Thanks Glen for replying so fulsomely to my post regarding genetics and
language
In reply to my asking you to cease labelling me a racist you wrote
> I cannot and will not oblige. I'm not ignorant at all on the topic of
> genetics. I use the term racism in its most simplistic sense: "the
belief in
> distinct human races". The concept of distinct human races is flawed
in
> every sense of the word because genes are too fluid amongst our
species to
> classify people based on them. It would be like classifying people
based on
> the color of tie they wear. Moronic.
Modern genetic theory does not have any belief in distinct human
races... So on that count, both it and I, fail to conform to your
"simplistic sense". Genetics shows for instance that the difference
within any population is greater than the differences between
proulations. Nevertheless by mapping the prevailence of genes within
and between populations, isogene maps can be created showing the
distribution of a gene over an area. Thus sickle-cell thalasemic
anaemia is found only amongst people who, at some stage has a West
African ancestor, as this gene is known to have first evolved there.
Equally the gene for Tay Sachs syndrome is found to have a high
prevellance in Eastern Europe and the Ukraine, as it is now believed
that it first appeared amongst an Ashkenazi Jewish population living in
the Pale. Everyone who carries this gene has at least one ancestor
from that region, no matter where they currently live.
Equally, as modern genetic theory is showing, sequencing DNA base pairs
also demonstrates differences between populations. For mitochondrial
DNA (which is only inherited down the female lineage) or the Y
chromosome (only inherited down a male lineage), certain non-vital key
segments of these genes are "open" to random mutations which have no
selection effects upon the survival of the individual concerned.
Comparing the percentage differences between individuals within
populations (and between populations), when calibrated by taxonomic and
evolutionary studies, can show us how long ago the individuals (or the
populations) last had a common set of ancestors. These studies have
been found confirmed for all living species, and are rapidly being used
throughout modern taxonomy and cladistics.
Genetic sequencing of part of the human genome is now complete for
samples drawn from nearly 10,000 populations world wide. At the time
Cavalli-Sforza and his team were writing, that number was in the
thousands. His team grouped people, not by racial type, but into small
geographic areas, to examine the destinctiveness and similarity of
genetic backgrounds between neighbouring areas. Gene flow between
these groups was shown to be assymetric, with flows clearly showing in
some directions more than in others. This has absolutely nothing to do
with you statement
> I often observe American news citing meaningless statistics based on
races
> like "Hispanic", "Asian", "White", "Black", etc. as I sit there
dumbfounded
> as to what it all is supposed to mean. Sometimes, Hispanic is
"Caucasian",
> sometimes "Asian" is split into smaller categories, sometimes "Black"
can
> simply mean a person who is of African origin who may no longer have
dark
> skin like his ancestors and even appear "Caucasian" to some, etc,
etc, etc.
This kind of genetic study on which I have been basing my posts does
not alllow us to identify "Caucasian" as disinct from "Negro" or
"Asian". Indeed, the study of genetics has found some intriguing
anomalies which no one expected. For example, one kind of gene (and
you must excuse me - I am posting from work where I don't have acess to
the Gaia Library) that has been shown to have originated before 90,000
years is found in only two populations world wide - one in the
Highlands of New Guinea, and the other in a particular valley in Wales.
Sequencing the DNA of this gene shows that it only appeared once!
Thus, some 90,000 years BP, a group of people carrying this gene split
- one group heading east, the other heading north and west. This is
*not* to say that Welsh people are Papuans.
> Don't be daft. It is emphatically unscientific to insist on this
racism and
> to use genes as a basis for anything other than _genetic_ research.
This is not so. Drifts of genes assymetically from one population to a
neighbouring population is clearly related to actual movements of
people. It has now been shown to be highly mathematically correlated
with linguistic similarities. Flows of culture annd historical events
have also been shown to be "illustrated" in part by these genetic
similarities. For instance, there is a population of South African
Xhosa people who have been found to have some genetic similarity to
Omani's from the middle east. Genetic studies have shown that this
split seems to have occurred some time in the 14-16 centuries. It is
known that the Omani's conquered Zanzibar at this period of time, and
it is believed that the Zanzibaris established trading posts south to
Sofala in Mozambique shortly thereafter. Portugese attacks culminated
in annexing Mozambique to their colonial empire, and it is now clear
that a population of coastal dwelling traders escaped to the interior
where they took local wives, spreading Omani genes with them. In the
Nguna Mekwefane of the late 18th early 19th centuries, people were
displaced, so the bearers of these genes came to rest within a specific
population of Xhosa speakers. It has now been shown, with subsequent
studies, that certain rituals of these people ultimately have a muslim
origin.
