quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: As i suspected, that isn't a Negroid skull. Its a from Nubian Mesolithic burial.
If it isn't a Negroid skull, why does it resemble your Negroid skull so much? LMAO. You're only digging yourself in deeper. The angle of the mandible is identical, the alvaeolar prognathism is similar, the calvarium is similar, with the only major difference being in the nasal profile and what seems to be brow ridge development in the Mesolithic cranium.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ They are Melanoids, that is to say of African-Australoid affinity in morphological type.
"The Nubians have certain other features: a tendency towards thick lips, and a shape of skull which betrays a non-Caucasoid infiltration. Despite this, however, the Nubians should not be classified as Negroids, but rather as a balanced racial breed subsisting between the two great racial blocks of Caucasoids and Negroids, the foundation of whose stock is probably some form of Melanoid (non-Negroid and probably Australoid) crossed with Caucasoid". http://www.unz.org/Pub/MankindQuarterly-1965jan-00161
Australoids appear closest in nonmetrics and surface traits (hair texture and body hair) to Caucasoids, but closest to Negroids in metrics.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: They are Melanoids, that is to say of African-Australoid affinity in morphological type.
You're such a tool, its mind boggling. A few weeks ago you said they were Capoid (LMAO). Either way, the Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Halfa show affinity with central Africans (as evinced by the central African skull you posted yourself), as well as with prehistoric central Africans, as evinced by the closeness of Mesolithic and pre-Mesolithic Nubians to the Ancient Ishango remains in Pinhasi and Greene & Armelagos' (1970) analysis.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The earliest UP crania from North Africa in craniometric and nonmetric analyses cluster as Capoid (Khoisanid). This is further verified by Algerian rock art which depicts Bushmen with the horizontal penis. These Khoisanids were replaced and pushed south by Caucasoids around 15,000 BC. Australoids also penetrated North Africa during this time. See Smith & Jones' "The Archological Survey of Nubia: Report For 1907-1908" which describes numerous Australoid crania.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ The earliest UP crania from North Africa in craniometric and nonmetric analyses cluster as Capoid (Khoisanid). This is further verified by Algerian rock art which depicts Bushmen with the horizontal penis. These Khoisanids were replaced and pushed south by Caucasoids around 15,000 BC. Australoids also penetrated North Africa during this time. See Smith & Jones' "The Archological Survey of Nubia: Report For 1907-1908" which describes numerous Australoid crania.
?LOL
quote:
During the period between about 110,000 and 11,000 14C y.a., there was a great deal of variability in climate across the North African region, though conditions were generally drier and cooler than at present.
Timing of major Heinrich events during the last 130,000 years (ages in calender years after Bond et al., 1997 for H0- H3; after Bond et al., 1993 for H4- H6)
quote: ..."it is important to bear in mind that over the centuries the Maghreb has been a melting-pot of many other ethnic groups and cultures"
By Jamil M. Abun-Nasr
Cambridge University Press, 1987 - page 5.
quote:
"The Berber tribes were far removed from each other and this was one reason why Morocco was often invaded".....
quote:suggest these possibilities as factors in their consideration of the asymmetric assimilation of females of non-African origin into Berber-speaking populations whose males currently have a predominance of lineages defined by the African M35/81 biallelic marker
"Frigi et al.(2010)
quote: It is interesting that these “non-African”mtDNA lineages are usually predominant while being diverse
"We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations."
Coudray et al. 2009; Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. 2004; Khodjet-el-Khil et al. (2008).
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Berbers have deep genetic African paternal roots.
Berber stems from the Afrasan phylum. Following:
Libyco-Chadic, than Berber-Chadic. From a linguistic perceptive it's deep-rooted in Africa as well. Afrasan/ Afroasiatic has it's roots in East Africa, which is closely associated with Hg marker B-M60.
quote: The ruins were discovered deep in the desert of Western Sahara
The remains of a prehistoric town dating back 15,000 years have been discovered in the Moroccan-administered territory of Western Sahara.
The Moroccan state media on Thursday said a team of scientists stumbled across the sand-covered ruins of the town Arghilas, deep in the desert of Western Sahara.
The remains of a place of worship, houses and a necropolis, as well as columns and rock engravings depicting animals, were found at the site near the northeastern town of Aousserd.
Significant find
The isolated area is known to be rich in prehistoric rock engravings, but experts said the discovery could be significant if proven that the ruins were of Berber origin as this civilisation is believed to date back only about 9000 years.
"It appears that scientists have come up with the 15,000-year estimate judging by the style of engravings and the theme of the drawings," Mustafa Ouachi, a Rabat-based Berber historian said.
Berbers are the original inhabitants of North Africa before Arabs came to spread Islam in the seventh century.
The population of Western Sahara, seized by Morocco in 1975 when former colonial power Spain pulled out, is mostly of Berber and Arab descent.
posted
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2011 Sep;146(1):49-61. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21542.
Biogeochemical inferences of mobility of early Holocene fisher-foragers from the Southern Sahara Desert.
Stojanowski CM, Knudson KJ.
Source
Center for Bioarchaeological Research, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA. christopher.stojanowski@asu.edu
Abstract
quote:North Africa is increasingly seen as an important context for understanding modern human evolution and reconstructing biocultural adaptations. The Sahara, in particular, witnessed a fluorescence of hunter-gatherer settlement at the onset of the Holocene after an extended occupational hiatus. Subsequent subsistence changes through the Holocene are contrary to those documented in other areas where mobile foraging gave way to settled agricultural village life. In North Africa, extractive fishing and hunting was supplanted by cattle and caprine pastoralism under deteriorating climatic conditions. Therefore, the initial stage of food production in North Africa witnessed a likely increase in mobility. However, there are few studies of paleomobility in Early Holocene hunter-gatherer Saharan populations and the degree of mobility is generally assumed. Here, we present radiogenic strontium isotope ratios from Early Holocene fisher-forager peoples from the site of Gobero, central Niger, southern Sahara Desert. Data indicate a relatively homogeneous radiogenic strontium isotope signature for this hunter-gather population with limited variability exhibited throughout the life course or among different individuals. Although the overall signature was local, some variation in the radiogenic strontium isotope data likely reflects transhumance into the nearby Aïr Massif. Data from Gobero were significantly less variable than in other worldwide hunter-gatherer populations, including those thought to be fairly sedentary. Strontium data from Gobero were also significantly different from contemporaneous sites in southwestern Libya. These patterns are discussed with respect to archaeological models of community organization and technological evolution.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ The earliest UP crania from North Africa in craniometric and nonmetric analyses cluster as Capoid (Khoisanid).
What metric and nonmetric studies show that UP North African remains have Khoisan affinity??
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: This is further verified by Algerian rock art which depicts Bushmen with the horizontal penis.
You're not making any sense. How can you identify a specific ethnic group from rock art? Ancient Egyptians deities like Min were also depicted with horizontal penises during Dynastic times. So what?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: These Khoisanids were replaced and pushed south by Caucasoids around 15,000 BC
And these Caucasoid are reflected in what Late Palaeolithic North African remains?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Australoids also penetrated North Africa during this time. See Smith & Jones' "The Archological Survey of Nubia: Report For 1907-1908" which describes numerous Australoid crania.
The authors of the report you mention and other contemporary authors talk about types and races in Egypto-Nubian burials that have never been detected ever since. Science is supposed to be reproducible. What statistical analysis shows Australoid crania in Northern Africa?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The earliest Caucasoid North African crania belong to the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic Capsians which are proto-Mediterranean according to Chamla (1980, 1986). They have thin noses, and orthognathic jaws.
The earlier Upper Palaeolithic Afalou/Mouillians (Mechtoids) in sharp contrast have very wide noses, heavy browridges and are robust. They aren't Caucasoid, but are of the Australoid type.
Negroids don't appear until very late.
The Capoids were the earliest substratum in the region, their archiac ancestors are found in the Ternefine fossils (Atlanthropus) according to Coon (1962) running through to the specimens from Casablanca, Temara, Rabat to Tangier Child. They were pushed south by Caucasoids.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:The earliest Caucasoid North African crania belong to the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic Capsians which are proto-Mediterranean according to Chamla (1980, 1986).
Earlier, you said Caucasoids pushed the Bushmen to the South by 15.000bc. Now you're admitting that in your view, the earliest Caucasoids in the area are no older than 10.000bc. LMAO.
quote:The earlier Upper Palaeolithic Afalou/Mouillians (Mechtoids) in sharp contrast have very wide noses, heavy browridges and are robust. They aren't Caucasoid, but are of the Australoid type.
LMAO. Another skeletal sequence that presents problems to your skeletal clusters = racial affinity confusion. All Upper Palaeolithic skeletal series across the globe conform to what you're describing above (with the occasional exception of wide noses), including European AMHs. You're just too dumb to understand that the sharing of these and other metric relationships with Australians indicates a cosmetic relationship, rather than genetic relationships.
quote:Negroids don't appear until very late.
Bollocks. Sub Saharan Africans carry Palaeolithic lineages that are two to three times as old as European Paleolithic lineages. Sub Saharan ancestry has time depths that make European lineages look like stubs.
quote:The Capoids were the earliest substratum in the region, their archiac ancestors are found in the Ternefine fossils (Atlanthropus) according to Coon (1962) running through to the specimens from Casablanca, Temara, Rabat to Tangier Child.
Then explain why Pinhasi found a clear dichotomy between Bantu speakers, LSA Africans, MSA Africans, Khoisan and Nazlet Khater on the one hand, and Saharan and coastal North African populations on the other hand:
posted
Body proportions of the Jebel Sahaba sample.
TRENTON W. HOLLIDAY1.
1 Department of Anthropology, Tulane University.
quote: The Epipaleolithic site of Jebel Sahaba (Sudan) was discovered in 1962, ca. 1 km from the east bank of the Nile, and ca. 3 km north of Wadi Halfa (the site is now submerged beneath Lake Nasser/Nubia). From 1962-1966, a total of 58 intentionally-buried skeletons were uncovered at the site. Diagnostic microliths suggestive of the Qadan industry as well as the site’s geology suggest an age of 14 – 12 ka for these burials. In this study, the body proportions of the Jebel Sahaba hominins are compared to those of a large (N = ca. 1100) sample of recent human skeletons from Europe, Africa, and the north circumpolar region, as well as to terminal Pleistocene “Iberomaurusian” skeletons from the northwestern African sites of Afalou (Algeria) and Taforalt (Morocco), and Natufian skeletons from the southern Levantine sites of El Wad and Kebara. Univariate analyses distinguish Jebel Sahaba from European and circumpolar samples, but do not tend to segregate them from North or Sub-Saharan African samples. In contrast, multivariate analyses (PCA, PCO with minimum spanning tree, NJ and UPGMA cluster analyses) indicate that the body shape of the Jebel Sahaba hominins is closest to that of recent Sub-Saharan Africans, and different from that of either the Natufians or the northwest African “Iberomaurusian” samples. Importantly, these results corroborate those of Irish (2000), who, using non-metric dental and osseous oral traits, found that Jebel Sahaba was most similar to recent Sub-Saharan Africans, and morphologically distinct from their contemporaries in other parts of North Africa. This study was funded in part by NSF (grant number SBR-9321339).
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Earlier, you said Caucasoids pushed the Bushmen to the South by 15.000bc. Now you're admitting that in your view, the earliest Caucasoids in the area are no older than 10.000bc. LMAO.
You can't read, and secondly nothing I post is "my view" but from prominent anthropologists. The timeline of Africa in regards to its racial occupation, I am just lifting from Coon - who has never been falsified. The earliest Caucasoid crania dates to 10,000 BC, but they wandered in a few thousand years before as shown by blade tools. "The third discrete racial element in Africa is the Caucasoid, which, as indicated earlier, first entered the continent in massive invasions about 15,000 years ago" (Coon, 1965) and "The oldest evidence of its presence [Caucasoids] is the blade tools discovered in Upper Egypt... but so far we have no skeletons of the men who made them" (Ibid). We know these were Caucasoids, because the tool industry (such as microliths) is West Eurasian. We just haven't unearthed any skull contemporaries (yet). The situation hasn't much changed since Coon was writing.
Also those Caucasoid Caspians and their afiliated earlier microlith importers from the near east, brought to North Africa Afro-Asiatic, such as the Berber tongue. This hypothesis has widespread academic support (see for example Rahmani, 2004). Few scholars a part from fringe Afrocentrics argue Berber originated in Africa.
quote: All Upper Palaeolithic skeletal series across the globe conform to what you're describing above (with the occasional exception of wide noses), including European AMHs. You're just too dumb to understand that the sharing of these and other metric relationships with Australians indicates a cosmetic relationship, rather than genetic relationships.
