Zuleyka Rivera

passingtime85 says:

@Andrew133 I’ve read the ABAA’s statement, it’s filled with obfuscation and half truths and is detrimental to the study human society and history. I don’t have to read the nature.com article I already know the history of Finns/Sami/Lapps etc and their contributions to the European gene pool.

Whether you want to divide people by color, A, B, C, and so forth or from zones 1,2,3, etc, if you want to use the words race or ethnicity, large swaths of the human population can be grouped by geographical origin/heritage.

En masse different peoples have different attributes in musculoskeletal structure, different prevalence of muscle twitch fibers, different prevalence in tissue type, prevalence of blood types, differences in the endocrine systems, different frequency of food allergies, different immunities to disease, different genetic diseases, different eye color, different hair textures, different repsonse to chemicals/medications, different frequencies of pelvis shape in females, differences in alcohol sensitivity, differences in sagittal spino-pelvic parameters, different maternal and paternal haplogroups, different rates and effectiveness of making vitamin D from UV light, on and on, and on, and on.

But even with all this evidence, some people want to erase the fact there’s observable and measurable differences. Erase the fact that whole groups, are in fact different than other groups. It doesn’t mean any better or any worse, it just means different. We’re 98.8% related to chimpanzees. You quote the 99.9% like that’s some big revelation, it’s not.

We have between 6800 and 7400 centimorgans of DNA, that means between 6.8 and 7.4 billion base pairs of DNA. A difference of 0.1% is over 7 million base pairs. These seemingly minute differences can cause vast variations.

Grasping this concept, is literally saying you agree with the theory of evolution. Inhabiting different areas for long enough, will lead to differences in physiology and/or anatomy. If migration and admixture events happen, then you have to take them into account.

It’s not difficult to understand. I don’t know why anyone would want to promote the idea that heritage being congruent with geography, is some flight of fancy, with no basis in reality, if they, at the same time, want to say the evolutionary theory has merit.

“Race is not real” is one of the most literally ignorant, as in ignoring the evidence, statements I’ve ever heard.

Forensic anthropologists and/or pathologists, that actually have to understand osteology, can identify remains and classify them into the main races, with relatives ease, if they don’t have recent admixture of very divergent origin. If traits were not common enough to designate, that entire field of study would have crumbled years ago, and many, many victims of violent crimes would’ve gone unidentified.

The presence of green, does not mean blue and yellow are nonexistent. That’s what I say to all the anomalous mixed people that don’t fit neatly into one category. Whether they be an ancient people situated at the cross roads of two greater groups, or a solitary recently born hybrid, just because you exist, doesn’t mean the whole system is invalidated.

Race may be more nuanced than the average person thinks, race may be not what the average person thinks, the mosaic and tapestry of the human gene pool, may be much more complicated than what most people think. The concept of race may have been founded based on hate, prejudice, or uniformed assumption.

Even with all that being accounted for, races as super classifications, based on geographic heritage, is most definitely a valid notion.

passingtime85 says:

I’ve read the rebuttals and seen videos like that before it’s mostly obfuscation. They double speak consistently.

“This wrong, but yes it’s right.” It’s a geographical gradient scale, that’s proven over, and over again through genetic testing.

Hancock is regurgitating Lewontin’s Fallacy. If you look at the literature and current stance of the scientific mainstream “supported” ideology, they literally double speak.

And it breaks down to “Yes we all cluster, but no that doesn’t mean we’re different.” Do you see how that’s literally an oxymoron? A self contradictory statement.

Race is trying to be expunged because of social sciences and social justice. There’s entire subsection of the pharmaceutical industry that has to tailor make drugs for different people, of different heritages, because groups of people en masse, respond to different pharmaceuticals, differently. Notice the key word there, different, different, different.

If race didn’t exit not a single person could be genotyped and designated with regional heritage. An admixture test would be completely worthless. Hancock Here’s acts like admixed populations negate the entire concept because East Africans are related to West Asians and South Asians, and vice versa, or that North Europeans being linked to East Asians, are giant holes in the concept.

