Science Du Jour
To return for a moment to the Cornell study of the genetic ‘diversity’ of ‘Africans’ and Americans of ‘European’ ancestry.
Following the Fox News story the genetic makeup of 20 Americans of ‘European’ ancestry and 15 African Americans were examined.
The study as reported by Fox fails to identify places of origins of either Europeans or Africans or whether the African subjects acquired European characteristic in the US. We are asked to believe that both all of Europe and all of Africa contain homgeneous populations. Nor is ‘diversity’ defined.
This is patently untrue. Europeans are composed of several races arriving at widely spaced times. Southern Europeans may be the oldest European settlers while the Celts and Germanics are the newest. It is probable that two different White species are involved. The term African-American is virtually meaningless. There are now so many African ‘Americans’ coming from so many diverse areas of Africa that to say 15 ‘African Americans’ were selected for the sample tells us nothing.
Barry Dunham-Obama for instance who has no history of US slavery being a Luo from Lake Victoria must have significantly different DNA from, say, a Ubangi from Ubangui-Shari. A Somali with a huge number of Semitic genes must be quite different from a Zulu of South Africa. So that little or nothing can be proven by a sampling of unidentified ‘African’ Americans.
Reading further into the Fox article the source even admits that among ‘Africans’ in Africa there is absolutely no homogeneity.
For example, the Pygmies of the Congo forest were found to be quite close to the Bushmen of Namibia- but both very different from most other sub-Saharan groups.
The fierce and proud Bedouin nomads of the Middle East actually have a lot of European and South Asian ‘blood.’
They have a lot of European and South Asian ‘blood.’ One may probably guess correctly that by ‘blood’ Fox means genes. European ‘blood’ based on nothing but the immigration of various groups into Europe must be very ‘diverse’ if less ‘diverse’ than African ‘blood.’ What Fox means by ‘South Asian’ is impossible to guess.
The Fox story is written so vaguely that it is merely senstational rather than newsworthy.
Apart from referring to a news release by Cornell while directing the reader to the full article in Nature there is nothing in the Fox article that has any scientific validity.
As the sample is only of 35 individuals one wonders why such a scientifically prestigious magazine as Nature would lend its reputation to publish such a flawed precedure.
Once again James Watson, the discoverer of DNA was ostracized for making a statement based on more science than the above. His information was denounced as nonsense while we are conjured to accept this worthless study as valid.
Fire them all.
More to follow.