Are Dinarids, Taurids and Armenids CM?

[Stefan]

The graph you posted is also some sort of taxonomy right?
What do you think should be adjusted so it can fit perfectly today?
Do you think that anything should be adjusted at all?

It is a morphological taxonomy. What I'm talking about relates to cladistics and a phylogenic taxonomy. As for what I'd change, nothing with the map particularly. I'd probably like a modern statistical analysis and measurements of the current European population, though. Molecular data is far superior to morphological data, but there is usually a correlation between the two, and that gives substance to the claim.

Here's an article on the matter.

http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/20...and-phylogeny/

But even with these advances in molecular analysis, there are people who still hold to morphological studies to state relationships.

If I were to ask you what your closest non-human relative is, I’m sure most of you would say chimpanzees.

And if we are to accept the DNA evidence, humans and two species of chimpazee, the common chimp and the bonobo, are closely related. We share about 99 percent of our genomes, and we had a common ancestor with them between four and six million years ago.

But if we are to use the old comparative morphology method, the results come up with something else.

In that study it was discovered that humans and gorillas are phenotypically more similar, despite having vastly different ancestries compared with humans and chimps. Despite the flaws when applying this to taxonomies, that information is still useful.

[Insuperable]

It is a morphological taxonomy. What I'm talking about relates to cladistics and a phylogenic taxonomy. As for what I'd change, nothing with the map particularly. I'd probably like a modern statistical analysis and measurements of the current European population, though. Molecular data is far superior to morphological data, but there is usually a correlation between the two, and that gives substance to the claim.

But cladistics and phylogenic taxonomy are also morphological related groupings, right or you are talking about molecular phylogenetics and by statistical analysis you mean finding both genetic and morphological comparisons?
If it is the latter I do not see why if
your quote

Outward morphology makes up a very small percentage of one's genome, and therefore percentages won't tell us much more than where somebody is from and therefore what to guess phenotype-wise

that is these correlations are statistical and not exact.

[Stefan]

But cladistics and phylogenic taxonomy are also morphological related groupings, right or you are talking about molecular phylogenetics and by statistical analysis you mean finding both genetic and morphological comparisons?
If it is the latter I do not see why if
your quote

They can be, but molecular genetics has been shown to be more fail-proof. Usually when a biologist is implementing a taxonomy, and has the option to analyze genetic data, they opt for that over morphology, but if they don't have any genetic evidence, then they choose morphology. Often you'll see different scientists doing both. By statistical analysis, I meant they'd measure dimensions of an individual, how they did classically, and use mathematical methods to determine the averages and how they diverge from each population. The population would be determined by nation or ethnicity. It would be similar to taking the measurements of the height and weight of a population. The usefulness of this data would be to correlate with other statistics.

that is these correlations are statistical and not exact.

Yep.

[Insuperable]

They can be, but molecular genetics has been shown to be more fail-proof. Usually when a biologist is implementing a taxonomy, and has the option to analyze genetic data, they opt for that over morphology, but if they don't have any genetic evidence, then they choose morphology. Often you'll see different scientists doing both. By statistical analysis, I meant they'd measure dimensions of an individual, how they did classically, and use mathematical methods to determine the averages and how they diverge from each population. The population would be determined by nation or ethnicity. It would be similar to taking the measurements of the height and weight of a population. The usefulness of this data would be to correlate with other statistics.

And how would you fit in taxonomy and measurements with brachy Med classification with significant Negroid and Amerind admixture The reason why I prefer genetics.
Its obvious why you go in favor with this measurements. That is what I want to say for the last hour.

[Stefan]

And how would you fit in taxonomy with brachy Med classification with significant Negroid and Amerind admixture not to mention which are latest? The reason why I prefer genetics.
Its obvious why you go in favor with this measurements. That is what I want to say for the last hour.

I favor measurements? I said, taxonomy is best resolved by molecular studies, many times. I even said these old taxonomies are more for categorizations sake than anything else. As for how I look European or Caucasoid, with my admixture, it's possibly because my non-European genotypes aren't evident, morphologically. Although I do believe I have some Amerindian influence in my phenotype, but people tell me I don't, seemingly. I was interested in this taxonomy stuff before I even purchased my 23andme.