Documentary called "100% English" - 13/11/06 - DNA Ancestor Profiling as Tool to Freak Out Racists/Nationalists

I saw that too, maybe nick griffin would come out as
only being 5% human and 95% pig shit.

I wish I saw it or could look into the methodology a bit more coz the conclusions sound dodgy to me. The fact that white people have bits of DNA that resembles that of other populations dosn't necessarily mean that they have mixed ancestry per se because the 'races' are impossible to distinguish in the first place - if that makes sense. What I am trying to say is that even if their white ancestry went back 2, 3, or 4 thousand years there would still be this kind of genetic overlap because the 'races' don't preexist at the genetic level.

I think I may have seen that show way back or something similar and there was one kid who was absolutely shattered and on his way to a lot of soul-searching. Hilarious.

I was just about to say the same thing, jason. I'd definitely be interested in seeing the methodology.

There's more genetic differentiation within one geographical area than between that geographical area and another. From this simple observation alone it doesn't seem possible that there's any way to tell what race a person is. Especially since it's widely agreed in anthropology that race is socially constructed, and has almost no relation to genetics.

Well, it wasn't that they were tracing to what race they were, they were tracing their ancestry to whomever they were. It was more about where they've emmigrated from rather than to prove they were not 'white'.

As for the testing, I imagine they used mtDNA testing ( Mitochondrial DNA), Y SNP test and Genome-wide tests that can trace ancestry thousands of years back and can trace to which geographical area it corresponds.

Best bit was Garry Bushell finding out his DNA was 8% African, meaning in the last 200 years he has had one male black ancestor. "Good job I'm not a racist" he replied.

It was amusing but ultimately didn't tell us much. One of the worst racists from my way was Nicky Crane, who was of Italian origin but still a big cheese in the BM in the late 70s/80s (as well as being hyped by Garry Bushell).

Regards,

Martin

mate the fact he was an pizza-spinner is hardly the big deal - i think the fact he was gay, renounced his facism and died of aids is!

Wasn't he gay, and he died from an aids related illness?

Just checked wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicky_Crane

And i've just read Tacks post.

The point i was making was that people can quite quickly assimliate to racist norms, their own origins notwithstanding. This can also be seen in conflict between AFricans and Afro-Caribbeans in London and the various "ethnic" people associated with the BNP.

Regards,

Martin

It was absolutely hilarious seeing the faces of those tory nationalists. Especially the one who found out she may have been the descendant of romani gypsys. They were just unbelievably racist, i am not even sure i can call it closet as they didn't hide it especially well. I hope they find some way of doing nick griffin.

I forgot all about her threatening to sue! I think she is a bit desperate and scared at the end of it all, almost like a phobia, in some cases homophobics do turn out to be gay, i wonder if this is something simular, only more to do with nations, it cannot be completely the same of course, but i do see some simularities. I doubt if she'll get far either, but it will be interesting if something big does happen because of this.

we have

All the archeological evidence, backed up by mtdna (disputed,but not very effectively) points conclusively to the genesis of homo sapiens (ie, all of us)in Africa some 150,000 years ago. Eve was most certainly black.

a typically profound intervention from our ICC comrade there.

Anymore? How about zoologist research that shows a significant correlation between bears defecation and areas of high tree density?

i'm not one to gang up, but

No one really knows shit about human evolution. The "Out of Africa" fetish simply represents the fossil richness of the East African Rift Valley and some South African sites plus the fact that Western (British) scholars have historically had access to this sites. IIRC, comparable Pliocene-Pleistocene fossil deposits are currently known on the Eurasian land mass but remain under-studied. Eastern scolars are traditionally less enthusiastic about paleoanthropology. The recent Homo floriensisfindings from the Indonesian archapelago are testament that the global paleoanthropological picture is far from clear and that Eurassia's probably got a few more surprises up her sleave.

Regarding mtDNA, you don't have to criticise genetic interpretations very effectively coz most are bollocks to start with.

The two extreme views expressed are actually very similar:
revol68 (sic) who knows everything (except how to be a militant in his own organisation) and abuses everyone and everything from his ivory tower (or should that be the isolation of his pit?); and Jason, with his "no-one knows shit about evolution". Very similar positions.
Jason seems to be mixing up his hominid waves out of Africa - there were two. The first some millions of years ago which, according to the latest archeological evidence, went to Asia and back to Africa again. And the second, involving homo sapiens which is confirmed, not so much by evidence in Africa (though that backs it up) but from the Levant, Asia, Australia and southern and central Europe.
It's true, as Jason says, that white people were (are) involved in archeological research in Africa, but that's no reason for him to be racist about it, (see origins of this thread). When Jason talks about the Rift Valley he is talking about the origins of man (hominids) not homo sapiens, which is a distinct species. In fact the Rift Valley has been surpassed now in producing the oldest hominid with a find one or two years ago in Chad. This latter find tends to militate against the theory of the separation of man and ape due to the collapse of the Rift range (ie, apes stayed on the top in the trees, hominid stood upright on the plain created by the collapse).
I don't get Jason's point about the recent find, homo floririsis. For a start, there's by no means certaintly about this creature. Secondly, I don't know what it's got to do with his argument, or even what his argument is except "no-one knows shit about evolution". Why don't you Jason, have a private discussion with revol?
I saw some of the original programme on TV about race and dna. I think that nationalism and race is one of the most effective poisons of the ruling class, something they play to the hilt (one of their great weapons along with anti-racism). DNA analysis, in some cases, make the bourgeoisie uncomforable (it wouldn't differ in Arab or Jew, for example).
Until there's evidence to the contrary (and Jason doesn't even begin to point to it) then the overwhelming evidence of the second out of Africa wave of homo sapiens about 150,000 years ago, shows our direct ancestors originated and came out of Africa. And because revol can't argue against it, he has to classify it "as a typical ICC blah, blah, blah..." and switch into his "contemptuously abusive" mode which he probably already has programmed in to his computor.

I think his point being is since we don't know everything, we can say what we know is bollocks and that nobody knows shit ... I don't know if I'm interpreting it correctly - but if that's what he means then.... that sure is a questionable view indeed. That we do not know all, doesn't mean by any means that we know shit. We simply know what we know at this point of time. By his logic, I shouldn't use this computer, cos in future we will know even more about computers and their technology will be much more advanced than as it is now, cos we are finding new things and facts and aquire new knowlege all the time. So what I know about computers is shit since it's not all there is to know?

Jason

And what are your scientific credentials to disregard how scientific knowlege and research are interpreted?

There's a thin line between science and pseudo-science or indeed - there are those who say science is bollocks because it contradicts their belief in superstitions such as religion. I guess that it would help to back up your claim.

Whatever it is, if it can change mind of racists and nationalists, it's a good thing.

the west of ireland, where my parents are from, contains the "oldest" population in europe (them and the basques). i may be part neanderthal.

I swear every American I meet is from Ireland.

you've met my parents?

The following is highly embarrising for me but since you asked: as an undergrad I took a major in anthropology and a major in archaeology and devouted my remaining electives to genetics and biochem. I then did a one year honours degree analysing the ancient DNA residues from 1.7mya hominid tools from Stekfontein, South Africa. I am currently writing my PhD thesis on the evolutionary and developmental neurobiology of insects.

No DNA evidence about human evolutionary models currently sits well with me because population genetics are highly amenable to demographics, which IMO are currently not satisfactorily taken into account. Just recently there has been more debate about the effects of demographics and how to model them and in several years there might be better analysis of genetic data.

Definitely, population genetics has provided some of our best evidence for attacking the concept of race. My apologies for not being clearer: genetics in the paleoanthropological context is what gets my goat. Its easy an legitimate to look at populations from around the world and say there is no significant difference between them. To take the current genetic variation of human populations and construct models of how it evolved is far less easy or legitimate.

Baboon, comrade, you seem to have completely missed my point. I'll make it more explicit: Our current view of human evolution is highly problematic because it is based on a biased sample of fossil deposits. Bilogical theories are constantly in a state of flux and no more so than our perceptions of human origins. I'm predicting a big shake up in paleoanthropology within the next few decades as the Eurassian land mass is increasingly brought under the microscope, so to speak. Start with Dennell & Roebroeks "An Asian perspective on early human dispersal from Africa" Nature, 2005, 438:1099-1104 and we can take the discussion from there.

But wait up. Geneticists also use these things to look for quatitative trait locis. They are either neutral markers that refect phylogeny or they are linked to loci under selection. Which one is it?

This has no meaning to me. Can someone explain what 8% African means and how it was deduced?

But there are fossil humans in Australia that are older than the first fossils humans in Europe. How did this happen if they're coming out of Africa?

Every couple of months I see a seminar where someone finds a bone that 'radically' changes our perception on the evolution some organism or other, from mammals to crocodiles. Sorry but I have to keep making this point: quality sampling is everything in science. Human paleontology dosn't have that. And mtDNA dosn't mean anything coz a) its not controled for demographics, and b) its probably under selective pressure and you've basically got a continental versus an equatorial population. Does anyone see problems with that?

Computers and paleontology? Hmmmm...

This bothered me a lot that you see scientific credentials in this light. I'm a trained anthropologist and biologist but so what? I would feel confident taking a psychologist, economist or historian to task. Why your pedastoolising of scientists? I thought about it over the weekend and now feel the need to start another thread in thought. Hope to see you there...