> John responded:
> >I can only quote from the first major scientific text to have emerged
> >on this subject from the Human Genome Project "The History and
> >Geography of Human Genes" by L.Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and
> >Alberto Piazza (pp.98-100)
>
> The view that these linguistic-genetic correspondances are
"remarkably high"
> is nothing but purely ignorant opinion. My own honest opinion is that
it is
> remarkably low and far from ever being perfect. This is from a
linguistical
> standpoint, the place where you should be standing.
Glen, if you like, I can post to you information on the specific
mathematical tests that have been conducted, the various results of the
regression anaylses, the possibilities that these correlations are
according to chance, and the degrees of significance that they show.
"remarkably high" means "remarkably high" - mathematically - not on the
basis of personal "guess" or opinion.
> Unfortunately, quotes from other "researchers", whether competent or
not,
> don't make up for lack of reasoning. We can all see the danger and
logical
> flaw of using genetics to classify linguistic groups, as your
examples
> demonstrate concerning the spread of Latin or other IndoEuropean
languages.
> The research from the start is meaningless.
Sorry to disagree with you, but I disagree with you.
> What's more disturbing is that this research relies on the fact that
these
> proposed linguistic classifications, being so archaic, remain
unverifiable
> unless much time is taken to examine the linguistic data properly.
This has
> not been done at all. This itself is short-sightedness. Given the
historic
> red-herrings, the pre-historic connections that are made must be
viewed as
> extremely hypothetical and only one of a staggering amount of
possibilities,
> lest linguistics play a role in ascertaining the correct scenario.
>
> ... So, John, if you will display that map again (I erased it in
immediate
> disgust), I would like you to explain solely through _linguistic_
reasoning
> the basis of these classifications. If you cannot, please forfeit
this
> childish game.
Challenge accepted. To make it easier, omstead of presenting the chart
vertically, I'll do it horizontally. I hope it does not distort as the
other so clearly did.
-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----
90k 60-70k 40k 12-10k 8-6k
years years years years years
|------------------------------------------ 1. Khoisan
|
| |------------------------x 2. Mbuti Pigmy
| |
|-------| |----| |------- 3. Adamawa
| | | | |----| -Kordofanian
| | | |------------| |------- 4. Niger-Congo
| |-----------| |
| | |------------ 5. Nilo-Saharan
| |
| |------------------------------ 6. Ethiopian
-----|
|
|
| |----------------- 7. Afro-Asiatic
--|
| |
| | |-------- 8. Indo-European
| | |
| | |-| |------ 9. Uralic
| | | |-|
| |------| |------ 10. Yukaghir
| |------------| |
| | | |---------- 11. Altaic
| | |
| | | |--x 12. Japethic
| | | |--------|
| | | | |--- 13. Kartvellian
| | |----|
| | |------------ 14. Dravidian
| |
| | |------------------------ 15. Basque
| | |--|
| | | |------------------------ 16. Caucasian
| | |
| | |--------------------------- 17. Na Dene
| |--|
| | | |---- 18. Tibetan
| | | |---|
| | | | |---- 19. Burmese
| | |------------------|
| | |-------- 20. North Chinese
-|
| |---------------|
|
| | | |-------------------- 21. Gilyak
|
| | | |
|
| | | | |--------- 22. Japanese
|
| | | |----------|
|
| | |---------| |--------- 23. Korean
|
| | | |
|
| | | | |---- 24. Chukchi
|
|---| | |---------------| -Kamchatkan
|
| | |---- 25. Innuit
|
| |
|
| |------------------------------ 26. Amerind
|
|
|
| |------------------- 27. South Chinese
-|
| |
| | |-------------- 28. Austoasiatic
| |----------------------| |-|
| | | | |-------------- 29. Daic
| | |--|
|---| |---------------- 30. Austronesian
| |
| | |------------------------------------- 31. Indo-Pacific
| |----|
| |------------------------------------- 32. Australian
-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----
90k 60-70k 40k 12-10k 8-6k
years years years years years
Hope this works
John