I must make mention here of this study, which seems an attempt to improve the available datasets of global human genetics, particularly the widely used 1000 Genomes Project. It has some less striking but still interesting highlights.
Swapan Mallick et al., The Simons Genome Diversity Project: 300 genomes from 142 diverse populations. Nature, 2016. Pay per view → LINK [doi:10.1038/nature18964]
Abstract
Here we report the Simons Genome Diversity Project data set: high quality genomes from 300 individuals from 142 diverse populations. These genomes include at least 5.8 million base pairs that are not present in the human reference genome. Our analysis reveals key features of the landscape of human genome variation, including that the rate of accumulation of mutations has accelerated by about 5% in non-Africans compared to Africans since divergence. We show that the ancestors of some pairs of present-day human populations were substantially separated by 100,000 years ago, well before the archaeologically attested onset of behavioural modernity. We also demonstrate that indigenous Australians, New Guineans and Andamanese do not derive substantial ancestry from an early dispersal of modern humans; instead, their modern human ancestry is consistent with coming from the same source as that of other non-Africans.
The genomes and some other information seem to be available in their dedicated webpage.
One of the highlights is explicit in the abstract: the single African origin of Homo sapiens and the single out-of-Africa migration episode are confirmed. I didn't have any doubt but there have been occasional speculations, based on nothing worth considering, on the conjecture of more than one migration out of Africa before the Holocene, maybe affecting Australasian peoples. Not at all: it's all based on mere misunderstanding on how "racial" traits evolved, those remote isolated peoples basically allow us for a glimpse on the plausible phenotypes of the early Eurasian migrants, which were probably quite dark in skin pigmentation and most often had thinly curled hair like that of most Africans. In fact, I have argued on occasion that it is very possible that straight hair and its less extreme variants, wavy and widely curly hair, are Neanderthal genetic and phenotype influences, positively selected for some unclear reason, and not part of our African Homo sapiens heritage.
The other highlight that I appreciate is that they find some errors in the 1000 Genomes Project, particularly affecting Australasians, Andamanese and some Africans (quite extreme among the Khoisan particularly). This is very apparent in this map and might explain some misleading and often puzzling conclusions made by some researchers, academic or amateur alike:
Otherwise I do not find their reconstructions of the paleo-history of Humankind, based only on autosomal DNA (not the best tool for such deep incursions, really), too helpful. But the most important thing is the existence and availability of a new, allegedly improved, global dataset.
I wouldn't take the single out-of-Africa stuff to the bank. Both the Y Chromosome and mitochondrial DNA in Eurasia show a deep split, and Treemix often shows a second migration edge to Oceania. It seems most likely that there were at least 2 migrations out of Africa by related but not identical groups. And Basal Eurasians seem likely to have actually originated in NE Africa too.
ReplyDeleteI almost included the relevant graphics in this entry but I finally omitted them because it would force me to discuss the chronologies (which don't make good sense in some cases) but it is clear in them that first Humankind and then the macro-Asian (or non-African) branch remained united as a single group for a long time.
DeleteTreeMix is probably NOT the most reliable tool for this: results vary, as do all other autosomal analyses, depending on many factors, including sampling strategy. Autosomal analysis is STATISTICS and you know what they say: "there are lies, damn lies and statistics" (exaggerated claim maybe but caution is required in any case). Y-DNA and mtDNA fit perfectly well with a single out-of-Africa migration, as does the fraction of Neanderthal admixture, and also they show absolutely no particularity regarding Australasia or Oceania. These two I have discussed in depth in this dedicated page.
The issue of "Basal Eurasian" hypothetical group is open to debate but, most importantly, to proper analysis. It is a category that ONLY arises in autosomal analyses, which are not necessarily the best tool. I would tentatively agree that it is a product of Afro-Eurasian admixture (i.e. an "artifact" and not a genuine "basal" group) in the context of UP/LSA and related to the expansion of Y-DNA E1b, but more data is needed probably.
I have never seen anything in Australasian genetics that may suggest a second OoA migration or anything like that: they are absolutely normal "macro-Asians", excepted the "Denisovan" or Heidelbergensis admixture fraction that the rest almost lack.
I generally agree with the scenarios you outline in your other post, but your own maps show haplogroup N spreading ~20k years after haplogroup M, and show haplogroup D migrating separately from CF.
DeleteNeanderthal ancestry is also noticeably lower in groups that lack mitDNA haplogroup M, and Europe gradually lost it's Y-DNA C and mtDNA M frequency along with much of its Neanderthal ancestry.
