[wi30]

(07-16-2016 07:46 PM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

The simple fact is, we're all successful. The fact that we're all here, alive, today, after billions of years of the trials of nature, suggests that we are the pinnacle of successful survival.

This sentence reminds me of the book A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. Excellent read. I'm fascinated by the sciences but was never great with them. His style of writing allows the layman to appreciate concepts they might otherwise have trouble comprehending.

thoughtgypsy, you have the right mindset. I'm sick of being called a racist for embracing what makes us different. What I like about this book is that it disagrees with egalitarianism. Like you said, I also could never outrun a Kenyan Olympian, but I'd wager I could beat him in a game of chess. Like video game characters, we all get a certain number of attributes. Some get higher percentages of strength, intelligence, social awareness, etc. We can improve a lot of things in our life, but weaknesses will always be weaknesses. These things don't make people better or worse than other people. We're all people. Is a German Shepard a better dog than a Shih Tzu because it can be trained to do police work? They're all dogs, and are all good at different things. People are no different. Let's celebrate our differences instead of pretending they don't exist.

I hate that IQ plays such a huge role in valuing individuals. It is a flawed metric, there's too many types of intelligence. I've spent time with construction guys who could hardly form a grammatically correct sentence, yet could fix anything and make perfect cuts while hardly measuring. I'm a bright guy, but I fumble with the measuring tape and take forever to try to fix something. My mind just doesn't work that way. Those guys are dumb if the metric is catching a witty response or taking the ACT, but when it comes to building a house, I'm the retard.

(07-16-2016 05:48 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

This book is garbage pseudo-science designed to provide an alleged "scientific" basis to refute the conclusions of a century of legitimate scientific work in anthropology.

If you want to learn about these matters, you have to read the work of established, recognized experts in the field. And don't just limit yourself to one book, read several.

.

QC, I can see how this book could be framed with white supremacy, but I think the idea of homo sapiens evolving independently from each other is interesting. I took it with a grain of salt, but I thought his theories did a decent job explaining why Whites, Asians, and Blacks are so different.

I'd love to read more on the subject. Anthropology fascinates me. Do you have any recommendations?

[Different T]

"People today make fun of religion, but I've gotten more and more respect for its social value as I've gotten older."

This sentiment is becoming more and more common as people look around at the destruction of civil order in the wake of irreligiosity.

However, you may want to consider that what your sentiment actually involves is the creation of massive moral hazard. Essentially, you are saying "Ya, its bullshit but has some benefits so maybe acting like it isn't would be better." The result, like other forms play-acting at the real thing, is to value it when it suits you and disregard/corrupt it when it doesn't; after all, you think it's bullshit that can be used to make things better for you, why care at the point that it costs anything.

You either think humans are the supreme arbiter, or you do not.

[TonySandos]

(07-16-2016 05:48 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

If you want to learn about these matters, you have to read the work of established, recognized experts in the field. And don't just limit yourself to one book, read several.

.

I've been reading a book recognized by this corner of the internet repeatedly; "War Before Civilization".

The first acknowledgment the author makes is how the myth of peaceful prehistoric people persisted for decade after decade because most anthropologist either didn't even look at the evidence or simply didn't want to rebuke the popular sentiment among their peers.

Popular hold in science means nothing. The facts are what the evidence best presents and those findings can change to present evidence that's completely contrary to the last popularly upheld belief. "Out of Africa" theory has already been disproven, but it's still the most widely regarded theory on human origin because: 1) it was immensely popularized by the many scientists and 2) most common people aren't aware of the changing evidence.

The general public should not form their perspective of life around what consistently changes and is unexpectedly often supported by a haphazard bias on consensus.

Leave cutting edge findings resulting paradigm shift to the scientists alone. We on the other hand can discuss this with curious and nuetral stoicism.

[Quintus Curtius]

@wi30:

These stand out to me:

Ann Gibbons, "The First Humans"
Desmond Morris, "The Naked Ape"
Ruth Benedict, "Patterns of Culture"

I've also seen some very good video series on early humans on Netflix, but I can't remember the damned names of the titles. Been searching for them and I can't seem to locate them. I'm pretty sure they were put out by either the National Geographic people or the Discovery channel. But I really liked these.

One last thought. You might really enjoy a classic called "The Conquest of Civilization" by James Breasted. Check this book out if you can. It's an old one, but still for me a classic.

[Orion]

(07-17-2016 11:37 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

If there is any conclusions I've come to, it's that it is extremely easy to misrepresent historical evidence of various areas to fit nearly any desired narrative.

Take the Sogdians, for instance. They were an Indo European speaking population, yet used a Semetic language, produced Babylonian architecture, ruled over an Asian territory, and practiced Zoroastrianism.

Were they Indo European? Semetic? Asian? Iranian? Babylonian? A mix?

That is true, but it would be a logical fallacy to conclude that uncertainty means that there is no real knowledge as some theoreticians of fatalist variety preach today in modern pseudo-science. Exceptions don't necessarily make rules, and existence of holes in our knowledge, including even misconceptions, doesn't mean that there is not any knowledge available.

Quote:

Or were they a mostly Indo European society with a Semetic administrative and ruling class? Vice versa? Were they a Semetic society with an Indo European ruling class, who simply adopted a Semetic alphabet to better administer their empire? Were they a homogeneous society of Semetic peoples who adopted an Indo European language during an earlier period of foreign rule?

We can look to archaeology for answers, but then that isn't always so clear either. Are the depictions of the people in statues and wall paintings reflective of the majority of the population to instill nationalism, or are they reflective of the ruling class as a historical legacy? Are they meant to disguise the historical power of a priestly class who wished to remain anonymous, such as the Medean Magi who were the true power over the Iranians?

Why do you imply we need to go beyond what is known in a straightforward, no nonsense manner ?

We were speaking here about a much broader subject, a subject that was spoken of even before the advent of scientific positivism (both as a method and as a scientific religion). The issue of "race" (not in biological deterministic sense, but in cultural and spiritual) was brought up in the most ancient texts, but more important, the issue of origins.

For us it is important, because we (people who are trying to restore our sense of identity in a non confused manner) are trying to establish a straightforward, authentic, unbiased theory of our origin, untainted by religious or sociological prejudice. That means that such theory is inevitably going to conflict with many currents, and the most painful conflict is the conflict with ruling religious views in The West.

For us, the question of where do we come from, isn't a mysterious question, question of cosmic, sentimental, new-ageist interests. Instead of such philosophical fatalism which is bound to bring up no answers, we seek our real origins, and they provide us with much meaningful picture of ourselves.

Quote:

And then, we must also ask, who gets to declare ownership of a historical culture? Is it the administrative class that created the political structure that allowed a civilization to emerge? The mercantile class that provided the capital and trade routes to finance and feed the entire operation? The labor class who did the actual construction of the empire? The warrior class who defended it from dissolution of neighbors? The priestly class who recorded their history for posterity and created a moral structure to rally the nation together? All of the above?

Another question of fatalist variety. There is a specifically technical answer that spawns some debate, therefore no real knowledge is possible. Obviously, this is a fallacy.

Quote:

Those who are victorious get to write and interpret their history. The cultural heritage of ancient societies, cultures, and their scientific contributions is a highly charged and highly politicized subject which nations will take extreme measures to weave a narrative which fits their political interests. As such, it becomes extremely difficult to gain a clear picture and interpret history properly.

I don't see a problem with this, as long as societies in their assertions are not invasive or destructive. Remember, in 19th century, The West took charge of investigating histories not only of it's own, but of the entire world. Was such investigation biased ? Sometimes. Did Europeans plunder many of archeological artifacts ? Often they did. Shall we pronounce all of these efforts as fruitless and vain ? Absolutely not. 90% of what was discovered remains as a ruling theory today.

Quote:

Israelis will claim that they are nearly identical genetically to Palestinains when wishing to provide political legitimacy for their occupation of the state of Palestine. They will also claim that they are a genetically distinct group when hoping to shore up nationalism during times of war, or to create greater cohesion on political movements. They will also claim that they are genetically most similar to White Europeans when attempting to legitimize the Diaspora narrative, or insist that they are merely a religion and not an ethnic group.

Which is precisely the reason why the entire Israeli narrative is probably the most contested, debated, controversial issue of entire history of mankind. There is a reason why the "Jewish question" is THE question of history of such proportions, relative to the small size of Israeli nation.

Quote:

I remember growing up in school the textbooks would make fun of a lot of these old geographers and scientists for holding views that we don't hold today. They would make fun of guys like Pliny the Elder or Herodotus or Strabo or Ptolemy.

But then you actually go and read these authors, and the experience is eye-opening. You find out that these guys were not fools; they were not idiots. They were actually brilliant guys. It's just that they were operating in a frame of reference that was different. They did the best they could with the information they had at the time. And they made reasonable conclusions based on the data available.

Precisely. Even those who are supposedly the most versed people in being objective and avoiding circular logic, eventually succumb to it's pitfalls.

When i was writing my thesis i usually stumbled into this logic: During 18th century and onward, authors emerged who argued for positivism and humanism, hence we developed prisons that featured ideas of individual free agency, human treatment and correctional procedures according to ideas of scientific positivism, because we were - positivist and humane - the most notorious example of circular logic that completely ignores any historical-material basis for human development.

This is the main problem of an objective assessment of the way of life of historical societies. We attribute almost everything to superstition and irrationality of our forefathers.

[TonySandos]

(07-17-2016 11:37 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

For some time I've studied geography, archaeology, linguistics, history, genetics, politics and have attempted to see if I can connect them together in order to piece together a probable narrative of ancient peoples and their movements.

If there is any conclusions I've come to, it's that it is extremely easy to misrepresent historical evidence of various areas to fit nearly any desired narrative.

Take the Sogdians, for instance. They were an Indo European speaking population, yet used a Semetic language, produced Babylonian architecture, ruled over an Asian territory, and practiced Zoroastrianism.

Were they Indo European? Semetic? Asian? Iranian? Babylonian? A mix?

Or were they a mostly Indo European society with a Semetic administrative and ruling class? Vice versa? Were they a Semetic society with an Indo European ruling class, who simply adopted a Semetic alphabet to better administer their empire? Were they a homogeneous society of Semetic peoples who adopted an Indo European language during an earlier period of foreign rule?

We can look to archaeology for answers, but then that isn't always so clear either. Are the depictions of the people in statues and wall paintings reflective of the majority of the population to instill nationalism, or are they reflective of the ruling class as a historical legacy? Are they meant to disguise the historical power of a priestly class who wished to remain anonymous, such as the Medean Magi who were the true power over the Iranians?

And then there is the case where extensive archaeological evidence has been destroyed. There was the destruction of Troy, largely thought to be a mythical account until it was uncovered within the past few hundred years. Also of Nineveh, whose thousands of clay tablets have recently been discovered. There's the library of Alexandria, and more recently the Islamic destruction of Buddhist statues and even within the last year, the attempted destruction of Palmyra.

The Torah describes entire cultures who were wiped out to every man, woman, and child, whose history, cultural contributions, and origins we will perhaps never discover.

I've ran into this problem in the entirety of trying to learn about Hungarian history. I'm part Hungarian and became interested in learning more about us.

The issue lies in what you and another member havee mentioned. Everything in Ukraine and north of it during ancient times was anthropological tidal storm. There is immense amount of movement, linguistic changes on alliances or conquering, many smaller cultures wiped out or utterly assimilated, sparse written histories, modern politicizations of historical claims(Hungarians want to be considered descendants of the Huns).

If anyone has relevant materials or ideas, please let me know

[ElFlaco]

(07-16-2016 06:50 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Oh, please. Anthropology is the most politicized science in existence outside of "social science".

This goes double for Cultural Anthropology, which by my estimation has been more influential than Physical Anthropology.

Cultural Anthropology is perhaps the most dishonest of all the social sciences, because ethnography has no meaningful peer review. You observe and live with a traditional group whose language almost no outsiders speak and few of your colleagues have investigated. Nothing you report in your "findings" can be easily independently verified. Misrepresentations often stand for decades (Margaret Mead). No wonder there is a powerful drift towards confirmation bias. Dissidents in the field (Chagnon) are drummed out.

Another problem is that exceptions are given undue weight. When the vast majority of cultures organize in a certain way -- women perform child rearing -- anthropologists point to a few (questionable) exceptions as evidence for culture over biology. A reasonable observer from outside would more likely conclude that the near universality of a feature supports the opposite argument.

Among social scientists, anthropologists are the most vehemently liberal. Last year they voted almost 10 to 1 to boycott Israeli academic institutions.

[nomadbrah]

(07-17-2016 01:20 PM)Orion Wrote:  

For us it is important, because we (people who are trying to restore our sense of identity in a non confused manner) are trying to establish a straightforward, authentic, unbiased theory of our origin, untainted by religious or sociological prejudice. That means that such theory is inevitably going to conflict with many currents, and the most painful conflict is the conflict with ruling religious views in The West.

For us, the question of where do we come from, isn't a mysterious question, question of cosmic, sentimental, new-ageist interests. Instead of such philosophical fatalism which is bound to bring up no answers, we seek our real origins, and they provide us with much meaningful picture of ourselves.

[wi30]

(07-17-2016 01:01 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

@wi30:

These stand out to me:

Ann Gibbons, "The First Humans"
Desmond Morris, "The Naked Ape"
Ruth Benedict, "Patterns of Culture"

I've also seen some very good video series on early humans on Netflix, but I can't remember the damned names of the titles. Been searching for them and I can't seem to locate them. I'm pretty sure they were put out by either the National Geographic people or the Discovery channel. But I really liked these.

One last thought. You might really enjoy a classic called "The Conquest of Civilization" by James Breasted. Check this book out if you can. It's an old one, but still for me a classic.

Thanks brother. Added all 4 books to my Amazon shopping list. I'll keep an eye out on Netflix for the documentary.

[Quintus Curtius]

^^^

Awesome, chief. Let us know what you think of the James Breasted book. That one was a real classic and still holds up today...the historian Will Durant loved that book and it's easy to see why.

[thoughtgypsy]

(07-17-2016 01:20 PM)Orion Wrote:  

That is true, but it would be a logical fallacy to conclude that uncertainty means that there is no real knowledge as some theoreticians of fatalist variety preach today in modern pseudo-science. Exceptions don't necessarily make rules, and existence of holes in our knowledge, including even misconceptions, doesn't mean that there is not any knowledge available.

That is true, but it would also be a logical fallacy to create a strawman by misrepresenting what I said as suggesting that no real knowledge exists. My point was, it's difficult to remove the political aspect from the debate, so one must be careful in drawing hard conclusions with limited data.

Quote:

Why do you imply we need to go beyond what is known in a straightforward, no nonsense manner ?

We were speaking here about a much broader subject, a subject that was spoken of even before the advent of scientific positivism (both as a method and as a scientific religion). The issue of "race" (not in biological deterministic sense, but in cultural and spiritual) was brought up in the most ancient texts, but more important, the issue of origins.

For us it is important, because we (people who are trying to restore our sense of identity in a non confused manner) are trying to establish a straightforward, authentic, unbiased theory of our origin, untainted by religious or sociological prejudice. That means that such theory is inevitably going to conflict with many currents, and the most painful conflict is the conflict with ruling religious views in The West.

For us, the question of where do we come from, isn't a mysterious question, question of cosmic, sentimental, new-ageist interests. Instead of such philosophical fatalism which is bound to bring up no answers, we seek our real origins, and they provide us with much meaningful picture of ourselves.

I agree with the essence of the argument, especially the extreme political bias in modern day anthropology. I also think it's important to understand our origins and how it ties in to our identity.

I still think you're being rather optimistic that we can get an extremely clear picture of historical societies from thousands of years ago. I believe that often we can get a pretty good picture at fairly high probability, but that it's relatively easy to form inaccurate conclusions with incomplete data. Particularly when political motivations help to obscure dispassionate analysis of history.

For instance, I'd agree that there's overwhelming evidence to suggest that the Brahmins who wrote the Vedas and founded the Indus Valley civilization probably came from the Black Sea region or the Caucuses. Many Brahmins have the R1a Y-haplogroup which is also prevalent in parts of Europe, particularly Germany.

However, it would be inaccurate for your average European to associate the Indus valley civilization as part of their cultural heritage. The majority of Western Europeans and Scandanavians (who are haplogroups R1b and I1, respectively) share zero genetic relationship to the R1a Brahmins. It would be more fair for most Germans, Eastern Europeans, and Levite Jews (all mostly R1a) to claim the Indus Valley culture as part of their heritage, but that may be a stretch as the groups diverged many thousands of years ago, and the various groups are now much different in terms of their cultural values.

Quote:

Another question of fatalist variety. There is a specifically technical answer that spawns some debate, therefore no real knowledge is possible. Obviously, this is a fallacy.

Once again, you've completely misrepresented what I said and failed to comprehend the point. I wasn't trying to be rhetorical, by the way.

Asking to assign relative value to the various groups is not tantamount to fatalism. In many societies it's not necessary as they were homogenous, but in others, it's an interesting question to ponder. Who deserves more credit for their historical impact, the rulers of the early Islamic Caliphates, or the Indian mathematicians they ruled over?

Quote:

I don't see a problem with this, as long as societies in their assertions are not invasive or destructive. Remember, in 19th century, The West took charge of investigating histories not only of it's own, but of the entire world. Was such investigation biased ? Sometimes. Did Europeans plunder many of archeological artifacts ? Often they did. Shall we pronounce all of these efforts as fruitless and vain ? Absolutely not. 90% of what was discovered remains as a ruling theory today.

Agreed, but by saying "as long as societies in their assertions are not invasive or destructive" is kind of like saying "I don't mind letting a wild Bear into my house, as long as it doesn't attack me." Just because some examples can meet the criteria doesn't mean it's the norm.

Post renaissance, Pre-1960s Europe was one of the few examples of a society which allowed open scientific and historic exploration, but it would be pretty reckless to suggest that this is the norm for most societies in human history.

[thoughtgypsy]

Also, if anyone here is well versed in population genetics, I'd appreciate it if they'd chime in on the subject. I've been attempting to research the subject, and it hasn't been easy. Most of the material on the subject is incoherent and cryptic.

My understanding is that you can break down DNA genetics into yDNA (direct male lineage), mtDNA (direct maternal lineage) and autosomal DNA.

The official theory on genetics is that it can be use to trace the lineage of different groups of people based on their DNA markers. Further, with enough samples, DNA can be used to show where different people diverged from each other.

But there's been a number of situations I've run into that seem counterintuitive. Let's take for instance, the idea that we can use haplogroups to trace someone's relation to each other.

The Finns are a Finno Ugric people which are comprised of mostly Haplogroup N3. Therefore they're said to share a direct genetic affinity with other members of the N3 branch, such as the Siberian peoples. At the same time, the Finns would have no relation to the Dutch, who are type R1b. That leads to some rather strange situations to overcome.

For instance, this theory suggests that this man:



Is closely related to this man:



But has no relation to this man:



Does anyone find that strange? I've also been told that each person only has a single Y haplogroup, it can't be mixed. That seems rather strange that certain populations, Ashkenazi Jews for instance, have a vast array of Y haplogroups within their population (E1, G2, J1, J2, Q1, R1a, R1b) meaning that some would resemble Africans, some Kushites, some Semites, some Caucusites, some Turkic, some European. However, most Ashkenazi I've met seem to look rather similar to each other.

Further, I think it's kind of difficult to draw conclusions on the movement of people based on the concentrations of genetic groups in various locations. For instance, let's say a haplogroup shows up at 60% frequency in location A, but only 20% frequency in location B. On face value, it might be easy to suggest that the point of origin is location A because it has a higher concentration of that genetic marker. However, what if the real story is that their origin was location B, but a majority of the population was forced out by a neighboring tribe, so they settled in location A.

As a topic, genetics, based on the models and theories that I've been exposed to just doesn't seem very coherent to me. I'm still attempting to educate myself further on it, but I'd appreciate any outside help.

[Orion]

(07-17-2016 03:01 PM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

My point was, it's difficult to remove the political aspect from the debate, so one must be careful in drawing hard conclusions with limited data.

Yes, but one must not be afraid to pursue it either.

Quote:

I agree with the essence of the argument, especially the extreme political bias in modern day anthropology. I also think it's important to understand our origins and how it ties in to our identity.

I still think you're being rather optimistic that we can get an extremely clear picture of historical societies from thousands of years ago. I believe that often we can get a pretty good picture at fairly high probability, but that it's relatively easy to form inaccurate conclusions with incomplete data. Particularly when political motivations help to obscure dispassionate analysis of history.

Personally, i was always more interested in spiritual, rather than purely biological aspects of "Indoeuropeanism". However, omitting biological aspect would leave us without complete picture.

When it comes to what is available today, it's nothing but a lose picture. But even the loose concept of our identity is here and there, denied to us. But even though it is loose, some things are quite exact, and have great importance. I'm speaking here about myths that are present in geographically distant cultures, but that have common concepts. They need not have been transferred only through biological breeding, such thing would be silly to consider. But transfer through other kind of exchanges, implies proximity of said cultures. For examples, East Asians, of racially different stock than Hindus, accepted Buddhist teachings. So we can already speak here even of "spiritual" race.

Quote:

For instance, I'd agree that there's overwhelming evidence to suggest that the Brahmins who wrote the Vedas and founded the Indus Valley civilization probably came from the Black Sea region or the Caucuses. Many Brahmins have the R1a Y-haplogroup which is also prevalent in parts of Europe, particularly Germany.

That would be an example where haplogroup techniques were used as they were intended to be used - as an auxiliary technique, not an explanatory science. However, thanks to it's abuse, we have nothing but confusing maps that are shared online and giving people silly ideas.

Quote:

However, it would be inaccurate for your average European to associate the Indus valley civilization as part of their cultural heritage.

Absolutely. Specific interest in it stems from what i said earlier - from interest in origins of Indoeuropeans, and particularly - their proto traditions - cultural, linguistic, spiritual, etc. Sanskrit is an object of fascination for example, for all Indoeuropeanist linguists.

Quote:

The majority of Western Europeans and Scandanavians (who are haplogroups R1b and I1, respectively) share zero genetic relationship to the R1a Brahmins. It would be more fair for most Germans, Eastern Europeans, and Levite Jews (all mostly R1a) to claim the Indus Valley culture as part of their heritage, but that may be a stretch as the groups diverged many thousands of years ago, and the various groups are now much different in terms of their cultural values.

It would be easy to conclude that Northern Europeans are among whitest people in the world, because of combination of factors, among which climate (but not only climate) is important. There is no need for us to scratch our heads and wonder why Greeks for example, are not blond. Or Brahmins. Does it mean Nordic men are the best stock to use to examine ourselves and our origins ? Not really, when most of Nordic men practice Protestant religion, which is as far as one can take a set of beliefs from what is of Indoeuropean origins. But we can use a Nordic man to examine physical traits of lets say, Hyperborean people. And we can use ancient Nordic tales to examine how religious views developed in Northern Europe, and only then we can make connection to other dots. Then you would be fascinated how distant and at first glance very distinct cultures have much in common. And then you start to explore further.

Remember, we are talking here about grand scheme of things. In my culture, we have many superstitious folk style village beliefs. Of what significance are they for our topic ? None obviously. These are residual values which are only ever documented for reasons of curiosity. If we used that as a starting point, we would reach conclusion that half of Europe has spiritual origins in Africa, with all the village witchcraft and superstitions.

That is why we look for evidence in those distant places. They help us construct, deconstruct, reexamine and complete the picture.

Quote:

Asking to assign relative value to the various groups is not tantamount to fatalism. In many societies it's not necessary as they were homogenous, but in others, it's an interesting question to ponder. Who deserves more credit for their historical impact, the rulers of the early Islamic Caliphates, or the Indian mathematicians they ruled over?

Or Perhaps Persians, who pretty much shaped the entire image of Islamic Caliphate we have today, which was specifically Arab in it's early stages. One could also poke and explore early Islamic thought, and see whether there was in Islam something that was continuation, or a reaction to previously present beliefs, etc.

Quote:

Agreed, but by saying "as long as societies in their assertions are not invasive or destructive" is kind of like saying "I don't mind letting a wild Bear into my house, as long as it doesn't attack me." Just because some examples can meet the criteria doesn't mean it's the norm.

I meant i don't agree with destroying cultural heritage. But who can forbid anyone to write his own history. We have our method, and our curiosity. If someone lacks these and constructs fairy tales, then so be it. After all, that's what we do for last 100 years.

[nomadbrah]

(07-17-2016 03:38 PM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

Also, if anyone here is well versed in population genetics, I'd appreciate it if they'd chime in on the subject. I've been attempting to research the subject, and it hasn't been easy. Most of the material on the subject is incoherent and cryptic.

My understanding is that you can break down DNA genetics into yDNA (direct male lineage), mtDNA (direct maternal lineage) and autosomal DNA.

The official theory on genetics is that it can be use to trace the lineage of different groups of people based on their DNA markers. Further, with enough samples, DNA can be used to show where different people diverged from each other.

But there's been a number of situations I've run into that seem counterintuitive. Let's take for instance, the idea that we can use haplogroups to trace someone's relation to each other.

The Finns are a Finno Ugric people which are comprised of mostly Haplogroup N3. Therefore they're said to share a direct genetic affinity with other members of the N3 branch, such as the Siberian peoples. At the same time, the Finns would have no relation to the Dutch, who are type R1b. That leads to some rather strange situations to overcome.

For instance, this theory suggests that this man:



Is closely related to this man:



But has no relation to this man:



Does anyone find that strange? I've also been told that each person only has a single Y haplogroup, it can't be mixed. That seems rather strange that certain populations, Ashkenazi Jews for instance, have a vast array of Y haplogroups within their population (E1, G2, J1, J2, Q1, R1a, R1b) meaning that some would resemble Africans, some Kushites, some Semites, some Caucusites, some Turkic, some European. However, most Ashkenazi I've met seem to look rather similar to each other.

Further, I think it's kind of difficult to draw conclusions on the movement of people based on the concentrations of genetic groups in various locations. For instance, let's say a haplogroup shows up at 60% frequency in location A, but only 20% frequency in location B. On face value, it might be easy to suggest that the point of origin is location A because it has a higher concentration of that genetic marker. However, what if the real story is that their origin was location B, but a majority of the population was forced out by a neighboring tribe, so they settled in location A.

As a topic, genetics, based on the models and theories that I've been exposed to just doesn't seem very coherent to me. I'm still attempting to educate myself further on it, but I'd appreciate any outside help.

Which is exactly why you should not trust genetic studies made by just anyone and you should particularly not trust people online who throw around DNA lingo without attempting to explain it in laymans terms. I've largely found that people who do so are deliberately trying to discourage the layman to investigate.

The Finns are obviously very close to Indo-European peoples. You don't need DNA analysis to know that.

Besides, the problem with DNA analysis alone of ancient populations is that it is very suspectible to bias, since if we were to want to DNA test the British empire in India, without knowing the historical evidence, we would DNA test a bunch of Indians and conclude the British were Subcontinent Indians!

Linguistics, study of skulls, archeology, DNA, all goes together.

I'm also not sure of the specifics of haplogroups, but the main takeaway to understand is that haplogroup does not tell you anything about phenotype, which is important. A haplogroup apparantly makes up a miniscule part of the total DNA, which means it doesn't say much about anything besides shared common ancestors. If the Finns then have a common ancestor with other 'Asian' Uralic people, it simply means that they share some pre-split ancestors more than do Indo-Europeans.

[thoughtgypsy]

(07-17-2016 07:32 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Which is exactly why you should not trust genetic studies made by just anyone and you should particularly not trust people online who throw around DNA lingo without attempting to explain it in laymans terms. I've largely found that people who do so are deliberately trying to discourage the layman to investigate.

The Finns are obviously very close to Indo-European peoples. You don't need DNA analysis to know that.

Besides, the problem with DNA analysis alone of ancient populations is that it is very suspectible to bias, since if we were to want to DNA test the British empire in India, without knowing the historical evidence, we would DNA test a bunch of Indians and conclude the British were Subcontinent Indians!

Linguistics, study of skulls, archeology, DNA, all goes together.

I'm also not sure of the specifics of haplogroups, but the main takeaway to understand is that haplogroup does not tell you anything about phenotype, which is important. A haplogroup apparantly makes up a miniscule part of the total DNA, which means it doesn't say much about anything besides shared common ancestors. If the Finns then have a common ancestor with other 'Asian' Uralic people, it simply means that they share some pre-split ancestors more than do Indo-Europeans.

That's the thing though, there seems to be a consensus that the above explanation is the study of population genetics in a nutshell. Which suggests to me the entire field is relatively useless at explaining populations as we know them.

Even researchers who aren't afraid of being politically incorrect, such as Razib Khan seem to suggest the above is how it works

I don't know, I'm attempting to educate myself on the topic so I can interpret results independently, not after they've been politically filtered. It's not easy or straightforward either way.

[nomadbrah]

(07-17-2016 07:51 PM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

(07-17-2016 07:32 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Which is exactly why you should not trust genetic studies made by just anyone and you should particularly not trust people online who throw around DNA lingo without attempting to explain it in laymans terms. I've largely found that people who do so are deliberately trying to discourage the layman to investigate.

The Finns are obviously very close to Indo-European peoples. You don't need DNA analysis to know that.

Besides, the problem with DNA analysis alone of ancient populations is that it is very suspectible to bias, since if we were to want to DNA test the British empire in India, without knowing the historical evidence, we would DNA test a bunch of Indians and conclude the British were Subcontinent Indians!

Linguistics, study of skulls, archeology, DNA, all goes together.

I'm also not sure of the specifics of haplogroups, but the main takeaway to understand is that haplogroup does not tell you anything about phenotype, which is important. A haplogroup apparantly makes up a miniscule part of the total DNA, which means it doesn't say much about anything besides shared common ancestors. If the Finns then have a common ancestor with other 'Asian' Uralic people, it simply means that they share some pre-split ancestors more than do Indo-Europeans.

That's the thing though, there seems to be a consensus that the above explanation is the study of population genetics in a nutshell. Which suggests to me the entire field is relatively useless at explaining populations as we know them.

Even researchers who aren't afraid of being politically incorrect, such as Razib Khan seem to suggest the above is how it works

I don't know, I'm attempting to educate myself on the topic so I can interpret results independently, not after they've been politically filtered. It's not easy or straightforward either way.

It's not useless it just has to be used with a lot of ifs and buts. For example the presence of R1a in Northern India is most certainly Indo-European but people don't look very Indo-European, what does it mean? Y-dna is only spread from father to son, meaning a single male Indo-European might have created a patrilinear line passing on those haplogroups, but since the son will have a local mother and go on to marry a local woman and so on, the total shared genome of the Indo-European ancestor will fade, but the haplogroup (since a miniscule part already) will still be passed on.

[Orion]

This sounds powerful. Even the tale is very much in "spirit", even though this speech program used isn't really polished