posted 19 April 2005 08:36 AM            

quote:

---

the utility and efficacy of FORDISC has been criticized for providing incorrect classifications, however these disputed results are often due to inappropriate reference sample

---

Actually what provides incorrect classifications and inappropriate reference samples are fruitcakes like Erroneous E:

quote:

---

Map posted by Erroneous E, courtesy of "NuSapiens pseudo-anthropology blog" by way of Deniekes equally pseudo blog":

based on W.W. Howells 1989, 1996

---

NuSapien apologia/excuse:
All I did was visualize the output of Dienekes' statistical methods, which were mathematically derived from Howell's data I only was make pie charts and plot them on a map.

In some of my other maps, I do play with data and add my own interpretations and assumptions...

But enough of the foolishness of those clowns:

Instead, some real science from an actual bioanthropologist:

Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.

Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.

The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.

The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series.

In his desperation to deceive, Erroneous Euro misrepresents data; from discredited and uneducated sources ; utilising inappropriate samples in order to incorrectly classify and so promote pseudo scientific propaganda.

Unfortunately for him, Erroneous has long since lost all credibility, so his efforts to distort information invariably end with his own humiliation:

Continue to parrot Dienekes, Erroneous..

posted 19 April 2005 10:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BigMix:

Evil Euro=psuedo science + mail order brides

---

Thought Writes:

Evil E simply can't deal with the fact that Greeks are hybrid. He would like to make mesolithic East africans Caucasian in the absence of any evidence. In fact the skeletal data from LSA East Africa indicates a type refered to as proto-Khosian-Negroid. Evil E would have us disregard the evolutionary theory of shared, derived traits. East and West Africans have a common genetic bond that post dates the migration of all non Africans, out of Africa. E3b derives from ancestral E3 ~26 thousand years ago. E3a derives from ancestral E3 ~19 thousand years ago. The first settlement of Europe by anatomically modern humans dates back to ~50,000 years ago. It is intellegent and obvious that populations derived from lineages seperated by only 7,000 years would have a closer phenotypic and genetic relationship than populations derived from lineages seperated by more than 23,000 years (East Africans and European Caucasians).

posted 20 April 2005 02:41 AM            

Assessment of classification of crania using Fordisc 2.0: Nubian X-Group Test.

A. Leathers, J. Edwards, G.J. Armelagos. Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.

Fordisc 2.0, a popular forensic anthropology program, claims to classify "an unknown adult crania" based on "known samples" using twenty-one cranial measurements. The known populations are based on WW Howell’s sample that reflects the most common continental racial classification. While the Fordisc 2.0 authors state that "there are no races, only populations," it is clear that Howell was intent on providing known groups that would be distributed among the continental "racial" groups. We tested the accuracy and effectiveness of Fordisc 2.0 using twelve cranial measurements from a homogeneous population from the X-Group period of Sudanese Nubia (350CE-550CE). When the Fordisc program classified the adult X-Group crania, only 51 (57.3%) of 89 individuals were classified within groups from Africa. Others were placed in such diverse groups as Polynesian (11.24%), European (7.86%), Japanese (4.49%), Native American (3.37%), Peruvian (3.36%), Australian (1.12), Tasmanian (1.12%), and Melanesian (1.12%). The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations. Howell’s samples lack the distinct morphology necessary to make Fordisc 2.0 a useful tool for classifying unknown crania.

http://www.physanth.org/annmeet/aapa2002/ajpa2002.pdf

Anyone can see that the same logic that was used to conclude pre-historic East Africans were non-African in appearance made X-Group Nubians a four way racial mix of Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Australoid. Given the fact that the Howell's database lacks the distinct morphology to discern wide variation in homogeneous populations, no one can come to the conclusion that prehistoric East Africans are morphologically 'non-African'. Since Howell's database crania also make Forsdisc useless in classifying unknown crania, Howell's data **DOES NOT** refute Rightmire.

posted 20 April 2005 07:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Actually what provides incorrect classifications and inappropriate reference samples are fruitcakes like Erroneous E:

---

Translation: You can no longer dispute Howells' data because his methodology has been vindicated, so out of desperation you start an irrelevant thread personally attacking the individuals who've compiled the evidence that destroys you.

posted 20 April 2005 07:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Evil E simply can't deal with the fact that Greeks are hybrid.

---

And the reason you need to pollute Greeks with your inferior blood is that you simply can't deal with the fact that your ancestors have never produced anything better than this.

posted 20 April 2005 08:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Before I made that post about Howells' Egyptian sample being flawed, all the people on dodona naturally assumed there was continuity of 'Caucasoids' from predynastic up until now. This isn't the first time I pointed out the flaws of Howells' database sampling. How can any one call prehistoric East African crania 'non-African' in appearance when they in essence preceded the samples they were being compared to. I made the same observations in another post on dodona a long time ago:

Assessment of classification of crania using Fordisc 2.0: Nubian X-Group Test.

A. Leathers, J. Edwards, G.J. Armelagos. Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.

Fordisc 2.0, a popular forensic anthropology program, claims to classify "an unknown adult crania" based on "known samples" using twenty-one cranial measurements. The known populations are based on WW Howell’s sample that reflects the most common continental racial classification. While the Fordisc 2.0 authors state that "there are no races, only populations," it is clear that Howell was intent on providing known groups that would be distributed among the continental "racial" groups. We tested the accuracy and effectiveness of Fordisc 2.0 using twelve cranial measurements from a homogeneous population from the X-Group period of Sudanese Nubia (350CE-550CE). When the Fordisc program classified the adult X-Group crania, only 51 (57.3%) of 89 individuals were classified within groups from Africa. [b]Others were placed in such diverse groups as Polynesian (11.24%), European (7.86%), Japanese (4.49%), Native American (3.37%), Peruvian (3.36%), Australian (1.12), Tasmanian (1.12%), and Melanesian (1.12%). The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations. Howell’s samples lack the distinct morphology necessary to make Fordisc 2.0 a useful tool for classifying unknown crania.

http://www.physanth.org/annmeet/aapa2002/ajpa2002.pdf

Anyone can see that the same logic that was used to conclude pre-historic East Africans were non-African in appearance made X-Group Nubians a four way racial mix of Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Australoid. Given the fact that the Howell's database lacks the distinct morphology to discern wide variation in homogeneous populations, no one can come to the conclusion that prehistoric East Africans are morphologically 'non-African'. Since Howell's database crania also make Forsdisc useless in classifying unknown crania, Howell's data **DOES NOT** refute Rightmire.[/B]

---

You make some nice posts on Dodona - almost makes that forum worth visiting. Almost.

quote:

---

Supercar writes: Frankly, the rehashing of material he's been humiliated on time and again, is just plainly nothing else, but killing time with no purpose at all.

---

quote:

---

Big mix writes: Evil Euro = pseudo science + mail order brides

---

posted 20 April 2005 08:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
And the reason you need to pollute Greeks with your inferior blood is that you simply can't deal with the fact that your ancestors have never produced anything better than [b]this.

Pre-historic, E3b-carrying East Africans were racially non-African. Deal with it.[/B]

---

Just like X-Group Nubians are racially African-Australoid-Mongoloid-Caucasoid? I've posted another abstract about Howells' methodology and it doesn't hold up well, his Egyptian series crania aren't even typically Egyptian and thats because 26-30th dynaysty Egyptians were not typical Egyptians, pick up a history book and read. Pre-Historic East Africans were akin to southern Sudanese, why do you continue to ignore this:

Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, edited by J.O. Vogel Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

"Who were the Late Stone Age people living in eastern Africa before the arrival of early Iron Age Bantu-speaking peoples? Early claims by L.S.B. Leakey that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong. It has been demonstrated that the early eastern Africans of Late Stone Age times were Negroids who probably would have physically resembled peoples living in the southern Sudan at present."

Now tapdance!

posted 20 April 2005 04:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
And the reason you need to pollute Greeks with your inferior blood is that you simply can't deal with the fact that your ancestors have never produced anything better than [b]this.

Pre-historic, E3b-carrying East Africans were racially non-African. Deal with it.[/B]

---

How in the hell can E3b-carrying East Africans be racially non
African when E3b originated in Africa?

Only in the straight up low self esteem nonCartesian evil logic of
a hater of black and African peoples who constantly shows his mental
predetermination by his use of ugly epithets.

posted 21 April 2005 07:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Just like X-Group Nubians are racially African-Australoid-Mongoloid-Caucasoid?

