Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [AAT] language origin

Expand Messages
  • Ken Moore
    In message , Gerry Reinhart- ... The trouble with ethnic groups is that are not good categories, because they have
    Message 1 of 30 , Oct 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      In message <011701c14a23$18f4ed20$6a43b43f@reinhardt>, Gerry Reinhart-
      Waller wrote:
      >All languages are spoken by certain ethnic groups. For example, the French
      >speak French, the British speak English, and the Germans speak German.
      >However not all Frenchmen were originally from France and not all Germans
      >speak a pure German (many different dialects).

      The trouble with ethnic groups is that are not good categories, because
      they have such vague boundaries: they are far worse than species, and
      some of those have severe boundary problems. Languages are similar (I
      think of them as intermediate between species and ethnic group in
      vagueness). Even so, Cavalli-Sforza ("Genes, Peoples and Languages",
      ISBN 0-713-99486-X) finds interesting statistical correlations between
      languages and genetic markers.

      --
      Ken Moore
      ken@...
      Web site: http://www.hpsl.demon.co.uk/
    • Gerry Reinhart-Waller
      ... From: Ken Moore To: Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 2:42 AM Subject: Re: [AAT] language origin ... French ...
      Message 2 of 30 , Oct 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Ken Moore <ken@...>
        To: <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 2:42 AM
        Subject: Re: [AAT] language origin


        > In message <011701c14a23$18f4ed20$6a43b43f@reinhardt>, Gerry Reinhart-
        > Waller wrote:
        > >All languages are spoken by certain ethnic groups. For example, the
        French
        > >speak French, the British speak English, and the Germans speak German.
        > >However not all Frenchmen were originally from France and not all Germans
        > >speak a pure German (many different dialects).
        >
        > The trouble with ethnic groups is that are not good categories, because
        > they have such vague boundaries: they are far worse than species, and
        > some of those have severe boundary problems. Languages are similar (I
        > think of them as intermediate between species and ethnic group in
        > vagueness). Even so, Cavalli-Sforza ("Genes, Peoples and Languages",
        > ISBN 0-713-99486-X) finds interesting statistical correlations between
        > languages and genetic markers.

        Agreed. Ethnic groups have fuzzier boundaries than do species. Hadn't
        thought of languages as being intermediate between species and ethnic groups
        but their borders also are fuzzy. That's why I've always had difficulty in
        understanding how Cavalli-Sforza is able to find an exact (statistical)
        correlation between languges and genetic markers. Aren't genetic markers
        like ethnic groups, species and languages also FUZZY?

        Gerry
      • Marc Verhaegen
        ... And the Belgians Belgian, and the Swiss Swiss. ... Marc
        Message 3 of 30 , Oct 1, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          >>All languages are spoken by certain ethnic groups. For example, the French
          >>speak French, the British speak English, and the Germans speak German.

          And the Belgians Belgian, and the Swiss Swiss.

          :-D

          Marc
        • Ken Moore
          In message , Gerry Reinhart- ... I don t think so: they are base sequences in the right part of a chromosome or
          Message 4 of 30 , Oct 1, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            In message <006901c14aa5$c6f52b60$d070b43f@reinhardt>, Gerry Reinhart-
            Waller wrote:
            >Aren't genetic markers
            >like ethnic groups, species and languages also FUZZY?

            I don't think so: they are base sequences in the right part of a
            chromosome or peptide sequences in a protein with a particular function
            and an individual either has or hasn't got them.

            --
            Ken Moore
            ken@...
            Web site: http://www.hpsl.demon.co.uk/
          • Gerry Reinhart-Waller
            ... From: Marc Verhaegen To: Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 1:54 PM Subject: Re: [AAT] language origin
            Message 5 of 30 , Oct 1, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Marc Verhaegen <marc.verhaegen@...>
              To: <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 1:54 PM
              Subject: Re: [AAT] language origin


              > >>All languages are spoken by certain ethnic groups. For example, the
              French
              > >>speak French, the British speak English, and the Germans speak German.
              >
              > And the Belgians Belgian, and the Swiss Swiss.
              >
              > :-D
              >
              > Marc

              Hahaha. You missed my point. Please re-read the original. I think you
              only read and see what you wish to see.

              Gerry
            • Kees IJpelaan
              ... Was there a point? Gerry, you are a scattermind. That is why you were told by Glen, and it was repeated by Marc, that Your statements are unfocused,
              Message 6 of 30 , Oct 1, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Gerry Reinhart-Waller wrote:

                >>>> All languages are spoken by certain ethnic groups. For
                >>>> example, the French speak French, the British speak
                >>>> English, and the Germans speak German.
                >>
                >> And the Belgians Belgian, and the Swiss Swiss.
                >>
                >> :-D
                >>
                >> Marc
                >
                > Hahaha. You missed my point.

                Was there a point? Gerry, you are a scattermind. That is why
                you were told by Glen, and it was repeated by Marc, that "Your
                statements are unfocused, irrelevant, uneducated and purposely ignorant". You
                missed that point entirely.

                Kees
              • Gerry Reinhart-Waller
                ... From: Kees IJpelaan To: Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 5:11 PM Subject: Re: [AAT] language origin ... You
                Message 7 of 30 , Oct 1, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Kees IJpelaan <kees.ijpelaan@...>
                  To: <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 5:11 PM
                  Subject: Re: [AAT] language origin


                  > Gerry Reinhart-Waller wrote:
                  >
                  > >>>> All languages are spoken by certain ethnic groups. For
                  > >>>> example, the French speak French, the British speak
                  > >>>> English, and the Germans speak German.
                  > >>
                  > >> And the Belgians Belgian, and the Swiss Swiss.
                  > >>
                  > >> :-D
                  > >>
                  > >> Marc
                  > >
                  > > Hahaha. You missed my point.
                  >
                  > Was there a point? Gerry, you are a scattermind. That is why
                  > you were told by Glen, and it was repeated by Marc, that "Your
                  > statements are unfocused, irrelevant, uneducated and purposely ignorant".
                  You
                  > missed that point entirely.
                  >
                  > Kees

                  I take offense to what you are calling me Kees. Marc did not include my
                  post as I wrote it (and as I meant it). Check the files for my real post.
                  Glen is upset with me because I find problems with his dating and labeling
                  the earliest language Nostratic (I even asked him what he calls the language
                  spoken pre-Nostratic only he hasn't bothered to reply). Now you are calling
                  me uneducated and ignorant. Why are you being so nasty? Hey, if Marc
                  wishes me to leave the group he can simply ban me or even easier, just ask
                  me to leave.

                  Gerry
                • Marc Verhaegen
                  ... Why should I? My problem with you is: how can an educated person fail to see how species [or languages] evolve from an ancestral species [or language]?
                  Message 8 of 30 , Oct 1, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >Hey, if Marc wishes me to leave the group he can
                    >simply ban me or even easier, just ask
                    >me to leave. Gerry

                    Why should I? My problem with you is: how can an educated person fail to see
                    how species [or languages] evolve from an ancestral species [or language]?
                    Perhaps you don't realise that the beginning of species [or of languages] is
                    outside what we are doing here [or Glen in the Nostratic list]?

                    Marc
                  • Ken Moore
                    In message , Gerry Reinhart- ... From Cavalli-Sforza, Genes, Peoples and Languages , p141 (but I have ... Eurasian-|
                    Message 9 of 30 , Oct 2, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In message <01f901c14add$d9315000$d070b43f@reinhardt>, Gerry Reinhart-
                      Waller wrote:
                      >Glen is upset with me because I find problems with his dating and labeling
                      >the earliest language Nostratic (I even asked him what he calls the language
                      >spoken pre-Nostratic only he hasn't bothered to reply).

                      From Cavalli-Sforza, "Genes, Peoples and Languages", p141 (but I have
                      turned it sideways for convenience of my software):

                      |-- Dene-Caucasian
                      Eurasian-|
                      | |-- Amerindian
                      |-------------|
                      | |----- Dravidian
                      |-- Nostratic--|
                      | |-- Afroasiatic
                      |--|
                      |-- Eurasiatic

                      C-S calls Nostratic a super-family, not a language, and writes that it
                      was first described by various Russian scientists. I can't remember
                      what characteristics these groups have, but recommend the book as a good
                      read.

                      >Now you are calling
                      >me uneducated and ignorant.

                      Neither of those is a synonym for "scatter-brained" in my vocabulary. I
                      think you read widely, but do not always distinguish rationalist authors
                      with up-to-date knowledge from some whose philosophies are tinged with
                      mysticism and others whose ideas might have been useful at one time but
                      have been killed off by later discoveries.

                      --
                      Ken Moore
                      ken@...
                      Web site: http://www.hpsl.demon.co.uk/
                    • waluk@best.com
                      ... Reinhart- ... function ... Yes Ken. But doesn t the base sequence need interpretation? And isn t the interpretation based on the eye of the observer ?
                      Message 10 of 30 , Oct 2, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In AAT@y..., Ken Moore <ken@h...> wrote:
                        > In message <006901c14aa5$c6f52b60$d070b43f@reinhardt>, Gerry
                        Reinhart-
                        > Waller wrote:
                        > >Aren't genetic markers
                        > >like ethnic groups, species and languages also FUZZY?
                        >
                        > I don't think so: they are base sequences in the right part of a
                        > chromosome or peptide sequences in a protein with a particular
                        function
                        > and an individual either has or hasn't got them. Ken Moore

                        Yes Ken. But doesn't the base sequence need interpretation? And
                        isn't the interpretation based on the "eye of the observer"? IOW, is
                        there a very tight (exact) correlation between sequence of genes and
                        function?

                        Gerry
                      • waluk@best.com
                        ... fail to see ... language]? ... languages] is ... Thanks for not banning me Marc. First of all, I appreciate your calling me educated but I m without PhD
                        Message 11 of 30 , Oct 2, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In AAT@y..., "Marc Verhaegen" <marc.verhaegen@v...> wrote:
                          >
                          > >Hey, if Marc wishes me to leave the group he can
                          > >simply ban me or even easier, just ask
                          > >me to leave. Gerry
                          >
                          > Why should I? My problem with you is: how can an educated person
                          fail to see
                          > how species [or languages] evolve from an ancestral species [or
                          language]?
                          > Perhaps you don't realise that the beginning of species [or of
                          languages] is
                          > outside what we are doing here [or Glen in the Nostratic list]?
                          >
                          > Marc

                          Thanks for not banning me Marc. First of all, I appreciate your
                          calling me educated but I'm without PhD and only have an ALM from
                          some college in New England. Now I have no difficulty whatsoever in
                          seeing how species [or languages] evolve from other species; however,
                          new evidence in "mind studies" seem to contradict this. So do old
                          studies by Ernst Haeckel (1874) and his college text: Molecular
                          Biology of the Cell which has been in use for over a century until
                          recently challenged by the anti-creationists. As well, Haeckel's
                          drawings (over 125 years old) have been confirmed by light microscope
                          photographs. As I've repeatedly stated on this list, I am not a
                          creationist; I'm simply trying to verify or falsify the evidence.
                          That's all. Now about species evolving from ancestral species (same
                          with languages) this is pure Darwinism. And all I'm trying to do
                          explain or reject it.

                          Gerry
                        • waluk@best.com
                          ... Reinhart- ... labeling ... the language ... have ... it ... good ... vocabulary. I ... authors ... with ... but ... GRW: Perhaps you are correct because
                          Message 12 of 30 , Oct 2, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In AAT@y..., Ken Moore <ken@h...> wrote:
                            > In message <01f901c14add$d9315000$d070b43f@reinhardt>, Gerry
                            Reinhart-
                            > Waller wrote:
                            > >Glen is upset with me because I find problems with his dating and
                            labeling
                            > >the earliest language Nostratic (I even asked him what he calls
                            the language
                            > >spoken pre-Nostratic only he hasn't bothered to reply).
                            >
                            > From Cavalli-Sforza, "Genes, Peoples and Languages", p141 (but I
                            have
                            > turned it sideways for convenience of my software):
                            >
                            > |-- Dene-Caucasian
                            > Eurasian-|
                            > | |-- Amerindian
                            > |-------------|
                            > | |----- Dravidian
                            > |-- Nostratic--|
                            > | |-- Afroasiatic
                            > |--|
                            > |-- Eurasiatic
                            >
                            > C-S calls Nostratic a super-family, not a language, and writes that
                            it
                            > was first described by various Russian scientists. I can't remember
                            > what characteristics these groups have, but recommend the book as a
                            good
                            > read.
                            >
                            > >Now you are calling
                            > >me uneducated and ignorant.
                            >
                            > Neither of those is a synonym for "scatter-brained" in my
                            vocabulary. I
                            > think you read widely, but do not always distinguish rationalist
                            authors
                            > with up-to-date knowledge from some whose philosophies are tinged
                            with
                            > mysticism and others whose ideas might have been useful at one time
                            but
                            > have been killed off by later discoveries.

                            GRW: Perhaps you are correct because I do have difficulty separating
                            rationalist authors (some of whom I term "scientistic") with those
                            whose ideas are tinged with mysticism. I found this about Nostratic:

                            But at the beginning of the 20th century, the Danish linguist Holger
                            Pedersen introduced a new classification of languages that was
                            radically different from the German-Aryan racial identification. He
                            called it Nostratic, after the Latin for "ours", implying a more
                            inclusive, shared heritage. There is overwhelming linguistic evidence
                            that the Indo-European language family forms part of a larger
                            grouping, a "macrofamily" made up of several already-recognized
                            language families:

                            --Indo-European (Indo-Iranian, Germanic, Slavic, Greek, Romance,
                            Celtic, etc.);
                            --Uralic (e.g. Finnish, Hungarian);
                            --Altaic (Turkish, Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu);
                            --Afro-Asiatic (or Hamito-Semitic: Hebrew, Arabic, Egyptian, Berber,
                            Cushitic, Chadic);
                            --Dravidian (Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, Kannada, Brahui);
                            --and Kartvelian (Georgian in the Caucasus).

                            This pretty much follows what Valery Alekseev had to say:
                            http://www.alekseevmanuscript.com (lectures 9-11). What Alekseev was
                            trying to do was to unite the sub-groups into a mega language family.
                            Likewise, so have I.

                            Gerry
                          • Ken Moore
                            ... Some may need interpretation, for all I know; and a changed base does not necessarily lead to a changed peptide, nor a changed peptide necessarily to a
                            Message 13 of 30 , Oct 2, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In message <9pcmnj+6s9j@...>, wrote:
                              >--- In AAT@y..., Ken Moore <ken@h...> wrote:
                              >> In message <006901c14aa5$c6f52b60$d070b43f@reinhardt>, Gerry
                              >Reinhart-
                              >> Waller wrote:
                              >> >Aren't genetic markers
                              >> >like ethnic groups, species and languages also FUZZY?
                              >>
                              >> I don't think so: they are base sequences in the right part of a
                              >> chromosome or peptide sequences in a protein with a particular
                              >function
                              >> and an individual either has or hasn't got them. Ken Moore
                              >
                              >Yes Ken. But doesn't the base sequence need interpretation? And
                              >isn't the interpretation based on the "eye of the observer"? IOW, is
                              >there a very tight (exact) correlation between sequence of genes and
                              >function?
                              >
                              >Gerry

                              Some may need interpretation, for all I know; and a changed base does
                              not necessarily lead to a changed peptide, nor a changed peptide
                              necessarily to a change of behaviour or function of the protein (though
                              both may). Then again, I'm not an expert on base sequences. However,
                              the first markers to be investigated were proteins, for example the
                              blood compatibility ones (ABO, Rh etc), and these are pretty clear. If
                              you give a litre of type A blood to someone of type B they become very
                              ill and probably die if you don't correct your mistake smartly: that
                              doesn't need interpretation.

                              At p. 104 and following of "Genes, Peoples and Languages", Cavalli-
                              Sforza gives us a fascinating description of what can be deduced from
                              genetic markers. One of the things I take from his exposition is that
                              DNA is the fact behind the concept of race, and the reality is much more
                              complicated than and substantially different from the common perception.

                              --
                              Ken Moore
                              ken@...
                              Web site: http://www.hpsl.demon.co.uk/
                            • Gerry Reinhart-Waller
                              ... From: Ken Moore To: Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [AAT] Re: language origin ... Since
                              Message 14 of 30 , Oct 2, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: Ken Moore <ken@...>
                                To: <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 10:28 AM
                                Subject: Re: [AAT] Re: language origin


                                > At p. 104 and following of "Genes, Peoples and Languages", Cavalli-
                                > Sforza gives us a fascinating description of what can be deduced from
                                > genetic markers. One of the things I take from his exposition is that
                                > DNA is the fact behind the concept of race, and the reality is much more
                                > complicated than and substantially different from the common perception.

                                Since I function as an Independent Scholar and am presently low on funds for
                                new purchases of books, could you possibly quote a line or two from C-S?
                                IOW, how does DNA influence the concept of race?

                                Most scary, however, is the following:

                                The biological concept of race . . . has no basis in science.
                                Dr. Harold Freeman, Celera Genomics Corp., quoted in the SJ Mercury, "Race
                                not seen as factor in variation of genetic code," Feb. 20, 2001, G1.

                                Do C-S and Freeman disagree?

                                Gerry
                              • Marc Verhaegen
                                ... Then you should have at least *some* knowledge about what you re talking... Marc
                                Message 15 of 30 , Oct 2, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  >> >Hey, if Marc wishes me to leave the group he can
                                  >> >simply ban me or even easier, just ask
                                  >> >me to leave. Gerry
                                  >>
                                  >>Why should I? My problem with you is: how can an
                                  >>educated person fail to see how species [or languages]
                                  >>evolve from an ancestral species [or language]?
                                  >>Perhaps you don't realise that the beginning of species
                                  >>[or of languages] is outside what we are doing
                                  >> here [or Glen in the Nostratic list]? Marc
                                  >
                                  >Thanks for not banning me Marc. First of all, I appreciate your
                                  >calling me educated but I'm without PhD and only have an ALM from
                                  >some college in New England. Now I have no difficulty whatsoever in
                                  >seeing how species [or languages] evolve from other species; however,
                                  >new evidence in "mind studies" seem to contradict this. So do old
                                  >studies by Ernst Haeckel (1874) and his college text: Molecular
                                  >Biology of the Cell which has been in use for over a century until
                                  >recently challenged by the anti-creationists. As well, Haeckel's
                                  >drawings (over 125 years old) have been confirmed by light microscope
                                  >photographs. As I've repeatedly stated on this list, I am not a
                                  >creationist; I'm simply trying to verify or falsify the evidence.

                                  Then you should have at least *some* knowledge about what you're talking...

                                  Marc

                                  >That's all. Now about species evolving from ancestral species (same
                                  >with languages) this is pure Darwinism. And all I'm trying to do
                                  >explain or reject it. Gerry
                                • Ken Moore
                                  In message , Gerry Reinhart- ... I m not sure. If Freeman had said popular instead of biological , I would be
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Oct 2, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    In message <006901c14b6a$e9d2afc0$7243b43f@reinhardt>, Gerry Reinhart-
                                    Waller wrote:
                                    >The biological concept of race . . . has no basis in science.
                                    >Dr. Harold Freeman, Celera Genomics Corp., quoted in the SJ Mercury, "Race
                                    >not seen as factor in variation of genetic code," Feb. 20, 2001, G1.
                                    >
                                    >Do C-S and Freeman disagree?

                                    I'm not sure. If Freeman had said "popular" instead of "biological", I
                                    would be sure, and there would be no disagreement. The popular concept
                                    of race is constructed from plainly observable characteristics by people
                                    most of whom have no concept of, for example, convergent evolution, so
                                    they can believe that similar skin colour implies common ancestry. Such
                                    observables as height, weight, skin colour, are (usually?) strongly
                                    influenced by genes (also directly by environment), but many genes are
                                    involved in any observable and similar appearance (which itself is a
                                    concept in people's heads, and varies from one individual to another)
                                    can result from many different gene combinations, rather in the way that
                                    an infinite number of mixtures of frequencies of light can all produce
                                    the same colour as perceived by a three pigment visual system (but
                                    someone who is colour-blind might see them as different). This is one
                                    reason that the boundaries between the races (as popularly perceived)
                                    are fuzzy, and the concept is useless for scientific purposes.

                                    However, if you examine gene frequencies, you find that they can tell
                                    you something about ancestry and origins. There are some genes that
                                    originated in particular places. For example, the gene that when
                                    present twice causes sickle cell anaemia is a strong indicator of
                                    African ancestry while the similar one implicated in thalassaemia points
                                    to the Mediterranean. Clearly populations that inbreed can diverge from
                                    each other.

                                    One thing what C-S has done (p. 87 of GPL) is principal component
                                    analysis* of gene frequencies. He uses the frequencies of 110 genes
                                    (derived from protein polymorphisms) in about 2000 populations which he
                                    groups into 42 clusters. The two principal components are then used as
                                    the axes of a plot on which nearly all these clusters are well
                                    separated. Where they are not well separated on this plot, C-S claims
                                    that other components do separate them. The plot has 6 clusters from
                                    Africa, widely separated in the top half, and the other 36 bunched into
                                    the bottom half. This is the statistical representation of the
                                    generally accepted belief that Africa contains more genetic variability
                                    than all the rest of the world put together, and the deduction of a
                                    recent African origin for the human race.

                                    In another part of GPL, C-F uses principal component analysis to plot
                                    migrations. This is all closely argued stuff, far from my professional
                                    expertise, and I have not read it for some time, so I am not capable of
                                    a better summary than this.

                                    * (If I understand the matter) the components are linear expressions
                                    (i.e. like ax + by + cz) where the x, y, z... are gene frequencies and
                                    the a, b, c... are coefficients. The principal component is the one
                                    with a, b, c... chosen so that the populations are most separated, in
                                    some mathematical sense, by the values of the expression. The second
                                    component provides the next most separation, etc. The coefficients are
                                    calculated by the process of extracting the eigenvectors of the 110
                                    dimensional data matrix. If that is not clear, ask a real
                                    mathematician. If you understand it better than this, please tell us.

                                    --
                                    Ken Moore
                                    ken@...
                                    Web site: http://www.hpsl.demon.co.uk/
                                  • Kees IJpelaan
                                    ... That should have been scatterbrain. ... I am sorry about that. How would you call someone who manages to bring up global an truine brains, fossilized
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Oct 2, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Gerry Reinhart-Waller wrote:

                                      >>>>>> All languages are spoken by certain ethnic groups.
                                      >>>>>> For example, the French speak French, the British
                                      >>>>>> speak English, and the Germans speak German.
                                      >>>>
                                      >>>> And the Belgians Belgian, and the Swiss Swiss.
                                      >>>>
                                      >>>> :-D
                                      >>>>
                                      >>>> Marc
                                      >>>
                                      >>> Hahaha. You missed my point.
                                      >>
                                      >> Was there a point? Gerry, you are a scattermind.

                                      That should have been scatterbrain.

                                      >> That is why you were told by Glen, and it was repeated
                                      >> by Marc, that "Your statements are unfocused, irrelevant,
                                      >> uneducated and purposely ignorant". You missed that
                                      >> point entirely.
                                      >>
                                      >> Kees
                                      >
                                      > I take offense to what you are calling me Kees.

                                      I am sorry about that. How would you call someone who
                                      manages to bring up global an truine brains, fossilized
                                      shoe-prints and the linguistics of Friedrich Nietsche in
                                      a public discussion forum on AAT? I'll settle for the
                                      qualification of your preference.

                                      > Marc did not include my post as I wrote it (and as I
                                      > meant it). Check the files for my real post.

                                      I read a lot of your posts and tried to answer several
                                      times. You qualified one answer as "pure poppycock"
                                      without any argumentation. I didn't complain or take
                                      offense, but found it impossible and useless to reply to
                                      such a statement.

                                      > Glen is upset with me because I find problems with his
                                      > dating and labeling the earliest language Nostratic (I
                                      > even asked him what he calls the language spoken
                                      > pre-Nostratic only he hasn't bothered to reply).

                                      Glen gave other reasons for terminating the discussion.

                                      > Now you are calling me uneducated and ignorant.

                                      Where and when did I call you uneducated and ignorant?

                                      > Why are you being so nasty?

                                      I don't think I am nasty but I won't take offense to what
                                      you call me.

                                      Best wishes,

                                      Kees
                                    • Gerry Reinhart-Waller
                                      ... From: Kees IJpelaan To: Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 4:48 PM Subject: Re: [AAT] language origin ...
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Oct 2, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: Kees IJpelaan <kees.ijpelaan@...>
                                        To: <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 4:48 PM
                                        Subject: Re: [AAT] language origin


                                        > Gerry Reinhart-Waller wrote:
                                        >
                                        > >>>>>> All languages are spoken by certain ethnic groups.
                                        > >>>>>> For example, the French speak French, the British
                                        > >>>>>> speak English, and the Germans speak German.
                                        > >>>>
                                        > >>>> And the Belgians Belgian, and the Swiss Swiss.
                                        > >>>>
                                        > >>>> :-D
                                        > >>>>
                                        > >>>> Marc
                                        > >>>
                                        > >>> Hahaha. You missed my point.
                                        > >>
                                        > >> Was there a point? Gerry, you are a scattermind.
                                        >
                                        > That should have been scatterbrain.

                                        Either way it is insulting. It implies that my mind continues to wander.
                                        But as opposed to having my head in the sand, I'd prefer the title of
                                        scatterbrain. French speak French except for those who live in geographic
                                        areas which have communication with other peoples (in the year 2001 with the
                                        presence of mass media this should include most of France). Same with the
                                        Germans and with the English. Same with most peoples of the western world.

                                        > >> That is why you were told by Glen, and it was repeated
                                        > >> by Marc, that "Your statements are unfocused, irrelevant,
                                        > >> uneducated and purposely ignorant". You missed that
                                        > >> point entirely.
                                        > >>
                                        > >> Kees
                                        > >
                                        > > I take offense to what you are calling me Kees.
                                        >
                                        > I am sorry about that. How would you call someone who
                                        > manages to bring up global an truine brains, fossilized
                                        > shoe-prints and the linguistics of Friedrich Nietsche in
                                        > a public discussion forum on AAT? I'll settle for the
                                        > qualification of your preference.

                                        Don't know what "qualification of my preference" means, but all I'm asking
                                        is that AAT-ers pursue all avenues of information available. Why do you
                                        folks limit your realm of information to particular areas and then continue
                                        keeping your head in the sand? What you are doing cannot, even in the most
                                        liberal sense, be considered "science". [But to keep the record straight,
                                        that fossilized shoe-print did cause me some concern]


                                        > > Marc did not include my post as I wrote it (and as I
                                        > > meant it). Check the files for my real post.
                                        >
                                        > I read a lot of your posts and tried to answer several
                                        > times. You qualified one answer as "pure poppycock"
                                        > without any argumentation. I didn't complain or take
                                        > offense, but found it impossible and useless to reply to
                                        > such a statement.

                                        Huh? Your above explanation does NOT apply to the post in question. Check
                                        again.

                                        > > Glen is upset with me because I find problems with his
                                        > > dating and labeling the earliest language Nostratic (I
                                        > > even asked him what he calls the language spoken
                                        > > pre-Nostratic only he hasn't bothered to reply).
                                        >
                                        > Glen gave other reasons for terminating the discussion.

                                        Which are? Please be specific.

                                        > > Now you are calling me uneducated and ignorant.
                                        >
                                        > Where and when did I call you uneducated and ignorant?

                                        Refer to the files. And if it wasn't you, then someone else is guilty.

                                        > > Why are you being so nasty?
                                        >
                                        > I don't think I am nasty but I won't take offense to what
                                        > you call me.

                                        Why would anyone take offense to being called nasty after what you've called
                                        me? What's going on anyhow? Your comments definitely are not
                                        professional.

                                        Gerry
                                      • Gerry Reinhart-Waller
                                        ... From: Marc Verhaegen To: Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 1:46 PM Subject: Re: [AAT] Re: language
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Oct 2, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: Marc Verhaegen <marc.verhaegen@...>
                                          To: <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
                                          Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 1:46 PM
                                          Subject: Re: [AAT] Re: language origin


                                          > >> >Hey, if Marc wishes me to leave the group he can
                                          > >> >simply ban me or even easier, just ask
                                          > >> >me to leave. Gerry
                                          > >>
                                          > >>Why should I? My problem with you is: how can an
                                          > >>educated person fail to see how species [or languages]
                                          > >>evolve from an ancestral species [or language]?
                                          > >>Perhaps you don't realise that the beginning of species
                                          > >>[or of languages] is outside what we are doing
                                          > >> here [or Glen in the Nostratic list]? Marc
                                          > >
                                          > >Thanks for not banning me Marc. First of all, I appreciate your
                                          > >calling me educated but I'm without PhD and only have an ALM from
                                          > >some college in New England. Now I have no difficulty whatsoever in
                                          > >seeing how species [or languages] evolve from other species; however,
                                          > >new evidence in "mind studies" seem to contradict this. So do old
                                          > >studies by Ernst Haeckel (1874) and his college text: Molecular
                                          > >Biology of the Cell which has been in use for over a century until
                                          > >recently challenged by the anti-creationists. As well, Haeckel's
                                          > >drawings (over 125 years old) have been confirmed by light microscope
                                          > >photographs. As I've repeatedly stated on this list, I am not a
                                          > >creationist; I'm simply trying to verify or falsify the evidence.
                                          >
                                          > Then you should have at least *some* knowledge about what you're
                                          talking... Marc

                                          Well thank you Marc. That's very kind for you to say. Have you at all
                                          compared what Haeckel has to say with McClean and Wilder Penfield; the
                                          Triune Brain as well? When you do, please get back to me. I'd be
                                          interested in exploring the issues at hand.

                                          Gerry

                                          >
                                          > >That's all. Now about species evolving from ancestral species (same
                                          > >with languages) this is pure Darwinism. And all I'm trying to do
                                          > >explain or reject it. Gerry
                                        • Ken Moore
                                          ... The last sentence must be wrong: on reflection, I think the data matrix must be rectangular, 110 X 42, but if so I don t know how to extract its
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Oct 3, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            In message <U9oRBCAg6ju7EwUj@...>, I wrote:
                                            >* (If I understand the matter) the components are linear expressions
                                            >(i.e. like ax + by + cz) where the x, y, z... are gene frequencies and
                                            >the a, b, c... are coefficients. The principal component is the one
                                            >with a, b, c... chosen so that the populations are most separated, in
                                            >some mathematical sense, by the values of the expression. The second
                                            >component provides the next most separation, etc. The coefficients are
                                            >calculated by the process of extracting the eigenvectors of the 110
                                            >dimensional data matrix.

                                            The last sentence must be wrong: on reflection, I think the data matrix
                                            must be rectangular, 110 X 42, but if so I don't know how to extract its
                                            eigenvectors.

                                            The data were collected by Menozzi, P., Piazza, A., and Cavalli-Sforza,
                                            L.L. They may have been presented, in 1978, in "Synthetic maps of human
                                            gene frequencies in Europe" /Science 201: 786-92/, and analysed in "The
                                            History and Geography of Human Genes" (precise authorship not given, but
                                            C-S must be in there). The second ought to have something about the
                                            method.

                                            --
                                            Ken Moore
                                            ken@...
                                            Web site: http://www.hpsl.demon.co.uk/
                                          • Gerry Reinhart-Waller
                                            Thanks for your lengthy explanation on the popular concept of race which IMO isn t applicable. Sorry. My major concern has to do with Freeman as spokesperson
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Oct 3, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Thanks for your lengthy explanation on the popular concept of race which IMO
                                              isn't applicable. Sorry.

                                              My major concern has to do with Freeman as spokesperson for Celera claiming
                                              that race is NOT a factor in the genetic code. This is of major concern to
                                              me because I was of the concept that disease has a genetic basis. Am I
                                              mistaken?

                                              Gerry


                                              ----- Original Message -----
                                              From: Ken Moore <ken@...>
                                              To: <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
                                              Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 3:24 PM
                                              Subject: Re: [AAT] Re: language origin


                                              > In message <006901c14b6a$e9d2afc0$7243b43f@reinhardt>, Gerry Reinhart-
                                              > Waller wrote:
                                              > >The biological concept of race . . . has no basis in science.
                                              > >Dr. Harold Freeman, Celera Genomics Corp., quoted in the SJ Mercury,
                                              "Race
                                              > >not seen as factor in variation of genetic code," Feb. 20, 2001, G1.
                                              > >
                                              > >Do C-S and Freeman disagree?
                                              >
                                              > I'm not sure. If Freeman had said "popular" instead of "biological", I
                                              > would be sure, and there would be no disagreement. The popular concept
                                              > of race is constructed from plainly observable characteristics by people
                                              > most of whom have no concept of, for example, convergent evolution, so
                                              > they can believe that similar skin colour implies common ancestry. Such
                                              > observables as height, weight, skin colour, are (usually?) strongly
                                              > influenced by genes (also directly by environment), but many genes are
                                              > involved in any observable and similar appearance (which itself is a
                                              > concept in people's heads, and varies from one individual to another)
                                              > can result from many different gene combinations, rather in the way that
                                              > an infinite number of mixtures of frequencies of light can all produce
                                              > the same colour as perceived by a three pigment visual system (but
                                              > someone who is colour-blind might see them as different). This is one
                                              > reason that the boundaries between the races (as popularly perceived)
                                              > are fuzzy, and the concept is useless for scientific purposes.
                                              >
                                              > However, if you examine gene frequencies, you find that they can tell
                                              > you something about ancestry and origins. There are some genes that
                                              > originated in particular places. For example, the gene that when
                                              > present twice causes sickle cell anaemia is a strong indicator of
                                              > African ancestry while the similar one implicated in thalassaemia points
                                              > to the Mediterranean. Clearly populations that inbreed can diverge from
                                              > each other.
                                              >
                                              > One thing what C-S has done (p. 87 of GPL) is principal component
                                              > analysis* of gene frequencies. He uses the frequencies of 110 genes
                                              > (derived from protein polymorphisms) in about 2000 populations which he
                                              > groups into 42 clusters. The two principal components are then used as
                                              > the axes of a plot on which nearly all these clusters are well
                                              > separated. Where they are not well separated on this plot, C-S claims
                                              > that other components do separate them. The plot has 6 clusters from
                                              > Africa, widely separated in the top half, and the other 36 bunched into
                                              > the bottom half. This is the statistical representation of the
                                              > generally accepted belief that Africa contains more genetic variability
                                              > than all the rest of the world put together, and the deduction of a
                                              > recent African origin for the human race.
                                              >
                                              > In another part of GPL, C-F uses principal component analysis to plot
                                              > migrations. This is all closely argued stuff, far from my professional
                                              > expertise, and I have not read it for some time, so I am not capable of
                                              > a better summary than this.
                                              >
                                              > * (If I understand the matter) the components are linear expressions
                                              > (i.e. like ax + by + cz) where the x, y, z... are gene frequencies and
                                              > the a, b, c... are coefficients. The principal component is the one
                                              > with a, b, c... chosen so that the populations are most separated, in
                                              > some mathematical sense, by the values of the expression. The second
                                              > component provides the next most separation, etc. The coefficients are
                                              > calculated by the process of extracting the eigenvectors of the 110
                                              > dimensional data matrix. If that is not clear, ask a real
                                              > mathematician. If you understand it better than this, please tell us.
                                            • Ken Moore
                                              In message , Gerry Reinhart- ... 1) What isn t applicable? the explanation or the popular concept? 2) To what is
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Oct 3, 2001
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                In message <00c901c14c31$2d2e44c0$1abeb23f@reinhardt>, Gerry Reinhart-
                                                Waller wrote:
                                                >Thanks for your lengthy explanation on the popular concept of race which IMO
                                                >isn't applicable. Sorry.

                                                1) What isn't applicable? the explanation or the popular concept?

                                                2) To what is whatever not applicable? The popular concept of race is
                                                important in sociology, as it helps to explain some aspects of
                                                behaviour. In diagnosis and treatment of disease it is a blunt
                                                instrument which I expect to see superseded by precise genetic analysis.

                                                >My major concern has to do with Freeman as spokesperson for Celera claiming
                                                >that race is NOT a factor in the genetic code.

                                                If he means that investigations of gene sequences do not need to take
                                                any account of the popular concept, then that is entirely reasonable.
                                                After all, now that we have the periodic table, we don't try to explain
                                                combustion in terms of phlogiston.

                                                >This is of major concern to
                                                >me because I was of the concept that disease has a genetic basis. Am I
                                                >mistaken?

                                                The genome has influence on all diseases, if only in the sense that it
                                                steers the development of the organ that deteriorates in the disease.
                                                To give an example, yeast cells don't have heart attacks because they
                                                don't have hearts, and they don't have hearts because of their DNA.
                                                Some diseases (e.g. Huntington's chorea) appear to result solely from a
                                                genetic difference.

                                                If you don't find these answers relevant, it is probably because I am
                                                unclear about your concerns.

                                                --
                                                Ken Moore
                                                ken@...
                                                Web site: http://www.hpsl.demon.co.uk/
                                              • Gerry Reinhart-Waller
                                                ... From: Ken Moore To: Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:28 PM Subject: Re: [AAT] Re: language origin ... IMO
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Oct 4, 2001
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                                  From: Ken Moore <ken@...>
                                                  To: <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
                                                  Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:28 PM
                                                  Subject: Re: [AAT] Re: language origin


                                                  > In message <00c901c14c31$2d2e44c0$1abeb23f@reinhardt>, Gerry Reinhart-
                                                  > Waller wrote:
                                                  > >Thanks for your lengthy explanation on the popular concept of race which
                                                  IMO
                                                  > >isn't applicable. Sorry.
                                                  >
                                                  > 1) What isn't applicable? the explanation or the popular concept?

                                                  GRW: Your explanation of the popular concept of race was fine. I was
                                                  referring to whether or not most scientists recognize RACE. It appears that
                                                  Freeman who represents Celera doesn't see RACE as being of importance. This
                                                  is quite alarming to me since Celera has produced the basic structure of the
                                                  Genome. If race isn't factored in, then how can Celera's work in genetics
                                                  be accepted?

                                                  Ken, your following explanations "beat around the bush". Either RACE fits
                                                  or doesn't into genetic analysis. Let me ask you, do you accept the concept
                                                  of RACE? I however do accept your analysis that race is an important
                                                  sociological term explaining aspects of behavior. But I also think it needs
                                                  to be factored into the biological analysis.


                                                  > If he means that investigations of gene sequences do not need to take
                                                  > any account of the popular concept, then that is entirely reasonable.
                                                  > After all, now that we have the periodic table, we don't try to explain
                                                  > combustion in terms of phlogiston.

                                                  Your analogy to the periodic table is good. However, the p.table has been
                                                  accepted as a workable tool by all scientists. As far as gene sequencing,
                                                  the verdict is still out.


                                                  > The genome has influence on all diseases, if only in the sense that it
                                                  > steers the development of the organ that deteriorates in the disease.
                                                  > To give an example, yeast cells don't have heart attacks because they
                                                  > don't have hearts, and they don't have hearts because of their DNA.
                                                  > Some diseases (e.g. Huntington's chorea) appear to result solely from a
                                                  > genetic difference.

                                                  And is there a particular ethnic group more susceptable to Huntington's
                                                  clorea? Since the disease is hereditary, it would appear that there is.

                                                  > If you don't find these answers relevant, it is probably because I am
                                                  > unclear about your concerns.

                                                  Not at all. Your answers are precise. Except I do think RACE needs to be
                                                  accepted as more than a "popular concept".

                                                  Gerry
                                                • Ken Moore
                                                  In message , Gerry Reinhart- ... Race is not important as an explanatory concept in biology because 1) There is no
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Oct 4, 2001
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    In message <00b801c14cff$26510560$acd085ce@reinhardt>, Gerry Reinhart-
                                                    Waller wrote:
                                                    >GRW: Your explanation of the popular concept of race was fine. I was
                                                    >referring to whether or not most scientists recognize RACE. It appears that
                                                    >Freeman who represents Celera doesn't see RACE as being of importance. This
                                                    >is quite alarming to me since Celera has produced the basic structure of the
                                                    >Genome. If race isn't factored in, then how can Celera's work in genetics
                                                    >be accepted?

                                                    Race is not important as an explanatory concept in biology because

                                                    1) There is no agreed definition of it;

                                                    2) People who think they know what race a person belongs to are unable
                                                    to give a definition of the boundaries of that race which is both clear
                                                    and useful (e.g. a quality possessed only my its members)*;

                                                    3) If there is anything useful that can be done with race, there are
                                                    now much more precise ways of doing the same thing.

                                                    * E.g., you might define "Afro-American" as a resident in America some
                                                    of whose ancestors once lived in Africa. That is fairly precise, but
                                                    totally useless, because it includes the whole population of America
                                                    (certainly if you take ancestry back 6 million years, possibly much
                                                    less).

                                                    >Ken, your following explanations "beat around the bush". Either RACE fits
                                                    >or doesn't into genetic analysis. Let me ask you, do you accept the concept
                                                    >of RACE? I however do accept your analysis that race is an important
                                                    >sociological term explaining aspects of behavior. But I also think it needs
                                                    >to be factored into the biological analysis.

                                                    I have never heard, nor can I conceive of any possible definition of
                                                    race which would be useful to biology. If one is ever found, I am
                                                    confident that it will differ markedly from the popular concept.
                                                    >
                                                    >Your analogy to the periodic table is good. However, the p.table has been
                                                    >accepted as a workable tool by all scientists. As far as gene sequencing,
                                                    >the verdict is still out.

                                                    The first genetic marker (i.e. DNA sequence) was found 22 years ago. I
                                                    would guess that the technique is already as useful as the periodic
                                                    table was in 1891.

                                                    >And is there a particular ethnic group more susceptable to Huntington's
                                                    >clorea? Since the disease is hereditary, it would appear that there is.
                                                    >
                                                    Susceptibility is an inappropriate concept here. IIRC, if you have the
                                                    gene sequence, the only way of avoiding the disease is by dying of
                                                    something else first. I don't know how the DNA sequence is distributed
                                                    world-wide. Some mutations (e.g. the one for haemophilia) seem to arise
                                                    spontaneously, so although they can often be traced in close
                                                    relationships (e.g. several of the male descendants of Queen Victoria
                                                    suffered from h.) they are not very useful for large scale work, such as
                                                    Cavalli-Sforza's tracing of migrations.
                                                    >
                                                    >Not at all. Your answers are precise. Except I do think RACE needs to be
                                                    >accepted as more than a "popular concept".

                                                    Suggest a use.

                                                    --
                                                    Ken Moore
                                                    ken@...
                                                    Web site: http://www.hpsl.demon.co.uk/
                                                  • Gerry Reinhart-Waller
                                                    This explanation of yours Ken: 3) If there is anything useful that can be done with race, there are now much more precise ways of doing the same thing is
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Oct 5, 2001
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      This explanation of yours Ken: "3) If there is anything useful that can be
                                                      done with race, there are now much more precise ways of doing the same
                                                      thing" is exactly what I have been searching for to explain RACE. And it
                                                      was available all the time!!!

                                                      When I wrote The Alekseev Manuscript in the early 1990's I also wished to
                                                      abolish the concept of race and argued this point with Sergei Arutiunov:
                                                      http://Alekseevmanuscript.com (introduction). I then compiled an
                                                      etymology of the word "race" from the Oxford English Dictionary (conclusion
                                                      to Alekseev manuscript) and concluded that of the twelve entries on race,
                                                      only a portion of entry #2 refers to a tribe, nation, or people of common
                                                      stock. Literary sources in the 17th century list the British race; sources
                                                      in the 18th century mention Tatar race and Oriental race; 19th century
                                                      listings include Egyptian and Syro-Arabian race, Hellen race, and German
                                                      race while Hulme in 1861 lists five races: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian,
                                                      American and Malay. It is in the 20th century that references include
                                                      colored men, niggers, Japan and its immigration, Jewish race, race music,
                                                      race theory and a "race man" who is somebody who always keeps the glory and
                                                      honor of race before him.

                                                      In the 1970s the word "race" (as defined by R.M. & F.M. Keesing) has a
                                                      straight forward and important meaning in evolutionary biology and this is
                                                      the meaning that both Alekseev & Arutiunov use when the divide the human
                                                      population into 3 or 4 or 5 different groupings.

                                                      But Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza in "The History and Geography of
                                                      Human Genes" clearly state:

                                                      "The word 'race' is coupled in many parts of the world and strata of society
                                                      with considerable prejudice, misunderstanding, and social problems.
                                                      Xenophobia, political convenience, and a variety of motives totally
                                                      unconnected with science are the basis of racism, the belief that some races
                                                      are biologically superior to the others and that they have therefore an
                                                      inherent right to dominate. Racism has existed from tie immemorial but only
                                                      in the nineteenth century were there attempts to justify it on the basis of
                                                      scientific arguments."

                                                      and they continue:

                                                      ".... Not surprisingly, racism is often coupled with caste prejudice and has
                                                      been invoked as motivation for condoning slavery, or even genocide. There
                                                      is no scientific basis to the belief of genetically determined "superiority"
                                                      of one population over another. None of the genes that we consider has any
                                                      accepted connection with behavioral traits, the genetic determination of
                                                      which is extremely difficult to study and presently based on soft evidence.
                                                      The claims of a genetic basis for a general superiority of one population
                                                      over another are not supported by any of our findings. Superiority is a
                                                      political and socioeconomic concept, tied to events of recent political,
                                                      military, and economic history and the cultural traditions of countries or
                                                      groups. This superiority is rapidly transient, as history shows, whereas
                                                      the average genotype does not change rapidly. But racial prejudice has an
                                                      old tradition of its own and is not easy to eradicate".

                                                      The only use for the term "race" was in disease profiling but now with The
                                                      Human Genome giving individual genetic profiles, the concept of race can
                                                      finally be tossed onto the trash heap of history.

                                                      Thanks Ken.

                                                      Best wishes,
                                                      Gerry

                                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                                      From: Ken Moore <ken@...>
                                                      To: <AAT@yahoogroups.com>
                                                      Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 3:20 PM
                                                      Subject: Re: [AAT] Re: language origin


                                                      > In message <00b801c14cff$26510560$acd085ce@reinhardt>, Gerry Reinhart-
                                                      > Waller wrote:
                                                      > >GRW: Your explanation of the popular concept of race was fine. I was
                                                      > >referring to whether or not most scientists recognize RACE. It appears
                                                      that
                                                      > >Freeman who represents Celera doesn't see RACE as being of importance.
                                                      This
                                                      > >is quite alarming to me since Celera has produced the basic structure of
                                                      the
                                                      > >Genome. If race isn't factored in, then how can Celera's work in
                                                      genetics
                                                      > >be accepted?
                                                      >
                                                      > Race is not important as an explanatory concept in biology because
                                                      >
                                                      > 1) There is no agreed definition of it;
                                                      >
                                                      > 2) People who think they know what race a person belongs to are unable
                                                      > to give a definition of the boundaries of that race which is both clear
                                                      > and useful (e.g. a quality possessed only my its members)*;
                                                      >
                                                      > 3) If there is anything useful that can be done with race, there are
                                                      > now much more precise ways of doing the same thing.
                                                      >
                                                      > * E.g., you might define "Afro-American" as a resident in America some
                                                      > of whose ancestors once lived in Africa. That is fairly precise, but
                                                      > totally useless, because it includes the whole population of America
                                                      > (certainly if you take ancestry back 6 million years, possibly much
                                                      > less).
                                                      >
                                                      > >Ken, your following explanations "beat around the bush". Either RACE
                                                      fits
                                                      > >or doesn't into genetic analysis. Let me ask you, do you accept the
                                                      concept
                                                      > >of RACE? I however do accept your analysis that race is an important
                                                      > >sociological term explaining aspects of behavior. But I also think it
                                                      needs
                                                      > >to be factored into the biological analysis.
                                                      >
                                                      > I have never heard, nor can I conceive of any possible definition of
                                                      > race which would be useful to biology. If one is ever found, I am
                                                      > confident that it will differ markedly from the popular concept.
                                                      > >
                                                      > >Your analogy to the periodic table is good. However, the p.table has
                                                      been
                                                      > >accepted as a workable tool by all scientists. As far as gene
                                                      sequencing,
                                                      > >the verdict is still out.
                                                      >
                                                      > The first genetic marker (i.e. DNA sequence) was found 22 years ago. I
                                                      > would guess that the technique is already as useful as the periodic
                                                      > table was in 1891.
                                                      >
                                                      > >And is there a particular ethnic group more susceptable to Huntington's
                                                      > >clorea? Since the disease is hereditary, it would appear that there is.
                                                      > >
                                                      > Susceptibility is an inappropriate concept here. IIRC, if you have the
                                                      > gene sequence, the only way of avoiding the disease is by dying of
                                                      > something else first. I don't know how the DNA sequence is distributed
                                                      > world-wide. Some mutations (e.g. the one for haemophilia) seem to arise
                                                      > spontaneously, so although they can often be traced in close
                                                      > relationships (e.g. several of the male descendants of Queen Victoria
                                                      > suffered from h.) they are not very useful for large scale work, such as
                                                      > Cavalli-Sforza's tracing of migrations.
                                                      > >
                                                      > >Not at all. Your answers are precise. Except I do think RACE needs to
                                                      be
                                                      > >accepted as more than a "popular concept".
                                                      >
                                                      > Suggest a use.
                                                      >
                                                      > --
                                                      > Ken Moore
                                                      > ken@...
                                                      > Web site: http://www.hpsl.demon.co.uk/
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.