- Член од
- 12 мај 2008
- Мислења
- 338
- Поени од реакции
- 27
Постои јасна граница во дефинирање на нација и етнос.Нацијата не е етничка заедница од истородни туку заедница на стандардни договори.На пример Тоше Проески беше Влав но беше истовремено и составен елемент на Македонската нација.Не само што го почитуваше стандардниот јазик туку и
изведуваше песни на тој јазик со врвен дострел.Нацијата не е генетски определена.Во неа може да има поголем процент на една етничка група која доминирала или доминира.Нацијата е производ на најновото време и ако некој ме праша како што ме праша погоре дали генетиката може да ја одреди националната припадност, јасно е дека не може.Американската нација има луѓе со гени од цел свет.Од Кина до Сахара и сите тие се Американци затоа што се дел од Американската нација.
Сваќаш?НАЦИЈА!
Затоа велиме етногенеза...
За Американските индијанци и другите етнички групи не ми е јасно што сакаш да кажеш.Дека на челото им пишува што се?Како можам јас овде на форумов да знам кој е Влав а кој не?
Некој можеби од културна и традиционална смисла има впечаток дека е од определена етничка група,како Грчката Либанка.Генетиката ти дава биолошки и генетски одговор,а не културен или пропаганден.Буквално вели ,шала на страна етногенетски ти си од таа етничка група која во минатото била биолошка истородна унија.
Igor Rudan
Croatian Medical Journal
Health effects of isolate break-up and population admixture
Throughout history, human population has been organized in small and sparsely scattered isolate communities tied to the land they harvested. However, dramatic changes that occurred in the way of life in the last 5-6 generations had affected the genetic structure as well. Measures to reduce childhood mortality have led to an unprecedented increase in population size, from about 1 billion (in 1850) to more than 6 billion (in 2000). Up to 1900, about 98% of the world's population lived in small rural communities which limited their mate choice, making consanguinity a relatively common phenomenon. Even today up to 2 billion people globally live in areas with a considerable prevalence of consanguineous marriages . The process of urbanization suddenly shifted a substantial proportion of human population from villages into the cities, which is predicted to cause massive outbreeding, gene flow, and admixture at the global scale. The World Health Organization has recently defined major disease risk factors that attribute most to the disease burden in the population, which include increases in body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and blood glucose, all of them readily measurable biological quantitative traits . There is a plausible theoretical argument why inbreeding (decreased heterozygosity) and outbreeding (increased heterozygosity) should cause changes in mean population values of quantitative traits. However, in a recent review of this topic we could only identify a handful of studies in human populations that provided any data on these effects in post-reproductive age.
Interview with Fanica Veljanovska, Anthropologist in Museum of Macedonia
Vreme, 22.12.2004
...You say typical representatives. Does that mean that there are general characteristics of people in certain periods?
Yes, that is the idea. A similar, homogenous population lives in certain periods. On the other had, there had been representatives of a new population besides the autochthonous one in other periods, which differ. Therefore, we selected types that represent both the prior and the latter situation.
The Balkan population is said to be beautiful due to the strong mix of cultures and peoples. Do you agree?
No. This knowledge comes as a result of the current degree of appearance. This does not mean that if larger number of skeletons were researched in 10 years from now, you would get the same results. It seems that there was no mixing of peoples during long periods, especially the prehistoric ones. To be more exact, there were no mergers from the Bronze Age until the beginning of the new era. The first evidence of this comes from Roman times, while the coming of Slavs dates from the Middle Age.
Does this mean that this thesis, which has become historically problematic lately, can be anthropologically proved?
Yes.
изведуваше песни на тој јазик со врвен дострел.Нацијата не е генетски определена.Во неа може да има поголем процент на една етничка група која доминирала или доминира.Нацијата е производ на најновото време и ако некој ме праша како што ме праша погоре дали генетиката може да ја одреди националната припадност, јасно е дека не може.Американската нација има луѓе со гени од цел свет.Од Кина до Сахара и сите тие се Американци затоа што се дел од Американската нација.
Сваќаш?НАЦИЈА!
Затоа велиме етногенеза...
За Американските индијанци и другите етнички групи не ми е јасно што сакаш да кажеш.Дека на челото им пишува што се?Како можам јас овде на форумов да знам кој е Влав а кој не?
Некој можеби од културна и традиционална смисла има впечаток дека е од определена етничка група,како Грчката Либанка.Генетиката ти дава биолошки и генетски одговор,а не културен или пропаганден.Буквално вели ,шала на страна етногенетски ти си од таа етничка група која во минатото била биолошка истородна унија.
Igor Rudan
Croatian Medical Journal
Health effects of isolate break-up and population admixture
Throughout history, human population has been organized in small and sparsely scattered isolate communities tied to the land they harvested. However, dramatic changes that occurred in the way of life in the last 5-6 generations had affected the genetic structure as well. Measures to reduce childhood mortality have led to an unprecedented increase in population size, from about 1 billion (in 1850) to more than 6 billion (in 2000). Up to 1900, about 98% of the world's population lived in small rural communities which limited their mate choice, making consanguinity a relatively common phenomenon. Even today up to 2 billion people globally live in areas with a considerable prevalence of consanguineous marriages . The process of urbanization suddenly shifted a substantial proportion of human population from villages into the cities, which is predicted to cause massive outbreeding, gene flow, and admixture at the global scale. The World Health Organization has recently defined major disease risk factors that attribute most to the disease burden in the population, which include increases in body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and blood glucose, all of them readily measurable biological quantitative traits . There is a plausible theoretical argument why inbreeding (decreased heterozygosity) and outbreeding (increased heterozygosity) should cause changes in mean population values of quantitative traits. However, in a recent review of this topic we could only identify a handful of studies in human populations that provided any data on these effects in post-reproductive age.
Interview with Fanica Veljanovska, Anthropologist in Museum of Macedonia
Vreme, 22.12.2004
...You say typical representatives. Does that mean that there are general characteristics of people in certain periods?
Yes, that is the idea. A similar, homogenous population lives in certain periods. On the other had, there had been representatives of a new population besides the autochthonous one in other periods, which differ. Therefore, we selected types that represent both the prior and the latter situation.
The Balkan population is said to be beautiful due to the strong mix of cultures and peoples. Do you agree?
No. This knowledge comes as a result of the current degree of appearance. This does not mean that if larger number of skeletons were researched in 10 years from now, you would get the same results. It seems that there was no mixing of peoples during long periods, especially the prehistoric ones. To be more exact, there were no mergers from the Bronze Age until the beginning of the new era. The first evidence of this comes from Roman times, while the coming of Slavs dates from the Middle Age.
Does this mean that this thesis, which has become historically problematic lately, can be anthropologically proved?
Yes.
