Londoner wrote: ↑Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:01 pmYour earlier idea was that 'race is supported by haplogroup genetics'. You were going on about it on page 15 and earlier, although you may have conveniently forgotten that.
Europeans are basically a mix of three peoples: the Western hunter gatherers, who were probably set down in the initial dispersal around 45,000 years ago. After that came a wave of Neolithic agriculturalists from the Levant towards 10,000 years ago. And finally came the Indo-Europeans from south Ukraine about 6000 years ago. (We can add to this a fourth group in fact, the Neanderthals). All of this is well supported by research, for instance,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9707625105
Note the conclusion: "Our results confirm and substantially extend the phylogenetic relationships among mitochondrial genomes described elsewhere from the major human ethnic groups."
Are the Sami White? Are Jews White? What about Somalians? It depends on perspective and politics. Meanwhile, it would be a bit far fetched if a pure blooded Red Indian or an indigenous Congolese called him or herself White. White is not a closed genetic set, it is what Wittgenstein called "family resemblance":
"things which could be thought to be connected by one essential common feature may in fact be connected by a series of overlapping similarities, where no one feature is common to all of the things."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance
We can then say the same philosophical thing in science jargon like this:
"[While] the European mitochondrial DNA pool has been found to be rather homogeneous ... genomically, humans seem to form what might be called fuzzy clusters, rather than discrete groups with sharp boundaries" (Lao et al. 2008).
www.cell.com/current-biology/retrieve/p ... 2208009561