I'd note too that Tibet is both the hotspot for Denisovan ancestry in continental East Asia, and a hotspot for y Haplogroup D.
"I have never seen anything in Australasian genetics that may suggest a second OoA migration or anything like that: they are absolutely normal "macro-Asians", excepted the "Denisovan" or Heidelbergensis admixture fraction that the rest almost lack."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/full/nature19792.html
Re: Basal - agree that it's really just a placeholder term, but it's hard to see the recent spread of Y haplogroup E and the simultaneous decrease of Neanderthal heritage in western Eurasia as anything but ongoing gene flow between NE Africa and West Asia.
It's not "20 Ka" but two mutations more recently, two "ticks", than M. And that is a fact of phylogeny we cannot deny. How do we calibrate or interpret those ticks, that's open to debate, I just pick my method based on what seems that fits best, and it is only in that last interpretative step when I get some 14 or so Ka of difference (not 20).
Delete"show haplogroup D migrating separately from CF."
Nope. Following exactly the same southern Asia route to the East, just as CF, merely being less successful, remaining small, until it found a niche in East Asia (a bit like C, or mtDNA N, mind you).
"Neanderthal ancestry is also noticeably lower in groups that lack mitDNA haplogroup M"
So Indians have more Neanderthal ancestry than Tibetans? I suspect that you're finding a correlation that, first, is not causation and second is most likely a mere mirage.
There is not even any greater or lesser Neanderthal ancestry in fractions that we can measure sensibly, barring the almost unadmixed Africans, all have around 2-3%. Since the very beginning it was apparent that the Chinese sample had some more Neanderthal ancestry than the European reference but then the Japanese or Karitiana ones had less. So it's a matter almost certainly of quasi-random fluctuations after the admixture. In the case of Europe and West Asia (which is a very specific subset and you should not consider to represent single-handedly to all lower M frequency populations or the primitive N population of SE Asia, what about SE Asia itself, man?!), Europeans have African admixture (the so-called "Basal Eurasian" thingy, E1b, etc.), so we are a bit less "macro-Asian" than the rest of "macro-Asians" for that reason alone: we are a bit more African than they are. That should reduce Neanderthal admixture also.
Let's continue debunking your M-Neanderthal correlation hypothesis. Let's not talk of M but of N (her "Nemesis", the off to the on, the black to the white, the left to the right in macro-Asian mtDNA): where is clearly N dominant? In three regions: Australasia, SE Asia and West Eurasia. In all them you could replace N by her "daughter" R, really, excepting Australia but keeping Papua. There are then two regions in which M and N/R are balanced: East Asia and America, and only one region in which M is clearly dominant: South Asia. That's because N/R expanded very vigorously (almost certainly with Y-DNA K2, alias MNOPS), but South Asia has its own "N", which is a subclade of M with a much less glamorous name: M4"67, and we should consider that alt-expansion as a barrier to N/R on its own right. N was not the only expanding mtDNA lineage, several M subclades did also, it was just the most adventurous and with the largest global impact.
DeleteSo do we have a Neanderthal-N/R negative correlation? I don't think so. There are several estimates of the Neanderthal ancestry but for instance in this table (surely very distorted in some aspects), Chinese have greater than European (c. 100% for CEU) such ancestry but Gujarati have significantly less. And Gujarati are much more M and less N/R than Chinese.
So no. Chinese don't represent "M peoples", they are a deep mixture of M and N ancestries, mt-DNA wise and they represent Chinese only, maybe East Asians (to the probable exclusion of SE Asians and NE Asians/Siberians) but it has to be confirmed for each case, using other samples. They definitely do not represent South Asians nor are related at all with them anymore than any other macro-Asian people is (same for Australasians).
"http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/full/nature19792.html"
It's pay per view, no wonder I haven't seen it at all: it's only for the rich and privileged. Admittedly this paper is too but at least I got someone with access smuggling it to me, so I could discuss it at all. If you care to pass me a copy, I will take a look, of course.
Delete"Re: Basal - agree that it's really just a placeholder term, but it's hard to see the recent spread of Y haplogroup E and the simultaneous decrease of Neanderthal heritage in western Eurasia as anything but ongoing gene flow between NE Africa and West Asia."
In this I think we agree. It is still a bit of a mystery because the "Basal Eurasian" autosomal thingy seems to appear in less suspect populations like CHG (Caucasus Epipaleolithic), so maybe it has double origins. Another issue is the quite plausible "Basal Eurasian" or African admixture in La Braña (Iberia Epipaleolithic), which should have, if anything NW African origins.
In all cases I think we are dealing with what we could call "the clinal zone" between Africa and Eurasia, spanning roughly North Africa and West Asia (even today to a large extent) but it remains to be seen if a remnant OoA population lived in West Asia (or also North Africa) long enough to be another source of this confusing autosomal element.
Personally I suspect having detected both: a NW African and an "Arabian" paleo-component in deep enough autosomal analysis, but remains to be confirmed by independent analyses -- mine was just preliminary. I just can say that they look intercontinentally or "racially" distinct from all other components by huge Fst distances and therefore they could fit with OoA remnant populations, now diluted to low frequencies (in the best cases: c. 14% in South Morocco, should be Aterian-rooted, c. 11-12% in Saudi Arabs and some Egyptians, should be OoA-rooted).
So for me the "Basal Eurasian" element could be the sum of two different things: "real" BA and "true African" admixture in the clinal zone. I know of no study that goes deep enough to clarify this matter yet.
"It's not "20 Ka" but two mutations more recently, two "ticks", than M. And that is a fact of phylogeny we cannot deny. How do we calibrate or interpret those ticks, that's open to debate, I just pick my method based on what seems that fits best, and it is only in that last interpretative step when I get some 14 or so Ka of difference (not 20). "
ReplyDeleteMy point stands.
"Nope. Following exactly the same southern Asia route to the East, just as CF, merely being less successful, remaining small, until it found a niche in East Asia (a bit like C, or mtDNA N, mind you). "
You show a back-to-Africa migration for DE that isn't shown from CF.
"So Indians have more Neanderthal ancestry than Tibetans? I suspect that you're finding a correlation that, first, is not causation and second is most likely a mere mirage."
Tibetans do have quite a bit of M. I think you're mistaking my hypothesis here.
"So no. Chinese don't represent "M peoples", they are a deep mixture of M and N ancestries, mt-DNA wise and they represent Chinese only, maybe East Asians (to the probable exclusion of SE Asians and NE Asians/Siberians) but it has to be confirmed for each case, using other samples."
Yes. This is my point. East Asia is M+N (and I'm including all sub-lineages), while West Eurasian is almost exclusively N. It's not that West Eurasia has N that is significant here, but rather that it lacks M. My suggestion is that M represents a separate OoA event that had higher Neanderthal admixture for whatever reason, and that East Eurasia has a higher share of its ancestry from that M migration (I'd rather not assume which left Africa first). There are no pure descendants of M - if there ever were to begin with.
"There is not even any greater or lesser Neanderthal ancestry in fractions that we can measure sensibly, barring the almost unadmixed Africans, all have around 2-3%. Since the very beginning it was apparent that the Chinese sample had some more Neanderthal ancestry than the European reference but then the Japanese or Karitiana ones had less."
You're mistaken. Neanderthal admixture is noticeably higher among East Asians, and that includes Karitiana even with it's ~25% West Eurasian ancestry. Karitiana and Japan have more Neanderthal ancestry than any European population excepting the Saami.
http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2051794959/2059460386/mmc1.pdf
"It's pay per view, no wonder I haven't seen it at all: it's only for the rich and privileged. Admittedly this paper is too but at least I got someone with access smuggling it to me, so I could discuss it at all. If you care to pass me a copy, I will take a look, of course."
I'm afraid I'm in the same boat as you, but the supplementals are free to download. David blogged about it too:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2016/09/two-pronged-amh-colonization-of-eurasia.html
"In this I think we agree. It is still a bit of a mystery because the "Basal Eurasian" autosomal thingy seems to appear in less suspect populations like CHG (Caucasus Epipaleolithic), so maybe it has double origins. Another issue is the quite plausible "Basal Eurasian" or African admixture in La Braña (Iberia Epipaleolithic), which should have, if anything NW African origins. "
The Villabruna paper sort of explains this now, no? La Brana's Y-Chromosome is just a holdover from older groups of Europeans - but autosomally he's mostly Villabrunan.
More later, but in the mean time this may be of interest if you haven't seen it yet (a 4th dead end OoA?)
http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2016/02/human-pioneers-interbred-with.html
"You show a back-to-Africa migration for DE that isn't shown from CF."
DeleteI do not: I do show a distinct out-of-Africa migration for DE (pre-D or D, as you prefer to call that branch) but I do that only because it belongs to a different haplogroup. IMO DE coalesced in Africa, as demonstrated by the relative abundance of DE(xD,E) in the continent; the Tibetan DE* (only reported once) is probably just pre-D and should surely be considered within a redefined D haplogroup (the matter may need more research indeed but that's what I think considering the available evidence).
You might interpret the CF'DE black arrow as a "back to Africa" migration but mostly it looks that way for lack of space in the map (and some uncertainty). My tentative location for the coalescence of CF'DE would be in Eritrea but there is no way to be sure with any precision: it could be anywhere in the Upper Nile or Red Sea coasts, including the Arabian ones (Yemen would be an interesting locality for very ancient DNA research but we are not that capable yet, unfortunatley, Ethiopia, Eritrea, the Sudans, etc. are even more interesting anyhow). I prefer to consider the whole region loosely as a single entity, regardless of continent, because in the end: is there any difference if CF'DE evolved in Sudan, Eritrea, Yemen or Ethiopia? Not really and we cannot clarify that much with any certainty.
"Tibetans do have quite a bit of M. I think you're mistaking my hypothesis here".
DeleteNo, I'm not really mistaking anything (even if I did not consider Tibetans specifically) because you're obviously cherry-picking the data points to fit your conjecture. That's not acceptable, sorry: if there'd be any such pattern as you propose, we'd see it happen everywhere or with very rare exceptions and it's clearly not the case once Indians are out (about half of mtDNA M basal subclades!!!) I'm sorry but it's wishful thinking "logic": I wish it was this way, so I pre-select the evidence that fits while discarding the one that contradicts it. Well, not acceptable.
"East Asia is M+N (and I'm including all sub-lineages), while West Eurasian is almost exclusively N. It's not that West Eurasia has N that is significant here, but rather that it lacks M."
But those are just two possible data-points. I would use the following regionalization here:
· South Asia (M very dominant)
· SE Asia (N/R very dominant)
· Australia (N dominant, just some M)
· Papua/Melanesia (N/R & M)
· Middle East Asia (China, Korea & Japan) (N/R & M)
· NE Asia (Mongolia, Siberia) and Native America (N/R & M)
· West Eurasia & North/NE Africa (N/R dominant but also some M: M1, CZ, etc., not considering L(xM,N) here)
So we can organize these in three categories:
1. M-dominated: South Asia (only!!!)
2. N/R-dominated: SE Asia (the origin of the haplogroup surely, markedly dominated by R variants, just like West Eurasia - there may be exceptions: Burma & Wallacea particularly), Australia (N but no R) and West Eurasia+ (a destination region with only a handful of derived lineages, a clear founder effect must be assumed, the same as in Australia).
3. Mixed: all the rest.
So you're totally ignoring the only M-dominated region and also two of the three N/R dominated regions. You're also not considering the effect that a strict adherence to your conjecture would cause in mixed regions like East Asia or Papua/Melanesia, where we should see a clear dip of the Neanderthal ancestry relative to the main M region of South Asia.
So it just doesn't work, really. :(
"... supplementals are free to download"...
DeleteFacepalm! Of course!
Now, let me cherry-pick the data in an attempt to demonstrate your conjecture false: if correct, then: Irula(NeAdmix)>Thai(NeAdmix) but nope. Or Bengali(NeAdmix)>Australian(NeAdmix) and again no, it doesn't work. The effect you "see" is only the product of a simplistic two regions comparison: East Asia vs West Eurasia and that cannot be generalized to M vs N/R, not at all.
I agree that there seems to be more Neanderthal ancestry (marginally more in any case) in East Asia than in West Eurasia but there are many other regions in "Macro-Asia" that we just cannot ignore.
"The Villabruna paper sort of explains this now, no? La Brana's Y-Chromosome is just a holdover from older groups of Europeans - but autosomally he's mostly Villabrunan."
Sorry, I don't recall that paper. Could you provide a link to it or to a relevant article?
"More later, but in the mean time this may be of interest if you haven't seen it yet (a 4th dead end OoA?)
http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2016/02/human-pioneers-interbred-with.html"
Dead end? It just states the obvious (to me): Neanderthal admixture happened at the only and one OoA episode some 100 Ka ago, very probably in the Levant, where we know of some quite apparently hybrid skulls (Skhul 5 quite notably) from those key dates of the Abbassia Pluvial.
Notice anyhow how these dates contrast with the ones obtained by Sankararaman in your previous link, which don't make sense at all for me (at most 60 Ka ago applying a 30 years multiplier per generation) I like Kuhlwilm's results much better because they fit very well with the other data we have, particularly the archaeological ones but also with the genetic ones as I understand them.
Anyhow, thanks for the links and discussion.
Also re. Sankaraman, it seems notorious to me that Papuans only seem to have +1.12% of "Denisovan" (H. heidelbergensis) ancestry relative to French, which is much less than reported previously. See Table S3. Other pops have negligible amounts (less than 0.13%), except Australian and Boungaville, which are close to Papuans.
DeleteRe. the Kuhlwilm paper, the supp. materials are a bit confusing on their own but am I correct if I read that there were two Neanderthal admixture episodes: one 100 Ka ago affecting all the macro-Asian (non-African) population, surely at founder effect level c. 100 Ka ago, related to Altai Neanderthals, and the other affecting only Eastern populations (Han, Papuan in their data set) related to European Neanderthals (quite surprisingly and very hard to explain).
In synthesis, the various populations accumulate the following hybridization events:
→ French: Altai Neanderthals only (almost only to be exact, owing to generic macro-Asian founder effect c. 100 Ka ago)
→ Han: Altai and El Sidrón Neanderthals
→ Papuans: Altai and El Sidrón Neanderthals and also H. heidelbergensis ("Denisovans").
That implies necessarily that there were not only H. heidelbergensis populations somewhere in SE Asia (Sundaland or Wallacea I guess) but also European Neanderthal populations somewhere in East Asia or maybe in India (Narmada skull looks Neanderthal but no Mousterian tech associated) and that these secondary hybridization effects affected only parts of the macro-Asian population, not based on the major mtDNA macro-haplogroups, as you have proposed, but on something else not so easy to identify (Papuans, French and Han are all rather high in mtDNA R and also dominated by Y-DNA K2), something more geographic than strictly phylogenetic, something that did not leave any clear phylogenetic legacy, not in the haploid lineages certainly.
Well, interesting anyhow.
I just wrote an entry on these matters and I suggest we move the discussion over there: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2016/11/main-neanderthal-admixture-episode-was.html
DeleteThanks again for the links and debate, which is quite interesting even if we don't agree on some key issues.
A final question: your original link was to one paper different than the supp. materials you linked to later, was that intentional or an error? At least I thought initially they were the same study. :?
@Ryan
ReplyDeleteFor reasons that I do not understand, Maju deletes my comments in this blog. I think he is confusing me with someone else. Anyway, just do know that I did not delete my comment but rather it was Maju who deleted it.
Actually I did not delete them (yet), they went to the spam folder on Blogger's own grounds. Guess they are getting you profiled automatically, AIs get better and better every day, scary but useful in this particular case.
DeleteThe reason you "don't understand" has been repeated here many times: you chose a racialist vocabulary that offended others (they complained) and insisted on using it without any shade, apology or anything. I directly warned you several times and you stubbornly rejected to change your vocabulary on grounds that "it's scientific". Coon scientific? Nope: he's a primitive ape from the Age of Apartheid! You can refer to him, I guess but why?, but you cannot throw his racialist categories around, offending other readers, without showing at least some sensibility about your stubborn toe-stepping.
More importantly maybe: you do not frontally challenge my authority on this blog, as you did and keep doing each time you try to breach the banishment. That alone is reason for banishment because it demonstrates your "trollness" and lack of respect for the local authority, me.
Also I have explained this to you more than once: so, if you "don't understand", go to the brain doctor, because I've been as pedagogical as I could, I have even offered you repeated chances of amending, what you rejected.
It's either you are right or you are right? Well, then write your own blog and stop annoying me. Since Terry is gone (seemingly for good) you're the only pest that keeps popping up. Follow his lead and go rant against me in some other space, as I know you do but I choose to utterly ignore (they'll probably also ban you in due time and in any case their problem).
This is a blog where people who is able to be respectful can comment at will (in my political blogs I do censor right-wingers often because they exhaust me but here they are free to comment on topic, as long as they respect). And one of the pillars of that respect is that, for all purposes this is "my home" and therefore I am the boss and supreme arbiter, Blogger and the gods of electromagnetism allowing. So yo either accept my ruling or you leave or I have to challenge you to duel according to old Bedouin traditions or whatever. This last is not going to happen: no way I'm going to step in Istambul while Erdogan is in power, so I'll keep accumulating reasons for your eternal banishment on the grounds of your repeated violations of the banishment itself.
I know it's redundant but that's what happens when you run out of jail or don't pay your fine right? I also know that I gave you ways to amend and apologize, so I feel no remorse whatsoever.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@Maju
DeleteI did not know the AI of Blogger was so advanced as to be able to automatically send to the spam folder of a blog comments coming from a user whose comments are regularly deleted by the blog owner. So at least in this case it was not you who deleted my comments. Sorry for the wrong accusation.