No they’re perfectly aligned with geographical proximity and admixture events. That doesn’t negate anything. It enforces the concepts that different groups exit and if populations blend ,they become admixed and share traits that blur distinction. Yes, if blue touches yellow you get green. It doesn’t mean blue and yellow disappear.

Here’s a hypothetical conversation with someone like Hancock.

Do I belong to a race? “Not biologically, that’s a social concept.” Then how are you figuring out where I’m from based in an admixture test? “It’s an ethnic estimation”. Well where on the world map do my ethnicities fall? “Based in your alleles, (Asia/Europe/Africa/Pacifica/the Americas/etc)” Choose whichever you want for the sake of the scenario.

Do they cluster with surrounding ethnicities? “Yes.” Hmm, okay are they distinctive from say 12 other ethnicities, from a different continent or region? “They are.” So can I call this my cluster of ethnicities group A and the other subgroups B? “No that doesn’t make sense.” Why? “Because that’s not it works.” But you just said I cluster with my regional cousins, and are distinctive from groups, from a different continent. “Yes and no, you’re not understanding”.

Do you see how what they’re presenting makes no sense? He’s attacking the common person’s idea of race, people that are fairly disinterested in the subject. People that think there’s 3, and that’s it, and at some point there’s geographical cut off between them.

No one, that even has a passing interest in human history and evolution, genetics, race or ethnicity thinks there’s just black, white, and yellow. He’s trying to present his points as if he’s talking to completely uninformed people.

Do you know those anthropologists Goodman tested, couldn’t identify the skulls? Because they were either lazy as students or were literally not taught how to identify the differences. Post-bregmatic depression is just one feature among many, shape of the eye orbits, viewed from the front, nasal sill, nasal bridge, nasal aperture, subnasal prognathism, zygomatic form, can all be used to identify remains and designate them to different racial groups.

That NY Times link you posted is riddled with stupidity, and Hancock uses it as a reference because it’s not his field, and tries to rely on the article’s findings in his comments section. Shanna Williams, Joe Hefner, DiGangi and Ann Ross are poor scientific researchers.

They think they’ve found the magic work around, debunking morphology cline, because they’re mixed and don’t fit the archetype, or only tested one trait and found it to be non-contiguous.

No duh, there’s other factors. They want the word race to be changed to “population affinity”. Tomato tamahto.

Williams couldn’t identify a person of mestizo descents because she didn’t even know that Western Hemisphere indigenous people follow the Asian/mongoloid clines, a dentist had to do her job for her. Who is teaching these people? Shoveled incisors aren’t exactly easy to miss.

Lewontin’s Fallacy is demonstrably false because he didn’t use enough loci/gene markers. The more you use, the more apparent the difference become. If you use a few metrics to spot the difference everything in genetics gets dwindled down to “one human race” “more differences within a group than without”. If you use more, and more, and more markers, then the genetic drift of human expansion makes perfect sense, and aligns with concept of geographic heritage/race/population affinity.

You’re looking at information presented by people that are afraid of social backlash. Or by people that don’t take the time to question the the ideological motives of their “peers”.

All these people are trying to dismantle the scientific empirical method in this field of study, not because they think the evidence doesn’t support the findings, but literally, because they think the findings should be left unsaid. It’s their boogeyman, monster, witch, demon, Lucifer they think, they have to eradicate in the public eye.

All the while behind closed doors the medical, judicial(in the case of victims, found remains, etc), and anthropological fields of study and industries, literally have to acknowledge the differences.

passingtime85 says:

“Wow, because they don’t fit with your ideology then it’s mostly obfuscation, good for you”

Saying things that are self contradictory and warps the truth is duplicitous. “The evidence says yes, but we say no overall.” That’s a pattern of manipulation of facts, trying to suit an ideology that says identifiable distinction is somehow incorrect.

“genetic testing companies are using the clustering-based approaches which obscure the continuous pattern of human ancestry for the simplicity of their customers”

Obscure how, obscure what? The only thing they don’t explain and explore is ancient origins, they’ll go over haplogroup origins, and the tests account for admiring 250-300 years ago. But they won’t explain admixture events of ancient orgin. They won’t explain that admixture can still be measured even though, haplogroups may not always reflect admixture events.

Think of ancient man, in any given region, taking a foreign bride from thousands of miles away. They have offspring, all males, his sons have sons, their mother’s maternal haplogroup gets erased, if the sons are mating with local girls, and her group probably erased entirely from that gene pool as she was a foreigner.

They still pass along admixed dna, but you can’t tell from the haplogroup. Think of another family from the same area, but this time a foreign man takes a local bride. They have all daughters, his haplogroup is done, and only the mother’s haplogroup is left present. Think of a community doing this en masse, people Iike the Sami.

There’s overlap and some haplogroups disappear and some stay, and basically the majority almost always survive and the foreign haplogroups either aren’t passed on, or stay at a very minimal frequency. But the admixture is ever present. Even the individuals that are upwards of 90% European, still exhibit 10% foreign alleles in the Samis. The admixture is so deep rooted and has spread so much into the group, that the makeup of the people is still distinctly marked after 4,000 years, after the admixture event. And those genes have made their way across Northern Europe, which in turn trickles down other parts of Europe. Events like these are the only thing they don’t immediately inform their customers about.

They don’t use monikers of race, they tie origin to geography, which directly ties to the mass migratory patterns of our ancestors.

“2 the 0.1% are the variants they are using to make their designations. If there are 1000 variants that are correlated with geography, and you have 800 that are found at their highest frequency in Europe, then the company says you’re “80% European”. But their dataset is 1000 variants out of the 3.5 billion bases in the human genome – they are using a tiny fraction of the genome to make their designation.”

That’s all that’s needed when it’s been proven certain alleles are common in one area, compared to another.

If you have a some outrageous physical feature, and no else does one earth had it, and I knew that, why would I need more attributes to confirm your identity, when I could just look for that feature, whatever it may be? You only need a certain number of alleles to link dna clusters.

Even if 1000 is a subpar amount of loci, the more they look for, would literally just make regional heritage more distinctive than ever. The more loci used for identification, the more individualized and honed the results get. The scope extends outward to parent, sibling, into family bloodlines, and on and on, until you run into regional and then continental origin. You’re inadvertently supporting what I’m saying.

“the only thing that makes no sense is believing of this stupid concept of “race” even if all humans are very homogenous genetically,”

All humans are not genetically homogeneous. Genetic PCA graphs are congruent with geography and population proximity, just like the visible light spectrum. Certain frequencies that are close together are blurry, but you go far enough between frequencies and you get distinct colors.

“All of these features could be found in any human, there are Europeans with very low nasal bride, there are europeans with (Shoveled incisors) especially in eastern europe like (Hungary, Russia, Ukraine),and personally I know Europeans with those features and even in scandinavia, so your argument doesn’t make any sense”

All of them can be, but if you measure for all known features you can at bear minimum determine continental origin. And even if you find populations that are heavily admixed, that does not mean, there’s areas where no one fits the geographical cline. If a grab a random skull from say 2000 years ago the British Isles and compare it to a skull from an Australian Aboriginal, from the same time period, they’re going to be completely different and utterly distinct.

If I collect random samples of skulls from every region between Britain to Australia, at a few hundred miles in between, all from the same time period, you’re going to see distinction move and flow and morph like the visible light spectrum. There’s pretty much no such thing as an unidentifiable set of skeletal remains in terms of continental heritage, unless it’s recently admixed, anciently admixed, or older than 8,000 years.

Kennewick man was a bad example of not being able to pin down geographical origin, but the guesses were all centered around East Asia and Pacifica, the anthropologists just couldn’t agree which specific ethnicity, but DNA testing proved he was a Siberian descendant. Maybe they really couldn’t study the remains as much a typical forensic anthropologists would. Or maybe he looked so peculiar because he had more of that ancient Eurasian in him. Again, admixed people are more difficult to identify. Over time, indigenous Americans became much more homogenous. No one knows as to why that happened…

“It is filled with stupidity because it doesn’t fit with your ideology, and you should update your information, native americans are not “mongoloid” nor “Caucasoid” or any thing of this stupid racist terms, why??! because according to the recent genetic studies of Mal’ta boy, they have at least (one third) of their genetic variation from Europeans, they are a product of ancient mix between Europeans and east asians”

It’s filled with stupidity because everything they presented as counter arguments to the notion, are meager against the whole of the area of study. They focused on a few attributes, while ignoring a half dozen or more known parameters.

The Mal’ta boy was a hybrid, a reverse Sami child, his orgins laid in West Eurasia and his people migrated East and mixed with Siberians. What does that demonstrate? Migratory patterns, ancient mixing? It’s a branch of the human family tree 24,000 years old.

The Siberians that seeded the Americas are related to him, so what, far back enough were all from Africa. All he and his culture demonstrates is that migratory patterns are traceable by genes.

And yes pre-Columbian Americans are most definitely mongoloid, they’re just their own subdivision because they diverged from their cousins 36-12 thousand years ago. That’s lot of time to allow for variation and differences to arise, but not so much that they’re wholly differentiated by the order of magnitude equivalent, say, from a West African to Northern European.

Plus the Siberians came to America in waves, people that first took root in the Americas took with them some Eurasian dna, and there’s lingering ghost heritage. But they went back and forth over the Bering land bridge, they literally had a few thousand years of separation, traveled backwards, picked up some people, and traveled onward.

I don’t believe that’s as significant as you make it seem.

Do you know how many times there’s been reverse genetic flow back into Sub-Sahara Africa over the past 70,000 years? How often Eurasians brought back in cro-magnon heritage and neanderthal dna? How Denisovans effected human genetics in Asia into the Pacific? How there’s ghost heritage of, as of yet, unidentifiable hominid admixtures in African populations?

Are we all inhuman because we mixed with different species of hominid?

You’re repeating over and over again, mixing proves there’s no such thing as “race”. If you can understand a mixture is made up different parts, how can you deny the separate parts’ existence before they were mixed? They didn’t come into being at the moment they combined, that’s literally impossible, they exist independently from one another, before the admixture event.

“and Shoveled incisors, found in many Europeans (especially eastern europeans and Scandinavians), it is not specified to east asians and native americans, and also there are many mestizos who don’t have those features at all, so your argument doesn’t make any sense again”

Because they’re admixed, but it’s not a majority trait. And nearly 100% of pre-Columbian indigenous Americans all had shoveled incisors. Mestizos have have them in some areas and and some not. It is a trait that can be lost in a few generations with mixing with West Europeans or Africans. They only remain, if indigenous dna keeps getting put back into the mix. A person with less than 20-30% indigenous heritage will probably lose that feature. But if that person mixes with another person with roughly the same denomination, or a little more, it may produce offspring where the trait reoccurs.

“no I don’t do that, I’m the one who believed by the concept of the “race” like you, but after searching and reading many scientific studies on human genome, I finally realized that the concept of race is only a myth, all humans are genetically very very homogenous, we are more related to each other than two chimpanzees could be related, only the racist people who like to seperate humans into different races because of very minor differences on phenotype but they forget that all humans are genetically homogenous”

You do do that and you don’t realize it. You’re taking other people at their word. There’s so much evidence, that large swaths of people can be and are distinct from one another, but for various reasons you think there’s evidence to the contrary, when there isn’t.

Like I said if you want to call super classification groups ABC, or sectors 123, race or population affinity, it doesn’t matter, it all means the same thing, and it’s all measurable and identifiable.

We are at an impasse. You believe and/or know, or understand w/e your view point is, and I am the same. I doubt either of us will budge.