No they don't. Caucasoid crania have thin noses as early as Swanscombe. The Mongoloid series show shovel shaped incisors and facial flatness from Sinanthropus. There are regional differences in morphological traits in pre-Sapien crania.
You are an idiot who wants to claim your ancestors looked completely different to yourself but you still claim they were "black". In fact if you are claiming we all evolved off a single generalized stock, then that debunks your "we are all black african" nonsense. Now you are admitting the ancestral form was non-negroid, in the sense it had large brow ridges, nasal depressions etc. Your views are contradictory, as you still claim they were "Black" (despite looking nothing like you)...
You also will be arguing your own nappy hair is a recent mutation. In other words you actually are asserting the ancestral form you evolved from looked far more Caucasoid than Negroid.
quote:Bollocks. Sub Saharan Africans carry Palaeolithic lineages that are two to three times as old as European Paleolithic lineages. Sub Saharan ancestry has time depths that make European lineages look like stubs.
I already refuted this.
quote:The Capoids were the earliest substratum in the region, their archiac ancestors are found in the Ternefine fossils (Atlanthropus) according to Coon (1962) running through to the specimens from Casablanca, Temara, Rabat to Tangier Child.
Then explain why Pinhasi found a clear dichotomy between Bantu speakers, LSA Africans, MSA Africans, Khoisan and Nazlet Khater on the one hand, and Saharan and coastal North African populations on the other hand:
[/QB][/QUOTE]
He only used five mandible dimensions. Facial flatness seperates Capoids from the rest.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yet you claimed the Mesolithic Nubians to be "Capoids" even though their full facial prognathisms are greater than those of 'Capoids' and akin to that of 'Negroids'! By the way, you still fail to prove how exactly these two aforementioned groups are different 'races' even though they share more anatomical similarities than differences and especially genetic lineages, yet you claim Nordics and Mediterranean Europeans as two different subgroups of the same 'Caucasoid' race!
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: They [Mesolithic Nubians] are Melanoids, that is to say of African-Australoid affinity in morphological type.
ROTFLMAO
"Melanoids"?! Now of I've heard everything! LOL Did you make that up on your own or got that term from some crackpot expert??
quote:"The Nubians have certain other features: a tendency towards thick lips, and a shape of skull which betrays a non-Caucasoid infiltration. Despite this, however, the Nubians should not be classified as Negroids, but rather as a balanced racial breed subsisting between the two great racial blocks of Caucasoids and Negroids, the foundation of whose stock is probably some form of Melanoid (non-Negroid and probably Australoid) crossed with Caucasoid". http://www.unz.org/Pub/MankindQuarterly-1965jan-00161
I see it's the latter-- you got it from a crackpot 'expert'. I also see that this expert's work dates from 1965. No surprise there! LOL Of course you will find no up-to-date studies from anthropologists claiming the existence of any racial group let alone "melanoids".
Also, are you aware that 'melano' is the Greek word for BLACK the same way 'negro' is the Latin word for BLACK. It makes me wonder what the hell definition that old author gives for 'true' negroes as opposed to all those 'fake' negroids who still have black skin and live in Africa! LOL
quote:Australoids appear closest in nonmetrics and surface traits (hair texture and body hair) to Caucasoids, but closest to Negroids in metrics.
Whatever, but we aren't dealing with indigenous Australians but indigenous AFRICANS! You are a pathetic and pitiful, desperate, and dishonest punk if you think you can get away with denying how Mesolithic Nubians looked like and to whom they have most affinities with!
WM Krogman (The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine)
RA Drummond ("A determination of cephalometric norms for the Negro race"); TL Alexander and HP Hitchcock ("Cephalometric standards for American Negro children"); RJ Fonseca, WD Klein ("A cephalometric evaluation of American Negro women"); CJ Kowalski, CE Nasjlet, GF Walker (Differential diagnosis of adult make black and white populations); A Jacobson ("The craniofacial skeletal pattern of the South African Negro")
Persons of African descent are distinguished by steep mandibular plane; sharp, vertical chin; protrusion of the incisors; prognathism; greater lower facial height but with less mid-facial height; upper mouth is more projecting than lower mouth (higher ANB angle).
Y'edyank and Iscan ("Craniofacial Growth and Evolution")
Mesolithic Nubians had low, sloping foreheads and robust features evolving into a globular cranium with high vault. The prominence of the orbital region was reduced by the Christian era and the occipital bun much less prominent. Flattening of the lambdoid and sagittal regions also became less pronounced. (Forensic analysis of the skull : craniofacial analysis, reconstruction, and identification. [editors Mehmet Yasar Iscan and Richard P. Helmer]. (New York, N.Y.: Wiley-Liss, 1993)
The male cranium above is from Wadi al-Halfa on the Sudan-Egypt border. Dating from the Mesolithic-Holocene period, it is typical of crania in Sudan and surrounding regions from that time frame. More recent Nubian crania from the Christian period have more rounded skulls without the sloping frontal bone. However, the vertical zygomatic arch, prominent glabella, sagittal plateau, and occipital bun (less pronounced) are retained. The cranium above has pronounced facial prognathism, but moderate dental protrusion. The chin is vertical with a angular mandible and very squat ramus. (Image from David Lee Greene and George Armelagos. The Wadi Halfa mesolithic population. (Amherst: University of Massachusetts, 1972)
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yet you claimed the Mesolithic Nubians to be "Capoids"
There were some Capoids around, but they weren't the bulk population at this time, they were pushed south. There was clearly though some survivals as shown with the predynastic egyptian figurines with steatopygia.
quote:By the way, you still fail to prove how exactly these two aforementioned groups are different 'races'
(a) They evolved in a seperate territory to Negroids. (b) They don't look like Negroids.
- And that's all races are: geographical populations. I'm not sure why you are denying they exist, as they are empirical. If a geographical population x is seperate from population y, then they are a race.
Those that claim races don't exist do nothing but set up straw man definitions or red herrings (just look through Badumtish's posts to see this), Swenet does the same.
quote: yet you claim Nordics and Mediterranean Europeans as two different subgroups of the same 'Caucasoid' race!
Yea. Smaller groups have diverged from larger races. This is basic biology. At the subracial level the physical differences are mostly only superficial, as they have arisen in a more recent timeframe. Meds and Nords are morphologically near identical - all that seperates them is hair, eye and skin colour. Nordids branched off from an ancestral Medish type through depigmentation in the last 10k years.
Obviously there is another empirical reality that verifies this - race crossing. An Italian and Swede comes out not looking mixed (the child could pass as either) but an Italian and a Negro cross looks entirely hybrid and can't pass for either.
quote:I see it's the latter-- you got it from a crackpot 'expert'. I also see that this expert's work dates from 1965. No surprise there! LOL Of course you will find no up-to-date studies from anthropologists claiming the existence of any racial group let alone "melanoids".
Most scientists believe in the reality of race. You are talking about a fraction of politically correct Americans who don't. "race denialism" among anthropologists in places like China is unheard of. I've also posted modern studies which back up the older ones plenty of times.
quote:Also, are you aware that 'melano' is the Greek word for BLACK the same way 'negro' is the Latin word for BLACK. It makes me wonder what the hell definition that old author gives for 'true' negroes as opposed to all those 'fake' negroids who still have black skin and live in Africa! LOL
Scientific nomenclature is not literal. They have named bird species after the explorers who found them. Mongoloids are not all from Mongolia. Not all Neanderthals were found in Neander Valley etc... what it comes down to again is that you are simply uneducated.
quote:Whatever, but we aren't dealing with indigenous Australians but indigenous AFRICANS! You are a pathetic and pitiful, desperate, and dishonest punk if you think you can get away with denying how Mesolithic Nubians looked like and to whom they have most affinities with!
WM Krogman (The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine)
RA Drummond ("A determination of cephalometric norms for the Negro race"); TL Alexander and HP Hitchcock ("Cephalometric standards for American Negro children"); RJ Fonseca, WD Klein ("A cephalometric evaluation of American Negro women"); CJ Kowalski, CE Nasjlet, GF Walker (Differential diagnosis of adult make black and white populations); A Jacobson ("The craniofacial skeletal pattern of the South African Negro")
Persons of African descent are distinguished by steep mandibular plane; sharp, vertical chin; protrusion of the incisors; prognathism; greater lower facial height but with less mid-facial height; upper mouth is more projecting than lower mouth (higher ANB angle).
Y'edyank and Iscan ("Craniofacial Growth and Evolution")
Mesolithic Nubians had low, sloping foreheads and robust features evolving into a globular cranium with high vault. The prominence of the orbital region was reduced by the Christian era and the occipital bun much less prominent. Flattening of the lambdoid and sagittal regions also became less pronounced. (Forensic analysis of the skull : craniofacial analysis, reconstruction, and identification. [editors Mehmet Yasar Iscan and Richard P. Helmer]. (New York, N.Y.: Wiley-Liss, 1993)
The male cranium above is from Wadi al-Halfa on the Sudan-Egypt border. Dating from the Mesolithic-Holocene period, it is typical of crania in Sudan and surrounding regions from that time frame. More recent Nubian crania from the Christian period have more rounded skulls without the sloping frontal bone. However, the vertical zygomatic arch, prominent glabella, sagittal plateau, and occipital bun (less pronounced) are retained. The cranium above has pronounced facial prognathism, but moderate dental protrusion. The chin is vertical with a angular mandible and very squat ramus. (Image from David Lee Greene and George Armelagos. The Wadi Halfa mesolithic population. (Amherst: University of Massachusetts, 1972)
As Swenet has stated, it's GAME OVER for your debunked lying ass! [/qb]
They have those traits, but its the traits they don't have that seperates them. Races are not defined by singular features alone.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
The Epipaleolithic site of Jebel Sahaba (Sudan) was discovered in 1962, ca. 1 km from the east bank of the Nile, and ca. 3 km north of Wadi Halfa (the site is now submerged beneath Lake Nasser/Nubia). From 1962-1966, a total of 58 intentionally-buried skeletons were uncovered at the site. Diagnostic microliths suggestive of the Qadan industry as well as the site’s geology suggest an age of 14 – 12 ka for these burials. In this study, the body proportions of the Jebel Sahaba hominins are compared to those of a large (N = ca. 1100) sample of recent human skeletons from Europe, Africa, and the north circumpolar region, as well as to terminal Pleistocene “Iberomaurusian” skeletons from the northwestern African sites of Afalou (Algeria) and Taforalt (Morocco), and Natufian skeletons from the southern Levantine sites of El Wad and Kebara. Univariate analyses distinguish Jebel Sahaba from European and circumpolar samples, but do not tend to segregate them from North or Sub-Saharan African samples. In contrast, multivariate analyses (PCA, PCO with minimum spanning tree, NJ and UPGMA cluster analyses) indicate that the body shape of the Jebel Sahaba hominins is closest to that of recent Sub-Saharan Africans, and different from that of either the Natufians or the northwest African “Iberomaurusian” samples. Importantly, these results corroborate those of Irish (2000), who, using non-metric dental and osseous oral traits, found that Jebel Sahaba was most similar to recent Sub-Saharan Africans, and morphologically distinct from their contemporaries in other parts of North Africa. This study was funded in part by NSF (grant number SBR-9321339).
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: That is one of the reasons why I decided to ignore the village idiot. After that brief discussion on People of Lerna it is clear he doesn’t know what he is talking about. To suggest that Cro-magnon man morphed into Caucasoids then these Caucasoids entered Africa through Iberia, populated North Africa and East Africa, then formed ancient North/East African civilizations then re-entered Europe creating Crete(Greece) and Estrucia(Rome) is not only laughable but downright twisted. Delusional.
The Language, Culture, Morphology and Archeology tells the opposite. Now modern genetics has aligned with the said Language, Culture etc.
This table tells the story.
V-88 (Rib1b1c) is not only African, it is much older than R1b1b2a(European lineage). So when you read these studies about R1b lineage the first question you have to ask yourself as an intelligent reader is “what is the resolution and what branch of R1b tree is the test subject”? Because it is only through high resolution one can tell the African R1b and the European R1b. Euronuts purposely cite R1b, the tree, to confuse the reader into thinking it is European. They purposely refuse to cite the branch. It is all trickery and lies. Some of us are now catching and exposing them.
When they are cornered they then try to wiggle their way out of it and talk about Eurasian back migration yet there is no evidence of such ancient migration activity. Why??? The North African have a higher frequency of African R1b(V-88) than European R1b(R1b1b2a2). Using THEIR hypothesis of age combined with frequency, It looks like there was an ancient population of R1b*that existed in maybe the Sahel region (Cameroon/Mali). These people migrated out from there. Some lineage died out. Even the modern Egyptians carry more R1b (African) than R1b (European). See table. I am not making this shyte up!!
So, no, Cro-Magnon did not enter North Africa. Try it the other way around; the older lineage entered Southern Europe from North Africa. This is why eye ball anthropology is unreasonable and bizarre, and should be ignored. Eye-ball anthropology is for those with limited reading comprehension. Some North African groups did not get their ‘features’ due to admixture from Europeans but most likely the other way around. Europeans are decedents of North Africans and maybe East Africans. WAIT!!! LOL! That was published already(Sergi, Smith, Angel, Evans etc)!!!
That is why genetics is now changing the way we view evolution and migration of humans out of Africa.
No! Caucasoids did not enter Africa, but the other way around, Caucasoids entered Europe from Africa!!!!!!!!!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why argue with meth-heads. HA! Ha! Same old argument. Steal African history by calling Berbers Caucasoids. Although they absolutely no European lineage. Berbers are 95% African macro-haplogroup E* . The few hg-R is the African V88.
The man has a comprehension problem. The is slow.
This is Casitty reloaded.
Let's not get into the linguistics etc YAWN!!!!!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Those that claim races don't exist do nothing but set up straw man definitions or red herrings (just look through Badumtish's posts to see this), Swenet does the same.
I've refuted your nonsense on multiple occasions. See Barbujani and Belle (2006).
Posts: 495 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the newbies. See the table, European lineage is primarily R-M269.
R-V88 is an indigenous African lineage. The only North African group that has a measureable amount of European forefathers(R-M269) are North Egyptians. But even they have more African R-V88.
Berbers and other indigenous North African Caucasoid(He! He! He!) carry either E1b1a or E1b1b. Both originating somewhere in the Sahara region of East Africa.
Bottomline: There is no evidence Europeans entered North Africa and populated the region.. . .except the Turks from the recent Ottoman Empire.
tsk! tsk! delusional, lying, bipolar white people.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Those that claim races don't exist do nothing but set up straw man definitions or red herrings (just look through Badumtish's posts to see this), Swenet does the same.
I've refuted your nonsense on multiple occasions. See Barbujani and Belle (2006).
That paper sets up another false definition of race. Who said races are defined by their genes, or secondly can't overlap? I've asked this for months - but no responce.
"Appeal to continuity as a disproof of race needs the added assumption that races must be discontinuous - an assumption [...] Nonetheless, the assumption is critical." (Levin, 2002)
You don't know what races are, yet set up fake definitions, false assumptions and then claim they don't exist. On Studentforums you also made it clear you didn't know who Coon, Garn or any of the other anthropologists on the subject I was quoting. In fact I would go as far as claiming you have never read a work on race.
Barbujani and Belle (2006) admits races exist even through their false definition:
"allelic differences can reach significance between virtually any pairs of populations or groups thereof, including populations separated by very few kilometers"
The papers you cite don't deny races exist, what they dispute is the systematic classification of Humans into clusters as they argue taxonomy can come out with conflicting numbers of races.
It would help if you actually read your own sources. The paper you referenced confirms the empirical fact that seperate groups/populations exist: "differences can reach significance between virtually any pairs of populations". What it disputes is any classification of these races (populations). Two different positions entirely.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: For the newbies. See the table, European lineage is primarily R-M269.
R-V88 is an indigenous African lineage. The only North African group that has a measureable amount of European forefathers(R-M269) are North Egyptians. But even they have more African R-V88.
Berbers and other indigenous North African Caucasoid(He! He! He!) carry either E1b1a or E1b1b. Both originating somewhere in the Sahara region of East Africa.
Bottomline: There is no evidence Europeans entered North Africa and populated the region.. . .except the Turks from the recent Ottoman Empire.
tsk! tsk! delusional, lying, bipolar white people.
Great. Now tell us what mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid has to do with race.
Someone carrying R1b could look Chinese (Mongoloid), or they could look like a Scandinavian (Caucasoid).
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Faheemdunkers believes that race is primarily divided into to main categories, Caucasian and Negroid and the rest are Hybrids (the other races) of the following primary traits:
Caucasian:
1) narrow nose width
2) any hair type that is not kinky afro type
______________________________________
Negroid
1) wide nose width
2) jaw prognosis
3) kinky hair afro hair
_____________________________________
^^^^ so in arguing with Faheemdunkers take for granted this is the main way he is defining race
basically he's defining race primarily as a 3 part package of nose/jaw/hair type.
So in his mind any person who has a mixture of above traits is merely a hybrid
We can define race any way we want to just like people can define "black" and "white" people as they wish and many people use these same terms to indicate races.
For example if I could say race means hair color. Therfore I could say the races are the blond race, the red haired race and the black haired race.
Once I have defined race this way somebody might say "there are no races" Then I ask them "do blond people exist and do black haired people exist and do they look different?"
The person says "yes"
Then I can say "that proves there are races"
-and there are if we are going by the definition I gave
so it's just semantics
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The above can be highly problematic in the African context, because Berbers can have tick curly/ kinky hair. A berber with bone strait hair is seldom.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Berbers are 95% African macro-haplogroup E*
So the largest group of Berbers, Kabyles and Mozabites are 95% Black?
Populations can increase or decrease, agreed?
Rif Tafarsit Ichebdanen Ibuqquyen Ait Wayagher Aith 'Ammarth Igzinnayen Themsaman Ait Tuzin Aith Sa'id Aith Wurishik Iqer3ayen. Ibdarsen Ait Bouyahyi Ait Tourish Iznassen Ayt Khaled Ayt Menquch Ayt Aâtiq Ayt Urimmech Chleuh Ait namann Ait Baha, Biougra, Bouzakern Tiznit Zimmur, Ait Ndhir, Ait Yusi, Ait Warayin, Iziyyan, Ait Imyill, Ait Mhand, Ait Massad, Ait Sukhman, Ihansalen, Ait Siddrat, Ait 'Atta, Ait Murghad, Ait Hadiddu, Ait Izdig, Ait 'Ayyash, Ait Saghrushshn Ihahan, Imtuggan, Iseksawen, Idemsiren, Igundafen, Igedmiwen, Imsfiwen, Iglawn, Ait Wawzgit, Id aw-Zaddagh, Ind aw-Zal, Id aw Zkri, Isaffen, Id aw-Kansus, Isuktan, Id aw-Tanan, Ashtuken, Malen, Id aw-Ltit, Ammeln, Ait 'Ali, Mjjat, l-Akhsas, Ait Ba 'Amran, Ait n-Nuss. Kabylie (Algeria) IFLISSEN OUM EL LIL MAATKA AÏT AÏSSI AÏT IRATEN AÏT MENGUELLAT AÏT BETHROUN AÏT SEDKA IGOUCHDAL IFLISSEN LEBHAR AÏT OUAGUENOUN AÏT DJENNAD AÏT IDJER Beni Ziyyat Beni Zejel Beni Selman Beni Bu Zra (ghomara tmazight speakers) Beni Mansur Beni Grir Beni Smih Beni Rzin Sinhaja die tmazight spreken en/of darija Aith seddat aith khannus zarqat ktama aith bshir taghzut beni bu shibt Sinhaja (darija speakers). Beni Gmil Terguist Mix Riffijns/Sinhaja aith mazdui Rif (darjia) Bni Bu Frah Mtiwa Aith Yittuft Bargwata Casa blanca/ rabat Tunisia Djerba Libya Nefousa Tuareg ( Sahara-general) Tamashek Tinariwen (Mali, Algiers en Mauritania) Siwa(Egypte) (Algiers) Chaouia (North East)(Aurès mountains), Chenoua (North central to the coast) Mozabites (North Sahara) (Tunisia) Matmata
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: For the newbies. See the table, European lineage is primarily R-M269.
R-V88 is an indigenous African lineage. The only North African group that has a measureable amount of European forefathers(R-M269) are North Egyptians. But even they have more African R-V88.
Berbers and other indigenous North African Caucasoid(He! He! He!) carry either E1b1a or E1b1b. Both originating somewhere in the Sahara region of East Africa.
Bottomline: There is no evidence Europeans entered North Africa and populated the region.. . .except the Turks from the recent Ottoman Empire.
tsk! tsk! delusional, lying, bipolar white people.
Great. Now tell us what mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid has to do with race.
Someone carrying R1b could look Chinese (Mongoloid), or they could look like a Scandinavian (Caucasoid).
In such case he would carry a sub-clade, hence the table story. Actually Saami people (Scandinavians) were considered Mongoloid, but are genetically not.
quote:For several hundred years, there was a belief that the Sámi and the Finns had a Mongoloid origin.
The Sámi, as well of the Finns, are a very heterogeneous group of people who display a wide range of physical features. While there are some that feature darker Mongoloid-like characteristics, there are others who display very light colored pigments in their skin and hair
So you have in Africa for example people with so called caucasoid traits, but genetically do not relate to people from the caucasus mountains. I posted a few in a post prior to this one.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do realize that indirectly you admit that Africans had these so called caucasoid traits before, europeans who are to youngest set of people. And you know what, I agree.
So indeed all this explains that race doesn't exist, LOL
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Both originating somewhere in the Sahara region of East Africa
So you admit (by your own strange deoxyribonucleic acid = race equation) that the original carriers were non-Negroid?
Negroids ("Blacks") are West African, not East.
You probably remember this one, or maybe not since you seem to lack understanding quite a bit and tend to forget often considering the fact you are repetitive...
Negroids appeared only recent.
Yet, the people above belong to the oldest set of Hg*.
Namely,
A3b2-M13 The subclade of haplogroup A3 that is commonly found in East Africa and northern Cameroon (A3b2-M13) is different from those found in the Khoisan samples and only remotely related to them (it is actually only one of many subclades within haplogroup A). This finding suggests an ancient divergence. In Sudan, haplogroup A3b2-M13 has been found in 28/53 = 52.8% of Southern Sudanese, 13/28 = 46.4% of the Nuba of central Sudan, 25/90 = 27.8% of Western Sudanese, 4/32 = 12.5% of local Hausa people, and 5/216 = 2.3% of Northern Sudanese.[24]
Y-DNA haplogroup A contains lineages deriving from the earliest branching in the human Y chromosome tree. The oldest branching event, separating A0-P305 and A1-V161, is thought to have occurred about 140,000 years ago. Haplogroups A0-P305, A1a-M31 and A1b1a-M14 are restricted to Africa and A1b1b-M32 is nearly restricted to Africa. The haplogroup that would be named A1b2 is composed of haplogroups B through T. The internal branching of haplogroup A1-V161 into A1a-M31, A1b1, and BT (A1b2) may have occurred about 110,000 years ago. A0-P305 is found at low frequency in Central and West Africa. A1a-M31 is observed in northwestern Africans; A1b1a-M14 is seen among click language-speaking Khoisan populations. A1b1b-M32 has a wide distribution including Khoisan speaking and East African populations, and scattered members on the Arabian Peninsula.
And in the latter they carry the second oldest Hg, B.
DNA haplogroup B, like Y-DNA haplogroup A, is seen only in Africa and is scattered widely, but thinly across the continent. B is thought to have arisen approximately 50,000 years ago. These haplogroups have higher frequencies among hunter-gather groups in Ethiopia and Sudan, and are also seen among click language-speaking populations. The patchy, widespread distribution of these haplogroups may mean that they are remnants of ancient lineages that once had a much wider range but have been largely displaced by more recent population events.
Ironicly, these people reside at a place where the oldest modern anatomical human remains have been found.
And here is a "dark skinned caucasoid",
Yet, all the people above genetically relate close to Berbers.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
So you have in Africa for example people with so called caucasoid traits, but genetically do not relate to people from the caucasus mountains. I posted a few in a post prior to this one.
According to Faheemdunkers a 100% pure African could have Caucasoid traits and be competely indigenous to Africa and have nothing whatsover to the Caucus mountains. It is simply a look and nothing more, forget the older definition of Caucasian.
Therefore he's calling a thin nose a Caucasian nose for no other reason that it is thin. When dealing with noses it's just another word for thin and is part of a 3 part package of traits that are Caucasian.
