
it" but he could not get over it. You know, that's his PROBLEM - no one
else's.
They are "like smart people who say
> things like alpha , zeta and all that stuff" right? I am now utterly
> convinced as you are just reiterating what you have heard from those
"smart
> people".
Nope, I wrote my own article but used the charts to sum up my own opinion on
the issue of "Is there such a thing as race, or not."
>
>
> > - and the article I wrote
> > is VERY GOOD -
>
> You are the best judge of that estimation, I suppose.
No, the scientists that were arguing on another thread right here, on both
sides, liked what I wrote. It was very objective and aloof - and not taking
any sides at all. It is pure information for people that wouldn't be likely
to ever find such information. That, in itself, is worth more than all the
flaming spew you have thus far hurled at me for no reason at all. You have
a real attitude and when I get flamed I tend to resort to street talk and
flame you back. But enough of it. You can go to hell. The words "dignity"
and "usenet" together form a cosmic oxymoron.
>
> Goooosh I am sooooo hurt, bitch.
That's the sum total of your contribution, kharot.
>
>
> > > Batu was a Merkit bastard. so?
> >
> > That's a very odd thing to say for people that are known to be exogamic.
>
> Right out of the mouth of chagatai. In reference to Jochi who was
> Batu's father.
And you were there. Batu and Timur (Tamerlane) were the same ethnic group
and looked very much the same. Whether or not that ethnic group is made up
of many peoples is aside from the point. All people are made up of many
people that all originally came from Africa. You are going to debate that
one too?
>
> > > You used to post with this (bogus) email address tanija...@www.com
> > > And you claimed that Kubilai Khan's portrait by the Chinese painter
was
> > > rigged so as to make him look more chinese. He does not look very
> chinese
> > > there to me.
That is absolutely true. First of all, no one modeled for the Chinese
artist. Second of all, Chinese made anyone they liked look more like
themselves in a very stylized kind of drawing. The people in India and
Arabia were much more used to making clearer art and they drew all of these
people to resemble their Turkish brothers. There is noticable difference
between the Turkic people that lived for so so long in "Siberian Russia" and
didn't mix with anyone else except themselves. They definitely did not mix
up with the Chinese whom they stayed away from. We look nothing like the
Khalka people today. Khalka people today walk around and are mistaken for
Chinese BY CHINESE people - and I just gave you the name of one of them.
That he didn't like it much is his problem.
> >
> > OH, both the portraits of Jenghis and Kublai were drawn by Chinese .....
> > This is across the board, boy. It's
> > street, eyeball sight.
>
> Listen loony bitch, have you seen yakuts? They are turkic speakers
> alright. There is very little they share with chinese genetically. They
> look nothing like you. How did that come about? How about all those
> chukchi, itelman and all the other artic people?
Those people are TUNGUS - that is why they look so different. Theyaren't
Turko-Tatar and I don't carfe WHAT language they speak. You speak English.
Blacks speak English. We all speak English. Do we look like blonde,
round-eyed Anglos? NO. What language you speak means nothing. Yakuts also
look nothing like Turkistani people.
> How did they come to look like "chinese" without mixing with them hmmm?
Ask Deitiker - he just explained it. He said he can prove what he says. I
know what I know about Central Asian Turkic peoples. We don't look or pass
for Chinese people - not ever.
>
> >
> > > Deitiker etc may sound supporting your bullshit but I doubt even he
> would
> > > buy your "theory"(not that I give much thought to his "opinion").
> >
> > He's an expert.
>
> If you ask any of the top researchers his name, will they know him?
> bhahahaha.
> >... There is no such thing as a pure race. That you think there is - is
> > COMICAL. Man, even the god damned RACISTS wouldn't be so dumb to say
> that.
>
> If you want to know more about racists look at yourself and Nim.
I suggest you look at yourself. I have family here and in-laws in America
from every "main" race you can think of - almost. Nim told you Chinese
history and refuted your rubbish about "real" Mongols. And he was very
polite.
>
>
People's Commissar
reason!
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam> wrote in message
news:e1im20hc8k97id4h4...@4ax.com...
People's Commissar
What do you see in the broad band of Central Asian people that used to be
called Turkistani - or Turko-Tatars? I don't mean language group - I mean
people.
We definitely do not look like or get mistaken for Chinese or any of that.
Whereas, as I pointed out to the trouble maker flaming me and who started
using street language first - and I named one Khalka Mongol I personally
hung out with - Khakla get mistaken for Chinese BY Chinese people - as did
my friend.
My contention is that the Batu Khan people, like Timur (Tamerlane) people
were TURKS. It is a fact that Tatars outnumberd the small band of Mongols
during that invasion - so much so that all the people were known and seen
and also recognized as Tatars - related to Turks - by every former Turkic
empire in the more westerly regions. No one thought they were like
Chinese - which is how the people in Mongolia look today - like Chinese
people.
What is your take?
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam> wrote in message
news:e1im20hc8k97id4h4...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:24:14 -0800, "baiyaan"
> <bai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is the moron that started a flame war with me - over nothing. At least
I wrote an informative article - it's more than he did.
baiyaan
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam> wrote in message
news:e1im20hc8k97id4h4...@4ax.com...
> said is there is signficant evidence for recent admixture.
> If you look at some of the literature, some spotty groups in
> southwestern china appear to be sources mongol HLA as on
> occasion certain groups were not displaced by the expanding
> bulge.
I remember HLA study that showed a puzzling affinity of the Mongols with
certain SE Asian groups.
The problem with HLA is that it is quite coarse especially when compared
with the theoretical maximum of y-chromosome(a mutation is now estimated to
occur in almost every generation) or even mtDNA.
While it has 4 times the effective pop size of haploids like y-chromosomes
etc.(which means less susceptability to random genetic drift) it is still
quite dangerous to venture guessing too much about its population history
for this reason.
> Most mayWhen one gets to mongolia itself, while there is alot
> of homogeneity within the mongolian groups, the HLA shows
> mutliple regions of recent ancestry and I can show
> convincing evidence that SW china, korea/tw aboriginals,
> have contributed.
In the case of Korea and China, there are very well documented historical
records that show admixture into Mongolians(almost exclusively through
females contrary to Nim's desperate hope). However I noticed that you try
to pinpoint ,too much, the origin and the process of dispersal, far more
than what is scientifically prudent and justified.
>On a sort of medium time fraim it is
> possible to show there was older contribution from the
> middle east and europe, and over the oldest time frames it
> appears the korean/tw aborinal links are from austonesia.
Possible but not very compatible with y-chromosome data though.
> The sinitic chinese, S. Han, are different in origin.
> 1. There are markedly fewer haplotypes that appear to have
> come from western eurasia.
> 2. The haplotypes they have the look as if they might have
> come from western eurasia appear to have come through south
> asia.
Given that a couple of M89+ lineages specific to south asia(india, or did
you mean SE Asia?) do not appear at all in china, I should doubt that.
If you meant SE asia, then it is somewhat more probable.
But overall, I doubt very much that the "southern" route( india ->SE Asia->
east Asia)had much significant impact on the population makeups of east
asians. This is very well represented in mtDNA dispersal diagrams someone
posted recently(Horvat posted the link). This was also the opinion of
Torronoi(sp?)etc a few years back. It seems that east asians(south east
asians included), south asians, west asians, australians, Papua New Guneans
etc all have very disjoint sets of mtDNAs.
> 3. There is less evidence of a west pacific rim austronesian
> origin, and a different compliment of genes shared with
> Tiawan aboriginals.
> 4. A close look at 3 subgroups of taiwan aboriginals and
> chinese reveals that in all probability 2000 years ago the
> coastal 'chinese' were not actually chinese, but other
> ethnic groups. These ethnic groups had more in common with
> koreans and japanese than the 'expanding' bulge population.
> I strongly suspect after the time of Guang Di there were
> migrations of these peoples into taiwan, ryuky, Japan, korea
> and other points north.
This is partially concordant with historical records. chinese had noted
these peoples as "Eastern Barbarians".
A recent study on dental morphology of the ancient remains in shantung area
seems to confirm this. The distribution of mtDNA B5 also may reflect this
population geography to a certain extent.
I will continue later today as I have to go now.
Philip Deitiker
<tjs...@spam.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
>Question:
>
>What do you see in the broad band of Central Asian people that used to be
>called Turkistani - or Turko-Tatars? I don't mean language group - I mean
>people.
Turko-mongols, extended turko-kor-mongols is inclusive
genetically of japanese.
>We definitely do not look like or get mistaken for Chinese or any of that.
>Whereas, as I pointed out to the trouble maker flaming me and who started
>using street language first - and I named one Khalka Mongol I personally
>hung out with - Khakla get mistaken for Chinese BY Chinese people - as did
>my friend.
Let me say this, I can distinguish most chinese from most
koreans, and most chinese from most mongols, however the
differences are largely probably due to the immediate
consequences of diet and environment. I can distinguish
Japanese from chinese, and I have been pretty good as
distinguishing Japanese of chinese ancestry from japanese of
korean andcestry. There is an apparent phenotypic backbone
gradient in Japan, the southern japanese often, in various
locals have phenotypic similarities to philipinos and
pacific rim peoples. Whereas the northern japanese often
look more like northern native americans and eskimoes, they
often look much more like siberians than koreans. However I
cannot, by appearance absolutelt distinguish japanese or
koreans from chinese, the reason is that some chinese have
recent links to korean (Or recently the links between korea
and some regions of china were broken as a result of
political and not migratory reasons). Therefore there are
chinese who look like japanese and koreans. In addition
there are people in Japan whose, almost, entire ancestry is
from china. I found after questioning a Japanese professor,
that his whole family came from one enclave in fukuokua in
which chinese settled and they tended to seldomly mix out of
this enclave, there are similar enclaves in nagasaki area,
in kobe area and other places in Japan. In fact, there are
chinese buddhist temples (of chinese design differential
from the more harmonious less guadi japanese design) and
these temples were built by and maintained by chinese
communities that settled in Japan. 1500 to 2400 years ago,
if you were involved in the west pacific rim trade, most
likely you were chinese, and in major port towns chinese
merchants were needed simply for the sake of record keeping
and transaction, defining ports for ships and this and that.
This trade gave china immense power that the emperors of
china frequently tried to exploit. One can think of the han
chinese from 2200 years ago to even modern times as a nation
that took opportunity to trade just as the british and the
hudson bay company, and if the opportunity came about they
would colonize and create more east indian styled situation,
where they would control what went on, this is what happened
to taiwan. Prior to about 600 years ago taiwan would not be
considered chinese, but alignable with the culture of the
ryukyuans and philipinos.
The chinese claim that they had expeditions that traveled
north past the northern japanese islands, I would not be
surprised if they did, since they traded more recently to
northern ports in the edo era, and if they reached kobe,
there was not geographic barrier that would stop traders
from exploring to the north. As a matter of fact I have
found traces of the 'bulge' haplotypes out of place in the
endemic population at the base of the Amur river. There is
no evidence that the 'bulge' haplotypes made it to the new
world to any measurable degree. The eastern siberian HLA
could be from traders or it might be from wife stealing from
Japan or Korea.
>My contention is that the Batu Khan people, like Timur (Tamerlane) people
>were TURKS. It is a fact that Tatars outnumberd the small band of Mongols
>during that invasion - so much so that all the people were known and seen
>and also recognized as Tatars - related to Turks - by every former Turkic
>empire in the more westerly regions. No one thought they were like
>Chinese - which is how the people in Mongolia look today - like Chinese
>people.
>
>What is your take?
The mongols were the more expansive of the turko-mongol
invaders despite the contribution of turks, it is claimed
that ghenghis khan sired 1,000 offspring, and there is
genetic evidence that these offsprings have faired well. One
has to remember that the chinese court was biased by mongols
for an extended period. Indeed the specifically kalkhan
haplotypes which we can assert are the result of assymetric
expansion of Khan's tribe are found at 5% level in korean,
and removing these makes the korean haplotypes reconcilable
with 78% of Japanese HLA haplotypes. One must consider that
while mongolian patterns have been diluted in their
spreading, that spread from a meager tribe was rather
successful. These haplotypes appear in Korea, northern
China, the Orochon, Western china, Pakistan other turkic
republics, and trace in the white russian population. One is
talking about millions of bearers from a starting situation
1000 of years ago at probably 100s. I have even found
turko-mongol patterns as far as morroco and spain. However
these patterns in the west are extremely dilute, they may
have been under the controlled of people of turkic ancestry
but that did not translate into a great genetic advantage
every where that turko-mongols went.
Turkey for example is really not genetically turkic. When
the HLA of anatolian ethnic turks was compared with other
turkic groups, it was found there is evidence of largely
west to east geneflow in the anatolian population, and a
substantial amount can be traced to iberia, italy, and
greece, austria, switzerland, even norse. The remainder are
tracable to eastern mediterranean and north africa peoples
and directly linkable to ancient peoples of those regions
(via examination of recombination patterns). Only about 5%
of the 50% of so definable haplotypes are from turko
mongols. This is unexpected from invaders, because invaders
typically expand greatly their haplotypes (norse for
exampled) relative to the settled population, whose
haplotypes are undergoing age old recombinative diffusion.
Therefore one has to conclude that turkic invasion was more
of control and that by the time of their arrival their
ability to produce procreants in the controlled regions was
minimal.
Hungarians are another example, hungarians are supposed to
be mixtures of magyars and other european groups. It is very
difficult to discern the non-WEA contribution. What one
finds very distinguishably in the hungarians are the
contributions from norse and protonorse lines. IOW, while
europeans made a very big deal about gene flow from east to
west, the huns the turks. The actual genetic contribution
was tiny, in many instance undetectable. They typed
sequenced for instance 13,000 germans and reported their
finds, there are all but trace amounts of genetic material,
that might be explained by post industrial migration that
are definitely from asia. What I potential found was one WEA
derived groups of people who migrated a small distance
westward.
The big problem with europe is that it historical has gone
through the same thing as china. At one time there were more
'asian' looking people in eastern europe. I say asian to
contrast them with Irish/Norse phenotypes. They looked more
east asian because of selection and ancestry, not because of
gene flow. What happens is that the african phenotypes that
traveled early into south asia represented more asia looking
africans (see andaman islanders, !kung other H/G south
african tribes). These peoples radiated in many directions,
and LiuJiang of china which already shows some orient
features probably represents a direct migration through
indochina. Whereas other peoples migrated to equitorial
climates and underwent sort of convergent evolution with
equitorial tropical africans, this is probably reinforced by
later waves from equitorial africa that dilute these east
asian features. However, the first migrants stay at the
front edge of inland migration because of phenotype and the
more african looking peoples stay coastal, pacific rim
dwellers. This inland radiation occurs also into central
asia.
Whereas east asian protosinites are somewhat isolated,
the western asian population is constantly being influenced
by technogenetic migrations from northern africa, and the
original populations in the middleeastern to indus regions
are displaced by migrations from NE africa and from west
africa via europe. This is not to say there was no
migration, it appears that a dominant hapltype A3 Cw7 B7
DR15 haplotype (Cw0701 B7 is nodal in the !kung of africa)
was probably of asian origin traveled up the danube river
and mixed with other african derivatives in western europe.
This same group appears to have also dominated central asia,
and was taking on some caucasian character. however the
major drive to caucasian phenotype appears to have been in
western europe and this center migrated north to Ireland,
IMHO, before the peak of the LGM where it was completely
isolate as a small population on the extreme western coast
of glacial europe.
In most instance this isolation would have spelt doom once
expansion began, however in the instance the tribe was
probably under such hostile selection (and we can deduce
this because it was at a size capable of producing a single
long haplotype A1 Cw0702 B0801 DRB10301 DQA1*0501 DQB1*0201
that are uncommonly detected in abundance except in very
small closely interbreeding groups). This hostile selection
probably resulted in the appearance of survival technologies
that greatly benifited this peoples as the ice age ends and
allow an assymetric expansion south and eastward. Whereas
the sister group, the basque remained rather contained as
with other iberian groups, this group expands, first
producing the ancestors of the cornish, admixing into
eastern coastal groups of the north sea and also spreading
around the eastern side of western europe. The peoples that
lived in france, genetically appeared to have all but been
wiped out, there are few distinguishable high frequency
nodes in france and germany that appear to have a long
history most appear to have been wiped out and frances and
germanies current population looks most of immigrants from
all directions. The nodes that do appear in france are all
related to nodes that appear in japan and korea; however,
these nodes, via recombination analysis can be linked to the
basque, iberians, austria and other european groups.
Therefore it is likely at the LGM these groups were largely
displaced, and did not make a substantive comeback
afterwards. Specific basque, iberian, portuguese haplotypes
are not found in east asia. Therefore the evidence is very
precise. The nodal haplotypes in the Irish also do not
appear in far east asia. However these haplotypes appear at
high levels in the swedes, people of nordo-slavic origin,
eastern europeans, and these extend eastward as previously
discussed.
The iberians and the basque. Despite evidence the HLA data
suggests that sardinian, iberians and basques manage to
survive the LGM in sufficient numbers at numerous locals
capable of sustaining several separable population. While
there are locals in italy that appear to have nodes, like
the tuscany region, italy seems to represent also a many
recent repopulations from other areas, indicating a probable
population crash. mtDNA, HLA suggest a ancient relationship
between the southern french, tuscan, and basque peoples and
I would contend that during and well after the LGM that the
regions north of these areas was devoid of human occupation
except possibly a few inter-isolate western coastal sites in
NW europe (two notables are the protoIrish/Cornish/Scottish
and the belgium).
West to east gene flow. Given the ties of western
europeans to berbers and western sub-saharan africans I
would suggest that the LGM was not a culturally dead period
for europeans, it is likely that technologies and some trade
remained with a more productive western africa, and while
isolated by glaciation these cultures continued to evolve,
adapt and learned to survive as the neandertals had. After
the end of glaciation there appears to have been migrations
eastward from the basque regions into czech, caucasus,
anatolia, poland and central europe. These people being more
caucasian than the original inhabitants. There also appears
to have been expansion from the black sea region to the
east. Some of these geneflow patterns can be seen in the
current makeup of siberians, including koreans, but do not
appear in any NA groups except the inuit or the
Kor-subtracted Japanese (IOW no specific patterns entered
japan except via korea). Therefore the caucasian elements in
NA appear to represent the phenotypes of people who lived in
southern france and middle east >20 kya by my estimation and
the 'classic' caucasian features have yet to develope. This
I think explains kenniwick man's features to a major degree
with austonesion input as a result of in-situ or west
pacific rim admixture explaining the rest.
The nordification of eastern europe. This shift in
phenotypes is largely the result of recent population
migrations, as early as the 4th century B.C. there is
evidence that the old-norse were on the move, there are
claims that people from islands in the baltic sea who were
of unknown origin were venturing into central and eastern
europe, the romans generically called these people the
barbarians of the north, whereas the nomads of the time by
greek standards, the scythians were probably of some celtic
derivation, it could be that even this group was the result
of geneflow from scandinavia into the eastern europe. By the
9th century the norse appear to have established trading
into eastern europe and the slavic peoples are likely an
admixed. This process probably affects our view of europe,
whereas if one were very careful to dissect europes
populations being very careful to look at specific groups in
places like austria, switzerland, iberia, basque, southern
france, poland, czech who by genetic analysis have HLA
patterns that are more nodal than the general population I
bet one could probably construct a slightly different more
asian looking population of europe 3000 years ago. What many
people think, by appearances, are peoples who invaded from
asia are actually the original inhabitants, just like people
thought the basque were from elsewhere, and the people who
look to use like stereotypical europeans are more or less
expansion products from a few locals. This holds also true
for ural mountains and other places, these claims of people
who came from east asia in europe are not substantial by
genetics, sorry to say, and I have looked heavily for
evidence there of. Quite the opposite is true, the earliest
immigrants to east asia appear to either have trickled into
the new world and been diluted, been diluted in east asia or
have been pushed to the extremes of and isolated bits and
peices of indochina. I can for example find almost pure
extracts of european groups that appear to have come from
western africa, with a little dilution from eastern european
groups. There are claims for instance that the sardinians
have a specific and unique origin from a north or west
african people. There are direct ties from the berbers to
the iberians to the irish and cornish, and while the irish
and cornish have more dilute west african patterns, those
patterns are still substantial.
The basic conclusion is the following. As people left africa
they traveled and became isolated from their ancestral
groups. The bounty of founder affect drove more isolation
and this left these groups far from the centers of cultural
development in the more productive central african regions,
regions more resistent or benifitted by ice ages. As a
result the technological innovations, despite evidence of
european advance, was centered probably in africa and those
centers shifted from east to west africa over time, pumping
peoples into western europe and with admixture pushed
peoples from west to east in many directions and along many
routes. This overall trend erased or diluted earlier east to
west back-migrations and even so the patterns were probably
radial from south asian or middle eastern population centers
and had no ancestral connection to the west pacific rim or
immediate inland areas. Specialization of maritime cultures
on the west pacific rim did not allow extensive migrations
across the western steppe until recent times and inland
moving peoples ran into both climactic problems and
migratory pressures from the west. While these westward
routes were blocked off, the eastward routes along the rim
were open and these WPR dwellers migrated to the new world
and traveled more or less directly, dropping off protoinuit
peoples before settleing in their favored equitorial
regions.
This was rapidly followed by a technogenetic migration
that probably started in africa, settled in the Marseilles
region of france, was pushed eastward by the LGM, mixed with
middleeastern folks who themselves were the product of
recent exo-african migrations, traveled probably through the
transbiakal and into eastern siberia. Whether these people
settled in Japan/Kamchatka/Kurils prior to NA-eastward
migration is debatable, but they are none-the-less related
to Ainu, Korean, Orochon. This group of people settled in
the highland regions in the new world, they may have come
via ice-free corridors overland, they might have borrowed
from the WPR maritime cultures technologies that got them
around glaciers. The protoInuit also benefitted from genetic
contribution, and it does appear that this occurred as these
archeo-trans-biakalese males mixed with meso/paleolithic
japanese preimmigrants constituting most of the inuit
peoples, except the recent input from eastern europe. What
drives the success of this new people is obviously culture.
One sees a slow change of culture in Japan from 22 kya to 16
kya, but with the appearance of incipient jomonese there is
a very rapid shift and within a few thousand years Japan's
jomonese represented on the most culturally advanced groups
of people, with what has been characterized as the most
luxurious H/G culture of the time and the first advent of
pottery [Note I am somewhat suspicious however whether this
pottery might have first appeared in a cruder form in persia
in the preLGM period, kyushu had going for it better clays
than many regions in asia for pottery production]. There is
no evidence that the kyushuan pottern culture makes it to
the new world, so one is left to beleive that the route
between the southern Jomonese nd the new world is
effectively closed by 13,000 years ago, probably closed by
the WEA immigrants. What this tells us is that while the WPR
groups were not fantastically advanced, they were advanced
in terms of certain, largely maritime activities and the
combination of a soluterean like WEA culture and this
advanced WPR culture combined is a likely reason that:
1. We see a rapid advance of culture in Japan over a short
period of time.
2. We see evidence of two waves of migration, probably
closely spaced in time, into the new world.
I know I talk alot about the Japanese and Koreans. The
reason is that because the original japanese were west
pacific rim dwellers of essentially negrito origins it is
quite easy to detect haplotypes from western asia and
because Japan has been somewhat sheilded from recent
migrations from the west (except korea which itself was
isolated somewhat). Within northern china and mongolia
things are much more complicated these cultures have been
caught in the ebb and flow of climactic change as well as
being between ebb/FLOW of west/east migrations. It is
unclear whether there was a divergent branch from the west
around both sides of mongolia or whether the peopling of
manchuria from the north split east/west. What is clear is
that soon after the development of pottery somewhere around
kyushu, pottery culture was seen west in northern china and
north in the amur river, and there appears to be some
sharing between these peoples given in the styles of
pottery. In addition there are stone tools of the Jomon
period that could be mistaken for clovis tools if placed in
a new world context. Also complicating this is evidence of
gene flow from the same WEA-neoafrican middle easterners
into and across northern india as part of the bulge
expansion (meaning present in tibetians and burmese at
significant levels). I tend to validate these migrations
when I have more corroborating regional evidence.
I would certainly be pleased if anyone is willing to do
more typing of siberians and mongolians, afganis, krygies,
persians, farsi, and other central asian groups, eastern
asian indians, nepalese, bhutanese, . . . . . .
It is no secret that just about every indic-islamic country
is undersampled with respect to genetic typing.
Philip Deitiker
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:34:13 -0800, "baiyaan"
<bai...@yahoo.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
>
>"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam> wrote in message
>news:e1im20hc8k97id4h4...@4ax.com...
>>... I did not say the mongols were phenotypically Han, what I
>> said is there is signficant evidence for recent admixture.
>> If you look at some of the literature, some spotty groups in
>> southwestern china appear to be sources mongol HLA as on
>> occasion certain groups were not displaced by the expanding
>> bulge.
>
> I remember HLA study that showed a puzzling affinity of the Mongols with
>certain SE Asian groups.
>The problem with HLA is that it is quite coarse especially when compared
>with the theoretical maximum of y-chromosome(a mutation is now estimated to
>occur in almost every generation) or even mtDNA.
>While it has 4 times the effective pop size of haploids like y-chromosomes
>etc.(which means less susceptability to random genetic drift) it is still
>quite dangerous to venture guessing too much about its population history
>for this reason.
Y chromosomal studies suffer because in many studies of
groups world wide the effect breeding ratios of males to
females have been shown to be about 0.5:1.0 Therefore HLA is
much more representative than Y chromosome and more
representative of mtDNA. The both Y and mtDNA analysis
suffer also from distances between events. In the best
region of mtDNA, the lHVR1 region that shows a consistently
rapid evolution, represents about 1 mutation per 35,000
years when calibration errors in early and current studies
are corrected for. In Y chromosome there is no uniform set
of markers until the last year or 2 and there are not that
many good Y chromosomal papers published. More groups of
people have been typed by HLA (covering 6 genes over 3
million nt of DNA) than any other loci. In germany alone
13,000 people have been typed. Typing is not difficult,
anyone can do it. I do it.
> In the case of Korea and China, there are very well documented historical
>records that show admixture into Mongolians(almost exclusively through
>females contrary to Nim's desperate hope). However I noticed that you try
>to pinpoint ,too much, the origin and the process of dispersal, far more
>than what is scientifically prudent and justified.
I can do that because I have combined both the old analysis
and new analysis, likewise I can translate between the old
nomenclature for typing and new and many published authors
rejected the old typing studies when doing their molecular
phenotypings. Some of the serotypings are very specific for
certain alleles in certain areas and can be taken as
molecular. Others are not. Likewise you have to wait 2 years
to see the analysis and comparisons of new data in reviews
for the sake of human evolution. I have all the data and
digest it in hours. The data is available, if you are
sophiticated enough, understand genetics, immunological
nomenclature, how serotyping and genotyping works,
understand what a haplotype is and what it represents you
CAN do the same (provided you can get your hands on the 11th
Workshop of HLA). Finally I generate data as a part of my
own project as part of controls that adds to this
information.
> Possible but not very compatible with y-chromosome data though.
Y chromosomal data, mostly is crap. We, gisele and I have
tried to create a global comparison as we can do with mtDNA
and HLA, but the problem is that few groups have types the
same reagions, there is no consistency in what is typed, and
most papers are full of large gaps in their comparisons. If
you extensively rely on Y chromosomal information you will
consistently come up with answers that will be proven wrong.
One instance of the fallibility of Y is the origins from
africa. First reports of global patterns were suggesting
eurasion origin of Y, other reports suggest the !kung as the
origin, and later identified several 'adam' tribes in
africa. The base problem with Y is that male female mating
patterns can shift widely over time. While females almost
always represent the majority of effective breeding
population, the proportion of males can vary from .1:1 to
1:1 in that range. It is no surprise then that several
groups have come up with MRCAs (discounting the calibration
problem that haunts mtDNA) in the 25 to 75 kya range for Y
when the archeological evidence and genetic evidence from
paleontological records suggest Y chromosomal spread at
least in the 100 kya range, and more probably in the 150 kya
range. While the mtDNA evidence suggest a central african
origins for humans, the Y shows an east african origin,
which would be the initial comma shape spread of humans in
africa. If so then mtDNA is already spreading and Y is
undergoing its last fixation, meaning that male population
is still pinched. Whereas the evidence from east asia
suggest that the eurasian migrants from the migration are
later replaced by other migrations from africa, it would
translate into an exit time of 130,000 years ago for Y
chromosome that contrast with a predicted time of 25,000
years ago. While there has been geneflow from africa and
male technogenetic replacements are probably more common
than female, there is no scenario in which you could have a
complete Y chromosomal replacement globally, considering the
migration and isolation of tribes in amazonia that probably
capture the Y chromosomal makeup of japan 16 to 22 kya from
an essentially negrito derived austronesian (old)
population. Even at the extreme male to female ratio of
.05:1 for populations the global population is too robust by
25 kya to undergo complete Y replacement. Something has to
give, and what will give is the eventual discovery of
massive miscalibration of Y chromosomal evolution.
>> The sinitic chinese, S. Han, are different in origin.
>> 1. There are markedly fewer haplotypes that appear to have
>> come from western eurasia.
>> 2. The haplotypes they have the look as if they might have
>> come from western eurasia appear to have come through south
>> asia.
>
> Given that a couple of M89+ lineages specific to south asia(india, or did
>you mean SE Asia?) do not appear at all in china, I should doubt that.
>If you meant SE asia, then it is somewhat more probable.
I did not say alot of people, i infer that some people came
across the northern part of south asia.
>But overall, I doubt very much that the "southern" route( india ->SE Asia->
>east Asia)had much significant impact on the population makeups of east
>asians.
Just remember that HLA is a diploid locus it is carried at
~6 times that of Y (considering the male female ratios in
premodern times and 3 times that of mtDNA) Y can easily
undergo fixation, particularly in small groups whereas
heterozygous selection on HLA acts to maintain diversity.
You can't even compare the level of information in HLA with
that in Y. More HLA in more people have been typed, its more
diverse, there is information concerning many different time
frames , from allelotypes and long term evolution to long
haplotypes like superb8 and short term evolution. Comparing
Y chromosome to HLA is like comparing a bottle rocket to a
Saturn V rocket. Do yourself a big favor, forget about Y
chromosome until there is better standarization in the
feild. You have to take my word for this, we tried to create
the kind of database for mtDNA and HLA for Y chromosome, the
current state of the art of Y chromosomal typing and the
lack of across the feild conventions makes this all but
impossible at the current time. Y chromosome at best is a
long period (50 to 100 ky) population assay that is solely
limited to discussions of partial male ancestries where
widely dispersed groups might be compared lacking much
interstitial information.
> This is very well represented in mtDNA dispersal diagrams someone
>posted recently(Horvat posted the link). This was also the opinion of
>Torronoi(sp?)etc a few years back. It seems that east asians(south east
>asians included), south asians, west asians, australians, Papua New Guneans
>etc all have very disjoint sets of mtDNAs.
Because they (except gisele) look at these from the point of
view of single migrations. I assume that there are multiple
origins for every people on the planet unless proven
otherwise, and without exception this is not proven wrong.
There is no pure group of people on the planet. The !kung
show themselves to be 'pure' by mtDNA, by HLA they are shown
to have both ancient and modern lines. Much of what you read
in the literature refuses to beleive that people migrated
willy-nilly everywhere despite all kinds of good evidence
otherwise. HLA is very specific, the patterns within a given
area, lets say the iberian/basque/irish/belgium population
can define what types of haplotypes appear, what types of
haplotypes are probably ancestral and how recombination has
occurred to develope the region specific and lower frequency
variants. In the instance of the Inuit for instance a
several lower frequency haplotypes simply could not be
generated from then inuit population, these all cluster
together and there is a trail of these across siberia and
the most likely point in which the number parent haplotypes
allotypes that could form these haplotypes as well as those
very haplotypes all peak in the same place. It is the origin
of those haplotypes. We can see this cleanly because recent
immigrations can be traced from specific locations with
assymetric expansion of certain alleles from those locations
into the merging population. From this standpoint the
allelotypes that are minimal in that emigrating population
that are greater in the mergent population reveal all kinds
of information of the preexisting haplotypes and likely
combinations. As a result information comes in at several
different levels relative to the non-Rec Y chromosomes. In
SE Asia the B46 is very specific, it evolved their, it is
not found in africa, nor europe, but it is found in india,
thialand, spotty in indonesia, china, vietnam, tiawan (but
low in aboriginals) and to a lessor degree china and
vietname. It is not found in north american or south
american amerind populations. It did not exist outside of an
isolated region prior to the settlement of the new world,
and it is found everywhere in asia where wet-rice farming
spread as a result of colonization, and is found dimensed
everywhere where wet rice farming did not establish or where
peoples are H/G or pastoral lifestyles. There is only one
exception that I can think of. B46 appears to have been
derived from the crossing of a WEA or middle eastern
haplotype. This appears with the data that I have to have
occurred initially in india possibly the eastern coast of
central india. Oddly the origin of Otza sativa (rice as you
know it) genetically is proximal to this region of india.
And yet the major haplotypes of the rice farming people do
not represent indian haplotypes, suggestive that this group
of people might have migrated after the invention or
aquisition of wet-rice culture, or, they converted rice in
SE Asia from a cruder version of wet rice culture to fully
wet rice culture. Because of sampling in India and Burma it
is impossible at this point to say with certainty; however,
at present the haplotypic variants of B46 appear to radiate
from south and east of southern china, east of vietnam and
north of thialand. What this means is that most of the
haplotypes seen south of thailand are thai or derivatives of
thailand. Most of the B46 containing haplotyes east or
proximal to vietnam are derivatives of the vietnamese with
or vietnamese haplotypes and most of the haplotypes northen
and east of S. china are derivatives or southern chinese
haplotypes and these three groups share haplotypes. As one
approaches the chinese burmese border the number of minority
groups with group specific haplotypes begins to increase and
these are only shared in southern china or thialand. The
northern han have a marked decrease in B46 haplotypes and
marked decrease in haplotype frequencies, the koreans have
even fewer and the japanese have even fewer still. The
manchurians have these haplotypes, the orochon do not.
The specific haplotypes can be all derived from a cluster of
about 3 or 4 haplotypes that recombined to generate the 12
common to the burmese region (note no HLA study done on
burmese to date). The tibetians have related haplotypes that
appear to be ancestral to the B46 derived haplotypes, and
the Indian haplotype does not appear to fit into the pattern
of local burmese derivation whereas it might be a source of
that original B46 haplotype or an early divergent product
[Not surprising given the level of sampling in eastern
india]. The only reason one can demostrate this is because
this event (recombination into SE populations) occurred
recently and 1000s of people with the haplotypes have been
typed representing an estimated 1 to 1.5 billion people who
carry at least one copy of those original 12 or so
recombinants or a derivative of those recombinants. It is
the single biggest and fastest expansion of any population
in human history. You can find details of these studies in
the molecular anthropology forum.
MIB529
> > What I meant was they used the same mistaken methodology of relying on
> three
> > 'races'. The most obvious clinal variation in Indians is stature, but
> there
> > are other differences. (I always tell my [white] roommate 'you all look
> alike
> > to me.')
>
> Did you read what Deitiker wrote to me?
Sorry, but Philip is on my *plonk* list, when he isn't changing his email
just to evade it. (He also has this strange tendency to cross-post to more
than SIXTY newsgroups, and his headers typically have that famous string
"X-No-Archive:Yes".) He has this tendency to use words when he doesn't
know what they mean. I especially love his discussion of the 'insipient
[sic] Jomon'. Insipient describes him perfectly.
G Horvat
[...]
>But overall, I doubt very much that the "southern" route( india ->SE Asia->
>east Asia)had much significant impact on the population makeups of east
>asians. This is very well represented in mtDNA dispersal diagrams someone
>posted recently(Horvat posted the link). This was also the opinion of
>Torronoi(sp?)etc a few years back. It seems that east asians(south east
>asians included), south asians, west asians, australians, Papua New Guneans
>etc all have very disjoint sets of mtDNAs.
I would like to add a few comments about the mtDNA sequences of India.
A friend of mine hunted down almost every single paper on the subject
and I was very dissatisfied with the quality of the information
provided in nearly all of them. There was a lot of interest in
distinguishing the sequences which were related to those of Asians
from the ones related to those of Europeans and that's about it.
Hardly anyone bothered to classify the majority of the sequences
further than "M" in any reliable way. Since probably close to half
of non-Africans have coding region mutations indicative of 'M', this
information is not very helpful.
It's true that Indian hypervariable region sequences do not closely
resemble those of East Asians but it would be nice to be able to
connect the 'M' haplogroups of India with those of E. Asia, New Guinea
and Australia. I don't understand why there isn't more interest in
this subject.
Gisele
Nim
I think you are speaking of remote times here. I believe I did answer
P.Comm's question in my post on regular Chinese history made to Baiyaan.
(For which I was profusely and obscenely abused, btw).
>
> >My contention is that the Batu Khan people, like Timur (Tamerlane) people
> >were TURKS. It is a fact that Tatars outnumberd the small band of
Mongols
> >during that invasion - so much so that all the people were known and seen
> >and also recognized as Tatars - related to Turks - by every former Turkic
> >empire in the more westerly regions. No one thought they were like
> >Chinese - which is how the people in Mongolia look today - like Chinese
> >people.
I can only say this: I am very often mistaken for Korean because I'm tall,
over 6 foot. I am also mistaken for Japanese due to height and "the way I
might present myself in some conversations" - or so I have been told by
those that mistook me. Most American people can't distinguish between any
Asian people, but they do tend to notice height. Lately, people from the
former Soviet Union have come to America and we can see Khazaks, Uzbekis,
Tatars, and other types of Turkic people. They identify themselves as
Turks, *if asked*. I can in all honesty say that I have personally seen
patients of this type and I've always immediately asked them, "Habla
inglés?" I have assumed they were Spanish speaking people, or Hispanics,
across the board. I was convinced and ready to get an interpreter. I would
never think that anyone from Inner or Outer Mongolia was Hispanic, though I
would definitely mistake them for Chinese, Korean, or Japanese. I
personally can't often tell the difference between the various Asian ethnic
group, say, Koreans, some Chinese, Japanese. Neither can they discern that
I'm Chinese. I speak perfect English; I was born in the USA.
As is described in Chinese history, the Turkic people were clearly a
different people from the Khalka or known Tungus types, at least in
appearance. I have no idea what story the genes would tell, but as far as
appearance goes, there is no mistaking the two peoples. By the same token,
I am not able to say whether a person I see may be German, English, French
or Swiss. Even many Italians don't look like the Italians I was used to
seeing in New York City. I can say that P.Comm has that a specific "look"
that is associated with Eurasian Turkic people and some E. Europeans and
which, in America now, especially in Florida or New York City, is associated
with Hispanic.
In the USA, in the 1950s and before, all such people, including most Slavs,
were lumped into the "Asian" category by people who kept such statistics.
At that time, Jews were not considered "white." Neither were Italians.
Apparently, most Americans were not able to tell these peoples apart.
"Turanian" and "Levantine" were categories also used, back then. I doubt
that these categories have a thing to do with genotypes or real ancestry.
To address the point that P.Comm is making - these differences are seen with
the eyes and lumped into categories with the eyes. They are obviously
phenotypes that most people can see. In terms of culture and society, these
are what most people mean when they use the word "race." Chinese historians
would have based what they wrote about "distinct people" by using the same
methods: what they see and can clearly distinguish immediately upon sight.
In which case, I'd never mistake P.Comm for Asian, such as Chinese. I'd
never mistake her for black. I would definitely expect Spanish to come out
of her mouth. I'd be wrong. I might mistake her for a type of Japanese
that I've seen if her hair were black, since I've seen an image of her with
black hair.
At the time of the Khans of 1200's, the great majority of people living
north and northwest of China were what we distinguished as Turkic. That is
to say, they did not *look like* us at all, as *did* a very few of the
smaller tribes in those more Eastern areas of Mongolia who looked more like
what one might call Tungus today. But that was much, much later. The
Hsiung-nu, for instance, were absolutely not Chinese in appearance. When
those graves were discovered to have light-haired people from that time
period in China, I was not in the least surprised. Our records have
described and named these people. They were Hsiung-nu, Yueh-chih,
T'u-chueh, descendents of the Hsuing-nu (those were people with that wolf
totem, as P.Comm mentioned), Juan-juan, and others, most of whom went west
in waves and never came back.
We here are speaking of eyewitness descriptions of these *living* people,
not just bones, meticulous details written by chroniclers. You can't tell a
thing about fleshy parts from bones, least of all coloration. Many of these
people had light hair! They weren't black haired as are Chinese people. In
no way were they *ever* mistaken for Chinese. Even the word T'u-chueh is a
rendering of the word Turk. Where they originally came from seems to not be
in our history that I know of; they may have gotten to the area from the
West; I strongly suspect this. Also, it was these people that had *horses*.
The Tungus, further to the north and northeast, at the time, did *not* have
horses or use them in war. That these people I'm describing left and went
West is known. It was much later in history that more and more Tungus types
of people moved southward and they learned the use of horse strategies by
joining in with these first people. It is my best guess that these people
I'm referring to were already a very ancient blend of some kind of Nordic
type and some kind of Tungus type; but that is just a guess based on their
looks. For one, we know for a fact that the Lapps are in northwestern
*Europe*. We also now know from excavations that these people north and
northwest of China were non-Chinese type light-haired people. I would say
that the language people speak really means nothing. My children don't
speak a word of Chinese. I doubt that Christy Yamaguchi, the *beautiful*
Olympic champion ice-skater, speaks a word of Japanese.
Nim
"baiyaan" <bai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:402bb7cc$1...@marge.ic.sunysb.edu...
>
> "Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam> wrote in message
> news:e1im20hc8k97id4h4...@4ax.com...
> >... I did not say the mongols were phenotypically Han, what I
> > said is there is signficant evidence for recent admixture.
> > If you look at some of the literature, some spotty groups in
> > southwestern china appear to be sources mongol HLA as on
> > occasion certain groups were not displaced by the expanding
> > bulge.
>
>
historical
> records that show admixture into Mongolians(almost exclusively through
> females contrary to Nim's desperate hope).
You are very abusive. Chinese records, as I have posted to Mr. Deitiker and
P.Comm, are based on eyewitness accounts of living people. That is, what
they really looked like face to face. People weren't classed into groups by
genes; such things weren't known back then to anyone. Refer to my post to
Mr. Deitiker.
Eastern "barbarians," the word used because they were not cultured, were
noted to be different from the peoples that I mentioned in my post to Mr.
Deitiker. That is, their living appearance was markedly different; as I
said, the groups I mentioned to Mr. Deitiker were not black-haired people at
all. This is not something based on genetics or bone finds. It's based on
living people that were known of and seen extensively throughout Chinese
history. And it is these light-haired types that had the horses and caused
problems in China. The more Tungus appearing types were very recent,
compared to these people and they did learn horse strategies from the former
non-Tungusic people there. These are eye witness accounts in meticulous
detail of *living* people.
Nim
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
>
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:34:13 -0800, "baiyaan"
> <bai...@yahoo.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
>
> >
> >"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam> wrote in message
> >news:e1im20hc8k97id4h4...@4ax.com...
> >>... I did not say the mongols were phenotypically Han, what I
> >> said is there is signficant evidence for recent admixture.
> >> If you look at some of the literature, some spotty groups in
> >> southwestern china appear to be sources mongol HLA as on
> >> occasion certain groups were not displaced by the expanding
> >> bulge.
> >
> suffer also from distances between events. In the best
> region of mtDNA, the lHVR1 region that shows a consistently
> rapid evolution, represents about 1 mutation per 35,000
> years when calibration errors in early and current studies
> are corrected for. In Y chromosome there is no uniform set
> of markers until the last year or 2 and there are not that
> many good Y chromosomal papers published. More groups of
> people have been typed by HLA (covering 6 genes over 3
> million nt of DNA) than any other loci. In germany alone
> 13,000 people have been typed. Typing is not difficult,
> anyone can do it. I do it.
