51–60 of 68 posts
> Once upon a time, 4,000 to 8,000 years after humanity invented agriculture, something very strange happened to human reproduction. Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today—only one man did the same.
So it seems like this was a common pattern.
https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
https://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2015/03/13/gr.186684....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it doesn't mean that either (extermination of males). It just means that only Steppe Y-chromosomes survived. This could be the result of extermination, or it could be the result of stochastic drift, or selection, or any number of other scenarios that result in the loss of some set of Y chromosomes.
Realistically, extermination of males is exactly what it means. It cannot be stochastic drift; the pool of chromosomes dying out is too large. It can be selection (it is selection), but it can only be the kind of selection that involves every native male failing to have children at all, because the Y chromosome does not recombine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's a rebuke at all. The other side of the coin is to make sure you're the steppe tribes, not the hunter-gatherers. People who care about such things don't really care about purity, they care about winners and losers.
> The other side of the coin is to make sure you're the steppe tribes, not the hunter-gatherers. This doesn't follow from the researcher's statement at all. Just because the mechanism by which diversity happened thousands of years ago was often terrible doesn't mean we need to project that upon today, when we have much better mechanisms for genetic diversity, like immigration. We, as a human society, have improved ju…
I think it's debatable. The tribes are much bigger but really little has changed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
probably very few, if the old testament or the huge proportion of ancient skeletons that died violent deaths serve as any guide. which is why I think this story by Reich is very tone deaf. It's hard to see how a 90% population replacement promotes feelings of unity and hand-holding. One imagines a superposition of a video feed of the invasion of the steppe-people on horseback, stampeding the native defenses, cutting…
Tone deaf indeed. It seems common for people not to ascribe a full measure of humanity to humans from the (distant enough) past. Thought exercise: are there any large-scale population replacements happening today, and how do people feel about that? Surely not a kumbaya feeling I'd bet.
> The Steppe migration resulted in a 90 percent replacement of the population. >While only 40 percent of the population about 6,000 years ago comes from the Steppes, 100 percent of the Y chromosomes do. From reading this article it seems another way that this could be phrased, is that we are all the descendants of perpetrators of genocide.
Don't forget the rape! 100% of your Ys coming from one place is the opposite of "mutt", too. But the only way you can get to do race science is by coming to the conclusion "There's no such thing as race" first, and making the details sound boring enough that nobody asks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now that is quite the switch of topic. The only known research of race differences in psychopathy is of Richard Lynn's 2002 studies on the topic. In this, Lynn does point to whites being more prone to psychosis than on average. I do know of some controversy of Richard Lynn's work, and here is a response paper to such: https://web.archive.org/web/20130108233748/http://riskreduct... Regarding school shootings in partic…
Psychopathy , i.e. antisocial personality disorder, and psychosis , the state of experiencing delusions and/or hallucinations, are two very different things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget the rape! 100% of your Ys coming from one place is the opposite of "mutt", too. But the only way you can get to do race science is by coming to the conclusion "There's no such thing as race" first, and making the details sound boring enough that nobody asks.
The concept of race has always sounded like total bullshit to me. Do you have a definition that makes any sense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, but they are still sampled, albeit in varying proportions, from the same source populations, referred to in the literature as ASI and ANI. Sure, but that was several thousand years ago. Again, most people are perfectly happy to describe unmixed ancestry for the last 2400 years as being "pure", and the castes go back farther than that.
> Again, most people are perfectly happy to describe unmixed ancestry for the last 2400 years as being "pure", and the castes go back farther than that. Just because "most people" are willing to draw that line at 2400 years doesn't make it a valid argument. At most you could say that there is genetic evidence to support the hypothesis that the castes have practiced endogamy for a long time, evidenced by their charact…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget the rape! 100% of your Ys coming from one place is the opposite of "mutt", too. But the only way you can get to do race science is by coming to the conclusion "There's no such thing as race" first, and making the details sound boring enough that nobody asks.
The concept of race has always sounded like total bullshit to me. Do you have a definition that makes any sense?
2 clusters: African and non-African
5 clusters: African, European, Asian, PNG/Australian Aboriginal, Native Americans
All the way to:
1 billion clusters: Individual families
When most people think of race they are talking about the number of groups that make clusters of major continents, where there wasn't much gene flow until 1492.
Google PCA ancestry (PC term for race) eg gnomAD:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSZ-l...
Self reported race matches genetically determined race at rates in the high 90s.
A way to think about it without clustering etc:
People separated (usually by geography) long enough that they bred mostly amongst themselves, and developed characteristics different than other groups.
Yes, you can walk from Amsterdam to Beijing and see a gradient of people the whole way - but that doesn't mean you can't tell the difference between a Chinese person and a Dutchman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget the rape! 100% of your Ys coming from one place is the opposite of "mutt", too. But the only way you can get to do race science is by coming to the conclusion "There's no such thing as race" first, and making the details sound boring enough that nobody asks.
The concept of race has always sounded like total bullshit to me. Do you have a definition that makes any sense?