Let me make a clarification for people who do not know the reason of my banishment from this blog. You banned me just because I called racial mixes hybrid. Calling racial mixes hybrid is both a scientific practice and a daily life practice in most of the world (don't know the situation in your country, but in my country it certainly is like I said). Also, no one complained about my use of the word hybrid for racial mixes except you, but to the contrary Terry and Krefter supported my stance. It is actually me who got offended. I got offended because you accused me of racism just because I used the term hybrid for racial mixes, as if being hybrid is something bad.
There is another peculiarity with your banishment of me. You showed me very little of the tolerance that you showed to Terry and Krefter. You tolerated Terry for a very long time before you banned him. In the case of Krefter, it is even more peculiar, because you banned Krefter for a similar reason to my banishment, yet you later lifted your ban on Krefter for no obvious reason. I sense double standards here (is it because I am from Turkey?). I even conceded not to use the word hybrid for racial mixes ever again in your blog (which still stands), yet you keep accusing me of racism just because I used that word for racial mixes on one occasion in your blog.
Blogger has since long ago a rather poor anti-spam filter that does send some comments to the spam folder, yes. It's not very accurate but it does exist and in this particular case it nailed you.
DeleteSecondly, "Calling racial mixes hybrid is both a scientific practice and a daily life practice in most of the world".
No it is not and anyhow I'm not willing to accept your junk and offensive language here. Hybrid is an interspecies mix, not an intra-species one and also it has negative connotations and linguistic association with the term "hubris" (same Greek root) that may offend people and certainly do offend me.
The reason of my low level of tolerance is that you stubbornly refused to backstep, let alone apologize, and you still do so. Also, once the banishment is in place I think that the proper channel to appeal is by email, not here breaching the banishment once and again (nor also in other blogs making personal attacks against me), all that only makes you look worse in my eyes, which are the eyes that ultimately matter here, in my "home".
Listen for yet another time: this is MY blog and I make the rules here, or at least I try. And every single time you refuse to accept that you are testing my patience and aggravating your situation and also dirtying my blog with matters that most people don't care about.
I do agree that my tolerance with Terry was too high, however he did not overstep the same red lines as you did: his were a matter of being overly annoying and never seeming to find a reasonable end to his endless and personally aggressive (against me) discussions, he did not overstep the "no racism" line, which is for me much more sacred: "no racism, no sexism, no homophobia, no fascism", those are lines that I do not only strictly enforce here but also do not tolerate in other spaces, abandoning them if I feel such outrageous transgressions are tolerated.
The very fact you insist on the existence of "races" is borderline racist in my opinion. The unnecessary over-emphasis on "race" is in itself annoying and borderline. I don't mean to be "race-blind" but I also don't think that "races" are valid categories most of the time and find absolutely annoying the abusive resource to that cattle-inspired categorization. There are populations with blurry boundaries and complex origins that often do not fit well with classical racial categories. And I strongly believe that is the correct approach to human diversity. Populations do not "hybridize", they mix naturally. Species hybridize sometimes, for example a horse-donkey hybrid is called a mule, a lion-tiger hybrid is called a liger or a tigon (there are important differences depending on the gender-species relation), there were Neanderthal-Sapiens hybrids and there is an introgression legacy in us from those ancient hybridization events. But we have discussed that before and you insist on your position even if you know perfectly I'm not going to tolerate it. There's nothing more to discuss, let's agree to disagree and please vacate peacefully MY blog (nth demand) where I set the rules.
Also, I don't keep a record, but from memory I think I did banish you twice for two related but different incidents of ugly undesirable racialist vocabulary that you insist to call "scientific". I unbanished you once, I believe, but you repeated your bad attitude on this matter for which I have very low tolerance and on which you are very annoyingly stubborn. I don't have the patience for you and your issues, really, nobody pays me enough (or at all) for it.
BTW, this exception of allowing you to cry in my comments' section is finished. If you, Onur want to keep discussing this, I have an email at my profile (remove the DELETETHIS anti-spam protection) but do not scat my blog with your crap. I will delete any further comments coming from you mercilessly.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI fucking said that the debate in the comments section is closed, that you can choose to use the email. I said this a zillion times in the past, I really hate when you challenge my fucking authority that fuckingly stupid way. What do you want? To force me to enable pre-moderation of comments again? Fuck you!!!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete