This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

mikemikev's Profile

mikemikev's Avatar Joined about 2 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by mikemikev

More Discussions by mikemikev

Latest Comments by mikemikev

Go to: Race re-debunked

mikemikev's Avatar Jump to comment 353 by mikemikev

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

Thanks largely in part to geneticists, the “Out of Africa” concept was popularized during the last two decades, yet it was never directly proven; however, for many specialists its appeal was undeniably convincing. The concept was based primarily on the premise that Africa possesses the highest variability, or variance, of the human DNA and its segments. Set apart, it is not a strong argument because a mix of different DNA lineages also results in a high variability and, as we show below, it is largely what occurs in Africa.


We have found that a great diversity of Y chromosomal haplotypes in Africa is a result of the mixing of several very distant lineages, some of them not necessarily African, and that Europeiods (at least) do not contain “African” SNPs (those of haplogroups A or B). These important findings put a proverbial dent in the “Out of Africa” theory.


Based on palaeoarchaeological evidence, the region, where anatomically modern humans have likely originated, is com- prised of a vast territory from Central Europe in the west to the Russian Plain in the east to Levant in the south.

They propose that modern humans arose in Eurasia, and that high Sub-Saharan genetic diversity is the result of later interbreeding with non-humans.

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:54:23 UTC | #951067

Go to: Human Races May Have Biological Meaning, But Races Mean Nothing About Humanity

mikemikev's Avatar Jump to comment 91 by mikemikev

Maybe white people are racist because they prefer their own people. One solution to that is to blend them out of existence. Then we can start on the Chinese.

Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:58:43 UTC | #950691

Go to: Genetic diversity among Common Chimpanzees

mikemikev's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by mikemikev

Comment 15 by starvoyager5150 :

A human being's physiology, in terms of genetics, is no more than one percent different from any other human being.* And only the tiniest smattering of DNA code is responsible for skin color differences. Unfortunately, this difference in outward appearance seems to convey no small degree of importance to many (perhaps most) people. And these minor genetic code differences have caused much suffering and death (often commanded by this god or that). Tragic, because these differences aren't really important at all. As for people's beliefs, viewed from a cosmic perspective, there are not really too many important differences from one culture to another, driven as they are by many of the same motivations, not the least of which is an urgent need to believe in an everlasting existence. However, as with physiological differences between various groups of Homo Sapiens, the subtle nuances between belief systems seem to be GREATLY important to people; but as with physiological distinctions, they too are really not important.

*Interesting, because if you ramp it up to two percent, you have pans troglodyte, a chimp!

I agree that these "minor" differences have caused much suffering, destruction and death. Just look at the US crime and rape stats and take a tour of Detroit.

1% difference is superficial and insignificant, 2% causes massive behavioural differences.

My only question: do you really believe your own nonsense?

Sat, 19 May 2012 17:00:13 UTC | #942299

Go to: Race re-debunked

mikemikev's Avatar Jump to comment 351 by mikemikev

Actually a lot of the genome is thought be without function and any variation in this is neutral variation. Some non-coding DNA does have a function. Some doesn't. Some coding DNA is also neutral, because its alleles are selectively equivalent. I never said neutral variation was functionless. But functionless variation is neutral. "Diversity" in neutral variation is of little to no taxonomic significance. It can help with phylogeny though. Variation in important genes is the crux of taxonomy. The role of geography in human variation treats that. Alleles under strong selection spread in racial groups. Junk DNA just sits there. Its noise. If you have some idea of whether the higher diversity in Africa is in important DNA or junk I would like to hear it. You know that chimps have even higher genetic diversity than humans right? But they are all still, uh, chimps. Clearly that diversity isn't in anything significant when mapped onto the phenotype.

Of course that's what a sweep is.

In other words, carrying one of these mutations is a strong identifying marker indicating the geographic area where that individual's ancestors lived.

Indicating one of three geographic areas: SS Africa, West-Eurasia, and East Asia.

Sun, 18 Mar 2012 22:49:10 UTC | #928484

Go to: Race re-debunked

mikemikev's Avatar Jump to comment 349 by mikemikev

Comment 346 by Helga Vierich :

Your last statement raises grove doubts in my mind that you actually read the paper you referenced. I see no "data" abut race in that article. It is one of many reports coming out of the data generated by the the human genome project, and confirms the emerging consensus concerning the interaction of geographic distances and selection pressures. Human genetic variation can be largely explained in terms of the recent expansion out of Africa, which resulted in "clines" of decreasing diversity as populations spread further and further away. This, genetic differentiation between populations increases with geographic distance, and diversity within populations also decreases with distance from Africa.

I think you are thinking about neutral variation. You understand that most of the genome is functionless, right? This "diversity" you speak of is essentially noise. I have tried to explain this to you. From the paper:

Under strong selection, the geographic distributions of selected alleles detected in pairwise comparisons might differ greatly from one locus to another. For example, a selected allele that strongly differentiates the French from both the Yoruba and Han could be strongly clinal across Europe, or at high frequency in Europe and absent elsewhere, or follow any other distribution according to the geographic nature of the selective pressure.

However, we see that the global geographic distributions of these putatively selected alleles are largely determined simply by their frequencies in Yoruba, French and Han (Figure 3). The global distributions fall into three major geographic patterns that we interpret as non-African sweeps, west Eurasian sweeps and East Asian sweeps, respectively. The boundaries of these three patterns are highly concordant with neutral population structure inferred from random microsatellites or SNPs [38],[40]. This is the case even for loci such as KITLG, SLC24A5 and EDAR where there is a strong biological case for the genes being targets of selection. Moreover, these patterns are robust to the choice of populations used to identify high- FST SNPs: for example, very similar results are obtained for SNPs with high FST between Mandenka, Balochi and Yakut (Supplementary Figure 14 in Text S1).

Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:12:38 UTC | #928395

More Comments by mikemikev