Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
You said: "monoracial as it gets when it comes to native populations of these countries."
Once again, you are talking about purity, which has nothing do with the subject. All genetic clusters are the results of admixture from various locations. Yet each cluster is a unique combination of admixture. This is what defines a genetic cluster as a distinct race.
Those evidences shows the opposite:
All of this is fallacious in light of genetic clustering. Let this picture I once drew illustrate the error:
Where is the evidence?
On page 2.
Doubt that. Feel free to explain why you think so.
Read the whole paragraph in the text you pasted this from. It deals with the classical racial categories, which I agreed are arbitrary. As such, this paste is irrelevant to the subject.
I already debunked this fallacy in my previous post -- stop trying to push it.
As I showed, the premise is fallacious. No further evidence needed. When an argument fails, it fails.
Clearly you are making it too simple, because those few short sentences hardly convey any meaning at all. Are you just throwing random stuff at me and hoping that something sticks? You are furiously googling for possible refutations to my arguments, aren't you?
Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
I'll humor you: if you look at the text you shared, it agrees that what I am doing is a valid thing to do: "They would form nice three clusters and you'd be free to call them races." However, I think this is not the conclusion you would want me to draw from these texts you shared, hence the pictures can only be called useless. Or what would you say?
Actually you have not made a single argument. You have merely linked to a few loosely relevant sources. What's worse, you don't seem to fully understand what your sources are even arguing for.
False. You lie like a commu -- oh wait.
And then everyone could be considered a Maori Race from some cluster. And then every European could be considered a Maori mixed with an Incan. Why you cut this part in the context?
Not seeing anything that states such, sorry. You are either withholding something or misunderstanding what is being said.
Then read the article its clearly.
They're plenty relevant, they're the same as Europeans. A mixed race population that homogenized, only difference is that with Chile it was happening 300 years ago, and with Europeans it was happening 3000 years ago. 3 millennia still isn't enough to breed out the mixed genetic signatures.
Because homogeneity isn't race.
This is some cope, because each individual is also a unique combination of admixture, and there are endless amounts of samples which fill in the spaces between different ethnic groups. So again, the definition comes back to "this thing is an ethnicity/race because people feel like it is, but also race ISN'T a social construct because that hurts my feelings".
This is some cope, because each individual is also a unique combination of admixture, and there are endless amounts of samples which fill in the spaces between different ethnic groups. So again, the definition comes back to "this thing is an ethnicity/race because people feel like it is, but also race ISN'T a social construct because that hurts my feelings".
Swedes and Finns might be distinct ethnicities, but if a magical land of mixed Fennoswedes appears, suddenly they're just a mixed continuum despite none of their parent populations changing. As per your logic.
Also, Sardinians aren't European by your logic. Even though they're the most genetically western population in Europe.
Your definition for a "cluster" is meaningless because these clusters are constantly changing through time, varying wildly in the order of only a few centuries.
England's genetic cluster after the Norman invasion would have looked different from pure Anglo-Saxon England, which would have looked different from Celtic pre-Anglo England, which would have looked different from England before the Aryan invasion, which differed from England before the Anatolian migration, which in turn differed from before Near-Eastern upper-Paleolithic humans mixed with extant Europeans 15,000 years ago.
Is it easier to say that British people are a complete ethnic mishmash of Aurignacian/Solutrean/Cheddar/Celtic/Anglo/Saxon/Norman/Roman/Gaulish/Pictish/Viking/Pakistani/Caribbean etc.?
Or is it easier to look into their DNA, study it quantitatively, and come up with stretches of DNA that either are or aren't shared with other modern ethnic groups?
The former method gives us a never-ending infinitely convoluted mess of irrelevant "ethnicities", while the latter gives us that British DNA is fundamentally 65% European, and 35% Middle Eastern (with respect to 10,000 years ago). No need to give every transient mutt in between a separate name, the genes are what matter.
Because the idea of different races started with supremacists. Because, anyone correct me if Im not right, the Latin language and the Egypt writings of the same period, hadn't a word to describe ppl race or even their color. The Roman empire was what you would call, very multi-"racial".
I was only using it as an example, the looks don't matter in theory. Most westerners would consider a Papuan and an African to both be "black", even though they are the two most genetically divergent people on earth. In other words, "black people" are more related to "white people" than to other "black people"
Since you're so gracious to me, I will do the same, you're correct here
