Natural Law and Self-Preservation

[eye_of_the_storm]

Why do many ignore natural principles? especially in regard to maintaining true diversity...

Edited September 11, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[ralis]

Why do many ignore natural principles? especially in regard to maintaining true diversity...

 

 

 

 

 

Is your premise an attempt to justify 'Social Darwinism'? I would like to point out that nature does not conform to any human ideology in regards to natural selection.

Edited September 10, 2013 by ralis

[Protector]

Hi

 

Just cruising by here

[Flolfolil]

i wonder why people select mates for looks instead of physical ability and adaptation to environment

 

i wonder how many generations until everyone is completely hairless

 

wtf

 

imagine if we bred for qigong potential

 

[eye_of_the_storm]

Is your premise an attempt to justify 'Social Darwinism'? I would like to point out that nature does not conform to any human ideology in regards to natural selection.

 

I don't subscribe to Social Darwinism

 

Natural selection is also a human ideology... that you are using as an example of nature not conforming to human ideology?

 

@_@

[Aetherous]

imagine if we bred for qigong potential

 

 

[ralis]

 

I don't subscribe to Social Darwinism

 

Natural selection is also a human ideology... that you are using as an example of nature not conforming to human ideology?

 

@_@

 

Natural selection is about science and evolution which I guess you know nothing about. Furthermore, to characterize nature as racist is a bogus argument.

[voidisyinyang]

evolution does not work through conscious choice.

 

Evolution works through whatever happens to fit a specific environmental niche that is inherently unpredictable.

 

This is called the "Red Queen" - there is no progress in Nature.

 

Quantum biology has shown that evolution works through non-local consciousness manifesting through biophotons.

 

To say Nature is racist -- Oh I remember this is a German who posted this before - believing they are losing their German race. haha.

 

HILARIOUS!!

 

Germans were originally Celts as I pointed out.

 

Get over it.

 

7,000 generations ago all humans were in the same family as direct cousins!!

 

That's not very long considering there's been life on Earth for billions of years.

 

There was a bottle neck in humanity about 100,000 years ago - maybe 80,000 years ago - with only 5,000 humans alive or so.

 

So all humans are from a very small DNA diversity - in comparison to other primates.

 

I have had relatives "freak" about how they are not Africans living in trees or something.

 

Hilarious! People are really funny about "race" - but this relative is a brother-in-law from New England from a "blue blood" family....

 

so anyway Western civilization starting with Plato is based on racism built into the mathematical logic!!

 

So this issue goes very deep.

 

Look at your example of butterflies or moths.

 

It just shows how silly this is - those same species demonstrate how "race" is a very superficial environmental adaptation that can be changed very easily.

 

 

Africa contains the most human genetic diversity anywhere on Earth, and the genetic structure of Africans traces to 14 ancestral population clusters that correlate with ethnicity and culture or language. The study lasted 10-years and analyzed variations at 1,327 DNA markers of 121 African populations, 4 African American populations, and 60 non-African populations.^[27][28]

According to a 2000 study of Y-chromosome sequence variation,^[9] human Y-chromosomes trace ancestry to Africa, and the descendants of the derived lineage left Africa and eventually were replaced by archaic human Y-chromosomes in Eurasia. The study also shows that a minority of contemporary East Africans and Khoisan are the descendants of the most ancestral patrilineages of anatomically modern humans that left Africa 35,000 to 89,000 years ago.^[9] Other evidence supporting the theory is that variations in skull measurements decrease with distance from Africa at the same rate as the decrease in genetic diversity. Human genetic diversity decreases in native populations with migratory distance from Africa, and this is thought to be due to bottlenecks during human migration, which are events that temporarily reduce population size.^[29][30]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

 

and

 

 

Long and Kittles show that indeed, African populations contain about 100% of human genetic diversity, whereas in populations outside of Africa diversity is much reduced, for example in their population from New Guinea only about 70% of human variation is captured.

 

and

 

 

A study published in 2007 found that 25% of genes showed different levels of gene expression between populations of European and Asian descent.^{[31][32][33][34][35]} The primary cause of this difference in gene expression was thought to be SNPs in gene regulatory regions of DNA. Another study published in 2007 found that approximately 83% of genes were expressed at different levels among individuals and about 17% between populations of European and African descent.^[36][37]

 

So this shows that genetic diversity is much greater between individuals than between different skin colors or "races."

 

 

 

Gradually, more of the darker moths survived long enough to breed as they were now better disguised, and their paler cousins fell victim to predators.

The gene for dark colouring became more widespread with each new generation of moths, and eventually it dominated.

The trend has been seen in other species around the world, and is termed industrial melanism.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1194281/Darwins-evolution-moth-changes-black-white-thanks-soot-free-skies.html#ixzz2eSdwWO50
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1194281/Darwins-evolution-moth-changes-black-white-thanks-soot-free-skies.html

so maybe the industrial era favors the darker skins....

as for pollution -- it may seem cleaner in the UK but in reality they have just externalized their pollution through imperialist wars and "free trade" zones abroad, etc.

the machines are taking over and they are not clean.

[eye_of_the_storm]

@ Ralis

You are correct... nature as racist is a bogus argument.

It is just self preservation, true diversity + pursuit of unique evolutionary paths.

"Natural selection is about science and evolution"? so you agree with some elements of Social Darwinism?

 

@ PLF

What do you think about different dog breeds?

Some say some dog breeds are more violent than others, some are smarter etc, some are more curious etc

So it is more than just the colour of ones coat?

 

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The "Out of Africa" theory is losing ground also with recent studies/ finds etc

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/37/15123.long

Genetic evidence for archaic admixture in Africa

 

1. Michael F. Hammer^a,^b,¹,
2. August E. Woerner^a,
3. Fernando L. Mendez^b,
4. Joseph C. Watkins^c, and
5. Jeffrey D. Wall^d

Author Affiliations

1. Edited by Ofer Bar-Yosef, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved July 27, 2011 (received for review June 13, 2011)

Next Section

 

Abstract

 

A long-debated question concerns the fate of archaic forms of the genus Homo: did they go extinct without interbreeding with anatomically modern humans, or are their genes present in contemporary populations? This question is typically focused on the genetic contribution of archaic forms outside of Africa. Here we use DNA sequence data gathered from 61 noncoding autosomal regions in a sample of three sub-Saharan African populations (Mandenka, Biaka, and San) to test models of African archaic admixture. We use two complementary approximate-likelihood approaches and a model of human evolution that involves recent population structure, with and without gene flow from an archaic population. Extensive simulation results reject the null model of no admixture and allow us to infer that contemporary African populations contain a small proportion of genetic material (≈2%) that introgressed ≈35 kya from an archaic population that split from the ancestors of anatomically modern humans ≈700 kya. Three candidate regions showing deep haplotype divergence, unusual patterns of linkage disequilibrium, and small basal clade size are identified and the distributions of introgressive haplotypes surveyed in a sample of populations from across sub-Saharan Africa. One candidate locus with an unusual segment of DNA that extends for >31 kb on chromosome 4 seems to have introgressed into modern Africans from a now-extinct taxon that may have lived in central Africa. Taken together our results suggest that polymorphisms present in extant populations introgressed via relatively recent interbreeding with hominin forms that diverged from the ancestors of modern humans in the Lower-Middle Pleistocene.

• H. sapiens
• hybridization

It is now well accepted that anatomically modern humans (AMH) originated in Africa and eventually dispersed to all inhabited parts of the world. What is not known is the extent to which the ancestral population that gave rise to AMH was genetically isolated, and whether archaic hominins made a genetic contribution to the modern human gene pool. Answering these questions has important implications for understanding the way in which adaptations associated with modern traits were assembled in the human genome: do the genes of AMH descend exclusively from a single isolated population, or do our genes descend from divergent ancestors that occupied different ecological niches over a wider geographical range across and outside of the African Pleistocene landscape?

 

The introgression debate is typically framed in terms of interbreeding between AMH and Neandertals in Europe or other archaic forms in Asia. The opportunity for such hybridizations may have existed between 90 and 30 kya, after early modern humans dispersed from Africa and before archaic forms went extinct in Eurasia (1⇓⇓⇓–5). Recent genome-level analyses of ancient DNA suggest that a small amount of gene flow did occur from Neandertals into the ancestors of non-Africans sometime after AMH left Africa (6) and that an archaic “Denisovan” population contributed genetic material to the genomes of present-day Melanesians (7). Given recent fossil evidence, however, the greatest opportunity for introgression was in Africa, where AMH and various archaic forms coexisted for much longer than they did outside of Africa (5, 8–11). Indeed, the fossil record indicates that a variety of transitional forms with a mosaic of archaic and modern features lived over an extensive geographic area from Morocco to South Africa between 200 and 35 kya (12⇓⇓–15).

More @ http://www.pnas.org/content/108/37/15123.long

//

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002700;jsessionid=077D0107E5A3BEEEDDA4FF0DBF5B0543

 

A 28,000 Years Old Cro-Magnon mtDNA Sequence Differs from All Potentially Contaminating Modern Sequences

• David Caramelli,
• Lucio Milani,
• Stefania Vai,
• Alessandra Modi,
• Elena Pecchioli,
• Matteo Girardi,
• Elena Pilli,
• Martina Lari,
• Barbara Lippi,
• Annamaria Ronchitelli,
• Francesco Mallegni,
• Antonella Casoli,
• Giorgio Bertorelle,
• Guido Barbujani

 

Abstract Background

 

DNA sequences from ancient speciments may in fact result from undetected contamination of the ancient specimens by modern DNA, and the problem is particularly challenging in studies of human fossils. Doubts on the authenticity of the available sequences have so far hampered genetic comparisons between anatomically archaic (Neandertal) and early modern (Cro-Magnoid) Europeans.

 

Methodology/Principal Findings

 

We typed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) hypervariable region I in a 28,000 years old Cro-Magnoid individual from the Paglicci cave, in Italy (Paglicci 23) and in all the people who had contact with the sample since its discovery in 2003. The Paglicci 23 sequence, determined through the analysis of 152 clones, is the Cambridge reference sequence, and cannot possibly reflect contamination because it differs from all potentially contaminating modern sequences.

 

Conclusions/Significance:

 

The Paglicci 23 individual carried a mtDNA sequence that is still common in Europe, and which radically differs from those of the almost contemporary Neandertals, demonstrating a genealogical continuity across 28,000 years, from Cro-Magnoid to modern Europeans. Because all potential sources of modern DNA contamination are known, the Paglicci 23 sample will offer a unique opportunity to get insight for the first time into the nuclear genes of early modern Europeans.

 

Citation: Caramelli D, Milani L, Vai S, Modi A, Pecchioli E, et al. (2008) A 28,000 Years Old Cro-Magnon mtDNA Sequence Differs from All Potentially Contaminating Modern Sequences. PLoS ONE 3(7): e2700. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002700

 

Editor: Henry Harpending, University of Utah, United States of America

 

Received: April 23, 2008; Accepted: June 17, 2008; Published: July 16, 2008

 

Copyright: © 2008 Caramelli et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

 

Funding: Study supported by funds of the Italian Ministery of the Universities (PRIN 2006). No sponsors had any role in any phase of the study, and the authors do not envisage any conflict of interests.

 

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

 

Introduction

 

The anatomically-archaic Europeans, the Neandertal people, are documented in the fossil record from approximately 300,000 to 30,000 years ago. Around 45,000 years ago, anatomically-modern humans of the Cro-Magnoid type expanded in Europe from the Southeast. Neandertals coexisted with them for between 1,000 to 10,000 thousand years, depending on the region [1], but eventually their skeletons disappeared from the fossil record. Individuals of intermediate morphology have not been observed. With the possible exception of one 25,000 years old child [2], all known specimens in the relevant time interval can be classified without ambiguity either as Neandertals or Cro-Magnoids.

 

The interpretation of these findings is not straightforward. Under the so-called Out-of-Africa model, Neandertals are considered to be extinct, and modern Europeans are regarded as descending exclusively from Cro-Magnoids who replaced Neandertals in the course of their expansion from Africa [3]. Conversely, recent versions of the alternative, multiregional model, propose that Neandertals gave a limited, but non-negligible, contribution to the gene pool of modern Europeans by admixing with Cro-Magnoids (e.g. [4]–[6]). Analyses of morphological traits [7], ancient Neandertal DNA [8], [9], and modern DNA diversity [10]–[12] are generally regarded as supporting a recent African origin of modern humans [13], without substantial Neandertal contribution, if any at all. In particular, mtDNA sequences from all studied Neandertals fall out of the range of modern variation and show no particular relationship with modern European sequences [9], [14]. However, it is clearly impossible to rule out any degree of reproductive interaction between the two groups. As a consequence, the possibility has been raised that admixture did occur, but the early Europeans of modern anatomy were not too different genetically from Neandertals, or else that most Neandertal haplotypes were lost through a process of lineage sorting, i.e. by genetic drift [5].

 

To clarify the evolutionary relationships between the two anatomically-distinct groups that coexisted in Upper Paleolithic Europe, data on DNA variation in Cro-Magnoids are of course extremely important. At present, only two Cro-Magnoid sequences, both from Paglicci in Southern Italy, have been published. Both of them fall within the range of modern mtDNA variation, thus differing sharply from all known Neandertal sequences, and both belong to fossil specimens from which Neandertal-specific primers failed to amplify mtDNA [15]. Serre et al. [16] confirmed that Cro-Magnoid mtDNAs could not be amplified using Neandertal-specific primers, but argued that the Paglicci sequences, as well as all ancient sequence that appear modern, cannot be considered reliable because contamination of ancient samples by modern DNA can be proved, but absence of contamination cannot.

More @ http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002700;jsessionid=077D0107E5A3BEEEDDA4FF0DBF5B0543

 

//

 

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

Re-Examining the "Out of Africa" Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy

PDF (Size:736KB) PP. 80-86 DOI: 10.4236/aa.2012.22009

Author(s)

 

Anatole A. Klyosov, Igor L. Rozhanskii

 

ABSTRACT

Seven thousand five hundred fifty-six (7556) haplotypes of 46 subclades in 17 major haplogroups were considered in terms of their base (ancestral) haplotypes and timespans to their common ancestors, for the purposes of designing of time-balanced haplogroup tree. It was found that African haplogroup A (originated 132,000 ± 12,000 years before present) is very remote time-wise from all other haplogroups, which have a separate common ancestor, named β-haplogroup, and originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp. It includes a family of Europeoid (Caucasoid) haplogroups from F through T that originated 58,000 ± 5000 ybp. A downstream common ancestor for haplogroup A and β-haplogroup, coined the α-haplogroup emerged 160,000 ± 12,000 ybp. A territorial origin of haplogroups α- and β-remains unknown; however, the most likely origin for each of them is a vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south. Haplogroup B is descended from β-haplogroup (and not from haplogroup A, from which it is very distant, and separated by as much as 123,000 years of “lat- eral” mutational evolution) likely migrated to Africa after 46,000 ybp. The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid haplogroups, as well as all non-African haplogroups do not carry either SNPs M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (haplogroup A and its subclades SNPs) or M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup , as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project (the reference is incorporated therein) on several hundred people from various haplogroups.

KEYWORDS

Y Chromosome; Mutations; Haplotypes; Haplogroups; TMRCA; STR; SNP; “Out of Africa”

Cite this paper

Klyosov, A. & Rozhanskii, I. (2012). Re-Examining the "Out of Africa" Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy. Advances in Anthropology, 2, 80-86. doi: 10.4236/aa.2012.22009.

//

Edited September 10, 2013 by White Wolf Running On Air

[ralis]

Cut/paste without your commentary does not explain your OP WWROA.

[Marblehead]

Germans were originally Celts as I pointed out.

Except for we Prussians. And yes, we lost WWI and that destroyed what was left of the Prussian empire.

[Apech]

What is the point of this thread?

Except for we Prussians. And yes, we lost WWI and that destroyed what was left of the Prussian empire.

 

Sorry to hear that.

[Marblehead]

Once again, all humans are homo sapiens. They can interbreed and reproduce. A man and a horse are different species. Although some may have breed they cannot reproduce.

 

A horse and a donkey can breed and reprodice. What you get is a jack ass.

What is the point of this thread?

 

Sorry to hear that.

Don't mind me. I'm just trying to take it off topic so that we don't end up talking about different breeds of humans again.

[Apech]

Once again, all humans are homo sapiens. They can interbreed and reproduce. A man and a horse are different species. Although some may have breed they cannot reproduce.

 

A horse and a donkey can breed and reprodice. What you get is a jack ass.

 

Don't mind me. I'm just trying to take it off topic so that we don't end up talking about different breeds of humans again.

 

So what you are saying is that men can have sex with horses but they won't have babies and Prussians lost their Empire ... which seems a bit careless ... a bit like losing your specs I assume they forgot where they put it.

[Basher]

Except for we Prussians. And yes, we lost WWI and that destroyed what was left of the Prussian empire.

 

Wellington & his British/Dutch etc Army would have been in deep doo-doo in June 1815, if it hadn't had the help of General Blucher & the Prussians. We'd all be speaking French !!!

Sacre Bleu !!!

[Marblehead]

... and Prussians lost their Empire ... which seems a bit careless ... a bit like losing your specs I assume they forgot where they put it.

Hehehe. Actually it was the Brits who made sure the Prussian empire was destroyed after the war and thereby allowed such a thing as a Htiler to replace what was once a proud empire.

 

Yes, and sheep and goats and cows and, ... Enogh!!!

[ralis]

The OP is pointless!

[Marblehead]

Wellington & his British/Dutch etc Army would have been in deep doo-doo in June 1815, if it hadn't had the help of General Blucher & the Prussians. We'd all be speaking French !!!

Sacre Bleu !!!

So true but then I don't see a real problem with that. French is a much more beautiful language than Is German or English.

 

The OP is pointless!

Me thinks I was already aware of that. Thanks for pointing out the pointlessness of it though.

[Basher]

So true but then I don't see a real problem with that. French is a much more beautiful language than Is German or English.

Maybe so, I just don't like Snails or Frogs Legs.

(Sorry Deci)

[Apech]

Hehehe. Actually it was the Brits who made sure the Prussian empire was destroyed after the war and thereby allowed such a thing as a Htiler to replace what was once a proud empire.

 

Yes, and sheep and goats and cows and, ... Enogh!!!

 

 

Prussian: Ach! Vere is my empire, I only put it down vile I vas shagging dis pony.

Bavarian: I do not know vere your empire has gone, perhaps der British stole it!

Prussian: Dis is very likely those slimly Limeys!

Bavarian: Never mind I haf ein sheep vould you like to share?

Prussian: I did not know it was sheep shearing season.

[Marblehead]

Maybe so, I just don't like Snails or Frogs Legs.

See? Had you grown up as a Frenchman you would love both of them.

 

 

And BTW those butterflies in the opening post are pretty though, although I think the ones in the middle are moths.

 

Prussian: Ach! Vere is my empire, I only put it down vile I vas shagging dis pony.

Bavarian: I do not know vere your empire has gone, perhaps der British stole it!

Prussian: Dis is very likely those slimly Limeys!

Bavarian: Never mind I haf ein sheep vould you like to share?

Prussian: I did not know it was sheep shearing season.

Hehehe. We are now headed for the Pit as soon as one of the Mods sees this.

[Apech]

See? Had you grown up as a Frenchman you would love both of them.

 

 

And BTW those butterflies in the opening post are pretty though, although I think the ones in the middle are moths.

 

Hehehe. We are now headed for the Pit as soon as one of the Mods sees this.

 

 

Luckily we have not fallen into the trap of using national stereotypes or anything like that.

[Marblehead]

Luckily we have not fallen into the trap of using national stereotypes or anything like that.

No, we would never stereotype people. That's just not politically correct unless we are talking about the Arabic peoples.

[Protector]

Hehehe. We are now headed for the Pit as soon as one of the Mods sees this.

 

MARBLE! MARBLE! HEY! HEEEEEEEEY! WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING OVER THERE?

DON'T MOVE, I'M COMING OVER!

[BaguaKicksAss]

This thread..... made it to page 2!?