>
> > In the case of Korea and China, there are very well documented
historical
> >records that show admixture into Mongolians(almost exclusively through
> >females contrary to Nim's desperate hope). However I noticed that you
try
> >to pinpoint ,too much, the origin and the process of dispersal, far more
> >than what is scientifically prudent and justified.
Again, he is abusive. I had said, if he read it carefully, that during
Kublai's reign, regarding Han *women* having children with these people,
that the babies, raised by Han mothers, would be thoroughly Chinese -
speaking in terms of enculturation which was very, very strong. Men took
many wives. Many wives had many children. All assimilated into the
Chinese. I had said that women, back then, had no *choice* about whom they
married. This is not some hope. I am happy that women have the right to
choose whom to marry - but the fact is, in the past this was not the case,
not for anyone. It is an historical fact that the children of Kublai, et.
al. became Chinese, in language, culture and etc. They became defacto
Chinese. Why this poster despises the Chinese so much is another matter.
Now he claims that he is *not* a Khalka, after all.
>
> > Possible but not very compatible with y-chromosome data though.
>
> Y chromosomal data, mostly is crap. We, gisele and I have
> tried to create a global comparison as we can do with mtDNA
> and HLA, but the problem is that few groups have types the
> same reagions, there is no consistency in what is typed, and
> most papers are full of large gaps in their comparisons. If
> you extensively rely on Y chromosomal information you will
> consistently come up with answers that will be proven wrong.
Exactly.
>
I also think that there were many migrations, ancient and modern, that have
gone into making humans in various areas who they are today. Unlike what
P.Comm said (she's never been to China) - Chinese do come in many types. We
are all considered Chinese by each other, however, which is all I meant to
say when saying that "children born to Han mothers became Chinese people,
even if the father was Kublai Khan himself." Was Tsu Hsi Chinese or Manchu?
She was the last Manchu Empress of China. Chances are, she was Manchu in
legend only and thoroughly Chinese in reality. It's my impression that
women are more willing to accept their own offspring as "their own people"
than are men. What I mean to say is, e.g., British males that fathered
children especially with non-white women, did not accept those children or
"give them their name." They didn't bring them into their British culture.
British women who had affairs with non-white men, kept their children (if
they were allowed to) and loved them. Those were raised to be British.
Even studies in America with fathers that marry women and adopt children
from their wive's former marriages seem to show this tendency. Much child
abuse comes from those men. Also, are step mothers prone to be as abusive
as step fathers have been shown to be in studies regarding this?
I simply stated a few facts from Chinese history regarding these people that
Baiyaan imagines are "Real" Mongols. When Chinese designated people as
barbarians, they meant it in much the same way that the Greeks and other
civilized people meant it.
baiyaan
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
> In Y chromosome there is no uniform set
> of markers until the last year or 2 and there are not that
> many good Y chromosomal papers published.
I should disagree.
> ....I can do that because I have combined both the old
>... (about HLA)Finally I generate data as a part of my
> own project as part of controls that adds to this
> information.
HLA is not without problems. As I said previously, its size is no match
with Y-chromosome thus it is by nature much coarser and does not provide as
fine resolution as y chromosome does(at least potentially).
Also HLA is by its nature very likely to be selective while y-chromosome
,despite some allegation to the contrary, is neutral in most lineages. This
means that HLA type can move around without specific population movement.
In other words, certain population movements detectable through HLA may be
entirely fictitious artifacts of selection.
>
> > Possible but not very compatible with y-chromosome data though.
>
> Y chromosomal data, mostly is crap. We, gisele and I have
> tried to create a global comparison as we can do with mtDNA
> and HLA, ...
I have been lurking in your yahoo group and I don't think you did these
things right.
Especially clear as you failed to answer someone's question on TatC M214 and
M175.
Y-chromosome is a quite useful tool, actually immensely powerful due to its
low mutation rate, large size, non-recombinat nature. In theory it works
like a molecular clock providing about 1 mutation per generation for EVERY y
chromosome.
You seem to fixed on the idea that we work only with STR for time
estimates. It is so now and wrong estimates in effective population size
can screw up things very royally in many ways. However in theory, at least
with respect to MRCA this matters none provided you type large enough
segment(s) of the y chromosome and you calibrate the rate of mutation well.
The only drawback is its inherently shallow coalescence time(fixation
time). However if one is careful to restrict the time frame it deals with
it can still provide extremely useful information even if it only reflects
male population movements.
> One instance of the fallibility of Y is the origins from
> africa.
As I said it is a wrong application that far back in time frame.
>First reports of global patterns were suggesting
> eurasion origin of Y, other reports suggest the !kung as the
> origin, and later identified several 'adam' tribes in
> africa. The base problem with Y is that male female mating
> patterns can shift widely over time. While females almost
> always represent the majority of effective breeding
> population, the proportion of males can vary from .1:1 to
> 1:1 in that range. It is no surprise then that several
> groups have come up with MRCAs (discounting the calibration
> problem that haunts mtDNA) in the 25 to 75 kya range for Y
> when the archeological evidence and genetic evidence from
> paleontological records suggest Y chromosomal spread at
> least in the 100 kya range,
MRCA means nothing for a relatvely unsegmented population.
Even if y chromosome spread greatly 100 Ky ago, if the lineages had been
culled enough so that by the time people started to leave africa(thus
fragment the human population) their collective coalescence time became less
than it actually was, you will just get that figure instead of the original
dispersal time. I am not sure if I explained this thing clearly.
>and more probably in the 150 kya
> range. While the mtDNA evidence suggest a central african
> origins for humans, the Y shows an east african origin,
> which would be the initial comma shape spread of humans in
> africa. If so then mtDNA is already spreading and Y is
> undergoing its last fixation, meaning that male population
> is still pinched.
Not really. There are various scenarios.
The most likely is as follows.
Note that mtDNA has larger effective pop size due to polygamy thus longer
fixation time.
Now suppose that mtDNA and y lineages had been growing mildly during certain
interval.
Furthermore suppose that the population had been fragmented into seveal
causing most y lineages to be fixed or nearly fixed in each region during
subsequent time period following this mild expansion.
Now after oh so many years, in terms of the SURVIVING y lineages, you
won't see any growth of y-lineages even during the period y-lineages
actually grew(ie. the excess y-lineages all vanished though not for mtDNA
lineages due to longer fixation time).
>Whereas the evidence from east asia
> suggest that the eurasian migrants from the migration are
> later replaced by other migrations from africa, it would
> translate into an exit time of 130,000 years ago for Y
> chromosome that contrast with a predicted time of 25,000
> years ago.
I am not sure what 25K was supposed to be. It is not a coalescence time
for any East Asian population group. It is actually less than the age
estimate of M9 alone. RPS4y711T and M9 alone will throw you back before
50K. ????
>While there has been geneflow from africa and
> male technogenetic replacements are probably more common
> than female, there is no scenario in which you could have a
> complete Y chromosomal replacement globally, considering the
> migration and isolation of tribes in amazonia that probably
> capture the Y chromosomal makeup of japan 16 to 22 kya from
> an essentially negrito derived austronesian (old)
> population.
I don't think your theory has gained a wide acceptance.
> Just remember that HLA is a diploid locus it is carried at
> ~6 times that of Y (considering the male female ratios in
> premodern times and 3 times that of mtDNA) Y can easily
> undergo fixation, particularly in small groups whereas
> heterozygous selection on HLA acts to maintain diversity.
> You can't even compare the level of information in HLA with
> that in Y. More HLA in more people have been typed, its more
> diverse, there is information concerning many different time
> frames , from allelotypes and long term evolution to long
> haplotypes like superb8 and short term evolution. Comparing
> Y chromosome to HLA is like comparing a bottle rocket to a
> Saturn V rocket.
No it is more like comparing a primitive mongol arrow rocket to a fine
European kataphract.
It may be primitive now but has far greater potential.
Do yourself a big favor, forget about Y
> chromosome until there is better standarization in the
> feild. You have to take my word for this, we tried to create
> the kind of database for mtDNA and HLA for Y chromosome, the
> current state of the art of Y chromosomal typing and the
> lack of across the feild conventions makes this all but
> impossible at the current time.
Maybe, but I don't think you have done much on your part to understand its
mechanics and convention.
It takes time and patience much the way it does for HLA's and mtDNA's.
Y chromosome at best is a
> long period (50 to 100 ky) population assay..
I think your understanding is flawed. Y chromosome works better with
intermediate ages. And in theory very recent history(you need to type a
large segement for this however).
> that is solely
> limited to discussions of partial male ancestries where
> widely dispersed groups might be compared lacking much
> interstitial information.
Well I admitted that it is a drawback. However I do not think it is a
fatal one given the immense advantage of humogous nonrecombinant haploid DNA
among others. And also because every other tool is bound to have some
drawbacks.
> Because they (except gisele) look at these from the point of
> view of single migrations. I assume that there are multiple
> origins for every people on the planet unless proven
> otherwise, and without exception this is not proven wrong.
> There is no pure group of people on the planet. The !kung
>.....appear to fit into the pattern
> of local burmese derivation whereas it might be a source of
> that original B46 haplotype or an early divergent product
> [Not surprising given the level of sampling in eastern
> india]. The only reason one can demostrate this is because
> this event (recombination into SE populations) occurred
> recently and 1000s of people with the haplotypes have been
> typed representing an estimated 1 to 1.5 billion people who
> carry at least one copy of those original 12 or so
> recombinants or a derivative of those recombinants. It is
> the single biggest and fastest expansion of any population
> in human history. You can find details of these studies in
> the molecular anthropology forum.
Sorry for the snip. You actually illustrated the drawback of HLA.
It is coarse. You don't know which one originated from which and evolved to
whichelse.
I see something parallel to B46 in y-lineage. It is M95. It is a
descendent of M175 which in turn descends from M214 which in turn descends
from M9.
Now with only limited resolution you will find M175 in india and you will
also find M175 being prominent in all wet rice farming countries in East
Asia. Now if you concluded M175 originated in India you are certainly
wrong. Why? because the Indian variety is limited to M95 and all its
relatives are in east asia. There is just no chance in hell it originated
from india. If you are in doubt, I will deliever the final blow. M175 as a
whole has cousins LLY22Gs which span from northwest china, mongolia all the
way to finland(sami etc), actually even some norweigians(5%) and...
GERMANS(very low though).
I hope you are convinced of the power of y-chromosomal analysis.
I hit something and may have deleted a whole paragraph somewhere. I hope
I didn't.
Philip Deitiker
some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
>I can only say this: I am very often mistaken for Korean because I'm tall,
>over 6 foot. I am also mistaken for Japanese due to height and "the way I
>might present myself in some conversations" - or so I have been told by
>those that mistook me. Most American people can't distinguish between any
>Asian people, but they do tend to notice height. Lately, people from the
>former Soviet Union have come to America and we can see Khazaks, Uzbekis,
>Tatars, and other types of Turkic people.
I know people from uzbek, they would neither be mistaken for
chinese or japanese. The might be mistaken for hispanic of
mixed origin or of eastern europeans.
> I was convinced and ready to get an interpreter. I would
>never think that anyone from Inner or Outer Mongolia was Hispanic, though I
>would definitely mistake them for Chinese, Korean, or Japanese. I
>personally can't often tell the difference between the various Asian ethnic
>group, say, Koreans, some Chinese, Japanese. Neither can they discern that
>I'm Chinese. I speak perfect English; I was born in the USA.
Again I would reiterate that guessing people also has an
environmental component it is often difficult to guess the
origin of ethic groups now living in america. I have guessed
the origin of people and have been off in some instance by
miles. Not specifically asian with some groups it can be
done with others not. In the central asia region it is tough
because of the way the gradient and levels of admixture. One
study of kyrgistan revealled by mtDNA that peoples in one
valley had ancestral lines from austonesia/south asia and in
the next valley from europe and in the next valley somewhere
else. HLA study from pakistan revealed and extremely
convoluted population in ancestry of proximal groups from
all over the place, some from mongolia, others from the
middle east, others from greece . . . . . . This population
structure in central asian superregion is indicative by
example of the complexities of past migrations and is a VERY
good reason why models that assume a single origin of any
people are likely to be wrong until proven strongly
otherwise. Thus the Y chromosomal studies that have this
tendency are, in fact, frequently WRONG.
>As is described in Chinese history, the Turkic people were clearly a
>different people from the Khalka or known Tungus types, at least in
>appearance.
Yes. western turkic are not mongols, but at the HLA level
there are some similarities. I wonder however how much of
that caucasian features of turks are due to migrations in
the last 4000 years.
> I have no idea what story the genes would tell, but as far as
>appearance goes, there is no mistaking the two peoples. By the same token,
>I am not able to say whether a person I see may be German, English, French
>or Swiss.
I think if you traveled arond france alone you would begin
to see many peoples in france. Unfortunately going back
thousands of years most appear to be from somewhere else.
>In the USA, in the 1950s and before, all such people, including most Slavs,
>were lumped into the "Asian" category by people who kept such statistics.
>At that time, Jews were not considered "white." Neither were Italians.
>Apparently, most Americans were not able to tell these peoples apart.
That was along time ago.
>"Turanian" and "Levantine" were categories also used, back then. I doubt
>that these categories have a thing to do with genotypes or real ancestry.
Again the issue of whiteness really gets to the expansion
from the NW islandic region eastward and possibly inclusive
of poles and N. sammi. During the extreme victorian period
one could really see how ultravictorians had created a
multitiered racial structure that had the descendants of
vikings and those that look like them at the center. The
reality of the three race system is that it has whites at
the center, less related asians in the next circle, and
blacks (negritos and africans) at the periphery. Little did
they know that phenotype of africans decieved recent common
ancestry with those NW eurasians.
In all probability this race system is a measure of the
consequences of interbreeding, where as africans are
understronger regional selection to maintain certain traits
other asians are not, and the loss of dominant features over
time creates crossprogeny that more resemble europeans. THis
is also true for northern asians, admixtures of WEA and NE
asians often do not appear asian but caucasian by a lessor
standard. Thus there are genetic gradients that underlie
race that the race system is relatively ignorant of.
>To address the point that P.Comm is making - these differences are seen with
>the eyes and lumped into categories with the eyes.
And eyes can be useful but only when referenced with
genetics. One has to understand what the eyes are seeing. In
the more 'han' regions of china, the historic areas there is
not much phenotypic diversity, and I am not an individual
who sees all asians as looking alike. In Japan, even smaller
communities you often see alot of diversity from more korean
to more chinese to more philipino to more native american
looking people. What this tells us is that the japanese
population that are such a recent admixture of diverse
people that there is no current equilibrium in Japan. Thus
it is not to wonder why some european/Japanese crosses look
central asia or eastern european or even european, and
others look like japanese or native americans.
> They are obviously
>phenotypes that most people can see. In terms of culture and society, these
>are what most people mean when they use the word "race." Chinese historians
>would have based what they wrote about "distinct people" by using the same
>methods: what they see and can clearly distinguish immediately upon sight.
>In which case, I'd never mistake P.Comm for Asian, such as Chinese. I'd
>never mistake her for black. I would definitely expect Spanish to come out
>of her mouth. I'd be wrong. I might mistake her for a type of Japanese
>that I've seen if her hair were black, since I've seen an image of her with
>black hair.
I have hispanics that work for me that speak two different
tongues spanish (about as bad as mine) and native tongue.
I should note that my wife is Japanese, and she says that
japanese the way they used to dress and work look like
native american. Many native americans who think that there
are these huge differences between them and asians should
take a tour of japan and check out their museums, they might
be surprised how similar preindustrial japanese looked like
native americans.
http://www.ainu-museum.or.jp/english/english.html
http://www.ainu-museum.or.jp/english/english.html
See Ornaments.
>At the time of the Khans of 1200's, the great majority of people living
>north and northwest of China were what we distinguished as Turkic.
Uygars. And the admixture is apparent in their HLA.
> That is
>to say, they did not *look like* us at all, as *did* a very few of the
>smaller tribes in those more Eastern areas of Mongolia who looked more like
>what one might call Tungus today. But that was much, much later. The
>Hsiung-nu, for instance, were absolutely not Chinese in appearance. When
>those graves were discovered to have light-haired people from that time
>period in China, I was not in the least surprised. Our records have
>described and named these people. They were Hsiung-nu, Yueh-chih,
>T'u-chueh, descendents of the Hsuing-nu (those were people with that wolf
>totem, as P.Comm mentioned), Juan-juan, and others, most of whom went west
>in waves and never came back.
They appear to have kept dogs as pets.
>We here are speaking of eyewitness descriptions of these *living* people,
>not just bones, meticulous details written by chroniclers. You can't tell a
>thing about fleshy parts from bones, least of all coloration. Many of these
>people had light hair! They weren't black haired as are Chinese people. In
>no way were they *ever* mistaken for Chinese.
Yep. but again there is increasing evidence that chinese, as
least the han are an expansion into other peoples
territories from the south, so as one expects on the contact
lines people will be able to readily distinguish each other
by phenotypes. The Uygars still have remnants of the WEA
patterns.
> Even the word T'u-chueh is a
>rendering of the word Turk. Where they originally came from seems to not be
>in our history that I know of; they may have gotten to the area from the
>West; I strongly suspect this.
More than likely the turks were pushed west many 1000s of
years ago as wet-rice farming expanded. Wet-rice farming
probably rendered many lands useless for even attempted
grazing; however point taken on the origin of turks
> Also, it was these people that had *horses*.
>The Tungus, further to the north and northeast, at the time, did *not* have
>horses or use them in war. That these people I'm describing left and went
>West is known. It was much later in history that more and more Tungus types
>of people moved southward and they learned the use of horse strategies by
>joining in with these first people. It is my best guess that these people
>I'm referring to were already a very ancient blend of some kind of Nordic
>type and some kind of Tungus type; but that is just a guess based on their
>looks. For one, we know for a fact that the Lapps are in northwestern
>*Europe*. We also now know from excavations that these people north and
>northwest of China were non-Chinese type light-haired people.
But the lapps as far as I can tell are genetically
europeans, minimally from north central asia. While they
look asia, they are WEA. This is the basic problem with
deducing from looks origins, the whole scenario is tainted
by these superexpansive late migrations both in china and in
scandinavia.
> I would say
>that the language people speak really means nothing. My children don't
>speak a word of Chinese. I doubt that Christy Yamaguchi, the *beautiful*
>Olympic champion ice-skater, speaks a word of Japanese.
I bet she does. If I can speak a few words of Japanese I'm
sure she does.
baiyaan
"G Horvat" <g-ho...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:v85o20djrevo2j23m...@4ax.com...
>.. It's true that Indian hypervariable region sequences do not closely
> resemble those of East Asians but it would be nice to be able to
> connect the 'M' haplogroups of India with those of E. Asia, New Guinea
> and Australia. I don't understand why there isn't more interest in
> this subject.
First of all thanks for the link. I don't know from which yahoo group it
was.. I just get the emails.
I think I have seen several "complete sequencing" data. Maybe they were
not really complete but any rate a large segment of mtDNA has been sequenced
and no additional structure has been found(except suffling a few asian M
types like C-D pairing into C-Z which appears to be distinct from D ( except
for being under M) now.).
Given that each lineage is divided from the others by not just one or two
mutations but several, it is highly unlikely that further sequencing will
provide any additional structure.
Sampling more populations and more individuals can suffle the tree further
given that many mtDNA's mutations are recurrent. But I find it unlikely at
this stage. Of course there is always the possibility that some unsampled
individuals may harbor the unusal type with transcontinental links but for
those already sequenced no further structure is likely to be revealed.
Many researchers are aware of this and they more or less have given up on
that one. For instance M and N are highly suspected of deriving from the
same small popuation but one will never know because they fail to resolve
further than L3.
The situation is different from y-chromosome which has EXTREMELY fine
resolution potentially but has not been fully sequenced yet.
And correction: south asian and west asian mtDNAs are not disjoint of
course.
People's Commissar
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:43:42 GMT, "People's Commissar"
> <tjs...@spam.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
>
> >Question:
> >
> >What do you see in the broad band of Central Asian people that used to be
> >called Turkistani - or Turko-Tatars? I don't mean language group - I
mean
> >people.
>
> Turko-mongols, extended turko-kor-mongols is inclusive
> genetically of japanese.
>
> >We definitely do not look like or get mistaken for Chinese or any of
that.
> >Whereas, as I pointed out to the trouble maker flaming me and who started
> >using street language first - and I named one Khalka Mongol I personally
> >hung out with - Khakla get mistaken for Chinese BY Chinese people - as
did
> >my friend.
>
> Let me say this, I can distinguish most chinese from most
> koreans,
So can I! And they are always surprised, too.
> and most chinese from most mongols,
Have you seen, face to face, to hang out with, Khalka Mongols? I have. I
named one on here and there is a photo of him and me together on some
website. Every single Chinese friend I had that knew him, thought he was
Chinese. Yet the guy was pure Khalka (heh, pure, yeah).
however the
> differences are largely probably due to the immediate
> consequences of diet and environment. I can distinguish
> Japanese from chinese,
Sometimes I can, it depends. Take a look at lots of Japanese actors on
those "big monsters" movies if you don't personally know a lot of them.
Next, take a look at a bunch of Chinese actors from movies. You can see all
types, I mean, they don't look alike to me AT ALL - but I can't tell which
onese are Japanese or which ones are Chinese if you put them all in the same
movie and DUB it. :)
Ok, Wait. You are talking about China. Most of those Turks did not go to
China at all. They went to the West and many many times. Turks were in
the West, just West of Kiev even, from way before that. I mean, even the
Khazars were Turks - they are the people whose Khan converted to Jewish way
back when. I don't even think there was such a thing as a Khalka tribe at
that time.
People's Commissar
> "Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
> news:3fkn20lsuipaqcbv1...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:43:42 GMT, "People's Commissar"
> > <tjs...@spam.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
> >
> > >Question:
> > >
> > >What do you see in the broad band of Central Asian people that used to
be
> > >called Turkistani - or Turko-Tatars? I don't mean language group - I
> mean
> > >people.
> >
> > Turko-mongols, extended turko-kor-mongols is inclusive
> > genetically of japanese.
> >
> > >We definitely do not look like or get mistaken for Chinese or any of
> that.
> > >Whereas, as I pointed out to the trouble maker flaming me and who
started
> > >using street language first - and I named one Khalka Mongol I
personally
> > >hung out with - Khakla get mistaken for Chinese BY Chinese people - as
> did
> > >my friend.
> >
Well, yes and no, more on the yes :)
Well, I usually can't tell Jewish from Italian or some other Jewish from
Germanic unless they open their mouth and talk for about a minute! A LOT of
that "can tell" is intuitive and very fast, not so much analytical at all.
I mean, no one is taking measurements. I saw this one Hispanic comedian, I
wish I knew his name, but his skit was to "become Japanese," it was the most
hilarious thing I ever saw - but he literally BECAME Japanese - and he
looked Japanese. Then he'd break loose and the Hispanic would come back in
the act and he miraculously looked Hispanic. And it was HILARIOUS. I only
wish I taped it. Or knew who that comedian was.
>
> As is described in Chinese history, the Turkic people were clearly a
> different people from the Khalka or known Tungus types, at least in
> appearance. I have no idea what story the genes would tell, but as far as
> appearance goes, there is no mistaking the two peoples. By the same
token,
> I am not able to say whether a person I see may be German, English, French
> or Swiss. Even many Italians don't look like the Italians I was used to
> seeing in New York City. I can say that P.Comm has that a specific "look"
> that is associated with Eurasian Turkic people and some E. Europeans and
> which, in America now, especially in Florida or New York City, is
associated
> with Hispanic.
I KNOW. I recently had a Phillipino MD take one look at me and bring in a
Spansh interpreter without even asking me if I spoke English. Lots of
Hispanics go there, too.
>
> In the USA, in the 1950s and before, all such people, including most
Slavs,
> were lumped into the "Asian" category by people who kept such statistics.
> At that time, Jews were not considered "white." Neither were Italians.
I know that: "Whiteness of Another Color" by Jacobson details all of that
with documentation. The IRISH weren't even considered white.
> Apparently, most Americans were not able to tell these peoples apart.
> "Turanian" and "Levantine" were categories also used, back then. I doubt
> that these categories have a thing to do with genotypes or real ancestry.
> To address the point that P.Comm is making - these differences are seen
with
> the eyes and lumped into categories with the eyes. They are obviously
> phenotypes that most people can see. In terms of culture and society,
these
> are what most people mean when they use the word "race." Chinese
historians
> would have based what they wrote about "distinct people" by using the same
> methods: what they see and can clearly distinguish immediately upon
sight.
> In which case, I'd never mistake P.Comm for Asian, such as Chinese. I'd
> never mistake her for black. I would definitely expect Spanish to come
out
> of her mouth. I'd be wrong. I might mistake her for a type of Japanese
> that I've seen if her hair were black, since I've seen an image of her
with
> black hair.
I was mistaken for Japanese at that time by a Japanese man from Japan!
>
> At the time of the Khans of 1200's, the great majority of people living
> north and northwest of China were what we distinguished as Turkic. That
is
> to say, they did not *look like* us at all, as *did* a very few of the
> smaller tribes in those more Eastern areas of Mongolia who looked more
like
> what one might call Tungus today. But that was much, much later. The
> Hsiung-nu, for instance, were absolutely not Chinese in appearance. When
> those graves were discovered to have light-haired people from that time
> period in China, I was not in the least surprised. Our records have
> described and named these people. They were Hsiung-nu, Yueh-chih,
> T'u-chueh, descendents of the Hsuing-nu (those were people with that wolf
> totem, as P.Comm mentioned), Juan-juan, and others, most of whom went west
> in waves and never came back.
YES, I agree, but I have no written records like that. I can show you a
photo of Tochtoch and some other Khalka I took when I was paid to photo the
Dalai Lama. Those people look CHINESE to the max, no doubt about it. They
do not look like Koreans who seem to me, have much squintier eyes and harder
features. And most of the Khalka were pretty fat. My uncle Giga and cousin
Toghrul, however, can easily pass for Russians - they are Turks. But they
aren't Moslems.
>
> We here are speaking of eyewitness descriptions of these *living* people,
> not just bones, meticulous details written by chroniclers. You can't tell
a
> thing about fleshy parts from bones, least of all coloration. Many of
these
> people had light hair! They weren't black haired as are Chinese people.
In
> no way were they *ever* mistaken for Chinese. Even the word T'u-chueh is
a
> rendering of the word Turk. Where they originally came from seems to not
be
> in our history that I know of; they may have gotten to the area from the
> West; I strongly suspect this. Also, it was these people that had
*horses*.
> The Tungus, further to the north and northeast, at the time, did *not*
have
> horses or use them in war. That these people I'm describing left and went
> West is known. It was much later in history that more and more Tungus
types
> of people moved southward and they learned the use of horse strategies by
> joining in with these first people. It is my best guess that these people
> I'm referring to were already a very ancient blend of some kind of Nordic
> type and some kind of Tungus type; but that is just a guess based on their
> looks.
I agree. I have seen, you know Hr.Vad? His mother - she could be MY OWN
mother she looks so similar. He's DANISH! She has the eyes, the cheekbones
and the hard, distinct pointy features. Hr.Vad has dark hair/eyes, too.
For one, we know for a fact that the Lapps are in northwestern
> *Europe*. We also now know from excavations that these people north and
> northwest of China were non-Chinese type light-haired people. I would say
> that the language people speak really means nothing. My children don't
> speak a word of Chinese. I doubt that Christy Yamaguchi, the *beautiful*
> Olympic champion ice-skater, speaks a word of Japanese.
I like Oksana Baiul! She's beautiful.
> > >
People's Commissar
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:47:45 GMT, "Nim" <N...@ppc.com> did
> some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
>
>
> >I can only say this: I am very often mistaken for Korean because I'm
tall,
> >over 6 foot. I am also mistaken for Japanese due to height and "the way
I
> >might present myself in some conversations" - or so I have been told by
> >those that mistook me. Most American people can't distinguish between
any
> >Asian people, but they do tend to notice height. Lately, people from the
> >former Soviet Union have come to America and we can see Khazaks, Uzbekis,
> >Tatars, and other types of Turkic people.
>
> I know people from uzbek, they would neither be mistaken for
> chinese or japanese. The might be mistaken for hispanic of
> mixed origin or of eastern europeans.
YUP! You can see my photo since I posted the url. I have make up on, tho.
>
> > I was convinced and ready to get an interpreter. I would
> >never think that anyone from Inner or Outer Mongolia was Hispanic, though
I
> >would definitely mistake them for Chinese, Korean, or Japanese. I
> >personally can't often tell the difference between the various Asian
ethnic
> >group, say, Koreans, some Chinese, Japanese. Neither can they discern
that
> >I'm Chinese. I speak perfect English; I was born in the USA.
He he he, dye your hair greenish blonde and put on green-blue contacts and
you are the guy on the cover of my novel! :) God, you were CUTE when you
were young!!! Nice lips!! :-D Ahem, ok...
>
> Again I would reiterate that guessing people also has an
> environmental component it is often difficult to guess the
> origin of ethic groups now living in america. I have guessed
> the origin of people and have been off in some instance by
> miles. Not specifically asian with some groups it can be
> done with others not. In the central asia region it is tough
> because of the way the gradient and levels of admixture. One
> study of kyrgistan revealled by mtDNA that peoples in one
> valley had ancestral lines from austonesia/south asia and in
> the next valley from europe and in the next valley somewhere
> else. HLA study from pakistan revealed and extremely
> convoluted population in ancestry of proximal groups from
> all over the place, some from mongolia, others from the
> middle east, others from greece . . . . . . This population
> structure in central asian superregion is indicative by
> example of the complexities of past migrations and is a VERY
> good reason why models that assume a single origin of any
> people are likely to be wrong until proven strongly
> otherwise. Thus the Y chromosomal studies that have this
> tendency are, in fact, frequently WRONG.
>
> > >As is described in Chinese history, the Turkic people were clearly a
> >different people from the Khalka or known Tungus types, at least in
> >appearance.
>
> Yes. western turkic are not mongols,
THANK YOU - and we aren't all Moslems. Some of us are Shamanistic which was
what I was originally talking about on here before Baiyaan called me a bitch
for having a nice conversation.
but at the HLA level
> there are some similarities. I wonder however how much of
> that caucasian features of turks are due to migrations in
> the last 4000 years.
I'll be a LOT due to what he said is in Chinese records. You know, I read
stuff that said that too, but not sure where. Some history of the Steppes
book, maybe. Very detailed. YEAH - I remember - and it did say that the
Tungiz types came there much later on and weren't the main people plagueing
China. So so many people came from the Altai, Bulgars, Khazars, Magyars,
Avars, Oghuz - so so many - all of them were Turks. They didn't look like
Tungiz people at all. People would have mistook them for Chinese if they
looked anything like that.
>
> > I have no idea what story the genes would tell, but as far as
> >appearance goes, there is no mistaking the two peoples. By the same
token,
> >I am not able to say whether a person I see may be German, English,
French
> >or Swiss.
>
> I think if you traveled arond france alone you would begin
> to see many peoples in france. Unfortunately going back
> thousands of years most appear to be from somewhere else.
>
> >In the USA, in the 1950s and before, all such people, including most
Slavs,
> >were lumped into the "Asian" category by people who kept such statistics.
> >At that time, Jews were not considered "white." Neither were Italians.
> >Apparently, most Americans were not able to tell these peoples apart.
>
> That was along time ago.
That was in my lifetime, Phil. I was considered Asian "bloodthirsty Jenghis
Khan people" back then. Heh, I remember that. I also remember Anglo's
considering Italians to be non-white and not wanting their children to date
them. I remember it very well. I think the thing is here, the argument is
that in the opinion of the Turkics, Jenghis and his sons (and we have
descriptions of Batu) were TURKS, not Tungiz types or Khalka types at all.
Uzbeks are descendents of the Khans from one of Jenghis's sons line. Not
Jochi, I think Chagatai? Not sure. But ALL those people are even called
CHAGATAI TURKS. They are nothing like the Khalka. I know too many Khalka
to be able to say that those people look Chinese. They are also darker than
we are, their skin. They are darker than a lot of Chinese people I've seen,
too. I have photos of some of the ones I made friends with and knew quite
well. I think that's the argument. I'm talking Turks. Baiyaan is talking
Khalka. The Khalka Badma that I mentioned was claiming that Jenghis was one
of his. The Turkish Nelafur was saying that Jenghis was one of hers. Well,
"Chaghatai Turks" says it all. Those people are TURKS. NOT Khalka type.
>
> >"Turanian" and "Levantine" were categories also used, back then. I doubt
> >that these categories have a thing to do with genotypes or real ancestry.
>
> Again the issue of whiteness really gets to the expansion
> from the NW islandic region eastward and possibly inclusive
> of poles and N. sammi. During the extreme victorian period
> one could really see how ultravictorians had created a
> multitiered racial structure that had the descendants of
> vikings and those that look like them at the center. The
> reality of the three race system is that it has whites at
> the center, less related asians in the next circle, and
> blacks (negritos and africans) at the periphery. Little did
> they know that phenotype of africans decieved recent common
> ancestry with those NW eurasians.
> In all probability this race system is a measure of the
> consequences of interbreeding, where as africans are
> understronger regional selection to maintain certain traits
> other asians are not, and the loss of dominant features over
> time creates crossprogeny that more resemble europeans. THis
> is also true for northern asians, admixtures of WEA and NE
> asians often do not appear asian but caucasian by a lessor
> standard.
Hmm, I noticed that. Khalka and German mixtures - they look white like
Slavic people. I saw a lot of that, too.
Thus there are genetic gradients that underlie
> race that the race system is relatively ignorant of.
>
> >To address the point that P.Comm is making - these differences are seen
with
> >the eyes and lumped into categories with the eyes.
>
> And eyes can be useful but only when referenced with
> genetics. One has to understand what the eyes are seeing. In
> the more 'han' regions of china, the historic areas there is
> not much phenotypic diversity, and I am not an individual
> who sees all asians as looking alike. In Japan, even smaller
> communities you often see alot of diversity from more korean
> to more chinese to more philipino to more native american
> looking people. What this tells us is that the japanese
> population that are such a recent admixture of diverse
> people that there is no current equilibrium in Japan. Thus
> it is not to wonder why some european/Japanese crosses look
> central asia or eastern european or even european, and
> others look like japanese or native americans.
Yup, seen that too! Japanese/European mixes look European to me - or
Hispanic - and they tend to be fair.
YES! I have oral stories of that, Phil. How we became so friendly with
dog - which used to be wolf! And wolf IS out totem. Even the Moslems in, I
think it's the Gray Wolf Party? used that old totem in Turkey recently, when
they resurrected the nationalism. Someone on a wiccan newsgroup was asking
about totems and somewhere, she read that with the Tungiz people, the wolf
was considered evil. I told her that we, as Shaman, had the wolf as
ancestral totem! Wolf was GOOD.
>
> >We here are speaking of eyewitness descriptions of these *living* people,
> >not just bones, meticulous details written by chroniclers. You can't
tell a
> >thing about fleshy parts from bones, least of all coloration. Many of
these
> >people had light hair! They weren't black haired as are Chinese people.
In
> >no way were they *ever* mistaken for Chinese.
>
> Yep. but again there is increasing evidence that chinese, as
> least the han are an expansion into other peoples
> territories from the south, so as one expects on the contact
> lines people will be able to readily distinguish each other
> by phenotypes. The Uygars still have remnants of the WEA
> patterns.
Well, most Turkics did leave that area and are no longer really there, for
the most part. Central Asia, Eastern Slav - pretty much similar people to
look at, I think. I know that the Chinese expanded, they ASSIMILATED
people, like the Borg.
>
> > Even the word T'u-chueh is a
> >rendering of the word Turk. Where they originally came from seems to not
be
> >in our history that I know of; they may have gotten to the area from the
> >West; I strongly suspect this.
Oh, I missed that. Hmm. HMMMMM. New paradigm. You mean that Turks were
originally like very fair Uralic people - who went east and plagued China -
HMMM, that makes a funny kind of sense with what a Fin told me.
Ural-Altaic - we always INSIST there is URAL-ALTAIC and I do too - and I
get trashed for saying it by people that disagree (they can't JUST
disagree....). So then, after thousands of years of living north of China
and doing our horse raiding and roaming, only kinda recently some Tungiz
showed up from way north east - around the same time the Turks started to
move back west in waves. AH HA. That would make us literally Ural and
Altaic, right?
Phil, can HLAs drop out? I know Y and mtDNA can vanish - like black eyes
can vanish in a population even in one generation. It's the Turkics, me
included, that insist on "ural-altaic." We may have been Uralic people, WEA
or not, that went to Asia. Stayed there for a LONG time and got recorded
into Chinese history and described, and then slowly, in waves, moved back
west - usually having to conquer to get there. Then got back, including
back, maybe back to Lapland area or Finland. The fact is, those Uzbeks who
look like Hispanic mixed or East Europeans are the descendents of Jenghis -
and the Khalka are not in that line of descent at all. I'm saying that the
Khalka are NOT the same people as the Turkic Khans. If Chinese records
describe them and agree - well so do a LOT of Western sources before the
time of Victorian race classifications.
Philip Deitiker
<bai...@yahoo.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
> HLA is not without problems. As I said previously, its size is no match
>with Y-chromosome thus it is by nature much coarser and does not provide as
>fine resolution as y chromosome does(at least potentially).
Size is irrelevant, Y chromosome has the most sparsely
distributed SNPs of any section of mammalian chromosomes.
The overall rate of evolution of Y is about 1/20th to 1/50th
that of X and cannot even be compared to HLA as these are
the fastest evolving loci in humans.
>Also HLA is by its nature very likely to be selective while y-chromosome
>,despite some allegation to the contrary, is neutral in most lineages.
However in terms of current clocking the posited timings are
non-sensical. There is a huge debate over whether Y stopped
evolving in humans or whether there was some evolutionary
suppression of Y evolution.
> This
>means that HLA type can move around without specific population movement.
This is nonsense, you have no idea what you are talking
about.
>In other words, certain population movements detectable through HLA may be
>entirely fictitious artifacts of selection.
Haplotypes combinations are like combination locks, you
might get two numbers but to get three in a row you have to
have known the combination. You know nothing about HLA I
doubt you know much about Y except what someone told you to
read and in both cases you are bullshitting. Alleles can
spontaneously regenerate in very rare instances haplotypes
are passed, you don't spontaneously create convergent 8 loci
haplotypes from alleles. It is about as probable as hitting
a target with a 22-235 fired from the bottom of a 747
traveling at 40,000 feet above the ground.
> I have been lurking in your yahoo group and I don't think you did these
>things right.
>Especially clear as you failed to answer someone's question on TatC M214 and
>M175.
>Y-chromosome is a quite useful tool, actually immensely powerful due to its
>low mutation rate, large size, non-recombinat nature. In theory it works
>like a molecular clock providing about 1 mutation per generation for EVERY y
>chromosome.
Y chromosome lags X-linked, HLA and mtDNA in its usefulness.
While it is non-recombining, male passage is undoubtedly a
weak point because male to female ratios in effective
population size makes the assignment of effective ploidy
unestimable, and based on the MRCAs it creates this is
essentially verified by comparison to other loci.
> You seem to fixed on the idea that we work only with STR for time
>estimates. It is so now and wrong estimates in effective population size
>can screw up things very royally in many ways. However in theory, at least
>with respect to MRCA this matters none provided you type large enough
>segment(s) of the y chromosome and you calibrate the rate of mutation well.
You have no idea what you are talking about. For Y
chromosomal or mtDNA, given the fact that they are
non-recombinant the clocking points are a means of verifying
if the model is working. In Y it clearly doesn't.
> The only drawback is its inherently shallow coalescence time(fixation
>time). However if one is careful to restrict the time frame it deals with
>it can still provide extremely useful information even if it only reflects
>male population movements.
The drawbacks are the lack of timable mutations and the
chronological spread between mutations it makes it uncertain
in many instances whether a mutation that appears in the new
world originally occurred in africa 30 kyear earlier. With
such great temporal distances between mutations drawing
conclusions based on Y is non-sensical at this point.
> As I said it is a wrong application that far back in time frame.
Contrarily, if it would be good for anything it should be
capable of accurately clocking back to the MRCA, parsimony
analysis only gets better with more accumulated mutation. In
fact Y fails at its easiest task.
I can see now why you guys are yelling at each other, both
of you are postulating bullshit to each other and expecting
the other to cave in.
baiyaan
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:35:29 -0800, "baiyaan"
> <bai...@yahoo.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
>
> > HLA is not without problems. As I said previously, its size is no
match
> >with Y-chromosome thus it is by nature much coarser and does not provide
as
> >fine resolution as y chromosome does(at least potentially).
>
> Size is irrelevant, Y chromosome has the most sparsely
> distributed SNPs of any section of mammalian chromosomes.
Really? I almost wanted to killfile this guy right here but lets go on.
> The overall rate of evolution of Y is about 1/20th to 1/50th
> that of X and cannot even be compared to HLA as these are
> the fastest evolving loci in humans.
You are confusing evolution of genes with that of base pair
The mutation rate for y-chromosome is in fact higher than that of
autosomes(largely due to the difference between the sexes).
If you don't believe, take up this issue with your old enemy Stephen
Schaffner(he takes you very seriously doen't he?. You may want some
variation in your email address as he is likely to have already blocked your
email or even ip address.).
Send him an email telling how he got everything mixed up in his Nature
Review jan 2004 article. He will be very appreciative.
> However in terms of current clocking the posited timings are
> non-sensical. There is a huge debate over whether Y stopped
> evolving in humans or whether there was some evolutionary
> suppression of Y evolution.
Now look. You are a biochemist, I heard. You are not a geneticist.
Somewhere along your drivel, there is immense and total misunderstanding of
the things you spend so much time on.
>
> > This
> >means that HLA type can move around without specific population movement.
>
> This is nonsense, you have no idea what you are talking
> about.
tehehe.
>
> >In other words, certain population movements detectable through HLA may
be
> >entirely fictitious artifacts of selection.
>
> Haplotypes combinations are like combination locks, you
> might get two numbers but to get three in a row you have to
> have known the combination. You know nothing about HLA I
> doubt you know much about Y except what someone told you to
> read and in both cases you are bullshitting. Alleles can
> spontaneously regenerate in very rare instances haplotypes
> are passed, you don't spontaneously create convergent 8 loci
> haplotypes from alleles. It is about as probable as hitting
> a target with a 22-235 fired from the bottom of a 747
> traveling at 40,000 feet above the ground.
sigh.... The problem with you is that
1 you don't understand the subject you profess expertise on
2 you have very low opinions about everyone else.
What I said has nothing to do with the mechanics of HLA.
That it can leave a signiture of movement as a pure artifact of selection
applies to all selective loci(even y-chromosome but I made an assumption
that it is more neutral than HLA). O.K?
> Y chromosome lags X-linked, HLA and mtDNA in its usefulness.
> While it is non-recombining, male passage is undoubtedly a
> weak point because male to female ratios in effective
> population size makes the assignment of effective ploidy
> unestimable, and based on the MRCAs it creates this is
> essentially verified by comparison to other loci.
..... I can almost forgive you given that you have a wrong figure for the
rate of nucleotide mutation for y-chromosome but how the hell did you get
your phd?
> You have no idea what you are talking about. For Y
> chromosomal or mtDNA, given the fact that they are
> non-recombinant the clocking points are a means of verifying
> if the model is working. In Y it clearly doesn't.
You are beginning to be truly entertaining. Have you heard of father-son
pair comparison, deep genealogical study etc? Why do you think they do
that? (as an initial rough estimate one may have to resort to the known
historical time table since to calibrate using father son pair for instance
would be prohibitive for SNP as the rate of mutation is very low. It can be
done at a reasonable coast for STR though.)
These things can not be done this way for y-chromosome SNPs yet. But I
was talking about its theoretical potential, wasn't I? when sequencing
large segments comes at a lower cost. I specifically said that.
>... I can see now why you guys are yelling at each other, both
> of you are postulating bullshit to each other and expecting
> the other to cave in.
Please don't threaten to killfile me. Save your effort as I don't care.
baiyaan
>
> "Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
> news:at2p20lab034dhi4p...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:35:29 -0800, "baiyaan"
> > <bai...@yahoo.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
> >
> > > HLA is not without problems. As I said previously, its size is no
> match
> > >with Y-chromosome thus it is by nature much coarser and does not
provide
> as
> > >fine resolution as y chromosome does(at least potentially).
> >
> > Size is irrelevant, Y chromosome has the most sparsely
> > distributed SNPs of any section of mammalian chromosomes.
This actually may be true in the literal sense it was stated(Y has sparsely
distributed SNPs because its age is young(ie shallow MRCA). That does not
mean that its mutation rate is low as well).
But his subsequent remarks made it very clear that he is pitifully burdened
by his own ignorance and stupidity.
> sigh.... The problem with you is that
> 1 you don't understand the subject you profess expertise on
> 2 you have very low opinions about everyone else.
To rephrase my own statement above,
1. Deitiker does not know what he is talking about.
2. He has no idea what others are talking about either.
> You are beginning to be truly entertaining. Have you heard of father-son
> pair comparison, deep genealogical study etc? Why do you think they do
> that? (as an initial rough estimate one may have to resort to the known
> historical time table since to calibrate using father son pair for
instance
> would be prohibitive for SNP as the rate of mutation is very low. It can
be
> done at a reasonable coast for STR though.)
I meant "cost".
Philip Deitiker
<bai...@yahoo.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
>> The overall rate of evolution of Y is about 1/20th to 1/50th
>> that of X and cannot even be compared to HLA as these are
>> the fastest evolving loci in humans.
>
> You are confusing evolution of genes with that of base pair
>The mutation rate for y-chromosome is in fact higher than that of
>autosomes(largely due to the difference between the sexes).
>If you don't believe, take up this issue with your old enemy Stephen
>Schaffner(he takes you very seriously doen't he?. You may want some
>variation in your email address as he is likely to have already blocked your
>email or even ip address.).
>Send him an email telling how he got everything mixed up in his Nature
>Review jan 2004 article. He will be very appreciative.
It makes little different, SNPs from point mutations are
indistinguishable from gene conversion events in sparesely
mutated genes unless the population is thoroughly sampled.
Since the medial Autosomal loci MRCA ~ 900,000 years are,
there are alot of accumulated mutations that can undergo
conversion. As you will read my posting I was against Ayala
for using HLA to try to determine MRCA because of the gene
conversion as playing a well known role; however my finger
pointing is based on using HLA on a time scale in which it
is out of context (100,000s to millions of years) HLA are
quite useful for alligning events within the 100 to 10,000s
year time frame, because haplotype reorganization, in most
cases is alot faster than nascent mutations (exception being
in south america and potentially central africa). This
contrast with Y which, based on its rates of mutations are
useful in the 100,000 of years time frame and are useless
because of statistical variance in mutation frequencies in
which the time frames one is examining is some small
multiple of the frequency in which one expects one more
accumulated mutation. Given its recent fixation and the
small multiples of expect novel allele generation time
(considering NRY as an allele).
> Now look. You are a biochemist, I heard. You are not a geneticist.
>Somewhere along your drivel, there is immense and total misunderstanding of
>the things you spend so much time on.
I work on genetics also. Its just I approach from a
biochemical perspective.
>> >In other words, certain population movements detectable through HLA may
>be
>> >entirely fictitious artifacts of selection.
>>
>> Haplotypes combinations are like combination locks, you
>> might get two numbers but to get three in a row you have to
>> have known the combination. You know nothing about HLA I
>> doubt you know much about Y except what someone told you to
>> read and in both cases you are bullshitting. Alleles can
>> spontaneously regenerate in very rare instances haplotypes
>> are passed, you don't spontaneously create convergent 8 loci
>> haplotypes from alleles. It is about as probable as hitting
>> a target with a 22-235 fired from the bottom of a 747
>> traveling at 40,000 feet above the ground.
>
> sigh.... The problem with you is that
>1 you don't understand the subject you profess expertise on
The problem is that I understand it tremendously more than
someone who is fixated on interpreting Y chromomes. What is
your love of Y, because your are male, or because it
supports some odd ethnoracial idea that you support?
>2 you have very low opinions about everyone else.
I have a low opinion about you because you have taken the
low road in arguing with other people, and come to find out
you are bashing them over the head with the weakest of weak
possible sources of data. The only people who follow this Y
drivel are the klienist who beleive that humans invented
language around a campfire 50,000 years ago and spread
around the world 40,000 years ago. These people ignore finds
like LM3, liujiang and the molecular evidence regarding
andaman islanders and the undersampling problem in India,
and wrap their arms around the Y chromosome as if it was a
love goddess. I have found, comparing mtDNA and HLA, that
HLA and mtDNA frequently aggree, and these two would
represent more thorought the effective breeding population
whereas Y patterns often give opposing conclusions to both.
Which do I consider, a pattern that represents .1 to .33 of
the effective breeding or patterns that cover 2.6, HLA
covering the effective breeding twice and mtDNA .66 to .9.
Which do you think is most likely to be wrong? Then add in
the mutation time and poor relative studies of Y, it is, at
this point hardly worth using.
> What I said has nothing to do with the mechanics of HLA.
>That it can leave a signiture of movement as a pure artifact of selection
>applies to all selective loci(even y-chromosome but I made an assumption
>that it is more neutral than HLA). O.K?
No you said it moved.
"
This
means that HLA type can move around without specific
population movement.
In other words, certain population movements detectable
through HLA may be
entirely fictitious artifacts of selection.
"
OK, so now that we have confirmed you are a liar, you are
trying to bullshit your way out.
This is what HLA do, they recombine. When they move
(Haplotypes) they move with people and only with people
(Human = H in HLA). This signature of movement is actually
people moving. HLA is under heterozygous selection
coefficient, there are papers out their that demostrate over
long periods direction selection acts on HLA, however, over
time frames that I am considering selection acts on
recombination as people move around. However recombination
is not a single thing with HLA, there are 6 loci, each at
different distance from the other loci, therefore there are
many genetic distance by which HLA can be used to measure
recombination. As a result, when say B DR DQ undergo
recombination it frequently leaves DQ (alpha beta)
unchanged. Secondarily in many populations one sees the
allele frequencies the same but the recombinant frequencies
change; however, as this weakens the connection, it actually
strengthens its use because each movement of people can be
characterized by new changes, and these new changes can be
used as references when one is looking at many haplotypes
(not 1) at a time. There are som tell tale haplotypes, Like
DQ2.5 that are useful because will evolution is fast, it
cannot erase what happened 500 or 1500 years ago, such
migratory events leave a strong 'scent' and HLA are the most
diverse loci useful in tracking these. The rapid
recombination times over numbers of loci make it idea for
tracking migrations that arae lost in the event times of
other loci.
>> Y chromosome lags X-linked, HLA and mtDNA in its usefulness.
>> While it is non-recombining, male passage is undoubtedly a
>> weak point because male to female ratios in effective
>> population size makes the assignment of effective ploidy
>> unestimable, and based on the MRCAs it creates this is
>> essentially verified by comparison to other loci.
>
>..... I can almost forgive you given that you have a wrong figure for the
>rate of nucleotide mutation for y-chromosome but how the hell did you get
>your phd?
Probably by knowing how to punctuate its spelling better
than you.
> You are beginning to be truly entertaining. Have you heard of father-son
>pair comparison, deep genealogical study etc? Why do you think they do
>that?
Oh, I read the paper, did you read the warnings in that
paper about interpreting these things.
(as an initial rough estimate one may have to resort to the
known
>historical time table since to calibrate using father son pair for instance
>would be prohibitive for SNP as the rate of mutation is very low. It can be
>done at a reasonable coast for STR though.)
Which coast is reasonable, east or west.
Philip Deitiker
<bai...@yahoo.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
>1. Deitiker does not know what he is talking about.
>2. He has no idea what others are talking about either.
To reiterate this is how biayaan got himself in a fight
with two other people, and now, because I don't believe Y
chromosomal studies are the most spectacular studies done on
molecular evolution he is trying to pick a fight with me.
For the reason of the so-called 'oriental' hit and run
attacks 1 year ago to this week Gisele and myself created
the molecular evolution group where things can be discussed
without the attacks and where real papers are presented and
not he said she said crap, I saw on a TV documentary crap.
Baiyaan you done your hitting, you can do your little
'running' now. Group will still be here next year when you
or one of the other 'Nazi' like kooks that fly in and attack
people and then whiz out. When you leave take your little
slapping buddy peoples commisioner with you.
Adios.
MIB529
> > > Ok. - sexual selection would be the answer to
> > > why. Why do we tend to have full, up tilted breasts where as most
> anglos
> > > are almost flat like boys and lots of southern europeans and such have
> > > droopy breasts? Selection. Guys chose what they liked best! I know
> this -
> > > women with almost no breasts told me that breastfeeding for them was
> very
> > > painful so they stopped right away. This is NOT the experiences of our
> > > women - and we tend to be pretty big according to American standards.
> For
> > > our women, it's very pleasurable. Selection would then have been toward
> > > women that wanted to feed by breasts and liked it - and maybe also due
> to
> > > male preference. And that's not just an American thing.
> >
> > I was thinking of male preference. I just couldn't think of any natural
> > selection, so I said sexual selection. (Which is also generally true for
> > sexual differences.)
>
> I would guess that the male preference for "more or a lot more than just a
> handful" would be originally based on the idea of the babies. But it's a
> guess. Back then, if you didn't breast feed, or couldn't due to pain - that
> would have produced kids not so healthy. No bottles back then :)
Well, duhh . . . Also, back then, breastfeeding was typically for two to four
years. (More of that neoteny thing going on.) Even today, the AAP says that
nothing should interfere with breastfeeding because it helps establish the
mother-infant bond and ease postpartum depression.
> > > Sexual selection is ignored (get this) primarily by MALE European
> > > anthropologists. LMAO. I can think of a LOT of reasons why they'd tend
> to
> > > over look that. If I go into details, this post will become X-rated.
> >
> > LOL It would be male ignorance. (It's easy to see how sexual selection
> could
> > favor most forms of human neoteny.)
>
> Oh yeah, neotany is CUTEness. Makes you want to hug the babies that have it
> most. Heh, not all babies are cute!
Well, mammal babies are cute. The side effect of neoteny is a larger body,
though.
> > I've found there are two types of white men: Those who refuse to consider
> > sex as a biological factor at all, and those who are obsessed with sex.
>
> YEAH I AGREE!!! But I've known those that are what I'd call normal, too.
And what's funny is when they project their perversions onto us. The classic
example is Fakir Mustafa and his sadomasochistic Sundances. But I can think
of others: The Cherokees actually sued HBO for having one guy, Harley Reagan,
alias Swift Deer, Thunder Strikes; on their show. And then there's that whole
'satanic apache' thing.
> Oh, never use real email on newsgroups - that's a sure way to get heaps of
> spam.
Well, I think everyone knows that.
> > > OH OH, I wonder if you can see any other photos on that website - Lemme
> > > know - they are pictures of places
> > >
> > > www.geocities.com/trip_to_innsmouth/index.html The photos are on the
> next
> > > pages. Please let me know. You using netscape? Ie is good - and it is
> > > also FREE. Why not just go get it?
A little misunderstanding here. I thought you were wondering why I use
netscape. I personally use Opera, but that's just me. I thought you were a
Microsoftie at first.
Netscape has its own problem: A lot of faulty extensions. That's why I like
Opera.
> > Saving is important: Generally speaking, using all available
> archaeological
> > and molecular evidence, Indians are supposed to have split from Eurasians
> > before Austronesians did. (You notice I brought up the racial affiliations
> > of Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi, and Solutrean man to DrPostal: He didn't like
> that
> > very well.) Those cave paintings won't go away.
>
> Deitiker posted some complicated info in his last post to me - unless he
> made another one since then. Well, those images for the website. Someone
> emailed them to me and well, WHY is shit stuff so hard to get? It makes me
> believe what MMD says - that it's being kept from the public. WHY?
Well, certain things are. I remember Piltdown. (Well, not personally: I
remember learning about it in school.) Mostly, Piltdown was the result of
wishful thinking. But no one could challenge it because no one could see
the skull.
> > Most of northern Eurasia is like that, IIRC.
>
> Nah, no it's not as bad as Kolyma. Lots of people live there in N.
> Euroasia with no problem!
Well, I guess it gets better around South Korea.
> > I'd agree. r and K are actually ecological variables, but Rushton screws
> up
> > on what they mean. (I joked that all it proves is that he's hung like a
> > gorilla, and about half as smart.) Basically, a higher capacity K favors a
> > higher population growth rate r, but a lower K favors a lower r. And the
> > easiest adaptation to a lower K is to simply have a prolonged growth rate:
> > Longer gestation, later sexual maturity, etc. (Too bad for Rushton that
> > the latest average menarche is in Kenya, at 18.0 years!)
>
> LMAO - well, I actually saw the man (Rushton) on TV when he barged into the
> size of male penises like an innocent, naive fool. I just about fell off
> the chair - like uh, does he KNOW what he just got himself into? LMAO. I
> need mention one Anghlo: JOHN HOLMES. Case closed. Ha hAAAA... I mean,
> what's wrong with me, why didn't I EXPECT the thunb-sized types to come up
> with SOMETHING - like "higher IQ." I have known PLENTY of men, non-black,
> with pretty god damned BIG organs - that were smart, high IQ the whole rest.
> Talk about cerebroscrotal or gonadocephalic, LMAO. Rushton did it at that
> point. And the audience, you should have seen the AUDIENCE. It was oh Phil
> Donahue I think.
It would've been perfect for Jerry Springer. LOL Rushton's trick was that he
ASKED the men. Now, I seriously doubt Clarence Thomas is like he told Anita
Hill.
I prefer the term 'coprocephalic' for a lot of these people, personally.
> > > Here is the stuff on the canines - it's very good (INTERESTING!!)
> > >
> > > These animals are different species and highly cross fertile. I read
> that
> > > last article, printed it out. It's VERY GOOD and it's pure science,
> alright.
> > > Dogs, left on their own, would NOT revert to wolves! What people
> thought
> > > about dogs - ALL wrong. Article is a MUST READ if you like dogs.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Heredi
> > > ty_Dog_Paper_1999.pdf
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Watch the bottom of it if you go to get it, I can't paste it right.
> This
> > > article is FASCINATING - and the rest of the info below is right too.
> > > FASCINATING (Big Fan of Animal Planet here....) This is freaking
> > > FASCINATING. Inspiring!
> >
> > Use tinyurl.
> >
> > > This is TRUE - all same GENUS - different SPECIES - see article. The
> coyote
> > > is capable of breeding and producing *fertile* offspring with a number
> of
> > > its cousins, including the domestic dog (the offspring of this type of
> > > mating is referred to as a "coydog"), wild dogs, and wolves. The mixed
> > > offspring of the coyote can present a good deal of confusion as to
> whether
> > > or not a real coyote has been sighted in an area. Positive
> identification
> > > can only be made by examination of the skull. Research has shown that in
> > > Ohio, 98 percent of the animals sighted, captured, or killed are indeed
> > > coyotes. Only a small portion (two percent) have been identified as a
> > > coyote-dog mix.
> >
> > It might be proper to say subspecies: It's used for cases of highly
> > successful hybrids where there are clearly defined differences.
>
> Well, they now say that mammals are cross fertile across species lines.
> They are judging them species due to the genetics. I think it's awesome! I
> know that PLANTS are cross fertile even across FAMILY!
Well, generally, species refers to cases of highly successful hybrids. Of
course, like all other categories, it should be a monophyletic one: Never
say that lightning never strikes twice.
> > > Coy-wolves (Coyote/Wolf) have occurred in captivity or, rarely, where
> the
> > > choice of same-species mates has been limited. Coyote/Red Wolf hybrids
> have
> > > been found. Some consider the American Red Wolf is not to a true species
> > > because it can hybridize with both the Grey Wolf and the Coyote; however
> it
> > > is *now known* that hybridization between species (in general) happens
> more
> > > often than previously thought.(!!!!) Some consider it a Grey
> Wolf/Coyote
> > > hybrid and use this argument to prevent conservation of the Red Wolf.
> Some
> > > hybridization occurred when pure Red Wolves were in decline and
> interbred
> > > with more numerous Coyotes. More recent studies in many mammals shows
> that
> > > *true species can and do hybridize* and that the species boundary is
> > > preserved by geographic or behavioural separation, *not by genetic
> > > separation* The converse mating results in a Dogote and there is
> currently
> > > one known Dogote which arose from a male German Shepherd/female coyote
> > > mating in the wild. Hybrid pups were found after a female coyote was
> shot.
> > > The adult Dogote resembled a German Shepherd in colour.
> >
> > It all depends on one's definition of species: Even higher taxa of plants
> > can hybridize; the highest I've heard is two different families. Dawkins
> > probably has the best genetic definition of species: The same number and
> > shape of chromosomes. (Most genetic disorders where these don't match
> > the mother, save for the sex chromosomes, are aborted.)
>
> OH, there is also this stuff "cytoplasmic inheritance" which doesn't mean
> mtDNA. It's weird shit - like NON-genetic inheritance - and you can only
> see it with wide crosses. It's not simple at all and not much as been
> studied about it - TOO BAD! Botanists studied it and I tried looking up
> stuff on it - but it was NOT simple like nuclear chromosome stuff at all.
> It was over my head :(
Well, the easiest stuff to do is blood groups. After all, for every blood
group foo, it shouldn't be hard to get anti-foo and then test that way.
People's Commissar
news:4ad78f65.04021...@posting.google.com...
Yeah, agree on that - it used to be the norm.
OH, You mean LEYBA - yeah, heh.
>
> > Oh, never use real email on newsgroups - that's a sure way to get heaps
of
> > spam.
>
> Well, I think everyone knows that.
>
> > > > OH OH, I wonder if you can see any other photos on that website -
Lemme
> > > > know - they are pictures of places
> > > >
> > > > www.geocities.com/trip_to_innsmouth/index.html The photos are on
the
> > next
> > > > pages. Please let me know. You using netscape? Ie is good - and
it is
> > > > also FREE. Why not just go get it?
>
> A little misunderstanding here. I thought you were wondering why I use
> netscape. I personally use Opera, but that's just me. I thought you were a
> Microsoftie at first.
I use IE and MS - yup.
>
> Netscape has its own problem: A lot of faulty extensions. That's why I
like
> Opera.
>
> > > Saving is important: Generally speaking, using all available
> > archaeological
> > > and molecular evidence, Indians are supposed to have split from
Eurasians
> > > before Austronesians did. (You notice I brought up the racial
affiliations
> > > of Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi, and Solutrean man to DrPostal: He didn't like
> > that
> > > very well.) Those cave paintings won't go away.
> >
> > Deitiker posted some complicated info in his last post to me - unless he
> > made another one since then. Well, those images for the website.
Someone
> > emailed them to me and well, WHY is shit stuff so hard to get? It makes
me
> > believe what MMD says - that it's being kept from the public. WHY?
>
> Well, certain things are. I remember Piltdown. (Well, not personally: I
> remember learning about it in school.) Mostly, Piltdown was the result of
> wishful thinking. But no one could challenge it because no one could see
> the skull.
It turns out Piltdown was a prank played by people the guy knew!
>
> > > Most of northern Eurasia is like that, IIRC.
> >
> > Nah, no it's not as bad as Kolyma. Lots of people live there in N.
> > Euroasia with no problem!
>
> Well, I guess it gets better around South Korea.
Hmm, I'm not talking about E. Asia. I mean EURO-asia - "Central
Asia/Eastern Europe." Smack in the middle where Turkics are.
OH, he asked them? LMAO omg omg omg. I'm surprised he didn't conclude,
after ASKING the men, that "all men have foot long shlongs." LMAO. (Ever
hear the joke about why white gals can't measure things right?)....
>
> I prefer the term 'coprocephalic' for a lot of these people, personally.
LMAO. Richard Cranium. LMAO.
Well, my idea is that while MAN is over here claiming that only those within
same species are cross fertile - MOTHER NATURE is over there making heaps of
hybrids and ignoring the "rules." LMAO - and I have to wonder how many MORE
kinds there are that maybe aren't mammals at all. This canine info blew me
away - and the pdf article has the genetics!
baiyaan
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
> It makes little different,
.........You certainly shouldn't pick on someone else for punctuation or
spelling.
>SNPs from point mutations are
> indistinguishable from gene conversion events in sparesely
> mutated genes unless the population is thoroughly sampled.
> Since the medial Autosomal loci MRCA ~ 900,000 years are,
> there are alot of accumulated mutations that can undergo
> conversion.
You think you are clever, don't you? The issue is not whether
y-chromosome has SNP mutation rate higher or lower than autosome's. It all
started when you revealed your massive misunderstanding about the SN(P)
mutation rate and "the evolution of y-chromosome". You were just simply
wrong as you have been in everywhere else. NRY has a nucleotide mutation
rate of one per 3 generations or so even by the most conservative estimate.
This was in fact so stated in a few recent articles(well not so recent,
2003).
Now... you are an awfully dishonest twerp. So I will just go for the
minimum. Justify your statement that the size (the number of base pairs
under consideration) is irrelevant. hmmm?
>As you will read my posting
I rarely do. I have no plan for it either.
>I was against Ayala
> for using HLA to try to determine MRCA because of the gene
> conversion as playing a well known role; however my finger
> pointing is based on using HLA on a time scale in which it
> is out of context (100,000s to millions of years)
So you are smidgeon less a loon than what most people here think you are.
You still don't look much different.
>HLA are
> quite useful for alligning events within the 100 to 10,000s
> year time frame, because haplotype reorganization, in most
> cases is alot faster than nascent mutations (exception being
> in south america and potentially central africa). This
> contrast
Now just one intrusion. How do you manage to deride others' English? How
do you live with yourself?
> with Y which, based on its rates of mutations are
.... is... of course he would say he meant Y in some esoteric plural
sense.
> useful in the 100,000 of years time frame
...... now this is it. I have had it with this
layperson-claiming-academic-credentials. I challenge any reputable scholar
here to tell me I am overreacting....
The rate alone tells you that it CAN be useful. It does not necessarily
mean it is useful nor does it imply that it is not useful on a smaller time
scale especially if massive number of loci can be typed.
>and are useless
> because of statistical variance in mutation frequencies in
> which the time frames one is examining is some small
> multiple of the frequency in which one expects one more
> accumulated mutation. Given its recent fixation and the
> small multiples of expect novel allele generation time
> (considering NRY as an allele).
Oh noooooooo. Are you sure your department understood any of your mumbo
jumbo when you submitted your thesis?
And lets see,.... suppose that the mutation rate of NRY is 1 per
generation or about 25 years. You would not find me claiming that since
there were 2 mutations detected, 50 years must have elapsed.
I was actually overly careful; I said there must be empirical independent
calibrations for NRY rather than using figures for autosomes of males(as
presented by schaffner) because many things work differently. Gene
conversion in Y is largely intrachromosomal etc. But because the size of
genome is large, one can actually treat all these as point mutations by
averaging out. When one wants to apply this "molecular clock" to smaller
time scale, one needs to make sure that no funny thing has happened. But it
is not really that difficult since by the nature of the time scale one is
likely to have better access to the related lineages and there are many(and
EASY) statistical techniques to ascentain that the patterns and
distributions follow the known law of stochastics.
And STR etc can also be used to additionally verify the result.
.>
> > Now look. You are a biochemist, I heard. You are not a geneticist.
> >Somewhere along your drivel, there is immense and total misunderstanding
of
> >the things you spend so much time on.
>
> I work on genetics also.
I am sure you also work on differentiable manifolds and tensor analysis with
application toward general relativity.
.... and when questioned can not even differentiate sinusoidal curves, can
not even set up transformation matrix for uniform motion.
> > sigh.... The problem with you is that
> >1 you don't understand the subject you profess expertise on
>
> The problem is that I understand it tremendously more than
> someone who is fixated on interpreting Y chromomes. What is
> your love of Y, because your are male,
What is your interest in blood-related things? Is it because you are a
leech(in the sense of anelid worm. I know all your cheap variations).
> > What I said has nothing to do with the mechanics of HLA.
> >That it can leave a signiture of movement as a pure artifact of selection
> >applies to all selective loci(even y-chromosome but I made an assumption
> >that it is more neutral than HLA). O.K?
>
> No you said it moved.
>
> "
> This
> means that HLA type can move around without specific
> population movement.
> In other words, certain population movements detectable
> through HLA may be
> entirely fictitious artifacts of selection.
> "
Yes, it can move and move around as well only with minimal genetic
exchange beween neighboring villages.(do you see I said "HLA TYPE"? Even
without "type" it is quite clear from the context but... wow...)
Suppose region A has a certain HLA allele resistent to a disease plaguing
that region. Suppose that both the disease and the allele spread to the
region B. In the mean time in region A a new plague arrives and favors a
different allele. The end result is that the allele not only leaves a trail
but also "moves around".
In other words, not only did he try to distort my words by nit-picking
what I said, I can actually defend what I said as it is.. in that nit-picked
state.
Now... I hate to do this but instead of asking him how he got his PhD I
should ask him how he did in GRE or even what he got in his SATs. REALLY.
>
> OK, so now that we have confirmed you are a liar, you are
> trying to bullshit your way out.
Now you have confirmed that "liar" is the most creative insult conceivable
to you, residing at the dangerous stretch of your imagination.
> This is what HLA do, they recombine. When they move
> (Haplotypes) they move with people and only with people
> (Human = H in HLA). This signature of movement is actually
> people moving.
Oh my Oh my Oh my Oh my.........
I think I know where all his misunderstanding comes from.
And I also know why he got kicked out of many yahoo groups owned by
multi-regionalist anthropologists.
While I do not agree with multi regionalists on most issues, still the
mechanism of spreading genes without the whole replacement or even
substantial shuffling of the populations is very well known and unquestioned
as far as such have occured at some level, at some time in the past and will
continue in the future.
Most people see that deitiker is stupid. Many even make reasonable
estimates as to how stupid he is. But no one up unitl now has figured out
in exactly what way he is stupid. Now I take that credit. Thank you.
>HLA is under heterozygous selection
> coefficient, there are papers out their that demostrate over
> long periods direction selection acts on HLA, however, over
> time frames that I am considering selection acts on
> recombination as people move around.
That is just your assumption and bias. very convenient.
I will agree up to the point that many HLA signitures PROBABLY reflect some
population movements.
Then again I said "HLA is not without problems". I never said these tools
were invalid.
And it is also clear that you make too much out of flimsy "evidences", just
small faint signs as long as such fit your preconceived notion and ongoing
agenda.
That is why mainstream population geneticists laugh at your proposition, not
because they fail to appreciate your "maverkick genius"(hahahaha).
However recombination
> is not a single thing with HLA, there are 6 loci, each at
> different distance from the other loci, therefore there are
> many genetic distance by which HLA can be used to measure
> recombination. As a result, when say B DR DQ undergo
> recombination it frequently leaves DQ (alpha beta)
> unchanged. ..
As far as mud slinging with this deitiker character is concerned, I do not
have to acknowledge anything but for others who have been following this
thread, I will admit that I do not know really that much about HLA(and
talked from information many years old when most HLA could be typed only by
its expression not from the genes themselves) and may have overestimated
the uncertainty involved in tracing the evolution of HLA alleles(through
recombinations and all).
However even as he admitted there is a lot of guess work as far as the
details of the pathways are concerned.
I knew there were 6 loci and the number of the known alleles were in the
order of 100s rather than 1000s(even this would be too coarse). That
validates my criticism enough.
Secondarily in many populations one sees the
> allele frequencies the same but the recombinant frequencies
> change; however, as this weakens the connection, it actually
> strengthens its use because each movement of people can be
> characterized by new changes, and these new changes can be
> used as references when one is looking at many haplotypes
> (not 1) at a time. There are som tell tale haplotypes, Like
> DQ2.5 that are useful because will evolution is fast, it
> cannot erase what happened 500 or 1500 years ago, such
> migratory events leave a strong 'scent' and HLA are the most
> diverse loci useful in tracking these. The rapid
> recombination times over numbers of loci make it idea for
> tracking migrations that arae lost in the event times of
> other loci.
Y-chromsome is the largest single locus. Resolution gained from
recombination has a price to pay in uncertainty.
>
> >> Y chromosome lags X-linked, HLA and mtDNA in its usefulness.
> >> While it is non-recombining, male passage is undoubtedly a
> >> weak point because male to female ratios in effective
> >> population size makes the assignment of effective ploidy
> >> unestimable, and based on the MRCAs it creates this is
> >> essentially verified by comparison to other loci.
> >
> >..... I can almost forgive you given that you have a wrong figure for
the
> >rate of nucleotide mutation for y-chromosome but how the hell did you
get
> >your phd?
>
> Probably by knowing how to punctuate its spelling better
> than you.
But not without someone who corrected your pitiful grammar.
Look, moron. See your own writing above. I gave up poking fun at you in
that area because you made grammatical/spelling/punctuation errors so often
that it became really pointless. I felt like mocking a quadriplegic retard
with missing nose.
>
> > You are beginning to be truly entertaining. Have you heard of
father-son
> >pair comparison, deep genealogical study etc? Why do you think they do
> >that?
>
> Oh, I read the paper, did you read the warnings in that
> paper about interpreting these things.
As I google search, I see that you did after being royally humiliated for
your ignorance. Genealogical comparison will rectify most of its short
comings.
And somewhere above you said you disagreed with someone. Here is the rule
of thumb in such cases
1 you and someone else disagree -> you are wrong.
2 you and someone agree -> you plagirized
>
> Which coast is reasonable, east or west.
.. making an error while attempting to poke fun at the other's error.....
..... is there any occasion when you regret your life? I doubt.
PC
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
Hey, I did not flame you at all - so... I asked sincere questions - and I
DO want understandable answers:
So so many people came from the Altai, Bulgars, Khazars, Magyars,
Avars, Oghuz - so so many - all of them were Turks. They didn't look like
Tungiz people at all. People would have mistook them for Chinese if they
looked anything like that.
You mentioned Western Turks.
I think the thing is here, the argument is
that in the opinion of the Turkics, Jenghis and his sons (and we have
descriptions of Batu) were TURKS, not Tungiz types or Khalka types at all.
Uzbeks are descendents of the Khans from one of Jenghis's sons line. Not
Jochi, I think Chagatai? Not sure. But ALL those people are even called
CHAGATAI TURKS. They are nothing like the Khalka. I know too many Khalka
to be able to say that those people look Chinese. They are also darker than
we are, their skin. They are darker than a lot of Chinese people I've seen,
too. I have photos of some of the ones I made friends with and knew quite
well. I think that's the argument. I'm talking Turks. Baiyaan is talking
Khalka. The Khalka Badma that I mentioned was claiming that Jenghis was one
of his. The Turkish Nelafur was saying that Jenghis was one of hers. Well,
"Chaghatai Turks" says it all. Those people are TURKS. NOT Khalka type.
You said about digs:
> They appear to have kept dogs as pets.
YES! I have oral stories of that, Phil. How we became so friendly with
dog - which used to be wolf! And wolf IS out totem. Even the Moslems in, I
think it's the Gray Wolf Party? used that old totem in Turkey recently, when
they resurrected the nationalism. Someone on a wiccan newsgroup was asking
about totems and somewhere, she read that with the Tungiz people, the wolf
was considered evil. I told her that we, as Shaman, had the wolf as
ancestral totem!
Some (Nim?) said
> > Even the word T'u-chueh is a
> >rendering of the word Turk. Where they originally came from seems to not
be
> >in our history that I know of; they may have gotten to the area from the
> >West; I strongly suspect this.
Oh, I missed that. Hmm. HMMMMM. New paradigm. You mean that Turks were
originally like very fair Uralic people - who went east and plagued China -
HMMM, that makes a funny kind of sense with what a Finn told me.
Ural-Altaic - we always INSIST there is URAL-ALTAIC and I do too - and I
get trashed for saying it by people that disagree (they can't JUST
disagree....). So then, after thousands of years of living north of China
and doing our horse raiding and roaming, only kinda recently some Tungiz
showed up from way north east - around the same time the Turks started to
move back west in waves. AH HA. That would make us literally Ural and
Altaic, right?
Phil, can HLAs drop out? I know Y and mtDNA can vanish - like black eyes
can vanish in a population even in one generation. It's the Turkics, me
included, that insist on "ural-altaic." We may have been Uralic people, WEA
or not, that went to Asia. Stayed there for a LONG time and got recorded
into Chinese history and described, and then slowly, in waves, moved back
west - usually having to conquer to get there. Then got back, including
back, maybe back to Lapland area or Finland. The fact is, those Uzbeks who
look like Hispanic mixed or East Europeans are the descendents of Jenghis -
and the Khalka are not in that line of descent at all. I'm saying that the
Khalka are NOT the same people as the Turkic Khans. If Chinese records
describe them and agree - well so do a LOT of Western sources before the
time of Victorian race classifications.
Turkic people were there, during the Khan's time in 1200's - and from then
on they seriously went more west. More and more Tungiz types, probably part
Chinese too, ended up in Mongolia itself. Turks stayed west, became almost
all Moslem - and then later events ended up with us being in Central Asia
which if I'm locating that right, is pretty far west of China or Mongolia.
Is this right?
The argument is this: We Turks, and our names pretty much give it away
(Uzbek? Chaghatai?) claim we are the people from the Khans and that the
Khalka and Tungiz are NOT the same people. Chinese records agree with this.
I know that Khalka today would like to fancy themselves "the Golden Horde"
or whatever, I've even got a photo of one very Chinese looking Khalka with a
t-shirt on that says "Golden Horde." But no no, they are not the same
people at all. The Turkics still have the names of these tribes of old,
even the names of some of thei nations. Khazakh, eg, was once the name of a
PERSON, and so is Uzbeg.
What's your take on the Turkic stuff? A friend interested in this for his
own reasons (HLA stuff) tried to figure out the Turks and gave up! He also
kept saying he sees uralic and then he sees some altaic - but said that the
people in Mongol areas are clearly different from what he could tell. I
agree with that - not just based on appearance, but based on their behavior,
character, etc. Khakla are very very meek people - like weak. Turks? No
way.
Btw, baiyaan means rich. That was the joke that he apparently didn't even
get. Now he claims he's not Khalka after all. Whatever.
I did NOT "slap you" around - I asked you sincere questions. Baiyaan
started flaming me.
>
> Adios.
>
>
PC
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:49:38 -0800, "baiyaan"
> <bai...@yahoo.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
>
> >Somewhere along your drivel, there is immense and total misunderstanding
of
> >the things you spend so much time on.
>
> I work on genetics also. Its just I approach from a
> biochemical perspective.
Wait. Isn't the study of genes .....BIOCHEMISTRY? I mean, you are
basically looking at the CHEMICALS that make up DNA, no? I understood
genetics to be a part of biochemistry - not the other way around.
Not all biochemists are geneticists. But ALL geneticists are biochemists!
They'd have to be!
>
> > sigh.... The problem with you is that
> >1 you don't understand the subject you profess expertise on
>
> The problem is that I understand it tremendously more than
> someone who is fixated on interpreting Y chromomes. What is
> your love of Y, because your are male, or because it
> supports some odd ethnoracial idea that you support?
_||||||||_ Viola! And he called me a bitch for insisting that the
CHAGHATAI TURKS (the name itself is a dead giveaway) and Khazakhs, Uzbeks
(other names also giveaway) were the Khan's people, as are the "Western"
Turks
I'm from. NOT THE KHALKA. I mean, you know - even in terms of character.
Look at the hell the Turko-Tatars gave Lenin and Stalin both - and today
still, in Chechnya. Same character. The Khalka people are meek people, no
such tribe as Khalka was there before - they are different people as I
know - and as a Chinese poster said and they do have records of this. We
are the wolf totem people, the dog lovers and horsepeople. Always were.
The Tungiz came later - much later and those guys are seriously Chinese
looking now - and I DO have plenty of photos of Khalka I knew to prove it.
And I mean never a more TAME and MEEK people can you possibly meet.
Today only in Turkey can you even FIND the Borte Chino party! (politics)
>
> >2 you have very low opinions about everyone else.
>
> I have a low opinion about you because you have taken the
> low road in arguing with other people, and come to find out
> you are bashing them over the head with the weakest of weak
> possible sources of data. The only people who follow this Y
> drivel are the klienist who beleive that humans invented
> language around a campfire 50,000 years ago and spread
> around the world 40,000 years ago.
> > What I said has nothing to do with the mechanics of HLA.
> >That it can leave a signiture of movement as a pure artifact of selection
> >applies to all selective loci(even y-chromosome but I made an assumption
> >that it is more neutral than HLA). O.K?
>
> No you said it moved.
> "
> This
> means that HLA type can move around without specific
> population movement.
> In other words, certain population movements detectable
> through HLA may be
> entirely fictitious artifacts of selection.
> "
>
> OK, so now that we have confirmed you are a liar, you are
> trying to bullshit your way out.
You're good!
>
Stop. Please answer my posts on whether or not haploids can drop out. Here
is a simple problem with Y and mtDNA that made me ignore all of it straight
up. Let's use alien names to avoid the alphabet (and confusion). Females
will always be Klingon. Males will always be Vulcans.
Vulcan men take Klingon wives. Babies get born. All female babies are
killed. Only males are left. Who'd they get that Y from? Vulcans. The male
half breeds that grow up only marry Vulcans from then on. So you get what
from that? 1/4 breeds, 1/16 breeds, etc. But the Y comes from Vulcan.
Reverse it. Klingon women are impregnated by Vulcan male. Males are
killed.
ALL the females born have Klingon mtDNA. If they only marry other
Klingons, what
happens to the Vulcan genes?
Only in a patriarchal society are some, or MANY female babies killed.
Things didn't quite used to be that way and some cave art shows this. Not
all males were ALLOWED to breed with ANYONE in some societies. Can the LA
drop out? I know the Y and mt can. That would mean paternal lines or
maternal lines would be gone, vanished - extinct. Right?
baiyaan
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:53:55 -0800, "baiyaan"
> <bai...@yahoo.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
>
> >1. Deitiker does not know what he is talking about.
> >2. He has no idea what others are talking about either.
>
> To reiterate this is how biayaan got himself in a fight
> with two other people, and now, because I don't believe Y
> chromosomal studies are the most spectacular studies done on
> molecular evolution he is trying to pick a fight with me.
I suppose it has nothing to do with his abrasive manner.
If someone is stupid but polite, I don't flame him.
If someone is smart and abrasive, I should be very careful when flaiming
him
If someone is stupid and abrasive, then I call him by the name "deitiker".
Am I a coward? I don't deny the fact that if he were much smarter I would
not have attacked him with such zeal and relish. But I doubt that there are
many who can maintain buddha-temper when called "stupid" by a true moron.
>
> For the reason of the so-called 'oriental' hit and run
> attacks 1 year ago to this week Gisele and myself created
> the molecular evolution group where things can be discussed
> without the attacks and where real papers are presented and
> not he said she said crap, I saw on a TV documentary crap.
I know he feels such emotional highs from this sanctimonious bullcrap but
his "scholarship" is really poor. I really mean it.
>
> Baiyaan you done your hitting, you can do your little
> 'running' now. Group will still be here next year when you
> or one of the other 'Nazi' like kooks that fly in and attack
> people and then whiz out.
The moment of supreme hilarity. He thought he was coming back with his
"jibe" and then wrote something that is not even a sentence. He got so~~~
impressed by his own "acid tongue"(pehehehehe) that as he was writing down
his words, he forgot what he was saying let alone what he was going to say.
All this happened in less than 10 seconds. This dude has a serious
attention span problem.
Nim
"PC" <tjsrn...@post.com> wrote in message
news:oIwXb.5475$hm4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
> news:6tcr20161od5guhi6...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:53:55 -0800, "baiyaan"
> > <bai...@yahoo.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
> >
> > >1. Deitiker does not know what he is talking about.
> > >2. He has no idea what others are talking about either.
> >
> > To reiterate this is how biayaan got himself in a fight
> > with two other people, and now, because I don't believe Y
> > chromosomal studies are the most spectacular studies done on
> > molecular evolution he is trying to pick a fight with me.
> >
> > For the reason of the so-called 'oriental' hit and run
> > attacks 1 year ago to this week Gisele and myself created
> > the molecular evolution group where things can be discussed
> > without the attacks and where real papers are presented and
> > not he said she said crap, I saw on a TV documentary crap.
> >
> > Baiyaan you done your hitting, you can do your little
> > 'running' now. Group will still be here next year when you
> > or one of the other 'Nazi' like kooks that fly in and attack
> > people and then whiz out. When you leave take your little
> > slapping buddy peoples commisioner with you.
>
> Hey, I did not flame you at all - so... I asked sincere questions - and I
> DO want understandable answers:
You flamed him back. Ignore him.
>
> So so many people came from the Altai, Bulgars, Khazars, Magyars,
> Avars, Oghuz - so so many - all of them were Turks. They didn't look like
> Tungiz people at all.
True.
People would have mistook them for Chinese if they
> looked anything like that.
True.
>
> You mentioned Western Turks.
It turns out that this is in our history after all, all these Turks came to
the East from the West. Only recently, in the last 2000 years did they
trickle back to more westerly regions. I'm wondering if these were
Scythians, or what I think the Persians called the Ashkuz people.
>
> I think the thing is here, the argument is
> that in the opinion of the Turkics, Jenghis and his sons (and we have
> descriptions of Batu) were TURKS, not Tungiz types or Khalka types at all.
True.
> Uzbeks are descendents of the Khans from one of Jenghis's sons line. Not
> Jochi, I think Chagatai? Not sure. But ALL those people are even called
> CHAGATAI TURKS.
Excellent point, so obvious that I missed it at first.
They are nothing like the Khalka. I know too many Khalka
> to be able to say that those people look Chinese. They are also darker
than
> we are, their skin. They are darker than a lot of Chinese people I've
seen,
> too. I have photos of some of the ones I made friends with and knew quite
> well.
The Khalka look like what most people think of when they think of
"Oriental." They apparently hate the fact that they do, or at least some of
them do.
I think that's the argument. I'm talking Turks. Baiyaan is talking
> Khalka. The Khalka Badma that I mentioned was claiming that Jenghis was
one
> of his. The Turkish Nelafur was saying that Jenghis was one of hers.
Well,
> "Chaghatai Turks" says it all. Those people are TURKS. NOT Khalka type.
True.
>
> Oh, I missed that. Hmm. HMMMMM. New paradigm. You mean that Turks were
> originally like very fair Uralic people - who went east and plagued
China -
> HMMM, that makes a funny kind of sense with what a Finn told me.
> Ural-Altaic - we always INSIST there is URAL-ALTAIC and I do too - and I
> get trashed for saying it by people that disagree (they can't JUST
> disagree....).
Uralic is a language group, as is Altaic. The dispute seems to be a
linguistic one. Language is a very poor indicator of "race" or genes.
However, there is something to be said about the use of proto-Turkic to
decipher heretofore undecipherable scripts found in Europe.
So then, after thousands of years of living north of China
> and doing our horse raiding and roaming, only kinda recently some Tungiz
> showed up from way north east - around the same time the Turks started to
> move back west in waves.
Yes. Consider the environment in those areas.
AH HA. That would make us literally Ural and
> Altaic, right?
>
> Phil, can HLAs drop out? I know Y and mtDNA can vanish - like black eyes
> can vanish in a population even in one generation.
It's not that simple.
It's the Turkics, me
> included, that insist on "ural-altaic."
That is political.
We may have been Uralic people, WEA
> or not, that went to Asia. Stayed there for a LONG time and got recorded
> into Chinese history and described, and then slowly, in waves, moved back
> west - usually having to conquer to get there. Then got back, including
> back, maybe back to Lapland area or Finland. The fact is, those Uzbeks
who
> look like Hispanic mixed or East Europeans are the descendents of
Jenghis -
> and the Khalka are not in that line of descent at all. I'm saying that
the
> Khalka are NOT the same people as the Turkic Khans. If Chinese records
> describe them and agree - well so do a LOT of Western sources before the
> time of Victorian race classifications.
>
> Turkic people were there, during the Khan's time in 1200's - and from then
> on they seriously went more west. More and more Tungiz types, probably
part
> Chinese too, ended up in Mongolia itself. Turks stayed west, became
almost
> all Moslem - and then later events ended up with us being in Central Asia
> which if I'm locating that right, is pretty far west of China or Mongolia.
> Is this right?
Yes. They went west in waves before 1200 and tended to come and go, back
and forth, often stopping to "dip" into the south to invade and plunder.
They often plundered people too: women. These were *nomads*. They were not
stationary settlers, they didn't do agriculture or have cities as did other
more civilized people.
>
> The argument is this: We Turks, and our names pretty much give it away
> (Uzbek? Chaghatai?) claim we are the people from the Khans and that the
> Khalka and Tungiz are NOT the same people. Chinese records agree with
this.
Yes, yes, and yes.
> I know that Khalka today would like to fancy themselves "the Golden Horde"
> or whatever, I've even got a photo of one very Chinese looking Khalka with
a
> t-shirt on that says "Golden Horde." But no no, they are not the same
> people at all. The Turkics still have the names of these tribes of old,
> even the names of some of thei nations. Khazakh, eg, was once the name of
a
> PERSON, and so is Uzbeg.
Excellent points!
>
> What's your take on the Turkic stuff?
I can't speak for what HLA might find or show, but I can speak for the
history: you have the Turkic Khan information right. The rest, what the
Khalka might wish were true and want to believe, the "Ural Altaic"
statement, is politics.
You might find this interesting. In a dig there were Orkhun Runes found (in
Mongolia, btw) that were the runes of these Turkic nomads in the east. They
look similar to Scandinavian runes. That was the writing of those people
before they adopted a modified *Persian* writing called Uygur. The Hun
Attila had some agreements with the Roman Empire at different times. One
common aspect of these agreements is that they all provided freedom of trade
to the Turkish tradesmen within Roman
Empire. It is possible that Turkish runes from so early on reached
Scandinavia. Another point that might support this is that in the
Scandinavian sagas themselves, Odin's origins are mentioned: Odin comes to
Scandinavia from the Black Sea, and Odin, the god teaches writing to the
people. "The old Icelandic script Heimskringla was written about 1230 and
says among many many other things that Odin had possessions near the land
of the Turks. Odin was known in Nordic mythology as the god, who in some
way got the runic alphabet and taught it to the Nordic peoples."
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Heimskringla/ynglinga.html
Excavations of Anau near Ashkabad in Turkmenistan unearthed remains from
circa 4500 BC.
The tablet found in the ancient city of Mari near Tell Hariri in northern
Mesopotamia, dated to circa 2000 BC. tells about a people named "Turukku"
coming to lands named Tiguranim and Hirbazanim. The early Greeks wrote of
them and called them Thyrrenian, not sure on the spelling. Schythians are
accepted as "Saka" Turks by many Turkish Scholars. Adile Ayda relates "Saka"
Turks to Etruscans, and Pelasgians. The Scythians are considered civilized
nomads and the legend of Amazons, the female warriors are also associated to
them. The the women of these people fought like men is no secret in the
Chinese history of them. Hungarian runes (Székely Rovásírás) are descended
from the Kök Turki script used in Central Asia.
Nim
>
> "Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
> news:a2br209iq8ujre7pn...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:49:38 -0800, "baiyaan"
> > <bai...@yahoo.com> did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
> >
> > > Now look. You are a biochemist, I heard. You are not a geneticist.
> > >Somewhere along your drivel, there is immense and total
misunderstanding
> of
> > >the things you spend so much time on.
> >
> > I work on genetics also. Its just I approach from a
> > biochemical perspective.
>
> Wait. Isn't the study of genes .....BIOCHEMISTRY? I mean, you are
> basically looking at the CHEMICALS that make up DNA, no? I understood
> genetics to be a part of biochemistry - not the other way around.
>
> Not all biochemists are geneticists. But ALL geneticists are biochemists!
> They'd have to be!
Yes.
> >
> Stop. Please answer my posts on whether or not haploids can drop out.
Here
> is a simple problem with Y and mtDNA that made me ignore all of it
straight
> up. Let's use alien names to avoid the alphabet (and confusion). Females
> will always be Klingon. Males will always be Vulcans.
Lol.
>
> Vulcan men take Klingon wives. Babies get born. All female babies are
> killed. Only males are left. Who'd they get that Y from? Vulcans. The
male
> half breeds that grow up only marry Vulcans from then on. So you get what
> from that? 1/4 breeds, 1/16 breeds, etc. But the Y comes from Vulcan.
Eventually, through the generations, they might look like Vulcans but the
occasional Klingon trait would always come up. You can't destroy all
traces. You'd be able to tell the pure from the mixed through genes.
>
> Reverse it. Klingon women are impregnated by Vulcan male. Males are
> killed.
> ALL the females born have Klingon mtDNA. If they only marry other
> Klingons, what
> happens to the Vulcan genes?
Same as above. Or are you asking about hypothetical wide crossing, so wide
that it would be wider than phylum? I'll assume you aren't. Same as above.
>
> Only in a patriarchal society are some, or MANY female babies killed.
> Things didn't quite used to be that way and some cave art shows this. Not
> all males were ALLOWED to breed with ANYONE in some societies. Can the LA
> drop out? I know the Y and mt can. That would mean paternal lines or
> maternal lines would be gone, vanished - extinct. Right?
Not entirely. The lines of specific people can be extinct, yes. You can't
eliminate all traces when it comes to genes. It's not as simple as
"breeding out dominant dark eyes" by "breeding only for recessive blue
eyes." I'm not up on HLA studies.
>
>
>
>
>
Nim
>
> "Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
> news:a2br209iq8ujre7pn...@4ax.com...
>
The issue is that you are repeatedly abusive and present a poor case.
> Now... you are an awfully dishonest twerp. .>
> > > Now look. You are a biochemist, I heard. You are not a geneticist.
> > >Somewhere along your drivel, there is immense and total
misunderstanding
> of
> > >the things you spend so much time on.
> >
> > I work on genetics also.
Baiyaan, all geneticists *are* biochemists (to answer another question asked
elsewhere). They are studying molecules. They have to be biochemists. It
is not as simple as y or mt as also, elsewhere, was pointed out with the
utmost simplicity. Just on that basis alone, using y or mt to try to
"figure out" anything about populations is useless. You could have an
entire tribe of people that are "obviously" of mixed origin, whose y tests
one way, not exclusively, but mostly (there some cross over from the
first mating that doesn't get *entirely* eliminated), and whose mt, despite
some meager cross over in remaining generations from the first mix, doesnt
entirely trace back to the original mothers. There would always be a small
trace left. You can not trace a "pure line" from the mother, even with
mtDNA. Then again, we might all be surprised if this were to be actually
put to the test with people.
In addition to that, one single population may appear to be "different" or
even "mixed" due to changes caused by the environment. Evolution has not
stopped. Changes have not stopped. These are ongoing things. HLA is
really the only way to really come to understand population mixing and
change over a very long period of time.
>
> What is your interest in blood-related things? Is it because you are a
> leech(in the sense of anelid worm. I know all your cheap variations).
More abuse.
>
but for others who have been following this
> thread, I will admit that I do not know really that much about HLA>
Thank you for admitting that.
> Look, moron.
I can't imagine you defending any thesis with arguments like "look moron."
As has been suggested elsewhere, and to change the subject a bit, you seem
to be under the impression that the Tugus-like mixed Khalka in Mongolia
today are the same people as were the "Kahns of old." This is simply not
correct. I have *no* particular bias one way or the other about the
subject, but Chinese records definitely *did* record the movement of peoples
and their habits in detail, especially when the people were plagueing China
repeatedly. I specifically named the tribes, in Chinese words, that were
recorded as having been there. They were Turks; they were not the
*black-haired people* that so resemble either Tugus or Chinese people today.
If you'd like to see the descendents of those Khans, look to the countries
that bear their tribal names: Khazak-stan, Uzbeg-istan, the Chaghatai Turks
and many other such peoples. The only Turks that became thoroughly mixed
with the Chinese, so as to become Chinese themselves in a few generations,
were from Kublai's line. Even the Chinese words for these people, when not
meaning "barbarian," mean *Turk.* That the Khalka today might think they
are the same people is neither here nor there. They aren't. I should say,
thank god to that on behalf of China. The only people who actually are
related to those Khans, as the "same Turkic people," are giving China a very
hard time, as usual; harboring terrorists, dealing illegally with their
"Khazakh brothers" and so forth. Imo, and perhaps this is prejudice,
these Turks are still dangerous and now they probably have nuclear weapons
without the Soviet Union to controlling them. The Khalka are a threat to
nobody, but neither are they the same people, nor do they in any way *look*
like the same people. The Tungus population in general are no threat to
anyone. They never really were. You seem to have a misunderstanding of
this situation.
Let me be clear. The horse-riding warriors of old were Turkic. The
*black-haired* Tungus who wandered into that area much later and learned the
use of horses from these Turks, are different people. These Tungus in Inner
and Outer Mongolia are mixed with various Chinese populations, *as are*
former Turks who conquered China, and these would be people that never
roamed back toward westerly regions. It is also a case of Chinese expansion
through time.
It is not a case of Tatar, Merkit, Naiman, Kerait, Mongol (referring to a
tiny tribe at the time) Uygur, Taichiut or whatnot. (Hsiung-nu, Yueh-chih,
T'u-chueh, the last word means Turk). *All* of these tribes were *Turks*.
Again, they were *not* the *black haired* people that came later. As I had
said, I was not in the least surprised when light-haired people were
excavated in China. There was nothing to be surprised about since
historical accounts spoke of these people in quite some detail. It was far
to the East of these tribes that Juchen lived (Manchu). You seem to ignore
the fact that these people were separated from the Juchen by a great
mountain range, the Khingan Mountains whereas the Turkic Tribes lived more
toward the Altai Mountains just north of Ho-lin, or the "Black Camp" as the
Turks called it. The Tungusic peoples and people like the Juchen
(Jurchen) always lived much further east and to the north; whereas the open
land areas, not suitable to agriculture, were long prior invaded by raiding
Turks from the West. With the wave of invasions during the Khan's days,
these people went West again. Slowly, the actions of the Russians and
Chinese tended to keep these people in the more westerly regions. Eastern
Turkistan may be east compared to Europe, but it's west compared to China.
baiyaan
"Nim" <N...@ppc.com> wrote in message
news:p4AXb.5613$hm4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>..... These are ongoing things. HLA is
> really the only way to really come to understand population mixing and
> change over a very long period of time.
... I can't buy that he is an MD. An MD would be still considered a novice
in this field but still.... no way.
>... The Tungus population in general are no threat to
> anyone. They never really were.
Yeh, except that they conquered china at least twice(actually even the Yin
dynasty is suspected of tungus-korean connection) and the last time they did
they made all chinese wear pigtails as a sign of submission. I think your
ancestors liked it very much.
It was not coerced at all. All happy gettogether of brotherhood.
>...
This can't possibly be a sci* group. This is a travesty.
PC
> Oh no, not again.
>
> "Nim" <N...@ppc.com> wrote in message
> news:p4AXb.5613$hm4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >..... These are ongoing things. HLA is
> > really the only way to really come to understand population mixing and
> > change over a very long period of time.
>
> ... I can't buy that he is an MD. An MD would be still considered a
novice
> in this field but still.... no way.
Why, because he agrees with Deitiker? I admit, Deitiker is 99% over my
head - but if I go very slowly, look up some of it I can get an idea of it.
You know, people understood population mixing pretty damned well long before
the white folks invented "scientific racism" - which was PURE hooey. Even
the damned slave owners down south recognized distinct types of blacks they
saw that kinda fell into groups.
>
>
> >... The Tungus population in general are no threat to
> > anyone. They never really were.
>
> Yeh, except that they conquered china at least twice(actually even the
Yin
Do you know what the word "are" means? It doesn't mean "were." He and
Deitiker NEVER said that there wasn't all kinds of mixing doing on. Why do
you hate the Chinese so much? I don't get it. He's saying that the Turks
were always a threat - and he's RIGHT. Look, I have photos of living
Khalka - happens quite a few photos of many of them. Hands down, they are
not the same people as the Turkics who WERE THOSE KHANS. They look
typically Chinese, to top that off. They don't look Korean at all - not
even that. I knew these people. I have photos of them.
> dynasty is suspected of tungus-korean connection) and the last time they
did
> they made all chinese wear pigtails as a sign of submission. I think your
> ancestors liked it very much.
> It was not coerced at all. All happy gettogether of brotherhood.
Jesus Christ man - THEY ARE his ancestors, what the hey? They are ALL his
ancestors - every single thing that went into making China what it is when
his grandparents were born there, they ARE his ancestors. Man, you are
sick!
I think they look GREAT with those top-knots - as they have them in movies.
BEAUTIFUL man.
PC
>
> "PC" <tjsrn...@post.com> wrote in message
> news:oIwXb.5475$hm4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
>
to
> the East from the West. Only recently, in the last 2000 years did they
> trickle back to more westerly regions. I'm wondering if these were
> Scythians, or what I think the Persians called the Ashkuz people.
TURKISH scholars think so - and not just the Scythians. I know the
Pelasgians were. Pre-Semite Sumerians maybe, too. The Scythians fought
constantly with a group that we know are the Celts or Cymbri - the
Cimmerians! That explains a few things, LMAO.
> >
> > I think the thing is here, the argument is
> > that in the opinion of the Turkics, Jenghis and his sons (and we have
> > descriptions of Batu) were TURKS, not Tungiz types or Khalka types at
all.
>
> However, there is something to be said about the use of proto-Turkic to
> decipher heretofore undecipherable scripts found in Europe.
I heard about that.
>
> I can't speak for what HLA might find or show, but I can speak for the
> history: you have the Turkic Khan information right. The rest, what the
> Khalka might wish were true and want to believe, the "Ural Altaic"
> statement, is politics.
>
> You might find this interesting. In a dig there were Orkhun Runes found
(in
> Mongolia, btw) that were the runes of these Turkic nomads in the east.
They
> look similar to Scandinavian runes.
I KNOW - Sr egroup guy from Sweden found this. Like - OH WOW.
That was the writing of those people
> before they adopted a modified *Persian* writing called Uygur.
OH, I thought the Uighur got that from the Manchus. Hmm.
The Hun
> Attila had some agreements with the Roman Empire at different times. One
> common aspect of these agreements is that they all provided freedom of
trade
> to the Turkish tradesmen within Roman
> Empire. It is possible that Turkish runes from so early on reached
> Scandinavia. Another point that might support this is that in the
> Scandinavian sagas themselves, Odin's origins are mentioned: Odin comes to
> Scandinavia from the Black Sea, and Odin, the god teaches writing to the
> people. "The old Icelandic script Heimskringla was written about 1230 and
> says among many many other things that Odin had possessions near the land
> of the Turks. Odin was known in Nordic mythology as the god, who in some
> way got the runic alphabet and taught it to the Nordic peoples."
YES, that's what Swedish SR guy found - !!
>
> http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Heimskringla/ynglinga.html
>
> Excavations of Anau near Ashkabad in Turkmenistan unearthed remains from
> circa 4500 BC.
> The tablet found in the ancient city of Mari near Tell Hariri in northern
> Mesopotamia, dated to circa 2000 BC. tells about a people named "Turukku"
> coming to lands named Tiguranim and Hirbazanim. The early Greeks wrote of
> them and called them Thyrrenian, not sure on the spelling. Schythians are
> accepted as "Saka" Turks by many Turkish Scholars. Adile Ayda relates
"Saka"
> Turks to Etruscans, and Pelasgians. The Scythians are considered
civilized
> nomads and the legend of Amazons, the female warriors are also associated
to
> them. The the women of these people fought like men is no secret in the
> Chinese history of them. Hungarian runes (Székely Rovásírás) are
descended
> from the Kök Turki script used in Central Asia.
>
THANKS.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
baiyaan
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
news:a2br209iq8ujre7pn...@4ax.com...
> This is what HLA do, they recombine. When they move
> (Haplotypes) they move with people and only with people
> (Human = H in HLA). This signature of movement is actually
> people moving. HLA is under heterozygous selection
> coefficient, there are papers out their that demostrate over
> long periods direction selection acts on HLA, however, over
> time frames that I am considering selection acts on
> recombination as people move around.
What he is trying to say is that the linkage among HLA loci is strong
enough to leave meaningful signatures several tens of thousand years later
but weak enough so that under all selections the linkage unhinges before the
selection acts on the linkage(another equivalent formulation would be that
the selective pressure is very weak). And he pretends that there are some
hard evidences and volumes of papers supporting his "thesis". Bullshit.
There is nothing particular about this. Any collection of genes that are
fast mutating and have some significant non-zero linkage coefficient will
do...
firstjois
: The following comedy needs a special mention.
Gee, sounds like a good time for you to stop responding to him!
Jois
--
Hypothesis of an Aquatic Human Ancestor (HAHA),
Lorenzo 2003
MIB529
Well, it wouldn't simply be nutrients: We can synthesize all the vitamins in
breast milk. But the psychological element . . . I remember a study a while
back which showed that bottle-fed monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were more
aggressive.
> > > Oh, never use real email on newsgroups - that's a sure way to get heaps
> of
> > > spam.
> >
> > Well, I think everyone knows that.
> >
> > > > > OH OH, I wonder if you can see any other photos on that website -
> Lemme
> > > > > know - they are pictures of places
> > > > >
> > > > > www.geocities.com/trip_to_innsmouth/index.html The photos are on
> the
> next
> > > > > pages. Please let me know. You using netscape? Ie is good - and
> it is
> > > > > also FREE. Why not just go get it?
> >
> > A little misunderstanding here. I thought you were wondering why I use
> > netscape. I personally use Opera, but that's just me. I thought you were a
> > Microsoftie at first.
>
> I use IE and MS - yup.
*sigh* Too bad. Microsoft doesn't listen to their customers. I especially hate
the 'auto-correct' feature on so many of their word processors. Oh, and
Office's 'save as webpage' feature, which gives you a nice little non-ISO,
non-Unicode character set on the web.
> > Netscape has its own problem: A lot of faulty extensions. That's why I
> like
> > Opera.
> >
> > > > Saving is important: Generally speaking, using all available
> archaeological
> > > > and molecular evidence, Indians are supposed to have split from
> Eurasians
> > > > before Austronesians did. (You notice I brought up the racial
> affiliations
> > > > of Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi, and Solutrean man to DrPostal: He didn't like
> that
> > > > very well.) Those cave paintings won't go away.
> > >
> > > Deitiker posted some complicated info in his last post to me - unless he
> > > made another one since then. Well, those images for the website.
> Someone
> > > emailed them to me and well, WHY is shit stuff so hard to get? It makes
> me
> > > believe what MMD says - that it's being kept from the public. WHY?
> >
> > Well, certain things are. I remember Piltdown. (Well, not personally: I
> > remember learning about it in school.) Mostly, Piltdown was the result of
> > wishful thinking. But no one could challenge it because no one could see
> > the skull.
>
> It turns out Piltdown was a prank played by people the guy knew!
Well, that's how things happen. It only survived beyond that because of that
wishful thinking.
I've always heard it was men who couldn't.
Well, it depends on how one defines species. The 'interfertility' definition
goes back to the old monogenist/polygenist debate. It does make sense to have
a taxon based on interfertility, though: Any taxon higher or lower can be
entirely arbitrary. Which leads to another debate; splitters and lumpers.
baiyaan
"firstjois" <firstj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kLOdnRakGvE...@comcast.com...
> Gee, sounds like a good time for you to stop responding to him!
Gee sounds like a good time to appoint yourself as his official sycophant.
firstjois
:
: "firstjois" <firstj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Marge? is that you?
baiyaan
>
Do you often talk to a machine(actually it is not even a machine. more
like a software or protocol. hehe)?
I recommend that you talk to your shrink. IMMEDIATELY!!!
PC
news:<v4wXb.5445$hm4....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> >
>
> Well, it wouldn't simply be nutrients: We can synthesize all the vitamins
in
> breast milk. But the psychological element . . . I remember a study a
while
> back which showed that bottle-fed monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were more
> aggressive.
Yup. Of course, the bottle had to be a male invention, LMAO.
>
> >
> > I use IE and MS - yup.
>
> *sigh* Too bad. Microsoft doesn't listen to their customers. I especially
hate
> the 'auto-correct' feature on so many of their word processors. Oh, and
> Office's 'save as webpage' feature, which gives you a nice little non-ISO,
> non-Unicode character set on the web.
MS's webpage sucks. I write own html - easier. I don't know why you
couldn't see my image, tho. Everyone else can!
>
> > OH, he asked them? LMAO omg omg omg. I'm surprised he didn't
conclude,
> > after ASKING the men, that "all men have foot long shlongs." LMAO.
(Ever
> > hear the joke about why white gals can't measure things right?)....
>
> I've always heard it was men who couldn't.
LMAO - same thing.
>
> >
> > Well, my idea is that while MAN is over here claiming that only those
within
> > same species are cross fertile - MOTHER NATURE is over there making
heaps of
> > hybrids and ignoring the "rules." LMAO - and I have to wonder how many
MORE
> > kinds there are that maybe aren't mammals at all. This canine info blew
me
> > away - and the pdf article has the genetics!
>
> Well, it depends on how one defines species. The 'interfertility'
definition
> goes back to the old monogenist/polygenist debate. It does make sense to
have
> a taxon based on interfertility, though: Any taxon higher or lower can be
> entirely arbitrary. Which leads to another debate; splitters and lumpers.
That's what I have on my article - the one I wrote "is there such a thing as
race" after I provoked the experts to gimme the charts and the info, LMAO.
Val Lentz
Warning
Warning: This post is a waste of time and off topic...
"baiyaan" <bai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:402e944e$1...@marge.ic.sunysb.edu...
>
> "Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
> news:a2br209iq8ujre7pn...@4ax.com...
> > It makes little different,
>
> .........You certainly shouldn't pick on someone else for punctuation or
> spelling.
He doesn't capitalize very often either, but I find he is still quite
readable. And interesting. I have only half an idea about what he talks
about, half the time, so he makes me do alot of research. More than anyone
else on SAP.
[snipped Philip's content]
> You think you are clever, don't you?
This is a waste of typespace. No content. Of course he thinks he's clever.
He *is* clever. And he proves it over and over and over.... :)
> The issue is not whether y-chromosome has SNP mutation rate higher or
lower than autosome's.
> It all started when you revealed your massive misunderstanding about the
SN(P)
> mutation rate and "the evolution of y-chromosome".
You started out okay....
> You were just simply wrong as you have been in everywhere else.
But, this is a waste of typespace. No content. Considering that in the
statement just before this one you claimed that he had a massive
misunderstanding, I had already assumed that you had thought him wrong. So
why a second attack? Could it be that you want to have a flame war with
Philip? Enjoy. :)
> NRY has a nucleotide mutation rate of one per 3 generations or so even by
the most conservative
estimate.
> This was in fact so stated in a few recent articles(well not so recent,
2003).
Um. Is this supposed to be some kind of reference? Falls real short in my
estimation.
> Now... you are an awfully dishonest twerp.
This is a waste of typespace. No content. If you can consider me a
complete laymen in genetics (pretty close...) can you explain to me what
you mean by that in relation to the content of the discussion?
> So I will just go for the minimum. Justify your statement that the size
(the number of base pairs
> under consideration) is irrelevant. hmmm?
>
> >As you will read my posting
>
> I rarely do. I have no plan for it either.
This is a waste of typespace. No content. You do read, you are answering.
You will read the other. You are bucking for a fight.
[snipped Philips content]
> So you are smidgeon less a loon than what most people here think you
are.
> You still don't look much different.
Ya, I've seen Philip play the loon... He enjoys it almost as much as he
enjoys flaming. LOL! Mental masturbation, so to speak... :)
So again you have wasted typespace. No content. Another attack. You
really fishing ain't ya?
[snipped Philips content]
> Now just one intrusion. How do you manage to deride others' English?
How
> do you live with yourself?
Considering you started this post deriding Philip's language skills, and
sooooo verrrry many people make comments on it, those that do, usually find
that he returns the favor. Philips problem is trying to type as fast as he
thinks... quite hard to do. :)
More wasted typespace. No content. Another attack.
Starting to see a pattern here. (And all in one post!)
> > with Y which, based on its rates of mutations are
>
> .... is... of course he would say he meant Y in some esoteric plural
> sense.
>
> > useful in the 100,000 of years time frame
>
> ...... now this is it. I have had it with this
> layperson-claiming-academic-credentials. I challenge any reputable
scholar
> here to tell me I am overreacting....
LOL!!!! Who the hell are you? What's your name? Any particular reason
you're in hiding? We know who Philip is... I can (as you can) easily look
up his credentials, his workplace, his co-workers, his papers, and a whole
host of past posts archived back to, what? 1991?, his own website...
So you are definately overreacting, to what I haven't yet figured out, but
then I'm no scholar... :)
More wasted typespace. No content. Challenges are up to those in the DNA
know, any takers? :)
> The rate alone tells you that it CAN be useful. It does not necessarily
> mean it is useful nor does it imply that it is not useful on a smaller
time
> scale especially if massive number of loci can be typed.
Wow, that's twice in this post so far, that you've actually addressed the
content. Pat on the back for you!!
[snipped Philips content]
> Oh noooooooo. Are you sure your department understood any of your mumbo
> jumbo when you submitted your thesis?
I believe you can read that one for yourself, if you look hard enough.
Hell, somebody just might send it to you, just to see if you can understand
it... LMAO!!!!
I actually have an abstract of one of Philips papers in front of me, and I
maybe? understand a tenth of it, (but holly shit! they want 20 bucks for the
article! - hey Philip! Do you get any of that? :) )
More wasted typespace. No content. Another attack.
> And lets see,.... suppose that the mutation rate of NRY is 1 per
> generation or about 25 years. You would not find me claiming that since
> there were 2 mutations detected, 50 years must have elapsed.
>
> I was actually overly careful; I said there must be empirical
independent
> calibrations for NRY rather than using figures for autosomes of males(as
> presented by schaffner) because many things work differently. Gene
> conversion in Y is largely intrachromosomal etc. But because the size of
> genome is large, one can actually treat all these as point mutations by
> averaging out. When one wants to apply this "molecular clock" to smaller
> time scale, one needs to make sure that no funny thing has happened. But
it
> is not really that difficult since by the nature of the time scale one is
> likely to have better access to the related lineages and there are
many(and
> EASY) statistical techniques to ascentain that the patterns and
> distributions follow the known law of stochastics.
>
> And STR etc can also be used to additionally verify the result.
Holly cow! A whole paragraph without an attack!
> > > Now look. You are a biochemist, I heard. You are not a geneticist.
> > >Somewhere along your drivel, there is immense and total
misunderstanding
> of
> > >the things you spend so much time on.
> >
> > I work on genetics also.
Philip is being quite modest.... :) You okay Philip? Not being your
usual self these days? Anything I can do to help? LOL! Ya, right. ;)
More wasted typespace. "I think you're wrong because" would be a much more
productive inducement... And I might even start to figure out what you're
talking about.
> I am sure you also work on differentiable manifolds and tensor analysis
with
> application toward general relativity.
> .... and when questioned can not even differentiate sinusoidal curves,
can
> not even set up transformation matrix for uniform motion.
What a hoity toity... Are you an astrophysist too?
More wasted typespace. No content. Another attack. You know what they
call people like you, troll?
> > > sigh.... The problem with you is that
> > >1 you don't understand the subject you profess expertise on
> >
> > The problem is that I understand it tremendously more than
> > someone who is fixated on interpreting Y chromomes. What is
> > your love of Y, because your are male,
Well, there, you got him started... I wonder what took him so long? Maybe
he's still waiting to see what cards are laid on the table...
> What is your interest in blood-related things? Is it because you are a
> leech(in the sense of anelid worm. I know all your cheap variations).
>
Huh? Oh, ya. Sigh. More wasted typespace. No content. Another attack.
> > > What I said has nothing to do with the mechanics of HLA.
> > >That it can leave a signiture of movement as a pure artifact of
selection
> > >applies to all selective loci(even y-chromosome but I made an
assumption
> > >that it is more neutral than HLA). O.K?
> >
> > No you said it moved.
> >
> > "
> > This
> > means that HLA type can move around without specific
> > population movement.
> > In other words, certain population movements detectable
> > through HLA may be
> > entirely fictitious artifacts of selection.
> > "
>
> Yes, it can move and move around as well only with minimal genetic
> exchange beween neighboring villages.(do you see I said "HLA TYPE"? Even
> without "type" it is quite clear from the context but... wow...)
> Suppose region A has a certain HLA allele resistent to a disease plaguing
> that region. Suppose that both the disease and the allele spread to the
> region B. In the mean time in region A a new plague arrives and favors a
> different allele. The end result is that the allele not only leaves a
trail
> but also "moves around".
Pardon? The end result is that *which* allele... ? Oh, never mind...
Don't answer.
> In other words, not only did he try to distort my words by nit-picking
> what I said, I can actually defend what I said as it is.. in that
nit-picked
> state.
Oh, isn't this egotistical... Talking to the general audience. You know,
back about three years ago I learned a hard lesson about *who* is actually
"out there" in the general audience. I had several emails from some of the
very biggest names in anthropology. They are lurkers. For them, you've
already been killfiled. Why should I pay any mind to what you have to say?
Oh, sigh, again... More wasted typespace. No content. I can't tell if
that was an attack or not... I think I'm getting real tired of them.
> Now... I hate to do this but instead of asking him how he got his PhD I
> should ask him how he did in GRE or even what he got in his SATs. REALLY.
(Angel: No, no, you shouldn't. Devil: Oh, go ahead... he deserves it!)
Any one with half a brain could discover for hiss-self exactly. Obviously,
you don't qualify.
Sorry, the devil made me do it!
However, it was still a waste of typespace, had no content, and contained
another attack.
> > OK, so now that we have confirmed you are a liar, you are
> > trying to bullshit your way out.
>
> Now you have confirmed that "liar" is the most creative insult
conceivable
> to you, residing at the dangerous stretch of your imagination.
So, do you really, really? want to go there? And that would prove what?
That you can only write a post that is a complete waste of typespace, almost
completely devoid of content, and full of hurled insults?
> > This is what HLA do, they recombine. When they move
> > (Haplotypes) they move with people and only with people
> > (Human = H in HLA). This signature of movement is actually
> > people moving.
>
> Oh my Oh my Oh my Oh my.........
>
> I think I know where all his misunderstanding comes from.
> And I also know why he got kicked out of many yahoo groups owned by
> multi-regionalist anthropologists.
> While I do not agree with multi regionalists on most issues, still the
> mechanism of spreading genes without the whole replacement or even
> substantial shuffling of the populations is very well known and
unquestioned
> as far as such have occured at some level, at some time in the past and
will
> continue in the future.
No. You, I think, are about to find out for yourself, why he's been kicked
out of so many groups... LOL! But, good luck! :) Have fun, Philip...
Don't take offence that I'll killfile you for a while.. I'm sure someone
will email me when things cool down again! HA!
> Most people see that deitiker is stupid. Many even make reasonable
> estimates as to how stupid he is. But no one up unitl now has figured out
> in exactly what way he is stupid. Now I take that credit. Thank you.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! You have absolutely no idea....
> >HLA is under heterozygous selection
> > coefficient, there are papers out their that demostrate over
> > long periods direction selection acts on HLA, however, over
> > time frames that I am considering selection acts on
> > recombination as people move around.
>
> That is just your assumption and bias. very convenient.
> I will agree up to the point that many HLA signitures PROBABLY reflect
some
> population movements.
> Then again I said "HLA is not without problems". I never said these tools
> were invalid.
> And it is also clear that you make too much out of flimsy "evidences",
just
> small faint signs as long as such fit your preconceived notion and ongoing
> agenda.
> That is why mainstream population geneticists laugh at your proposition,
not
> because they fail to appreciate your "maverkick genius"(hahahaha).
>
You know if you had actually argued with some content and references I might
actually have learned something today, as it is... I don't know what you're
talking about.
> However recombination
> > is not a single thing with HLA, there are 6 loci, each at
> > different distance from the other loci, therefore there are
> > many genetic distance by which HLA can be used to measure
> > recombination. As a result, when say B DR DQ undergo
> > recombination it frequently leaves DQ (alpha beta)
> > unchanged. ..
>
> As far as mud slinging with this deitiker character is concerned, I do
not
> have to acknowledge anything but for others who have been following this
> thread, I will admit that I do not know really that much about HLA(and
> talked from information many years old when most HLA could be typed only
by
> its expression not from the genes themselves) and may have overestimated
> the uncertainty involved in tracing the evolution of HLA alleles(through
> recombinations and all).
>
> However even as he admitted there is a lot of guess work as far as the
> details of the pathways are concerned.
> I knew there were 6 loci and the number of the known alleles were in the
> order of 100s rather than 1000s(even this would be too coarse). That
> validates my criticism enough.
Yup. (Ahem)
To all you good people out there, hear ye, hear ye. I stand before you all
today, to show you what a terrific jerk I can be at times... I don't
really give a rats ass who the hell you are, Mr. Hidey, and quite frankly I
don't give a rats ass what you have to say, I don't even give a rats ass if
you are right, for you've have proven yourself to be nothing more than a
troll out fishing and not worthy of any attention.
And folks, I just couldn't subject you all to any more of this, this,
whatever the hell it is, and snipped the rest. Don't know about you all,
but for me... this guy is history.
Bye, bye.
Val
baiyaan
news:2UZXb.525859$ts4.188647@pd7tw3no...
> Warning
>
>
> Warning
>
>
> Warning: This post is a waste of time and off topic...
One peculiar thing about this ng is that stupid people think their
opinions matter much.
Lots of sycophants. Even if I were on the receiving end of flattery, I
wouldn't want anyone to support my case this way.
> This is a waste of typespace. No content.
......
> But, this is a waste of typespace. No content.
>.....
On and on an on. Is this some devious comedy on self reference or what?
> I believe you can read that one for yourself, if you look hard enough.
> Hell, somebody just might send it to you, just to see if you can
understand
> it... LMAO!!!!
>
> I actually have an abstract of one of Philips papers in front of me, and I
> maybe? understand a tenth of it, (but holly shit! they want 20 bucks for
the
> article! - hey Philip! Do you get any of that? :) )
Deitiker has ,under his credit, nothing even remotely related to
anthropology or population genetics. He talks about things like "pathogenic
T-cell epitope" ,and you were simply overwhelmed and decided to join his
fanclub, eh?
firstjois
[snip]
:
: Deitiker has ,under his credit, nothing even remotely related to
: anthropology or population genetics. He talks about things like
"pathogenic
: T-cell epitope" ,and you were simply overwhelmed and decided to join his
: fanclub, eh?
And you have been posting here 3 days and know everything?
I think you could at least introduce yourself - if I'm corresponding to
"The Boss of all Things" I'd like to know it, Your Highness.
Jois
--
For the life of me, I can't imagine why someone would
look at the differences between muscle groups in Australopithecus
and Homo and conclude that Australopithecines were lateral
waders.
P Desenex 010604
How did Desenex give up on us so quickly?
Philip Deitiker
did some sarious thank'n and scribbled:
Genetics was created by Gregor Mendel and molecular genetics
is an extension of genetics using biochemical approaches.
THe current typing, while using enzymatic kits and organic
molecular substrates is more or less cook-book chemistry
that any non chemist can be trained to do, read a gel
without understanding in biochemical principles. A molecular
geneticist takes a drop of your blood and answers a specific
question about your DNA.
I can take a liver or intestinal biopsy, fractionate 5 or
6 different ways, take the sera of out of your blood,
extract protein from another cell, plate the antigen out and
see of you serum antibodies react with you. Most recently I
am extracting the gluten from wheat, purifying them
according to hydrophobicity and going to plate the out and
see if certain samples react with them. This is
biochemistry. When I also have the DNA workup on those that
tell me for instance a patient has DQ2.5 or DQ8 then that is
molecular genetics. I do both. Its just that the molecular
genetics is EASY and the biochemistry is harder. I need to
type patients I but 2 kits, one to extract DNA the other to
SSP-PCR it. The extract takes 30 minutes for 4 individuals,
and 30 minutes to PCR it and the rest of the day to run it
out on a gel. A biochemical extraction _step_ can take a
week, and there can be 20 steps, from minutes upward.
Philip Deitiker
>Hey, I did not flame you at all - so... I asked sincere questions - and I
>DO want understandable answers:
Its not about flaming _me_, in fact its about carrying on a
discussion with decorum in someone elses group. If you want
to crosspost from that 'what s.a.p. left behind group' go
ahead, but remember that you are arguing in front of people
who are dog tired of all the ad-hominim attacks, and
genuinely digust at people who start them.
> So so many people came from the Altai, Bulgars, Khazars, Magyars,
>Avars, Oghuz - so so many - all of them were Turks. They didn't look like
>Tungiz people at all. People would have mistook them for Chinese if they
>looked anything like that.
>
>You mentioned Western Turks.
>
>I think the thing is here, the argument is
>that in the opinion of the Turkics, Jenghis and his sons (and we have
>descriptions of Batu) were TURKS, not Tungiz types or Khalka types at all.
>Uzbeks are descendents of the Khans from one of Jenghis's sons line.
Uzbek claim they preexisted the Khan and were muslim before
the khans had reached turkey. They claim that only a portion
of Uzbek was dominated by the mongols, they claim that the
turko-mongols under khan only represented a portion of all
turkic people. Thus what people claim can be contested based
on perspective.
WHICH, BTW is what seems to be lacking in these
discussions, a sense of objective perspective. And whenever
we have these discussion about native american connections
with chinese we always seem to have the extreme perspective
represented. I strongly suggest, if you are native american,
go to asia and explore, you may come back with a different
sense of asia than you left.
Not
>Jochi, I think Chagatai? Not sure. But ALL those people are even called
>CHAGATAI TURKS. They are nothing like the Khalka. I know too many Khalka
>to be able to say that those people look Chinese. They are also darker than
>we are, their skin. They are darker than a lot of Chinese people I've seen,
>too.
Turkic people exist in a 2 dimensional gradient that runs
north south and east west, there are no sharp dividing
lines, in mongolia you can see the genetic gradient both in
craniofacial phenotype and HLA. This point is not worth
arguing about, the northern transeurasian gradient is well
document, while there are some punctuation points in the
gradient (i.e. the Ainu) mostly is slopes from east to west,
north to south.
Nim
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam > wrote in message
> > So so many people came from the Altai, Bulgars, Khazars, Magyars,
> >Avars, Oghuz - so so many - all of them were Turks. They didn't look
like
> >Tungiz people at all. People would have mistook them for Chinese if they
> >looked anything like that.
> >
> >You mentioned Western Turks.
> >
> >I think the thing is here, the argument is
> >that in the opinion of the Turkics, Jenghis and his sons (and we have
> >descriptions of Batu) were TURKS, not Tungiz types or Khalka types at
all.
> >Uzbeks are descendents of the Khans from one of Jenghis's sons line.
>
> Uzbek claim they preexisted the Khan and were muslim before
> the khans had reached turkey.
This is true. Turkic peoples were in that area and were, indeed, Moslems,
before more Turks (the Khans) came. They went west to east, east to west,
back and forth with the occasion "dip" into southern areas to raid. Some of
them had nations, however. These were still the same people. The *only*
difference is that the Moslem Turks had culture and the Shamanist Turk-Khans
did not; they were wild raiders and nomads, still. Nonetheless, according
to Chinese records, these were the same people.
They claim that only a portion
> of Uzbek was dominated by the mongols, they claim that the
> turko-mongols under khan only represented a portion of all
> turkic people.
That is true, more or less. The point is that these Turko-"Mongols" are in
a sense, misnamed. "Mongol" was not the name of a race or nation back then.
Mongol was the name of a very tiny insigifnicant tribe whose majority of
members, under Chinggis Khan, were not of his tribe at all. They were
Tatars - or Turks. Tatar and Turk - these are the same people. These
people were not Oriental in the modern sense of the word; they were not
Tungus at all.
Thus what people claim can be contested based
> on perspective.
Their claims are more or less true.
>
> WHICH, BTW is what seems to be lacking in these
> discussions, a sense of objective perspective.
I can tell you what objective Chinese records recorded based on eye witness
accounts and detailed study of their customs and ways. The Tungus people
were not the horse-riding, raiding nomads that constituted the Khans at all.
The Jurchen probably were originally Tungus.
And whenever
> we have these discussion about native american connections
> with chinese we always seem to have the extreme perspective
> represented. I strongly suggest, if you are native american,
> go to asia and explore, you may come back with a different
> sense of asia than you left.
I am not Native American. PComm is not Native American. Both of us are
quite familiar with various types of people in Asia, Mr. Deitiker. I'm
Chinese. P.Comm is Turkic or Turko-Tatar (and not Moslem).
> >
> Not
> >Jochi, I think Chagatai? Not sure. But ALL those people are even called
> >CHAGATAI TURKS. They are nothing like the Khalka. I know too many
Khalka
> >to be able to say that those people look Chinese. They are also darker
than
> >we are, their skin. They are darker than a lot of Chinese people I've
seen,
> >too.
>
> Turkic people exist in a 2 dimensional gradient that runs
> north south and east west, there are no sharp dividing
> lines, in mongolia
I think the debate was that in Mongolia today, those people are *not*
Turko-Tatar at all. They are something else. I'd have to agree with that
based on Chinese history and records. Sure, there may be some Turkic in
those people from long ago - but that's not what anyone means. The people
in Mongolia today are *not* the people that were the Khans and so many
others previously that raided into the West.
you can see the genetic gradient both in
> craniofacial phenotype and HLA. This point is not worth
> arguing about, the northern transeurasian gradient is well
> document, while there are some punctuation points in the
> gradient (i.e. the Ainu) mostly is slopes from east to west,
> north to south.
That's what I said. They went from east to west, and west to east before
that, back and forth and dipped into the south. Sometimes they stayed in
more southerly regions and made civilizations for themselves. The rest
remained raiding nomads. This is what Chinese history shows. This is also
what P.Comm was saying against the abusive baiyaan. Native Americans
weren't the subject of this debate.
MIB529
> > > I use IE and MS - yup.
> >
> > *sigh* Too bad. Microsoft doesn't listen to their customers. I especially
> hate
> > the 'auto-correct' feature on so many of their word processors. Oh, and
> > Office's 'save as webpage' feature, which gives you a nice little non-ISO,
> > non-Unicode character set on the web.
>
> MS's webpage sucks. I write own html - easier. I don't know why you
> couldn't see my image, tho. Everyone else can!
I write my own too. But it is fun to see professional-looking sites
set themselves up to look like they're retarded.
P.Comm
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-turanians.html
THANKS
"Nim" <N...@ppc.com> wrote in message
news:a1WWb.2018$WW3...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "baiyaan" <bai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:402bb7cc$1...@marge.ic.sunysb.edu...
> >
> > "Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.spam> wrote in message
> > news:e1im20hc8k97id4h4...@4ax.com...
> > >... I did not say the mongols were phenotypically Han, what I
> > > said is there is signficant evidence for recent admixture.
> > > If you look at some of the literature, some spotty groups in
> > > southwestern china appear to be sources mongol HLA as on
> > > occasion certain groups were not displaced by the expanding
> > > bulge.
> >
> >
> > In the case of Korea and China, there are very well documented
> historical
> > records that show admixture into Mongolians(almost exclusively through
> > females contrary to Nim's desperate hope).
>
> You are very abusive. Chinese records, as I have posted to Mr. Deitiker
and
> P.Comm, are based on eyewitness accounts of living people. That is, what
> they really looked like face to face. People weren't classed into groups
by
> genes; such things weren't known back then to anyone. Refer to my post to
> Mr. Deitiker.
>
> Eastern "barbarians," the word used because they were not cultured, were
> noted to be different from the peoples that I mentioned in my post to Mr.
> Deitiker. That is, their living appearance was markedly different; as I
> said, the groups I mentioned to Mr. Deitiker were not black-haired people
at
> all. This is not something based on genetics or bone finds. It's based
on
> living people that were known of and seen extensively throughout Chinese
> history. And it is these light-haired types that had the horses and
caused
> problems in China. The more Tungus appearing types were very recent,
> compared to these people and they did learn horse strategies from the
former
> non-Tungusic people there. These are eye witness accounts in meticulous
> detail of *living* people.
>
>
>
>