---

You're a little bit behind in the discussion. The authors who reported those incorrect results and criticized Howells' methodology were misusing the FORDISC program:

"The utility and efficacy of FORDISC has been criticized for providing 'incorrect' classifications, however these disputed results are often due to inappropriate reference samples and failure to properly evaluate the typicality and posterior probabilities provided by the program." (Freid et al. 2005)

Howells, of course, was not misusing his own program, so his finding that pre-historic East Africans were more similar to modern Eurasians than to Sub-Saharan Africans remains valid and stands undisputed.

quote:

---

It has been demonstrated that the early eastern Africans of Late Stone Age times were Negroids

---

posted 21 April 2005 08:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
You're a little bit behind in the discussion. The authors who reported those incorrect results and criticized Howells' methodology were misusing the FORDISC program:

"The utility and efficacy of FORDISC has been criticized for providing 'incorrect' classifications, however these disputed results are often due to inappropriate reference samples and failure to properly evaluate the typicality and posterior probabilities provided by the program." (Freid et al. 2005)

Howells, of course, was not misusing his own program, so his finding that pre-historic East Africans were more similar to modern Eurasians than to Sub-Saharan Africans remains valid and stands undisputed.

.[/B]

---

You are wrong, part of the problem is Howells' samples, read this again because apparently you missed it..

The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations. Howell’s samples lack the distinct morphology necessary to make Fordisc 2.0 a useful tool for classifying unknown crania.

Howells' samples are making Forsdisc provide bad results, the problem isn't Forsdisc.

posted 21 April 2005 09:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

East Africans of the Late Neolithic have no bearing on Pleistocene OOA migrants.

---

Thought Writes:

Evil E, for once you are absolutely right. In that E3b spread down the Nile and out into the levant after ~14 KY we should study the late Pleistocene and early Holocene remains from the Nile Valley as potential population feeds. All of these remains cluster with Sub-Saharan Africans.

posted 22 April 2005 07:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Howells' samples are making Forsdisc provide bad results

---

No, Howells' samples are fine. It's the people criticizing FORDISC (i.e. your source) who are in the wrong. According to the same 2005 paper I quoted above, this is the correct way to use the FORDISC program:

posted 22 April 2005 07:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Evil E, for once you are absolutely right. In that E3b spread down the Nile and out into the levant after ~14 KY we should study the late Pleistocene and early Holocene remains from the Nile Valley as potential population feeds. All of these remains cluster with Sub-Saharan Africans.

---

Negroids aren't native to East Africa and didn't appear there until well into the Holocene. You proved that yourself in your backfired attempt to "debunk" me:

posted 22 April 2005 09:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Negroids aren't native to East Africa and didn't appear there until well into the Holocene. You proved that yourself in your backfired attempt to "debunk" me

---

Thought Writes:

Until YOU are willing to define what YOU mean when YOU use the term "negroid" your point is mute.

posted 23 April 2005 07:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Until YOU are willing to define what YOU mean when YOU use the term "negroid" your point is mute.

---

posted 23 April 2005 10:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
I believe the word you're looking for is "moot". "Mute" is what you should be now that your entire worldview has been destroyed and you have [b]no answers for anything.[/B]

---

Thought Writes:

Instead of being concerned with correcting my spelling, simply define your term "Negroid" and let's conclude this debate.

posted 24 April 2005 07:44 AM            

First explanation of 'Negroid'

Second explanation of 'Negroid'

Third explanation of 'Negroid'

posted 24 April 2005 10:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
*Yawn*

[b]First explanation of 'Negroid'

Second explanation of 'Negroid'

Third explanation of 'Negroid'

The debate was concluded a long time ago. You lost.[/B]

---

Thought Writes:

Instead of posting links that do NOT lead to the definition of **YOUR** term, simply define it here and lets be done with this silly debate.

Humans evolve over time. Within the last few hundred years humans have become progressively taller. This does not disassociate a close phenotypic relationship between these humans and their living descendents. Upper Paleolithic European Cromagnon Man was tropically adapted, hence they had dark skin. This does not disassociate a close phenotypic relationship between stone age Europeans and modern Europeans. The same can be certianly be said of ancient and modern east Africans.

posted 25 April 2005 07:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:
In that E3b spread down the Nile and out into the levant after ~14 KY we should study the late Pleistocene and early Holocene remains from the Nile Valley as potential population feeds. All of these remains cluster with Sub-Saharan Africans.

---

Thought, actually this does have bearing on Howells inappropriate samplings and resultant incorrect classifications which do not only pertain to the Pleistocene .

After all, it is banal to observe that 80,000 year old skulls do not closely match modern ethnic groups.

Hence, Dr. Zakrzewski's findings: Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series. [making the Deniekes map worthless and blatantly dishonest]......

....as well as J O Vogel's: Early claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong are both critically relevant and completely unrefuted.

Erroneous E attempts to change the subject with irrelevant weasel words regarding the "posterior possibilities" inherent in Fordisc 2.0 which does not engage either of the above scholars'/observations.

Where are the prehistoric whites of East Africa? They don't exist.

posted 26 April 2005 07:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Instead of posting links that do NOT lead to the definition of **YOUR** term, simply define it here and lets be done with this silly debate.

---

'Negroid' is not **MY** term. It's an **ANTHROPOLOGICAL** term that's clearly defined and illustrated in those three links. Feigning ignorance isn't going to help you escape the cold hard truth.

posted 26 April 2005 07:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Off topic Evil Euro, when will you reopen the old forum? Rumor says you are about to.

---

posted 26 April 2005 07:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Hence, Dr. Zakrzewski's findings: Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series. [making the Deniekes map worthless and blatantly dishonest]

---

Straw man. Neither Howells nor the map claim to be depicting "typical" Egyptians or populations of the "Early Dynastic" period. The sample is clearly labeled "26th-30th Dynasties".

quote:

---

as well as J O Vogel's: Early claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong are both critically relevant and completely unrefuted.

---

posted 26 April 2005 08:21 AM            

quote:

---

Strawman neither Howells nor the map claim to be depicting "typical" Egyptians.

---

Dissembling - to disguise or conceal behind a false appearance

That's what your map does and it's what you are doing now.

In fact Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski proved Howells' samples specifically DO NOT accurately represent ancient Egyptians.

The phoney map you presented does NOT aknowledge this crucial error. [only one of many in the map by the way]

Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski findings of inadequicy of Howells' data samples is precisely on point, which is why she chose to emphasize her findings of Howells' flawed methodologies - which independantly reaffirmed previous peer review criticisms of Howells', including those of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists who earlier reached similar conclusions as Zakrzewski:

It is your [Deniekes] map itself that is a red herring intended to obscure the identity of the Ancient Egyptians.

posted 26 April 2005 08:33 AM            

quote:

---

Erroneous E writes: Howells doesn't say East Africans were necessarily Caucasoid.

---

No, nor does he say anything about racially non African - he merely collated the inappropriate data samples which you then used to misrepresent Ancient Egyptians .

However you did say it. And then you denied saying it. Then you said it again, then you denied it.... again. You spin yourself in circles and so, get absolutely nowhere.

This is why Thought is correct:

quote:

---

Until YOU are willing to define what YOU mean when YOU use the term "negroid" your point is moot.

---

And Top Dog is correct:

quote:

---

Keep dancing EE.

---

And S Mohammad:

quote:

---

continue to parrot Deniekes

---

And Supercar:

quote:

---

Frankly, unless Evil has something new to shed light on, the rehashing of material he's been humiliated on time and again, is just plainly nothing else, but killing time with no purpose at all.

---

I would only add that you are obviously far too self deluded and emotionally stunted to objectively assess why noone is persuaded by your discourse in dishonesty.

In other words, you can't seem to get a clue OR take a hint. Which is why you have no answers.

posted 26 April 2005 12:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

'Negroid' is not **MY** term. It's an **ANTHROPOLOGICAL** term that's clearly defined and illustrated in those three links.

---

Thought Writes:

This term is not used by most mainstream anthropologists. It is a relic term used by fringe pseudo-anthropologists to limit the diversity of indigenous African people. Even within Central Africa the people do not fit into one morphological pattern. Humans are diverse in Africa and Europe. The interesting thing is Western Europe is much smaller than Sub-Saharan Africa yet in my opinion the phenotypes of the people in Western Europe are just as variable; from blue eyed blondes in Sweden to dark haired Greeks. Much of this Western European diversity may be explained by the diffusion of African genes into southern Europe. On the otherhand, much of Sub-saharan Africas phenotypic diversity may be attributed to climactic adaptation.

posted 26 April 2005 02:53 PM            

quote:

---

EE writes: [Howells said] that they were racially non-African

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri~:
How in the hell can E3b-carrying East Africans be racially non
African when E3b originated in Africa?

Only in the straight up low self esteem nonCartesian evil logic of
a hater of black and African peoples who constantly shows his mental
predetermination by his use of ugly epithets.

---

lol. Interestingly Howells' who Erroneous Euro is misquoting is known for saying: there are no races, only populations, while Howells' flawed methodologies have been correctly de-bunked by his peers Erroneous makes matters worse by misquoting him. Howells' would likely deny having ever said any such thing.

More peer review of Howells'.

Meroitic Nubians were compared
to two populations within Fordisc 2.0:
Howells’ worldwide data set and the Forensic
Data Bank series from Ousley and Jantz
(1996) Fordisc 2.0. The University of Tennessee,
Knoxville. Our results indicate that
Fordisc 2.0 identifies gracile individuals (either male or female) as female, and robust
individuals (either male or female) as male
unless the sex is constrained by the program.

Howells’ data attribute the Nubian specimens
to populations on several continents,
whereas the Forensic Data Bank series provides no explainable pattern of population
attribution.

These results suggest that
Fordisc 2.0 cannot accurately identify the
biological affinity of ancient Nubian crania.

We question the utility of any forensic application that attempts to constrain worldwide human cranial variability into discrete biological groupings, or races.
- R. Belcher1, F. Williams1, G.J. Armelagos2.
1Dept. of Anthropology and Geography, Georgia
State University, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA,
2Dept. of Anthropology, Emory University.
Forensic Anthropology data bank at the University of Tennessee.

posted 27 April 2005 07:51 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
It is a relic term used by fringe pseudo-anthropologists to limit the diversity of indigenous African people.

---

On the contrary, it accurately labels one of Africa's diverse racial elements, along with 'Caucasoid' and 'Khoisanid'. Your term 'Black African' is the one used by "fringe pseudo-anthropologists" (i.e. Afronuts) to "limit the diversity of indigenous African people" by incorporating them all into a single (made up) race.

quote:

---

from blue eyed blondes in Sweden to dark haired Greeks. Much of this Western European diversity may be explained by the diffusion of African genes into southern Europe. On the otherhand, much of Sub-saharan Africas phenotypic diversity may be attributed to climactic adaptation.

---

Incorrect. Once again you show your total ignorance. East and West sub-Saharan Africa occupy the same latitude and share identical levels of ultraviolet radiation. Sweden and Greece are at different latitudes and have vastly different UV levels. Hence, Northern and Southern Europeans are in different pigmentation zones based on climatic adaptation. East and West Africans are not. The phenotypic differences between them are due to Caucasoid genes in the East.

posted 27 April 2005 07:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

[ Blah blah blah . . . ]

---

The fewer answers Afronuts have, the more compelled they are to keep trying to answer. Note rasol's three long, rambling posts loaded with straw men, refuted claims and other irrelevancies, which do absolutely nothing to dispute the data he's so terrified of:

Racial Affinities of Pre-historic East Africans

posted 27 April 2005 08:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
East and West Africans are not. The phenotypic differences between them are due to Caucasoid genes in the East.

---

Lies, have you ever thought about intra-African migrations and interbreeding? You still haven't explained how Tutsis have the same looks as east Africans without mixture from the Middle East and why Lemba and Cameroonians who have mixture look like typical people in their regions.

posted 27 April 2005 08:19 AM            

quote:

---

Note rasol's three posts....

---

....were unanswered by Erroneous E, who instead tries to deflect attention with irrelevant references to his previous foul ups. Unacceptable.

Erroneous need address -

* his intentional misquoting of Howells who never said racially non African.

* Dr Zakrzewski's critique of Howells flawed database and its non representative population samples.

* his own inability to engage something Howells' actually DID say: there are NO RACES

* the fact that Howells does not even support Erroneous' claims regarding 'caucazoids' of ancient East Africa.

* specific debunking of Howells flawed methods, which independantly substantiate Dr. Zakrzewski's critique of Howells.

Having no answers, Erroneous E, who cannot even define his own terms, hopes to 'excuse himself' from addressing the issue. Sorry E, not a chance.

ps: What's taking so long?

posted 27 April 2005 08:44 AM            

quote:

---

EE writes: East and West sub-Saharan Africa occupy the same latitude and share identical levels of ultraviolet radiation.

---

That is consistent with the fact that indigenous East Africans are Black and have always been......

Your map-post is credited to Nina Jablonski, who has been quoted previously:

dark skin was the original state of Homo sapiens

quote:

---

Thought posts: All of this demonstrates the pan-African spread of genetic lineages and the Black African root of E3b1.

---

quote:

---

rasol writes: Where are your prehistoric whites of East Africa?

---

No answers? Then I'll answer for you - nowhere.

Why?

Because they don't exist.

posted 27 April 2005 04:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

On the contrary, it accurately labels one of Africa's diverse racial elements, along with 'Caucasoid' and 'Khoisanid'.

---

Thought Writes:

The American Association of Physical Anthropologists have stated that the very idea of race is outdated and hence psuedo-science. Why do you refuse to give us **YOUR** definition of the term 'Negroid'? What are you afraid of? You refuse to give us **YOUR** definition of what entails a 'Negroid' because Sub-Saharan Africans are diverse, even on a micro geographical level. The term 'Negroid' wouldn't even capture the diversity of Nigeria, yet alone all of Sub-Saharan Africa. E3/PN2 demonstrates that genetically north, south, east and west Africans share in a common bloodline/gene pool that post-dates the OOA dispersal that produced Eurasians. Gloggers Rule demonstrates that mesolithic E3b **SPREADING** East Africans were Black. Now prove to us that the broad nosed, prognathic, E3b **RECIEVING** neolithic Greeks were really white!

posted 27 April 2005 07:50 PM            

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

The American Association of Physical Anthropologists have stated that the very idea of race is outdated and hence psuedo-science. Why do you refuse to give us **YOUR** definition of the term 'Negroid'? What are you afraid of? You refuse to give us **YOUR** definition of what entails a 'Negroid' because Sub-Saharan Africans are diverse, even on a micro geographical level. The term 'Negroid' wouldn't even capture the diversity of Nigeria, yet alone all of Sub-Saharan Africa. E3/PN2 demonstrates that genetically north, south, east and west Africans share in a common bloodline/gene pool that post-dates the OOA dispersal that produced Eurasians. Gloggers Rule demonstrates that mesolithic E3b **SPREADING** East Africans were Black. Now prove to us that the broad nosed, prognathic, E3b **RECIEVING** neolithic Greeks were really white!

---

posted 27 April 2005 08:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Knowing Evil, he'll probably be using those Angel prison-like photos.

---

ROTFL!

It's interesting though, Larry Angel studied skeletal remains in Southern Europe and concluded that the Neolithic was imported into Europe via peoples with - Negroid traits..probably FROM NUBIA via the predessors of the Badarians - Larry Angel

We now know that 23% of Greek Paternal chromosome does indeed originate in tropical Africa, south of Nubia, and was introduced into Europe PRECISELY at this time.

This is why Erroneous & co. are frantically trying to fabricate caucazoids in ancient Africa. [to the point of trying to foist fake maps on the internet.]

But Howells simply cannot help him, not only because Howells is not an advocate of Erroneous far fetched claims, but also because Howells flawed database-program does not include Nilotic types, and so simply cannot assess the Nilotic affinities of early East African remains which have been repeatedly verified by several scholars, including Dr. Zakrzewski.

posted 27 April 2005 10:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:

You still haven't explained how Tutsis have the same looks as east Africans without mixture from the Middle East and why Lemba and Cameroonians who have mixture look like typical people in their regions.

---

Thought Writes:

Good point. In addition, he has not explained how the Oromo "became" Black. Kivisild et al. 2004 report that less than 12% of the Oromo mtDNA are of a Central or West African origin. Sanchez et al. 2005 0% E3a Y Chromosome in their sample of Oromo. The evidence is that the Oromo are indigenous to east Africa and that they have insubstantial Central and West African derived genetic lineages. Hence the fact that modern East Africans, who are clearly Black cannot be attributed to 'Negroid' diffusion. These Black modern east Africans essentially look like the mesolithic East Africans that carried E3b to Eurasia.

J.L. Angel -

"...one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters and in Anatolian and Macedonian firts farmers, probably from Nubia..."

posted 27 April 2005 10:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Good point. In addition, he has not explained how the Oromo "became" Black. Kivisild et al. 2004 report that less than 12% of the Oromo mtDNA are of a Central or West African origin. Sanchez et al. 2005 0% E3a Y Chromosome in their sample of Oromo. The evidence is that the Oromo are indigenous to east Africa and that they have insubstantial Central and West African derived genetic lineages. Hence the fact that modern East Africans, who are clearly Black cannot be attributed to 'Negroid' diffusion. These Black modern east Africans essentially look like the mesolithic East Africans that carried E3b to Eurasia.

J.L. Angel -

"...one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters and in Anatolian and Macedonian firts farmers, probably from Nubia..."]

---

posted 27 April 2005 10:46 PM            

quote:

---

[B] Thought Writes:

Good point. In addition, he has not explained how the Oromo "became" Black. Kivisild et al. 2004 report that less than 12% of the Oromo mtDNA are of a Central or West African origin. Sanchez et al. 2005 0% E3a Y Chromosome in their sample of Oromo. The evidence is that the Oromo are indigenous to east Africa and that they have insubstantial Central and West African derived genetic lineages. Hence the fact that modern East Africans, who are clearly Black cannot be attributed to 'Negroid' diffusion. These Black modern east Africans essentially look like the mesolithic East Africans that carried E3b to Eurasia.

J.L. Angel -

"...one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters and in Anatolian and Macedonian firts farmers, probably from Nubia..."

---

posted 27 April 2005 11:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
One thing that has to be understood about Evil's mentality is that, he thinks 'caucasoid', whatever that means to him (since he has been unable to define it for months now), is 'indigenous' to Africa.

---

He has no choice but to make that claim, though he denies having made it when confronted with facts: Early claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa [like Coon's Arabian Tutsi ] have been shown to be wrong. - JO Vogel

And you are correct about the tactic of using outdated and ill defined terminology:

Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking. The older the idea, the more attractive it is to pseudoscience -- especially if the idea is transparently wrong and has long been discarded by science. [ie - caucazoids of ancient East Africa]

for this reason.....
Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack
precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all

Erroneous pleads that he need not define, because they are not 'his' terms. How absurd. Science has progressed and so discarded erroneous 19th century race constructs. It is EE who insists upon them.

Therefore the burden of proof is squarely on his shoulders. This is especially so in regards to his truly bizarre uses of his pet terms. As it stands he bases his argument on terms others reject and he cannot even define. His argument is incoherent.

posted 27 April 2005 11:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Sweden and Greece are at different latitudes and have vastly different UV levels. Hence, Northern and Southern Europeans are in different pigmentation zones based on climatic adaptation.

---

Thought Writes:

Your partially correct, however it took time for Europeans to lose their tropical adaptations. The ancestors of the Greeks have not been in Europe long enough to totally lose all of their original Middle Eastern and East African physical features. Haplogroup J and E (~43% of the Greek Y-Chromosome gene pool) did not arrive in southern Europe until after 9,000 years ago. The **REAL** Europeans, defined by R1a, R1b and haplogroup I were in Europe for almost 30,000 years before the ancestors of the Greeks arrived from Africa. The **REAL** Europeans have features such as blue eyes and blonde hair as found among populations such as the Swedes, Croatians, Bosnians, Slovenians, Sardinians, Danes, Dutch, Germans, Normans, etc. All of these groups carry high frequencies of the pre-LGM haplogroup I in frequencies greater than 35%. Greeks carry this defining European haplogroup at ~13%. Lebanese, Jews, Turks etc. also carry this European lineage in low frequencies like the Greeks.

posted 28 April 2005 12:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.

***The older the idea, the more attractive it is to pseudoscience -- especially if the idea is transparently wrong and has long been discarded by science.

Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack
precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all

---

posted 28 April 2005 12:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

The **REAL** Europeans have features such as blue eyes and blonde hair as found among populations such as the Swedes, Croatians, Bosnians, Slovenians, Sardinians, Danes, Dutch, Germans, Normans, etc. All of these groups carry high frequencies of the pre-LGM haplogroup I in frequencies greater than 35%. Greeks carry this defining European haplogroup at ~13%. Lebanese, Jews, Turks etc. also carry this European lineage in low frequencies like the Greeks.

---

Thought Posts:

Semino et al 2002

Genetic Profiles

German

E3b 6.2%, I 37.5%, J 0%, R1b 50%

Polish

E3b 3.6%, I 23.6%, J 0%, R1b 16.4%, R1a 56.4%

Greek

E3b 22.4%, I 7.9%, J 21%, R1b 27%, R1a 11%

Lebanese

E3b 25.8%, I 3.2%, J 29%, R1b 6.4%, R1a 10%

Thought Writes:

Notice how distant the Greeks are from **REAL** Europeans and how similar they are to the Lebanese! The only thing that sets the Greeks apart from the Lebanese is slightly higher frequency of R1b. This may be the reason the Greeks were allowed in the European Union of "whiteness" or conversly the may have been allowed into "whitedom" to give Europe a "civilization" of its own.

posted 28 April 2005 12:32 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

Semino et al 2002

Genetic Profiles

German

E3b 6.2%, I 37.5%, J 0%, R1b 50%

Polish

E3b 3.6%, I 23.6%, J 0%, R1b 16.4%, R1a 56.4%

Greek

E3b 22.4%, I 7.9%, J 21%, R1b 27%, R1a 11%

Lebanese

E3b 25.8%, I 3.2%, J 29%, R1b 6.4%, R1a 10%

Thought Writes:

Notice how distant the Greeks are from **REAL** Europeans and how similar they are to the Lebanese! The only thing that sets the Greeks apart from the Lebanese is slightly higher frequency of R1b. This may be the reason the Greeks were allowed in the European Union of "whiteness" or conversly the may have been allowed into "whitedom" to give Europe a "civilization" of its own.

---

The highlighted point seems more like it, or should I say, given more weight!

posted 28 April 2005 04:02 AM            

The human cranium recovered at Florisbad in 1932 is compared with other Sub-Saharan African hominid remains from Broken Hill, the Omo and Klasies River Mouth. The Florisbad frontal is very broad, but despite this breadth and differences in zygomatic form, there is a definite resemblance to archaic Homo sapiens from Broken Hill. There is also some similarity to both Omo I and Omo II, while fragmentary remains from Klasies River are more lightly built and hence more modern in appearance. These impressions are strengthened by measurement and statistical analysis, which demonstrates that Florisbad and Broken Hill are distant from recent African populations. Even if Florisbad is less archaic than the earlier (Middle Pleistocene?) hominid, it is not noticeably Bushman-like. New dates suggestive of early Upper Pleistocene antiquity also place Florisbad securely in a lineage containing Broken Hill, and there is no evidence to support special ties with any one group of living Africans.

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1978 May;48(4):475-66.
Florisbad and human population succession in Southern Africa.
Rightmire GP.

So using Evil E's and Dieneke's logic we can say these early homo-sapiens populations of South Africa were 'non-African' because they show no special ties with any group of modern living Africans. This is the same logic both Rvil E and Dienekes is using.

posted 28 April 2005 07:32 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
You still haven't explained how Tutsis have the same looks as east Africans without mixture from the Middle East and why Lemba and Cameroonians who have mixture look like typical people in their regions.

---

Yes I have, monkey. Only the priestly Lemba clan is more than negligibly Caucasoid, and the Tutsi look fully Negroid:

posted 28 April 2005 07:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Having no answers...

---

...rasol continues with the straw men, refuted claims and other irrelevancies.

posted 28 April 2005 07:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Why do you refuse to give us **YOUR** definition of the term 'Negroid'?

---

My definition is the anthropological definition. Unlike you, I don't invent terms and their meanings.

quote:

---

The **REAL** Europeans have features such as blue eyes and blonde hair as found among populations such as the Swedes, Croatians, Bosnians, Slovenians, Sardinians, Danes, Dutch, Germans, Normans, etc.

---

Um, Sardinians do not exhibit a great deal of blondism -- they're mostly brunet. And Balkan peoples have significant Neolithic ancestry. You're a f*cking moron who gets more clueless every day.

quote:

---

The ancestors of the Greeks have not been in Europe long enough to totally lose all of their original Middle Eastern and East African physical features. [...] The **REAL** Europeans, defined by R1a, R1b and haplogroup I were in Europe for almost 30,000 years before the ancestors of the Greeks arrived from Africa.

---

Stupid Negro, you don't know what you're talking about. Northern Europe is in pigmentation Zone 3, where low levels of sunlight produce lighter phenotypes. Southern Europe is in Zone 2, where greater sunlight produces darker phenotypes. It has nothing to do with Paleolithic vs. Neolithic ancestry. Case in point:

SW Europeans are much more Paleolithic than SE Europeans...

Yet both groups are phenotypically identical due to adaptation...

Spanish Parliamentarians

posted 28 April 2005 07:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Knowing Evil, he'll probably be using those Angel prison-like photos.

---

Which none of you dumb apes have any answers for.