So Africans with a mixture of Caucasian and Negroid features could have existed before anybody even lived outside of Africa.
Traditionally people would apply the word "Caucasian" to mean traits that came from outside Africa probably in the caucasu mountains or nearby.
But the new Faheemdunkers definition of Caucasian is not restricted to that location even though the word itself is derived from that place.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Those that claim races don't exist do nothing but set up straw man definitions or red herrings (just look through Badumtish's posts to see this), Swenet does the same.
I've refuted your nonsense on multiple occasions. See Barbujani and Belle (2006).
That paper sets up another false definition of race. Who said races are defined by their genes, or secondly can't overlap? I've asked this for months - but no responce.p
The definition you're using is simply geographical (socially constructed delineations), not biological. If you want to prove these delineations are actually biological, you must make reference to biology.
How the **** can geography overlap? Land is a single, linear variable. Placing things into categories is an act of discrete separation. The fact you raised this point indicates you are indeed making reference to biology and not geography.
quote:"Appeal to continuity as a disproof of race needs the added assumption that races must be discontinuous - an assumption [...] Nonetheless, the assumption is critical." (Levin, 2002)
You don't know what races are, yet set up fake definitions, false assumptions and then claim they don't exist. On Studentforums you also made it clear you didn't know who Coon, Garn or any of the other anthropologists on the subject I was quoting. In fact I would go as far as claiming you have never read a work on race.
I feel confident in saying I know more about the subject than somebody who once held "polygenic views akin to Louis Agassiz" and continues to align himself to whichever author echoes these views.
I cited Barbujani and Belle (2006) specifically because they have demonstrated genetic clustering is geographically inconsistent, which blows apart the notion that geography has had a consistently observable impact on biological patterning.
quote:Barbujani and Belle (2006) admits races exist even through their false definition:
"allelic differences can reach significance between virtually any pairs of populations or groups thereof, including populations separated by very few kilometers"
The papers you cite don't deny races exist, what they dispute is the systematic classification of Humans into clusters as they argue taxonomy can come out with conflicting numbers of races.
It would help if you actually read your own sources. The paper you referenced confirms the empirical fact that seperate groups/populations exist: "differences can reach significance between virtually any pairs of populations". What it disputes is any classification of these races (populations). Two different positions entirely.
I have never denied people can be grouped and categorised; I have always said the BASIS of that grouping/categorising is socially constructed. Of course separate populations exist: as long as there is biological diversity there will be populations who are separate from each other on the basis of at least one difference. I'm a separate population from everyone else because I am the only person who A, B and C genetic traits in combination. I can then be grouped with other people based on whether or not we share D genetic trait to form another population. If I choose G, H and J genetic traits I will be in one population, but if I choose M, S and P genetic traits I will be in another. If genetic distinctiveness = new 'race' then we are all 'races' of our own. The term is meaningless because it lacks logical coherence. Genetic diversity is clinal and overlapping, which makes it inseparable in any objective sense. You may pick one trait/socially constructed combination of traits to say "those who have this are a group and those who don't are not", but this is tautological and doesn't demonstrate that traits chosen are not done so in an arbitrary fashion.
Don't reply with the usual 'race', 'subrace' and 'microrace' bullshit because you still haven't explained why the first division is split into three and not two (which is mathematically illogical*) or what determines how this division is made. Single trait or multiple ones? If singular, who determines which one is the most important? If multiple, who determines which ones are chosen in unison? How many are united and why?
*Do you understand that dividing something by 2 comes before dividing it by 3? Posts: 495 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But which is the real structure of human populations then? Even if we consider only the analyses of the CEPH diversity dataset, there is no single answer. Rosenberg et al. concluded there are five major clusters, plus the Kalash as a genetic isolate, and confirmed their finding in a similar analysis of 993 loci in the same populations . Corander et al. analysed by a Bayesian Monte-Carlo Markov Chain approach the CEPH dataset. Besides showing that Structure may converge to different solutions when different values of k are predetermined, they found that more than six groups are needed to represent global human genomic diversity, with evidence for genetic isolates in South America, in addition to, once again, the Kalash. Serre and Pääbo argued that these results could be largely accounted for by the discontinuous sampling design; they resampled individuals so as to approximate a random distribution of genotypes in the geographical space, and observed an increase of population differences with geographical distances, a pattern compatible with isolation by distance over much of the planet, without apparent biological barriers. Finally, Ramachandran et al. also found a steady increase in genetic differentiation with geographic distances,suggesting genetic continuity between human groups. The present study, the only one looking explicitly for boundaries and testing for their statistical significance, showed two clusterings that do not correspond to any of the previously inferred ones." Studies of different markers yield an even more complicated picture, where the only common element we can recognise is that each one is inconsistent with all the others. The only way we see to interpret this contradictory set of results is to admit that its incongruences are not due to errors in the choice of the markers or of the methods, but rather represent a basic feature of human diversity. In other words, different genetic polymorphisms are differently distributed over the planet, and their distributions are not generally correlated. Clusterings are always possible, but the fact that two populations fall in the same cluster (or in different clusters) when described at loci A, B, C does not imply that they will fall in the same cluster (or in different clusters) based on loci X, Y, Z. In addition, differences between populations are often so subtle that the location of boundaries may change substantially even when the same data are analysed under different assumptions on the mutational model" (Barbujani and Belle, 2006).
"Given the multitude of dimensions along which people and objects might be perceived as either dis-similar or similar, the question remains why some dimensions become salient and important for categorisations and others do not. For instance, Medin and Wattenmaker (1987) point out that plums and lawnmowers are unlikely to be categorised together, even though they are clearly similar on a number of dimensions (both weigh less than 1000 kg, both cannot hear, both have a distinct smell, both can be dropped). It is not the case that one comparison dimension is objectively more relevant than another one, and that empirical reality would dictate which dimension should be attended to. Rather, the choice of comparison dimensions is informed by socially constructed meaning. However, if the choice of relevant dimensions is subjective rather than objective, judgements of relative similarity between objects are necessarily subjective too. Thus, again, perceived similarity does not straightforwardly stem from objective similarity – there is a disjunction between the two" (Zagefka, 2009).
Posts: 495 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The earliest Caucasoid crania dates to 10,000 BC, but they wandered in a few thousand years before as shown by blade tools.
They are reflected in what 12 kyo skeletal remains?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: "The oldest evidence of its presence [Caucasoids] is the blade tools discovered in Upper Egypt... but so far we have no skeletons of the men who made them" (Ibid). We know these were Caucasoids, because the tool industry (such as microliths) is West Eurasian.
What Upper Egyptian site/tool industries? Specifics please.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Also those Caucasoid Caspians and their afiliated earlier microlith importers from the near east, brought to North Africa Afro-Asiatic, such as the Berber tongue. This hypothesis has widespread academic support (see for example Rahmani, 2004).
LMAO. It’s impossible that it has widespread academic support, since all knowledgeable scholars agree that the Berber family of languages is remarkably young, and no older than 4 or 5 kyo. The Capsian industry is two to three times older. Get your facts right.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: No they don't. Caucasoid crania have thin noses as early as Swanscombe.
Just give it up, there is nothing indigenous about European AMHs. The aspects of their morphology that unequivocally betray region of origin (in contrast to non-specific traits such as having a thin nose, which correlates negatively with air moisture) point to an origin in low latitude regions:
The subsequent post-28,000-B.P. Gravettian human sample of Europe includes numerous associated skeletons (Table 2) (Zilh˜ao & Trinkaus 2002). Most of these specimens are fully modern in their morphology, and there is a persistence in them of both linear (equatorial) limb proportions and more “African” nasal morphology (Trinkaus 1981, Holliday 1997, Franciscus 2003). --Trinkhaus
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You are an idiot who wants to claim your ancestors looked completely different to yourself but you still claim they were "black". In fact if you are claiming we all evolved off a single generalized stock, then that debunks your "we are all black african" nonsense.
All non-sequitors. Your conclusions don’t follow logically from your initial (false) charges. There is nothing inconsistent about claiming that my ancestors looked different from me (i.e., having traits associated with the palaeolithic), while still believing that they would have been black (which is about skin pigmentation, not metric qualities).
quote:Now you are admitting the ancestral form was non-negroid, in the sense it had large brow ridges, nasal depressions etc.
You’re just too retarded to take in what I’m saying. I’ve just told your dumbass that those traits are cosmetic. They may occur in any early palaeolithic population, and they’re not mutually exclusive with ‘Negroid’. That’s why Brace’s analysis found Qafzeh 6 to be metrically unrelated to all human groups with the exception of Sub Saharan Africans (in particular West Africans). Qafzeh 6’s prominent brow ridge and nasion depression didn’t preclude that from happening. Neither did the brow ridges on Asselar man prevent scholars from (dubiously) dubbing him ‘among the first attestation of the Negro’.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Bollocks. Sub Saharan Africans carry Palaeolithic lineages that are two to three times as old as European Paleolithic lineages. Sub Saharan ancestry has time depths that make European lineages look like stubs.
I already refuted this[/QB]
Stop lying. You were saved by the bell, and you know it. You're lucky that thread got deleted. If African mtdna L lineages featured widely in Eurasian archaics and Eurasian AMHs, explain how all modern groups over the world conveniently, and independently, ''lost'' their L lineages, and ended up with the exact same M and N (sub)lineages, while Africans of different ancestries all independently preserved their L lineages, and independently lost their M and N lineages. Obviously that means that geologically peripheral (Northern and Eastern) M and N carrying groups migrated out of Africa, taking those lineages with them, while L carrying groups in the interior stayed. Lets see how you explain this pattern in a more convincing manner, while not making a complete tool out of yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: He only used five mandible dimensions.
Doesn’t matter. Other than Nazlet Khater, There has never been a statistical analysis wherein Khoisan group especially close with Palaeolithic North African remains that are postulated by some to be proto-Khoisan.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Facial flatness seperates Capoids from the rest.
Which is all the more instructive of how perverted your retarded reasoning is. According to you, brow ridges and nasion depression are incompatible with a ‘negroid’ designation of skeletal remains, because few modern Sub Saharan Africans carry them today. Yet you don’t apply that same retarded reasoning to Khoisan, who have even lower cases of brow ridges and nasion depressions. That didn’t stop your dumbass from seeing Khoisan affinities in Palaeolithic remains (Jebel Sahaba) that have some of the largest brow ridges in the African UP skeletal record.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
by this time tommorow the filthy, thin lipped, stringy haired, pink assed monkey will have to admit that genomic DNA can be extracted from skulls!
You see folks, that is the reason why the degenerate uses fallacious and outdated sources, but looking at photos instead of examining DNA will no longer cut the mustard now will it?
As my fans know all too well,... a caucasoid MUST possess Neanderthal admixture, and there is not a single homo sapiens sapiens bone that has ever been found in any part of Africa, East Asia, Southeast Asia, Austrailia or the Americas that possessed Neanderthal admixture prior to 1500 BCE
Thats why this monkey likes looking at pictures of skulls. In a real sense DNA traumatizes this filthy reprobate!
And the monkey has 4 more years of science to look forward to that entirely destroys its fantastic lies
Posts: 3642 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vansertimavindicated: not a single homo sapiens sapiens bone that has ever been found in any part of Africa, East Asia, Southeast Asia, Austrailia or the Americas that possessed Neanderthal admixture prior to 1500 BCE
what about Otzi man? He was found in Europe where there were was the greatest concentration of Neanderthals,
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The MAIN point is, Western Europeans ie, your "cro-magnon" did NOT populate North Africa. REAL science do not support that thesis. Berbers and other North African, Caucasoids , are indigenous to Africa. Originating in the Eastern Sahara.
Would you give up the eye ball anthropology already. Phew!
And trying to steal African history with your CAUCASOIDS. Caucasoids are indigenous to Africa but Europeans are not!!!!!!!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: The definition you're using is simply geographical (socially constructed delineations), not biological.
The definition I am using is zoological - which I have used from day one. Races are not unique to Homo sapiens they are found in all polytypic species, including plants:
"There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races. Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals" (Mayr, 2002)
The zoological definition is still used by many biologists. It is also employed by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 which still protects not only races, but smaller "distinct population segments" (DPSs) - subraces, microraces and even more minute local types.
I defend my statement that you have never read a book on race before, and its evident you don't even know what races are.
