Reddit mentions of Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past

People say it all the time, whole fields of social science rely on this falsehood as pillars of their models. Multiple psych textbooks I’ve read over the course of my career ramble on about how any differences are cultural or environmental blah blah blah despite the ever mounting evidence this is completely false.

Please explain to me how evolution modifies the genome of the Inuit to adapt to the cold but leaves unscathed differences in the following categories:

Intelligence
Temperament
Personality
Brain size
Brain connectivity
Brain modularity
Hormonal differences
Neurotransmitter levels

Etc etc etc

The idea that these stop being affected by evolution about the time that early modern humans gtfo’d out of africa, despite intermixing with other hominids including different types of neanderthals, while being affected by evolutionary factors including but not limited to:

Bottleneck effects
Founder effects
The beginning of speciation effects (allopatric, peripatric, parapateic, sympatric)
Etc etc

Is insanely unscientific. If different populations do not change genetically over time despite vastly different environments both social and natural then evolution in humans is debunked.

https://www.amazon.com/Who-Are-How-Got-Here/dp/110187032X

Have a read and prepare for a paradigm shift bucko.

Yes, remains from different periods are available. A recent influential study was "The genetic prehistory of the New World Arctic", published in Science in 2014. They list the Dorset remains in Supplementary Table S1 -- looks like about 20 individuals, from 17 of which they extracted mitochondrial or nuclear DNA.

So this is an interesting topic, but I don't know that it's unusually mysterious, as far as ancient populations go. The Paleo-Eskimos were a people that migrated from Asia to North America around ~2500 BCE, then got outcompeted by later arrivals, the speakers of Eskimo-Aleut languages, and died out by ~1500 CE. They were genetically similar to each other, but unrelated to the later Inuit, although they did contribute some DNA to the speakers of the Na-Dené languages.

I uploaded a couple of diagrams from David Reich's Who We Are and How We Got Here:

• a map overview of migrations to the Americas
  
• the genetic linkages between different Native American population groups

They aren't small genetic differences we can tell from genetic testing that they didn't interbreed at all for at least 1000-2000 years and it was likely interbreeding was low even before then.

This endogamy is by Jati and not Varna, but each Jati is made up of one or a few Varnas at most.

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/04/indian-population-bottlenecks.html

https://www.amazon.com/Who-Are-How-Got-Here/dp/110187032X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1523828895&sr=8-1&keywords=david+reich

Must read

https://www.amazon.com/Who-Are-How-Got-Here/dp/110187032X

I wonder if comments are still posting here. Well, I suppose we will find out....

​

I'm a bit disappointed that this was removed and viewed as some sort of nasty post.

I do have a response but it's not really for a 5 year old. Who We are and how we got here is a book by David Reich, head of the DNA lab at Harvard. He does a great job at explaining how people migrated though-out all the continents using new research available within the last 3-4 years (and MUCH has changed).

​

As a bit of a spoiler, he's not a believer in evolution (as you know it). There are many markers for when diseases start through the ages but there is still no proof that man kind has ever been anything but mankind. Anyhow, it's worth the read.

Try this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Who-Are-How-Got-Here/dp/110187032X


Iis written by a leading ancient geneticist and its not too technical. It has CUTTING EDGE research! Literally stuff that we didn't know just a couple years ago!

It's not really a good introduction, but it is really interesting and has tons of good info.

Why don't you read david reich's novel ? It has the theories that seem to be widely accepted as of now.

Reader Reviews on Amazon.com https://www.amazon.com/Who-Are-How-Got-Here/product-reviews/110187032X/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews

For the first point, it’s in Harvard geneticist David Reich’s 2018 book “Who We Are And How We Got Here.” https://www.amazon.com/Who-Are-How-Got-Here/dp/110187032X

>From seven thousand until five thousand years ago, we observe a steady influx into the steppe of a population whose ancestors traced their origin to the south-as it bore genetic affinity to ancient and present-day people of Armenia and Iran-eventually crystallizing in the Yamnaya, who were about a one-to-one ratio of ancestry from these two sources. A good guess is that the migration proceeded via the Caucasus isthmus between the Black and Caspian seas.

>Ancient DNA available from this time in Anatolia shows no evidence of steppe ancestry similar to that in the Yamnaya (although the evidence here is circumstantial as no ancient DNA from the Hittites themselves has yet been published). This suggests to me that the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia, because ancient DNA from people who lived there matches what we would expect for a source population both for the Yamnaya and for ancient Anatolians. If this scenario is right the population sent one branch up into the steppe-mixing with steppe hunter-gatherers in a one-to-one ratio to become the Yamnaya as described earlier- and another to Anatolia to found the ancestors of people there who spoke languages such as Hittite.

Reich, p. 120

As for your second request (regarding Hurro-Urartians):

https://www.academia.edu/7637643/Arnaud_Fournet_and_Allan_R._Bomhard_-_The_Indo-European_Elements_in_Hurrian_2010_

https://www.academia.edu/40055347/PIE_roots_in_Hurrian

>Och du menar att det är omöjligt att ske med dem som invandrar hit i nuläget?

Kanske inte omöjligt, bara betydligt svårare då t.ex. islamister är väldigt olika från samer. Samt att ingenstans i världen har islamister kommit till ett land och sen blivit sekulariserade. Tittar man på världen så verkar islamister sprida sig av en anledning: därför att de vill islamisera. Är det positivt för oss som bor här att Sverige får fler och fler mer eller mindre islamistiska enklaver?

>Sådan otroligt märklig och skrämmande retorik, vad har detta ens för förankring i verkligheten?

Vad är skrämmande? Vilken verklighetsförankring är det du tvivlar över? Försök hålla dina känslor utanför, tack.

>Vad spelar det för roll ifall jag tillhör den nordgermanska folkgruppen eller inte?

Spelar roll i vilket hänseende? Frågar du varför det spelar någon roll om etniska svenskar ska finnas eller ej?

>Jag har extremt svårt att förstå varför det finns människor som lägger fokus på sådant här. Rasinstitutet lades väl ner av en anledning?

Forskas fortfarande väldigt mycket på skillnader mellan populationer. En väldigt intressant bok kom ut nu i mars, rekommenderad läsning: Who We Are and How We Got Here, skriven av en professor i genetik på Harvard.

>‘How Genetics is Changing Our Understanding of “Race”’, it had Reich stating that he is ‘worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science.’

>do... do you seriously not know what social democracy is?

You gonna actually address a single thing I said?

>And where are these "real communist countries"? Not the USSR, not Cuba, not North Korea, not Zimbabwe not [insert failed socialist nation here] etc.

No response to this?

>Ah. there it is...

Yeah, Ayrans were a thing - they make up the ancestors of most Europeans. Before you seek to decry people for blasphemy why don't you go read a book.

>Mein Argument ist eben genau das der IQ von diesen "schwächlingen" höher wäre, wenn nicht die Umwelt zwischen gefunkt hätte.

Wäre er höchstwahrscheinlich nur extrem marginal, weil die Erblichkeit sehr hoch ist. Jordan peteson hat recht wenn er sagt dass wir wenig machen können.

>Somit hebe ich nicht über Umweltfaktoren an, sondern ich entferne negative Umweltfaktoren um auf den Normal IQ zu kommen.


Die Prävalenz von solchen ist nicht sehr hoch. Sonst wäre die Erblichkeit höher. Ein erschreckend großer Prozentsatz der Bevölkerung lässt sich nur schwer gewinnbringend in das Arbeitsleben integrieren.

>Bist noch immer kein Forscher,

Blödsinn, ich bin Uniangestellter (Genetiker).

>poste eine Kritik von einer Authoritätsfigur oder BTFO

hurr durr bin zu blöd um methodlogische Kritik selber zu verstehen hurr durr. Idiot.

>Dein Statement behauptet 0,4-0,8.

0.4 ist in kindersamples.

>Deine Studie 0,8, aber hey das du nicht rechnen kannst brauchen wir hier ja eh nicht mehr demonstrieren oder hast du eine Quelle und zitierst die einfach nicht?

Was du glaubst 0.2 der varianz wäre shared envionemnt weil die Erblichkeit 0.8 ist? Kompletter Unsinn, Gesamtvarianz besteht aus shared environment, unique environment (Zufall, messfehler, nicht genetische Biologie) und Erblichkeit . Zwillingsstudien können alle drei quantifizieren und im Erwachsenenalter ist shared environment ungefähr 0.1. Allerdings ist das eine systematische Überschätzung weil Zwillingsstudien nicht für assortative Partnerwahl korrigieren. Der echte wertist wahrscheinlich noch kleiner. cuck BTFO.

>Ich habs dir fett markiert, weil ich dachte das du zu behindert dafür bist.

Nettes Ausweichen Schäwchling. Ich habe die Studie aufgrund der hohen erwiesenen Erblichkeit zitiert, nicht wegen der feefees. Dabei habe ich nicht gelogen.

>Source needed.

https://www.amazon.de/Who-Are-How-Got-Here/dp/110187032X?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duc03-21&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=110187032X

Sehr gutes Buch, kompletter takedown der irrelevanten Dummheit die sich Anthropologie nennt mithilfe antiker DNA analyse. Am neuesten Forschunsstand, absolut vernichtend gegenüber diesem Philisterhaufen.

>Redet über standardized testing Probleme generell und du schreibst das rüber das nur er schlechte Ergebnisse hatte, sowas unehrliches.

Die Sachen die er über standardisierte Tests gesagt hat waren noch peinlicher als seine Resultate- deswegen habe ich ja kuncels Vortrag mitverlinkt um einen Eindruck der abgrundtiefen Dummheit doieser Person zu geben - dumm auf dem Test, dumm in dem was er sagt. Kein Zufall.

>Quelle? ACH JA HABEN WIR WIEDER NICHT.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616300629
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdev.12920
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613001682

cuck BTFO

Your position is contradicted by the most prominent historical geneticist in the world, who also happens to be an Ashkenazi Jew.