Why is this pseudoscientific dishonestly allowed? -- LiveWire Teen Forums

Why does race idenfication matter? Why say things that are not true? Why speak of race all the time?

Classifying people by race has the same purpose as classifying animals, plants, and the like.
To get and pass on information.

I don't speak of race all the time. In real life, I rarely mention it.
This is the race forum, thus race is a large part of what we would talk about.

So you were lying correct?

I didn't say all people had mixture.

Born = native.
If you mean indigineous all types of people wer indigenous to what is now germany.

Show me indigenous non-Caucasoid people in the Netherlands, as Germany was not the territory I chose.

But he is dark skinned. It is not incorrect as such.

Clearly, he is dark skinned.
Thus, someone would call him a "Black person" which is wrong. "Black people" is another term for Negroids.

Aha! People also generally associate thick lips with negroes and epicatic fold with asians.
But capoids have epicanthic folds and many whites have thick lips.
So you agree that using physical features to determine race also deceives most people.

Sure, people may do it, but that doesn't mean it's correct.
No anthropologists uses eyefolds or lips as an indication.
Capoids have a psuedo-Epicanthic fold anyway, it's not the same as Mongoloids. Most people in Asia don't even have them. Some Caucasoid groups had them - it was probably something most lost after divergence.
People with Downs Syndrome have these eyefolds.

HOW do you know? How do you really know that their are descandants of a purely caucasoid person and a purely mongoloid person?
As I said
Are the "intermediates" really "mixed"? What is the proof that they are?
The ONLY reason you call them "mixed" is because they do not fit into your racial grouping. But those people may hae had the same ancestors for centuries. and is NO PROOF they had 2 ancestors of diffent races.
Perhaps when these peoples appeared there was NO real race division as there ware NOW
How can you be SO SURE?

I don't know anything about the Mari people - nobody really does.
There is no genetic or morphological data on them that I know of.
The Saami people are a good example though. They look like a Caucasoid-Mongoloid mix like the Mari seem to.

And genetic data seems to support this.
"A genetic analysis has shown that they [the Lapps] are an admixture of Mongoloid and Caucasoid people, in approximately equal proportions (47.5% and 52.5% respectively; standard error, � 4.9%). The ancestral types used were Samoyeds, Komi, and Mari for the Uralic group, and the eastern and southeastern Europeans from Poland to northeastern Itlay, chosen in order to avoid populations that might have had earlier admixture with Finno-Ulgric populations..."
-L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza 1994: The History and geography of human genes. M�moires Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press. p. 273

Because they have genes fom both those groups.
But if they were the ORIGINAL peoples INDIGENOUS to europe. Their genetic makeup might the original one from europe and the caucasoid and mongoloids were a later derivation from that original.

They are about 30 thousand years too late for that.

Caucasoids and Mongoloids split about 40 thousand years ago, maybe even 50.

The Lapps, if they did not mix, would have had isolated Y-Chromosomal haplotypes and mtDNA, but they don't.

They have, no doubt, mixed with other populations. Their original Mongoloid or Caucasoid, I don't know.
Regardless - the Lapps are mixed Mongoloid and Caucasoid.

What is the "norm" The norm you mention is what is the RESULT of separtion and ISOLATION for many generations.
How do you know what you see NOW was the "norm" 200,000 of years ago?

We have fossils from Homo-sapiens 200,000 years ago and they are nothing like today.

What I'm saying is Finno-Ulgric groups that are seemingly mixed Mongoloid and Caucasoid are just that - Mongoloid and Caucasoid.
I'm sorry that every single group of a few 100 people hasn't been tested for your liking, and you're throwing out a theory you can't support (As it's bullshit) but you can't just say 'Maybe they are this so that is automatically wrong'

Even if a group doesn't fit neatly into the 5 race scheme does not make it invalid - nor is it needed for race to be valid.

thats your conjecture. You have NO REAL PROOF of that.

Actually, I have the fact that nobody has brought anything to the table to contradict what I said.
Find me an intermediate group with proof of them not having mixed.

I don't see why they should. They stayed in the same environment. They have not intermixed with other groups. So it could very well be they are the original peoples of europe and the caucaoids and mongolids were later derivations when people went further west and further east.
In fact if you really believe that caucasoids and mongloids come from the near east/black sea area then the PRESENT situation supports that theory. The original people are STILL there and show INTERMEDIATES while the causoids and mogloids seperated and showed more EXTREME features from the original.

You're missing the important fact that years of isolation like that would have produced years of evolution.
It did not.

The Saami would have some outlying Y-chromosomal haplotype because they would have been isolated for years - but they have common haplotypes in the area (N3, I1a, R1a)

If they were TRULY from the original population during/before the Caucasoid-Mongoloid split, they would have some rare form of CF or IJK.
They don't.

They would also have outlying mtDNA haplotypes. About 90% have V or U. V may have been found in the original European populations (As it's found in Basque and Pasiego people) and their Caucasoid influence may have been through admixture with these populations.

U5b is found in 32-52% of the population and was the first modern mtDNA haplotype in Europe.

Some of the deviations do not occur elsewhere, but they are recent enough to be consistent with their isolation from others - but not being the genetic ancestors of all caucasoids and Mongoloids.

Their haplotypes are dated 5.5-10.5 thousand years old, and 5.5-7.5 thousand years old. This is consistent with the date given on when they came into Europe - not somewhere around 40,000 years ago which would have been likely if they were the ancestors of Caucasoids AND Mongoloids.

No we OS talk of finno-ugric PEOPLES.

Which are bound together by a language group.

And there lots and lots of "exceptions like that all over Europe. LOTS of "intermediates".
Why believe that so many people intermixed when you claim that intermixing is not that common???
Those INTERMEDIATES from Russia, Central Asia, the Near East etc... are too many to be just "mixing" between people especially if they had differnt cultures, languages etc...
Maybe they are the ORIGINAL peoples and the caucoids and mongoloids are the DERIVATION
If you really believe there was so much mixing going on though then what I said about mixing all over the world is true. And what you say about mixing being a bad thing for civilization is false.

You have absolutely nothing to support that these people are the original Caucasoid-Mongoloid ancestors, and dates and genetic data do not support this at all.

Mixing all over the world isn't necessarily true, because not all groups mixed. You have yet to find non-Caucasoid influence on the original Dutch.

Regardless, I don't know how you can call this mixing good for civilization when the Lapps or Mari people never really had much of a civilization.

Not necessarily no. But they do NOT point to a race EXCLUSIVELY. So genetics does not really show clear race divisions in any way.

Are you an idiot? Y-chromosomal haplotypes don't point to race at all, and there is no reason to believe they do.
They point towards ancestry and wherre specific POPULATIONS descend from.

Your last sentence is bogus. You used one measure to claim genetics shows no clear race divisions. Y-chromosomal haplotypes, again, are not indications of race but who your paternal ancestors are.
It is usually consistent with race but not always. It's often used to tell when people migrated from others by how distant their haplogroups are.
For example, three populations exist, one with R1a, one with R1b, and one with J.
Which have the most recent paternal common ancestor? R1a and R1b.
That's what you use them for.

Genetics show clear race divisions Jake. Testing with ONE METHOD is never going to give good results, because race is not based on one gene, one trait, or one of anything, but numerous traits and the full genome.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

319 users online 223354 members 227 active today Advertise Here