Suave: It's not so unbelievable when you consider the fact that we all came from africans a very short time ago.
I have no problem with races having significant genetic similarity. I have problem believing that people may have closer genetic similarity with people with whom they have more remote common ansestors than with their closer cousins.
Now to the script. I see BS right there - a whole truckload of self-contradictory crap.
1. Mitochondrial DNA traces maternal descent, they postulate that right in the script.
Regardless of our knowlege of genetics we know for sure that africans are more closely related among themselves than they are to russians. A russian is much more likely to have a common grand-grand-...mother with another russian or european or asian than with an african.
Even considering that most aftican americans have considerable admixture of white blood in them, it mostly throgh white male who did not pass the mitochondria.
If they claim otherwise, they blow up the whole significance of the mitochondria. It's like reading a text that says the letters and words in that very text are just meaningless scrambles, not letters and words.
The mitichondrial DNAs are extremely simple and have very few genes that could differ, so if those genes were mutating randomly they could produce results inconsistent with descent. But that's BS because first, they did not have random results but ones biased in the wrong direction, and second, the scientists do use the mitichondrial DNAs to track maternal descent successfully and know the frequency of mutations over time and know them to be reliable.
2. Mitochndrial DNA are not human DNA. Mitocholdria are separate single-sell symbiotic organism that adapted to exist in other sells and provide them with services in exchange for nutriens and protection.
As such, mitochondrial DNA do not determine any individual or racial characteristics whatsoever.
It seems strange that they would talk about "external differences, rooted in biology, are linked to other, more complex internal differences" but concentrate on a single element that is not responcibe for any differences.
3. All of our genetics now is telling us that that's not the case. We can't find any genetic markers that are in everybody of a particular race and in nobody of some other race. We can't find any genetic markers that define race.
That's BS. In a people from non-mixed african and european stock there are known exclusive markers.
Of course african-americans are only such by label, in reality almost all of them have mixed inheritance (5-25% white blood on a gradient from south-east to north and west), so for them there may not be exclusive markers.
It's statistical for them rather than deterministic but no one ever argued that races could not mix.
I also see many other misrepresentations in that script like "only one of 1000 genes is different, so the diffeences must be small". It's like using canvas in comparing the pictures. Sure, 999 out of 1000 genes cannot differ because they code for vital functions and a mutation would produce a non-viable organism.
At the same time 1 in 1000 gene multiplied by millions of thousands of genes total gives us a few tens of thousands of genes that can differentiate us one from another.
miko
