0
I seen your picture before no offense but you are a whitey,lol.Originally Posted by Myanthropologies
I agree that the Ural provided some barrier to gene flow because mountain ranges are a huge barrier to gene flow, but at the same time, some ural people can be up to 30% East Eurasian in DNA. A lot have little to none, but a lot also have up to 30%.
The other borders between Europe and North Africa, Europe and Central Asia, and Europe and the Middle East were not barriers to gene flow, and gene flow occured across those borders.
This isn't true. People can sugarcoat it all they want, but there is documentation of these ethnic groups not being considered "white." If you've ever read the book "How the Irish became white," you'd know that.
Technically even mestizos were considered "white" under Jim crow, but there were times where anglo-saxons believed that these other groups of Europeans were different from them and did not support their immigration to America, either. Even if some groups may have been legally "white," that doesn't mean they were treated like it. Middle Easterners have been considered to be white legally (with the exception of Arabians) as long as ethnic Europeans have been, yet they are still socially considered non white in modern day and age. Legality doesn't mean anything. Social context is key.
My argument isn't that there isn't genetic variation within the human race or that human populations don't form "clines" or whatever. My argument is that every single classification system that exists for human being is extremely arbitrary and has major flaws. This is because humans just can't be separated into subspecies. And this doesn't apply to only humans, but several subspecies of dogs as well. American dog breeds have more genetic distances than different so called races of humans do, and america has way more sub species of dog than only 11. Also, your sample of Europeans was practically only slavs. If you threw in literally all European populations, you would observe way higher numbers.
What I mean is that, scientists are still arguing whether homo sapiens and neanderthals were even different species, etc. If they are still arguing over that, there is no way that humans are divided into "races," too.
False. Stereotypes may come from observations, but the explanation for those observation and are false and racist. Often times culture, environment, and diet plays a role, too.
Even if it is as little as 3%, , neanderthal ancestry has largely contributed to the phenotypes that humans use to quantify races. For example, skin color in Eurasians is 70% influenced by neanderthal genes. Same with hair texture, color, etc. And there is still the trends we see on PCAs that also support this. More neanderthal ancestry = farther from africans, and Africans have no neanderthal ancestry and represent the original humans. That 3% can make a huge difference if it comes from someone like neanderthals. Remove genes influenced by neanderthals in some human populations, and then compare the human genome using strictly homo-sapien genes. I am 100% sure allele frequencies will be practically the same after that.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks