|
 EgyptSearch Forums
 Ancient Egypt and Egyptology
 Pseudo-science (Page 3)
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! This topic is 9 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Pseudo-science |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1873 |
posted 13 July 2005 04:23 PM
  
quote: I can assure you "jackass" will generate a lot of hits at PubMed and over the internet, but then, this makes it scientific, doesn't it? In any case, you should no longer have a problem or continue to stall in providing the up-to-date scientific meanings of those terms, that have long been rejected by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, and indeed the entire scientific community, should you? Ps-PubMed has a collection of various out-of-date and current articles published by various people, but do you have statement from PubMed itself, in that, PubMed attempts to provide up-to-date scientific definitions for non-scientific terms?
quote: Well, it was a follow up on your silly response to the question of where the Levantines got their E3b lineages from. When you can learn to correctly answer basic questions, then maybe, you'll be ready for more complex ones. But for now, let's stick to the extreme basics: Do you by any chance, know what you mean by 'pre-historic" in your own claim? [This message has been edited by Super car (edited 13 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
relaxx Member Posts: 537 |
posted 13 July 2005 05:13 PM
quote: Djehuti,
member is offline Nothing in excess -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jul 8, 2005, 6:11am, MysterySolver wrote: It is bankrupt term, with no basis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You just have to read all of his posts on Dodona there are no differences compare to what he writes on this forum. Actually Topdog is fighting him on his turf: Dodona. The irony is that he's the moderator on his forum... yes this guy is the big nosed Greek himself no wonder his Avatar on Dodona shows only half of his face..it's just to hide his ugliness....He's so full of inferiority complex that he has to create a forum just to feel good about himself, which shows how insecure he is...I don't really understand why you lower yourself to his level, what I would suggest you is to go there and fight him on his turf, because I don't really see how this discussion is useful... IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 4491 |
posted 13 July 2005 06:27 PM
quote:
quote: For a lark I searched pub med for - voodoo, faith-healing and witchcraft and got 100's of hits, I then searched for NAZI and got well over a thousand hits. Who would have thought that PubMed is full of witchcraft practising NAZI's. Pseudoscience relies on elementary logical fallacy. IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 852 |
posted 14 July 2005 07:23 AM
quote: If it exited Africa in pre-history, then it's an OOA haplotype.
quote: I call it closer to the truth than trying to claim them as being Negroid. And Howells agrees with me. IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 852 |
posted 14 July 2005 07:27 AM
quote: Conclusion: You're by far the dumbest poster at this forum. And believe me, that's saying a lot. IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 852 |
posted 14 July 2005 07:41 AM
quote: Congratulations on finding a couple thousand items about "lectin from the tubers of Voodoo lily", "alleged lethal sorcery in East Timor", "clinical aspects of witchcraft delusions", "Nazi medical experiments", and "Holocaust survivors". But see, what I found is 75,000+ studies dealing explicitly with the very real genetic and anthropological differences between Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid races. Here are just a few examples from 2005: - Polymorphism data at two STR loci in Chinese population.
quote: I agree. So why do you keep doing that? IP: Logged |
|
osirion Member Posts: 797 |
posted 14 July 2005 11:53 AM
quote: You are resorting to personal attacks already? Man that is so weak! But I do agree, most of these posters are way more knowledgeable about this stuff than me. Hell, don't need to know much to figure out that you are just spewing out a bunch of crap!
If yes then why doesn't your map include it in that region? But don't bother I already know! By including that data in the Sub-Saharan region it would undermine the prejudicial argument of the person doing the research. Even a dumb Jew like me can see that. But then I don't take this stuff very seriously. Ultimately it doesn't change the current reality of our society. IP: Logged |
|
Djehuti Member Posts: 1743 |
posted 14 July 2005 01:11 PM
quote: Not in the same sense as other haplotypes like J, R, etc. E3b exited relatively recently you moron! It is derived from the PN2 transition that also gave rise to E3a!
quote: What the heck do you call a "negroid" anyway?!! Negroid means black African which prehistoric Africans certainly were, you nitwit!  [This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 14 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Djehuti Member Posts: 1743 |
posted 14 July 2005 01:13 PM
quote: Osirion, that's what Stupid-Euro does, resort to personal attacks. Because he is an intellectually bankrupt and frustrated LOSER!!! IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 4491 |
posted 14 July 2005 07:23 PM
quote: Prehistoric human crania from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, Makalia Burial Site, Nakuru, and other localities in the Eastern Rift Valley of Kenya are reassessed using measurements and a multivariate statistical approach. Materials available for comparison include series of Bushman and Hottentot crania. South and East African Negroes, and Egyptians. Up to 34 cranial measurements taken on these series are utilized to construct three multiple discriminant frameworks, each of which can assign modern individuals to a correct group with considerable accuracy. When the prehistoric crania are classified with the help of these discriminants, results indicate that several of the skulls are best grouped with modern Negroes. This is especially clear in the case of individuals from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, and Nakuru, and the evidence hardly suggests post-Pleistocene domination of the Rift and surrounding territory by "Mediterranean" Caucasoids, as has been claimed. Recent linguistic and archaeological findings are also reviewed, and these seem to support application of the term Nilotic Negro to the early Rift populations. Sound familiar? It should. It is the negation of your entire ideology. A search list is not a substitute for a coherent argument, Erroneous. Your fallacious "appeal to authority" search-list consists of that which specifically refutes your fantasies, and still more which relates - no point in contention. That you insist on pretense [is there ever anything to your arguments other than patently false pretenses? in 8 months we haven't seen any substance from you] - likens you precisely to Neo-Nazi's who claim that mere search-engine reference to "Nazi" equates somehow to growing ideological support for Nazism, and moreover presumably among sane folk. Your continued reliance on elementary logical fallacies results partly from your mindless parroting of Dienekes. You should consider some other approach if you ever wish to be taken seriously. Now, I could go on ripping your every banal utterance to shreds for everyone's continued amusement, but frankly, your obtuseness is boring. Your ridiculous rantings aren't even worth the little effort it takes to debunk them anymore. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 14 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1873 |
posted 14 July 2005 07:47 PM
quote: Cheers to that. Indeed, it would be interesting to see evil agenda name a self-respecting 'mainstream' living and breathing geneticist or bio-anthropologist, who has provided an 'up-to-date' definition of human "races", that has been accepted in modern taxonomy or bioanthropology, a field which has officially rejected such a concept. [This message has been edited by Super car (edited 14 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
relaxx Member Posts: 537 |
posted 14 July 2005 07:57 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol: You aren't even worth the little effort it takes to debunk anymore. IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 852 |
posted 15 July 2005 07:22 AM
quote: Because it's not a geographical map, jackass. It's a craniometric map, and Somalis are racially distinct from sub-Saharan Africans, having certain Eurasian affinities. IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 852 |
posted 15 July 2005 07:33 AM
quote: Yeah, so? European R exited Asia relatively recently and is derived from M45 which also gave rise to Native American Q. But that doesn't make R a "Red Indian" marker.
quote: Please provide a source which describes pre-historic East Africans as "Negroid". And don't parrot rasol's 1975 Rightmire study, because Howells refuted that with an analysis based on almost twice as many cranial measurements. IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 852 |
posted 15 July 2005 07:41 AM
quote: No, stupid negro, and I already showed you why with your ridiculous voodoo/witchcraft/Nazi examples. Furthermore, a standard search engine contains anything and everything, whereas PubMed's results are limited to valid scientific research. That's why you won't find any "neo-Nazi" material there, but you will find plenty of studies on human races and racial differences. IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 4491 |
posted 15 July 2005 08:40 AM
quote: [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 15 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
osirion Member Posts: 797 |
posted 15 July 2005 02:10 PM
quote:
This thread is about discussing such things. Can you not see the issue or is your brain so full of this crap that you no longer can reason normally?
Map's evidence is Dismissed. I would like to see an unadulterated, unbias, and completely objective reference from you. You keep spamming us we researchers who seem to have an agenda. The problem is that they may have something useful to provide in terms of insight but the clarity is completely shot down due to clear muddling with the data sets being used. Simply can't trust any of it. At the same time I am interested in research that would suggest that the original man was not Negroid but rather an intermediate between all known races of people. This fits with my understanding of the convergence of man to a single race of people that would have internally had the coding of all the other races: the environment simply activated the appropriate genes to produce what we currently see. I do not believe in probabilistic Evolution but rather a deterministic system (intelligent design). IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 852 |
posted 16 July 2005 07:27 AM
quote: "Sub-Saharan Africa" denotes a combined sample from West Africa (Dogon), Congo region (Dahomey), and southern East Africa (Zanzibar, Daya of Tanzania). If plotted separately, these would form a cluster of points centered around the sub-Saharan Africa point. Now you know.
quote: That's basically what Howells' analysis determined. Try to pay closer attention. IP: Logged |
|
osirion Member Posts: 797 |
posted 16 July 2005 08:35 AM
quote: If you weren't spamming us with nonesense about Ancient Caucasoid East Africans and jail buddy pictures, people might have a bit more reception of your points. I thought Howell's analysis was admixture not an original intermediate but then I guess I haven't been paying attention. However, the term intermediate is questionable. It suggests that one advances from A to C via B (intermediate). When in actuality what I expect is that there's an original A that contains both B and C. B and C simply become dominant in environments that are more favorable to them (gene triggers). Essentially that the original Adam was East African derived and essentially had affinities with all known races. This would quite acceptable to me. IP: Logged |
|
Topdog Member Posts: 328 |
posted 17 July 2005 02:09 AM
quote: E3b exited Africa via the Levant at the end of the Paleolithic era, aroun 14.7 thousand years ago, thats hardly OOA and don't distort the maning of OOA.
quote: It isn't closer to the truth by any stretch of your imagination. Based on the available samples Howell's has there is no surpise, but since his samples have huge wholes in them[Groves et tal, personal communication.]Howell's onclusions are anything but poof that East Africans are 'caucasians'. IP: Logged |
|
Topdog Member Posts: 328 |
posted 17 July 2005 02:16 AM
quote: Don't parrot Dienekes, the only difference between Howells study and Rightmire's was the samples used, not the amount of measurements. Its not the amount you take anyways, its the particular measurements that are taken that matter. IP: Logged |
|
Topdog Member Posts: 328 |
posted 17 July 2005 02:19 AM
quote: Thats not what he said you idiot, those remains are at the latest date back to 7000 B.C. hardly the timeframe for original man, at Omo dates back to almost 200,000 years ago and was not primitive but fully modern. IP: Logged |
|
Topdog Member Posts: 328 |
posted 17 July 2005 02:40 AM
quote: Furthermore, Dahomey isn't in the Congo area. [This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 17 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 852 |
posted 17 July 2005 07:28 AM
quote: Brace's data helps us fill in those holes: A = Generalized Ancient East Africans
quote: Rightmire used "up to 34 cranial measurements". Howells used 57.
quote: If East Africans were still non-Negroid as late as 7000 B.C., then they sure as hell weren't Negroid earlier than that. IP: Logged |
|
Topdog Member Posts: 328 |
posted 17 July 2005 07:59 AM
quote: Sounds like a broken record I don't know if you're Dienekes or not. At any rate.
IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 4491 |
posted 17 July 2005 08:37 AM
quote:  The earliest fossils recognized morphologically as modern (Omo 1, Masks River Mouth, Border Cave in Africa, and Qafzeh series in Israel). are all associated with Middle Palaeolithic or Middle Stone Age industries (Mode 3) (Allsworth-Jones 1993; Bar-Yasef 1993). The case of Skhul and Qafzeh, and their apparent association with local Levallois-Mousterian artefacts is perhaps the most cited example of a mismatch between technology and biology (Foley 1987). All the caves for the period 120-50 Kyr in Israel show a Mousterian technology, and it is only after this date that the Upper Palacolithic makes its appearance (Bar-Yosef 1992; Marks 1990). Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations... -
The findings suggest the {Andaman} are descended from the "oldest population of the world and were among the first batch of modern humans to migrate from Africa," said professor Lalji Singh, director of the center. - The oldest expansion in Eurasia occurred 65,000 ± 23,000 years ago and is witnessed by mitochondrial descendants preserved in Papua New Guinea; the Papuan node is derived from a Eurasian founder, we tentatively propose the following scenario to account for the obvious phenotypic differences between Papuans and 'Asians' despite their sharing a common mitochondrial ancestry: The M and N founders derive from a single African migration*[note: echoes Tishkoff] but split at an early stage (possibly before reaching Europe, which lacks M). Meanwhile, proto-Eurasians spent 20 or more millennia genetically drifting to their present distinct phenotypes. Molecular data suggest that the early modern human population began to divide between 150,000 to 115,000 years ago. This fissioning would have taken place in Africa. Modern human fossils dated to about 90,000 years ago are found outside of Africa, but the next genetic fissioning is believed to have occured after this, perhaps about 70,000 years ago(Bowcock et tal. 1991). Modern human remains in Asia, including Australia, are dated after this period, and in Europe, to around 35,000 years ago. Why are these data important? Because they indicate that the background genetic variation of Europeans, Oceanians, and Asians originated in Africa and precedes in time the presence of modern humans in these areas. Europeans and Asian-Australians did develop more unique genetic profiles over time, but had a common background before their average "uniqueness" emerged. This background is African in a bio-historical sense. Therefore, it should not be surprising that some Africans share similarities with non-Africans.
quote: [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 17 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
osirion Member Posts: 797 |
posted 17 July 2005 12:21 PM
I think EvilE has given up on the idea of an Ancient East African Caucasoid. It is logical that the East Africans were perhaps inbetween all the races that currently exist. Actually, I think it is racist to think that East African people were Negroid originally. That suggests that as we become more primitive we begin to look like the modern day Black person. I don't see how that is not racist. A racial convergence to a single-race that is essentially a composite of all known racial types is more logical and practical from a deterministic model of evolution point of view. IP: Logged |
|
Djehuti Member Posts: 1743 |
posted 17 July 2005 01:33 PM
quote: The problem is that the whole concept of "races" is flawed. East Africans are just a subgroup of Sub-Saharans as a whole. While we aren't entirely sure what part of Africa modern humans originated we are definitley sure that Out-Of-Africans came from East Africa. quote: What do you mean by "negroid"?!! If you mean the stereotypical Guinea type of West Africa with broad noses and lips etc., you're correct that it's wrong and racist to call such features "primitive" so why have a problem with saying prehistoric East Africans originally looked like this? quote: If you were paying attention to what Thought and Rasol pointed, Africans show the greatest genetic genetic and relatively great phenotypic diversity, and much of the diversity that Out-Of-Africans have came from their African ancestors! IP: Logged |
|
bandon19 Member Posts: 185 |
posted 17 July 2005 02:33 PM
no sorry evil euro is some somilys do look similaer to west africans. But they deffinetly do look like europeans lol. If they look so diffrent how come a large somiale population in america mistaken puff daddy as a somily IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1873 |
posted 17 July 2005 03:33 PM
Just to add what Topdog and Rasol have pointed time and again, months ago:
quote: Well, Evil never did actually have an answer for that last question from Thought, concerning which LGM refuge the Greeks supposedly came from, among many other unanswered questions. I suppose he ran out of supply from the Dienekes' pseudo-scientific board. IP: Logged |
|
relaxx Member Posts: 537 |
posted 17 July 2005 05:37 PM
quote: Excellent: all features: the so called "Mongoloids", "Caucasoids", "Negroids" are Africans and are always in a mixed forms outside Africa: broader and bigger nose and head among Eurasians compare to Elongated Africans nomads, less slanted eyes among Eastern Asian compare to the Sans, nose shape similar to Pygmies among aboriginals in Australia...all phenotypes around the world beside the hair and the skin tone are African... Relaxx
[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 17 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 4491 |
posted 17 July 2005 09:28 PM
quote: Erroneous is a miserable chronic liar, and will die that way. As such he stops asserting lies only as long as Thought, TopDog and "others"
quote: No it's not, reread Dejuhti's post above - the central fallacy is attempting to classify huge human populations into racial archtypes to begin with. Archtypes which are arbitrailly defined and which humans in fact have never fit into, do not fit into today, and never will fit into.
quote: Deterministic models of race are by definition racist. The race concept is complicated but entails three attributes: essentialism, cladistic thinking, and biological determinism. These attributes have not all been discarded; while biological determinism and its social implications have been questioned since the inception of the field, essentialism and the concomitant rendering of populations as clades persists as a legacy of the race concept - From Types to Populations: A Century of Race, Physical Anthropology, and the American Anthropological Association, Rachel Caspari The deterministic model of race is known as polygenesis: The polygenic aspects of Coon's theory were racist and widely recognized to be wrong (Dobzhansky 1963, 1968; Hulse 1963; Montagu 1963; Oschinsky 1963; Washburn 1963 [based on the presidential address at the AAA]) Why this idea makes no sense is explained here: As late as the 1960s, the respected American physical anthropologist Carleton Coon published a massive, long awaited study, The Origin of the Races (1962), which was taken seriously by a wide public, despite its racist assumptions and nonsensical biology. Coon has proposed that each of the "five races"(by his classification) had evolved separately in Asia, Europe, America, Australia, and Central and Southern Africa. He thought a "pre-sapient" population of hominids(near-men) had first spread over the world; then, each group "crossed the threshold of humanity" separately at different times. He vastly overemphasized group differences, which he confused with cultural behaviors, and imagined some kind of inevitability for "pre-human" populations to evolve into Homo sapiens wherever they might be. Can one similarly imagine "pre-moose" hoofed animals dispersing throughout the world, then each local population evolving to "cross the threshold of mooseness" at different times?* * for mooseness, substitute caucaZoid-ness, and you will understand the fallacy of caucaZoid anthropology. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 17 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 852 |
posted 18 July 2005 07:52 AM
quote: I never held that they were Caucasoid in the sense that modern Europeans and Middle Easterners are Caucasoid. However, when OOA ancestry makes a group like Somalis both genetically and craniometrically close to Eurasian populations, as Tishkoff and Brace have demonstrated, then we have to wonder just how "in-between" these ancient East African migrants really were. The argument that they were more like some sort of "proto-Caucasoid" begins to gain strong support. IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 852 |
posted 18 July 2005 07:58 AM
quote: The answer, you little monkey, is that being genetically European doesn't require coming out of an LGM refuge. Greeks are genetically European because they group with other Europeans. Period. Y-chromosomes: Autosomes: IP: Logged |
|
Evil Euro Member Posts: 852 |
posted 18 July 2005 08:02 AM
quote: Speaking of which . . .
quote: Coming up on five weeks now and still no answer. What's taking so long? IP: Logged |
|
Topdog Member Posts: 328 |
posted 18 July 2005 08:04 AM
quote: Liar, remember Coon's prehistoric East African Caucasoids?
quote: Tischkoff never stated that, she said Northeast Africans are intermediate between African and non-African populations. Stop foolishly taking people's words out of context. Keita's 2004 paper on northeast Africans dispels the myth that Somalis are intermediate craniometrically as in mixed race. IP: Logged |
|
rasol Member Posts: 4491 |
posted 18 July 2005 11:47 AM
quote: Answer # 1: Actually 8 months of your being too stupid to understand the answers provided by the current peer reviewed scholarship.
quote: Answer # 2: That fact that you are stupid, and repeat questions via - retardation response, while ignoring the answer - because you don't like the answer, and also because you cannot refute the answer. In essence, you are silly, and a child - however long it takes for you to grow up.
quote: Answer # 3: quote:
quote: Answer # 4: quote:
quote: Answer # 5:
quote: Answer # 6: The question is - are you simply too stupid, frightened and dishonest to admit it? The answer is - YES YOU ARE. That's Answer # 7.
quote: ....the facts regarding the heterogeneous origins of the neolithic Greeks and Levantines are EXACTLY as stated by Underhill, Ehret, Angel, Furon,Garrod, Keita, McCown, Semino, Bar Yossef and others, presented here several times, and unrefuted. All of the answers provided above are from renowned scholars in physical anthropology, history, genetics, lingusitics and archeology. You nonresponsive replies to them are brain-dead and utterly worthless. Now, the scholars have answered all your questions yet again. If you don't like their answers. If they make you want to cry or...hang yourself, or whatever....too bad. Write them yourself and do your crying to them. But please do not write me any further. Your stupidity and fear no longer entertains and is boring. [This message has been edited by rasol (edited 18 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Djehuti Member Posts: 1743 |
posted 18 July 2005 12:44 PM
You are wasting your time with the idiot-Euro! It seems amnesia is a common illness with these trolls and AMR is not the only one who has it!! We have provided the dumb mut with all the answers yet he seems to have forgotten them and is repeating the same garbage again!! For example, his reference to Somalis: quote: And exactly what sense is that?!! What is the exact nature of a "caucasoid"?!
quote: LOL Somalis don't even have OOA ancestry you moron!! Just because they have a few craniofacial traits in common with Europeans like nasal index and long narrow faces, does not mean any kind of relation to "caucasoids"!! These cranio-facial traits you call "caucasoid" are not even so because populations around the world possess such features. By your insane reasoning, perhaps this Tibetan, or this Tutsi who carries E3A... are also 'intermediate' with "caucasoids"! Perhaps they are part caucasoid?? And since when did OOA have anything to do with "caucasoid" features anyway?!!! These are pure OOA, even more pristine than Europeans, yet they look more like West Africans!!! You stupid little dog, just give up and admit you're wrong or is a canine like you just too stubborn to admit that??!! [This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 18 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Djehuti Member Posts: 1743 |
posted 18 July 2005 12:49 PM
I'm betting a grand, that dumbass-Euro will disregard all these unrefuted facts and start spewing his stupidity all over again!!! Mark my words; it never fails! IP: Logged |
|
osirion Member Posts: 797 |
posted 18 July 2005 01:39 PM
quote:
They were no more proto-Caucasoid than they were proto-Negroid. This has already been explained to you: the diversity in East Africa is significant and the phenotypes that are available in all non-Africans are seen in East Africans. However, I need a bit more clarification from you. Do you believe in Coon's theory that the current racial types evolved from pre-Human stages in isolation from each other? Or do you believe that the current racial types converge on a single type? I am concerned that some on this forum may think I am siding with a somewhat racist concept. Let me make it clear. My believe is that all racial types converge on a single type somewhere in East Africa. This type would have affinities with all the other types. Deterministic evolution is the idea that we are designed to adapt to environments in predictable ways rather than by random mutation. It follows the idea that man started in one region and fanned out and became more diverse due to diversity of environments. It also assumes that all known races evolved from this single Adam and Eve race (NOT PREHUMANS). If we say that convergence of man to a primitive form resulted in man being Negroid then we must conclude that Negroid types are primitive. I think this is racist. It is keeping with logical deterministic models to assume that Negroid people have continued to evolve into their types from pre-historic times becoming more specialized to their environment. Therefore if we rolled back time this specialization would be reduced back to the original form that would have had the original diversification coding. Coon's theory of pre-human evolution to human form in separate environments is probabilistic. What I believe is that the original human contained the coding for all existing races of man and by simply moving to a specific location triggered the dominance of one type of code over another. Consequently it would follow that the original human was an apparent intermediate in features and in other ways. But then this has little bearing on Egypt. Migration through Ethiopia and Sudan would have produced a tropically adapted type compared to a migration through the Caucasus region. All quite predictable. IP: Logged |
|
Keins Member Posts: 164 |
posted 18 July 2005 04:04 PM
Good post! However, I always hear people talking aobut east africans and west african as it this distinction really mean something. MOST AFRICANS ARE A COMBINATION OF ALL PHENOTYPES ("MONGALOID","CAUCASOID", AND "NEGROID"! However, the combination of all of these 3 pure african features still come out to equal what we call "Negro" anyway and hence these people who display this intermediate phenotype are ignored and the focus is on the "true negro", "almost mongoloid" or "almost caucasoid". Terms like Negroid, mongoloid and caucasoid means NOTHING to africans. They are the genetic ocean and all others are just a random drop of that water.
quote: IP: Logged |
|
relaxx Member Posts: 537 |
posted 18 July 2005 04:39 PM
quote: The sad thing is that many scientists, posters on Egyptsearch or Dodona have a very vague idea about what Africans look like.They never went there. It's so obvious for someone who has lived and seen different Africans whether in West Africa, East Africa, Southern Africa, Central Africa. Modern Africans constitute the Ocean of all phenotypes, whether you call them "Mongoloid" phenotypes, "Caucasoid" phenotypes, "Negroid" phenotypes, they are all derived from Africans...Africans are less mixed than Eurasians and Eastern Asians...it is proved genitically and phenotipically...it's laughable to read Eurasian are "Caucasian" when in fact they have mixed phenotypes,many so called "Caucasians" could pass easily for Bantu (who are the most mixed phenotipically of all Africans) if painted in Black..."Caucasian", "Mongoloid" and "Negroid" concepts are big jokes...they are all African phenotypes... IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1873 |
posted 18 July 2005 04:54 PM
quote: You little hybrid donkey, this doesn't correspond to an answer to the specific question asked. Period. IP: Logged |
|
Djehuti Member Posts: 1743 |
posted 18 July 2005 04:56 PM
quote: Agreed! I used to think the same way about Africans until I did more research and looked at all the pictures of peoples from all over "sub-Sahara" as well as North Africa. There is one book I've read recently called Faces of Africa, written by Angela Fisher and Carol Beckwith. They are two renowned photographers who work for National Geographic and whose specialty is Africa. They've written several other books also, but all of them show beautiful photos of the peoples of Africa. It definitely shows the diversity of features of black Africans. IP: Logged |
|
relaxx Member Posts: 537 |
posted 18 July 2005 05:03 PM
quote: Thanks Djehuti, I will try to find it...By the way that's a good reference for people who still have a vague idea about what Africans look like. Relaxx IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1873 |
posted 18 July 2005 05:12 PM
quote: Which of course, our little "borderline" Europeans, like Evil, could definitely use. IP: Logged |
|
Topdog Member Posts: 328 |
posted 18 July 2005 05:13 PM
quote: That would be an upgrade over his mail order bride pictures of Africans. IP: Logged |
|
Super car Member Posts: 1873 |
posted 18 July 2005 05:14 PM
quote: Lol. IP: Logged |
|
Djehuti Member Posts: 1743 |
posted 18 July 2005 05:16 PM
quote: I've checked it out from the library months ago, but I strongly recommend the book. Beckworth and Fisher are excellent photographers. The photographs are of such high quality, stunningly beautiful and very lively! I plan on getting the book soon and scanning some pictures when I get my scanner. [This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 18 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
|
Topdog Member Posts: 328 |
posted 18 July 2005 05:16 PM
dp [This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 18 July 2005).] IP: Logged |
hold his tush to the fire. Frankly, the longer you and he argue, the more he is obviously able to regress and bait you into his lying arguments. That's why I reposted the earlier FACTS which otherwise end up conveniently forgotten as these threads - digress rather than progress.
This topic is 9 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 All times are GMT (+2) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Contact Us | EgyptSearch!
(c) 2003 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c