Note: I also have a logged post from you, where you admit you treat races in Humans different to other animals. So I would like to ask why? This seems to be your admission your beliefs in denying the reality of races stems not from objective research but your own socio-political or emotional bias. Why are you treating Humans different? This also implies you may have some sort of anthropocentric religious bias as well.
quote:If you want to prove these delineations are actually biological, you must make reference to biology.
If you ever took a basic biology class you would know geographical vicariance leads to race formation. The fact land runs into one another also doesn't stop subspeciation. Distance itself is an empirical barrier - as already explained to you. Races in some animals have been observed as from 1.7 km, for example in Zosterops renovae
quote:How the **** can geography overlap? Land is a single, linear variable. Placing things into categories is an act of discrete separation. The fact you raised this point indicates you are indeed making reference to biology and not geography.
I wasn't dicussing geography. That post was referring to your false genetic definition of race and the other countless straw man you set up "races must not be discrete" etc. The fact populations genetically overlap has nothing to do with race. As Levin (2002) remarks it is a "critical assumption" to your denialism, but the assumption is added by the race denier. Your whole position is fallacious and discredited.
quote:I feel confident in saying I know more about the subject than somebody who once held "polygenic views akin to Louis Agassiz" and continues to align himself to whichever author echoes these views.
Make up your mind. On Studentforums you claimed works on race "are old texts"/"19th century"/"oudated" and so forth. Now suddenly you know what races are, and a lot about them?
- Name a single book on race, an author, paper you have read. I do not mean a denialist source.
It would also help if you posted your definition of race. As your definition is not scientific.
quote:I cited Barbujani and Belle (2006) specifically because they have demonstrated genetic clustering is geographically inconsistent, which blows apart the notion that geography has had a consistently observable impact on biological patterning.
That's obviously false as evident by ring species. Strict isolation leads to speciation, distance to subspeciation. Basic biology again.
quote:I have never denied people can be grouped and categorised; I have always said the BASIS of that grouping/categorising is socially constructed. Of course separate populations exist: as long as there is biological diversity there will be populations who are separate from each other on the basis of at least one difference. I'm a separate population from everyone else because I am the only person who A, B and C genetic traits in combination. I can then be grouped with other people based on whether or not we share D genetic trait to form another population. If I choose G, H and J genetic traits I will be in one population, but if I choose M, S and P genetic traits I will be in another. If genetic distinctiveness = new 'race' then we are all 'races' of our own. The term is meaningless because it lacks logical coherence. Genetic diversity is clinal and overlapping, which makes it inseparable in any objective sense. You may pick one trait/socially constructed combination of traits to say "those who have this are a group and those who don't are not", but this is tautological and doesn't demonstrate that traits chosen are not done so in an arbitrary fashion.
See Levin (2002). Who says races can't overlap? Secondly who said races are defined by their genes? Questions you never respond to. You set up countless red herrings or fake definitions.
And well done anyway for admitting races objectively exist - on the minute level. Yes, geographical individuals are races themselves. A Chinaman doesn't look like a Bantu, or an Englishman. Since you admit races exist on the individual minute (nano) level, i'm not sure why you object to further clusterings of geographical aggregates of individuals at the higher taxonomic levels.
You are admitting there are 6,973,738,433 races. Taxonomy then merely clusters these races into larger group divisions. Why do you object?
quote:Don't reply with the usual 'race', 'subrace' and 'microrace' bullshit because you still haven't explained why the first division is split into three and not two (which is mathematically illogical*) or what determines how this division is made.
Subspecies are split into subraces, and the latter into microraces. Subspecies are not split "into three" taxa of different levels.
Race > subrace > microraces > smaller divisions
These ultimately lead to geographical individuals themselves. I covered this ages back with Garn (1971). Btw, to remind you - you admit races exist on the most minute level.
And i've already explained countless times how these are all identified: the empirical fact two individuals of a single geographical population resemble each other more than another population.
quote:Single trait or multiple ones? If singular, who determines which one is the most important? If multiple, who determines which ones are chosen in unison? How many are united and why?
It can change per observer - they are still though dealing with the same population. This argument you raise is only valid if the races were not geographically circumscribed. Too bad for you they are.
quote:*Do you understand that dividing something by 2 comes before dividing it by 3?
You are so dumb you didn't even know what sub and micro races are - I clarified above. Once again you confirm you have never read a single book on race.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The definition I am using is zoological - which I have used from day one.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Faheemdunkers believes that race is primarily divided into to main categories, Caucasian and Negroid and the rest are Hybrids (the other races) of the following primary traits:
Caucasian:
1) narrow nose width
2) any hair type that is not kinky afro type
_________
Negroid
1) wide nose width
2) jaw prognosis
3) kinky hair afro hair
-disregard geography
-disregard the fact that the word Caucasian has the word "Caucus " in it
-disregard skin color
-combinations of the above traits are hybrid people not pure other "derived races"
^^^ this is the basic framework Faheemdunkerologist he is merely layering scientific lingo on top of this premise and he and Badismuth are using the debate in an endless masturbatory circle to try to show off how intellectual they think they are.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Mushabian culture, which is linked to industries in the Levant.
quote:It’s impossible that it has widespread academic support, since all knowledgeable scholars agree that the Berber family of languages is remarkably young, and no older than 4 or 5 kyo. The Capsian industry is two to three times older. Get your facts right.
Coon (1965) identifies proto-Berber with the Caspians. Berber is older than 4/5 kyo.
quote:Just give it up, there is nothing indigenous about European AMHs. The aspects of their morphology that unequivocally betray region of origin (in contrast to non-specific traits such as having a thin nose, which correlates negatively with air moisture) point to an origin in low latitude regions:
The subsequent post-28,000-B.P. Gravettian human sample of Europe includes numerous associated skeletons (Table 2) (Zilh˜ao & Trinkaus 2002). Most of these specimens are fully modern in their morphology, and there is a persistence in them of both linear (equatorial) limb proportions and more “African” nasal morphology (Trinkaus 1981, Holliday 1997, Franciscus 2003). --Trinkhaus
Cro-Magnons do not have high crural/brachial indices. They are merely higher than modern Europeans, but fall within the range of non-European Caucasoids living in subtropical regions. This is because they reoccupied Europe from the Near East after glacial activity.
Europeans expanded into Europe from the Near East, not from Africa.
quote:All non-sequitors. Your conclusions don’t follow logically from your initial (false) charges. There is nothing inconsistent about claiming that my ancestors looked different from me (i.e., having traits associated with the palaeolithic), while still believing that they would have been black (which is about skin pigmentation, not metric qualities).
You know that is nonsense. "Black" in a racial context does not refer solely to pigmentation, it refers to the whole Negroid physiognomy. The "Black" = dark only equation is Afronut trickology, so they can cluster Caucasoid Indians, Australoids etc among themselves, despite the fact they look nothing a like in craniofacial features or hair texture.
quote:You’re just too retarded to take in what I’m saying. I’ve just told your dumbass that those traits are cosmetic. They may occur in any early palaeolithic population, and they’re not mutually exclusive with ‘Negroid’. That’s why Brace’s analysis found Qafzeh 6 to be metrically unrelated to all human groups with the exception of Sub Saharan Africans (in particular West Africans). Qafzeh 6’s prominent brow ridge and nasion depression didn’t preclude that from happening. Neither did the brow ridges on Asselar man prevent scholars from (dubiously) dubbing him ‘among the first attestation of the Negro’.
If all these traits are randomly distributed or found in all specimens on all continents, then why are you claiming they were "Black"?
quote:Stop lying. You were saved by the bell, and you know it. You're lucky that thread got deleted. If African mtdna L lineages featured widely in Eurasian archaics and Eurasian AMHs, explain how all modern groups over the world conveniently, and independently, ''lost'' their L lineages, and ended up with the exact same M and N (sub)lineages, while Africans of different ancestries all independently preserved their L lineages, and independently lost their M and N lineages.
The same way drosophila subobscura lost all their mtDNA lineages (Latorre et al, 1986). Linaege losses I have already explained.
mtDNA cannot reconstruct population histories. What can is fossils.
quote:Which is all the more instructive of how perverted your retarded reasoning is. According to you, brow ridges and nasion depression are incompatible with a ‘negroid’ designation of skeletal remains, because few modern Sub Saharan Africans carry them today.
Negroids indeed don't have those features.
quote:Yet you don’t apply that same retarded reasoning to Khoisan, who have even lower cases of brow ridges and nasion depressions. That didn’t stop your dumbass from seeing Khoisan affinities in Palaeolithic remains (Jebel Sahaba) that have some of the largest brow ridges in the African UP skeletal record. [/QB]
I never claimed those remains are Capoid.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The definition I am using is zoological - which I have used from day one.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Faheemdunkers believes that race is primarily divided into to main categories, Caucasian and Negroid and the rest are Hybrids (the other races) of the following primary traits:
Caucasian:
1) narrow nose width
2) any hair type that is not kinky afro type
_________
Negroid
1) wide nose width
2) jaw prognosis
3) kinky hair afro hair
-disregard geography
-disregard the fact that the word Caucasian has the word "Caucus " in it
-disregard skin color
-combinations of the above traits are hybrid people not pure other "derived races"
^^^ this is the basic framework Faheemdunkerologist he is merely layering scientific lingo on top of this premise and he and Badismuth are using the debate in an endless masturbatory circle to try to show off how intellectual they think they are.
I just post the scientific facts. Badumtish in contrast claims to be a "philosophy student" who has never read a book on race, or even science. The stuff he quotes is usually existentialist philosophy or solipsism (the sort of people who think the world is a hoax and live in a matrix computer simulation) hence he recently claimed two apples (the fruit) are "social constructs". You can find many more bizarre statements in his posts. Few people (if any) on studentforums took him seriously, he is mostly laughed at. As I showed though in 2010, Badumtish held none of these quack views he does today. Less than 2 years ago he believed ethnic groups and races objectively existed. So my theory is - he changed his views for a radical different stance to seek some individuality and attention.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: The definition you're using is simply geographical (socially constructed delineations), not biological.
The definition I am using is zoological - which I have used from day one. Races are not unique to Homo sapiens they are found in all polytypic species, including plants:
"There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races. Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals" (Mayr, 2002)
It's not an opinion, it is a biological fact.
quote:The zoological definition is still used by many biologists. It is also employed by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 which still protects not only races, but smaller "distinct population segments" (DPSs) - subraces, microraces and even more minute local types.
A social construct still has tangible implications, which is why there are multiple definitions of 'species' in use depending on the purpose of the research. If people want to preserve organisms known as 'pandas' for whatever reason, they will rely on this socially constructed grouping to do so.
quote:I defend my statement that you have never read a book on race before, and its evident you don't even know what races are.
Note: I also have a logged post from you, where you admit you treat races in Humans different to other animals. So I would like to ask why? This seems to be your admission your beliefs in denying the reality of races stems not from objective research but your own socio-political or emotional bias. Why are you treating Humans different? This also implies you may have some sort of anthropocentric religious bias as well.
Yeah, I've never quoted anyone because I've never read the literature surrounding 'race'. Oh, wait, I have.
Quote that post for me. Since I don't believe 'races' exist, I would especially like to see where I said I "treat races in humans different to other animals". The concept is socially constructed across the board; the implications of the social construct are not. Thus, I will attack the manifestation of this social construct where it has the most pernicious consequences.
quote:
quote:If you want to prove these delineations are actually biological, you must make reference to biology.
If you ever took a basic biology class you would know geographical vicariance leads to race formation. The fact land runs into one another also doesn't stop subspeciation. Distance itself is an empirical barrier - as already explained to you. Races in some animals have been observed as from 1.7 km, for example in Zosterops renovae
And Barbujani and Belle (2006) have demonstrated the factors affecting biological diversity are multifactorial and do not form any consistent biological differentiation across multiple studies, assumptions, methodologies or genetic traits chosen. Read the quote.
quote:
quote:How the **** can geography overlap? Land is a single, linear variable. Placing things into categories is an act of discrete separation. The fact you raised this point indicates you are indeed making reference to biology and not geography.
I wasn't dicussing geography. That post was referring to your false genetic definition of race and the other countless straw man you set up "races must not be discrete" etc. The fact populations genetically overlap has nothing to do with race. As Levin (2002) remarks it is a "critical assumption" to your denialism, but the assumption is added by the race denier. Your whole position is fallacious and discredited.[/qb]
Which is why it is the academic consensus? Okay.
quote:
quote:I feel confident in saying I know more about the subject than somebody who once held "polygenic views akin to Louis Agassiz" and continues to align himself to whichever author echoes these views.
Make up your mind. On Studentforums you claimed works on race "are old texts"/"19th century"/"oudated" and so forth. Now suddenly you know what races are, and a lot about them?
- Name a single book on race, an author, paper you have read. I do not mean a denialist source.
It would also help if you posted your definition of race. As your definition is not scientific.
No, I stated the fact that the books you cited were old. I know about biology and the nonexistence of 'races', unlike you it seems. Accepting the biological facts is not denialism; denialism is rejecting the biological facts.
It is a polysemic term because it is socially constructed and has different applications depending on the purpose of the research. Equally, somebody analysing organisms that reproduce asexually will call them a particular 'species', but this person is clearly not referring to the same definition as somebody who is analysing organisms that interbreed.
"Biological definitions [note the 's'] of race have always contained elements of morphology (physical traits), geographical distribution (where the organisms live), and conceptions of heredity (most recently entailing analysis of the frequencies of genes in various groups)" (Graves, 2009).
The paradigm amongst these understandings is that there is genetic, geographic and/or hereditary differentiation amongst populations that enables them to be recognised as distant categories. 'Difference' is the more general paradigm of taxonomy as a discipline. Since we are all genetically, geographically and hereditarily different, we are all our own 'race'.
Which author says genetic/phenotypic traits are irrelevant?
quote:
quote:I cited Barbujani and Belle (2006) specifically because they have demonstrated genetic clustering is geographically inconsistent, which blows apart the notion that geography has had a consistently observable impact on biological patterning.
That's obviously false as evident by ring species. Strict isolation leads to speciation, distance to subspeciation. Basic biology again.
What does this have to do with what I said?
quote:
quote:I have never denied people can be grouped and categorised; I have always said the BASIS of that grouping/categorising is socially constructed. Of course separate populations exist: as long as there is biological diversity there will be populations who are separate from each other on the basis of at least one difference. I'm a separate population from everyone else because I am the only person who A, B and C genetic traits in combination. I can then be grouped with other people based on whether or not we share D genetic trait to form another population. If I choose G, H and J genetic traits I will be in one population, but if I choose M, S and P genetic traits I will be in another. If genetic distinctiveness = new 'race' then we are all 'races' of our own. The term is meaningless because it lacks logical coherence. Genetic diversity is clinal and overlapping, which makes it inseparable in any objective sense. You may pick one trait/socially constructed combination of traits to say "those who have this are a group and those who don't are not", but this is tautological and doesn't demonstrate that traits chosen are not done so in an arbitrary fashion.
See Levin (2002). Who says races can't overlap? Secondly who said races are defined by their genes? Questions you never respond to. You set up countless red herrings or fake definitions.
And well done anyway for admitting races objectively exist - on the minute level. Yes, geographical individuals are races themselves. A Chinaman doesn't look like a Bantu, or an Englishman. Since you admit races exist on the individual minute (nano) level, i'm not sure why you object to further clusterings of geographical aggregates of individuals at the higher taxonomic levels.
You are admitting there are 6,973,738,433 races. Taxonomy then merely clusters these races into larger group divisions. Why do you object?
You don't 'look like' your father either: if genetic/phenotypic difference = 'race', then we are all of our own 'race'. Clusterings above this level are socially constructed because of what I said in the quote above. Zagefka (2009) and Barbujani and Belle (2006) also explain why categorisation is socially constructed/arbitrary. You may construct a category based on X variable(s), but this is no more significant than the construct based on variable(s) Y. Since they cannot be of equal absolute significance, choosing any given variable is socially constructed/an arbitrary choice.
quote:
quote:Don't reply with the usual 'race', 'subrace' and 'microrace' bullshit because you still haven't explained why the first division is split into three and not two (which is mathematically illogical*) or what determines how this division is made.
Subspecies are split into subraces, and the latter into microraces. Subspecies are not split "into three" taxa of different levels.
Race > subrace > microraces > smaller divisions
These ultimately lead to geographical individuals themselves. I covered this ages back with Garn (1971). Btw, to remind you - you admit races exist on the most minute level.
And i've already explained countless times how these are all identified: the empirical fact two individuals of a single geographical population resemble each other more than another population.
See Zagefka (2009). 'Resemble more' by what measure? Their blood type? Their hair tone? The size of their ears? An arbitrary combination of these things? Genetic and phenotypic traits are distributed in an overlapping and non-concordant fashion, which precludes the establishment of any objective claims of being 'more different' relative to another individual.
What of the individuals who are born without limbs or a giant tumour on their face, for example? Do they still 'resemble' their parents? The answer to this is subjective/not scientific. Barbujani and Belle (2006) have demonstrated genetic clustering is not consistent across different studies, assumptions, methodologies, or genetic traits.
quote:
quote:Single trait or multiple ones? If singular, who determines which one is the most important? If multiple, who determines which ones are chosen in unison? How many are united and why?
It can change per observer - they are still though dealing with the same population. This argument you raise is only valid if the races were not geographically circumscribed. Too bad for you they are.
You are so dumb you didn't even know what sub and micro races are - I clarified above. Once again you confirm you have never read a single book on race.
See the quote from Barbujani and Belle (2006). They are not geographically circumscribed, you absolute dunce. It changes per observer because it is socially constructed; populations are defined by whatever the researcher is seeking in advance.
Posts: 495 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I just post the scientific facts. Badumtish in contrast claims to be a "philosophy student" who has never read a book on race, or even science. The stuff he quotes is usually existentialist philosophy or solipsism (the sort of people who think the world is a hoax and live in a matrix computer simulation) hence he recently claimed two apples (the fruit) are "social constructs". You can find many more bizarre statements in his posts. Few people (if any) on studentforums took him seriously, he is mostly laughed at. As I showed though in 2010, Badumtish held none of these quack views he does today. Less than 2 years ago he believed ethnic groups and races objectively existed. So my theory is - he changed his views for a radical different stance to seek some individuality and attention. [/QB]
Post where I've ever claimed to be a "philosophy student". Have you managed to convince yourself that someone else said something that you did? Are you hallucinating or is this a consequence of your Asperger's?
The categorisation is socially constructed, as explained by Zagefka (2009). I challenge you to explain why her logic is wrong. If you are unable to do so, you must admit her logic is right.
I'm "laughed at"? By whom? I have the 54th highest rep out of over a million users: why do so many people appreciate my posts if I'm "mostly laughed at"? Your lies are remarkably feeble.
I've already explained to you that making reference to something is not a claim that it exists objectively, but it is a claim that it is a social reality.
Posts: 495 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Faheemdunkers motive is to promote the idea that you can tell a person's relative intelligence by looking at their facial features and hair type. That's his sole pupose. The rest is just name dropping studies, each trying to sound smarter than the other
________________________
There is no value in trying to associate phenotype with intelliegence becasue each person can be considered as an individual.
The motive to try to link phenotype and intelligence is a tribalistic attempt to take advanatge and exploit people by grouping them based on looks and making generlizations. It's racsim and it's largely motivated by greed also fear.We can take traits at random, blue eyed people compared to green eyed people or tall people versus short people and then try to say one is superior to the other. You can see the intent before the people are even compared. It's to make people enemies by separating them by whatever traits you decide to use. That is pyramidologists purpose. To serparate people into groups such as narrow nosed versus wide nosed or afro hair verus straight, start a war and calculate that he can be on the winning side and then take the spoils, It's about greed
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: It's not an opinion, it is a biological fact.
A social construct still has tangible implications, which is why there are multiple definitions of 'species' in use depending on the purpose of the research. If people want to preserve organisms known as 'pandas' for whatever reason, they will rely on this socially constructed grouping to do so.
The focus of this discussion isn't species, or other biological taxons, but races, meaning the divisions within polytypic species. To recap, you admitted races exist at the individual (nano) level. Therefore I ask again - why do you object to larger clusterings of individual aggregates by geography? That's all higher taxonomic levels of races are.
Whether you like it or not: its an empirical fact two individuals from one geographical territory or region, resemble each other more than an individual from another. A West African (Negroid) does not look phenotypically closer to a Scandinavian than another Scandinavian. Each individual West African physically resembles each other more when compared to a Scandinavian. Hence racial typology deals with "types", typical forms with the suffix oid.
Are you saying you can't distinguish with 100% sorting accuracy a Scandinavian and West African?
You yourself will resemble individuals closer of your own geographical derivation, when compared to individuals of another location. This reality explains how forensic anthropologists can study crania (or other racial traits) and pinpoint someone's racial origin with very high accuracy.
quote:Yeah, I've never quoted anyone because I've never read the literature surrounding 'race'. Oh, wait, I have.
What sources on race have you read? Secondly how are you defining races? The last point is crucial as you are using definitions zoologists and biologists have never heard of. Races would not exist by your definition/standards - you set up straw man definitions that make races impossible to actually exist.
quote:Quote that post for me. Since I don't believe 'races' exist, I would especially like to see where I said I "treat races in humans different to other animals".
This was a post you made to democracyforums, where he asked do you object to races in Humans as in fruits. You then revealed you treat the topic of race in Humans very different in plants or other animals. This was posted around a month back. A very revealing post I must say, I was waiting to see this. I believe it was in the "This whole black IQ malarkey thread".
What this post revealed was that you are not objective and your race denialism is rooted in your personal politics. Belief in race, you asserted in that post has bad connotations ("racism"?) etc.
quote:The concept is socially constructed across the board; the implications of the social construct are not. Thus, I will attack the manifestation of this social construct where it has the most pernicious consequences.
Thanks for admitting you aren't objective. "pernicious consequences", what do these have to do with scientific research? This brings us back to the quote I noted above. You deny races exist because you think accepting them as biological realities will lead to "racism". In other words a part of you denialism is rooted in your socio-political views. Remember you admitted you are a "libertarian" - the roots of your new individualist philosophy post-2010.
quote:And Barbujani and Belle (2006) have demonstrated the factors affecting biological diversity are multifactorial and do not form any consistent biological differentiation across multiple studies, assumptions, methodologies or genetic traits chosen. Read the quote.
Barbujani and Belle (2006) don't deny races exist. They just dispute classification.
Why are you manipulating sources?
quote:Which is why it is the academic consensus? Okay.
No actually it isn't. The vast majority of scientists in relevent fields believe in the biological reality of race. You are talking a small amount of politically correct westerners who deny races exist, mostly Americans - as they live in a multiracial melting pot and they believe belief in biological race will favour segregationist policies.
quote:No, I stated the fact that the books you cited were old. I know about biology and the nonexistence of 'races', unlike you it seems. Accepting the biological facts is not denialism; denialism is rejecting the biological facts.
haha. You shouldn't have said that.
So you believe time can be carved up? Note you claim "old" exists. So now tell me what age is considered old? Tell me how you can discern if something is "old" or not. What is the criterion/threshold etc?
- Didn't I assert before you were a poser? You only apply your denialist philisophy to certain things. You are selective. If you were genuine you would apply it to everything including time.
Since you believe time = old/new etc. What age is old and what is young? Tell us how you reach the dates that seperate the two.
quote:The paradigm amongst these understandings is that there is genetic, geographic and/or hereditary differentiation amongst populations that enables them to be recognised as distant categories. 'Difference' is the more general paradigm of taxonomy as a discipline. Since we are all genetically, geographically and hereditarily different, we are all our own 'race'.
Geographical individuals are themselves races at the lowest level. Racial groupings at higher taxonomic levels are just larger aggregates of individuals. The former you agree exist, the latter you don't - but you don't explain why you stop at the individual level.
quote:Which author says genetic/phenotypic traits are irrelevant?
Both aren't the same. Some genes encode the phenotype, but by themselves have nothing to do with races. In zoology, races are recognised through a simple "if 75% of x is different physically to population y" - it is a subspecies. Through this rule of Amadon (1949) can be recognised the continental racial stocks: Caucasoid, Mongoloid etc.
quote:What does this have to do with what I said?
If x seperates from y, you do realise this is a mechanism for race formation?
quote:You don't 'look like' your father either: if genetic/phenotypic difference = 'race', then we are all of our own 'race'. Clusterings above this level are socially constructed because of what I said in the quote above. Zagefka (2009) and Barbujani and Belle (2006) also explain why categorisation is socially constructed/arbitrary. You may construct a category based on X variable(s), but this is no more significant than the construct based on variable(s) Y. Since they cannot be of equal absolute significance, choosing any given variable is socially constructed/an arbitrary choice.
