The flaws of the DNA Nationalists

On another thread, "Zagros" gave a link to "National Geographics" DNA tracing page.

There is searches commited (scinetists took dna from 100 women across the world almost from every tribe)that shows that all the women have 4 same ancestors. And so they suppose that we all come from the same ancestor.

This is wrong. Because the science has not been so advance yet to decode the full DNA. Also there are mutations in the centuries that have change the dna. So they assuming many things. This occurs to all the researches.

Its all nonsense though, trying to determine people's "nationhood"/"ethnicity" by DNA is flawed.

There are so many overlaps, our ancestors didn't stay in one place, they migrated East then West then all over the place and kept migrating so really we've all got the same ancestors who walked the Earth, mixed alot and after a while settled, then migrated again etc etc

So any nation can say were descended to everyone, there are traces of us in people on the other side of the world as humans travelled all across the world.

What good are Genetic traces for Nations? thousands of years ago "A" may have somewhere along the line mixed with someone from "B" and "B" with "X" and so on in addition what is say "B" was subjugated to "A" and was assimilated and mixed into "A" there would still be "B" in "A" yet it wouldn't matter as it was a "cultural" act etc etc

It all starts getting confusing.


    

Edited by Bulldog - 16-Oct-2006 at 05:11

It does seem to be a big sham. It's better to go by the culture & folflore rather than by DNA.

Maybe over 10 years they've done enough research about DNA. But for now I will go with the cultural thing to determine ethnicity

Originally posted by Bulldog   How long does it take for humans to adapt to a geographical area? like having the skin darken or lighten, lighter hair darker hair, rounder eyes more slanted eyes and so on?

Take a look at the Amerindians. After 12,000 years of separation from their cousins in north-eastern Asia, they already look pretty different.

Also, recently some researchers came up with the news that blonde hair developed rather rapidly among northern Europeans.

Racism is the "affirmation" of one race's superiority over another. Is it a good thing? Is "negating" racism a bad thing?

Nationalism is an ideology that holds that a nation is the fundamental unit for human social life, and takes precedence over any other social and political principles. (Wikipedia)

Originally posted by shinai I gusse the DNA results by our science at the moment is to messed up , we need to wait more.

I am challenging your "logic" or lack of it. You argue that you prefer nationalism to anti-nationalism because the latter "negates" while the former "affirms." My problem with this assertion is that not everything that "affirms" is good, and not everything "negates" is bad.

Sorry, I was inexactly speaking.
I wanted to say that anti-nationalist is actualy anti-cultural movement, who disolute the national cultures.

Originally posted by Afsar Beghi Maybe over 10 years they've done enough research about DNA. But for now I will go with the cultural thing to determine ethnicity