All refuted by: the empirical fact that two individuals from one geographical territory or region, resemble each other more than an individual from another. Look up fuzzy set
Temperature types grade into one another, but at the same time can be categorized into warm, cold etc. The same is applicable to race or any other spectrum (Sarich & Miele, 2004).
- Your claim "Race must be discrete" is yet another one of your 'straw man impossible-standards' for races to exist.
quote:See Zagefka (2009). 'Resemble more' by what measure? Their blood type? Their hair tone? The size of their ears? An arbitrary combination of these things? Genetic and phenotypic traits are distributed in an overlapping and non-concordant fashion, which precludes the establishment of any objective claims of being 'more different' relative to another individual.
By traits that don't antedate race formation. Blood groups and the random genetic traits you always bang on about have no racial value. They are present in all races, randomly distributed.
quote:What of the individuals who are born without limbs or a giant tumour on their face, for example? Do they still 'resemble' their parents?
More so than another race.
Face it, don't waste your time. You cannot argue against this empirical fact: two individuals from one geographical territory or region, resemble each other more than an individual from another. Also remember you admitted races actually do exist at the nano level anyway.
quote:See the quote from Barbujani and Belle (2006). They are not geographically circumscribed, you absolute dunce. It changes per observer because it is socially constructed; populations are defined by whatever the researcher is seeking in advance.
Wrong. They are geographically circumscribed. Even Barbujani and Belle (2006) defend the reality that two seperate populations are races, see the quote I provided. Don't you get it? Distance itself is a barrier. The fact land runs into each other is irrelevant. x ---- 100 km ------- y. That distance is enough for some degree of recognised racial taxa on a very small scale.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Faheemdunkers motive is to promote the idea that you can tell a person's relative intelligence by looking at their facial features and hair type. That's his sole pupose. The rest is just name dropping studies, each trying to sound smarter than the other
________________________
There is no value in trying to associate phenotype with intelliegence becasue each person can be considered as an individual.
The motive to try to link phenotype and intelligence is a tribalistic attempt to take advanatge and exploit people by grouping them based on looks and making generlizations. It's racsim and it's largely motivated by greed also fear.We can take traits at random, blue eyed people compared to green eyed people or tall people versus short people and then try to say one is superior to the other. You can see the intent before the people are even compared. It's to make people enemies by separating them by whatever traits you decide to use. That is pyramidologists purpose. To serparate people into groups such as narrow nosed versus wide nosed or afro hair verus straight, start a war and calculate that he can be on the winning side and then take the spoils, It's about greed
lol what? Why would I want to seperate people when they already do? Each race has a tendency towards in-group favouritism, just look up racial nepotism. Naturally races do not want to mix.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yet you claimed the Mesolithic Nubians to be "Capoids"
There were some Capoids around, but they weren't the bulk population at this time, they were pushed south. There was clearly though some survivals as shown with the predynastic egyptian figurines with steatopygia.
Yet the predynastic figurines don't match with your limited definition of steatopygia and steatopygia is trait common among many Africans especially "Negroids". All of this was discussed in your thread here where I debunked your dumb flat-ass! LOL
quote:
quote:By the way, you still fail to prove how exactly these two aforementioned groups are different 'races'
(a) They evolved in a separate territory to Negroids. (b) They don't look like Negroids.
- And that's all races are: geographical populations. I'm not sure why you are denying they exist, as they are empirical. If a geographical population x is seperate from population y, then they are a race.
Those that claim races don't exist do nothing but set up straw man definitions or red herrings (just look through Badumtish's posts to see this), Swenet does the same.
On the contrary! It is those who claim 'races' exist that base their claims on strawmen and NOT objective suppositions and facts.
(a) Please give specific definitions on what a 'Capoid' is as opposed to 'Negroid'.
(b) Please cite evidence of this supposed "evolution" of both types in different territories even though they shared the same continent (Africa).
(c) Explain why do 'Capoids' and 'Negroids' both converge in many metric traits as well as many genetic clades and lineages both in Y-chromosome as well as mitochondria and why both share autosomal affinities as well.
quote:
quote: yet you claim Nordics and Mediterranean Europeans as two different subgroups of the same 'Caucasoid' race!
Yea. Smaller groups have diverged from larger races. This is basic biology. At the subracial level the physical differences are mostly only superficial, as they have arisen in a more recent timeframe. Meds and Nords are morphologically near identical - all that separates them is hair, eye and skin colour. Nordids branched off from an ancestral Medish type through depigmentation in the last 10k years.
Obviously there is another empirical reality that verifies this - race crossing. An Italian and Swede comes out not looking mixed (the child could pass as either) but an Italian and a Negro cross looks entirely hybrid and can't pass for either.
Yet you suppose that 'Capoids' and 'Negroids' are not smaller groups or subraces of the same 'race' but different races entirely when the difference between them are as superficial as Nords and Mediterraneans! This goes back to my demand of giving a concise explanation for the definitions and difference between 'Capoids' and 'Negroids'.
'Capoids'
'Negroids'
So-called 'Capoids' have lighter complexions, tighter coiled hair, and higher incidence of epicanthic eyes and steatopygia, but that's it. Both are prognathic at least alveolar if not full facial, both are platyrhinny, both are dolichocephalic to mesocephalic.
The present indigenous inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa fall into three groups: Negroid, Khoisan (Khoikhoin or 'Hottentots', and San or 'Bushmen'), and "Caucasoid" (Eastern Hamites). These groups may be easily distinguished by external features such as skin color and hair form, but in skeletal features alone there is a good deal of overlap even today, when they have probably become increasingly divergent from their more generalized ancestors. From fragmentary fossil remains, therefore, it is difficult to distinguish among the different groups. Negroids, for instance, typically have a narrow skull and rounded forehead, but Eastern Hamites also tend to have a narrow skull and rounded forehead, and San also have a rounded forehead... 'Phylogenetic Affinities of African Fossils to Modern Man', The New Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia Vol. 13, 15th ed (1990)
So why are these groups different races and not subraces yet Nordics and Mediterraneans subraces??
quote:Most scientists believe in the reality of race. You are talking about a fraction of politically correct Americans who don't. "race denialism" among anthropologists in places like China is unheard of. I've also posted modern studies which back up the older ones plenty of times.
If what you say is true then how come you never cite anything from current or even recent scientists yet resort to citing stuff from remote scientists from 60s whose expertise may not even be anthropological?? Why does mainstream anthropology including both the American Anthropological Association (AAA) as well as the Royal Anthropological Institute in your own country among others all not only denounce the existence of race but actually give a precise explanation why it doesn't exist??
quote:Scientific nomenclature is not literal. They have named bird species after the explorers who found them. Mongoloids are not all from Mongolia. Not all Neanderthals were found in Neander Valley etc... what it comes down to again is that you are simply uneducated.
Scientific nomenclature may not be literal but it has to convey concise and objective meanings. Racial terminology does not which is exactly why they are null and void.
quote:
quote:Whatever, but we aren't dealing with indigenous Australians but indigenous AFRICANS! You are a pathetic and pitiful, desperate, and dishonest punk if you think you can get away with denying how Mesolithic Nubians looked like and to whom they have most affinities with!
WM Krogman (The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine)
RA Drummond ("A determination of cephalometric norms for the Negro race"); TL Alexander and HP Hitchcock ("Cephalometric standards for American Negro children"); RJ Fonseca, WD Klein ("A cephalometric evaluation of American Negro women"); CJ Kowalski, CE Nasjlet, GF Walker (Differential diagnosis of adult make black and white populations); A Jacobson ("The craniofacial skeletal pattern of the South African Negro")
Persons of African descent are distinguished by steep mandibular plane; sharp, vertical chin; protrusion of the incisors; prognathism; greater lower facial height but with less mid-facial height; upper mouth is more projecting than lower mouth (higher ANB angle).
Y'edyank and Iscan ("Craniofacial Growth and Evolution")
Mesolithic Nubians had low, sloping foreheads and robust features evolving into a globular cranium with high vault. The prominence of the orbital region was reduced by the Christian era and the occipital bun much less prominent. Flattening of the lambdoid and sagittal regions also became less pronounced. (Forensic analysis of the skull : craniofacial analysis, reconstruction, and identification. [editors Mehmet Yasar Iscan and Richard P. Helmer]. (New York, N.Y.: Wiley-Liss, 1993)
The male cranium above is from Wadi al-Halfa on the Sudan-Egypt border. Dating from the Mesolithic-Holocene period, it is typical of crania in Sudan and surrounding regions from that time frame. More recent Nubian crania from the Christian period have more rounded skulls without the sloping frontal bone. However, the vertical zygomatic arch, prominent glabella, sagittal plateau, and occipital bun (less pronounced) are retained. The cranium above has pronounced facial prognathism, but moderate dental protrusion. The chin is vertical with a angular mandible and very squat ramus. (Image from David Lee Greene and George Armelagos. The Wadi Halfa mesolithic population. (Amherst: University of Massachusetts, 1972)
As Swenet has stated, it's GAME OVER for your debunked lying ass!
They have those traits, but its the traits they don't have that separates them. Races are not defined by singular features alone.
Does your silly bias also hamper your reading comprehension??! Where in the source that I cited above does it list "singular features"?!! P.K. Manansala cited several anthropologists who give a list of what you call 'diagnostic' features that are 'negroid'!! You say it's about the traits that separate them. Well how come traits that separate Nords from Alpines or Mediterraneans only make them subraces while traits that separate 'Negroids', 'Capoids', 'Hamites', and even 'Pygmies' make all these entities entirely different racial groups??!!
Answer: Racial groupings are themselves subjective and NOT objective which is why you apply a double standard of giving more diversity to Europeans as one 'Caucasoid' racial group not even limited to European subcontinent while splicing Africans of a large continent into different racial groups including a 'true Negro' and blacks who are not true (fake) negroes!
In other words you are bullsh|tting like the pathetic white racist idiot that you are. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The focus of this discussion isn't species, or other biological taxons, but races, meaning the divisions within polytypic species. To recap, you admitted races exist at the individual (nano) level. Therefore I ask again - why do you object to larger clusterings of individual aggregates by geography? That's all higher taxonomic levels of races are.
I've already told you:
"You don't 'look like' your father either: if genetic/phenotypic difference = 'race', then we are all of our own 'race'. Clusterings above this level are socially constructed because of what I said in the quote above. Zagefka (2009) and Barbujani and Belle (2006) also explain why categorisation is socially constructed/arbitrary. You may construct a category based on X variable(s), but this is no more significant than the construct based on variable(s) Y. Since they cannot be of equal absolute significance, choosing any given variable is socially constructed/an arbitrary choice."
Whether you like it or not: its an empirical fact two individuals from one geographical territory or region, resemble each other more than an individual from another. A West African (Negroid) does not look phenotypically closer to a Scandinavian than another Scandinavian. Each individual West African physically resembles each other more when compared to a Scandinavian. Hence racial typology deals with "types", typical forms with the suffix oid.
No it isn't, which is what Zagefka (2009) and Barbujani and Belle (2006) have explained. It holds true for one dimension but not necessarily for another.
Are you saying you can't distinguish with 100% sorting accuracy a Scandinavian and West African?
I can distinguish between anything that is tautologically defined. If X is a group then I can find people with X and declare they are a group. The choice of X is socially constructed.
You yourself will resemble individuals closer of your own geographical derivation, when compared to individuals of another location. This reality explains how forensic anthropologists can study crania (or other racial traits) and pinpoint someone's racial origin with very high accuracy."
We've already been through this: you should be familiar with the quote from Ousley (2009).
"What sources on race have you read? Secondly how are you defining races? The last point is crucial as you are using definitions zoologists and biologists have never heard of. Races would not exist by your definition/standards - you set up straw man definitions that make races impossible to actually exist.
I've read all the sources I cite, obviously.
I've explained below.
This was a post you made to democracyforums, where he asked do you object to races in Humans as in fruits. You then revealed you treat the topic of race in Humans very different in plants or other animals. This was posted around a month back. A very revealing post I must say, I was waiting to see this. I believe it was in the "This whole black IQ malarkey thread".
What this post revealed was that you are not objective and your race denialism is rooted in your personal politics. Belief in race, you asserted in that post has bad connotations ("racism"?) etc.
Thanks for admitting you aren't objective. "pernicious consequences", what do these have to do with scientific research? This brings us back to the quote I noted above. You deny races exist because you think accepting them as biological realities will lead to "racism". In other words a part of you denialism is rooted in your socio-political views. Remember you admitted you are a "libertarian" - the roots of your new individualist philosophy post-2010.
How many threads are there discussing varieties of fruit? Why would I care about an inanimate object? As I said, the science is objective, but my focus is not. My focus doesn't change the fact that my logical premises are universal. I also acknowledge the invalidity of 'races' in fruit, so I'm not quite sure what your argument is.
Find a post where I've identified as a libertarian. Again, you are confusing what you believe with what I've actually said.
"Barbujani and Belle (2006) don't deny races exist. They just dispute classification.
Why are you manipulating sources?"
Do you know how to read? I said the following: "And Barbujani and Belle (2006) have demonstrated the factors affecting biological diversity are multifactorial and do not form any consistent biological differentiation across multiple studies, assumptions, methodologies or genetic traits chosen."
I never mentioned whether or not they believe in 'races'.
"No actually it isn't. The vast majority of scientists in relevent fields believe in the biological reality of race. You are talking a small amount of politically correct westerners who deny races exist, mostly Americans - as they live in a multiracial melting pot and they believe belief in biological race will favour segregationist policies."
Nope. Its continued use is tautological (forensic scientists use 'race' because crime agencies use 'race') or as a proxy (also ethnic groups) for biomedicine. You're in the minority.
That's like saying because the Indian caste system is treated as a significant variable in academic studies it exists as an objective concept.
"haha. [Roll Eyes] You shouldn't have said that.
So you believe time can be carved up? Note you claim "old" exists. So now tell me what age is considered old? Tell me how you can discern if something is "old" or not. What is the criterion/threshold etc?
- Didn't I assert before you were a poser? You only apply your denialist philisophy to certain things. You are selective. If you were genuine you would apply it to everything including time.
Since you believe time = old/new etc. What age is old and what is young? Tell us how you reach the dates that seperate the two."
True. I'll correct my statement: in my opinion, your books are old relative to the speed at which scientific discoveries progress and the time frames that are referenced in most modern scientific works.
"Geographical individuals are themselves races at the lowest level. Racial groupings at higher taxonomic levels are just larger aggregates of individuals. The former you agree exist, the latter you don't - but you don't explain why you stop at the individual level."
"You don't 'look like' your father either: if genetic/phenotypic difference = 'race', then we are all of our own 'race'. Clusterings above this level are socially constructed because of what I said in the quote above. Zagefka (2009) and Barbujani and Belle (2006) also explain why categorisation is socially constructed/arbitrary. You may construct a category based on X variable(s), but this is no more significant than the construct based on variable(s) Y. Since they cannot be of equal absolute significance, choosing any given variable is socially constructed/an arbitrary choice."
"Both aren't the same. Some genes encode the phenotype, but by themselves have nothing to do with races. In zoology, races are recognised through a simple "if 75% of x is different physically to population y" - it is a subspecies. Through this rule of Amadon (1949) can be recognised the continental racial stocks: Caucasoid, Mongoloid etc."
Wow. Why lie? Hasn't it become apparent to you that I can verify your claims? The word 'physically' isn't mentioned anywhere in Amadon, so you certainly didn't quote it from him. He states "75 per cent of a population must be separable from all (99+ per cent) of the members of overlapping populations to qualify as a subspecies" He never specified or even intimated that the basis of separability must be physical, which validates my assertion that the researcher arbitrarily chooses the basis on which people are categorised.
Why 75%? Why not 76%? Why not 80%? This is another socially constructed categorisation system. Can you actually give me an objective reason that 75% has been chosen? The only reason I can conceive is "it was chosen because I felt it was a good number". There is absolutely nothing natural about the number 75% so I really cannot see how you can possibly suggest this is anything other than a socially constructed term to categorise nature, despite nature being a continuous process. How do we know that organism A is of a different population to organism B? This whole thing seems tautological and reliant on presupposed differences that are validated via confirmation bias.
As demonstrated in Barbujani (2005) and Barbujani and Belle (2006), populations can be clustered/separated on the basis of any number of things. "Allele-frequency differences exist between all populations, including communities separated by short geographic distances, or by cultural barriers at geographical distance zero [66]. With large sample sizes, these differences reach statistical significance." Thus, I can separate people on the basis of any arbitrarily/socially determined trait I choose.
"If x seperates from y, you do realise this is a mechanism for race formation?"
Babrujani and Belle (2006) have demonstrated that genetic clustering is not consistent across studies, assumptions, methodologies and genetic traits. We are all separate.
Temperature types grade into one another, but at the same time can be categorized into warm, cold etc. The same is applicable to race or any other spectrum (Sarich & Miele, 2004).
- Your claim "Race must be discrete" is yet another one of your 'straw man impossible-standards' for races to exist.
Lol. Are you really suggesting the temperatures depicted in that image are objective concepts? Cold = absolute zero; hot = absolute hot. Anything in between is warm and any other categorisation systems within these objective parameters is subjective.
In addition, a linear variable is incomparable to a multidimensional, overlapping ensemble of traits that comprise the genome.
"By traits that don't antedate race formation. Blood groups and the random genetic traits you always bang on about have no racial value. They are present in all races, randomly distributed."
How are they random? Both blood groups and the other genetic variables I have listed have geographic patterning. See this link. You're begging the question in the first sentence.
"More so than another race.
Face it, don't waste your time. You cannot argue against this empirical fact: two individuals from one geographical territory or region, resemble each other more than an individual from another. Also remember you admitted races actually do exist at the nano level anyway."
No. See Zagefka (2009) for why the notion of 'similarity' is intrinsically subjective.
Wrong. They are geographically circumscribed. Even Barbujani and Belle (2006) defend the reality that two seperate populations are races, see the quote I provided. Don't you get it? Distance itself is a barrier. The fact land runs into each other is irrelevant. x ---- 100 km ------- y. That distance is enough for some degree of recognised racial taxa on a very small scale.
They're not:
"However, the biological reality is different and, for humans, it is one of continuous variation [75], clines, and genetic boundaries that across the geographic space without surrounding and thus defining specific isolated groups of populations [102]" (Barbujani, 2005).
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Faheemdunkers motive is to promote the idea that you can tell a person's relative intelligence by looking at their facial features and hair type. That's his sole pupose. The rest is just name dropping studies, each trying to sound smarter than the other
________________________
There is no value in trying to associate phenotype with intelliegence becasue each person can be considered as an individual.
The motive to try to link phenotype and intelligence is a tribalistic attempt to take advanatge and exploit people by grouping them based on looks and making generlizations. It's racsim and it's largely motivated by greed also fear.We can take traits at random, blue eyed people compared to green eyed people or tall people versus short people and then try to say one is superior to the other. You can see the intent before the people are even compared. It's to make people enemies by separating them by whatever traits you decide to use. That is pyramidologists purpose. To serparate people into groups such as narrow nosed versus wide nosed or afro hair verus straight, start a war and calculate that he can be on the winning side and then take the spoils, It's about greed
lol what? Why would I want to seperate people when they already do? Each race has a tendency towards in-group favouritism, just look up racial nepotism. Naturally races do not want to mix.
In the modern world many cities are very multi ethnic. While they also have neighborhoods which are predominantly of one ethniticty there are plenty of neighborhoods that are "mixed' as well and streets filled with a multitude of ethnic groups mingling and a variety of people at many workplaces. Even many ancient near Eastern and Mediterranean cities were like this. Even look at the Republican Bush administion Condi Rice and Colin Powell in top positions and now Barack Obama. There is no reversing this.
As with dogs, strict breeding is unatural, feral dogs are muts. Same thing with humans. Strict separations are unnatural.
But that is your agenda, to take these cities or even whole countries and make them one ethnic group only.
Why don't you move to Finland or Slovenia and call it a day?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers: lol what? Why would I want to seperate people when they already do? Each race has a tendency towards in-group favouritism, just look up racial nepotism. Naturally races do not want to mix.
If that's so, then why do a third of European males carry genetic lineages from black African ancestors of the neolithic??
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The earliest Caspian crania. See Chamla (1980).
No, dumbass, name specific skeletal remains from a specific site.
Numerous Capsian skeletal remains such as the ones from Grottes Hyenes and Mechta-el-Arbi don’t conform to your description of thin noses and faces.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Mushabian culture, which is linked to industries in the Levant.
How can the Mushabian tools be indicative of ’’Caucasoid’’ Capsians in Africa, when the tool industry has never been excavated in Egypt proper or the Maghreb? Again, what tool industries indicate that there were wandering Caucasoids in Africa 15.000 years ago, that would later manifest as Capsians in the holocene?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:It’s impossible that it has widespread academic support, since all knowledgeable scholars agree that the Berber family of languages is remarkably young, and no older than 4 or 5 kyo. The Capsian industry is two to three times older. Get your facts right.
Coon (1965) identifies proto-Berber with the Caspians. Berber is older than 4/5 kyo.
According to what source?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Cro-Magnons do not have high crural/brachial indices. They are merely higher than modern Europeans, but fall within the range of non-European Caucasoids living in subtropical regions. This is because they reoccupied Europe from the Near East after glacial activity.[/QB]
You’re just running your mouth, trying to win debates with opinions. Not only do European AMHs have very high crural/brachial indices, they also group with Africans when it comes to Femoral head diameter, Bi-iliac breadth and Skeletal trunk height:
quote:By far the most interesting finding concerns the European EUP sample, who for all of the bivariate relationships fell on, above or near the recent Sub-Saharan African regression line. This is clearly in opposition to climatic expectation because they inhabited Europe during a glacial period. Their distal limb segments are particularly marked in relative (and absolute) length, and their limb/trunk proportions markedly deviate from the other Europeans, including those who lived in Europe during the warmest period of the last 120,000 years—i.e., the Holocene. Also, the EUP specimens seem to be characterized by smaller femoral heads relative to femoral length than are the other Late Pleistocene Europeans, again in clear violation of ecogeographical expectation (and see Ruff, 1994).
--Holiday, 1997
Repeat: who for all of the bivariate relationships fell on, above or near the recent Sub-Saharan African regression line.. What were you saying again about European AMHs being middle eastern in origin?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The "Black" = dark only equation is Afronut trickology, so they can cluster Caucasoid Indians, Australoids etc among themselves, despite the fact they look nothing a like in craniofacial features
Wrong again. Black skinned Indians and Australians have been know the cluster with or near Africans craniometrically:
^ This is precisely why craniometric clusters don’t equate to racial groupings, which, apparently, is too much of a conundrum for retards like you to comprehend.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: If all these traits are randomly distributed or found in all specimens on all continents, then why are you claiming they were "Black"?
They’re not randomly distributed. Those traits are distributed the way they are because those AMH populations evolved in Africa, then exited Africa, taking those traits with them. That is why European, North African, Levantine, East Asian, certain Sub Saharan African and New world AMH remains show ties with each other, before tying with later groups of their respective regions.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The same way drosophila subobscura lost all their mtDNA lineages (Latorre et al, 1986).
LMAO. How can an organism lose all their mtdna lineages? You’re such a douchebag, it’s not even funny anymore at this point.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: mtDNA cannot reconstruct population histories. What can is fossils.
Then explain why there historically have been an immeasurably large amount of theories and revisions of the skeletal record, where human origins are concerned, while the earliest inferences made from mtdna (that all non-Africans descend from Palaeolithic Africans) have withstood the test of time (with only slight alterations). Whatever may be said about lineage loss in mtdna, the gaps in the Palaeolithic skeletal record, and their inherent shortcomings as far as being used to manipulate the data, are far worse. Try doing that with mtdna lineages.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Negroids indeed don't have those features.
Only a retard such as yourself would linger on cosmetic features (brow ridges) that are shared with a variety of genetically unrelated populations, and so have zero implications for real (i.e., genetic) affinity.
If this man was excavated in Palaeolithic Africa, your dumbass would call him a non-negroid Australoid, simply for having brow ridges and a depressed nasion:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I never claimed those remains are Capoid.
Oh no? Then what is this:
The indigenous inhabitants of Nubia were Capoids (Bushmen) who were then pushed south by the Caucasoids from the Mediterranean around 14,000 - 12,000 years ago. --Angho’
You do realize that the Jebel Sahaba ‘’type’’ is the only population that has been excavated below the 1st cataract, in the time frame you mention (14/12 kya), right? Even the pleistocene Coonian maps you spam here on ES show that the area of Wadi Halfa and Jebel Sahaba are within the described yellow Khoisan zone.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
This also implies you may have some sort of anthropocentric religious bias as well.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic