As i suspected, that isn't a Negroid skull. Its a from Nubian Mesolithic burial.
Nasal depressions are not present in Negroids, or are very weakly pronounced.
- Here is a skull of a Congo Negroid. [/QB]
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
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.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
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.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
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.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^ 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.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
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).
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
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.
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.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
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?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
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.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
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 by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
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).
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ 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)
As Swenet has stated, it's GAME OVER for your debunked lying ass! Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
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.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
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).
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
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!!!!!!!!!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
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!!!!!
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
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).
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
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.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Berbers are 95% African macro-haplogroup E*
So the largest group of Berbers, Kabyles and Mozabites are 95% Black?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
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.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
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).
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
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.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
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
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
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
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
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.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
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.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
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.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
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? Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
"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).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
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.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
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
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
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,
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Man Cass is slow. Ha! Ha!
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!!!!!!!
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
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.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
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.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: They are reflected in what 12 kyo skeletal remains?
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.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
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.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
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.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
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.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
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
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
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.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
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.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers:
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. Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
"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).
Clinally.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
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?
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate why Zagefka's (2009) logic is wrong.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
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.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Djehuti, notice the little punk is lying again. Do you remember the name of the thread where he laughably tried to explain away ''Negroid'' traits in Prehistoric Nubians by saying the traits weren't really Negroid, but Bushmanoid/Capoid?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^^ How can I remember when he has spewed that 'Capoid' b.s. in numerous threads!!
ROTFLMAOH @ the ridiculous beating he is taking from you!
Actually you didn't even have to put much effort in thrashing him since most of the blows were self-inflicted in the form of the pathetic back-tracking and flat out self-contradictions!!
His double-think Euronut tactics are obvious to anyone with a normal functioning brain.
1. Subjectively give more diversity to Europeans as a 'race' by listing all similarities not only within Europe but outside of Europe that can tie various populations together as Caca-soid while subjectively reducing diversity in Africans by splicing up African populations into completely different 'races' entirely and making 'Negroid' into some narrow category that can only be defined by a limited few number of features.
2. If 'Negroid' features are found in remains from pre-Pleistocene, Lower Paleolithic times of early human history, and especially if they are found outside of Sub-Sahara, identify the remains as 'Australoid', 'Melanoid', anything but 'Negroid'! But if any remains display so-called Cacasoid traits like narrow nose, automatically classify them as Cacasoid even if the remains are found in prehistoric Sub-Sahara!
These are the double-standard tactics of the typical Euronut like Fatheadbonkers a.k.a. Castrated. LMAO Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Djehuti: and making 'Negroid' into some narrow category that can only be defined by a limited few number of features.
And just as retarded: ''Negroid'' status can be put into question on the basis of the presence of a single totally irrelevant trait. For example, a cranium can be as ''Negroid'' as it gets, but as soon as it presents a thin nose, it becomes Caucasoid admixed, and as soon as it presents a brow ridge, it becomes an Australoid.
On the other hand, there is no such disqualifying 'ubertrait' that turns a cranium that looks 99% Caucasoid, into something that's not Caucasoid.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Precisely my point! It is blatant double-think pure and simple. This shows there is no objectivity at all behind his reasoning but pure bias as part of his agenda to write out blacks or rather his twisted view of 'Negroes' out of human history.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 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:
Indeed. 50 Cent's prominent ridges, depressed nasion, and prognathism altogether would make his skull a dead ringer for a Mesolithic Nubian, but such basic observational reasoning is not part of Castrated's twisted race ideology.
This reminds me of that time the Anglo-idiot tried to distort the words of Vermeersch and Pinhasi about not only Mesolithic Nubians but early North Africans in general. Yet here are their very words below:
In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian. -- Pierre M. Vermeersch (Author & Editor), 'Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt', Egyptian Prehistory Monographs Vol. 4, Leuven University Press (2002).
Both hypotheses are compatible with the hypothesis proposed by Brothwell (1963) of an East African proto-Khoisan-Negro stock which migrated southwards and westwards at some time during the Upper Pleistocene, and replaced most of the local populations of South Africa. Under such circumstances, it is possible that the Nazlet Khater specimen is part of a relict population of this proto-Khoisan Negro stock which extended as far north as Nazlet Khater at least until the late part of the Late Pleistocene. --- The Position of the Nazlet Khater Specimen Among Prehistoric and Modern African and Levantine Populations, Ron Pinhasi, Departent of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, U.K., Patrick Semal, Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Belgium; Journal of Human Evolution (2000) vol. 39.
Of course the so-called "proto-Khoisan-Negro" type is nothing more than a euphemism for what was once called "Eurafrican" and now called "Generalized Modern" which is catch-phrase for early African.
By the way, you and he also discussed the Capsian culture and associated remains like Mechta-Afalou. I remember a thread years ago on the topic with Explorer who noted that modern populations living in the vicinity today who hold the most affinity to 'Mechtoids' were the Dogon people, yet according to Euronuts like Rahoslip this is reflected in their alleged 'Eurasian' autosomal affinities via. Tishkoff et al. LOL Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
That's interesting.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yeah, the skulls above and perhaps Kanye West as well would be classified as 'Mediterranean Cacasoids' by the Anglo-Idiot! LOL Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
"You don't 'look like' your father either
That's simply wrong. Individuals of population x, closer resemble other individuals of that population when compared to y. You are still running away from this empirical fact. I look a heck of a lot more similar to my father than a Sub-Saharan African Pygmy or a Native American.
Individuals of population x can be dissimilar to each other when compared to another population only if non-adaptive traits are used such as lactose tolerance, or anti-malarial genes. These traits are not racial. Hence you could end up clustering Swedes with Japanese. This is what you've been doing for years. Jared Diamond popularised this fallacy in 1994.
quote: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 have yet to actually explain why any categorisation is arbitrary. Your usual "because x has to be discrete" (which is impossible) is not an answer, because as Levin (2002) shows with numerous examples its setting up a false definition and adding the assumption categories require being discrete to exist, yet they don't.
"The different colours of the rainbow do not consist of discrete bands but are a perfect continuum, yet we readily distinguish different regions of this continuum as blue, green, yellow and red, and we effectively classify many things according to these colors. The validity of such distinctions need not require that they form perfectly discrete Platonic categories." (Jensen, 1998).
Furthermore according to you mountains are also social constructs because they are joined in a connecting landmass, so you will argue elevation cannot be broken up into levels or categories of height or altitude ranges.
- Are you saying this doesn't objectively exist?
quote: 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.
Again this is wrong because you aren't taking biogeography into account. Variations in phenotype are geographically delimited: "it is improbable that one could find anywhere in the world an individual with a combination of black skin, blue eyes, straight hair, red hair, and a complete Mongoloid eye-fold" (Hooton, 1946).
quote: We've already been through this: you should be familiar with the quote from Ousley (2009).
Why are you denying the empirical fact physical features differ per geographical region?
"Morphological characteristics, however, like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones". (Gill, 2000)
Individuals of population x, closer resemble other individuals of that population when compared to y. Look at any region to see this reality. Races posess adaptive phenotypic traits suited to their own geographical environments.
quote: I've read all the sources I cite, obviously.
You never cited any. In fact as I already said, you proved you had never heard of any of the anthropological figures I listed.
quote: 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.
Explain what you mean by "pernicious consequences". Why do those who believe in race have "consequences"? This was an open admission by you that your views are embedded in your personal politics and emotions.
quote:Find a post where I've identified as a libertarian. Again, you are confusing what you believe with what I've actually said.
"This is an experiment in pure libertarianism" [disclaimer] in the thread where you claimed there is nothing wrong with having sexual intercourse with animals. If you weren't politically a far left libertarian you wouldn't be engaging in such depraved discussions with radical liberal stances.
quote:You're in the minority.
Race denialism is unheard of outside of Western Europe and America. And inside Western Europe and America polls show that most anthropologists and biologists believe in the reality of race.
"Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real" (Gill, 2000)
You loose if you want to go down the argumentum ad populum route. The "race denial" view is only held by a sizable minority of politically correct in the Western world who aren't interested in objective research but believe that acknowleding the scientific fact of biological races will lead to "racism". This is why race realism is called realism, and race denialism as denialism. "Race realists" arn't the deniers... you hold the minority position in denial though.
quote:
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.
I can also go though your posts and see where you forget/fail to apply the same philosophy. You are highly selective. Clearly race is something personal, sensitive and emotional to you. This is why I am guessing you are of Negroid physiognomy but self-hate your physical traits, like nappy hair. Am I correct?
quote:[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.
The criterion has to be physical as outlined above, non-adaptive traits have no racial value.
quote: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.
The number is irrelevent.
"if a high figure (perhaps 75) is agreed upon by taxonomists, one can scarcely doubt that there is a distinction worthy of recognition as subspecific or ‘racial’" (Baker, 1974)
The "distinction worthy of recognition" is easily discernible by the empirical fact: Individuals of population x, closer resemble other individuals of that population when compared to y. Remember physical variation corresponds to geographical (climatic) zones.
quote: Thus, I can separate people on the basis of any arbitrarily/socially determined trait I choose.
This has been refuted numerous times, see above.
quote:Babrujani and Belle (2006) have demonstrated that genetic clustering is not consistent across studies, assumptions, methodologies and genetic traits. We are all separate.
I don't give a crap about genes, and never have. They are not how races are defined. You set up an endless string of false definitions.
quote: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.
Obviously wrong. Someone can tell the difference between the entire temperature range to the too extremes. It is not a "social construct" to mark out the difference between slightly cold, slightly hot etc.
quote:Clinally.
Races are just the cline peaks.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No, dumbass, name specific skeletal remains from a specific site.
Chamla (1980, 1986) lists them. I don't have access to those papers but I have a summary of her studies in another work. The Caspian crania are the earliest identified Caucasoids in Africa and are palaeo-mediterranean: leptoprosopic, leptorrhine, orthognathic etc. There is nothing Negroid about these crania. We also know these peoples were wavy haired which rules Negroids out once again. Don't deny the obvious.
Let me remind you of what you folks looked like before European Caucasoid admixture in America:
Don't be ashamed, this is what your race looks like. Yet you have this silly fantasy of "Blacks with straight hair" and thin noses.
quote: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.
Because they coexisted with Mechtoids.
quote: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?
The Mushabian culture existed in prehistoric Egypt (both upper and lower).
quote:According to what source?
Joseph Greenberg.
quote: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?
Then put up an actual study/graph plot. The studies I have seen do not cluster Cro-Magnons with any African population.
quote: ^ 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.
Of course they don't alone. Non-metric variables also have to be used, also with hair texture etc. Regarding your craniometric study on Indians, who was sampled? India is a racial periphery with numerous morphological types.
quote: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.
The fossils don't show the appearance of any wandering Negroids, there are so many flaws with your theory. "For example, the fossils of Indonesia can be arranged in an anatomical sequence which shows no signs of interruption by African migrants at any time. The sequence starts around one million years ago" (Wolpoff, 2000)
Regional archaics cluster with their modern (racial) descendants, not wandering Negroids.
quote:LMAO. How can an organism lose all their mtdna lineages? You’re such a douchebag, it’s not even funny anymore at this point.
Negative (deleterious) selection. The same way many mtdna linaeges were lost in Humans.
quote: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.
With skeletons we have the physical remains, but they can be interpreted in different ways. mtDNA linaeges in contrast have been entirely lost.
quote:
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:
AA, not Negroid. He doesn't also have wavy hair. Remember virtually none of the Mesolithic Nubian burial hair samples are ulotrichous.
quote: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.
Most those remains are Melanoid. Yes, Capoids are indigenous to Nubia and North Africa, but they were displaced far further south. I've never claimed many mesolithic remains were Capoid. The evidence shows though that individuals were around as shown in the prehistoric egyptian artwork.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
That's simply wrong. Individuals of population x, closer resemble other individuals of that population when compared to y. You are still running away from this empirical fact. I look a heck of a lot more similar to my father than a Sub-Saharan African Pygmy or a Native American.
Individuals of population x can be dissimilar to each other when compared to another population only if non-adaptive traits are used such as lactose tolerance, or anti-malarial genes. These traits are not racial. Hence you could end up clustering Swedes with Japanese. This is what you've been doing for years. Jared Diamond popularised this fallacy in 1994.
'Resemble' in what way? You haven't explained why Zagefka (2009) is wrong. Does a Japanese quadriplegic with a tumour on his face closer resemble a British quadriplegic with a tumour on his face or his parents? The choice of comparison dimension is socially constructed.
This is the introduction/your argument:
"All native Swedes differ from all native Nigerians in appearance: there is no Swede whom you would mistake for a Nigerian, and vice versa. Swedes have lighter skin than Nigerians do. They also generally have blond or light brown hair, while Nigerians have very dark hair. Nigerians usually have more tightly coiled hair than Swedes do, dark eyes as opposed to eyes that are blue or gray, and fuller lips and broader noses.
In addition, other Europeans look much more like Swedes than like Nigerians, while other peoples of sub-Saharan Africa--except perhaps the Khoisan peoples of southern Africa--look much more like Nigerians than like Swedes. Yes, skin color does get darker in Europe toward the Mediterranean, but it is still lighter than the skin of sub-Saharan Africans. In Europe, very dark or curly hair becomes more common outside Scandinavia, but European hair is still not as tightly coiled as in Africa. Since it's easy then to distinguish almost any native European from any native sub-Saharan African, we recognize Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans as distinct races, which we name for their skin colors: whites and blacks, respectively.
What could be more objective?"
Look:
"As it turns out, this seemingly unassailable reasoning is not objective. There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications. One such procedure would group Italians and Greeks with most African blacks. It would classify Xhosas--the South African "black" group to which President Nelson Mandela belongs--with Swedes rather than Nigerians. Another equally valid procedure would place Swedes with Fulani (a Nigerian "black" group) and not with Italians, who would again be grouped with most other African blacks. Still another procedure would keep Swedes and Italians separate from all African blacks but would throw the Swedes and Italians into the same race as New Guineans and American Indians. Faced with such differing classifications, many anthropologists today conclude that one cannot recognize any human races at all. "
Let me repeat, multiple times, just so you get it into your thick skull:
As it turns out, this seemingly unassailable reasoning is not objective. There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications.
As it turns out, this seemingly unassailable reasoning is not objective. There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications.
As it turns out, this seemingly unassailable reasoning is not objective. There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications.
As it turns out, this seemingly unassailable reasoning is not objective. There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications.
As it turns out, this seemingly unassailable reasoning is not objective. There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications.
As it turns out, this seemingly unassailable reasoning is not objective. There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications.
As it turns out, this seemingly unassailable reasoning is not objective. There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications.
As it turns out, this seemingly unassailable reasoning is not objective. There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications.
Here's some more:
"Classification of these birds also presents problems of "hierarchy." Some of the golden whistler races recognized by ornithologists are wildly different from all the other races, but some are very similar to one another. They can therefore be grouped into a hierarchy of distinctness. You start by establishing the most distinct population as a race separate from all other populations. You then separate the most distinct of the remaining populations. You continue by grouping similar populations, and separating distinct populations or groups of populations as races or groups of races. The problem is that the extent to which you continue the racial classification is arbitrary, and it's a decision about which taxonomists disagree passionately. Some taxonomists, the "splitters," like to recognize many different races, partly for the egotistical motive of getting credit for having named a race. Other taxonomists, the "lumpers," prefer to recognize few races. Which type of taxonomist you are is a matter of personal preference. "
The problem is that the extent to which you continue the racial classification is arbitrary
The problem is that the extent to which you continue the racial classification is arbitrary
The problem is that the extent to which you continue the racial classification is arbitrary
Which type of taxonomist you are is a matter of personal preference.
Which type of taxonomist you are is a matter of personal preference.
Which type of taxonomist you are is a matter of personal preference.
"Once again races defined by body chemistry don't match races defined by skin color. Swedes belong with Fulani in the "lactase-positive race," while most African "blacks," Japanese, and American Indians belong in the "lactase-negative race."
Swedes belong with Fulani in the "lactase-positive race," while most African "blacks," Japanese, and American Indians belong in the "lactase-negative race.
Swedes belong with Fulani in the "lactase-positive race," while most African "blacks," Japanese, and American Indians belong in the "lactase-negative race.
Swedes belong with Fulani in the "lactase-positive race," while most African "blacks," Japanese, and American Indians belong in the "lactase-negative race.
Swedes belong with Fulani in the "lactase-positive race," while most African "blacks," Japanese, and American Indians belong in the "lactase-negative race.
"Alas, the evidence for natural selection of skin color dissolves under scrutiny. Among tropical peoples, anthropologists love to stress the dark skins of African blacks, people of the southern Indian peninsula, and New Guineans and love to forget the pale skins of Amazonian Indians and Southeast Asians living at the same latitudes. To wriggle out of those paradoxes, anthropologists then plead the excuse that Amazonian Indians and Southeast Asians may not have been living in their present locations long enough to evolve dark skins. However, the ancestors of fair-skinned Swedes arrived even more recently in Scandinavia, and aboriginal Tasmanians were black-skinned despite their ancestors' having lived for at least the last 10,000 years at the latitude of Vladivostok.
Besides, when one takes into account cloud cover, peoples of equatorial West Africa and the New Guinea mountains actually receive no more ultraviolet radiation or hours of sunshine each year than do the Swiss. Compared with infectious diseases and other selective agents, skin cancer has been utterly trivial as a cause of death in human history, even for modern white settlers in the tropics. This objection is so obvious to believers in natural selection of skin color that they have proposed at least seven other supposed survival functions of skin color, without reaching agreement. Those other supposed functions include protection against rickets, frostbite, folic acid deficiency, beryllium poisoning, overheating, and overcooling. The diversity of these contradictory theories makes clear how far we are from understanding the survival value (if any) of skin color."
"Regarding concordance, we could have classified races based on any number of geographically variable traits. The resulting classifications would not be at all concordant. Depending on whether we classified ourselves by antimalarial genes, lactase, fingerprints, or skin color, we could place Swedes in the same race as either Xhosas, Fulani, the Ainu of Japan, or Italians. "
Regarding concordance, we could have classified races based on any number of geographically variable traits. The resulting classifications would not be at all concordant. Depending on whether we classified ourselves by antimalarial genes, lactase, fingerprints, or skin color, we could place Swedes in the same race as either Xhosas, Fulani, the Ainu of Japan, or Italians.
Regarding concordance, we could have classified races based on any number of geographically variable traits. The resulting classifications would not be at all concordant. Depending on whether we classified ourselves by antimalarial genes, lactase, fingerprints, or skin color, we could place Swedes in the same race as either Xhosas, Fulani, the Ainu of Japan, or Italians.
Regarding concordance, we could have classified races based on any number of geographically variable traits. The resulting classifications would not be at all concordant. Depending on whether we classified ourselves by antimalarial genes, lactase, fingerprints, or skin color, we could place Swedes in the same race as either Xhosas, Fulani, the Ainu of Japan, or Italians.
Regarding concordance, we could have classified races based on any number of geographically variable traits. The resulting classifications would not be at all concordant. Depending on whether we classified ourselves by antimalarial genes, lactase, fingerprints, or skin color, we could place Swedes in the same race as either Xhosas, Fulani, the Ainu of Japan, or Italians.
Regarding concordance, we could have classified races based on any number of geographically variable traits. The resulting classifications would not be at all concordant. Depending on whether we classified ourselves by antimalarial genes, lactase, fingerprints, or skin color, we could place Swedes in the same race as either Xhosas, Fulani, the Ainu of Japan, or Italians.
"The last thing we need now is to continue codifying all those different appearances into an arbitrary system of racial classification."
The last thing we need now is to continue codifying all those different appearances into an arbitrary system of racial classification.
The last thing we need now is to continue codifying all those different appearances into an arbitrary system of racial classification.
The last thing we need now is to continue codifying all those different appearances into an arbitrary system of racial classification.
The last thing we need now is to continue codifying all those different appearances into an arbitrary system of racial classification.
The last thing we need now is to continue codifying all those different appearances into an arbitrary system of racial classification.
The last thing we need now is to continue codifying all those different appearances into an arbitrary system of racial classification.
The last thing we need now is to continue codifying all those different appearances into an arbitrary system of racial classification.
arbitrary system of racial classification.
arbitrary system of racial classification.
arbitrary system of racial classification.
arbitrary
arbitrary
arbitrary
arbitrary
Now, remind me how Zagekfa (2009) is wrong and 'race' is an objective concept.
You have yet to actually explain why any categorisation is arbitrary. Your usual "because x has to be discrete" (which is impossible) is not an answer, because as Levin (2002) shows with numerous examples its setting up a false definition and adding the assumption categories require being discrete to exist, yet they don't.
See above.
"The different colours of the rainbow do not consist of discrete bands but are a perfect continuum, yet we readily distinguish different regions of this continuum as blue, green, yellow and red, and we effectively classify many things according to these colors. The validity of such distinctions need not require that they form perfectly discrete Platonic categories." (Jensen, 1998).
The distinction is socially constructed. Read this. You should also view some of the links in the "see also" section at the bottom of the page. Perhaps Jensen "readily [distinguishes]" them but not everyone else does, as it is socially constructed.
Furthermore according to you mountains are also social constructs because they are joined in a connecting landmass, so you will argue elevation cannot be broken up into levels or categories of height or altitude ranges.
- Are you saying this doesn't objectively exist?The category of 'mountain' is socially constructed. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'mountain' as:
"A large natural elevation of the earth's surface, esp. one high and steep in form (larger and higher than a hill) and with a summit of relatively small area."
Are you now going to claim 'large', 'high' and 'steep' are objective terms? Even they acknowledge the socially constructed classification in their definition of 'hill':
"A natural elevation of the earth's surface rising more or less steeply above the level of the surrounding land. Formerly the general term, including what are now called mountains; after the introduction of the latter word, gradually restricted to heights of less elevation; but the discrimination is largely a matter of local usage, and of the more or less mountainous character of the district, heights which in one locality are called mountains being in another reckoned merely as hills. A more rounded and less rugged outline is also usually connoted by the name.
In Great Britain heights under 2,000 feet are generally called hills; ‘mountain’ being confined to the greater elevations of the Lake District, of North Wales, and of the Scottish Highlands; but, in India, ranges of 5,000 and even 10,000 feet are commonly called ‘hills’, in contrast with the Himalaya Mountains, many peaks of which rise beyond 20,000 feet. The pl. hills is often applied to a region of hills or highland; esp. to the highlands of northern and interior India."
------
Again this is wrong because you aren't taking biogeography into account. Variations in phenotype are geographically delimited: "it is improbable that one could find anywhere in the world an individual with a combination of black skin, blue eyes, straight hair, red hair, and a complete Mongoloid eye-fold" (Hooton, 1946).
How is it wrong? I can distinguish between anything that is tautologically defined: this is a logical axiom. Since we have phenotypic differences we are all identifiable by those differences.
Why are you denying the empirical fact physical features differ per geographical region?
"Morphological characteristics, however, like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones". (Gill, 2000)
Individuals of population x, closer resemble other individuals of that population when compared to y. Look at any region to see this reality. Races posess adaptive phenotypic traits suited to their own geographical environments.
Physical features differ everywhere. You don't have the same phenotype as anyone on this planet. 'Resemble' by what measure? See Barbujani and Belle (2006) and the long bit above.
You never cited any. In fact as I already said, you proved you had never heard of any of the anthropological figures I listed.
Lol, so you're now saying I've never cited anybody before? Hahahahahahaha.
Explain what you mean by "pernicious consequences". Why do those who believe in race have "consequences"? This was an open admission by you that your views are embedded in your personal politics and emotions.
See Hunt and Megyesi (2006), Hunt (2008), Megyesi et al. (2011) and Pena (2011) for why the concept of 'race' is a problem.
"This is an experiment in pure libertarianism" [disclaimer] in the thread where you claimed there is nothing wrong with having sexual intercourse with animals. If you weren't politically a far left libertarian you wouldn't be engaging in such depraved discussions with radical liberal stances.
It was a logical discussion surrounding the philosophy of consent. If you can't handle simple discussions you need to grow up.
Race denialism is unheard of outside of Western Europe and America. And inside Western Europe and America polls show that most anthropologists and biologists believe in the reality of race.
"Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real" (Gill, 2000)
You loose if you want to go down the argumentum ad populum route. The "race denial" view is only held by a sizable minority of politically correct in the Western world who aren't interested in objective research but believe that acknowleding the scientific fact of biological races will lead to "racism". This is why race realism is called realism, and race denialism as denialism. "Race realists" arn't the deniers... you hold the minority position in denial though.
"There is consensus among anthropologists and human geneticists that, from a biological standpoint, human races are not biological entities, but social constructs (2,5,6)" (Pena, 2011). As far as I can see, Gill was published on a webpage; this is opposed to a 2011 article in a peer-reviewed journal. I know which one I prefer.
The only people who ramble on about 'realism' and 'denialism' are those who can't debate properly. Stop relying on unsubstantiated circumstantial ad hominem arguments and discuss the issue at hand.
I can also go though your posts and see where you forget/fail to apply the same philosophy. You are highly selective. Clearly race is something personal, sensitive and emotional to you. This is why I am guessing you are of Negroid physiognomy but self-hate your physical traits, like nappy hair. Am I correct?
Selective in what way? I could put quote marks around every subjective term I use but it is not constructive and the subjectivity is readily implicit. If somebody made a thread claiming various things like continents, countries, mountains, etc. are objective concepts I will argue against that postulation too.
The criterion has to be physical as outlined above, non-adaptive traits have no racial value.
You haven't outlined ****. Saying you are using Amadon then blatantly adding terms that he didn't use to uphold your argument only proves how socially constructed 'race' is. You change your definitions at a whim to accommodate 'race' a means of flogging a dead horse.
Nowhere did Amadon say the criterion "has to be physical", you dunce. I do wonder why the one who accuses everyone else of using a 'false definition' is, by his own standards, using one himself.
The number is irrelevent.
"if a high figure (perhaps 75) is agreed upon by taxonomists, one can scarcely doubt that there is a distinction worthy of recognition as subspecific or ‘racial’" (Baker, 1974)
The "distinction worthy of recognition" is easily discernible by the empirical fact: Individuals of population x, closer resemble other individuals of that population when compared to y. Remember physical variation corresponds to geographical (climatic) zones.
Lol. 'One can scarcely doubt'? Why not? Because he said so? Demonstrate why '75%' or an ambiguous 'large number' is an objective concept. If you cannot demonstrate its objectivity I see absolutely no basis to your claim that this figure is somehow significant.
This has been refuted numerous times, see above.
You haven't refuted anything until you can demonstrate why Zagefka (2009) is wrong.
I don't give a crap about genes, and never have. They are not how races are defined. You set up an endless string of false definitions.
LOL! They didn't know about genes in the time of Agassiz, did they? Haha. Of course you 'never have'. You were a creationist for the last 5 to 6 years and now align yourself to whoever resembles this viewpoint.
I've demonstrated in my previous posts that 'race' has multiple definitions depending on the purpose because it is socially constructed. Depending on what you choose different clusters are identified.
Amadon: "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"
"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"
"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"
"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"
"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"
YOU said Amadon was the 'true' definition of 'race'/subspecies. How does the use of genes violate this definition, which is apparently the unequivocally correct one and the one that you are using?
Obviously wrong. Someone can tell the difference between the entire temperature range to the too extremes. It is not a "social construct" to mark out the difference between slightly cold, slightly hot etc.
I can't stop laughing at how incompetent you are. Are you genuinely telling me that temperature is NOT a subjective concept?
Consult Barbujani and Belle (2006). I've already refuted the notion of cline peaks in the discussion I had with you in May.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
You just said you were using Amadon's definition, yet Amadon didn't mention anything about adaptive traits. You are so full of **** it is unbelievable.
It is so ironic that, relative to Amadon, you are using a 'false definition' as a means of arguing that everyone else is using a 'false definition'. Amadon did not specify the criteria that you have arbitrarily included.
Amadon did not use the words 'adaptive', 'non-adaptive' or 'physical' anywhere in his article. By your own standards you are using a 'false definition'. You're so stupid... wow. Your argument that somehow genes are irrelevant in biology ( ) is in direct contradiction with the very author upon whom you were basing your definition.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Hell, even Levin is using a 'false definition' by Amadon's standards:
Amadon: "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"
Levin: "Races as comnmonly understood are clades defined by continent. That is all there is to them."
Amadon didn't specify clades or continents, so Levin is operating on a 'false definition', according to you. LOL! Explain yourself, you moron. While you're at it, also explain how a "[clade] defined by continent" is an adaptive trait. You're an inconsistent, foolish mess flipping from definition to definition after I destroy each one.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
It is a polysemic term because it is socially constructed. The same argument about species is applicable to 'race':
"Various different ways of defining species can be found in the literature. There seem to be 26 to 28 separate definitions [...] No successful definitions have been found which capture necessary and sufficient properties that determine membership in Species – at least not for all types of species, as I will demonstrate shortly. Most definitions are successfully applicable only within a limited scope of cases. Overall, those definitions and delineation concepts are applied very inconsistently, and different ones may be called upon in different contexts; so much so, that the claim or aspiration for a unified Species kind, category, or rank that is arrived at by way of those species definitions, seems rather manifestly to not hold" (Kober, 2007).
Compare the bold:
"Many researchers are currently studying the distribution of genetic variations among diverse groups, with particular interest in explaining racial/ethnic health disparities. However, the use of racial/ethnic categories as variables in biological research is controversial. Just how racial/ethnic categories are conceptualized, operationalized, and interpreted is a key consideration in determining the legitimacy of their use, but has received little attention. We conducted semi-structured, open-ended interviews with 30 human genetics scientists from the US and Canada who use racial/ethnic variables in their research. They discussed the types of classifications they use, the criteria upon which they are based, and their methods for classifying individual samples and subjects. We found definitions of racial/ethnic variables were often lacking or unclear, the specific categories they used were inconsistent and context specific, and classification practices were often implicit and unexamined. We conclude that such conceptual and practical problems are inherent to routinely used racial/ethnic categories themselves, and that they lack sufficient rigor to be used as key variables in biological research. It is our position that it is unacceptable to persist in the constructing of scientific arguments based on these highly ambiguous variables" (Hunt and Megyesi, 2006).
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Your statement that "these traits are not racial" is not only begging the question (you are relying on traits to prove races in the first place, so how are you using the conclusion in the premise? ), but it also violates Amadon's definition.
Do non-adaptive or genetic traits allow people to be separated? Yes, as they have a geographic distribution and are present in some people but not in others. Therefore, they are suitable criteria for establishing a 'subspecies'. We then run into Barbujani and Belle's (2006) demonstration of the inconsistency and Maglo (2011)/Livingstone's (2008) demonstration of the illogic and reach the conclusion that 'race' outside of the individual (where the term becomes completely redundant) doesn't exist.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
"[...] Amadon (1949), who proposed an admittedly arbitrary guideline, that 75% of a sample of specimens should be distinguishable from 99% of a sample from a reference population" (James, 2010).
"Admittedly, the lower boundary for defining a valid diagnosable subspecies is arbitrary. That arbitrariness has been a focal point of criticism for the subspecies concept (e.g. Wilson and Brown 1953, Inger 1961, Selander 1971). One must bear in mind, however, that definitions for placement into all taxonomic groups other than a species are arbitrary (presuming some sort of biology-based species concept). Just how much difference is needed to define a genus? What level of distinction is necessary to define a new phylum? Do all genera or phyla differ from each other equally? Even if all such higher categories could be defined cladistically or on the basis of some degree of genetic difference, arbitrary definitions are unavoidable. Also consider that our beloved alpha=0.05, the underpinning of inferential statistics, is an arbitrary level. We accept a Type I error rate of 5% not because it is superior to any other; it is merely accepted convention. (Patten and Unitt, 2002).
I've been telling you for months that biological classification systems are arbitrary and socially constructed; the above is a source for those claims. It is obvious that any attempt to categorise a continuum is intrinsically socially constructed, which is already established by Zagefka's (2009) logic. Patten and Unitt saying "arbitrary definitions are unavoidable" is merely an acknowledgement of the systematically socially constructed nature of taxonomy as an academic discipline.
"We need to keep firmly in mind that biological classification is a human construct, to be adopted for the uses we find most compelling in light of current understanding. Particular classifications, or general principles of classification, are not immutable or important to conserve for tradition’s sake alone. Our knowledge of the biological world has changed greatly since Linnaeus, we must be free to consider changing his classification system to keep pace. Perhaps all scientists would agree in principle to this point, yet because of the weight of tradition, discussions about possible changes to the Linnaean classification rapidly become emotional, even angry (Laurin, 2008). Many systematists seem threatened to the core by any suggestion to change the classification system radically. But like any other scientific product, classification is subject to revision as knowledge increases — science should have no sacred cows."
But I know you still won't admit I am right, despite the fact that you can't refute the above. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
LOL the deranged Anglo-twit is glutton for punishment.
I can't wait for Swenet to respond to his senseless, lying, posts especially that of 50 cent! LMAO Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Bumb
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
I didn't pick up on it before, but are you really saying malarial resistance doesn't increase somebody's fitness? How on earth is it a non-adaptive trait?
Being less susceptible to malaria = greater chance of survival = greater chance of reproducing = malarial resistance is an adaptive trait.
Read this. Lactose tolerance is another adaptive trait. To quote you, "this is basic biology".
Does malarial resistance/lactose tolerance have a geographical distribution? Yes. Can it be used to assign people to geographical regions/populations? Yes. Therefore, according to Amadon, there is both a malaria-resistant subspecies/non-malaria-resistant subspecies and a lactose tolerant subspecies/non-lactose intolerant. Despite the fact that the geographical distribution of lactose tolerance/malarial resistance overlaps with the geographical distribution of lactose intolerance/non-malarial resistance, we are still capable of distinguishing between those who have the relevant genes and those who don't.
P.S., since I know you're going to say "RACES AREN'T DEFINED BY SINGLE TRAITS, THEY'RE DEFINED BY MULTIPLE ONES!!!!1 DERP HERP" Amadon didn't say anything about using multiple traits, so don't start relying on 'false definitions' to support your argument.
In fact, here's evidence that the use of a single trait doesn't violate Amadon's definition:
"With the 75% rule definition, it is possible to quantify the diagnosis of a subspecies with statistical precision. The task is simple for categorical characters, such as the presence or absence of a color or marking. Classifying specimens accordingly, with the character treated as either present or absent, quickly yields a 2x2 table that can be tested with chisquare statistics or, more simply, counted to determine if the desired level of diagnosability has been achieved" (Patten and Unitt, 2002).
'Character' = singular, not plural. Why are you using 'false definitions' that say multiple traits must be used in unison?
I'll quote him again: "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"
You said you were using Amadon's (1949) definition and this is Amadon's (1949) definition. Nothing about 'physical', 'adaptive', 'non-adaptive' or 'multiple'; the only thing he said is 'separable'. We can separate the lactose intolerant from the tolerant just like we can separate the malaria resistant from the non-resistant; hence, these qualify as subspecies. Anybody who suggests otherwise is using a 'false definition', according to you.
The choice of which marker(s) are used is arbitrary; hence, the category is socially constructed. The lactose intolerant/tolerant subspecies and the malaria resistant/non-resistant subspecies cannot both be equal subspecies (unless you are admitting everyone belongs to a different subspecies or 'race' simultaneously, which means we are all admixed with various genetic traits and can logically be said to be a subspecies of our own. Your parents are of different subspecies or 'races' depending on which trait is used to define that subspecies or 'race', which means you are admixed), which is why the whole concept is illogical. I've been saying this since the first debate I had with you. Barbujani and Belle (2006) have also expressed this sentiment:
"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"
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: 'Resemble' in what way? You haven't explained why Zagefka (2009) is wrong.
I've already explained, "resemble" is pretty self explanatory. The coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean) of variables in each population, cluster together individuals. Look at variables and you will see this. The standard deviation of nasal indices in Caucasoids for example does not extend into the platyrrhine range. Two individual Caucasoids look more similar when compared to a Congo Pygmy, this is because their variables fall within different ranges of deviation. No one ever said individuals of races must be identical, but population x will always closer resemble x in his/her features than y. There is no escaping this empirical reality, which you had no problem with admitting less than two years ago. Remember?
quote:"equivalent to an ethnically west African person getting lip reduction surgery, rhinoplasty or skin bleaching"
Your old posts are filled with identifying populations with common traits. Negroids you note have lip eversion, dark skin and elsewhere (in those old hair threads) wooly hair.
Your "nothing exists but is a social construct, including mountains and fruits" is just a philosophy you've held for the last year and a bit. You cling to it to provoke a reaction out of people other than anything else. There's no point in further wasting time in debate with someone who denies empirical truths.
I believe this debate could have been more productive if you went back to your views 2 years back, when you at least admitted geographical aggregates of individuals have traits more in common than other populations. Since you won't though, there is no point in continuing. How can we proceed when you deny empirical facts?
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: 'Resemble' in what way? You haven't explained why Zagefka (2009) is wrong.
I've already explained, "resemble" is pretty self explanatory. The coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean) of variables in each population, cluster together individuals. Look at variables and you will see this. The standard deviation of nasal indices in Caucasoids for example does not extend into the platyrrhine range. Two individual Caucasoids look more similar when compared to a Congo Pygmy, this is because their variables fall within different ranges of deviation. No one ever said individuals of races must be identical, but population x will always closer resemble x in his/her features than y. There is no escaping this empirical reality, which you had no problem with admitting less than two years ago. Remember?
quote:"equivalent to an ethnically west African person getting lip reduction surgery, rhinoplasty or skin bleaching"
Your old posts are filled with identifying populations with common traits. Negroids you note have lip eversion, dark skin and elsewhere (in those old hair threads) wooly hair.
Your "nothing exists but is a social construct, including mountains and fruits" is just a philosophy you've held for the last year and a bit. You cling to it to provoke a reaction out of people other than anything else. There's no point in further wasting time in debate with someone who denies empirical truths.
I believe this debate could have been more productive if you went back to your views 2 years back, when you at least admitted geographical aggregates of individuals have traits more in common than other populations. Since you won't though, there is no point in continuing. How can we proceed when you deny empirical facts?
No, it isn't 'self-explanatory'. The Diamond article directly refutes the whole 'objectively' dissimilar notion in respect to somebody's phenotype. Barbujani and Belle (2006) have demonstrated 'populations' vary by study, methodologies, assumptions and genetic traits; you speak as if there are stable population clusters, which there aren't.
Are you going to respond to my other points? When your argument is exhausted and you are revealed as a complete liar you go off on a wholly irrelevant tangent. There have already been several threads discussing the previous posts I made on TSR and people can find them with very little effort. Feel free to bump those threads when you can find any posts where I have said anybody has "lip eversion, dark skin and elsewhere (in those old hair threads) wooly hair". Until then, you are assuming what I meant without any evidence coming from me; your assumption is not equal to my intention. Stay on topic.
I've addressed all of your claims that these things are objective, but you haven't replied to most of them. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate hot/cold/warm outside of absolute zero/hot is an objective concept; that the category of 'mountain' is objective, despite my demonstrating that even the Oxford English Dictionary definition acknowledges it is socially constructed and changes by locality; and that colour classifications are objectively determined, despite multiple languages not acknowledging the same distinctions that our language does. Then you need to refute Zagefka's (2009) logic. Good luck. Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
lol @ badumtish.
Just above you claimed I don't closer resemble my parents physically than a Congo Pygmy. LOL.
Its about time you admitted you were a [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law]Poe[/url]
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: lol @ badumtish.
Just above you claimed I don't closer resemble my parents physically than a Congo Pygmy. LOL.
"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).
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Washed up, again. I've made a lot of progress this time. When you inevitably abandon this account and make a new one, I'll link back to this thread to demonstrate your hypocrisy when accusing others of using 'false definitions' and why using Amadon's one only confirms what I have said.
The epitome of invincible ignorance, right here.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: 'Resemble' in what way? You haven't explained why Zagefka (2009) is wrong.
I've already explained, "resemble" is pretty self explanatory. The coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean) of variables in each population, cluster together individuals. Look at variables and you will see this. The standard deviation of nasal indices in Caucasoids for example does not extend into the platyrrhine range. Two individual Caucasoids look more similar when compared to a Congo Pygmy, this is because their variables fall within different ranges of deviation. No one ever said individuals of races must be identical, but population x will always closer resemble x in his/her features than y. There is no escaping this empirical reality, which you had no problem with admitting less than two years ago. Remember?
quote:"equivalent to an ethnically west African person getting lip reduction surgery, rhinoplasty or skin bleaching"
Your old posts are filled with identifying populations with common traits. Negroids you note have lip eversion, dark skin and elsewhere (in those old hair threads) wooly hair.
Your "nothing exists but is a social construct, including mountains and fruits" is just a philosophy you've held for the last year and a bit. You cling to it to provoke a reaction out of people other than anything else. There's no point in further wasting time in debate with someone who denies empirical truths.
I believe this debate could have been more productive if you went back to your views 2 years back, when you at least admitted geographical aggregates of individuals have traits more in common than other populations. Since you won't though, there is no point in continuing. How can we proceed when you deny empirical facts?
No, it isn't 'self-explanatory'. The Diamond article directly refutes the whole 'objectively' dissimilar notion in respect to somebody's phenotype. Barbujani and Belle (2006) have demonstrated 'populations' vary by study, methodologies, assumptions and genetic traits; you speak as if there are stable population clusters, which there aren't.
Are you going to respond to my other points? When your argument is exhausted and you are revealed as a complete liar you go off on a wholly irrelevant tangent. There have already been several threads discussing the previous posts I made on TSR and people can find them with very little effort. Feel free to bump those threads when you can find any posts where I have said anybody has "lip eversion, dark skin and elsewhere (in those old hair threads) wooly hair". Until then, you are assuming what I meant without any evidence coming from me; your assumption is not equal to my intention. Stay on topic.
I've addressed all of your claims that these things are objective, but you haven't replied to most of them. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate hot/cold/warm outside of absolute zero/hot is an objective concept; that the category of 'mountain' is objective, despite my demonstrating that even the Oxford English Dictionary definition acknowledges it is socially constructed and changes by locality; and that colour classifications are objectively determined, despite multiple languages not acknowledging the same distinctions that our language does. Then you need to refute Zagefka's (2009) logic. Good luck.
Explain why 'resemble' isn't self-explanatory.
"Have qualities or features, esp. those of appearance, in common with (someone or something); look or seem like."
- Two individual of population x, look more common than an individual of population y. The ancient Romans looked more similar than Chinese. Two eskimos look more similar than Australoids.
Statistically this is demonstrated through cv and other formula. Its also demonstrated through basic observation.
Why are you denying empirical facts?
And when will you admit you are a poe?
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: 'Resemble' in what way? You haven't explained why Zagefka (2009) is wrong.
I've already explained, "resemble" is pretty self explanatory. The coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean) of variables in each population, cluster together individuals. Look at variables and you will see this. The standard deviation of nasal indices in Caucasoids for example does not extend into the platyrrhine range. Two individual Caucasoids look more similar when compared to a Congo Pygmy, this is because their variables fall within different ranges of deviation. No one ever said individuals of races must be identical, but population x will always closer resemble x in his/her features than y. There is no escaping this empirical reality, which you had no problem with admitting less than two years ago. Remember?
quote:"equivalent to an ethnically west African person getting lip reduction surgery, rhinoplasty or skin bleaching"
Your old posts are filled with identifying populations with common traits. Negroids you note have lip eversion, dark skin and elsewhere (in those old hair threads) wooly hair.
Your "nothing exists but is a social construct, including mountains and fruits" is just a philosophy you've held for the last year and a bit. You cling to it to provoke a reaction out of people other than anything else. There's no point in further wasting time in debate with someone who denies empirical truths.
I believe this debate could have been more productive if you went back to your views 2 years back, when you at least admitted geographical aggregates of individuals have traits more in common than other populations. Since you won't though, there is no point in continuing. How can we proceed when you deny empirical facts?
No, it isn't 'self-explanatory'. The Diamond article directly refutes the whole 'objectively' dissimilar notion in respect to somebody's phenotype. Barbujani and Belle (2006) have demonstrated 'populations' vary by study, methodologies, assumptions and genetic traits; you speak as if there are stable population clusters, which there aren't.
Are you going to respond to my other points? When your argument is exhausted and you are revealed as a complete liar you go off on a wholly irrelevant tangent. There have already been several threads discussing the previous posts I made on TSR and people can find them with very little effort. Feel free to bump those threads when you can find any posts where I have said anybody has "lip eversion, dark skin and elsewhere (in those old hair threads) wooly hair". Until then, you are assuming what I meant without any evidence coming from me; your assumption is not equal to my intention. Stay on topic.
I've addressed all of your claims that these things are objective, but you haven't replied to most of them. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate hot/cold/warm outside of absolute zero/hot is an objective concept; that the category of 'mountain' is objective, despite my demonstrating that even the Oxford English Dictionary definition acknowledges it is socially constructed and changes by locality; and that colour classifications are objectively determined, despite multiple languages not acknowledging the same distinctions that our language does. Then you need to refute Zagefka's (2009) logic. Good luck.
Explain why 'resemble' isn't self-explanatory.
"Have qualities or features, esp. those of appearance, in common with (someone or something); look or seem like."
- Two individual of population x, look more common than an individual of population y. The ancient Romans looked more similar than Chinese. Two eskimos look more similar than Australoids.
Statistically this is demonstrated through cv and other formula. Its also demonstrated through basic observation.
Why are you denying empirical facts?
And when will you admit you are a poe?
Zagefka (2009) explains perfectly. Demonstrate why she is wrong and answer my question above about the three people depicted.
Playing Devil's Advocate, as I reject your statement: In respect to the nose example, does the 'Caucasoid' with the broadest nose closer resemble the 'Caucasoid' with the thinnest nose or the 'Mongoloid' with the thinnest nose?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: lol @ badumtish.
Just above you claimed I don't closer resemble my parents physically than a Congo Pygmy. LOL.
"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).
Are you saying you can't pinpoint the people in those three photos geographical origin? I easily can. So care to explain?
How do you explain someone can look at someone and tell their geographical origin/race?
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Are you saying you can't pinpoint the people in those three photos geographical origin? I easily can. So care to explain?
How do you explain someone can look at someone and tell their geographical origin/race?
Lol, since you have failed to understand: I asked you to tell me whether the person in the top image better resembles the middle or bottom one. Then I asked you to demonstrate why your choice is objective.
It should be a simple task for someone who believes similarity is an objective concept.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^
(1) Mixed race (European/Negroid)
(2) Mixed race (European/Negroid)
(3) Mongoloid
Very easy. If anything with photos you are proving the reality of race. As i told you - physical traits correspond to geographical regions. Aggregates of individuals in those regions resemble each other more than other populations in these traits. Those that show a mixture of traits from two zones are mixed.
"Morphological characteristics, however, like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones". (Gill, 2000)
(a) resembles (b) despite have a tumor on his face.
- Races are only defined by racial traits, not random traits. (a) and (b) are clearly the result of Negroid-European (Caucasoid) crossing.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^
(1) Mixed race (European/Negroid)
(2) Mixed race (European/Negroid)
(3) Mongoloid
Very easy. If anything with photos you are proving the reality of race. As i told you - physical traits correspond to geographical regions. Aggregates of individuals in those regions resemble each other more than other populations in these traits. Those that show a mixture of traits from two zones are mixed.
"Morphological characteristics, however, like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones". (Gill, 2000)
(a) resembles (b) despite have a tumor on his face.
- Races are only defined by racial traits, not random traits. (a) and (b) are clearly the result of Negroid-European (Caucasoid) crossing.
See the Diamond article.
Why does a better resemble b? Tell me which qualities a has in common with b, as opposed to c, then tell me why those qualities are objectively (i.e., not arbitrarily) more important than a's similarities with c.
Amadon didn't specify which qualities must be used to separate people. Stop using 'false definitions'. Thanks.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Don't you see how stupid that statement is? "Races are only defined by racial traits"
"HERP DERP. I'M PYRAMIDOLOGIST AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT CIRCULAR REASONING IS HEEEEERRRRRP."
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Diamond isn't using racial traits, but traits that had no involvement in race formation. He therefore is setting up a fallacy and false criteria for racial typology. This fallacy though goes back to Montagu (1942).
(a) clusters with (b) because they have the same racial traits in common, which (c) differs in: hair texture, skin colour and b's nasal width. Its evident (a) and (b) are both half-castes (European-Negroid) hybrids, while (c) of East Asian (Mongoloid) derivation.
Its evident that not only do you not know what races are (you set up false definitions) but that you don't know what racial traits are either. Instead your confusing random traits with races. Nowhere have I used a false definition of Amadon.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Diamond isn't using racial traits, but traits that had no involvement in race formation. He therefore is setting up a fallacy and false criteria for racial typology. This fallacy though goes back to Montagu (1942).
(a) clusters with (b) because they have the same racial traits in common, which (c) differs in: hair texture, skin colour and b's nasal width. Its evident (a) and (b) are both half-castes (European-Negroid) hybrids, while (c) of East Asian (Mongoloid) derivation.
Its evident that not only do you not know what races are (you set up false definitions) but that you don't know what racial traits are either. Instead your confusing random traits with races. Nowhere have I used a false definition of Amadon.
Lol, you lied about Amadon stating the criterion must be physical:
What Pyramidologist claimed Amadon said: In zoology, races are recognised through a simple "if 75% of x is different physically to population y" - it is a subspecies.
What Amadon actually said: "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"
Amadon didn't specify any criteria; he merely says 'separable'. Things can be separated through a variety of different dimensions. Show me something in that exact quote that Diamond violates.
Learn what circular reasoning is then get back to me.
Nasal width? Are we looking at the same image? You haven't told me why your choice is objective. In terms of the diagnosis a would cluster with c. In terms of facial dimensions a would also cluster with c. You still haven't answered my question where I was playing Devil's Advocate.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
You still have to refute this and demonstrate taxonomy is objective:
"[...] Amadon (1949), who proposed an admittedly arbitrary guideline, that 75% of a sample of specimens should be distinguishable from 99% of a sample from a reference population" (James, 2010).
"Admittedly, the lower boundary for defining a valid diagnosable subspecies is arbitrary. That arbitrariness has been a focal point of criticism for the subspecies concept (e.g. Wilson and Brown 1953, Inger 1961, Selander 1971). One must bear in mind, however, that definitions for placement into all taxonomic groups other than a species are arbitrary (presuming some sort of biology-based species concept). Just how much difference is needed to define a genus? What level of distinction is necessary to define a new phylum? Do all genera or phyla differ from each other equally? Even if all such higher categories could be defined cladistically or on the basis of some degree of genetic difference, arbitrary definitions are unavoidable. Also consider that our beloved alpha=0.05, the underpinning of inferential statistics, is an arbitrary level. We accept a Type I error rate of 5% not because it is superior to any other; it is merely accepted convention. (Patten and Unitt, 2002).
I've been telling you for months that biological classification systems are arbitrary and socially constructed; the above is a source for those claims. It is obvious that any attempt to categorise a continuum is intrinsically socially constructed, which is already established by Zagefka's (2009) logic. Patten and Unitt saying "arbitrary definitions are unavoidable" is merely an acknowledgement of the systematically socially constructed nature of taxonomy as an academic discipline.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Bumb
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Show me something in that exact quote that Diamond violates.
Amadon's rule is not applicable to random genes. The only zoological studies that employ Amadon's rule use morphological traits (Patton & Unitt, 2002; Cicero & Johnson, 2006). Amadon's 1949 paper also only outlines metrics.
Races are not defined by their anti-malarial genes or any of the other garbage you have posted. When will you learn?
quote:You haven't told me why your choice is objective. In terms of the diagnosis a would cluster with c. In terms of facial dimensions a would also cluster with c.
I've already proven why they are objective racial categories -
"If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice at once that the observed variation does not form a single probability distribution or any other kind of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete, distributions are found. In other words, the living world is not a single array of individuals in which any two variants are connected by unbroken series of intergrades but an array of more or less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare. Each array is a cluster of individuals, usually possessing some common characteristics and gravitating to a definite modal point in their variations." (Dobzhansky, 1937)
Two individuals of population x closer resemble each other than y. This is demonstrated by statistical formula, but also observation. Its an empirical fact, even called the law of frequency of type. But empirical laws and facts you have no interest in. This is why I said above this discussion can not progress.
Despite having a tumor on his face, (a) resembles (b) in his racial traits, and both are clearly mixed race individuals with Caucasoid and Negroid racial features. The tumor is not a racial feature.
quote:You still haven't answered my question where I was playing Devil's Advocate. [/QB]
Two or three Caucasoid subraces fall in the mesorrhine range, which is typical for Mongoloids. Are you going to set up your straw man now that races are defined by singular traits? Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:both are clearly mixed race individuals with Caucasoid and Negroid racial features
And now confirming -
A google image search reveals (b) is mixed race of Sub-Saharan African (Negroid) and French (Caucasoid) ancestry.
Yet according to you, no one can look at an individual and know his/her geographical derivation. You claimed I don't look more like my father than a congo pymgy. lol.
- All your views are just retarded and debunked. That's why I suggested above you might just be someone setting up a parody of an extreme philosophical viewpoint.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Amadon's rule is not applicable to random genes. The only zoological studies that employ Amadon's rule use morphological traits (Patton & Unitt, 2002; Cicero & Johnson, 2006). Amadon's 1949 paper also only outlines metrics.
Races are not defined by their anti-malarial genes or any of the other garbage you have posted. When will you learn?
Where does it say this in Amadon's quote? Stop using 'false definitions'. Thanks.
Various traits can be used to separate populations; Amadon did not specify any criteria. I don't really care what 'false definitions' you are using; as long as Amadon didn't say it you have absolutely no basis to your claim that X, Y or Z is/isn't 'acceptable'.
It's why you are arbitrarily excluding anything (including genes ) that doesn't conform to your preconceptions, despite these preconceptions not conforming to Amadon's specific statement.
quote:I've already proven why they are objective racial categories -
"If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice at once that the observed variation does not form a single probability distribution or any other kind of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete, distributions are found. In other words, the living world is not a single array of individuals in which any two variants are connected by unbroken series of intergrades but an array of more or less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare. Each array is a cluster of individuals, usually possessing some common characteristics and gravitating to a definite modal point in their variations." (Dobzhansky, 1937)
Two individuals of population x closer resemble each other than y. This is demonstrated by statistical formula, but also observation. Its an empirical fact, even called the law of frequency of type. But empirical laws and facts you have no interest in. This is why I said above this discussion can not progress.
Lol, Dobzhansky.
"No one denies that human populations differ in allele frequencies. The problem is that Dobzhansky seems to label any genetic differences racial differences while at the same time claiming that not every racially distinct population is a race or should be recognized as such. He wrote, for example, in response to Frank Livingstone's ([1962] 2008a) rejection of the application of the concept of geographic race to humans that: "Since human populations [. . .] often, differ in the frequencies of one or more, usually several to many, genetic variables, they are by this test racially distinct. But it does not follow that any racially distinct populations should be given racial (or subspecific) labels" (Dobzhansky 2008b, p. 298).
The difficulties in Dobzhansky's thought about the existence of biological human races were highlighted by Livingstone in his reply, in which he rejected as simply untenable "Dobzhansky's dichotomy" between the issue of the putative biological reality of human races and the allegedly unconnected issue of the nomenclatorial recognition of such biological human races. Livingstone argued that: "the concepts of a science are also logically interconnected and form a coherent, consistent theory or system. The concepts of such a system are defined in terms of one another and certain primitive terms, and then the formal, mathematical, or logical properties of the system derived (2008b, p. 300). Livingstone's point was that if the concept of race is being introduced in human population genetics because it allegedly has a scientific necessity and a unique explanatory value, then the nomenclatorial identification of human races cannot be at the same time a matter of arbitrary choice" (Maglo, 2011).
quote:Despite having a tumor on his face, (a) resembles (b) in his racial traits, and both are clearly mixed race individuals with Caucasoid and Negroid racial features. The tumor is not a racial feature.
The dimensions that you have chosen are done so arbitrarily. They are no more important than any other ones in determining 'similarity', which is what Zagefka (2009) has demonstrated.
quote:Two or three Caucasoid subraces fall in the mesorrhine range, which is typical for Mongoloids. Are you going to set up your straw man now that races are defined by singular traits?
You haven't actually answered the question. Is the 'Caucasoid' with the broadest nose closer to the 'Caucasoid' with the thinnest nose or the 'Mongoloid' with the thinnest nose?
How is it a strawman? Tell me how it violates Amadon's specific definition, which is apparently unequivocally correct, despite being clearly arbitrary.
"With the 75% rule definition, it is possible to quantify the diagnosis of a subspecies with statistical precision. The task is simple for categorical characters, such as the presence or absence of a color or marking. Classifying specimens accordingly, with the character treated as either present or absent, quickly yields a 2x2 table that can be tested with chisquare statistics or, more simply, counted to determine if the desired level of diagnosability has been achieved" (Patten and Unitt, 2002).
'Character' = singular, not plural. Why are you using 'false definitions' that say multiple traits must be used in unison?
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:both are clearly mixed race individuals with Caucasoid and Negroid racial features
And now confirming -
A google image search reveals (b) is mixed race of Sub-Saharan African (Negroid) and French (Caucasoid) ancestry.
Yet according to you, no one can look at an individual and know his/her geographical derivation. You claimed I don't look more like my father than a congo pymgy. lol.
- All your views are just retarded and debunked. That's why I suggested above you might just be someone setting up a parody of an extreme philosophical viewpoint.
I never said geographical pinpointing isn't possible. Just by seeing if someone has sickle cell I know they have come from the geographical range of sickle cell incidence.
'Retarded and debunked'. This is why you selectively answered my points and haven't actually refuted anything I've said in this thread? Your delusion is startling.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Malarial resistance and lactose tolerance are adaptive traits you absolute fucking dolt. Is there an equal incidence of lactose tolerance and malarial resistance around the world?
You say: "Races are not defined by their anti-malarial genes or any of the other garbage you have posted."
Amadon says: "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"
Can you point out where Amadon says 'races' are "not defined by their anti-malarial genes or any of the other garbage [I] have posted"? A subspecies, according to Amadon, is defined when "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".
Show me where anti-malarial genes and everything else I've posted are explicitly forbidden from establishing separation in Amadon's definition. Otherwise, stop using 'false definitions'. Thanks.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
I will continue posting this until you address it:
You still have to refute this and demonstrate taxonomy is objective:
"[...] Amadon (1949), who proposed an admittedly arbitrary guideline, that 75% of a sample of specimens should be distinguishable from 99% of a sample from a reference population" (James, 2010).
"Admittedly, the lower boundary for defining a valid diagnosable subspecies is arbitrary. That arbitrariness has been a focal point of criticism for the subspecies concept (e.g. Wilson and Brown 1953, Inger 1961, Selander 1971). One must bear in mind, however, that definitions for placement into all taxonomic groups other than a species are arbitrary (presuming some sort of biology-based species concept). Just how much difference is needed to define a genus? What level of distinction is necessary to define a new phylum? Do all genera or phyla differ from each other equally? Even if all such higher categories could be defined cladistically or on the basis of some degree of genetic difference, arbitrary definitions are unavoidable. Also consider that our beloved alpha=0.05, the underpinning of inferential statistics, is an arbitrary level. We accept a Type I error rate of 5% not because it is superior to any other; it is merely accepted convention. (Patten and Unitt, 2002).
I've been telling you for months that biological classification systems are arbitrary and socially constructed; the above is a source for those claims. It is obvious that any attempt to categorise a continuum is intrinsically socially constructed, which is already established by Zagefka's (2009) logic. Patten and Unitt saying "arbitrary definitions are unavoidable" is merely an acknowledgement of the systematically socially constructed nature of taxonomy as an academic discipline.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
For my previous image, you said they were closer on the basis of their "hair texture, skin colour and [...] nasal width."
Is he more similar to
or
Demonstrate why your answer is objective.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Malarial resistance and lactose tolerance are not adaptive racial traits. They are random distributions. The traits that are racial, are the physical characteristics involved in race formation through vicariance. These arose through climatic and environmental adaptation, and they are the traits geographically circumscribed.
Lactose tolerance can end up clustering a Japanese person with a Scandinavian - this is why you are setting up false racial criteria.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Malarial resistance and lactose tolerance are not adaptive racial traits. They are random distributions. The traits that are racial, are the physical characteristics involved in race formation through vicariance. These arose through climatic and environmental adaptation, and they are the traits geographically circumscribed.
Lactose tolerance can end up clustering a Japanese person with a Scandinavian - this is why you are setting up false racial criteria.
The domestication of plants and animals roughly 10,000 years ago profoundly changed human diets, and it gave those individuals who could best digest the new foods a selective advantage. The best understood of these adaptations is lactose tolerance (Sabeti et al., 2006; Bersaglieri et al., 2004). The ability to digest lactose, a sugar found in milk, usually disappears before adulthood in mammals, and the same is true in most human populations. However, for some people, including a large fraction of individuals of European descent, the ability to break down lactose persists because of a mutation in the lactase gene (LCT). This suggests that the allele became common in Europe because of increased nutrition from cow's milk, which became available after the domestication of cattle. This hypothesis was eventually confirmed by Todd Bersaglieri and his colleagues, who demonstrated that the lactase persistence allele is common in Europeans (nearly 80% of people of European descent carry this allele), and it has evidence of a selective sweep spanning roughly 1 million base pairs (1 megabase). Indeed, lactose tolerance is one of the strongest signals of selection seen anywhere in the genome. Sarah Tishkoff and colleagues subsequently found a distinct LCT mutation also conferring lactose tolerance, in this case in African pastoralist populations, suggesting the action of convergent evolution (Tishkoff et al., 2007).
Malaria Resistance The development of agriculture also changed the selective pressures on humans in another way: Increased population density made the transmission of infectious diseases easier, and it probably expanded the already substantial role of pathogens as agents of natural selection. That role is reflected in the traces left by selection in human genetic diversity; multiple loci associated with disease resistance have been identified as probable sites of selection. In most cases, the resistance is to the same disease—malaria (Kwiatkowski, 2005).
Malaria's power to drive selection is not surprising, as it is one of the human population's oldest diseases and remains one of the greatest causes of morbidity and mortality in the world today, infecting hundreds of millions of people and killing 1 to 2 million children in Africa each year. In fact, malaria was responsible for the first case of positive selection demonstrated genetically in humans. In the 1940s and 1950s, J. B. S. Haldane and A. C. Allison demonstrated that the geographical distribution of the sickle-cell mutation (Glu6Val) in the beta hemoglobin gene (HBB) was limited to Africa and correlated with malaria endemicity, and that individuals who carry the sickle-cell trait are resistant to malaria (Allison, 1954). Since then, many more alleles for malaria resistance have shown evidence of selection, including more mutations in HBB, as well as mutations causing other red blood cell disorders (e.g., a-thalassemia, G6PD deficiency, and ovalocytosis) (Kwiatkowski, 2005).
Malaria also drove one of the most striking genetic differences between populations. This difference involves the Duffy antigen gene (FY), which encodes a membrane protein used by the Plasmodium vivax malaria parasite to enter red blood cells, a critical first step in its life cycle. A mutation in FY that disrupts the protein, thus conferring protection against P. vivax malaria, is at a frequency of 100% throughout most of sub-Saharan Africa and virtually absent elsewhere; such an extreme difference in allele frequency is very rare for humans."
What are you talking about? 'Race'/Subspecies is defined by "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." Anything capable of separating 75% from 99%+ is a 'racial trait'.
I don't know what definition you are using, but it isn't Amadon's. Do you see the word 'vicariance' in that quote? No? Then stop using 'false definitions'. Thanks.
Yes, people in the geographical region known as 'Japan' can be clustered with people in the geographical region known as 'Scandinavia'. This is because the genes conferring lactose tolerance allow individuals with these traits to be separated from the individuals without these traits, as per Amadon's definition.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Lol, from this:
"Individuals of population x can be dissimilar to each other when compared to another population only if non-adaptive traits are used such as lactose tolerance, or anti-malarial genes. These traits are not racial. Hence you could end up clustering Swedes with Japanese."
To this:
"Malarial resistance and lactose tolerance are not adaptive racial traits"
If this isn't the perfect example of moving the goalposts I don't know what is. As I said, continuously changing your definition only proves how arbitrary and socially constructed 'race' is. You've been begging the question and constructing circular arguments for a while now. Do you understand what I mean by this? This is a logically invalid argument: "This is a race because it is defined by racial traits. Racial traits are those that define races." Seriously, just read the first section of the 'begging the question' article to see why your argument is untenable.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
I will continue posting this until you address it:
You still have to refute this and demonstrate taxonomy is objective:
"[...] Amadon (1949), who proposed an admittedly arbitrary guideline, that 75% of a sample of specimens should be distinguishable from 99% of a sample from a reference population" (James, 2010).
"Admittedly, the lower boundary for defining a valid diagnosable subspecies is arbitrary. That arbitrariness has been a focal point of criticism for the subspecies concept (e.g. Wilson and Brown 1953, Inger 1961, Selander 1971). One must bear in mind, however, that definitions for placement into all taxonomic groups other than a species are arbitrary (presuming some sort of biology-based species concept). Just how much difference is needed to define a genus? What level of distinction is necessary to define a new phylum? Do all genera or phyla differ from each other equally? Even if all such higher categories could be defined cladistically or on the basis of some degree of genetic difference, arbitrary definitions are unavoidable. Also consider that our beloved alpha=0.05, the underpinning of inferential statistics, is an arbitrary level. We accept a Type I error rate of 5% not because it is superior to any other; it is merely accepted convention. (Patten and Unitt, 2002).
I've been telling you for months that biological classification systems are arbitrary and socially constructed; the above is a source for those claims. It is obvious that any attempt to categorise a continuum is intrinsically socially constructed, which is already established by Zagefka's (2009) logic. Patten and Unitt saying "arbitrary definitions are unavoidable" is merely an acknowledgement of the systematically socially constructed nature of taxonomy as an academic discipline.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Both statements are the same. You've been debunked and now as usual resort to nitpicking. Lactose tolerance, or anti-malarial genes are non-adaptive racial traits. In the first sentence "population x" = race and as I have asserted from day one, only racial traits (not random) are used in racial typology, hence my focus on crania and hair texture.
Races (populations) can only be differentatiated by traits involved in race formation. Anything else is a red herring. Its like talking about boats, and then discussing planes. Random traits have nothing to do with races (this is obvious except to you)- yet they are vital to your "race denialism" because through utilizing them you can claim different methodologies produce different amount of races (x, y, z) which is a key fallacy.
I see the same fallacies over and over in your posts. One of the ones I laugh at is when you post the table claiming 3 - 200 or more races have been claimed to exist. Yet when such sources are checked, its made clear they are not subspecies, but local races below the subspecies taxa. Deniker's scheme for example you love to post "26 races" are not major racial divisions, but local types. His major races are in fact reduced to 7 (page 287 of his "The Races of Man" which I own). You are a fraud.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
It's funny... despite the clear evidence that the frequency of lactose tolerance/malarial resistance is geographically patterned, you now seem to be rejecting this because it isn't neatly 'circumscribed', distinct or in agreement with the 'races' that you believe exist.
Amadon didn't say anything had to be circumscribed to make a subspecies; he simply said 75% of a population must be separable from 99% of another one. The population who have lactose tolerance/malaria resistance are separable from the population with lactose intolerance/no malaria resistance, which means they are also different 'races'.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Both statements are the same. You've been debunked and now as usual resort to nitpicking. Lactose tolerance, or anti-malarial genes are non-adaptive racial traits. In the first sentence "population x" = race and as I have asserted from day one, only racial traits (not random) are used in racial typology, hence my focus on crania and hair texture.
Races (populations) can only be differentatiated by traits involved in race formation. Anything else is a red herring. Its like talking about boats, and then discussing planes. Random traits have nothing to do with races (this is obvious except to you)- yet they are vital to your "race denialism" because through utilizing them you can claim different methodologies produce different amount of races (x, y, z) which is a key fallacy.
I see the same fallacies over and over in your posts. One of the ones I laugh at is when you post the table claiming 3 - 200 or more races have been claimed to exist. Yet when such sources are checked, its made clear they are not subspecies, but local races below the subspecies taxa. Deniker's scheme for example you love to post "26 races" are not major racial divisions, but local types. His major races are in fact reduced to 7 (page 287 of his "The Races of Man" which I own). You are a fraud.
Blah de blah blah...
Get back to me when you find any specified criteria for separation in this quote and learn not to beg the question: "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." Until you can find such criteria in that quote, your limitations on what can and cannot be used to separate populations is a product of a 'false definition'.
Everything where 75% is separable from 99%+ is a valid subspecies, which Patton and Unitt (2002) have acknowledged: "Admittedly, the lower boundary for defining a valid diagnosable subspecies is arbitrary." Stop using 'false definitions'. Thanks.
Let me reiterate: It's a 'fallacy' according to whom? Certainly not Amadon—whose definition is unconditionally correct—as he simply said: "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." Anything capable of separating populations is valid in defining a subspecies. Unless you can find something in that quote that explicitly says otherwise, your claim that the traits I have invoked in this thread are wrong is a product of a 'false definition'.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Chamla (1980, 1986) lists them. I don't have access to those papers but I have a summary of her studies in another work. The Caspian crania are the earliest identified Caucasoids in Africa and are palaeo-mediterranean: leptoprosopic, leptorrhine, orthognathic etc. There is nothing Negroid about these crania.
You’re just making up sh!t. Only four of the highlighted holocenic Maghrebian craniums fit your description (leptorrhine):
of which only ‘Ain Meterchem’ is associated with the Capsian. All other Capsian remains included here are not leptorrhine, not even the ones that have been specifically tagged as ’’proto-mediteranean’’ by earlier authors (Ain Meterchem, Ain Dokkara, Khanguet el Mouhaat). Additionally, actual measurements performed on prehistoric Maghrebian remains (Paul C. Sereno et al, 2008) show that all included skeletal remains, including the Eastern and Western Capsian samples, were broad-faced with ( upper facial index falling below 49.9%). That they were leptoprosopic has no basis in reality.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: We also know these peoples were wavy haired which rules Negroids out once again.
A ’’negroid’’ cranio-facial configuration is independent of hair type, because it consists of measurements taken from the cranio-facial skeleton, dumbass. You’re so retarded that you question Negroid status for prehistoric remains on the basis of non-kinky hair, but your dumbass sees Badarians as (partially) Capoid, even though their distinctive peppercorn hair, which you yourself have treated as an essential Khoisan marker, has never been found in the preserved Badarian hair samples (not even once). You question ’’negroid’’ status for African skeletal remains with brow ridges, but you have no problem calling skeletal remains with brow ridges (e.g., Dar-es-Soltan), Khoisan, even though Khoisan have, as you said yourself, among the flattest faces in the world. If you were any more inconsistent you’d have full fledged multiple personality disorder.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Because they coexisted with Mechtoids.
The burden of proof is on you. I’ve just shown you that your description of Capsian remains doesn’t gel with reality. The mid-holocenic Tenerian remains in the Western Sahara were also called ‘Mediterranean’ by some Euronut scholars:
The shapes of the Ténérian skulls are puzzling, researchers said, because they resemble those of Mediterranean people, not other nearby groups.
^But C. Sereno et al, 2008’s metrical values clearly show that they’re more SHORT faced and prognathous than the implied non-Mediteranean nearby groups. Confused puppies.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The Mushabian culture existed in prehistoric Egypt (both upper and lower).
LMAO. Like I said, at this point you’re just making up sh!t. There are no Mushabian remains in Egypt, thanks for showing everyone you’re just a retarded Euronut who has no problem with talking out of his ass and fabricating data:
During the Middle Epipaleolithic other groups also emerged, as evidenced by the partially coeval Mushabian, whose geographic distribution is limited to the Negev and Sinai Southwards from the Beersheva Valley. -- Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, Thomas Levy, p162
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:According to what source?
Joseph Greenberg.
LMAO. You’re just going to be showing how much of a fraud you are, with every post, eh? Where and how did Greenberg demonstrate linguistically that Berber languages are older than 5ky? Did Greenberg also demonstrate that the stereotypical E-M81 Berber lineage is older than the ~6ky that is currently assigned to it? LMAO.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Then put up an actual study/graph plot. The studies I have seen do not cluster Cro-Magnons with any African population.
LMAO. Do you really think the graphs are going to tell a different story from the conclusions inferred from Femoral head diameter, Bi-iliac breadth, Skeletal trunk height and distal limb length?
Bohemia, Norse, England, Germany, Sudan, West Africa, East Africa, Pygmy, Egypt, Nubia, France, Bosnia
To what Minimum Spanning Tree branch does the EUP (Early Upper Palaeolithic Europeans) cluster, and why is it not similar to LUP (Late Upper Palaeolithic Europeans) and MES (Mesolithic Europeans)? What, did late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europeans suffer some yet to be defined form of lineage loss? LMAO.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Of course they don't alone. Non-metric variables also have to be used, also with hair texture etc. [/qb]
Look at this retard moving the goalpost. In your previous post you said that Africans have absolutely no reason to see themselves as having metric affinity to Indians and Australians, and that we’re all just Afronuts trying to trick people:
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 --Angho’
You’ve been proven wrong. Highly melanated Indian and Melanesian groups do show metric affinity with the Africans you call ’’Negroid’’, which destroys your position that there is any trickery on the side of those who claim this is the case. In fact, it shows that you’re the one who is committing trickology because none of your claims flesh out in statistical analysis.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Regional archaics cluster with their modern (racial) descendants, not wandering Negroids.
LMAO. Subsequent analysis (real analysis) of the same remains show little evidence of regional continuity. Wolpoff et al are total retards for not testing first whether the traits they list are even specific to each regional archaic and succeeding AMH combination. This is yet another example of the retarded Euronut habit of using ubiquitous and cosmetic traits as ''race'' specific makers (e.g., narrow nose, orthognathy, brow ridge, small teeth). You Euronuts are so retarded:
Habgood (1989) examined the Australasian features as well, considering a list of twelve as proposed by Thorne and Wolpoff (1981) and Wolpoff et al (1984). He concludes, ''it is evident that all of the characters proposed....to be 'clade features' linking Indonesian Homo Erectus material with Australian Aboriginal crania, are retained primitive features present on Homo Erectus and archaic Homo Sapiens crania in general. Many are also commonly found on the crania and manfibles of anatomically modern Homo Sapiens from other geographical regions, being especially prevalent on the robust Mesolithic skeletal material from North Africa'' (1989:259). Habgood even found nine of the twelve Australasian regional features on the Kabwe cranium from Zambia. Furthermore, Stringer and Brauer (1994) note that every one of the regional features claimed to link the Ngandong and WLH 50 follils can be found in the Omo 2 calvaria from Ethiopia. --Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, Brauer and Stringer, p195
Repeat: are retained primitive features present on Homo Erectus and archaic Homo Sapiens crania in general.
Conclusion: Regional archaics have no special relationship with modern peoples who inhabit their area. GAME OVER.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Negative (deleterious) selection.
A living population cannot loose all their uniparental lineages, lmao. Each individual carries an mtdna lineage. For a population to lose all mtdna lineages, it would mean they went extinct. Explain how the supposed lineage loss of drosophila subobscura mimics the supposed lineage loss in modern Eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: With skeletons we have the physical remains, but they can be interpreted in different ways. mtDNA linaeges in contrast have been entirely lost.
How can you even make the argument that mtdna is less reliable because of lineage loss, as if there haven’t been losses of millions of human burials that undoubtedly took place due to the decomposition of human remains. Also, you have yet to prove that the absence of indigenous pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasia is due to lineage loss. Even Wolpoff doesn’t say there is evidence that lineage loss happened (he just says he believes it happened), so where do you get off claiming it’s a fact that it happened? SMH.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote: 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:
AA, not Negroid. He doesn't also have wavy hair.
LMAO. So Curtis Jackson is a non-negroid African American with negroid hair, and you infer that by looking at his brow ridges? I think you and the following ape would get along perfectly:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: [QUOTE] Remember virtually none of the Mesolithic Nubian burial hair samples are ulotrichous.
I can’t remember that which has never been a reality, dumbass. I have never come into contact with studies performed on Mesolithic Nubian hair. You apparently have (in your imaginary world), so, according to what data are they not ulotrichous?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Yes, Capoids are indigenous to Nubia and North Africa, but they were displaced far further south.
Bushmen-specific traces have never been detected in Sudan, Egypt or the Maghreb. All you can do is cite non-specific traits a la Wolpoff, that many other groups also have. Broad rami, for example, is shared with Khoisan, but also with European AMHs and certain archaics:
Yet, these specimens exhibit a variably present suite of archaic human features, including low temporal squamous profiles, prominent juxtamastoid eminences, broad interorbital breadths, large dental arcades, exceptionally large third molars, broad mandibular rami, mandibular corpus robusticity, and variable maxillary incisor shoveling. These morphological attributes are generally present among late archaic humans --Trinkhaus, 2005
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Look at the distribution. They cluster Northern Europeans with West Africans.
Do West African Negroids and Scandinavians look similar in phenotype to you?
I don't think you understand what 'phenotype' means. To quote you, "this is basic biology". Lactase persistence is a phenotype, so yes, they do cluster in this respect and qualify as a subspecies, according to Amadon. If you disagree you are using a 'false definition'. Stop using 'false definitions'. Thanks.
Lactose Tolerance
The domestication of plants and animals roughly 10,000 years ago profoundly changed human diets, and it gave those individuals who could best digest the new foods a selective advantage. The best understood of these adaptations is lactose tolerance (Sabeti et al., 2006; Bersaglieri et al., 2004). The ability to digest lactose, a sugar found in milk, usually disappears before adulthood in mammals, and the same is true in most human populations. However, for some people, including a large fraction of individuals of European descent, the ability to break down lactose persists because of a mutation in the lactase gene (LCT). This suggests that the allele became common in Europe because of increased nutrition from cow's milk, which became available after the domestication of cattle. This hypothesis was eventually confirmed by Todd Bersaglieri and his colleagues, who demonstrated that the lactase persistence allele is common in Europeans (nearly 80% of people of European descent carry this allele), and it has evidence of a selective sweep spanning roughly 1 million base pairs (1 megabase). Indeed, lactose tolerance is one of the strongest signals of selection seen anywhere in the genome. Sarah Tishkoff and colleagues subsequently found a distinct LCT mutation also conferring lactose tolerance, in this case in African pastoralist populations, suggesting the action of convergent evolution (Tishkoff et al., 2007).
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
I will continue posting this until you address it:
You still have to refute this and demonstrate taxonomy is objective:
"[...] Amadon (1949), who proposed an admittedly arbitrary guideline, that 75% of a sample of specimens should be distinguishable from 99% of a sample from a reference population" (James, 2010).
"Admittedly, the lower boundary for defining a valid diagnosable subspecies is arbitrary. That arbitrariness has been a focal point of criticism for the subspecies concept (e.g. Wilson and Brown 1953, Inger 1961, Selander 1971). One must bear in mind, however, that definitions for placement into all taxonomic groups other than a species are arbitrary (presuming some sort of biology-based species concept). Just how much difference is needed to define a genus? What level of distinction is necessary to define a new phylum? Do all genera or phyla differ from each other equally? Even if all such higher categories could be defined cladistically or on the basis of some degree of genetic difference, arbitrary definitions are unavoidable. Also consider that our beloved alpha=0.05, the underpinning of inferential statistics, is an arbitrary level. We accept a Type I error rate of 5% not because it is superior to any other; it is merely accepted convention. (Patten and Unitt, 2002).
I've been telling you for months that biological classification systems are arbitrary and socially constructed; the above is a source for those claims. It is obvious that any attempt to categorise a continuum is intrinsically socially constructed, which is already established by Zagefka's (2009) logic. Patten and Unitt saying "arbitrary definitions are unavoidable" is merely an acknowledgement of the systematically socially constructed nature of taxonomy as an academic discipline.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Why are you lying about Deniker? He explicitly says the following on page 287: "In the ensuing table (p. 289) are included twenty-nine races".
In what way was Barbujani (2005) being deceptive when Deniker (1900) explicitly said "twenty-nine races"?
"Local types" isn't mentioned at all on that page, either. Finally, you really need to learn how to read: "In the ensuing table (p. 289) are included twenty-nine races, combined into seventeen groups, arranged in such a way that races having greatest affinities one with another are brought near together. Seven of these groups are composed of more than one race. They may be called as follows (see the table):——XIII., American group; XII., Oceanian; II., Negroid; VIII., North African; XVI., Eurasian; X., Melanochroid; IX., Xanthochroid."
Let me repeat: "Seven of these groups are composed of more than one race." He neither claimed that there were seven 'races' nor that all of the groups were 'races' in themselves. One more time: he did NOT say the groups were the same thing as 'races'.
He even says later: "Here are, moreover, some details of the twenty-nine races (marked by their numbers of order) of the first table"
I also suggest you read page 288. He had explicit concepts of 'sub-races' and they were not the 29 'races' that were grouped into seven categories. It is undeniable that he had 29 different concepts of 'race'.
You better ensure you know how to read before you start accusing a peer-reviewed article of intentional deception and academic malpractice. Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Deniker's macro-groups are subspecies. The 17 and 29 smaller groups are races at a lower taxonomic level and are localized types (e.g. subraces): "Western European" (14), "Patagonian" (24) etc. The largest groupings in contrast are the subspecies (major racial stocks) covering broader geographical areas.
quote:You better ensure you know how to read before you start accusing a peer-reviewed article of intentional deception and academic malpractice.
Those papers are wrong. They are written by "race deniers", and they aren't objective and write nothing but lies. The table you cite is lifted from authors like Molnar (1975) and Cohen (1991). Molnar's text, anthropologist Alice M. Brues notes "the author feels that the subject of visible differences is politically sensitive". These are all just PC race deniers. Its incredibly revealing you think these people are writing the truth in a non-biased man fashion
Kroeber (1963, pp. 102-103) covers Deniker's race classification in detail and supports everything above I have just posted. Race deniers commonly start up petty semantic confusion on "race" to make it seem as realists are not consistent. That is what Barbujani (2005) is doing not only for Deniker but also Eickstedt and others. Regarding the latter, he only proposed 3 subspecies, but magically that morphs into 38 to the race deniers. lol.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote: 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:
AA, not Negroid. He doesn't also have wavy hair.
LMAO. So Curtis Jackson is a non-negroid African American with negroid hair, and you infer that by looking at his brow ridges?...
ROTFLMAOH
I swear, I cracked up so hard from reading that deranged response from the Anglo-Idiot, I cried a little!
So Curtis Jackson a.k.a. 50 cent is African American but NOT 'Negroid'?! So I take it then that African Americans even ones that resemble the individual in the photo above are racially exclusive from Negroids. And why exactly is that??! Are European Americans different from Caucasoids??! LMAO
Stop the madness!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: LMAO. Subsequent analysis (real analysis) of the same remains show little evidence of regional continuity. Wolpoff et al are total retards for not testing first whether the traits they list are even specific to each regional archaic and succeeding AMH combination. This is yet another example of the retarded Euronut habit of using ubiquitous and cosmetic traits as ''race'' specific makers (e.g., narrow nose, orthognathy, brow ridge, small teeth). You Euronuts are so retarded:
Habgood (1989) examined the Australasian features as well, considering a list of twelve as proposed by Thorne and Wolpoff (1981) and Wolpoff et al (1984). He concludes, ''it is evident that all of the characters proposed....to be 'clade features' linking Indonesian Homo Erectus material with Australian Aboriginal crania, are retained primitive features present on Homo Erectus and archaic Homo Sapiens crania in general. Many are also commonly found on the crania and manfibles of anatomically modern Homo Sapiens from other geographical regions, being especially prevalent on the robust Mesolithic skeletal material from North Africa'' (1989:259). Habgood even found nine of the twelve Australasian regional features on the Kabwe cranium from Zambia. Furthermore, Stringer and Brauer (1994) note that every one of the regional features claimed to link the Ngandong and WLH 50 follils can be found in the Omo 2 calvaria from Ethiopia. --Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, Brauer and Stringer, p195 Repeat: are **retained primitive features** present on Homo Erectus and archaic Homo Sapiens crania in general.
Conclusion: Regional archaics have no special relationship with modern peoples who inhabit their area. GAME OVER...
..Bushmen-specific traces have never been detected in Sudan, Egypt or the Maghreb. All you can do is cite non-specific traits a la Wolpoff, that many other groups also have. Broad rami, for example, is shared with Khoisan, but also with European AMHs and certain archaics:
Yet, these specimens exhibit a variably present suite of archaic human features, including low temporal squamous profiles, prominent juxtamastoid eminences, broad interorbital breadths, large dental arcades, exceptionally large third molars, broad mandibular rami, mandibular corpus robusticity, and variable maxillary incisor shoveling. These morphological attributes are generally present among late archaic humans --Trinkhaus, 2005
The above is exactly why such traits are referred to by anthropologists as **generalized modern** with some of those traits even predating anatomically modern humans or at least being reduced in form.
This is exactly why Nazlet Khater the presumed ancestor of Mesolithic Nubians and Egyptians both were not called 'Khoisan' (Capoid) but "proto-Khoisan-Negro" by folks like Pinhasi.
Both hypotheses are compatible with the hypothesis proposed by Brothwell (1963) of an East African proto-Khoisan-Negro stock which migrated southwards and westwards at some time during the Upper Pleistocene, and replaced most of the local populations of South Africa. Under such circumstances, it is possible that the Nazlet Khater specimen is part of a relict population of this proto-Khoisan Negro stock which extended as far north as Nazlet Khater at least until the late part of the Late Pleistocene. --- 'The Position of the Nazlet Khater Specimen Among Prehistoric and Modern African and Levantine Populations', Ron Pinhasi, Departent of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, U.K., Patrick Semal, Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Belgium; Journal of Human Evolution (2000) vol. 39.
And even if one were to exclude the so-called 'Khoisan' traits and focus on 'true-Negroid' traits only, one would still find such traits associated with Mesolithic Nubians and even Neolithic Badarian Egyptians!
..In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-Saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian. -- Pierre M. Vermeersch (Author & Editor), 'Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt', Egyptian Prehistory Monographs Vol. 4, Leuven University Press (2002).
As is shown, both Vermeersch and Pinhasi whom the Anglo-Idiot has cited in the past, unsurprisingly and expectantly contradict his idiotic claims. Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Deniker's macro-groups are subspecies. The 17 and 29 smaller groups are races at a lower taxonomic level and are localized types (e.g. subraces): "Western European" (14), "Patagonian" (24) etc. The largest groupings in contrast are the subspecies (major racial stocks) covering broader geographical areas.
quote:You better ensure you know how to read before you start accusing a peer-reviewed article of intentional deception and academic malpractice.
Those papers are wrong. They are written by "race deniers", and they aren't objective and write nothing but lies. The table you cite is lifted from authors like Molnar (1975) and Cohen (1991). Molnar's text, anthropologist Alice M. Brues notes "the author feels that the subject of visible differences is politically sensitive". These are all just PC race deniers. Its incredibly revealing you think these people are writing the truth in a non-biased man fashion
Kroeber (1963, pp. 102-103) covers Deniker's race classification in detail and supports everything above I have just posted. Race deniers commonly start up petty semantic confusion on "race" to make it seem as realists are not consistent. That is what Barbujani (2005) is doing not only for Deniker but also Eickstedt and others. Regarding the latter, he only proposed 3 subspecies, but magically that morphs into 38 to the race deniers. lol.
Can you show me evidence that Deniker meant what you are suggesting, despite EXPLICITLY saying "twenty-nine races"? There's absolutely no ambiguity in his terminology. He never used the word 'subspecies' or 'local types' on that page, so you are quite simply lying—yet again.
Am I lying about what Deniker explicitly said on pages 287 and 288? YES OR NO?
What does Kroeber have to do with anything? Deniker explicitly says "twenty-nine races".
It has nothing to do with semantic confusion. It demonstrates how the concept of 'race' has changed over the years because it is a social construct.
Eickstedt also explicitly uses the term 'race' (or 'rasse'/plural: 'rassen', in German).
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
I will continue posting this until you address it:
You still have to refute this and demonstrate taxonomy is objective:
"[...] Amadon (1949), who proposed an admittedly arbitrary guideline, that 75% of a sample of specimens should be distinguishable from 99% of a sample from a reference population" (James, 2010).
"Admittedly, the lower boundary for defining a valid diagnosable subspecies is arbitrary. That arbitrariness has been a focal point of criticism for the subspecies concept (e.g. Wilson and Brown 1953, Inger 1961, Selander 1971). One must bear in mind, however, that definitions for placement into all taxonomic groups other than a species are arbitrary (presuming some sort of biology-based species concept). Just how much difference is needed to define a genus? What level of distinction is necessary to define a new phylum? Do all genera or phyla differ from each other equally? Even if all such higher categories could be defined cladistically or on the basis of some degree of genetic difference, arbitrary definitions are unavoidable. Also consider that our beloved alpha=0.05, the underpinning of inferential statistics, is an arbitrary level. We accept a Type I error rate of 5% not because it is superior to any other; it is merely accepted convention. (Patten and Unitt, 2002).
I've been telling you for months that biological classification systems are arbitrary and socially constructed; the above is a source for those claims. It is obvious that any attempt to categorise a continuum is intrinsically socially constructed, which is already established by Zagefka's (2009) logic. Patten and Unitt saying "arbitrary definitions are unavoidable" is merely an acknowledgement of the systematically socially constructed nature of taxonomy as an academic discipline.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Let's look at what Kroeber actually said:
"It cannot be too much emphasized that all race classifications yet made rest somewhat on subjective judgments, no matter how much these judgments may be validated by objective measures and statistics."
So here's another source acknowledging 'race' is not an objective concept (in other words, it validates Zagefka's contention that classification criteria are informed by arbitrary SOCIAL MEANING). That which is not objective is not scientific.
Anyway, Kroeber says: "It recognizes 6 grand divisions, 17 minor divisions, and 29 separate races."
29 separate races.
29 separate races.
29 separate races.
29 separate races.
Not 'local types'.
Not 'sub-races'
29 separate races.
29 separate races.
29 separate races.
Kroeber simply amalgamates Deniker's 'groups' (NOT 'races') into his own subjective classifications (do not forget that Kroeber explicitly acknowledged the subjective nature of classification). It does not change the FACT that Deniker explicitly said there were "twenty-nine races". I could just as easily say there is a 'fair skin race' and amalgamate the people that you would call 'Caucasoids' and 'Mongoloids' into that.
He even says this later: "These are the racial types recognized, with the names, as far as possible, converted into those used in this book"
Using Zagefka's (2009) example: say we have two lawnmowers and two plums. If I make a category called 'weighs less than 1000kg", both the lawnmowers and plums will be in the same category. If somebody wrote a different book, observed the same lawnmowers and plums and made a category of "organic object" and "non-organic object", the plums and lawnmowers would be separated into different categories. Neither categorisation scheme is objectively more important than the other one (or ones that can be created). The ability to make something fit a different classification scheme means **** all. Try again.
All of these classification systems are arbitrary, as demonstrated in the post, the post above, and throughout this thread. No system of 'racial classification' outside of the individual organism is any more important than any other, and since they cannot exist simultaneously as objective concepts, none of them do.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
You also need to respond to this:
In fact, here's evidence that the use of a single trait doesn't violate Amadon's definition:
"With the 75% rule definition, it is possible to quantify the diagnosis of a subspecies with statistical precision. The task is simple for categorical characters, such as the presence or absence of a color or marking. Classifying specimens accordingly, with the character treated as either present or absent, quickly yields a 2x2 table that can be tested with chisquare statistics or, more simply, counted to determine if the desired level of diagnosability has been achieved" (Patten and Unitt, 2002).
'Character' = singular, not plural. Why are you using 'false definitions' that say multiple traits must be used in unison?
Find the word 'multiple' or any of its synonyms in Amadon's 'rule': "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"
Otherwise, stop using 'false definitions'. Thanks. Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Kroeber acknowledged the geographical distribution of things like blood type didn't correspond to traditional anthropological 'racial' categories, but he said this:
"It is clear that we have in these blood-group distributions an intriguing set of data, which crosscut ordinary race relationships. A reason for this irrelevance to race — perhaps the main one — is that we are dealing with a single trait, whereas a race is an expression of the total or average coherence of many traits. Head form, viewed by itself, is similarly irrelevant. Peoples as different as Negroes, Australoids, Hindus, Eskimo, and Spaniards all have long heads. The tallest of all populations are certain East Africans, northern Europeans, Polynesians, and Indians of the central United States — who are completely diverse racially."
Errrrrmmm. In accordance to your race=subspecies belief, let's see what Amadon has to say on the matter: "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"
Wait. Again: "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"
What he did NOT say is: "75 per cent of a population must be separable using the 'total or average coherence of many traits' from all (99+ per cent) of the members of overlapping populations to qualify as a subspecies"
Interesting. I sincerely hope you do not rely on Kroeber for anything; he is using a 'false definition', after all. Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
More evidence:
"For example, the ‘‘75-percent rule’’ is for individual character analysis, but most available analyses of morphological data for wolves use multivariate statistics that summarize variation in many characters" (Chambers et al., 2012).
The fact is, Pyramidologist, a population with the A blood type can be distinguished from a population with the B blood type because their distributions are geographically patterned; hence, they qualify as subspecies by this "individual character".
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You’re just making up sh!t. Only four of the highlighted holocenic Maghrebian craniums fit your description (leptorrhine)
All other Capsian remains included here are not leptorrhine, not even the ones that have been specifically tagged as ’’proto-mediteranean’’ by earlier authors (Ain Meterchem, Ain Dokkara, Khanguet el Mouhaat). Additionally, actual measurements performed on prehistoric Maghrebian remains (Paul C. Sereno et al, 2008) show that all included skeletal remains, including the Eastern and Western Capsian samples, were broad-faced with ( upper facial index falling below 49.9%). That they were leptoprosopic has no basis in reality.
The Mouillian's cluster with Australoids, "this group appear mophologically similar to the Australians" (Lahr, 1996). While the Caspians are a completely different morpholoical type, paleomediterranean (Caucasoid).
You are wrong about the 4 specimens. According to Chamla, 14 are paleomediterranean (with thin noses) while 10 are Mechtoid, See here (Shaw, 2002).
Regarding the faces, "the broad-faced, heavy muscled Moullian type is less common among the Caspians" (Coon, 1962). I defend my statement that the Caspians are leptoprosopic. The broader types contemporary of the Caspians were the Mechtoids, not Caucasoid Meds.
quote:A ’’negroid’’ cranio-facial configuration is independent of hair type, because it consists of measurements taken from the cranio-facial skeleton, dumbass.
Obviously, but races aren't soley defined by morphological traits, but also 'surface' traits like hair texture. This is standard, for example Dixon (1923), Hooton (1946) and Cole (1963), all outline that the differences in physical traits fall under these two categories. The Harvard list used today by anthropologists takes both surface and morphological traits into account.
Hair texture destroys your position. All the specimens you claim are "Black" don't have wooly hair, but wavy. So they clearly aren't Negroid.
quote:You’re so retarded that you question Negroid status for prehistoric remains on the basis of non-kinky hair, but your dumbass sees Badarians as (partially) Capoid, even though their distinctive peppercorn hair, which you yourself have treated as an essential Khoisan marker, has never been found in the preserved Badarian hair samples (not even once).
I never claimed there was a large Capoid population there. I said there was a very small size of survivors which was also Coon's (1965) position, based on various Badarian figurines.
quote:You question ’’negroid’’ status for African skeletal remains with brow ridges, but you have no problem calling skeletal remains with brow ridges (e.g., Dar-es-Soltan), Khoisan, even though Khoisan have, as you said yourself, among the flattest faces in the world. If you were any more inconsistent you’d have full fledged multiple personality disorder.
Larger browridges are found in all races during their pre-sapiens grade. Erectus skulls have thick brow ridges. At the sapiens level the different races though differ in their size of brow ridges. UP/Mesolithic crania with large browridges are not Capoid or Negroid.
The UP crania I identified as Capoid, is Nazlet Khater (NK2). Which has has no browridges, its supraorbitals are completely smooth.
quote:Like I said, at this point you’re just making up sh!t. There are no Mushabian remains in Egypt, thanks for showing everyone you’re just a retarded Euronut who has no problem with talking out of his ass and fabricating data:
During the Middle Epipaleolithic other groups also emerged, as evidenced by the partially coeval Mushabian, whose geographic distribution is limited to the Negev and Sinai Southwards from the Beersheva Valley. -- Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, Thomas Levy, p162
The Mushabian culture is found in Egypt/North Africa, hence archaeologists make the African connections to the Levant (working from the biased OOA perspective however they do so in reverse, but that's irrelevent). See Bar-Yosef (1987). "Pleistocene connexions between Africa and Southwest Asia: an archaeological perspective".
quote:You’re just going to be showing how much of a fraud you are, with every post, eh? Where and how did Greenberg demonstrate linguistically that Berber languages are older than 5ky? Did Greenberg also demonstrate that the stereotypical E-M81 Berber lineage is older than the ~6ky that is currently assigned to it? LMAO.
You asked for the source, I gave it to you. I am just citing Coon's sources from his text.
quote:LMAO. Do you really think the graphs are going to tell a different story from the conclusions inferred from Femoral head diameter, Bi-iliac breadth, Skeletal trunk height and distal limb length?
Yes, I'll show you them when I upload them in a short while. They don't cluster Cro-Magnons with Africans. Cro-Magnons cluster typically with non-European Caucasoids in post-cranial indices.
quote:Look at this retard moving the goalpost. In your previous post you said that Africans have absolutely no reason to see themselves as having metric affinity to Indians and Australians, and that we’re all just Afronuts trying to trick people:
India is inhabited by different races. Who are you sampling? Caucasoid Indians have thin noses, orthognathism and cluster with Europeans. The Australoids there in metrics cluster with Negroids. However, if non-metrics are used, all Indians cluster with Caucasoids not Negroids. There is then this study from Brace:
As I stated - both non-metric and metrics have to be used, alongside hair texture and other surface traits.
quote:You’ve been proven wrong. Highly melanated Indian and Melanesian groups do show metric affinity with the Africans you call ’’Negroid’’, which destroys your position that there is any trickery on the side of those who claim this is the case.
Craniofacial features = metrics + non-metrics.
The only person using trickery is you, as you exclude one or the other when it clusters a population with Caucasoids. When that happens you will discard it and use the one that shows something else.
quote:LMAO. Subsequent analysis (real analysis) of the same remains show little evidence of regional continuity. Wolpoff et al are total retards for not testing first whether the traits they list are even specific to each regional archaic and succeeding AMH combination. This is yet another example of the retarded Euronut habit of using ubiquitous and cosmetic traits as ''race'' specific makers (e.g., narrow nose, orthognathy, brow ridge, small teeth). You Euronuts are so retarded:
So find shovel shaped incisors or torus mandibularis in Africans. There is no shortage of such regional traits not found in any African specimens. As Wolpoff shows, the idea of "wandering Africans" replacing archaics across the globe is a fantasy.
quote:A living population cannot loose all their uniparental lineages, lmao. Each individual carries an mtdna lineage. For a population to lose all mtdna lineages, it would mean they went extinct. Explain how the supposed lineage loss of drosophila subobscura mimics the supposed lineage loss in modern Eurasians.
No they don't. If a women has three son's her mtdna lineage is lost. Once you take gene flow (interbreeding between races) into account, its easy to see how complete lineages are lost.
We also know mtdna can dissapear through negative selection. Wolpoff shows numerous other ways mtdna is lost. Its simply not an accurate way to look at population histories.
quote:so where do you get off claiming it’s a fact that it happened? SMH.
The whole "Black Eve" theory is just a hoax, its used as a political tool.
"Modern political-prostitute population-geneticists, in expanding on the myth of the so-called “African Eve”, that is, of the origin of all modern races from Equatorial Africa, from one blackskinned woman approximately 100,000 years ago, on the basis of studies of mitochondrial DNA, complete a disgraceful scientific forgery. In a similar work cited by us, The Problem of Race in Russian Physical Anthropology, E.V. Balanovskaya clearly indicates that “unfortunately, mitochondrial genes have no kind of relationship to racial traits.” It so happens, that propagandist ideas about the “oneness of Mankind”, which proclaim a common origin for all races, are based on a trait which, in general, carries no racial information within itself." (Avdeyev, 2007)
quote: LMAO. So Curtis Jackson is a non-negroid African American with negroid hair, and you infer that by looking at his brow ridges? I think you and the following ape would get along perfectly
AA's have Caucasoid (and other) admixture and don't live in the Negroid geographical belt. They aren't Negroid. What are they? That can be debated, but they are modern composites. This has been discussed by Coon et al (1950) and Goldsby (1977). AA's according to Coon are "North American Coloreds". They don't all cluster with Negroids, but there is an overlap.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Swenet can you also clarify your position? Who are you claiming the thin nosed Caspians are?
- All the extant sources clearly differentiate between these Caucasoid Caspians and robust (wide nosed, prognathic) Mouillians.
Its sheer fantasy you think these are both "Black people". Anyone objective can clearly see these are two different races, with the thin nosed Caucasoids moving in to North Africa. Even Shaw (2002) notes they are immigrants.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Am I lying about what Deniker explicitly said on pages 287 and 288? YES OR NO?
Yes.
Deniker's 7 large groupings or "grand divisions" (Kroeber, 1963) are races at the subspecies level. His 17/29 smaller divisions are smaller units, such as subraces.
The fallacy you set up is to distort Deniker's local races into subspecies to then claim 29 - 200 (whatever) races have been proposed (as your tables claim) to infer racial taxonomy has never been in agreement.
No scientific authority has ever claimed 200, 100, 50, 29 etc subspecies in man exist. On the contrary, the subspecies taxa has always been around the same figure - which shows how scientific these races are. The taxonomy really hasn't changed that much since Linneaus.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:I will continue posting this until you address it:
You still have to refute this and demonstrate taxonomy is objective:
If it was random, it would have no predictive value. Races are based on real populations, hence they aren't "social constructs":
"In science, a concept is useful if it groups facts so that general laws and conclusions can be drawn from them. Predictions can be made using the taxonomic category of race because, on average, the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans are similar to each other and different from White Americans, Germans, and Russians, who are similar to each other and different from Black Americans, Haitians, and sub-Saharan Africans. Predictability is the criterion by which the value of a hypothetical construct like race is evaluated. As I will show, race is highly predictive." (Rushton, 2001)
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Am I lying about what Deniker explicitly said on pages 287 and 288? YES OR NO?
Yes.
Deniker's 7 large groupings or "grand divisions" (Kroeber, 1963) are races at the subspecies level. His 17/29 smaller divisions are smaller units, such as subraces.
The fallacy you set up is to distort Deniker's local races into subspecies to then claim 29 - 200 (whatever) races have been proposed (as your tables claim) to infer racial taxonomy has never been in agreement.
No scientific authority has ever claimed 200, 100, 50, 29 etc subspecies in man exist. On the contrary, the subspecies taxa has always been around the same figure - which shows how scientific these races are. The taxonomy really hasn't changed that much since Linneaus.
Find the word 'local races' on that page. I'm not the one distorting things, Pyramidologist.
See the table by Barbujani (2005).
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:The fact is, Pyramidologist, a population with the A blood type can be distinguished from a population with the B blood type because their distributions are geographically patterned; hence, they qualify as subspecies by this "individual character".
Blood groups have nothing to do with races. Although by sheer chance you can find a certain frequency unique to some microraces/ethnic groups, for example the Basques (rh neg). I retract my comments made 5 months ago on this subject, I was mislead by Boyd (1950).
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:I will continue posting this until you address it:
You still have to refute this and demonstrate taxonomy is objective:
If it was random, it would have no predictive value. Races are based on real populations, hence they aren't "social constructs":
"In science, a concept is useful if it groups facts so that general laws and conclusions can be drawn from them. Predictions can be made using the taxonomic category of race because, on average, the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans are similar to each other and different from White Americans, Germans, and Russians, who are similar to each other and different from Black Americans, Haitians, and sub-Saharan Africans. Predictability is the criterion by which the value of a hypothetical construct like race is evaluated. As I will show, race is highly predictive." (Rushton, 2001)
Erm... what?
"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" Find the words 'predictability' and 'value' in Amadon's unconditionally correct definition. Otherwise, stop using 'false definitions'. Thanks.
Who used the word 'random'? There is biodiversity, which means some things are more prevalent in some geographical spaces than others. Blood type, malarial resistance, height, shoe size, lactose tolerance, the presence/absence of various alleles, etc. all have differences in their frequencies at different geographical spaces. As per Amadon's definition, populations can be separated based on these non-uniform frequencies.
The basis of separation is socially constructed/arbitrary. Amadon's number is arbitrary. Taxonomy as a discipline is arbitrary.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:The fact is, Pyramidologist, a population with the A blood type can be distinguished from a population with the B blood type because their distributions are geographically patterned; hence, they qualify as subspecies by this "individual character".
Blood groups have nothing to do with races. Although by sheer chance you can find a certain frequency unique to some microraces/ethnic groups, for example the Basques (rh neg). I retract my comments made 5 months ago on this subject, I was mislead by Boyd (1950).
Find something in this quote that says blood groups cannot be used to separate populations: "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"
Otherwise, stop using 'false definitions'. Thanks. Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
I answered: "demonstrate taxonomy is objective".
- Taxonomy is objective because its based on real observations and laws, and secondly has predictive value as Ruston (2001) notes.
It would not be objective, if random taxons were proposed which are not based on any truths, for example a "eurafricanpolynesianeskimo" race.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
LOL Badumtish, you are relentless...
But no matter how many times you beat this horse to death, it comes back as the mindless zombie that it is!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers: I answered: "demonstrate taxonomy is objective".
- Taxonomy is objective because its based on real observations and laws, and secondly has predictive value as Ruston (2001) notes.
It would not be objective, if random taxons were proposed which are not based on any truths, for example a "eurafricanpolynesianeskimo" race.
Yes biological taxonomy is objective but because 'race' is NOT objective but actually subjective, racial categories then are NOT truly taxonomic, you dimwit!
Speaking of which, you still haven't explained how Curtis Jackson is African American but not Negroid?? How is Curtis Jackson to be classified 'racially', then??! Melanoid?? LOL Are European Americans NOT Caucasoid either?? LMAO Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I answered: "demonstrate taxonomy is objective".
- Taxonomy is objective because its based on real observations and laws, and secondly has predictive value as Ruston (2001) notes.
It would not be objective, if random taxons were proposed which are not based on any truths, for example a "eurafricanpolynesianeskimo" race.
Derp. Nobody is denying the existence of individual organisms; they are denying the existence of objective classification systems for those organisms as a collective.
Predictive value? Have you read up on circular reasoning yet? Notwithstanding the subjective nature of colour classification, putatively, there are people with ginger hair, freckles and blue eyes. There will only be certain geographical regions that have people with ginger hair, freckles and blue eyes. Therefore, when asked to identify the broad geographical origin of somebody with ginger hair, freckles and blue eyes, I know that this person has definitely originated from the only place(s) where these qualities are found.
Another example: My immediate family has a specific genetic mutation. Since my family is only found in a specific geographical location, the geographical distribution of this mutation is equally specific. Therefore, when asked to identify the geographic origin of somebody with this mutation, I can say with a high degree of accuracy that they have originated in the same geographical area as my family members.
If there is something shared amongst people found in the geographical spaces known as Africa, Europe, Polynesia and the Arctic circle, then they would indeed cluster on the basis of this trait and would be a subspecies/'race'/population/cluster/whatever you want to call it, as opposed to the people outside this region.
Taking Zagefka's (2009) example. The plum and the lawnmower are objectively lighter than 1000kg. The lawnmower is objectively made out of certain elements/alloys and the plum is also objectively made out of certain elements/compounds. These qualities exist objectively, but the choice of classification scheme (weight vs. elemental composition) is intrinsically subjective/arbitrary. I objectively have a certain blood type, but you have arbitrary/subjectively determined that this does not put me into a blood group 'race'.
Similarly, denying mountains are objective concepts does not mean there is no variation in land height; it simply means the categories of 'mountain'/'hill'/'slope'/whatever are socially constructed/arbitrary. The point at which one becomes another is arbitrary. The same applies to the colour spectrum.
"Admittedly, the lower boundary for defining a valid diagnosable subspecies is arbitrary. That arbitrariness has been a focal point of criticism for the subspecies concept (e.g. Wilson and Brown 1953, Inger 1961, Selander 1971). One must bear in mind, however, that definitions for placement into all taxonomic groups other than a species are arbitrary (presuming some sort of biology-based species concept). Just how much difference is needed to define a genus? What level of distinction is necessary to define a new phylum? Do all genera or phyla differ from each other equally? Even if all such higher categories could be defined cladistically or on the basis of some degree of genetic difference, arbitrary definitions are unavoidable. Also consider that our beloved alpha=0.05, the underpinning of inferential statistics, is an arbitrary level. We accept a Type I error rate of 5% not because it is superior to any other; it is merely accepted convention. (Patten and Unitt, 2002).
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Swenet's statement is still leading.
quote:Black skinned Indians and Australians have been know the cluster with or near Africans craniometrically:
"The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry,... The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions.....
From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia."
Jean Hiernaux
The People of Africa (Peoples of the World Series) 1975
"In Kenya the remains from Gamble’s Cave …have been interpreted as showing Caucasoid features. And possible archaeological affinities with the Mediterranean Capsian industries (Ferembach). As we have seen in previous chapters recent sub-Saharan Africans are cranially MORE GRACILE than Europeans and therefore fossil African specimens of greater size and robusticity have been traditionally considered non-African in character...Rightmire found that these East African remains as well as those from the sites as Willy Kopje, Nakuru and Makalia, cluster with one or other sub-Saharan population, and not with either Egyptians or San/Khoi…Similar results were obtained by Brauer (1978), and Rightmire has suggested that these fossils may represent Nilotic peoples… These findings are very important because they suggest that not only late Pleistocene to early Holocene remains like Gambles Cave and Elmenteita **should not** be interpreted as Caucasoid elements, but that the great levels of cranial variation observed today in sub-Saharan Africa were probably even greater in the late Pleistocene.” P. 283 The Evolution of Moderrn Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Variation Mart Mirazon Lahr 1996
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I answered: "demonstrate taxonomy is objective".
- Taxonomy is objective because its based on real observations and laws, and secondly has predictive value as Ruston (2001) notes.
It would not be objective, if random taxons were proposed which are not based on any truths, for example a "eurafricanpolynesianeskimo" race.
Derp. Nobody is denying the existence of individual organisms; they are denying the existence of objective classification systems for those organisms as a collective.
Predictive value? Have you read up on circular reasoning yet? Notwithstanding the subjective nature of colour classification, putatively, there are people with ginger hair, freckles and blue eyes. There will only be certain geographical regions that have people with ginger hair, freckles and blue eyes. Therefore, when asked to identify the broad geographical origin of somebody with ginger hair, freckles and blue eyes, I know that this person has definitely originated from the only place(s) where these qualities are found.
Another example: My immediate family has a specific genetic mutation. Since my family is only found in a specific geographical location, the geographical distribution of this mutation is equally specific. Therefore, when asked to identify the geographic origin of somebody with this mutation, I can say with a high degree of accuracy that they have originated in the same geographical area as my family members.
If there is something shared amongst people found in the geographical spaces known as Africa, Europe, Polynesia and the Arctic circle, then they would indeed cluster on the basis of this trait and would be a subspecies/'race'/population/cluster/whatever you want to call it, as opposed to the people outside this region.
Taking Zagefka's (2009) example. The plum and the lawnmower are objectively lighter than 1000kg. The lawnmower is objectively made out of certain elements/alloys and the plum is also objectively made out of certain elements/compounds. These qualities exist objectively, but the choice of classification scheme (weight vs. elemental composition) is intrinsically subjective/arbitrary. I objectively have a certain blood type, but you have arbitrary/subjectively determined that this does not put me into a blood group 'race'.
Similarly, denying mountains are objective concepts does not mean there is no variation in land height; it simply means the categories of 'mountain'/'hill'/'slope'/whatever are socially constructed/arbitrary. The point at which one becomes another is arbitrary. The same applies to the colour spectrum.
"Admittedly, the lower boundary for defining a valid diagnosable subspecies is arbitrary. That arbitrariness has been a focal point of criticism for the subspecies concept (e.g. Wilson and Brown 1953, Inger 1961, Selander 1971). One must bear in mind, however, that definitions for placement into all taxonomic groups other than a species are arbitrary (presuming some sort of biology-based species concept). Just how much difference is needed to define a genus? What level of distinction is necessary to define a new phylum? Do all genera or phyla differ from each other equally? Even if all such higher categories could be defined cladistically or on the basis of some degree of genetic difference, arbitrary definitions are unavoidable. Also consider that our beloved alpha=0.05, the underpinning of inferential statistics, is an arbitrary level. We accept a Type I error rate of 5% not because it is superior to any other; it is merely accepted convention. (Patten and Unitt, 2002).
Explain why categorizing a continuum is arbitrary. Categorization does not require x, y, z to be discrete. Your race denialism is entirely based on this fallacy.
"Human cognition can deal with categories that are not discrete" (Sarich & Miele, 2004)
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers: I answered: "demonstrate taxonomy is objective".
- Taxonomy is objective because its based on real observations and laws, and secondly has predictive value as Ruston (2001) notes.
It would not be objective, if random taxons were proposed which are not based on any truths, for example a "eurafricanpolynesianeskimo" race.
Yes biological taxonomy is objective but because 'race' is NOT objective but actually subjective, racial categories then are NOT truly taxonomic, you dimwit!
Speaking of which, you still haven't explained how Curtis Jackson is African American but not Negroid?? How is Curtis Jackson to be classified 'racially', then??! Melanoid?? LOL Are European Americans NOT Caucasoid either?? LMAO
Do you believe species are also social constructs? Along with planets and star clusters?
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Explain why categorizing a continuum is arbitrary. Categorization does not require x, y, z to be discrete. Your race denialism is entirely based on this fallacy.
"Human cognition can deal with categories that are not discrete" (Sarich & Miele, 2004)
In reference to the 75% rule and taxonomy in general:
"[...] Amadon (1949), who proposed an admittedly arbitrary guideline, that 75% of a sample of specimens should be distinguishable from 99% of a sample from a reference population" (James, 2010).
"Admittedly, the lower boundary for defining a valid diagnosable subspecies is arbitrary. That arbitrariness has been a focal point of criticism for the subspecies concept (e.g. Wilson and Brown 1953, Inger 1961, Selander 1971). One must bear in mind, however, that definitions for placement into all taxonomic groups other than a species are arbitrary (presuming some sort of biology-based species concept). Just how much difference is needed to define a genus? What level of distinction is necessary to define a new phylum? Do all genera or phyla differ from each other equally? Even if all such higher categories could be defined cladistically or on the basis of some degree of genetic difference, arbitrary definitions are unavoidable. Also consider that our beloved alpha=0.05, the underpinning of inferential statistics, is an arbitrary level. We accept a Type I error rate of 5% not because it is superior to any other; it is merely accepted convention. (Patten and Unitt, 2002).
The fact is that you cannot tell me why 75% is an objectively 'correct' figure but 74% or 73% or 72.5%, etc. are not.
In reference to continua: I already showed you this link. How does my subjective, arbitrary and idiosyncratic interpretation of where something ends and something else begins = objective? Since it is a continuum, any argument that X ends here and Y starts there is just as wrong as another person who claims X and Y end and start at a completely different point. There is no end and start outside of the entire minimum and maximum range of the variable. You still haven't addressed my mountain response either.
Sarich and Miele did not say the following: "Human cognition can deal with categories that are not discrete". STOP LYING.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^ Idiot, don't accuse me of lying when unlike you I own all these texts.
"Human cognition can deal with categories that are not discrete", is an EXACT quote on page 209.
You don't own these texts, or have acess to them. And like how you distort or misrepresent Deniker, you will now lie about Sarich & Miele.
You are "all washed up", as your entire philosophy is based on the fallacy objective classification rests on x, y, z being discrete. LMAO. You've wasted years starting from a false assumption.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ Idiot, don't accuse me of lying when unlike you I own all these texts.
"Human cognition can deal with categories that are not discrete", is an EXACT quote on page 209.
You don't own these texts, or have acess to them. And like how you distort or misrepresent Deniker, you will now lie about Sarich & Miele.
You are "all washed up", as your entire philosophy is based on the fallacy objective classification rests on x, y, z being discrete. LMAO. You've wasted years starting from a false assumption.
It isn't showing up when I search for it in Google Books. I haven't misrepresented anything. For the last several posts we haven't been discussing discreteness, so I don't know what you're talking about. It is a fact that a continuum like colour cannot be divided objectively.
At what height does a 'hill' become a 'mountain'? Demonstrate why your answer is objective.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Did Sarich and Miele actually say the divisions of a continuum are done objectively? 'Human cognition' being able to arbitrarily divide something doesn't mean much, as demonstrated by the colour/language example. Our language conventions are just as subjective as theirs.
I can 'deal with' anyone saying a mountain is established at +2000m, but it doesn't mean that concept is objective. Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^ I've explained why classification in regards to what you call continua can be objective.
"Individuals of population x, closer resemble other individuals of that population when compared to y. You are still running away from this empirical fact."
In any given spectrum, there are fuzzy sets, not just crisp sets. The fuzzy sets in races are the cline peaks, or grade (coefficient of variation)ranges of membership, which all differ.
Time -
"We told Dave that we'd meet him around 9 o'clock."
9 = crisp "around" = fuzzy
However note how "around" is not arbitrary, it means a proximity in spatiality to 9' o clock. Someone therefore can not say 9: 45, 9: 30, 9: 20 etc. While there is no "crisp" cut off point, fuzzy sets are not arbitrary either because they deal with discontinuous ranges. Hence there are more categorizes than crisp hot and cold in temperature. Someone can detect easily the objective range of "slightly cold" despite no crisp cut off.
As Sarich & Miele (2004) show categorization does not require things to be discrete (crisp), and races they demonstrate are objective (real) fuzzy sets. Pearson (1996) shows the same, but prefers the term "cline peaks".
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ I've explained why classification in regards to what you call continua can be objective.
"Individuals of population x, closer resemble other individuals of that population when compared to y. You are still running away from this empirical fact."
'Resemble' by what measure? See Zagefka (2009) and Barbujani and Belle (2006).
quote:In any given spectrum, there are fuzzy sets, not just crisp sets. The fuzzy sets in races are the cline peaks, or grade (coefficient of variation)ranges of membership, which all differ.
Time -
"We told Dave that we'd meet him around 9 o'clock."
9 = crisp "around" = fuzzy
However note how "around" is not arbitrary, it means a proximity in spatiality to 9' o clock. Someone therefore can not say 9: 45, 9: 30, 9: 20 etc. While there is no "crisp" cut off point, fuzzy sets are not arbitrary either because they deal with discontinuous ranges. Hence there are more categorizes than crisp hot and cold in temperature. Someone can detect easily the objective range of "slightly cold" despite no crisp cut off.
As Sarich & Miele (2004) show categorization does not require things to be discrete (crisp), and races they demonstrate are objective (real) fuzzy sets. Pearson (1996) shows the same, but prefers the term "cline peaks".
Of course it is arbitrary, you imbecile. I'm actually laughing at just how remarkably stupid you are.
In your opinion, 9:45, 9:30 and 9:20 are not 'around 9'. In someone else's opinion, they may be. Are they wrong? If so, on what basis are they 'wrong' when there is no logical structure that allows the dichotomy of right and wrong? If neither of you are wrong, then there is no objectivity to the concept at all and anything can be 'around 9'. Tell me what the 'objective range' of 'around 9' is and why.
You either have it or you don't: dichotomy. Something is either producing heat (above absolute zero) or it isn't (absolute zero). The maximum temperature is absolute hot/Planck temperature and anything in between is a product of arbitrary discretion. There is no 'objective range' because the entire division is simply a matter of opinion. Fuzzy 'logic' is an oxymoron and is inherently arbitrary.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Do you even understand what 'objective' means? "Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."
If the range of 'around 9' isn't agreed upon by everyone it cannot be said to be objective. 9:20, 9:30, 9:40, 9:50, etc. can never be said to not be 'around 9' because there is no objectivity to the word 'around' in the first place. What a fool.
In my subjective opinion, 30 degrees Celsius is 'cold' (i.e., in a non-literal sense). Am I wrong? Why? We both have opinions on the matter so how is your opinion 'more right' than my opinion? Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Do you believe the classification of days into 28-31 day months and 7 day weeks that repeat themselves yearly is non-arbitrary? They are divisions of a continuum.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You are wrong about the 4 specimens. According to Chamla, 14 are paleomediterranean (with thin noses) while 10 are Mechtoid
Learn to read, dumbass. I said three Capsian remains were included in that graph I posted from Dutour 1984, that have been tagged as ’’Proto-Mediteranean’’. Of those three so called ’’Proto-Mediteraneans’’, only one is leptorrhine (Ain Meterchem), the other two are Mesorrhine and Platyrrhine (Ain Dokhara and Kanguet el Mouhaad 5, respectively). The ’’proto-mediteranean’’ Kanguet el Mouhaad 5 clocks in at a whooping platyrrhine index of 56%. You’ve totally fabricated your description that they were all thin nosed. Not even Chamla says this.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Regarding the faces, "the broad-faced, heavy muscled Moullian type is less common among the Caspians" (Coon, 1962). I defend my statement that the Caspians are leptoprosopic.
Saying that the Capsians were less broad faced than the Iberomaurusians isn’t an admission that they were not broad faced, let alone that they were leptoprosopic, dumbass. This is what the actual data says:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I never claimed there was a large Capoid population there.
Stop lying dumbass:
Most of the Badari were Bushman, the other type is Caucasoid, which is more apparent in the Naqada figurines. As your study shows Badarian crania is closest to Bushman. --Fareemdunkers
LMAO at this chronological liar. You know you done phucked up now, don't you. You’ve shot yourself in the foot so many times that you can’t even crawl yourself out of this. You disqualify ’’Negroid’’ status on the basis of wavy/straight hair, but you have no problem assigning Bushman status to populations who evidently had predominantly wavy/straight hair (43/49 87.7%), and the rest curly.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: UP/Mesolithic crania with large browridges are not Capoid or Negroid.
Then explain why you called the large browridge having Singa calvarium ''Capoid'', knowing full well they (the bushmen) have some of the flattest faces in the world.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: See Bar-Yosef (1987). "Pleistocene connexions between Africa and Southwest Asia: an archaeological perspective".
I’m not going to see anything. As with everything, you’re hiding behind the title of an article and their complementary date, as if that means anything. All that Chamla 1980, Lahr, 1996, Coon, 1962, yet you have a never ending supply of putting your foot in your mouth, with every retarded post you make. I have just cited a source that says that the Mushabian culture was restricted to Northern Sinai and Negev. That source says that the source you’re trying to get me to read (Bar-Yosef 1987) bases commonality between the Mushabian and Nile Valley cultures on similarity with Nubian cultures, not with Upper or Lower Egyptian ones. It never says that Bar Yosef bases links between Mushabian and Nile Valley remains on the notion that the Mushabian was found in the Nile Valley. You’re clearly lying. You’ve never read Bar-Yosef 1987, and you’ve totally fabricated your assertion that the Mushabian culture existed in Upper and Lower Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Hair texture destroys your position. All the specimens you claim are "Black" don't have wooly hair, but wavy. So they clearly aren't Negroid.
Didn’t you hear what I just said? I said that Negroid is a metric entity that isn’t confined to the African continent. Hence, why your fellow Euronuts came up with descriptions as ''Negrito'' when describing black Asian populations. Both in Africa and outside of Africa, folks with a ’’Negroid’’ metric configuration may or may not have frizzy hair. All statistical analysis performed on the Badarians, for example, show them to be Negroid, while their hair is predominantly wavy/straight (87.7%). The same goes for highly melanated Asian groups with metric affinity to African groups; their hair may or may not be kinky.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You asked for the source, I gave it to you. I am just citing Coon's sources from his text.
Exactly, that’s what you’ve been doing all along; hiding behind names and dates, but never citing what was actually said, like your non-existent Chamla 1980 that says proto-meds among Capsian remains were all leptorrhine and leptoprosopic, or your non-existent Bar Yosef 1987 source that says that the Mushabian has ever been found in Upper and Lower Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers India is inhabited by different races. Who are you sampling?
It’s irrelevant. Black groups in India and Australia have been known to group with African groups in metric analysis. You’ve said its Afronut trickology to claim this, and I’ve proven you wrong. That there are Indian populations for which this (African affinity) is true to a lesser extent, or not at all, is disputed by no one.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: There is then this study from Brace
Thanks for posting more data that shows African groups have metric affinity with melanated Asian groups from India and further East.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The only person using trickery is you, as you exclude one or the other when it clusters a population with Caucasoids. When that happens you will discard it and use the one that shows something else.
Disproving your initial statement, i.e., that Africans and Indians look nothing alike, necessitates looking at metric analysis since non-metric analysis isn't informative of appearance. I also never said that the link between highly melanated Indians and Africans was anything more than superfical (non-phylogenetic) likeness due to living in similar environments. Hence, there is no need for me to take non-metrics into account to disprove your silly statement that Africans and highly melanated Indians don't look alike.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: As Wolpoff shows, the idea of "wandering Africans" replacing archaics across the globe is a fantasy.
Wolpoff is either ignorant of the skeletal record or he is lying. That there were wandering Africans replacing archaic humans has been proven by the fact that African UP AMHs like Dar es Sultane, Nazlet Khater and Hofmyer resemble other non-African AMHs. It has also been proven by comparisons of modern Africans to AMHs from regions across the globe (New World, China, Europe):
When only the canonical variate information is taken into account, it can be observed that, while recent samples present a general geographic logic, with series from the same region appearing closer to each other, all early samples appear closer to each other in the central region of the graph, in proximity to the sub-Saharan African series. As expected, Amerindian groups appear to be associated with East Asian populations in the first Canonical variate, as do some of the European samples (Norse and Zalavar). Furthermore, the MST connects all early samples to each other and to sub-Saharan Africa. --Hubbe et al 2010
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: No they don't. If a women has three son's her mtdna lineage is lost.
DNA that doesn’t have that problem (DNA that is passed on by both parents) shows the same picture we infer from the uniparental lineages, namely, that Eurasians have for the most part, derived and non-basal ancestry. The only basal ancestry they have is archaic human ancestry. The idea that Lineage loss explains why Eurasia is a homogenous genetic mass (relative to African genetic variation), or that it explains why Eurasians don’t have pre-m and pre-n lineages, is totally unsupported, as shown by the parts of their dna that isn’t affected by scenario you present:
Thus, dense genome-wide SNP data most strongly support a modified version of the early southern route dispersal hypothesis, in which there was a single migration of modern humans from Africa --Stoneking et al, 2011
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: We also know mtdna can dissapear through negative selection. Wolpoff shows numerous other ways mtdna is lost. It’s simply not an accurate way to look at population histories.
You retardation is apparent by your constant use of arguments that inadvertently destroy your own case. First you say mtdna analysis is inherently weak compared to skeletal analysis because lineages can die out (even though this infinitely more the case for human remains), and now you say mtdna can disappear through negative selection. Newsflash, negative selection affects skeletal traits as well. SMH.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: AA's have Caucasoid (and other) admixture and don't live in the Negroid geographical belt. They aren't Negroid.
What are the criteria for being ’’Negroid’’?
quote:Swenet can you also clarify your position? Who are you claiming the thin nosed Caspians are?
All over the world there has been a pattern where robust people with a generalized, broad faced morphology acquire a more gracile, thinner faced physique, which gives, especially to you retarded Euronuts, the false impression of a global invasion of a new Mediterranean people, which you see as akin to yourselves. This transition (though not always to a ''mediteranean'' look) is visible in the Egyptian skeletal record, in the Nubians skeletal record, in the Amerindian skeletal record, the Chinese skeletal record and even the European skeletal record. Etc. But every time this transition is tested by doing DNA analysis on both successive populations in the same region, DNA analysis debunks the false impression given by the skeletal record, and that the people are really the same people.
Comparing craniometric and mtDNA data of diachronic samples from East Central Argentina dated from 8,000 to 400 years BP, we show here that even when the oldest individuals display traits attributable to Paleoamerican crania, they present the same mtDNA haplogroups as later populations with Amerindian morphology. --S. Ivan Perez et al. 2009
The results obtained show that morphological variation in East Central Argentina does not correlate with mtDNA differences. The oldest samples from the region under study, dated on ca. 8,000–2,000 years BP, present more elongated crania than the Later Late Holocene samples, but both groups have the same mtDNA haplogroups (and even haplotypes). --S. Ivan Perez et al. 2009
The Santana do Riacho late Paleoindians present a cranial morphology characterized by long and narrow neurocrania, low and narrow faces, with low nasal apertures and orbits. The multivariate analyses show that they exhibit strong morphological affinities with present day Australians and Africans, showing no resemblance to recent Northern Asians and Native Americans. --Neves et al 2003
^In case you're dumb enough to get the implications of this, it says that there were ''negroid'' (or Australoid as your dumbass undoubtedly prefers) people in America 8000 years ago who were genetically native American in ancestry. Left to the devices of the skeletal record, the anthropologists were construing both populations as biologically distinct and that the later Amerindian population drove the ''Negroid'' population to extinction. You Euronuts are on your last legs. Time after time it is proven that craniometric analysis doesn’t equal phylogenetic affinity. You fruitbaskets just don't get it.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Swenet's statement is still leading.
quote:Black skinned Indians and Australians have been know the cluster with or near Africans craniometrically:
True TP, he's too dumb to realize that he's only posting more ammo for my case.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Fuzzy 'logic' is an oxymoron and is inherently arbitrary.
Any continuum has different grade ranges of membership, hence they are 'fuzzy' sets, but not arbitrary.
These ranges aren't random, but they aren't discrete either. Non-socially constructed categorizes can easily exist without being discrete.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yes biological taxonomy is objective but because 'race' is NOT objective but actually subjective, racial categories then are NOT truly taxonomic, you dimwit!
Speaking of which, you still haven't explained how Curtis Jackson is African American but not Negroid?? How is Curtis Jackson to be classified 'racially', then??! Melanoid?? LOL Are European Americans NOT Caucasoid either?? LMAO
Do you believe species are also social constructs? Along with planets and star clusters?
Of course not, dumbass! LMAO
Species, as well as other taxa like genera, families, or even sub-species are based on phylogenetics which IS objective! 'Race' is NOT phylogentically based no matter how many times you repeat that it's so because it is based on subjective and arbitrary grouping! Anatomically Modern Humans a.k.a. Homo. sapiens are a single species and while there is great phenotypic diversity within the species such diversity canNOT be divided into categories based on phenotype especially when such phenotypes have no phylogentic basis! This is what 'racial' grouping is-- a false grouping based on an assorted number of phenotypic traits that are NOT based on actual genetic lineage!!
A perfect example can be found my questions which you still have not answered!
How is the man above African American but not Negroid?? How is he to be classified 'racially', then??! Are there European Americans who are not Caucasoid??!
Please answer these questions if you want to prove your point. Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Fuzzy 'logic' is an oxymoron and is inherently arbitrary.
Any continuum has different grade ranges of membership, hence they are 'fuzzy' sets, but not arbitrary.
These ranges aren't random, but they aren't discrete either. Non-socially constructed categorizes can easily exist without being discrete.
The ranges are intrinsically arbitrary and subjective. Who determines 'warm' starts and ends at 10-30 degrees C? What if I consider 5 degrees C to be warm? Am I 'wrong'? On what basis is my opinion 'wrong' if there are no objective parameters in the first place? Setting the values of 'warm' to 10-30 degrees C is an arbitrary act in itself; you cannot then say my arbitrary opinion is invalidated by another person's arbitrary opinion.
'Heat' is produced by atomic activity; atomic activity occurs at any temperature above absolute zero. Everything above absolute zero is, therefore, 'warm' and absolute hot/Planck temperature is categorically 'hot'. Since everything above absolute zero is 'warm', I can say -200 degrees is 'warm' or 200 degrees C is 'warm' without being 'wrong'. Both temperatures produce heat, so both claims that they are warm are equally valid. Thus, we must extend the range to -200 and +200 degrees C. Then somebody may say -273.15 degrees C<X<Absolute hot is 'warm' without being wrong, and that is what I am doing. Since this is the maximum possible range of the concept of 'warm', it is the only logically tenable one.
The 'ranges' that you have posted do not exist outside of somebody's opinion, unless you can tell me an objective physical process that occurs at <10 degrees C and >30 degrees C that justifies the termination of 'warm' at those points. Same for all the other 'ranges'. I can give you an objective, physics-based reason that cold is cold and hot is hot, with everything in-between being warm; I doubt you can justify your graph in the same way. Why not? Because the 'ranges' are determined arbitrarily.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Fuzzy 'logic' is an oxymoron and is inherently arbitrary.
Any continuum has different grade ranges of membership, hence they are 'fuzzy' sets, but not arbitrary.
These ranges aren't random, but they aren't discrete either. Non-socially constructed categorizes can easily exist without being discrete.
Oh, so this explains why for example ancient Egyptian remnants show tropical, even more tropical with some small but gradual shifts. (In the African context).
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Fuzzy 'logic' is an oxymoron and is inherently arbitrary.
Any continuum has different grade ranges of membership, hence they are 'fuzzy' sets, but not arbitrary.
These ranges aren't random, but they aren't discrete either. Non-socially constructed categorizes can easily exist without being discrete.
The ranges are intrinsically arbitrary and subjective. Who determines 'warm' starts and ends at 10-30 degrees C? What if I consider 5 degrees C to be warm? Am I 'wrong'? On what basis is my opinion 'wrong' if there are no objective parameters in the first place? Setting the values of 'warm' to 10-30 degrees C is an arbitrary act in itself; you cannot then say my arbitrary opinion is invalidated by another person's arbitrary opinion.
'Heat' is produced by atomic activity; atomic activity occurs at any temperature above absolute zero. Everything above absolute zero is, therefore, 'warm' and absolute hot/Planck temperature is categorically 'hot'. Since everything above absolute zero is 'warm', I can say -200 degrees is 'warm' or 200 degrees C is 'warm' without being 'wrong'. Both temperatures produce heat, so both claims that they are warm are equally valid. Thus, we must extend the range to -200 and +200 degrees C. Then somebody may say -273.15 degrees C<X<Absolute hot is 'warm' without being wrong, and that is what I am doing. Since this is the maximum possible range of the concept of 'warm', it is the only logically tenable one.
The 'ranges' that you have posted do not exist outside of somebody's opinion, unless you can tell me an objective physical process that occurs at <10 degrees C and >30 degrees C that justifies the termination of 'warm' at those points. Same for all the other 'ranges'. I can give you an objective, physics-based reason that cold is cold and hot is hot, with everything in-between being warm; I doubt you can justify your graph in the same way. Why not? Because the 'ranges' are determined arbitrarily.
Your philosophy rests entirely on the false assumption only binary logic isn't socially constructed (0, 1).
Is a glass half filled, half empty or half full?
Binary logic dates back to the ancient Greeks when most only believed in one law: x or not-x, either this or not this (0, 1). This isn't always the case as shown by the analogy of the half glass and binary logic is now accepted as a subset of fuzzy. Logic doesn't only deal with absolute truths, but also partial and a continuous range of values.
quote: I want to start my story in Germany, in 1877, with a mathematician named Georg Cantor. And Cantor decided he was going to take a line and erase the middle third of the line, and take those two resulting lines and bring them back into the same process, a recursive process. So he starts out with one line, and then two, and then four, and then 16, and so on. And if he does this an infinite number of times, which you can do in mathematics, he ends up with an infinite number of lines, each of which has an infinite number of points in it. So he realized he had a set whose number of elements was larger than infinity. And this blew his mind. Literally. He checked into a sanitarium.(Laughter) And when he came out of the sanitarium, he was convinced that he had been put on earth to found transfinite set theory, because the largest set of infinity would be God Himself. He was a very religious man. He was a mathematician on a mission.
quote:And the most interesting thing I found out about it was historical. In the 12th century, Hugo Santalia brought it from Islamic mystics into Spain. And there it entered into the alchemy community as geomancy: divination through the earth. This is a geomantic chart drawn for King Richard II in 1390. Leibniz, the German mathematician, talked about geomancy in his dissertation called "De Combinatoria." And he said, "Well, instead of using one stroke and two strokes, let's use a one and a zero, and we can count by powers of two." Right? Ones and zeros, the binary code. George Boole took Leibniz's binary code and created Boolean algebra, and John von Neumann took Boolean algebra and created the digital computer.
So all these little PDAs and laptops -- every digital circuit in the world -- started in Africa.
And I know Brian Eno says there's not enough Africa in computers; ...
The concept of odd vs non-odd numbers traces back to Paleolithic Africa.
quote:Dirk Huylebrouck, the Mathematical Tourist columnist in the Mathematical Intelligencer, tells us about the remarkable Ishango bone, a 22,000 year old arithmetical exercise
The Ishango Bone – Is This The World’s Oldest Mathematical Artefact?
Most people think that the study of mathematics has its origins in Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, but this view was dramatically challenged in the 1950’s with the discovery of a small animal bone, inscribed with markings that appear to represent numbers.
This artefact was discovered in the small African fishing village of Ishango, on the border of Zaire and Uganda by the Belgian geologist Jean de Heinzelin.
The Ishango Bone now lies at the Museum of Natural Sciences in Brussels, and has been dated to around 20,000 BC. It is thought to be the oldest mathematical artefact ever discovered.
The Bone
At first glance the bone appears to be a simple writing tool. It is 10 cm long, and at one end is embedded with a piece of quartz thought to be for engraving and tattooing. Closer examination reveals a series of notches running up the side of the bone, in three columns.
The notches are clustered together as shown below:
The middle column begins with 3 notches, and then doubles to 6 notches. The process is repeated for the number 4, which doubles to 8 notches, and then reversed for the number 10, which is halved to 5 notches. This suggests that the layout of numbers is not purely random and instead suggests some understanding of the principle of multiplication and division by 2. The bone may therefore have been used as a counting tool for simple mathematical procedures.
This view is further supported by looking at the number of notches on either side of the central column. The numbers on both the left and right column are all odd numbers (9, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 21). Furthermore, the numbers on the left column are all prime numbers, suggesting some mathematical knowledge. The numbers on each side column add up to 60, with the numbers in the central column adding up to 48. Both of these numbers are multiples of 12, again suggesting an understanding of multiplication and division.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Greeks 'borrowed Egyptian numbers'
By Paul Rincon BBC Science
The astronomers, physicists and mathematicians of ancient Greece were true innovators. But one thing it seems the ancient Greeks did not invent was the counting system on which many of their greatest thinkers based their pioneering calculations.
New research suggests the Greeks borrowed their system known as alphabetic numerals from the Egyptians, and did not develop it themselves as was long believed.
Greek alphabetic numerals were favoured by the mathematician and physicist Archimedes, the scientific philosopher Aristotle and the mathematician Euclid, amongst others.
Trade explosion
An analysis by Dr Stephen Chrisomalis of McGill University in Montreal, Canada, showed striking similarities between Greek alphabetic numerals and Egyptian demotic numerals, used in Egypt from the late 8th Century BC until around AD 450.
Both systems use nine signs in each "base" so that individual units are counted 1-9, tens are counted 10-90 and so on. Both systems also lack a symbol for zero.
Dr Chrisomalis proposes that an explosion in trade between Greece and Egypt after 600 BC led to the system being adopted by the Greeks.
Greek merchants may have seen the demotic system in use in Egypt and adapted it for their own purposes.
"We know there was an enormous amount of contact between the Greeks and Egyptians at this time," Dr Chrisomalis told BBC News Online.
'Plausible' theory
Professor David Joyce, a mathematician at Clark University in Worcester, US, said he had not examined Dr Chrisomalis' research, but thought the link was plausible.
"Egyptians used hieratic and, later, demotic script where the multiple symbols looked more like single symbols," said Professor Joyce.
"Instead of seven vertical strokes, a particular squiggle was used. That's the same scheme used in the Greek alphabetic numerals."
Traditionally, the system is thought to have been developed by Greeks in western Asia Minor, in modern day Turkey.
Between 475 BC and 325 BC, alphabetic numerals fell out of use in favour of a system of written numbers known as acrophonic numerals.
But from the late 4th Century BC onwards, alphabetic numerals became the preferred system throughout the Greek-speaking world.
They were used until the fall of the Byzantine Empire in the 15th Century.
How is the man above African American but not Negroid?? How is he to be classified 'racially', then??! Are there European Americans who are not Caucasoid??!
Please answer these questions if you want to prove your point. [/QB]
^^^ he needs verification 50 Cent is a Negroid whilst claiming it is an invalid term
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
How is the man above African American but not Negroid?? How is he to be classified 'racially', then??! Are there European Americans who are not Caucasoid??!
Please answer these questions if you want to prove your point.
^^^ he needs verification 50 Cent is a Negroid whilst claiming it is an invalid term [/QB]
I think 50 will be shocked if he reads or hears about this.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Fuzzy 'logic' is an oxymoron and is inherently arbitrary.
Any continuum has different grade ranges of membership, hence they are 'fuzzy' sets, but not arbitrary.
These ranges aren't random, but they aren't discrete either. Non-socially constructed categorizes can easily exist without being discrete.
The ranges are intrinsically arbitrary and subjective. Who determines 'warm' starts and ends at 10-30 degrees C? What if I consider 5 degrees C to be warm? Am I 'wrong'? On what basis is my opinion 'wrong' if there are no objective parameters in the first place? Setting the values of 'warm' to 10-30 degrees C is an arbitrary act in itself; you cannot then say my arbitrary opinion is invalidated by another person's arbitrary opinion.
'Heat' is produced by atomic activity; atomic activity occurs at any temperature above absolute zero. Everything above absolute zero is, therefore, 'warm' and absolute hot/Planck temperature is categorically 'hot'. Since everything above absolute zero is 'warm', I can say -200 degrees is 'warm' or 200 degrees C is 'warm' without being 'wrong'. Both temperatures produce heat, so both claims that they are warm are equally valid. Thus, we must extend the range to -200 and +200 degrees C. Then somebody may say -273.15 degrees C<X<Absolute hot is 'warm' without being wrong, and that is what I am doing. Since this is the maximum possible range of the concept of 'warm', it is the only logically tenable one.
The 'ranges' that you have posted do not exist outside of somebody's opinion, unless you can tell me an objective physical process that occurs at <10 degrees C and >30 degrees C that justifies the termination of 'warm' at those points. Same for all the other 'ranges'. I can give you an objective, physics-based reason that cold is cold and hot is hot, with everything in-between being warm; I doubt you can justify your graph in the same way. Why not? Because the 'ranges' are determined arbitrarily.
Your philosophy rests entirely on the false assumption only binary logic isn't socially constructed (0, 1).
Is a glass half filled, half empty or half full?
Binary logic dates back to the ancient Greeks when most only believed in one law: x or not-x, either this or not this (0, 1). This isn't always the case as shown by the analogy of the half glass and binary logic is now accepted as a subset of fuzzy. Logic doesn't only deal with absolute truths, but also partial and a continuous range of values.
The above can't be refuted, that's why as I said - you've wasted years working from a false assumption.
They are synonymous propositions. It's like asking "do I have six eggs or half a dozen eggs?" There is no 'or' because they mean the same thing; this has nothing to do with logic, as you have constructed a distinction between two propositions, despite those propositions meaning the same thing. This is a semantic problem, not a logical one.
Assuming a glass has a perfect 1000ml capacity:
The glass has something in it at any level above 0 ml. It is full at 1000ml and empty at 0ml.
The same applies to anything using 'or', it seems:
Person A: "Is it snowing or is it is sunny?" Person B: "Yes."
Person A: "Is the light on or off?" Person B: "Yes."
It makes no sense. When asked independently, the propositions can be analysed:
Person A: "Is it snowing?" Person B: "No." Person A: "Is it sunny?" Person B: "Yes."
Person A: "Is the light on?" Person B: "No." Person A: "Is it the light off?" Person B: "Yes."
In respect to the glass:
Person A: "Is 500 ml half full/partially full?" Person B: "Yes." Person A: "Is 500 ml half empty/partially empty?" Person B: "Yes."
The uniting element is that both propositions refer to the state of having 500 ml, so they mean the same thing.
Person A: "Is 1000 ml partially empty?" Person B: "No." Person A: "Is 0 ml partially full?" Person B: "No."
0 = empty; 1000 ml = full. Anything else in between is always true for both propositions; i.e., "is it partially full" will always be true for anything above zero and below 1000ml and "is it partially empty" will always be true for anything above zero and below 1000ml. Which terminology you wish to use to describe the synonymous states is socially constructed/arbitrary; the fact remains that you are referring to the same state (full = false; empty = false; partially empty/full = true). In other words, whether you say partially full or partially empty doesn't change the fact that you are still referring to 500ml.
Answer my questions about the objectivity of the 'warm' range. You also need to demonstrate that 75% is an objective number.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
How is the man above African American but not Negroid?? How is he to be classified 'racially', then??! Are there European Americans who are not Caucasoid??!
Please answer these questions if you want to prove your point.
^^^ he needs verification 50 Cent is a Negroid whilst claiming it is an invalid term
The traits described by it are valid since they obviously exist, but the ideological underpinnings (that the folks that carry the traits implicated by ''Negroid'' are necessarily genetically separated from folks in other parts of Africa that have that configuration to a lesser extend, or not at all) are false.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Learn to read, dumbass. I said three Capsian remains were included in that graph I posted from Dutour 1984, that have been tagged as ’’Proto-Mediteranean’’. Of those three so called ’’Proto-Mediteraneans’’, only one is leptorrhine (Ain Meterchem), the other two are Mesorrhine and Platyrrhine (Ain Dokhara and Kanguet el Mouhaad 5, respectively). The ’’proto-mediteranean’’ Kanguet el Mouhaad 5 clocks in at a whooping platyrrhine index of 56%. You’ve totally fabricated your description that they were all thin nosed. Not even Chamla says this.
If they aren't leptorrhine then they arn't Mediterranid. The thin nosed, orthognathic, narrow faced Mediterranean crania appear in Briggs (1955) as "Type B": varying browridges (but not massive), orthognathic with "long and narrow face and nose" (Anderson, 1968). Type B = Chamla's palaeomediterranean (II). Brauer (1978) notes: "the more robust type to be more numerous in Ibero-Maurusian sites, while the leptodolichomorphic form is more frequent in those of the Capsian." These are Caucasoids of the Mediterranean subrace. They entered North Africa from the Near East (Ferembach, 1985).
quote:Saying that the Capsians were less broad faced than the Iberomaurusians isn’t an admission that they were not broad faced, let alone that they were leptoprosopic, dumbass. This is what the actual data says:
The robust, wide nosed, prognathic, broader faced specimens are Maurusian/Mechtoid types. The Caucasoid (Med) crania in contrast are thin nosed, and leptoprosopic. See above.
quote:Stop lying dumbass:
Most of the Badari were Bushman, the other type is Caucasoid, which is more apparent in the Naqada figurines. As your study shows Badarian crania is closest to Bushman. --Fareemdunkers
This was 11 months ago when I asserted the Bushmen were Boskopids: "Ternifine-Temara-Rabat-Tangier-Boskop", hence I maintained they could be robust with large brow-ridges. I no longer claim this sequence, and I retracted it months ago. Post that date, I ommissed Boskop of the sequence and just referred to it as "Coon's theory" see here (05 August, 2012). Who the Boskopids were or what race they are affiliated, I leave as an open question. I don't see why I am a liar for retracting claims I formerly held.
You will also see last year and many months ago I asserted the Mechtoids were Caucasoid. I retracted this three months ago as well. So did Coon who in 1962 claimed they were Caucasoids, to three years later in his The Living Races of Man saying they are "non-Caucasoid" (page 93). Nowhere are my views inconsistent, like Coon, I change them in light of the evidence.
quote:Then explain why you called the large browridge having Singa calvarium ''Capoid'', knowing full well they (the bushmen) have some of the flattest faces in the world.
It's not a sapiens crania.
You don't understand a word of what i'm posting on the fossil sequences as you don't understand any non-OOA view on racial origins.
quote: I’m not going to see anything. As with everything, you’re hiding behind the title of an article and their complementary date, as if that means anything. All that Chamla 1980, Lahr, 1996, Coon, 1962, yet you have a never ending supply of putting your foot in your mouth, with every retarded post you make. I have just cited a source that says that the Mushabian culture was restricted to Northern Sinai and Negev. That source says that the source you’re trying to get me to read (Bar-Yosef 1987) bases commonality between the Mushabian and Nile Valley cultures on similarity with Nubian cultures, not with Upper or Lower Egyptian ones. It never says that Bar Yosef bases links between Mushabian and Nile Valley remains on the notion that the Mushabian was found in the Nile Valley. You’re clearly lying. You’ve never read Bar-Yosef 1987, and you’ve totally fabricated your assertion that the Mushabian culture existed in Upper and Lower Egypt.
"Both Bar-Yosef (1987) and Ehret (2002:38) have proposed that the Mushabian culture moved from northern Egypt into Palestine" Source
The Mushabian culture connects findings in Egypt to the Levant. These authors though are working in reverse as they start from the OOA hypothesis.
quote:Didn’t you hear what I just said? I said that Negroid is a metric entity that isn’t confined to the African continent. Hence, why your fellow Euronuts came up with descriptions as ''Negrito'' when describing black Asian populations. Both in Africa and outside of Africa, folks with a ’’Negroid’’ metric configuration may or may not have frizzy hair.
Negritids do not cluster with Negroids in craniofacial analyses when non-metrics are used. And note again your trickery, only using metrics, never non-metrics. Why? Because when non-metrics are used, all those populations are revealed to be non-Negroid. You only selectively choose pieces of evidences, while discard the rest. Non-metrics or epigenetic variants cluster Australoids closer to Caucasoids, than Negroids.
quote:All statistical analysis performed on the Badarians, for example, show them to be Negroid, while their hair is predominantly wavy/straight (87.7%). The same goes for highly melanated Asian groups with metric affinity to African groups; their hair may or may not be kinky.
If they don't have ulotrichous hair, they aren't Negroid. Races aren't defined solely by metrics. So stop setting up this lame fallacy. Should we redefine species of fish x as species of snake x, because both have stipes on them?
As noted using a single criterion, say non-metrics clusters Australoids with Caucasoids. Yet you won't choose this over metrics clustering Australoids with Negroids. You are biased and selective.
quote:Exactly, that’s what you’ve been doing all along; hiding behind names and dates, but never citing what was actually said, like your non-existent Chamla 1980 that says proto-meds among Capsian remains were all leptorrhine and leptoprosopic, or your non-existent Bar Yosef 1987 source that says that the Mushabian has ever been found in Upper and Lower Egypt.
You have been exposed as a complete liar on all these topics.
quote:It’s irrelevant. Black groups in India and Australia have been known to group with African groups in metric analysis. You’ve said its Afronut trickology to claim this, and I’ve proven you wrong. That there are Indian populations for which this (African affinity) is true to a lesser extent, or not at all, is disputed by no one.
See above. Why are you only selecting metrics over non-metrics? Answer: You are biased and only using selective evidences. Any evidence which clusters Indians (or whatever) with Caucasoids you will ignore. And this in a nutshell is the basis of Afrocentrism.
"Scholars have difficulty debating opponents such as Afrocentrists [...] If you challenge their sources, you will be asked to prove the absolute certainty of your sources. You think the arena is an intellectual one where the combatants use wit and intelligence to score points, but while you are looking above your opponent's shoulders, he will kick you in the groin. You may have the evidence and the arguments on your side but your opponent doesn't care about the evidence and is not interested in your arguments. He already knows the truth." (Lefkowitz, 1996)
quote:What are the criteria for being ’’Negroid’’?
(a) Having West-African (Negroid) physiognomy. (b) Living in the Negroid belt.
Negroids that fail (b), usually always fail (a) because if they are in another region they are hybridized, as is the case with AA's.
And I have no interest in further debating Multiregionalism vs. OOA with you in light of the Lefkowitz quote above. Any regional traits you will ignore, hence you failed to respond on the basis of shovel shaped incisors or torus mandibularis.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Even when we take your argument to be true you still haven't accounted for the arbitrary sets in the first place.
Say we have a continuous range of 1-30. You have decided to divide this range into 1-10 (thin), 11-20 (medium), 21-30 (wide).
Thereafter you attempt to argue, "the range is continuous but that doesn't mean fuzzy sets don't allow you to determine who is in what". The divisions are arbitrarily constructed in themselves. There's no point in saying "somebody with 7 is around the medium range, but is still more thin than medium and can be called thin". Thin/medium/large are themselves arbitrary constructs. There is no objective reason that the range of thin stops at 10.
Similarly, there's no point in saying "the end of the range of yellow is also partially orange, but that doesn't mean yellow and orange as categories don't exist". Well, it does, which I demonstrated in that blue-green language link. The arbitrary claim that orange and yellow/blue and green deserve their own nomenclatorial titles has been made in advance; other languages don't make the same claim. In our language, the spectral range of 'blue' and 'green' is comprised of two overlapping sets that have their own ranges; in other languages, the spectral range of what we know as 'blue' and 'green' is only comprised of one set. There is no overlap within this range because the entire range is the only set. Both claims cannot be 'true', which demonstrates the premise that places things into sets/categories in advance is arbitrary.
The same applies to temperature if somebody doesn't recognise the existence of 'cool'. Does that mean there is 'no temperature' where the range of 'cool' used to be? No, it simply means they have not divided the continuum in the same way you have: both choices are arbitrary outside of the absolute zero/hot distinction I have explained.
You could just as easily argue 1-5 (range a), 6-10 (range b), 11-15 (range c), 16-20 (range d), 21-25 (range e), 26-30 (range f) are fuzzy 'sets', but that doesn't change the fact that the 'sets' or criteria for nomenclatorial distinction are themselves constructed by YOU in advance.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Fuzzy 'logic' is an oxymoron and is inherently arbitrary.
Any continuum has different grade ranges of membership, hence they are 'fuzzy' sets, but not arbitrary.
These ranges aren't random, but they aren't discrete either. Non-socially constructed categorizes can easily exist without being discrete.
The ranges are intrinsically arbitrary and subjective. Who determines 'warm' starts and ends at 10-30 degrees C? What if I consider 5 degrees C to be warm? Am I 'wrong'? On what basis is my opinion 'wrong' if there are no objective parameters in the first place? Setting the values of 'warm' to 10-30 degrees C is an arbitrary act in itself; you cannot then say my arbitrary opinion is invalidated by another person's arbitrary opinion.
'Heat' is produced by atomic activity; atomic activity occurs at any temperature above absolute zero. Everything above absolute zero is, therefore, 'warm' and absolute hot/Planck temperature is categorically 'hot'. Since everything above absolute zero is 'warm', I can say -200 degrees is 'warm' or 200 degrees C is 'warm' without being 'wrong'. Both temperatures produce heat, so both claims that they are warm are equally valid. Thus, we must extend the range to -200 and +200 degrees C. Then somebody may say -273.15 degrees C<X<Absolute hot is 'warm' without being wrong, and that is what I am doing. Since this is the maximum possible range of the concept of 'warm', it is the only logically tenable one.
The 'ranges' that you have posted do not exist outside of somebody's opinion, unless you can tell me an objective physical process that occurs at <10 degrees C and >30 degrees C that justifies the termination of 'warm' at those points. Same for all the other 'ranges'. I can give you an objective, physics-based reason that cold is cold and hot is hot, with everything in-between being warm; I doubt you can justify your graph in the same way. Why not? Because the 'ranges' are determined arbitrarily.
Your philosophy rests entirely on the false assumption only binary logic isn't socially constructed (0, 1).
Is a glass half filled, half empty or half full?
Binary logic dates back to the ancient Greeks when most only believed in one law: x or not-x, either this or not this (0, 1). This isn't always the case as shown by the analogy of the half glass and binary logic is now accepted as a subset of fuzzy. Logic doesn't only deal with absolute truths, but also partial and a continuous range of values.
The above can't be refuted, that's why as I said - you've wasted years working from a false assumption.
They are synonymous propositions. It's like asking "do I have six eggs or half a dozen eggs?" There is no 'or' because they mean the same thing; this has nothing to do with logic, as you have constructed a distinction between two propositions, despite those propositions meaning the same thing. This is a semantic problem, not a logical one.
Assuming a glass has a perfect 1000ml capacity:
The glass has something in it at any level above 0 ml. It is full at 1000ml and empty at 0ml.
The same applies to anything using 'or', it seems:
Person A: "Is it snowing or is it is sunny?" Person B: "Yes."
Person A: "Is the light on or off?" Person B: "Yes."
It makes no sense. When asked independently, the propositions can be analysed:
Person A: "Is it snowing?" Person B: "No." Person A: "Is it sunny?" Person B: "Yes."
Person A: "Is the light on?" Person B: "No." Person A: "Is it the light off?" Person B: "Yes."
In respect to the glass:
Person A: "Is 500 ml half full/partially full?" Person B: "Yes." Person A: "Is 500 ml half empty/partially empty?" Person B: "Yes."
The uniting element is that both propositions refer to the state of having 500 ml, so they mean the same thing.
Person A: "Is 1000 ml partially empty?" Person B: "No." Person A: "Is 0 ml partially full?" Person B: "No."
0 = empty; 1000 ml = full. Anything else in between is always true for both propositions; i.e., "is it partially full" will always be true for anything above zero and below 1000ml and "is it partially empty" will always be true for anything above zero and below 1000ml. Which terminology you wish to use to describe the synonymous states is socially constructed/arbitrary; the fact remains that you are referring to the same state (full = false; empty = false; partially empty/full = true). In other words, whether you say partially full or partially empty doesn't change the fact that you are still referring to 500ml.
Answer my questions about the objectivity of the 'warm' range. You also need to demonstrate that 75% is an objective number.
Actually its a logical problem, a clasical sorite paradox, not semantic.
"Is a glass half filled, half empty or half full?"
Fuzzy logic includes well-balanced counterparts, both true and false, eg. the glass of water that can be either half empty or half full. Fuzzy logic also shows that truth can be partial, and that there is a spectrum of categories, instead of just two crisp or discrete sets (0, 1). Fuzzy sets are multivalent not bivalent. Multivalent has three or more options. The glass half-empty/half-full question is not applicable to crisp set. Half-empty is not the same as half-full, they are two different ways of seeing the glass entirely outside of the crisp 100% full or 100% empty.
What then happens if someone takes a large sip out of the half filled glass? According to you, categorization would be objectively impossible. Yet obviously this is false. No one would label it closer to full than empty since a sip has been drunk.
Say someone scratches the surface of an apple, taking off a tiny amount.
According to you it is no longer an apple (or for sake of argument x), but a "social construct". Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Why are you not answering any of my questions?
quote:Actually its a logical problem, a clasical sorite paradox, not semantic.
"Is a glass half filled, half empty or half full?"
Fuzzy logic includes well-balanced counterparts, both true and false, eg. the glass of water that can be either half empty or half full. Fuzzy logic also shows that truth can be partial, and that there is a spectrum of categories, instead of just two crisp or discrete sets (0, 1). Fuzzy sets are multivalent not bivalent. Multivalent has three or more options. The glass half-empty/half-full question is not applicable to crisp set. Half-empty is not the same as half-full, they are two different ways of seeing the glass entirely outside of the crisp 100% full or 100% empty.
What then happens if someone takes a large sip out of the half filled glass? According to you, categorization would be objectively impossible. Yet obviously this is false. No one would label it closer to full than empty since a sip has been drunk.
Say someone scratches the surface of an apple, taking off a tiny amount.
According to you it is no longer an apple (or for sake of argument x), but a "social construct".
Does the glass contain 500ml of water? Yes. Half full = 500ml; half empty = 500ml. The word 'or' is inapplicable. Half a dozen and six are the same thing.
It is only full when it is at 1000ml. It is only empty when it is at 0ml. Outside of that, each proposition can be handled independently. If there's only 250ml left, it is 75% empty (250ml in the glass) and 25% full (250ml in the glass). Both refer to the same reality.
There would be an arbitrarily determined point where I no longer call that 'apple' an 'apple'. Your opinion may differ. We must first define the essential properties of an 'apple' in the first place. What must be present to warrant the category of 'apple'? Same applies to your temperature graph: you said 10<=X<=30 degrees C defines the essential properties of 'warm'. Within this, although there is warmer than 'warm' and cooler than 'warm', it can still be considered 'warm'. Anything that is 30<=X<=10 degrees C is apparently 'not warm' by any measure; i.e., it is categorically outside the range of 'warm'. Why is this? Who determined it?
Regardless of whether it is fuzzy or binary, there still exists a cut-off point where you no longer call it an apple. This cut-off point is equivalent to binary logic. Even though you may consider it to be MORE of an apple at higher values, the fact remains that you still consider it an 'apple' as opposed to 'not-an-apple'. Can it simultaneously be an 'apple' and 'not-an-apple'? No, although you may refer to percentage states 75% apple and 25% not-an-apple, for example, the absolute states of 'apple' and 'not-an-apple' cannot exist simultaneously. There is a cut-off point [akin to binary logic] for when it reaches an absolute state of 'not-an-apple'; i.e., it is 100% not-an-apple, and vice-versa. Above this point, it can be considered an apple [i.e., you would say "this is a heavily damage apple/part of an apple: they are DESCRIPTIONS of the same essential state of 'being-an-apple']; below it, it is not an apple [that is, you no longer make any reference to the state of 'being-an-apple'; it is merely liquid in your nail, as opposed to apple liquid]. Similarly, it is just a grain of sand, as opposed to a sand heap: 'heap' is completely removed from the statement. Where is this cut-off point and who determines it?
In that graph, there was a definitive cut-off point where any claims to calling the temperature 'warm' were apparently 'wrong'. Tell me why 5 degrees C is objectively 'not warm'.
All claims to the glass being full only occur at >0ml; all claims to the glass being empty only occur at <1000ml. Although various intermediate states contain more of one and less of another, the fact remains that there still exists a point where it contains all of one and none of another: it is at this point where we can objectively declare if it is full or empty. The state of 'relative fullness'/X% full only exists at >0ml just like the state of 'relative hotness' only exists at >absolute zero; the state of 'relative emptiness'/X% empty only exists at <1000ml just like the state of relative coldness only exists at <Plank temperature.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
If we take Sorites Paradox in its pure form, as opposed to your apple analogy, we are able to arrive at an essential property:
1) Any claims to there being a heap of sand must have the essential property of sand. 2) A heap must contain two or more items placed on top of each other.
Therefore: 1) We can conclude that an area without sand categorically cannot contain a heap of sand. 2) We can conclude that an area without two grains of sand on top of each other cannot be considered a 'heap'
Conclusion: A 'heap of sand' is when two grains of sand are placed on top of each other. Although there are larger heaps that can be made, it is objectively a 'heap of sand' when the essential property of 'two grains of sand being placed on top of each other' is met. Everything above this essential property is a 'heap' and everything below it is 'not-a-heap'.
I really don't see what the paradox is, unless we introduce arbitrary ranges and definitions.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
???
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Learn to read, dumbass. I said three Capsian remains were included in that graph I posted from Dutour 1984, that have been tagged as ’’Proto-Mediteranean’’. Of those three so called ’’Proto-Mediteraneans’’, only one is leptorrhine (Ain Meterchem), the other two are Mesorrhine and Platyrrhine (Ain Dokhara and Kanguet el Mouhaad 5, respectively). The ’’proto-mediteranean’’ Kanguet el Mouhaad 5 clocks in at a whooping platyrrhine index of 56%. You’ve totally fabricated your description that they were all thin nosed. Not even Chamla says this.
If they aren't leptorrhine then they arn't Mediterranid. The thin nosed, orthognathic, narrow faced Mediterranean crania appear in Briggs (1955) as "Type B": varying browridges (but not massive), orthognathic with "long and narrow face and nose" (Anderson, 1968). Type B = Chamla's palaeomediterranean (II). Brauer (1978) notes: "the more robust type to be more numerous in Ibero-Maurusian sites, while the leptodolichomorphic form is more frequent in those of the Capsian." These are Caucasoids of the Mediterranean subrace. They entered North Africa from the Near East (Ferembach, 1985).
quote:Saying that the Capsians were less broad faced than the Iberomaurusians isn’t an admission that they were not broad faced, let alone that they were leptoprosopic, dumbass. This is what the actual data says:
The robust, wide nosed, prognathic, broader faced specimens are Maurusian/Mechtoid types. The Caucasoid (Med) crania in contrast are thin nosed, and leptoprosopic. See above.
quote:Stop lying dumbass:
Most of the Badari were Bushman, the other type is Caucasoid, which is more apparent in the Naqada figurines. As your study shows Badarian crania is closest to Bushman. --Fareemdunkers
This was 11 months ago when I asserted the Bushmen were Boskopids: "Ternifine-Temara-Rabat-Tangier-Boskop", hence I maintained they could be robust with large brow-ridges. I no longer claim this sequence, and I retracted it months ago. Post that date, I ommissed Boskop of the sequence and just referred to it as "Coon's theory" see here (05 August, 2012). Who the Boskopids were or what race they are affiliated, I leave as an open question. I don't see why I am a liar for retracting claims I formerly held.
You will also see last year and many months ago I asserted the Mechtoids were Caucasoid. I retracted this three months ago as well. So did Coon who in 1962 claimed they were Caucasoids, to three years later in his The Living Races of Man saying they are "non-Caucasoid" (page 93). Nowhere are my views inconsistent, like Coon, I change them in light of the evidence.
quote:Then explain why you called the large browridge having Singa calvarium ''Capoid'', knowing full well they (the bushmen) have some of the flattest faces in the world.
It's not a sapiens crania.
You don't understand a word of what i'm posting on the fossil sequences as you don't understand any non-OOA view on racial origins.
quote: I’m not going to see anything. As with everything, you’re hiding behind the title of an article and their complementary date, as if that means anything. All that Chamla 1980, Lahr, 1996, Coon, 1962, yet you have a never ending supply of putting your foot in your mouth, with every retarded post you make. I have just cited a source that says that the Mushabian culture was restricted to Northern Sinai and Negev. That source says that the source you’re trying to get me to read (Bar-Yosef 1987) bases commonality between the Mushabian and Nile Valley cultures on similarity with Nubian cultures, not with Upper or Lower Egyptian ones. It never says that Bar Yosef bases links between Mushabian and Nile Valley remains on the notion that the Mushabian was found in the Nile Valley. You’re clearly lying. You’ve never read Bar-Yosef 1987, and you’ve totally fabricated your assertion that the Mushabian culture existed in Upper and Lower Egypt.
"Both Bar-Yosef (1987) and Ehret (2002:38) have proposed that the Mushabian culture moved from northern Egypt into Palestine" Source
The Mushabian culture connects findings in Egypt to the Levant. These authors though are working in reverse as they start from the OOA hypothesis.
quote:Didn’t you hear what I just said? I said that Negroid is a metric entity that isn’t confined to the African continent. Hence, why your fellow Euronuts came up with descriptions as ''Negrito'' when describing black Asian populations. Both in Africa and outside of Africa, folks with a ’’Negroid’’ metric configuration may or may not have frizzy hair.
Negritids do not cluster with Negroids in craniofacial analyses when non-metrics are used. And note again your trickery, only using metrics, never non-metrics. Why? Because when non-metrics are used, all those populations are revealed to be non-Negroid. You only selectively choose pieces of evidences, while discard the rest. Non-metrics or epigenetic variants cluster Australoids closer to Caucasoids, than Negroids.
quote:All statistical analysis performed on the Badarians, for example, show them to be Negroid, while their hair is predominantly wavy/straight (87.7%). The same goes for highly melanated Asian groups with metric affinity to African groups; their hair may or may not be kinky.
If they don't have ulotrichous hair, they aren't Negroid. Races aren't defined solely by metrics. So stop setting up this lame fallacy. Should we redefine species of fish x as species of snake x, because both have stipes on them?
As noted using a single criterion, say non-metrics clusters Australoids with Caucasoids. Yet you won't choose this over metrics clustering Australoids with Negroids. You are biased and selective.
quote:Exactly, that’s what you’ve been doing all along; hiding behind names and dates, but never citing what was actually said, like your non-existent Chamla 1980 that says proto-meds among Capsian remains were all leptorrhine and leptoprosopic, or your non-existent Bar Yosef 1987 source that says that the Mushabian has ever been found in Upper and Lower Egypt.
You have been exposed as a complete liar on all these topics.
quote:It’s irrelevant. Black groups in India and Australia have been known to group with African groups in metric analysis. You’ve said its Afronut trickology to claim this, and I’ve proven you wrong. That there are Indian populations for which this (African affinity) is true to a lesser extent, or not at all, is disputed by no one.
See above. Why are you only selecting metrics over non-metrics? Answer: You are biased and only using selective evidences. Any evidence which clusters Indians (or whatever) with Caucasoids you will ignore. And this in a nutshell is the basis of Afrocentrism.
"Scholars have difficulty debating opponents such as Afrocentrists [...] If you challenge their sources, you will be asked to prove the absolute certainty of your sources. You think the arena is an intellectual one where the combatants use wit and intelligence to score points, but while you are looking above your opponent's shoulders, he will kick you in the groin. You may have the evidence and the arguments on your side but your opponent doesn't care about the evidence and is not interested in your arguments. He already knows the truth." (Lefkowitz, 1996)
quote:What are the criteria for being ’’Negroid’’?
(a) Having West-African (Negroid) physiognomy. (b) Living in the Negroid belt.
Negroids that fail (b), usually always fail (a) because if they are in another region they are hybridized, as is the case with AA's.
And I have no interest in further debating Multiregionalism vs. OOA with you in light of the Lefkowitz quote above. Any regional traits you will ignore, hence you failed to respond on the basis of shovel shaped incisors or torus mandibularis.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
If I am not mistaking, Lefkowitz claimed ancient Egyptians to be black. Black Africans to be exact.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ No you are not mistaken. Lefkowitz in her book Not Out of Africa admitted as much that the Egyptians were black Africans, though suffice to say she was 'pressured' to change her position by historical academic peers who were upset with the findings which were based on the works of actual bio-anthropologists! LOL
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
How is the man above African American but not Negroid?? How is he to be classified 'racially', then??! Are there European Americans who are not Caucasoid??!
Please answer these questions if you want to prove your point.
^^^ he needs verification 50 Cent is a Negroid whilst claiming it is an invalid term [/QB]
LMAO More strawman false ass-umptions and baseless accusations. Of course 'Negroid' is an invalid term for the reasons expressed by Swenet below. My question specifically to Anglo-idiot is why 50 Cent is somehow not 'Negro' to him, when his traits obviously conform to the traditional classification of Negro. This brings us back to the question of what exactly does Anglo-Idiot consider 'Negro' and how does he define the term! That he follows his own specific rules of classification only further proves our point that racial classifications and definitions ARE indeed subjective and not objective at all! LOL
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The traits described by it are valid since they obviously exist, but the ideological underpinnings (that the folks that carry the traits implicated by ''Negroid'' are necessarily genetically separated from folks in other parts of Africa that have that configuration to a lesser extend, or not at all) are false.
Right. But the lyinass twit as well as her Anglo-Idiot friend are too stupid to understand this. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
According to Faheemdunkers genetics are irrelevant and Kanye West is a Negroid becasue of phenotypic traits. Adding a 4th trait to the Negroid trait list, a less than moderate brow ridge, 50 Cent is of mixed race because he has a prominent Caucasian brow ridge. In other words divide and conquer. -has you following every word like puppy dogs
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ No you are not mistaken. Lefkowitz in her book Not Out of Africa admitted as much that the Egyptians were black Africans, though suffice to say she was 'pressured' to change her position by historical academic peers who were upset with the findings which were based on the works of actual bio-anthropologists! LOL
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
How is the man above African American but not Negroid?? How is he to be classified 'racially', then??! Are there European Americans who are not Caucasoid??!
Please answer these questions if you want to prove your point.
^^^ he needs verification 50 Cent is a Negroid whilst claiming it is an invalid term
LMAO More strawman false ass-umptions and baseless accusations. Of course 'Negroid' is an invalid term for the reasons expressed by Swenet below. My question specifically to Anglo-idiot is why 50 Cent is somehow not 'Negro' to him, when his traits obviously conform to the traditional classification of Negro. This brings us back to the question of what exactly does Anglo-Idiot consider 'Negro' and how does he define the term! That he follows his own specific rules of classification only further proves our point that racial classifications and definitions ARE indeed subjective and not objective at all! LOL
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The traits described by it are valid since they obviously exist, but the ideological underpinnings (that the folks that carry the traits implicated by ''Negroid'' are necessarily genetically separated from folks in other parts of Africa that have that configuration to a lesser extend, or not at all) are false.
Right. But the lyinass twit as well as her Anglo-Idiot friend are too stupid to understand this. [/QB]
Of course I wasn't mismaking.
Ricaut 2008 Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ No you are not mistaken. Lefkowitz in her book Not Out of Africa admitted as much that the Egyptians were black Africans
I know this goes against the Egyptsearch grain, but "black" when applied to human skin tones is every bit as much of a social construct as "Negroid" or other racial terms. Sure, you may use it to refer strictly to darker skin tones, but then the cutoff point for "dark" vs "light" skin is itself arbitrary. It's one thing to say that ancient Egyptians had closer genetic ties to the majority of sub-Saharan African populations than to non-Africans, but practically speaking there's not much of a difference between calling them "black" or "Negroid" since both are socially constructed categories.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: If they aren't leptorrhine then they arn't Mediterranid.
You’ve just pulled that out of your ass. Your primary source (Coon) had no problems classifying broad nosed skeletal material as Mediterranean (e.g., Badarians, the broad nosed Natufians at Shuqbah).
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The thin nosed, orthognathic, narrow faced Mediterranean crania appear in Briggs (1955) as "Type B"
Which Briggs evidently saw as occurring in Iberomaurusian remains as well, not just Capsian remains. Stop being such a lying dumbass, and present your sources within their complete context.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The robust, wide nosed, prognathic, broader faced specimens are Maurusian/Mechtoid types.
You evidently have no leg to stand on. To make matters even worse for your dumbass, Lubell says that his statistical analysis failed to show that Briggs’ type B was distinct from type A and type D, nor was type B exclusive to the Capsian:
Briggs’s Groups A, B and D, however, are not distinct. Their distributions on Figure 3.3 overlap completely. Briggs’s Group C does appear to form something of a cluster, but some of his B (e.g., Afalou 29) and D (e.g., Afalou 15) group individuals are included. --Lubell et al, Continuity in the Epipaleolithic of Northern Africa with Emphasis on the Maghreb
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: So did Coon who in 1962 claimed they were Caucasoids, to three years later in his The Living Races of Man saying they are "non-Caucasoid" (page 93). Nowhere are my views inconsistent, like Coon, I change them in light of the evidence.
Stop lying. You clearly said ’’I never claimed there was a large Capoid population there’’. That is a flat out lie. You DID claim there was a large Capoid population there.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: [QB]
quote:Then explain why you called the large browridge having Singa calvarium ''Capoid'', knowing full well they (the bushmen) have some of the flattest faces in the world.
It's not a sapiens crania.
In the past you've claimed it was Capoid. This makes it all the more easy for me, because now there aren't any Sudani remains left for you to back up your conjecture that Bushmen were the original population of the Sudan. Now that the Singa skull is out of the equation, what are you basing it on that Bushmen were the dominating population type in Nortern Africa prior to being pushed South by Capsians?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: "Both Bar-Yosef (1987) and Ehret (2002:38) have proposed that the Mushabian culture moved from northern Egypt into Palestine"Source
Even more hiding behind the names and dates of authors. I just told you that my source (archaeology of the holy land) acknowledges this.
Do you not know the difference between saying the Mushabian was African based on similarities with African industries vs saying they are African because the Mushabian is attested in Lower and Upper Egypt? Are you that dumb?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Negritids do not cluster with Negroids in craniofacial analyses when non-metrics are used. And note again your trickery, only using metrics, never non-metrics. Why?
Are you too retarded to understand that, in order to refute someone who says 'population a' doesn’t resemble 'population b', you need metric analysis, rather than non-metric analysis?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Because when non-metrics are used, all those populations are revealed to be non-Negroid.
Not according to Berry and Berry (1967) or Berry and Berry (1972), who found close non-metric similarities with Indians and Ashanti. Now what?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: If they don't have ulotrichous hair, they aren't Negroid.
Your dumbass is using circular reasoning. You say Negroid populations all have ulotrichous hair. This would logically only require examples of ’’Negroid’’ remains in Africa with non-ulotrichous hair to refute what you're saying. But whenever I do exactly that, You say that they can’t be Negroid, and discard their negroid traits because of their non-Negroid hair. You've made your own claims unfalsifiable by arbitrarily making any evidence to the contrary Caucasoid by default. You do this by temporarily ignoring the negroid traits you normally deem to be strong evidence of negroid affinity, and quickly making wavy hair itself the new criterion by which Negroidness is judged. You’re arguably the dumbest person to ever set foot on ES.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: As noted using a single criterion, say non-metrics clusters Australoids with Caucasoids.
Prove it.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You have been exposed as a complete liar on all these topics.
Opinions don’t count. Prove it.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Any regional traits you will ignore, hence you failed to respond on the basis of shovel shaped incisors or torus mandibularis.
Stop saying dumb sh!t. There is a difference between ignoring something because I can’t address it, or ignoring it because it’s too retarded to entertain. From the same book I posted information earlier, I could just as easily have posted this:
In another good study including nine proposed regional features for east Asia (China), Habgood (1992:280) came to the same conclusion: ’’it is evident that none of the proposed ‘regional features’ can be said to be documenting ‘regional continuity’ in east Asia as they are commonly found on modern crania from outside of this region . . . , and are consistently found on archaic Homo sapiens and/or Homo erectus crania throughout the Old World.’’ --Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, p195
Or this:
One of us (Stringer 1992a) also checked late Pleistocene north African cranial samples with regard to the occurrence of supposed ’’mongoloid’’ and ’’australoid’’ regional features. It became evident that relevant Chinese features, such as transversely flat faces and shoveled upper incisors , and southeast Asian traits, such as high prognathism, strong supraorbital region, everted malars, and malar tuberosities, all occur with moderate or high frequencies among these North Africans as well. --Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research, p195
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: (a) Having West-African (Negroid) physiognomy. (b) Living in the Negroid belt.
Negroids that fail (b), usually always fail (a) because if they are in another region they are hybridized, as is the case with AA's.
LMAO. You’re a total fraud. On this forum you’ve done nothing other than telling AAs and other diasporal blacks that we’re Negroids who try to cluster ourselves with Caucasoids and Hybrids, and now we’re hybrids too? LMAO. Your criteria for being negroid constantly change depending on what is at stake (in this case being forced to admit that brow ridges are not mutually exclusive with ‘negroid’). Clearly, you’re a fraud who’ll say anything, regardless how retarded, to avoid taking a loss. ’’Living in the Negroid belt’’, LMAO.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Why are you not answering any of my questions?
I've already answered everything and shown how categorization does not require x to be discrete.
If you take 1 ml from a filled glass of water, it becomes "almost full" or "nearly full" - a fuzzy category. Its not arbitrary. Take 2 ml and you get the same fuzzy category. 10 ml, 20 ml and so on. There is no crisp cut off point, but at the same time the categories are not either socially constructed, someone for example wouldn't say taking 299, 385, or 415 ml makes it "nearly full":
"A conventional (or "crisp") set is dichotomous: An case is either "in" or "out" of a set, for example, the set of Protestants. Thus, a conventional set is comparable to a binary variable with two values, 1 ("in," i.e., Protestant) and 0 ("out," i.e., non-Protestant). A fuzzy set, by contrast, permits membership in the interval between 0 and 1 while retaining the two qualitative states of full membership and full non-membership. Thus, the fuzzy set of Protestants could include individuals who are "fully in" the set (fuzzy membership = 1.0), some who are "almost fully in" the set (membership = .90), some who are neither "more in" nor "more out" of the set (membership = .5, also known as the "crossover point"), some who are "barely more out than in" the set (membership = .45), and so on down to those who are "fully out" of the set (membership = 0)."
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:My question specifically to Anglo-idiot is why 50 Cent is somehow not 'Negro' to him, when his traits obviously conform to the traditional classification of Negro.
AA's have Caucasoid admixture, and secondly aren't living in the Negroid geographical belt. They've also changed through local adaptation. The average AA is 1/5 Caucasoid.
"White Americans" likewise can not be identified as any Caucasoid subrace, they have their own distinctive morphological traits through mixing with Caucasoid subtypes and local adaptation:
"And the aggregate comprised various physical types, from the predominantly light-haired, tall, oblong-headed northerners to the round-headed, brown-eyed and darker-haired Alpines or Gauls, and the still darker elements of the Mediterranean type of white people; for these various types existed not only in geographically different parts of Europe, but due to older wide-spread infiltrations and mixtures they were all found in differing proportions, even as they exist at this day, in all the European countries, including Great Britain, from which emigration to America proceeded." (Hrdlicka, 1925)
"...illustrators have made many efforts to define this hypothetical American type, and have even arrived at certain fairly crystallized conceptions, such as “Uncle Sam,”the “American girl,” and the American youth,” the “American soldier or officer,” the “American pioneer,” etc. (Hrdlicka, 1925)
There is a "White American" racial type, among the old stock European-Americans (not more modern immigrants), called "Old American" or the "Uncle Sam".
"given time, aggregates of any groups and any number of groups of people, particularly if all belong to one and the same fundamental race will fuse and tend to develop a new resultant, new prevalent type, characteristic of that particular nationality. [. . .] America, too, may develop a prevailing type of its own." (Hrdlicka, 1927)
- Ales Hrdlicka. A NEW UNCLE SAM IS IN THE MAKING; Anthropology Finds Emerging From the Melting Pot "A Fine, Big, Shrewd but Generous Young Or Old Boy," Who Is Destined to Replace the Familiar Yankee as the Typical American A NEW UNCLE SAM IN THE MAKING. The New York Times. January 16, 1927, Sunday.
Then you have the same geographical problem like AA's. Admixture in "White Americans"? I've looked at this before, but am looking for more data.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: LMAO. You’re a total fraud. On this forum you’ve done nothing other than telling AAs and other diasporal blacks that we’re Negroids who try to cluster ourselves with Caucasoids and Hybrids, and now we’re hybrids too? LMAO. Your criteria for being negroid constantly change depending on what is at stake (in this case being forced to admit that brow ridges are not mutually exclusive with ‘negroid’). Clearly, you’re a fraud who’ll say anything, regardless how retarded, to avoid taking a loss. ’’Living in the Negroid belt’’, LMAO. [/QB]
I missed the 4th "Negroid trait" according to Faheemdunkerologist.
Here is the update, races according to Faheemdunkerologist, remember disregard genetics, he says that's irrelevant to race. Also disregard skin color Faheem says that's also irrelevant
__________________________________________
Caucasian:
1) narrow nose width
2) any hair type that is not kinky afro type
3) moderate brow ridge
_________
Negroid
1) wide nose width
2) jaw prognosis
3) kinky hair afro hair
4) less than moderate brow ridge
___________________________________________
^^^^ now proceed with the debate assuming that Faheemdunkerologist is using the above criteria and that this definition is being used, that all 4 Negroid traits must be present for a person to be Negroid, Kanye West is negroid while 50 Cent is part Caucasoid (take it easy just go with it for the moment) Keep in mind now that with this brow ridge thing that people that appear to be Caucasian that have less than moderate brow ridges have a Negroid trait and must be considered as mixed race rather than Caucasian, don't worry about it just proceed with the above definition and see where it goes.
note: it's funny how pyramidologist has taken on this Arabic sounding Faheem name. Apparently he's browning
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Why are you not answering any of my questions?
I've already answered everything and shown how categorization does not require x to be discrete.
No you haven't. You've just been throwing multiple examples at me without accounting for any of my explanations or counter-questions.
quote:If you take 1 ml from a filled glass of water, it becomes "almost full" or "nearly full" - a fuzzy category. Its not arbitrary. Take 2 ml and you get the same fuzzy category. 10 ml, 20 ml and so on. There is no crisp cut off point, but at the same time the categories are not either socially constructed, someone for example wouldn't say taking 299, 385, or 415 ml makes it "nearly full":
It isn't a natural category; it is a semantic one. Assuming 1ml is a natural unit (it isn't, as the only natural units are atomic or maybe even quarks), we could say that, in a glass that can hold 100ml, at 99ml it is 99% full and 1% empty. Both statements are referring to the presence of 99ml. The statements of 'nearly', 'almost', etc. are merely semantic abstractions that refer to objective qualities (somebody might arbitrary declare that 'almost' = 85-99% full), but the qualities to which they refer are chosen arbitrarily. They are not natural sets in themselves, as I explained in the top post of page 4.
In respect to your last sentence: what if they did? Are they wrong? According to what? What non-arbitrary range is 'almost'? You keep on saying 'they cannot say X' without establishing why the parameters of your 'sets' are objective in the first place. At any non-zero and non-full state it is 'almost' full, as well as 'almost' empty. At any non-zero and non-full state it is 'nearly' full, as well as 'nearly' empty. All of these words lack an objective definition; hence, you cannot claim somebody is wrong for saying anything from 1ml to 99ml in a 100ml glass is 'nearly full'. Similarly, you cannot say somebody is 'wrong' for declaring any temperature above absolute zero is 'hot'. They may be outside of the range of your arbitrary, opinionated fuzzy 'sets', but the arbitrary construction of these sets means it is a matter of opinion vs. opinion.
The fact remains that there is nothing specific that occurs at 85% full, for example, that warrants the use of a new 'set'. 0% is absolute absence; >0% is presence, which means these are two distinct categories. The nomenclatorial distinction is constructed arbitrarily.
quote:"A conventional (or "crisp") set is dichotomous: An case is either "in" or "out" of a set, for example, the set of Protestants. Thus, a conventional set is comparable to a binary variable with two values, 1 ("in," i.e., Protestant) and 0 ("out," i.e., non-Protestant). A fuzzy set, by contrast, permits membership in the interval between 0 and 1 while retaining the two qualitative states of full membership and full non-membership. Thus, the fuzzy set of Protestants could include individuals who are "fully in" the set (fuzzy membership = 1.0), some who are "almost fully in" the set (membership = .90), some who are neither "more in" nor "more out" of the set (membership = .5, also known as the "crossover point"), some who are "barely more out than in" the set (membership = .45), and so on down to those who are "fully out" of the set (membership = 0)." [/QB]
Everything you have said here has been addressed in my previous posts.
If they contain any of the essential properties of being a Protestant, they are Protestants. They cannot simultaneously be non-Protestants and Protestants. You are effectively suggesting it is possible to possess absence. No: the moment they are NOT 100% non-Protestant, they are >0% Protestant and are included in this category. At every non-absent state they possess something; hence, they are always Protestants unless they are not Protestants. There is always heat unless there is not heat (absolute zero). There is always a heap unless there is not a heap (when two grains of sand are not on top of each other). The glass always has something in it unless it doesn't have something in it. You are out of the Protestant category when you have no properties of Protestantism, obviously. You are in (to varying degrees, but in nonetheless) when you possess at least one property of Protestantism.
In other words: at anything from 1-100% Protestant does the statement "is this person a Protestant" = true. Only at 0% does the statement "is this person a Protestant" = false.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^unbelievably boring
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^unbelievably boring
Feel free to not read it. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
LMAOH @ Anglo-Idiot's beat-down by Swenet and Badumtish made all too easy by self-inflicted blows by the Anglo-idiot himself via backtracking, self-contradiction, and circular reasoning! Any logical person can see that the Anglo-moron has lost the 'debate' (if you could call it that) since page 1 of this ridiculous thread.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ No you are not mistaken. Lefkowitz in her book Not Out of Africa admitted as much that the Egyptians were black Africans
I know this goes against the Egyptsearch grain, but "black" when applied to human skin tones is every bit as much of a social construct as "Negroid" or other racial terms. Sure, you may use it to refer strictly to darker skin tones, but then the cutoff point for "dark" vs "light" skin is itself arbitrary. It's one thing to say that ancient Egyptians had closer genetic ties to the majority of sub-Saharan African populations than to non-Africans, but practically speaking there's not much of a difference between calling them "black" or "Negroid" since both are socially constructed categories.
Actually you're partially right. Yes the label 'black' is a social construct especially since most folks this label is applied to are technically brown and even the darkest people on earth such as southern Sudanese are still not exactly black although they come real close to it. The only part of the body that can truly be black in color is hair since that is the only structure having the most eumelanin. While darkest folks like Sudanese have the most eumelanin in their skins compared to other populations, it is still not as much as hair which is why the 'blackest' people will not have skin the same shade as their truly black hair. This is because the skin needs to absorb UV radiation in order to produce vitamin D and eumelanin blocks UV. 'Black' peoples as part of their tropical adaptation have high amounts of eumelanin to block out extra UV rays that would damage the skin but if the skin is totally saturated with eumelanin the same way as hair then no UV rays could be absorbed and used to make vitamin D.
While the label 'black' is subjective it is NOT as arbitrarily based as the racial label 'Negroid' which is based on a number of physical characters. The label black on the other hand is based solely on color alone, and while you're right that there is no cut-off point between those called 'black' and those of medium hue called 'brown', the same can be said for hair color which has an even broader range from platinum blonde to pure black. That said, does that mean the label 'blonde' is arbitrary especially when there is no cut-off point between blonde and light brunette (brown)?? Many biological anthropologists still use the word 'blonde' and may make specifics about the type of blonde they are describing among individuals of a population or the generalized population itself. Thus it should be no surprise that bio-anthropologists also use the word 'black' but are careful to use specifics as to the actual shade of color. Even Dr. Nina Jablonski who specializes in human skin features including color uses the word 'black' in her studies.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
According to fadeem,
Cacasoids, are in a wide range of multi variability.
>======================================<
And the "negroe", is in a small range of variability. Not even a bit of loose hair is included. Sounds much like Lioness, if you as me.
>====<
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That said, does that mean the label 'blonde' is arbitrary especially when there is no cut-off point between blonde and light brunette (brown)?? Many biological anthropologists still use the word 'blonde' and may make specifics about the type of blonde they are describing among individuals of a population or the generalized population itself.[/QB]
LMAO. Good example. One that will hit home for a lot of European scholars because they have affinity to, and never question terms like 'blonde'. Such characters have 'continuous' values, and are contrasted with characters that have discrete (digital) values. We discretize characters with continuous variation all the time (by putting a label on it). Both within science as well as outside of it; its a part of how we conceptualize things.
I have long noted that scholars get extra sensitive when they approach the population affinity of Ancient Egyptians. For some reason, irrelevant caveats such as ''race doesn't exist'' or ''black is a modern term that didn't exist back then'' or ''the ancient Egyptians didn't think in terms of skin colors'' or ''it shouldn't matter what their biological origin was'' always pop up.
They have no such sensitivities when describing the pitch black depicted Pygmies in Egyptian art, or, say, Zulu's, even though many African groups are similar to Egyptians in their habit of not emphasizing their skin color (like African Americans do). Many African groups who come to the US even say they hate the African American habit of identifying themselves and the things they own as black (black music, black people, etc.), instead of identifying those things with their ethnic groups. IMO, Brandon lets himself get too carried away by what the establishment says.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: For everyone wondering why I described her the way I did, look at this piece, from her conclusion:
quote:In conclusion, it is evident that “race” as understood today in terms of skin color was not a key identity marker for the ancient Egyptian. Furthermore, “the first to call special attention to the Nubian’s [Nehesi] blackness were people [the Greeks] living outside Africa.”204 In addition, the division of mankind into races as understood in the modern sense began with F. Bernier in the seventeenth century of our era.205Thus the Afrocentric insistence on the ancient Egyptians as a black race proves anachronistic and limited because the ancient Egyptian did not conceptualize himself or herself in this way.
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not the Ancient Egyptians saw themselves as part of the same lineage as people to the South, how is it okay for her to be talking about the blackness of Napatan Nubians, yet, a few lines later, complain it is anachronistic to refer to Egyptians as such?
The last time I checked, the ancient Egyptians and ancient Sudanese were contemporary, and so, it would have to be anachronistic to refer to Sudanese as 'black' as well.
The fact that she doesn't treat Napatans the same as the ancient Egyptians, shows there are other motives for shying away from calling them, or at least them, sans the nationalized Asiatics and Mediterraneans, black.
Her thesis is in fact full with nagging complaints from herself and Egyptologists about why its problematic to refer to people as either black or white in a biological sense, yadi yadi yadi, only to reveal the triviality of such pretended 'expert posturing' by calling Napatan and Meroitic Nubians black several lines later.
^The whole argument that ''calling Egyptians black is anachronistic'' is, outside of the fact that its totally false (as shown by her own example of contemporary Greeks using the color description) obviously also a retarded thing to say. Its like saying, you can't call a medieval painting 'cool', because they didn't use that word back then.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Swenet, your EG box is full.
Lake Turkana Archaeology: The Holocene
LawrenceH.Robbins, Michigan State University
Abstract.
Pioneering research int he Holocene archaeology of Lake Turkana contributed significantly to the development of broader issues in the prehistory of Africa, including the aquatic civilization model and the initial spread of domesticated livestock in EastAfrica. The setopicsare reviewed following retrospective discussion of the nature of pioneering field work carried out in the area in the1960s. The early research at Lake Turkana uncovered the oldest pottery in East Africa as well as large numbers of bone harpoons similar to those found along the Nile Valley and else where in Africa. The Lake Turkana area remains one of the major building blocks in the interpretation of the later prehistory of Africa as a whole, just as it is a key area for understanding the early phases of human evolution.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That said, does that mean the label 'blonde' is arbitrary especially when there is no cut-off point between blonde and light brunette (brown)?? Many biological anthropologists still use the word 'blonde' and may make specifics about the type of blonde they are describing among individuals of a population or the generalized population itself.
LMAO. Good example. One that will hit home for a lot of European scholars because they have affinity to, and never question terms like 'blonde'. Such characters have 'continuous' values, and are contrasted with characters that have discrete (digital) values. We discretize characters with continuous variation all the time (by putting a label on it). Both within science as well as outside of it; its a part of how we conceptualize things.
I have long noted that scholars get extra sensitive when they approach the population affinity of Ancient Egyptians. For some reason, irrelevant caveats such as ''race doesn't exist'' or ''black is a modern term that didn't exist back then'' or ''the ancient Egyptians didn't think in terms of skin colors'' or ''it shouldn't matter what their biological origin was'' always pop up.
They have no such sensitivities when describing the pitch black depicted Pygmies in Egyptian art, or, say, Zulu's, even though many African groups are similar to Egyptians in their habit of not emphasizing their skin color (like African Americans do). Many African groups who come to the US even say they hate the African American habit of identifying themselves and the things they own as black (black music, black people, etc.), instead of identifying those things with their ethnic groups. IMO, Brandon lets himself get too carried away by what the establishment says.
Let me make one point clear: I would love to call ancient Egyptians black in the same vein as I would Zulu, Maasai, or Tutsi, and in fact I do when I'm surrounded by people in the know. However, I am really damn tired of attempting to reason with obtuse racists and pseudo-liberals who will never concede any affinity between Egypt and "sub-Saharan" Africa. It's as fruitful as debating Young Earth Creationists. Of course I have the option of ignoring these fools, but then they are the establishment.
quote:The whole argument that ''calling Egyptians black is anachronistic'' is, outside of the fact that its totally false (as shown by her own example of contemporary Greeks using the color description) obviously also a retarded thing to say. Its like saying, you can't call a medieval painting 'cool', because they didn't use that word back then.
The counter-argument the establishment usually raises is that "black" had different connotations in ancient Greek usage than it does today. They will claim that in pre-modern contexts a suntanned European would qualify as "black".
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You’ve just pulled that out of your ass. Your primary source (Coon) had no problems classifying broad nosed skeletal material as Mediterranean (e.g., Badarians, the broad nosed Natufians at Shuqbah).
Mediterranids come in various subtypes (Ibero-Insular, Atlanto) but they are all leptorrhine and they fall under a NI of 70 (47). According to Biasutti (1954) their average is 68. While looking at the appendix "Nasal Index of Living Subjects" of Deniker (1900) puts Sardinians at 66 and most countries where Mediterraneans are also largely present are all under 70.
In fact the only Caucasoid subraces such as Alpines who fall over 70, only do so by a very small decimal margin (see Deniker's tables).
Coon merely notes that earlier ancestral Med-forms had a small tendency towards being mesorrhine. No one has ever identified wide nosed crania as Mediterrenean.
quote:You evidently have no leg to stand on. To make matters even worse for your dumbass, Lubell says that his statistical analysis failed to show that Briggs’ type B was distinct from type A and type D, nor was type B exclusive to the Capsian:
[...]
Which Briggs evidently saw as occurring in Iberomaurusian remains as well, not just Capsian remains. Stop being such a lying dumbass, and present your sources within their complete context.
"...the more robust type to be more numerous in Ibero-Maurusian sites, while the leptodolichomorphic form is more frequent in those of the Capsian." (Brauer, 1978)
The two types are easily distinguished.
quote: That is a flat out lie. You DID claim there was a large Capoid population there.
I posted that 11 months ago. I retracted those claims as well. I have since maintained those crania are Melanoid having read Gayre (1972). They are distinctly non-Negroid.
quote:In the past you've claimed it was Capoid. This makes it all the more easy for me, because now there aren't any Sudani remains left for you to back up your conjecture that Bushmen were the original population of the Sudan. Now that the Singa skull is out of the equation, what are you basing it on that Bushmen were the dominating population type in Nortern Africa prior to being pushed South by Capsians?
Oral traditions, rock art, and the Nazlet Khater skeleton.
I'll get back to your other points later.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: The counter-argument the establishment usually raises is that "black" had different connotations in ancient Greek usage than it does today. They will claim that in pre-modern contexts a suntanned European would qualify as "black".
I'm not sure how this is valid to the AE's. You do realise the ancient Greek texts make it very clear that the Egyptians were not Aethiopians/"Blacks"? Even Snowden admits this.
The ancient Egyptians were compared by the Greeks and Romans to the (north) Indians: as lighter brownish skinned and wavy haired as opposed to wooly (ulotrichi). Such a description clearly does not resemble any Negroid physignomy. "Black" Africans do not have wavy hair which the ancient greeks differentiated as far back as Aristotle. The differences in skin colour were observed as early as Hesiod. For example in fragment, Hesiod seperates the Libyans (North Africans) to what he calls "Black-skins" (Sub-Saharan African Negroids).
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LMAOH @ Anglo-Idiot's beat-down by Swenet and Badumtish made all too easy by self-inflicted blows by the Anglo-idiot himself via backtracking, self-contradiction, and circular reasoning! Any logical person can see that the Anglo-moron has lost the 'debate' (if you could call it that) since page 1 of this ridiculous thread.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] ^ No you are not mistaken. Lefkowitz in her book Not Out of Africa admitted as much that the Egyptians were black Africans
I know this goes against the Egyptsearch grain, but "black" when applied to human skin tones is every bit as much of a social construct as "Negroid" or other racial terms. Sure, you may use it to refer strictly to darker skin tones, but then the cutoff point for "dark" vs "light" skin is itself arbitrary. It's one thing to say that ancient Egyptians had closer genetic ties to the majority of sub-Saharan African populations than to non-Africans, but practically speaking there's not much of a difference between calling them "black" or "Negroid" since both are socially constructed categories.
Yes the label 'black' is a social construct especially since most folks this label is applied to are technically brown.....
While the label 'black' is subjective it is NOT as arbitrarily based as the racial label 'Negroid' which is based on a number of physical characters. The label black on the other hand is based solely on color alone
This is Djehuti's personal definition of "black" that it means skin color alone but seldom applies the term in anything nearing consistency.
-that it means dark brown yet the words "dark brown" are not used.
Look at standard milk chocolate Hershey bar. People describe it as black right? Of course not. Yet when it is suggested that people of African descent are "chocolate" in color no one complains. So descriptions of candy chocolate (brown) and licorice (black) have accurate descriptions but when we are dealing with humans a less acuurate method is used.
O.K. fine let's accept that for the moment that "black" means "dark brown" and it soley means color of skin.
The problem is that I have tested people like Djehuti numerous times and he doesn't apply the term fairly. He applies it very inconsitently. I have demonstarted this numeous times. The people who claim that "black'" means color alone only practice what they preach in select cases.
Example:
^^^^ People like Djehuti say the man above is not black but the woman is black. They will even go as far to claim that in cases like this that the woman is darker than the man when clearly the reverse is true. They will say the man is "sunburt" and therefore not as dark as the woman, nonsense (also disregards the fact that African American skin can tan also in realtion to degree of sum exposure) It's really a game that is going on and you're not supposed to question it switch the meaning at will, move the goal post at convenience. As long as it serves a politcial purpose never mind scientific objectivity.
So who are blacks?
In America it is socially understood to mean dark skinned people of African descent specifically
what about this guy? :
^^^^^ The fact is Americans in general do not call this a black person even though he is darker than a lot of blacks which is understood to mean of African descent only.
It is well undertsood that a person like this who marks an official form asking for race will not the box for black and typically mark Asian or something else. The Peruvian man as well would not be perceived as "Black" by the American public and he would be expected to mark "Native American" on a census rather than Black. But in fact his skin color is as dark or darker than millions of African Americans who are called by the society "Black" and would freely mark that on a census.
It is well understood by Americans that the word "black" means more than just dark skin. It means African also and it is comprised of other physical traits as well. This doesn't mean that this is the best way to view things. It just means what is the agreed upon social contsruct for that vast majority of Americans and if most Americans were aksed what are the races that are likely to say "black, white and Asian"
These are clearly words tha most Americans associate with a concept of race, a concept that means more than just skin color.
So somebody comes along and says "black only means skin color" I could respect that if they were consistent but they never are and I have tested this numerous times. However even if consistent it creates confusion to use an alternate definition of something without saying you are. And if that defintion is "dark skin" then simply to say "dark skin" eleminates the racial bagage problem that using "black" has. What goes on is people who say black only means skin color in a given situation when the majority of people are using the word with a racial implication and they happen to like that racial implication they don't complain. But when they don't like the implication involving the same skin but in another situation, they suddenly pull out it the defintion that it only means skin color, not African. It's a dishonest politcally motivated behavior and is easy to see.
what you say he's Asian not white? I thought you said these terms mean color alone. This Japanese guys is lighter than Mitt Romney.
Where is any scientifc minded consistency. You say he's Asian. I didn't ask you what geographic region he came from I asked you what is his skin color.
In fact this Japanese guy is more white than Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney by comparison is a brown person.
So is that a third category "brown"
So is the Khosian woman at top brown rather than black?
But you will never see the person saying "black means color alone" calling a Japanese person "white" and it's another example where they don't pratice what they preach
All of this shows that the there is no precise way of using these terms. They are o.k. for casual conversation but have no place in anthropology and becuase a given scientist may have used the term it doesn't change this, they could be wrong also or using it in a casual context.
There was a short period of time when African Americans primarily called themselves African Americans. But many of us prefer a term which refers to skin color "Black" and in addition implies to tha vast majority of Americans and on census forms and other official documents a person of African descent.
So why did we do this?
We did it because Europeans did it. They named themselves after a color.
While people like the Chinese have disowned the term "yellow" and Native Americans have disowned the term "red skins" we have accepted the term "black" now as used more and prferred over the term "African American" which actually shows our roots.
So in thinking pride in skin color is the best way to self identify it covers up our discomfort with our association with Africa.
Why did we do it? We went with "Black" over "African American" because European Americans did it. It's imitation of who is in power.
Why did European Americans do it?
two reasons
-they wanted to separate themselves from Europe, the authority of King George
-they wanted to distinguish themselves from darker skinned people and justify inhumane treatment of Africans
So us calling ourselves "Black" is reactionary in one sense
but in another sense it accepts skin color as a primary identity whereas the rest of the world doesn't
- and once the term "black" is considered acceptable, each time it's used by default it validates the dubious term "white" with every use. "African American" was actually an advance. The simple fact is we now prefer the term "Black" because the people in power use a color to be their primary identity and we figure we can become more powerful if we do the same. In other words we have been bamboozeled and hoodwinked.
This is why I am an African
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Why are you not answering any of my questions?
I've already answered everything and shown how categorization does not require x to be discrete.
No you haven't. You've just been throwing multiple examples at me without accounting for any of my explanations or counter-questions.
quote:If you take 1 ml from a filled glass of water, it becomes "almost full" or "nearly full" - a fuzzy category. Its not arbitrary. Take 2 ml and you get the same fuzzy category. 10 ml, 20 ml and so on. There is no crisp cut off point, but at the same time the categories are not either socially constructed, someone for example wouldn't say taking 299, 385, or 415 ml makes it "nearly full":
It isn't a natural category; it is a semantic one. Assuming 1ml is a natural unit (it isn't, as the only natural units are atomic or maybe even quarks), we could say that, in a glass that can hold 100ml, at 99ml it is 99% full and 1% empty. Both statements are referring to the presence of 99ml. The statements of 'nearly', 'almost', etc. are merely semantic abstractions that refer to objective qualities (somebody might arbitrary declare that 'almost' = 85-99% full), but the qualities to which they refer are chosen arbitrarily. They are not natural sets in themselves, as I explained in the top post of page 4.
In respect to your last sentence: what if they did? Are they wrong? According to what? What non-arbitrary range is 'almost'? You keep on saying 'they cannot say X' without establishing why the parameters of your 'sets' are objective in the first place. At any non-zero and non-full state it is 'almost' full, as well as 'almost' empty. At any non-zero and non-full state it is 'nearly' full, as well as 'nearly' empty. All of these words lack an objective definition; hence, you cannot claim somebody is wrong for saying anything from 1ml to 99ml in a 100ml glass is 'nearly full'. Similarly, you cannot say somebody is 'wrong' for declaring any temperature above absolute zero is 'hot'. They may be outside of the range of your arbitrary, opinionated fuzzy 'sets', but the arbitrary construction of these sets means it is a matter of opinion vs. opinion.
The fact remains that there is nothing specific that occurs at 85% full, for example, that warrants the use of a new 'set'. 0% is absolute absence; >0% is presence, which means these are two distinct categories. The nomenclatorial distinction is constructed arbitrarily.
quote:"A conventional (or "crisp") set is dichotomous: An case is either "in" or "out" of a set, for example, the set of Protestants. Thus, a conventional set is comparable to a binary variable with two values, 1 ("in," i.e., Protestant) and 0 ("out," i.e., non-Protestant). A fuzzy set, by contrast, permits membership in the interval between 0 and 1 while retaining the two qualitative states of full membership and full non-membership. Thus, the fuzzy set of Protestants could include individuals who are "fully in" the set (fuzzy membership = 1.0), some who are "almost fully in" the set (membership = .90), some who are neither "more in" nor "more out" of the set (membership = .5, also known as the "crossover point"), some who are "barely more out than in" the set (membership = .45), and so on down to those who are "fully out" of the set (membership = 0)."
Everything you have said here has been addressed in my previous posts.
If they contain any of the essential properties of being a Protestant, they are Protestants. They cannot simultaneously be non-Protestants and Protestants. You are effectively suggesting it is possible to possess absence. No: the moment they are NOT 100% non-Protestant, they are >0% Protestant and are included in this category. At every non-absent state they possess something; hence, they are always Protestants unless they are not Protestants. There is always heat unless there is not heat (absolute zero). There is always a heap unless there is not a heap (when two grains of sand are not on top of each other). The glass always has something in it unless it doesn't have something in it. You are out of the Protestant category when you have no properties of Protestantism, obviously. You are in (to varying degrees, but in nonetheless) when you possess at least one property of Protestantism.
In other words: at anything from 1-100% Protestant does the statement "is this person a Protestant" = true. Only at 0% does the statement "is this person a Protestant" = false. [/QB]
I've showed the flaws with boolean/crisp logic, categories can exist without being discrete. Maybe the glass wasn't a good example. A better example is the Epimenides (Cretan) paradox:
"All Cretans are liars" - Epimenides
"According to the old riddle, a Cretan asserts that all Cretans lie. So is he lying? If he lies, then he tells the truth, and does not lie. If he does not lie then he tells the truth and so lies." (Kosko, 1993)
The statement is both true and false, x now belongs to more than one category. This is what I was saying with the analogy of the glass. Things don't have to be discrete to be categorized, and they aren't arbitrary.
"Faced with such a conundrum, classical logic surrenders. But fuzzy logic says that the answer is half true and half false." (Kosko, 1993)
- fuzzy sets deal with a whole spectrum of truth not just binary logic (0, 1) hence they explain the paradox of the Cretan. Here we have 50% true and 50% false, not the crisp 0, 1.
Fuzzy logic includes partial truth values between "completely true" and "completely false".
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Prove it.
Using the single criterion of hair texture - Australoids cluster with Caucasoids as both are cymotrichous (wavy). Not only the texture, but the frequency range of body hair clusters as well, "[Australoids]: Their beard and body hair is distributed as in Caucasoids'' (Coon, 1965).
Note how Troll Patrol claims "Caucasoids are very hairy", yet contradicts himsef as he claims Australoids are "Black" despite them clustering in hair frequency with Caucasoids. Afrocentrics will choose single traits to cluster whatever they subjectively like while discard the rest, or multiple variables.
The single trait fallacy is the backbone of Afrocentrism which claims anyone with "Dark" skin = "Black". Hence you end up clustering Indians with Negroids, despite the fact both look nothing a like in their other features like hair texture.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Coon merely notes that earlier ancestral Med-forms had a small tendency towards being mesorrhine. No one has ever identified wide nosed crania as Mediterrenean.
Then you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do:
The skulls which Keith describes are of a peculiarly Mediterranean type, with a cephalic index ranging from 72 to 78, thus rivalling the subdolichocephalic head form of short statured Mediterraneans living today. The brain cases are of medium size, and the faces absolutely small. The lower jaws are also small and weakly developed, with little chin prominence and a prevalence of alveolar prognathism. The wide, low-vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face. --The Races of Europe, Carleton S. Coon
You’re lying as usual.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: "...the more robust type to be more numerous in Ibero-Maurusian sites, while the leptodolichomorphic form is more frequent in those of the Capsian." (Brauer, 1978)
The two types are easily distinguished.
It doesn’t say that, your just making up sh!t. Of two populations that are compared, one or the other will almost ALWAYS have more or less instances of a given character; that’s normal. Nor does it say they’re distinct. Try again.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I have since maintained those crania are Melanoid having read Gayre (1972).
The Badarians are Melanoid? Stop hiding behind names and dates, dumbass, do you not know how to present evidence?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Oral traditions, rock art, and the Nazlet Khater skeleton.
I said Sudan. What evidence do you have that Bushmen were the original population in the Sudan? Or do you need reminding that Nazlet Khater wasn’t excavated in the Sudan, like how you needed to be schooled on the fact that the Mushabian isn’t excavated in Egypt. Rock art and oral traditions are not evidence.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Prove it.
Using the single criterion of hair texture - Australoids cluster with Caucasoids
I asked you to provide non-metric data. Does hair type strike you as non-metric data? Goddamn you're retarded.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:So who are blacks?
In America it is socially understood to mean dark skinned people of African descent specifically
You are wrong. Everyone knows there are plenty of dark skinned people in Africa who are non-Black (not Negroid). Also dark skinned populations in Africa who don't posess wide noses and woolly hair know themselves they aren't "Black". Go to places like Sudanforums, or other African sites and you will see 99% of the Somalis with wavy hair (not wooly) do not identify as Black, but acknowlege their seperate racial origins.
Everyone even in Africa despises the Negroid ('true Negro') physiogonomy. Just log on Youtube to see the "hair wars"; wavy haired Somalis have created tuns of videos where they argue with western africans on all these topics. They want nothing to do with nappy haired west africans.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:I've showed the flaws with boolean/crisp logic, categories can exist without being discrete. Maybe the glass wasn't a good example. A better example is the Epimenides (Cretan) paradox:
"All Cretans are liars" - Epimenides
"According to the old riddle, a Cretan asserts that all Cretans lie. So is he lying? If he lies, then he tells the truth, and does not lie. If he does not lie then he tells the truth and so lies." (Kosko, 1993)
The statement is both true and false, x now belongs to more than one category. This is what I was saying with the analogy of the glass. Things don't have to be discrete to be categorized, and they aren't arbitrary.
"Faced with such a conundrum, classical logic surrenders. But fuzzy logic says that the answer is half true and half false." (Kosko, 1993)
- fuzzy sets deal with a whole spectrum of truth not just binary logic (0, 1) hence they explain the paradox of the Cretan. Here we have 50% true and 50% false, not the crisp 0, 1.
Fuzzy logic includes partial truth values between "completely true" and "completely false".
You should be aware that the paradox isn't "all Cretans are liars"; it is "all Cretans are always liars."
The statement is false because 'all' has not been re-established after the initial statement is considered false. If it is a lie for a Cretan to say "all Cretans always lie", then it follows that this specific Cretan is a liar; the quantifier used in this Cretan's statement also becomes invalidated. I'll try to articulate this better:
What you're saying:
Cretan: "All Cretans are always liars" Non-Cretan: "No they aren't" Cretan: "Then I am lying about my first statement and all Cretans are indeed always liars"
What I am saying:
Cretan: "All Cretans are always liars" Non-Cretan: "No they aren't" Cretan: "Then I am lying about my first statement and all Cretans are indeed always liars" Non-Cretan: "No, your response should be 'then I am lying about my first statement and I am a liar in this instance'. 'All Cretans' and 'always liars' have been invalidated if your first statement is false. You cannot then make a reference back to the false claim to re-establish it as having any kind of truth."
But this is inconsequential. It's clear that you are simply trying to illustrate the liar's paradox, so the following will address that as if the Cretan paradox were actually paradoxical:
This isn't fuzzy logic, it's three-valued logic. As I understand it, fuzzy-logic is used to deal with an infinite number of states (a continuum)***, but finite multi-valued logic is used to deal with discrete states (which is the case in this irreducible statement). Possible answers to that question:
A) True. This is logically untenable. B) False. This is logically untenable. C) Neither/unanswerable. Correct.
This statement has nothing to do with continua anyway. True and false are antithetical states; a single statement cannot be 50% true and 50% false:
1) Is this statement true: no. 2) Is this statement false: no. 3) They are dichotomous states; therefore it must be one or the other. Your argument: 4) Thus, it is half-true and half-false
That makes no sense: you are still trying to invoke the dichotomous states of 'true' and 'false' by saying it is a bit of both (nonsense), when it is apparent that they are completely inapplicable to the question. It cannot be false because that is paradoxical and it cannot be true because that is paradoxical; hence, any answer that relies on these two propositions is equally paradoxical. How can 50% make sense when both ends of the scale = paradox?
5) It is neither/unanswerable is the only response.
Unlike a 100ml glass, where 50% full and 50% empty are referring to the same state of having 50ml in the glass, 50% true and 50% false as a 'solution' to "All Cretans are always liars" isn't referring to anything.
***As it is used to deal with an infinite number of possible states, any boundaries you establish on the states are inherently arbitrary. Saying there are four/five/seven/one million sets of numbers in an infinite range (e.g., for four sets you would say: small numbers, medium numbers, large numbers, huge numbers) when the range can be divided into an infinite number of sets is an arbitrary process.
As I said, there is no non-arbitrary reason that there are four states of temperature in your graph. I suspect this is also the reason you have been avoiding all my questions that ask you to tell me why 'cool' and 'warm' represent the specific ranges that they do. Temperature can be split into two or three categories:
1a) Absolute zero = cold 1b) Anything above absolute zero = hot
Or
2a) Absolute zero = cold 2b) Absolute hot = hot 2c) Anything in-between = warm
I cannot conceive any non-arbitrary ranges other than the ones I have presented. The minimum/lower boundary (stasis/zero molecular activity) is obviously significant. Above this, it is no longer in stasis, which warrants its own category (stasis vs. non-stasis). The maximum bound may be considered significant, as it is the most energetic molecules can become without violating the laws of physics, which means we can reach three states (stasis, maximum energy, in-between).
Why have you still not responded to the post at the top of this page?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Then you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do:
The skulls which Keith describes are of a peculiarly Mediterranean type, with a cephalic index ranging from 72 to 78, thus rivalling the subdolichocephalic head form of short statured Mediterraneans living today. The brain cases are of medium size, and the faces absolutely small. The lower jaws are also small and weakly developed, with little chin prominence and a prevalence of alveolar prognathism. The wide, low-vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face. --The Races of Europe, Carleton S. Coon
Lame quote-mine, cutting off the explaining part. Coon clarifies these crania "represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities". These crania discussed are the Natufians. The "Negroid-Natufian" equation however is completely false. Coon (1962) retracted the statement you above have posted. Its outdated, and only a quote Afrocentrics seem to now spam around. The guy who cuts all these comments off to further distort them, is Crimson Guard, a fake race realist who is distorting these quotes on purpose (hence the whole Fulani affair). Interesting to know who your 'reliable' sources are. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:So who are blacks?
In America it is socially understood to mean dark skinned people of African descent specifically
You are wrong. Everyone knows there are plenty of dark skinned people in Africa who are non-Black (not Negroid). Also dark skinned populations in Africa who don't posess wide noses and woolly hair know themselves they aren't "Black". Go to places like Sudanforums, or other African sites and you will see 99% of the Somalis with wavy hair (not wooly) do not identify as Black, but acknowlege their seperate racial origins.
Everyone even in Africa despises the Negroid ('true Negro') physiogonomy. Just log on Youtube to see the "hair wars"; wavy haired Somalis have created tuns of videos where they argue with western africans on all these topics. They want nothing to do with nappy haired west africans.
Hideous racist I don't judge people by superficial traits, facial features or hair. I judge them by the content of their character. As with any group some of my people have an ugly outward appearance, the ones you like to cherry pick with your wicked fingers.. Yet most have a better heart than you do despite their outward appearance. And then there are also the beautiful ones, with dark skin, full lips, wide noses and afro hair. These are also my beautiful West African people. Children are supposed to have learned that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that outward beauty is only skin deep. Yet you never learned these lessons. You are heartless. Something is missing from your soul.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Then you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do:
The skulls which Keith describes are of a peculiarly Mediterranean type, with a cephalic index ranging from 72 to 78, thus rivalling the subdolichocephalic head form of short statured Mediterraneans living today. The brain cases are of medium size, and the faces absolutely small. The lower jaws are also small and weakly developed, with little chin prominence and a prevalence of alveolar prognathism. The wide, low-vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face. --The Races of Europe, Carleton S. Coon
Lame quote-mine, cutting off the explaining part. Coon clarifies these crania "represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities". These crania discussed are the Natufians. The "Negroid-Natufian" equation however is completely false. Coon (1962) retracted the statement you above have posted. Its outdated, and only a quote Afrocentrics seem to now spam around. The guy who cuts all these comments off to further distort them, is Crimson Guard, a fake race realist who is distorting these quotes on purpose (hence the whole Fulani affair). Interesting to know who your 'reliable' sources are.
^^^ look at this, he is so deeply a Nazi, so full of hate, Crimson Guard is a liberal in comparison. I wonder what name he went by over there
UPDATE: His member name on anthroscape "Nord", the post:
Crimson Guard Remarks: Nord, you have the same IP as the banned troll "truthseeker" and your email address is interesting "trog_the_hermit@hotmail.co.uk".
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Lame quote-mine, cutting off the explaining part. Coon clarifies these crania "represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities". These crania discussed are the Natufians. The "Negroid-Natufian" equation however is completely false. Coon (1962) retracted the statement you above have posted. Its outdated, and only a quote Afrocentrics seem to now spam around. The guy who cuts all these comments off to further distort them, is Crimson Guard, a fake race realist who is distorting these quotes on purpose (hence the whole Fulani affair). Interesting to know who your 'reliable' sources are.
As usual, nothing what you say is relevant to the issue at hand. You talk about ''the explaining part'', and proceed to go on to say the exact same thing which was already implied in the excerpt I posted (Mediterranean with ''Negroid'' elements). Even worse, you then dismiss the negroid element, which undermines your earlier claim that I left anything out, which is a false charge in and of itself.
I exposed your dumbass for the dumb sack of sh!t that you are. There is no truth to your statement that not being narrow nosed is inconsistent with a 'Mediterranean' classification. As a matter of fact, there is no truth to ANYTHING you've said that was a point of contention in this thread.
Here is another Coonian description of a so-called Mediterranean population with a decidedly non-narrow nose average:
The skulls of these people, which consist mostly of females and infants, are all dolichocephalic and Mediterranean. There is no trace of negroid influence and the skulls are said to be larger than those of predynastic Egyptians...."The [pre-Dynastic] Badarian type represents a small branch of the Mediterranean racial group. ... The Badarian skulls are more prognathous than those of their successors, and have higher nasal indices. --Coon, 1939
Contrast this with pseudo-scientific retard Fareem Dunkers' lying ass:
No one has ever identified wide nosed crania as Mediterrenean. --Fareem Dunkers
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Then you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do:
The skulls which Keith describes are of a peculiarly Mediterranean type, with a cephalic index ranging from 72 to 78, thus rivalling the subdolichocephalic head form of short statured Mediterraneans living today. The brain cases are of medium size, and the faces absolutely small. The lower jaws are also small and weakly developed, with little chin prominence and a prevalence of alveolar prognathism. The wide, low-vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face. --The Races of Europe, Carleton S. Coon
Lame quote-mine, cutting off the explaining part. Coon clarifies these crania "represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities". These crania discussed are the Natufians. The "Negroid-Natufian" equation however is completely false. Coon (1962) retracted the statement you above have posted. Its outdated, and only a quote Afrocentrics seem to now spam around. The guy who cuts all these comments off to further distort them, is Crimson Guard, a fake race realist who is distorting these quotes on purpose (hence the whole Fulani affair). Interesting to know who your 'reliable' sources are.
^^^ look at this, he is so deeply a Nazi, so full of hate, Crimson Guard is a liberal in comparison. I wonder what name he went by over there
UPDATE: His member name on anthroscape "Nord", the post:
Crimson Guard Remarks: Nord, you have the same IP as the banned troll "truthseeker" and your email address is interesting "trog_the_hermit@hotmail.co.uk".
What? He lists his political stance as "far-right", religion as "Catholic" and is evidently into clerical fascism (look it up). Anyway all of that is a cover. He pretends to be a "far right European", but his account is a fake. What he does is pose as someone with racialist views and then at the same time discredits race realism by distorting race texts, such as by Carleton Coon. This has all been exposed at Metapedia, also look up "Racial Reality" as well. CG's only option was to ban my IP, as he can't defend the fact he is distorting Coon's literature. In a desperate attempt to get out of the deliberate misquote he claimed he was using another edition. The idiot doesn't even realise Coon's 1965 work was never revised. lmao. There is only one edition, it was merely reprinted. CG is a poser who hasn't even read these texts, yet on RR's blog claims to "collect race books". He claims to have a whole library yet (a) doesn't know the edition of the works he's quoting and (b) deliberately distorts quotes.
Most these 'race realists' like CG are fake user accounts set up to discedit race. From Zaharan's own mouth - he joins forums posing as a race realist to try and discredit that position.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: As usual, nothing what you say is relevant to the issue at hand.
Wow. You were just exposed as a total liar, quoting Coon (1939) but cutting off the sentence where he explains the wide nasal index through an extraneous racial source. Nowhere does Coon equate Mediterraneans with wide noses.
quote:Here is another Coonian description of a so-called Mediterranean population with a decidedly non-narrow nose average:
The skulls of these people, which consist mostly of females and infants, are all dolichocephalic and Mediterranean. There is no trace of negroid influence and the skulls are said to be larger than those of predynastic Egyptians...."The [pre-Dynastic] Badarian type represents a small branch of the Mediterranean racial group. ... The Badarian skulls are more prognathous than those of their successors, and have higher nasal indices. --Coon, 1939
lol. Another cut and run...
"In fact, while the prognathism and nose form would suggest a negroid tendency, this cannot be established, since the hair form is definitely not negroid.
quote:Contrast this with pseudo-scientific retard Fareem Dunkers' lying ass:
No one has ever identified wide nosed crania as Mediterrenean. --Fareem Dunkers
You have been exposed as a total liar twice.
Nowhere does Coon equate Meds with wide noses. Meds are uniformly thin nosed with a minority tendency towards borderline mesorrhiny.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: As usual, nothing what you say is relevant to the issue at hand.
Wow. You were just exposed as a total liar, quoting Coon (1939) but cutting off the sentence where he explains the wide nasal index through an extraneous racial source.
No you phuckin retarded sack of sh!t, stop lying. Coon did NOT attribute their broad nose to outside negroid sources, since he clearly says: there is no trace of negroid influence.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Nowhere does Coon equate Mediterraneans with wide noses.
Stop the strawman. I never said he did, dumbass. I said that broad noses did not constitute a limitation to be considered Mediterranean in Coon's view, as evidenced by his classification, in both cases (Badarian and Shuqbah Natufians).
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
mel·a·noid (ml-noid) adj. 1. Of or related to melanin; black-pigmented. 2. Of or affected with melanosis. n. A dark pigment that resembles melanin, formed from the glucosamines in chitin.
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and "immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues"
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany
Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004
Abstract
During an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly developed methods. Furthermore, three fixatives were tested with each of the rehydration fluids.
Meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and a placenta were used for this study. The rehydration and fixation procedures were uniform for all methods.
Materials and methods
In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550-1080 BC).
Skin
Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1).
The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin.
In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed.
To evaluate the influence of postmortum tissue.decay by micro-organisms, the samples were tested for the presence of fungi using silver staining.
Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7Á/13
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Let me make one point clear: I would love to call ancient Egyptians black in the same vein as I would Zulu, Maasai, or Tutsi, and in fact I do when I'm surrounded by people in the know. However, I am really damn tired of attempting to reason with obtuse racists and pseudo-liberals who will never concede any affinity between Egypt and "sub-Saharan" Africa. It's as fruitful as debating Young Earth Creationists. Of course I have the option of ignoring these fools, but then they are the establishment.
But to me, 'black' doesn't necessarily equate to being genetically tied to those Africans, it just means being within the color range of people who are today considered ''black'' without associating it with any type of ancestry. The same way the Greeks used it when they said there were African and non-African blacks (Indians, certain Arabs, etc). This usage of the term 'black' is as objective and quantifiable as any other scientific character. The grades of brown along the aforementioned range logically correspond to a certain amount of melanin per ² (square) something.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: The counter-argument the establishment usually raises is that "black" had different connotations in ancient Greek usage than it does today. They will claim that in pre-modern contexts a suntanned European would qualify as "black". [/QB]
I think their use of 'black' was more or less identical to the one I outline above, especially when you look at the groups that ended up in their 'black' category. The Greeks (Herodotus) placed certain Indians, Colchians, Aethiopians and Egyptians in the same group with the same criteria someone might use today (highly pigmented skins). An ancient Greek even referred to a late dynastic Northern Egyptian as 'looking like a hybrid'. It is clear that their use of the term 'black' is not incompatible with some of our own applications of the term.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: . This usage of the term 'black' is as objective and quantifiable as any other scientific character. The grades of brown along the aforementioned range logically correspond to a certain amount of melanin per ² (square) something.
how ridiculous,
"per sqaure something" LOL. melanin, help
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: But to me, 'black' doesn't necessarily equate to being genetically tied to those Africans, it just means being within the color range of people who are today considered ''black'' without associating it with any type of ancestry. The same way the Greeks used it when they said there were African and non-African blacks (Indians, certain Arabs, etc). This usage of the term 'black' is as objective and quantifiable as any other scientific character. The grades of brown along the aforementioned range logically correspond to a certain amount of melanin per ² (square) something.
I see you have the same chromatic definition of "black" as Djehuti, and I actually have no problem with that. It's a polyphyletic definition for sure, but then we use polyphyletic categories all the time in popular discourse. For another example, coconut palms have a closer evolutionary relationship to dandelions than to redwoods, yet we conventionally sort coconut palms and redwoods together into a "tree" category that excludes dandelions. There's no law saying that we must base every categorization system we use on evolutionary cladistics.
Most of the time, I mentally associate the phrase "black people" with darker-skinned African or Afro-Diaspora people in general, but that's an arbitrary construct I accept simply because of American societal conditioning. However, if I had my way with racial terminology I would use Keita's "Saharo-Tropical African" to specify those African types and use "black" as a chromatic label like you do. It's only for clarity of communication that I use the old familiar labels.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Let me make one point clear: I would love to call ancient Egyptians black in the same vein as I would Zulu, Maasai, or Tutsi, and in fact I do when I'm surrounded by people in the know. However, I am really damn tired of attempting to reason with obtuse racists and pseudo-liberals who will never concede any affinity between Egypt and "sub-Saharan" Africa. It's as fruitful as debating Young Earth Creationists. Of course I have the option of ignoring these fools, but then they are the establishment.
I get what you're saying. People consumed with their own biased ideology and devoid of logic can never be argued with, but I think you're wrong to say they are the establishment. Bio-anthropology is quite clear who the ancient Egyptians are and what they looked like i.e. BLACK. Egyptology on the other hand may not be up to par but it is slowly changing. I have read works from various Egyptologists who have accepted the fact of a black Egypt including Dr. Sally-Ann Ashton curator of the Firzwilliam Museum in Britain. The truth cannot be denied.
Denying that these Egyptians above are black and have close affinities and relations with 'Sub-Saharans' is like... well, denying that the same is true with the man below!
People who deny the obvious are obviously lunatics, and what do you know?! We have one of those lunatics here! LOL
quote:The counter-argument the establishment usually raises is that "black" had different connotations in ancient Greek usage than it does today. They will claim that in pre-modern contexts a suntanned European would qualify as "black".
Yeah, but the problem is we are not talking about pale Nords describing folks slightly darker than themselves due to tans! As Swenet has pointed out, it were exactly those suntanned Europeans of southern Europe who gave descriptions of North Africans living on the other side of the Mediterranean as being 'black'. There are even Greek and Roman works that describe themselves as tanned or darker than other Euros to their north but the peoples of North Africa including Egypt as 'burnt', 'scorched', and 'black'!! Given this proper context, there is really no way of spinning it!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fartheadbonkers:
quote: LMAO. So Curtis Jackson is a non-negroid African American with negroid hair, and you infer that by looking at his brow ridges? I think you and the following ape would get along perfectly
AA's have Caucasoid (and other) admixture and don't live in the Negroid geographical belt. They aren't Negroid. What are they? That can be debated, but they are modern composites. This has been discussed by Coon et al (1950) and Goldsby (1977). AA's according to Coon are "North American Coloreds". They don't all cluster with Negroids, but there is an overlap.
quote:What are the criteria for being ’’Negroid’’?
(a) Having West-African (Negroid) physiognomy. (b) Living in the Negroid belt.
Negroids that fail (b), usually always fail (a) because if they are in another region they are hybridized, as is the case with AA's.
And I have no interest in further debating Multiregionalism vs. OOA with you in light of the Lefkowitz quote above. Any regional traits you will ignore, hence you failed to respond on the basis of shovel shaped incisors or torus mandibularis.
Okay, 1st of all you are moving the goalpost and really backtracking and contradicting yourself since not too long ago you claimed AAs are "negroid" and are even "more negroid" than certain peoples in rural Africa (Bahima and Tutsi) who you claim to be "Caca-soid mixed"! So now you reverse your claim!
2ndly, your assertion is based on the premise that most or a large majority of AAs are mixed! I take it then you are unaware of the genetic study put out a few years ago that about 80% of AAs are still 'pure' African in genetic lineage meaning only 20% have European and Native American ancestry.
And last but not least, is there a similar criteria for whites i.e. Caucasoids that I asked for??!-- Must one have to have both 'Caca-soid' physiognomy AND live in the Cacasoid belt (Europe) to be considered truly Cacasoid??
You are aware that there are many EAs (European Americans) who also have African and Native American ancestry through admixture as well! Admixture after all works both ways. And as for the physiognomy part, as Swenet, Badumtish, and I have been telling you, you cannot tell ones ancestry via physiognomy. There are AAs who look truly 'negro' yet may have some non-African ancestry as there are EAs who look truly Caucasoid yet have Sub-Saharan or Native American ancestry!
Hell, even the Cacasoid belt that is Europe is a faulty criteria since there are many peoples there (about a third) who have African ancestry! So how come such admixed folks are still considered Cacasoid, yet admixed Negroes are no longer Negro??! LMAO
Your logic is so flawed and bankrupt it's hilarious. You may notice that all these questions I'm asking you is not because I take you seriously but out of pure humor and curiosity as to what nutcase answer you'll give me. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
the Greeks would call the above objects black rather than brown so that is what we must do
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
the Greeks would call the above objects black rather than brown so that is what we must do
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I see you have the same chromatic definition of "black" as Djehuti, and I actually have no problem with that. It's a polyphyletic definition for sure, but then we use polyphyletic categories all the time in popular discourse.
Yes. This application of the term black is identical to the term that is frequently used here: tropically adapted people.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Most of the time, I mentally associate the phrase "black people" with darker-skinned African or Afro-Diaspora people in general, but that's an arbitrary construct I accept simply because of American societal conditioning.
Yes. And it is THIS position (where 'black' has become synonymous with only blacks of a particular ancestry) that cannot be accounted for scientifically. I see this application of the term as a social construct, whereas the other one (which correlates it strictly with highly elevated melanin levels) is more objective.
You're right. I can see how the former could get you in trouble because there is little unequivocal evidence that Egyptians were of this 'black' ancestry that includes African Americans. Euronuts might tell you that they're more related to Nilotes and proto-Afrasans (which I would agree with), but then they might tell you that those groups are unrelated to West Africans, which is false of course.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I see you have the same chromatic definition of "black" as Djehuti, and I actually have no problem with that. It's a polyphyletic definition for sure, but then we use polyphyletic categories all the time in popular discourse.
Yes. This definition of black is identical to the term that is frequently used here: tropically adapted people. [/QB]
wrong, Djehutie teaches black only means skin tone not necessarily higher limb ratios or other tropical features, wrong wrong
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I see you have the same chromatic definition of "black" as Djehuti, and I actually have no problem with that. It's a polyphyletic definition for sure, but then we use polyphyletic categories all the time in popular discourse.
Yes. This definition of black is identical to the term that is frequently used here: tropically adapted people.
wrong, Djehutie teaches black only means skin tone not necessarily higher limb ratios or other tropical features, wrong wrong
Which is true, but then again, tropically adapted populations evince tropical adaptations in many characters at the same time, e.g., femoral head diameter, trunk height, limb length.
Show me a quote where Djehuti says that 'tropical' values in all bodyplan related characters don't correlate with highly melanated people.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Show me a quote where Djehuti says that 'tropical' values in all bodyplan related characters don't correlate with highly melanated people. [/QB]
F Djehuti, you tellin me all highly melinated folk have tropical limb ratios?
" bodyplan related characters"
^^^^ stop trying to highpost with the lingo, I don't play that, speak english. You had to put in the word "character" ? Don't try to throw off the lioness.
question:
so what are the Swenet/Djehutie complete skin color categories now?????
A) black and white
B) black, white and yellow
c) black, white and brown
e) black, white, yellow and brown
f) black, white, yellow, brown and red
______________________________________________
^^^^ I know, never give the complete set of terms so you always have wiggle room
lioness productions the Greeks were inaccurate so we must be inaccurate Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
NAME CHANGE, BUT STILL DEBUNKED. Note how below he said "Negroes" are defined as having Caucasian admixture. But then when it suits his purposes, they convenienty CEASE being "NEgroes" lmao..
THE Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-IDIOT EXPOSED- PART 19: He says there is no OOA but the very "supporting reference" he proffers directy contradicts his claim. ------------------------- [b]Posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on 07 May, 2012 08:45 AM:
OOA never happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans ----------------------------- The idiot gives a Wikipedia "reference" to back up his claim but the very same "supporting reference" he gives states that multi-regionalists acknowledge that hominid species came from Africa in the first place. Their argument is for continuity and distinct development in separate locations AFTER the initial OOA exit putting hominins in different places. This approach STILL recognizes and acknowledges hominin OOA.
Quote from Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Idiot's "supporting" reference: This species arose in Africa two million years ago as H. erectus and then spread out over the world, developing adaptations to regional conditions. Some populations became isolated for periods of time, developing in different directions, but through continuous interbreeding, replacement, genetic drift and selection, adaptations that were an advantage anywhere on earth would spread, keeping the development of the species in the same overall direction while maintaining adaptations to regional factors. By these mechanisms, surviving local varieties of the species evolved into modern humans, retaining some regional adaptations but with many features common to all regions.[10]
^^Note they say that their founding population Homo Erectus came from Africa. In short, the Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-idiot's own "supporting" reference contradicts his claim. What a pathetic fool.
THE Faheem Dunkers/ANglo- IDIOT EXPOSED - PART 18. The faker says Negroids are defined as having Caucasoid admixture. But when he sees bla-ck models with admixture he suddenly claims they aint black at all. Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo_Pyramidologist: posted 12 June, 2012 05:34 PM http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008168 Topic: Carleton Coon: Negoids are hybrids of Pygmies and Caucasians [QB] Yes. A fact well known today.
''The Negroid type is not homogeneous.'' - Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994.
Hiernaux (1975) distinguishes the Pygmies to Negroids on the grounds the latter are a product of the former (a recent mutation) but that there was probable geneflow with Caucasoids as Coon (1967, 1982) maintains.
Also note that on page 123 of 'Living Races of Man', Coon also states that ''To this combination may have been added remnant Capoid genes''. So Negroids are basically a recent mutation from the Pygmies, but with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture.
^^Bitch please. Your own words contradict your punk ass. Up above you say that "NEgroids" are a recent mutation with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture. Look bich, look. You say blacks are defined as having that admixture, and quote your favorite racist, Carleton Coon to that effect. But when your hypocrisy is exposed, you all of a sudden deny that the black models posted are "really" black. IN one thread "admixed" Negroes like the black models are black, but when your idiocy is exposed, they suddenly ain't black. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-IDIOT EXPOSED PART 17: - He says there is no sexual diomorphism in Africans or skeletal differences between men and women, when the very anthropologists he quotes say the opposite.
---------]Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo- Buffoon: Faheem Dunkers/ANglo_Pyramidologist member # 18853 posted 03 June, 2012 05:47 PM
Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Buffoon 17a- "Frost and other anthropologists have noted that sexual dimorphism in Negroids is completely lacking. Check Frost's online blog."
Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Buffoon 17b- "Black females are not lighter or different to black males in craniofacial terms."
^^Stupid muthafucka. The very Frost quote you paste says this:
Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys).." FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103u
------- Can't you read imbecile? ALL females differ from males and are lighter. ALL human humans have sexual dimorphism to one degree or another. SO how can blacks "completely lack" said dimorphism according to you, when your own boy Peter Frost says all human have it?
------- ANd in studies of crania men and women do show differences, and these differences can be detected with a battery of modern measurements, as already shown in previous threads where your idiocy was destroyed- example (zakrewski2004-Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania)
your own peter frost debunks you: ---------------------------------------
"If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman’s skin correlates with the thickness of her subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men (Aoki, 2002; Feinman Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost, 2005; Van den Berghe & Frost, 1986)."
FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103
and:
"A different perspective on sexual dimorphism in skin pigmentation comes from the recognition that human females require significantly higher amounts of calcium during pregnancy and lactation and, thus, must have lighter skin than males in the same environment in order to maximize their cutaneous vitamin D3 production (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000)... Thus strong clinical evidence continues to support the hypothesis that lighter skin pigmentation in females evolved primarily as a means to enhance the the potential for cutaneous vitamin D production and maintain healthy long-term calcium status and skeletal health." -- Human Evolutionary Biology. 2010. By Michael P. Muehlenbein Damm you are one of the most pathetic idiots in existence.
Tell us -- were you born such a retarded shithead, or were you originally a slug who managed to rise to such prominence?
quote:Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo_Pyramidologist: [QB] E1b1b is not Negroid.
Read it an weep -
''Sub-Saharan Africans belong to subclades of E other than E1b1b, while most non-Africans who belong to haplogroup E belong to its E1b1b subclade.” - Fulvio Cruciani et al, Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa, Am. J. Hum. Genet, p. 74)
The foul faker doctored the quote not knowing the article has been much discussed at ES. Testifying even more to his incompetence, Cruciani actually does show E3b or E1b1b occuring in numerous places within "sub-Saharan" Africa. The three main subclades of haplogroup E3b (E-M78, E-M81, and E-M34) and the paragroup E-M35* are not homogeneously distributed on the African continent: E-M78 has been observed in both northern and eastern Africa, E-M81 is restricted t o northern Africa, E-M34 is common only in eastern Africa, and E-M35* is shared by eastern and southern Africans (Cruciani et al. 2002)" --Cruciani
And there is no "page 74" in the Cruciani article. THE FAKER AND BUFFOON IS AGAIN BUSTED IN A LIE!
THE FAKER'S BOGUS CLAIM PART- 15 - QUOTE: [QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 14 January, 2012 11:41 AM If you are a white heterosexual male in Britain you have virtually zero chance of getting a job. All the jobs go to blacks or other immigrants.
^^LOL - Idiotic nonsense. As of 2001, 92.1% of the UK population identified themselves as White, leaving 7.9%[270] of the UK population identifying themselves as mixed race or of an ethnic minority. The population of the United Kingdom in the 2001 census was 58,789,194, UK Office for National Statistics- 2001.
That leaves approx 54 million white people. About 33% of that population were adult men. Let's take away 8% or so for minorities. So you are saying then that 25% of the approx 54 million white people in the UK are all unemployed? Damn you are dumb, but you only expose the bankruptcy of your racism.
The Fake C-Ass -Hole exposed PART 14 - BOGUS "NORDIC BLONDS FLITTING AROUND EGYPT
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 29 December, 2011 06:05 AM
Hetepheres II was a blonde
^^Hapless dullard, you are exposed in another lie. Your own reference was checked. It yielded detailed citations which revealed a quite different story. Scholars say in the mainstream Cambridge Ancient History:
"We must give up the idea that she was of Libyan origin, an attractive theory which was based on blond hair of Hetepheres II, who was then thought to be her daughter. It is now evident that the yellow wig is part of a costume worn b other great ladies." --I. Edwards, C. Gadd, N. Hammond. 1971. The Cambridge Ancient History. 3ed Volume 1, Part 2, Early History of the Middle East
Yet another history says: "The walls of this interior room are decorated with hunting and fishing scenes, including a charming image of Meresankh and her mother, Hetepheres II picking lotus flowers from the river.. The pillars have images of Meresankh wearing a blond wig." --P. Lacovara. 2004. The pyramids and the SPhinx: tombs and temples of GIza
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 13- HIS BOGUS CLAIM OF "NORDIC" EGYPTIAN ROYALTY
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 28 December, 2011 05:40 PM Early dynastic & old kingdom royalty was Nordic (blonde and fair skinned)
^^^Ha hahahahah you stupid mass of camel vomit! Up above you reference scholar Frank Yurco, but here is what Yurco said about the 12th Dynasty, debunking your claim of "Nordic" Egyptian royalty. You dumbass.... You are again debunked, with your own "supporting" references... lmao...
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989)
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 12 HE says Egyptologists like Frank Yurco says the Egyptians were "Caucasoid" --- "Virtually every egyptologist believes the egyptians were Caucasoid" --
BUt Yurco says nothing of the sort.. Here for example, is what he says about the 12the Dynasty rulers aho were Nubian descent: They seem really "Caucasoid"... yeah, right.. - quote-
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989) -
Another dodge is to twist an old chat/forum discussion statement by conservative Egyptologist Frank Yurco out of context. Yurco rejected those who "a priori" claimed the Egyptians were "black", that is, a dogmatic claim without presenting empirical evidence. He never rejected reasonable argument with data showing the Egyptians were an indigenous African population -QUOTE: .. basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times.. (Yurco 1996- An Egyptological Review, in Black Athena Revisited)
The Faker exposed- part 11
quote: Originally posted by cassiterides: ^You claim Vanessa Williams is a black woman when her heritage is white welsh and native american
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Eurafrican is Caucasoid.
^^You are once again exposed. You said EurAfrican is Caucasoid, and cited Serti in support. But using your own citation any reader can see that Sergi considers EurAfricans to be an amalgamation or mixture of many types, directly contradicting your claim.
SErgi says: QUOTE: "This human species, with cranial and facial characters thus well determined, I call Eurafrican; and this because, having had its origin in Africa, where it is still represented by many peoples, it has been diffused from prehistoric times in Europe... The Eurafrican species thus falls into three races: the African, with red-brown and black pigmentation.. Thus the Mediterranean stock is a race or variety of the Eurafrican species." --G. Sergi
You have again failed and are once again exposed. ------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED PART 9- HE CLAIMS ALL THESE HIGGINS "DISTORTIONS" BUT WHEN ASKED TO NAME THE SPECIFIC WEBSITES OF THIS ALLEGED "AFROCENTRIC' HORROR, HE RUNS AWAY. WHY IS THAT FAKER?
In fact, Godfrey Higgins ALSO says this about "negroes"
quote: "I believe all the Blavk bambinos of Italy are negroes- not merely blacks; this admitted, it would prove they very early date of their entrance into Italy." pg 286 pg 434 "the ancient Eturians had the countenances of Negroes, the same as the images of Buddah in INdia." pg 166 pg 474- "They aere in fact, all one nation, with one religion, that of Buddah, and they were originally NEgroes" pg 59: "nor can it be reasonably doubted, that a race of Negroes formerly had power and pre-eminence in India" pg 59- AS TO ETHIOPIA: And it is probable that an Ethiopian, a negro, correctly speaking, may have been meant, not merely a black person; and it seems probable that the following may have ben the real fact, viz, that a race of NEgroes or Blacks, but probably of the former, came to India to the west."
cASSIRETEDES own source debunks him. Note the footnote by his own author- QUOTE: "may not have been Negroes, though Blacks, though it is probably they were so."
His own source says they may not have been Negroes then adds: THOUGH IT IS PROBABLY THEY WERE SO."
^The Faker once again, debunks himself. And he seems not to realize that Ethiopia is in "sub-Saharan" Africa.. lol.. pathetic incompetent..
And he never shows these massive number of websites "all over the internet". Like what? How many? If they are "all over" then he should at least be able to give direct links to 6 showing pages where the "Afrocentrics: are "distorting" Higgins work. LEt's say what the faker has besides hot air. Post DIRECT LINKS to 6 of the huge number of alleged "Afrocentric" websites where the Afrocentrics are "distorting" Higgins. SHow how they are distorting Higgins with specific quotes and specific context.
Watch the Faker duck and run when he is again called on a claim, or make up yet another lie to cover his exposure... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- part 8:
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
But then, in your own thread, by your own hand, you present a picture of an African albino that has pale skin, light brown or hazel eyes and fair hair. You said it was impossible, but then debunk yourself with your own posted picture.. This is like the 8-9th time you keep tripping over yourself with lies, contradictions, and bogus claims.
RECAP The Faker exposed- part 7 Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
^^Your claim is is completely bogus. Native diversity or albinism causes some tropical Africans to have light eyes and light hair. You fail againn..
bbvv
================================================
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 1-- ^^Faker! In your initial posts you claimed that it was Cavalli-Sforza talking 'bout negroes "mutating" from Pygmies. Now in your "corrected" post, YOU STILL APPEAR A FAKE. You now remove Cavalli- Sforza's name on the "mutant" claim, admitting that you were lying all along! Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah..
2-- Second point- Peter Frost is debunked by Cavalli-Sforza who says as to his so-called "mutation" theory: QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
Frost mentions Cavalli-Sforza in connection with sexual selection, and movement of some groups from Nigeria-Cameroon to other parts of Africa. He never says Cavalli Sforza talks bout any "negro mutation" and in fact any mutation claim is directly contradicted by Sforza. Sucka, you not only lied bout Cavalli-Sforza, you lied about your own white writer- Peter Frost, and misrepresented him.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Pyr/CassiREDES says: ''There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty''
^^LMAO! Totally fake! Credible up to date sources note that blondism is prevalent in early life BUT, contrary to your claim that: "There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty", the shade of color varies. In maturity the hair usually turns a darker brown color, but sometimes remains blond. See: "Gene Expression: Blonde Australian Aboriginals". Gnxp.com. http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/blonde-australian-aboriginals.php.
^^Here is one of your Australians over 20 years old who does have blonde hair. YOu are caught out spinning bogus claims AGAIN!. Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah.. -
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 5a [b]So where are these tropical african peoples with pale white or fair skin? blonde red hair?
^^You fail again. African populations can readily produce blond or reddish blond hair as noted by hair study author Hrdy 1978 himself, and he references Nubia as an example. Albinism is another source of red or blond hair in Africa, and albinism is much more prevalent in African populations than among Europeans. Even African Americans produce more albinos than white Americans. (The pigmentary system: physiology and pathophysiology- By James J. Nordlund 2006: 603) (E. Roach and V. Miller 2004. Neurocutaneous disorders.) QUOTE: "In general, the prevalence of albinism in Africa is much higher, in the range of 1 in 1 100 to 1 in 3900."
So Africa can and does routinely produce red and blond hair. All non-Africans are MORE LIMITED subsets of ORIGINAL African diversity. THe originals have more built-in diversity than the limited sub-set populations. This is straight science as noted by the quote from TIshkoff 2000.
Nor are Africans the only tropical peoples who can produce reddish hair or blond hair. Among Australian Aborigines, some tropical groups produce 100% of individuals with blond hair. Melanesians can also produce blond or reddish hair, and do so routinely.
White people have no monopoly at all on that hair color. They merely show more of it, but even among whites, red hair for example is minor- occurring in less than 5% of the overall European populations, mostly in northern Europe.
So the claim that there are no tropical Africans with such variation is once again, proved fake. You made the claim.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 4 ime and time again, you stand debunked and exposed for falsifying claims and references. Let's recap:
Originally posted by CASSIFAKedes::
quote: The source is Cavalli-Sforza's book on the Pygmies entitled 'African pygmies' (Academic Press, 1986).
This work shows that Negroids mutated from an ancestral pygmy population around 9,000 BC in West Africa. So the 'true' Black African today is a recent mutation. Caucasoids and Mongoloids predate them. [Wink] Negroids only migrated into other parts of Africa during the Bantu expansion or slightly earlier. Prior to them, Caucasoids inhabited North Africa and Bushmen (Capoids) to the south who were displaced by the Caucasoids from the Mediterranean around 12,000 BC.
^^A bogus reference. Why should anyone take your word for it given past bogus references? Quote where Cavalli-Sforza says these so-called "negroids" "mutated" from Pygmies. The burden of proof is on you, since you made the claim.
While you scurry to cover your tracks with yet more bogus claims, Cavali Sforza, in his well known The History and Geography of Human Genes, 1994 Cavalli-Sforza summarizes his 1986 work on Pygmies and specifically debunks the "Pygmy as ancestor" theory held by other older writings. QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
SO much for your lying claims of "mutations" from "Pygymy" ancestors. In short, you lied about Cavalli-Sforza, creating a falsified claim and a bogus "supporting" reference to a claim that is nowhere supported in his work. You are once again exposed as yet another racist faker You are not fooling anyone.
------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED-PART 3- YOu then tried to cover up your lie with even more bogus nformation and STILL fail
You "modified" your Cavalli Sforza claim by including page numbers, and then changing some wording to "adaptive radiation" hoping to divert attention from your exposure.. lmao..
However pages 361-362 of Cavalli Sforza's 1986 book says absolutely nothing about any Negroes "mutating" from pygmies, nor any "adaptive radiation." It merely discusses Pygmy history and geography. You picked out a page at random, not knowing it can be verified via Google Books. You were asked to provide a direct quote but are still running. Now why is that?
""It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
--------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 2 And Your pathetic "modification" STILL turned out to be bogus. You then said:
"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996).
^^But in fact, Watson 1996 has nothing to do with osteological data and does not even mention it. It has to do with mtDNA.
----------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 1C YOU THEN PROFFERED ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM BELOW: He says:
quote: "Note that in the Old Testament the Danites are the only Hebrew people described as being maritime and associated with ships.."
^^Complete Nonsense. In the Old Testament, the tribe of Zebulun is mentioned as specifically associated with ships and maritime elements. QUOTE:
Genesis 49:13 "Zebulun will dwell at the shore of the seas; Yea, he will be at the shore of the ships, And his side toucheth upon Sidon. "
Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Pyr/Cassi-Fakdes: MULTIPLE TIMES AT BAT, MULTIPLE EXPOSURES AS A FAKE...
--fake claim that no Australian Abo over 20 is blonde
-- fake claim that NO tropical Africans have any diversity in hair, skin or eye color
-- fake Cavalli-Sforza citation
-- 2nd fake Cavalli-Sforza reference
-- Faked Watson reference
-- Faked Biblical reference
-- FAke representation of Peter Frost's work
-- Fake claim that "studies" say "egyptians were dark are not like 'light-skinned Europeans". COnveniently, the alleged study is missing..
--Fake Higgins claims
--Fake claim that Guiseppe Sergi's EurAfrican race concept is negro-free
--Fake claim that Vanessa Williams has no black ancestry but is "white and Indian"
--Fake claim that Egyptologists like Yurco consider the Egyptians "Caucasoid"
--Fake claim of white Nordic Egyptian royalty
--Fake claim of "blond" Hetepheres
--Fake claim of white males in BRitain "unable to get jobs"
--fAKE Crucuiani "quote" with "citation"
--fake claim that blacks have no sexual diomorphism and no male-female cranial differences
--Fake CDC claim of AUgust 2006
--Hypocritical double standards- bashing African Americans as black when they can be demonized as criminals but when exposed for hypocritical double standards calling them non-black
--Bogus claim that OOA never happened backed by "supporting" references that say nothing of the sort and directly contradict him.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
NAME CHANGE, BUT STILL DEBUNKED. Note how below he said "Negroes" are defined as having Caucasian admixture. But then when it suits his purposes, they convenienty CEASE being "NEgroes" lmao..
THE Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-IDIOT EXPOSED- PART 19: He says there is no OOA but the very "supporting reference" he proffers directy contradicts his claim. ------------------------- [b]Posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on 07 May, 2012 08:45 AM:
OOA never happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans ----------------------------- The idiot gives a Wikipedia "reference" to back up his claim but the very same "supporting reference" he gives states that multi-regionalists acknowledge that hominid species came from Africa in the first place. Their argument is for continuity and distinct development in separate locations AFTER the initial OOA exit putting hominins in different places. This approach STILL recognizes and acknowledges hominin OOA.
Quote from Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Idiot's "supporting" reference: This species arose in Africa two million years ago as H. erectus and then spread out over the world, developing adaptations to regional conditions. Some populations became isolated for periods of time, developing in different directions, but through continuous interbreeding, replacement, genetic drift and selection, adaptations that were an advantage anywhere on earth would spread, keeping the development of the species in the same overall direction while maintaining adaptations to regional factors. By these mechanisms, surviving local varieties of the species evolved into modern humans, retaining some regional adaptations but with many features common to all regions.[10]
^^Note they say that their founding population Homo Erectus came from Africa. In short, the Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-idiot's own "supporting" reference contradicts his claim. What a pathetic fool.
THE Faheem Dunkers/ANglo- IDIOT EXPOSED - PART 18. The faker says Negroids are defined as having Caucasoid admixture. But when he sees bla-ck models with admixture he suddenly claims they aint black at all. Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo_Pyramidologist: posted 12 June, 2012 05:34 PM http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008168 Topic: Carleton Coon: Negoids are hybrids of Pygmies and Caucasians [QB] Yes. A fact well known today.
''The Negroid type is not homogeneous.'' - Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994.
Hiernaux (1975) distinguishes the Pygmies to Negroids on the grounds the latter are a product of the former (a recent mutation) but that there was probable geneflow with Caucasoids as Coon (1967, 1982) maintains.
Also note that on page 123 of 'Living Races of Man', Coon also states that ''To this combination may have been added remnant Capoid genes''. So Negroids are basically a recent mutation from the Pygmies, but with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture.
^^Bitch please. Your own words contradict your punk ass. Up above you say that "NEgroids" are a recent mutation with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture. Look bich, look. You say blacks are defined as having that admixture, and quote your favorite racist, Carleton Coon to that effect. But when your hypocrisy is exposed, you all of a sudden deny that the black models posted are "really" black. IN one thread "admixed" Negroes like the black models are black, but when your idiocy is exposed, they suddenly ain't black. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-IDIOT EXPOSED PART 17: - He says there is no sexual diomorphism in Africans or skeletal differences between men and women, when the very anthropologists he quotes say the opposite.
---------]Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo- Buffoon: Faheem Dunkers/ANglo_Pyramidologist member # 18853 posted 03 June, 2012 05:47 PM
Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Buffoon 17a- "Frost and other anthropologists have noted that sexual dimorphism in Negroids is completely lacking. Check Frost's online blog."
Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Buffoon 17b- "Black females are not lighter or different to black males in craniofacial terms."
^^Stupid muthafucka. The very Frost quote you paste says this:
Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys).." FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103u
------- Can't you read imbecile? ALL females differ from males and are lighter. ALL human humans have sexual dimorphism to one degree or another. SO how can blacks "completely lack" said dimorphism according to you, when your own boy Peter Frost says all human have it?
------- ANd in studies of crania men and women do show differences, and these differences can be detected with a battery of modern measurements, as already shown in previous threads where your idiocy was destroyed- example (zakrewski2004-Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania)
your own peter frost debunks you: ---------------------------------------
"If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman’s skin correlates with the thickness of her subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men (Aoki, 2002; Feinman Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost, 2005; Van den Berghe & Frost, 1986)."
FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103
and:
"A different perspective on sexual dimorphism in skin pigmentation comes from the recognition that human females require significantly higher amounts of calcium during pregnancy and lactation and, thus, must have lighter skin than males in the same environment in order to maximize their cutaneous vitamin D3 production (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000)... Thus strong clinical evidence continues to support the hypothesis that lighter skin pigmentation in females evolved primarily as a means to enhance the the potential for cutaneous vitamin D production and maintain healthy long-term calcium status and skeletal health." -- Human Evolutionary Biology. 2010. By Michael P. Muehlenbein Damm you are one of the most pathetic idiots in existence.
Tell us -- were you born such a retarded shithead, or were you originally a slug who managed to rise to such prominence?
quote:Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo_Pyramidologist: [QB] E1b1b is not Negroid.
Read it an weep -
''Sub-Saharan Africans belong to subclades of E other than E1b1b, while most non-Africans who belong to haplogroup E belong to its E1b1b subclade.” - Fulvio Cruciani et al, Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa, Am. J. Hum. Genet, p. 74)
The foul faker doctored the quote not knowing the article has been much discussed at ES. Testifying even more to his incompetence, Cruciani actually does show E3b or E1b1b occuring in numerous places within "sub-Saharan" Africa. The three main subclades of haplogroup E3b (E-M78, E-M81, and E-M34) and the paragroup E-M35* are not homogeneously distributed on the African continent: E-M78 has been observed in both northern and eastern Africa, E-M81 is restricted t o northern Africa, E-M34 is common only in eastern Africa, and E-M35* is shared by eastern and southern Africans (Cruciani et al. 2002)" --Cruciani
And there is no "page 74" in the Cruciani article. THE FAKER AND BUFFOON IS AGAIN BUSTED IN A LIE!
THE FAKER'S BOGUS CLAIM PART- 15 - QUOTE: [QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 14 January, 2012 11:41 AM If you are a white heterosexual male in Britain you have virtually zero chance of getting a job. All the jobs go to blacks or other immigrants.
^^LOL - Idiotic nonsense. As of 2001, 92.1% of the UK population identified themselves as White, leaving 7.9%[270] of the UK population identifying themselves as mixed race or of an ethnic minority. The population of the United Kingdom in the 2001 census was 58,789,194, UK Office for National Statistics- 2001.
That leaves approx 54 million white people. About 33% of that population were adult men. Let's take away 8% or so for minorities. So you are saying then that 25% of the approx 54 million white people in the UK are all unemployed? Damn you are dumb, but you only expose the bankruptcy of your racism.
The Fake C-Ass -Hole exposed PART 14 - BOGUS "NORDIC BLONDS FLITTING AROUND EGYPT
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 29 December, 2011 06:05 AM
Hetepheres II was a blonde
^^Hapless dullard, you are exposed in another lie. Your own reference was checked. It yielded detailed citations which revealed a quite different story. Scholars say in the mainstream Cambridge Ancient History:
"We must give up the idea that she was of Libyan origin, an attractive theory which was based on blond hair of Hetepheres II, who was then thought to be her daughter. It is now evident that the yellow wig is part of a costume worn b other great ladies." --I. Edwards, C. Gadd, N. Hammond. 1971. The Cambridge Ancient History. 3ed Volume 1, Part 2, Early History of the Middle East
Yet another history says: "The walls of this interior room are decorated with hunting and fishing scenes, including a charming image of Meresankh and her mother, Hetepheres II picking lotus flowers from the river.. The pillars have images of Meresankh wearing a blond wig." --P. Lacovara. 2004. The pyramids and the SPhinx: tombs and temples of GIza
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 13- HIS BOGUS CLAIM OF "NORDIC" EGYPTIAN ROYALTY
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 28 December, 2011 05:40 PM Early dynastic & old kingdom royalty was Nordic (blonde and fair skinned)
^^^Ha hahahahah you stupid mass of camel vomit! Up above you reference scholar Frank Yurco, but here is what Yurco said about the 12th Dynasty, debunking your claim of "Nordic" Egyptian royalty. You dumbass.... You are again debunked, with your own "supporting" references... lmao...
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989)
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 12 HE says Egyptologists like Frank Yurco says the Egyptians were "Caucasoid" --- "Virtually every egyptologist believes the egyptians were Caucasoid" --
BUt Yurco says nothing of the sort.. Here for example, is what he says about the 12the Dynasty rulers aho were Nubian descent: They seem really "Caucasoid"... yeah, right.. - quote-
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989) -
Another dodge is to twist an old chat/forum discussion statement by conservative Egyptologist Frank Yurco out of context. Yurco rejected those who "a priori" claimed the Egyptians were "black", that is, a dogmatic claim without presenting empirical evidence. He never rejected reasonable argument with data showing the Egyptians were an indigenous African population -QUOTE: .. basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times.. (Yurco 1996- An Egyptological Review, in Black Athena Revisited)
The Faker exposed- part 11
quote: Originally posted by cassiterides: ^You claim Vanessa Williams is a black woman when her heritage is white welsh and native american
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Eurafrican is Caucasoid.
^^You are once again exposed. You said EurAfrican is Caucasoid, and cited Serti in support. But using your own citation any reader can see that Sergi considers EurAfricans to be an amalgamation or mixture of many types, directly contradicting your claim.
SErgi says: QUOTE: "This human species, with cranial and facial characters thus well determined, I call Eurafrican; and this because, having had its origin in Africa, where it is still represented by many peoples, it has been diffused from prehistoric times in Europe... The Eurafrican species thus falls into three races: the African, with red-brown and black pigmentation.. Thus the Mediterranean stock is a race or variety of the Eurafrican species." --G. Sergi
You have again failed and are once again exposed. ------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED PART 9- HE CLAIMS ALL THESE HIGGINS "DISTORTIONS" BUT WHEN ASKED TO NAME THE SPECIFIC WEBSITES OF THIS ALLEGED "AFROCENTRIC' HORROR, HE RUNS AWAY. WHY IS THAT FAKER?
In fact, Godfrey Higgins ALSO says this about "negroes"
quote: "I believe all the Blavk bambinos of Italy are negroes- not merely blacks; this admitted, it would prove they very early date of their entrance into Italy." pg 286 pg 434 "the ancient Eturians had the countenances of Negroes, the same as the images of Buddah in INdia." pg 166 pg 474- "They aere in fact, all one nation, with one religion, that of Buddah, and they were originally NEgroes" pg 59: "nor can it be reasonably doubted, that a race of Negroes formerly had power and pre-eminence in India" pg 59- AS TO ETHIOPIA: And it is probable that an Ethiopian, a negro, correctly speaking, may have been meant, not merely a black person; and it seems probable that the following may have ben the real fact, viz, that a race of NEgroes or Blacks, but probably of the former, came to India to the west."
cASSIRETEDES own source debunks him. Note the footnote by his own author- QUOTE: "may not have been Negroes, though Blacks, though it is probably they were so."
His own source says they may not have been Negroes then adds: THOUGH IT IS PROBABLY THEY WERE SO."
^The Faker once again, debunks himself. And he seems not to realize that Ethiopia is in "sub-Saharan" Africa.. lol.. pathetic incompetent..
And he never shows these massive number of websites "all over the internet". Like what? How many? If they are "all over" then he should at least be able to give direct links to 6 showing pages where the "Afrocentrics: are "distorting" Higgins work. LEt's say what the faker has besides hot air. Post DIRECT LINKS to 6 of the huge number of alleged "Afrocentric" websites where the Afrocentrics are "distorting" Higgins. SHow how they are distorting Higgins with specific quotes and specific context.
Watch the Faker duck and run when he is again called on a claim, or make up yet another lie to cover his exposure... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- part 8:
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
But then, in your own thread, by your own hand, you present a picture of an African albino that has pale skin, light brown or hazel eyes and fair hair. You said it was impossible, but then debunk yourself with your own posted picture.. This is like the 8-9th time you keep tripping over yourself with lies, contradictions, and bogus claims.
RECAP The Faker exposed- part 7 Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
^^Your claim is is completely bogus. Native diversity or albinism causes some tropical Africans to have light eyes and light hair. You fail againn..
bbvv
================================================
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 1-- ^^Faker! In your initial posts you claimed that it was Cavalli-Sforza talking 'bout negroes "mutating" from Pygmies. Now in your "corrected" post, YOU STILL APPEAR A FAKE. You now remove Cavalli- Sforza's name on the "mutant" claim, admitting that you were lying all along! Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah..
2-- Second point- Peter Frost is debunked by Cavalli-Sforza who says as to his so-called "mutation" theory: QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
Frost mentions Cavalli-Sforza in connection with sexual selection, and movement of some groups from Nigeria-Cameroon to other parts of Africa. He never says Cavalli Sforza talks bout any "negro mutation" and in fact any mutation claim is directly contradicted by Sforza. Sucka, you not only lied bout Cavalli-Sforza, you lied about your own white writer- Peter Frost, and misrepresented him.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Pyr/CassiREDES says: ''There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty''
^^LMAO! Totally fake! Credible up to date sources note that blondism is prevalent in early life BUT, contrary to your claim that: "There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty", the shade of color varies. In maturity the hair usually turns a darker brown color, but sometimes remains blond. See: "Gene Expression: Blonde Australian Aboriginals". Gnxp.com. http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/blonde-australian-aboriginals.php.
^^Here is one of your Australians over 20 years old who does have blonde hair. YOu are caught out spinning bogus claims AGAIN!. Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah.. -
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 5a [b]So where are these tropical african peoples with pale white or fair skin? blonde red hair?
^^You fail again. African populations can readily produce blond or reddish blond hair as noted by hair study author Hrdy 1978 himself, and he references Nubia as an example. Albinism is another source of red or blond hair in Africa, and albinism is much more prevalent in African populations than among Europeans. Even African Americans produce more albinos than white Americans. (The pigmentary system: physiology and pathophysiology- By James J. Nordlund 2006: 603) (E. Roach and V. Miller 2004. Neurocutaneous disorders.) QUOTE: "In general, the prevalence of albinism in Africa is much higher, in the range of 1 in 1 100 to 1 in 3900."
So Africa can and does routinely produce red and blond hair. All non-Africans are MORE LIMITED subsets of ORIGINAL African diversity. THe originals have more built-in diversity than the limited sub-set populations. This is straight science as noted by the quote from TIshkoff 2000.
Nor are Africans the only tropical peoples who can produce reddish hair or blond hair. Among Australian Aborigines, some tropical groups produce 100% of individuals with blond hair. Melanesians can also produce blond or reddish hair, and do so routinely.
White people have no monopoly at all on that hair color. They merely show more of it, but even among whites, red hair for example is minor- occurring in less than 5% of the overall European populations, mostly in northern Europe.
So the claim that there are no tropical Africans with such variation is once again, proved fake. You made the claim.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 4 ime and time again, you stand debunked and exposed for falsifying claims and references. Let's recap:
Originally posted by CASSIFAKedes::
quote: The source is Cavalli-Sforza's book on the Pygmies entitled 'African pygmies' (Academic Press, 1986).
This work shows that Negroids mutated from an ancestral pygmy population around 9,000 BC in West Africa. So the 'true' Black African today is a recent mutation. Caucasoids and Mongoloids predate them. [Wink] Negroids only migrated into other parts of Africa during the Bantu expansion or slightly earlier. Prior to them, Caucasoids inhabited North Africa and Bushmen (Capoids) to the south who were displaced by the Caucasoids from the Mediterranean around 12,000 BC.
^^A bogus reference. Why should anyone take your word for it given past bogus references? Quote where Cavalli-Sforza says these so-called "negroids" "mutated" from Pygmies. The burden of proof is on you, since you made the claim.
While you scurry to cover your tracks with yet more bogus claims, Cavali Sforza, in his well known The History and Geography of Human Genes, 1994 Cavalli-Sforza summarizes his 1986 work on Pygmies and specifically debunks the "Pygmy as ancestor" theory held by other older writings. QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
SO much for your lying claims of "mutations" from "Pygymy" ancestors. In short, you lied about Cavalli-Sforza, creating a falsified claim and a bogus "supporting" reference to a claim that is nowhere supported in his work. You are once again exposed as yet another racist faker You are not fooling anyone.
------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED-PART 3- YOu then tried to cover up your lie with even more bogus nformation and STILL fail
You "modified" your Cavalli Sforza claim by including page numbers, and then changing some wording to "adaptive radiation" hoping to divert attention from your exposure.. lmao..
However pages 361-362 of Cavalli Sforza's 1986 book says absolutely nothing about any Negroes "mutating" from pygmies, nor any "adaptive radiation." It merely discusses Pygmy history and geography. You picked out a page at random, not knowing it can be verified via Google Books. You were asked to provide a direct quote but are still running. Now why is that?
""It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
--------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 2 And Your pathetic "modification" STILL turned out to be bogus. You then said:
"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996).
^^But in fact, Watson 1996 has nothing to do with osteological data and does not even mention it. It has to do with mtDNA.
----------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 1C YOU THEN PROFFERED ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM BELOW: He says:
quote: "Note that in the Old Testament the Danites are the only Hebrew people described as being maritime and associated with ships.."
^^Complete Nonsense. In the Old Testament, the tribe of Zebulun is mentioned as specifically associated with ships and maritime elements. QUOTE:
Genesis 49:13 "Zebulun will dwell at the shore of the seas; Yea, he will be at the shore of the ships, And his side toucheth upon Sidon. "
Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Pyr/Cassi-Fakdes: MULTIPLE TIMES AT BAT, MULTIPLE EXPOSURES AS A FAKE...
--fake claim that no Australian Abo over 20 is blonde
-- fake claim that NO tropical Africans have any diversity in hair, skin or eye color
-- fake Cavalli-Sforza citation
-- 2nd fake Cavalli-Sforza reference
-- Faked Watson reference
-- Faked Biblical reference
-- FAke representation of Peter Frost's work
-- Fake claim that "studies" say "egyptians were dark are not like 'light-skinned Europeans". COnveniently, the alleged study is missing..
--Fake Higgins claims
--Fake claim that Guiseppe Sergi's EurAfrican race concept is negro-free
--Fake claim that Vanessa Williams has no black ancestry but is "white and Indian"
--Fake claim that Egyptologists like Yurco consider the Egyptians "Caucasoid"
--Fake claim of white Nordic Egyptian royalty
--Fake claim of "blond" Hetepheres
--Fake claim of white males in BRitain "unable to get jobs"
--fAKE Crucuiani "quote" with "citation"
--fake claim that blacks have no sexual diomorphism and no male-female cranial differences
--Fake CDC claim of AUgust 2006
--Hypocritical double standards- bashing African Americans as black when they can be demonized as criminals but when exposed for hypocritical double standards calling them non-black
--Bogus claim that OOA never happened backed by "supporting" references that say nothingof the sort and directly contradict him.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
^^ whoops- dupe post above..
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: If I am not mistaking, Lefkowitz claimed ancient Egyptians to be black. Black Africans to be exact.
^^LEfkowitz freely admitted that they came from south of the Sahara and recommended the works of scholar Nancy Lovell in support. So they are "sub Saharan". In verbal debates she does not deny the Aricanity of the Ancient Egyptians either.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass idiot:
the Greeks would call the above objects black rather than brown so that is what we must do
LOL Typical stupid strawman reply. The Greeks referred to PEOPLE to their south as 'black' NOT chocolate or brown boots, and this same practice continues with modern Greeks, Italians, and other Euros and Euro-descended people today! Oh except for YOU of course. LOL Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: As usual, nothing what you say is relevant to the issue at hand.
Wow. You were just exposed as a total liar, quoting Coon (1939) but cutting off the sentence where he explains the wide nasal index through an extraneous racial source.
No you phuckin retarded sack of sh!t, stop lying. Coon did NOT attribute their broad nose to outside negroid sources, since he clearly says: there is no trace of negroid influence.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Nowhere does Coon equate Mediterraneans with wide noses.
Stop the strawman. I never said he did, dumbass. I said that broad noses did not constitute a limitation to be considered Mediterranean in Coon's view, as evidenced by his classification, in both cases (Badarian and Shuqbah Natufians).
Coon (1939) maintained the wider nosed Badarian and Natufian were not Mediterranean, but that they had an extraneous racial input.
You have been exposed twice as a liar quoting Coon but cutting off the sentences where he clarifies such crania are not Mediterranean.
Mediterraneanids do not have wide noses. The quotes you posted even shows this, as Coon had to note of a foreign racial input to account for their wide nasal aperature. High nasal indices fall outside the Mediterranid type, they arn't even found in Alpines (who are minor mesorrhine). You are simply clueless. All you can do is distort quotes you find off google. In contrast I own all these texts and have thoroughly read them.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:--fake claim that no Australian Abo over 20 is blonde
-- fake claim that NO tropical Africans have any diversity in hair, skin or eye color
-- fake Cavalli-Sforza citation
-- 2nd fake Cavalli-Sforza reference
-- Faked Watson reference
-- Faked Biblical reference
-- FAke representation of Peter Frost's work
-- Fake claim that "studies" say "egyptians were dark are not like 'light-skinned Europeans". COnveniently, the alleged study is missing..
--Fake Higgins claims
--Fake claim that Guiseppe Sergi's EurAfrican race concept is negro-free
--Fake claim that Vanessa Williams has no black ancestry but is "white and Indian"
--Fake claim that Egyptologists like Yurco consider the Egyptians "Caucasoid"
--Fake claim of white Nordic Egyptian royalty
--Fake claim of "blond" Hetepheres
--Fake claim of white males in BRitain "unable to get jobs"
--fAKE Crucuiani "quote" with "citation"
--fake claim that blacks have no sexual diomorphism and no male-female cranial differences
--Fake CDC claim of AUgust 2006
--Hypocritical double standards- bashing African Americans as black when they can be demonized as criminals but when exposed for hypocritical double standards calling them non-black
--Bogus claim that OOA never happened backed by "supporting" references that say nothingof the sort and directly contradict him.
I never made a single one of those claims (excluding sergi). You just create a long string of lies, spamming "faked". No one even reads your spams.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
- Swenet and Zaharan are both notorious liars and are regarded as trolls on every forum I have been on.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: wrong, Djehuti teaches black only means skin tone not necessarily higher limb ratios or other tropical features, wrong wrong
LOL Twit, quit using me for your stupid strawman arguments. Of course 'black' as a description of color has nothing to do with high limb ratios, but that still doesn't change the fact that BOTH traits-- 'black' skin and high limb ratios-- are traits of tropical adaptation and so are body trunks with linear builds and smaller breadths. All three are traits follow the biological principles of Glogger's Rule, Allen's Rule, and Bergmann's rule respectively.
quote:lying worm writes:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Show me a quote where Djehuti says that 'tropical' values in all body plan related characters don't correlate with highly melanated people.
F Djehuti, you tellin me all highly melanated folk have tropical limb ratios?
LOL First you cite me to support your faulty argument but when Swenet calls on you to cite a specific post you then discard me or as you put it 'f' me! You're a pathetic fool.
Tropical adaptation is tropical adaptation. You can't be tropically adapted in one way only i.e. have black skin but not other characters relating to body plan such as long limb ratios or reduced trunk mass. Thus this is the general rule. Are there exceptions to the rule?? Actually there is, especially in terms of abnormal allometric body growth which is observed in certain 'pymoid' populations. Swenet and I have discussed this before among Trent and Holliday studies of some Pygmies in Africa and Brandon brought up pygmy like Tazmanians whose limbs were also short. Of course these are anomalies due to allometric growth being interfered or stunted. The vast majority of tropically adapted populations who have normal growth patterns have longer limbs than temperate adapted and especially cold-adapted populations period.
quote:" bodyplan related characters"
^^^^ stop trying to highpost with the lingo, I don't play that, speak english. You had to put in the word "character"? Don't try to throw off the lioness.
Does 'lioness' not know what the word 'character' means?? Swenet is not trying to "throw off" anyone the way YOU are with your silly strawman tactics. Swenet's statements are very clear and concise and if you don't get it, then it means lioness just isn't a smart cat.
quote:question:
so what are the Swenet/Djehutie complete skin color categories now?????
A) black and white
B) black, white and yellow
c) black, white and brown
e) black, white, yellow and brown
f) black, white, yellow, brown and red
______________________________________________
^^^^ I know, never give the complete set of terms so you always have wiggle room
lioness productions the Greeks were inaccurate so we must be inaccurate
See what I mean? A pathetic attempt at throwing off folks from the FACT that people use 'black' and 'white' as color descriptions of other people. Why focus on Swenet and I when we are not the only people in the word you use such skin color labels?? Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Regarding Sergi (the only claim I made without being distorted):
"Sergi's 1901 concept of Mediterranean as being a member of a Eurafrican species, and tropical Arican by ancestry (but not of a black or white race) add more complexity to this history" - Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships S. O. Y. Keita History in Africa Vol. 20, (1993) (pp. 129-154)
- Yes it's "Negroid free" dumbass, even as Keita (your hero) admits. What now?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fartheadbonkers: - Swenet and Zaharan are both notorious liars and are regarded as trolls on every forum I have been on.
LMAOH
You are definitely a psychopath projecting your own qualities on to Swenet and Zarahan. How are they the liars when everything they say is consistent and logical unlike YOU who backtracks, and self-contradicts??! You are a pathetic simpleton who tries to peddle crap to propagate your racial propaganda but smart people aren't buying.
quote:Fartheadbonkers posted: Regarding Sergi (the only claim I made without being distorted):
"Sergi's 1901 concept of Mediterranean as being a member of a Eurafrican species, and tropical African by ancestry (but not of a black or white race) add more complexity to this history" - Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships S. O. Y. Keita History in Africa Vol. 20, (1993) (pp. 129-154)
- Yes it's "Negroid free" dumbass, even as Keita (your hero) admits. What now?
LMAO
You dummy! Keita was merely quoting Sergi for what Sergi himself believes, that doesn't mean Keita shares his beliefs as Keita does NOT subscribe to debunked notions of 'race' such as "negroid" or "Caucasoid"!! It is YOU who is guilty of distortion by saying that because Keita cites Sergi that he also supports what Sergi says! Keita's whole reason for citing Sergi was to show just how inconsistent and thus invalid racial groupings are, you stupid sh|t for brains! LMAOH Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You have been exposed twice as a liar quoting Coon but cutting off the sentences where he clarifies such crania are not Mediterranean.
Even in the sentence you say I left out, Coon denies outside influences:
"In fact, while the prognathism and nose form would suggest a negroid tendency, this cannot be established, since the hair form is definitely not negroid.
Coon clearly though of them as fully Mediterranean, learn to read your own goddamn excerpts. LMAO. Your blatant retardation is peaking through the roof. Coon said that Mediterranean remains have a negroid tendency anyway:
Mediterranean Proper (hereafter meant when the word "Mediterranean" is used alone): Short stature, about 160 cm.; skull length 183-187 mm. male mean; vault height 132-137 mm. mean; cranial index means 73-75; browridges and bone development weak, face short, nose leptorrhine to mesorrhine. Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency. --Coon
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You have been exposed twice as a liar quoting Coon but cutting off the sentences where he clarifies such crania are not Mediterranean.
Is that why both series were still classified as Mediterranean by Coon?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: In contrast I own all these texts and have thoroughly read them.
Then stop being such a pathological liar and admit that Coon stated explicitly that values outside of the Leptorrhiny range don't preclude a Mediterranean classification:
By Mediterranean, in the skeletal sense alone, we mean the wide family of closely-knit racial types which are long headed, orthognathous, mesorrhine or leptorrhine, narrow faced, and of medium head size, descended from the general Galley Hill stock, and related to Combe Capelle and Afalou #28. --Coon
Oh, and btw, both Combe Capelle and Afalou #28, described above as related to Mediterraneans, are chamaerrhine.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Is that why both series were still classified as Mediterranean by Coon?
Coon (1939) doesn't claim those crania are Mediterranean. When wide nasal indices do crop up, he claims they are mixed ("of tendencies") with another racial source to account for them.
quote:Then stop being such a pathological liar and admit that Coon stated explicitly that values outside of the Leptorrhiny range don't preclude a Mediterranean classification
A minority borderline the mesorrhine, as I have posted twice. The widest nasal indices of Meds are 70.2 according to Deniker. The average is well under 70. Mediterraneans are thin nosed.
Note how you have completely lost so are now changing your argument. First it was Meds have platyrrhine noses (you failed), now to Meds have wider. Two different things entirely.
And "related" isn't the same as Mediterranean. Coon actually drew up an entire table showing Upper Palaeolithic/Med differences, but of course they would be "related" as he maintained they were all Caucasoid. The Mediterranean is a Caucasoid subracial division after all.
Afalou he later retracted his claims on.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LMAOH @ Anglo-Idiot's beat-down by Swenet and Badumtish made all too easy by self-inflicted blows by the Anglo-idiot himself via backtracking, self-contradiction, and circular reasoning! Any logical person can see that the Anglo-moron has lost the 'debate' (if you could call it that) since page 1 of this ridiculous thread.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] ^ No you are not mistaken. Lefkowitz in her book Not Out of Africa admitted as much that the Egyptians were black Africans
I know this goes against the Egyptsearch grain, but "black" when applied to human skin tones is every bit as much of a social construct as "Negroid" or other racial terms. Sure, you may use it to refer strictly to darker skin tones, but then the cutoff point for "dark" vs "light" skin is itself arbitrary. It's one thing to say that ancient Egyptians had closer genetic ties to the majority of sub-Saharan African populations than to non-Africans, but practically speaking there's not much of a difference between calling them "black" or "Negroid" since both are socially constructed categories.
Yes the label 'black' is a social construct especially since most folks this label is applied to are technically brown.....
While the label 'black' is subjective it is NOT as arbitrarily based as the racial label 'Negroid' which is based on a number of physical characters. The label black on the other hand is based solely on color alone
This is Djehuti's personal definition of "black" that it means skin color alone but seldom applies the term in anything nearing consistency.
-that it means dark brown yet the words "dark brown" are not used.
Look at standard milk chocolate Hershey bar. People describe it as black right? Of course not. Yet when it is suggested that people of African descent are "chocolate" in color no one complains. So descriptions of candy chocolate (brown) and licorice (black) have accurate descriptions but when we are dealing with humans a less acuurate method is used.
O.K. fine let's accept that for the moment that "black" means "dark brown" and it soley means color of skin.
The problem is that I have tested people like Djehuti numerous times and he doesn't apply the term fairly. He applies it very inconsitently. I have demonstarted this numeous times. The people who claim that "black'" means color alone only practice what they preach in select cases.
Example:
^^^^ People like Djehuti say the man above is not black but the woman is black. They will even go as far to claim that in cases like this that the woman is darker than the man when clearly the reverse is true. They will say the man is "sunburt" and therefore not as dark as the woman, nonsense (also disregards the fact that African American skin can tan also in realtion to degree of sum exposure) It's really a game that is going on and you're not supposed to question it switch the meaning at will, move the goal post at convenience. As long as it serves a politcial purpose never mind scientific objectivity.
So who are blacks?
In America it is socially understood to mean dark skinned people of African descent specifically
what about this guy? :
^^^^^ The fact is Americans in general do not call this a black person even though he is darker than a lot of blacks which is understood to mean of African descent only.
It is well undertsood that a person like this who marks an official form asking for race will not the box for black and typically mark Asian or something else. The Peruvian man as well would not be perceived as "Black" by the American public and he would be expected to mark "Native American" on a census rather than Black. But in fact his skin color is as dark or darker than millions of African Americans who are called by the society "Black" and would freely mark that on a census.
It is well understood by Americans that the word "black" means more than just dark skin. It means African also and it is comprised of other physical traits as well. This doesn't mean that this is the best way to view things. It just means what is the agreed upon social contsruct for that vast majority of Americans and if most Americans were aksed what are the races that are likely to say "black, white and Asian"
These are clearly words tha most Americans associate with a concept of race, a concept that means more than just skin color.
So somebody comes along and says "black only means skin color" I could respect that if they were consistent but they never are and I have tested this numerous times. However even if consistent it creates confusion to use an alternate definition of something without saying you are. And if that defintion is "dark skin" then simply to say "dark skin" eleminates the racial bagage problem that using "black" has. What goes on is people who say black only means skin color in a given situation when the majority of people are using the word with a racial implication and they happen to like that racial implication they don't complain. But when they don't like the implication involving the same skin but in another situation, they suddenly pull out it the defintion that it only means skin color, not African. It's a dishonest politcally motivated behavior and is easy to see.
what you say he's Asian not white? I thought you said these terms mean color alone. This Japanese guys is lighter than Mitt Romney.
Where is any scientifc minded consistency. You say he's Asian. I didn't ask you what geographic region he came from I asked you what is his skin color.
In fact this Japanese guy is more white than Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney by comparison is a brown person.
So is that a third category "brown"
So is the Khosian woman at top brown rather than black?
But you will never see the person saying "black means color alone" calling a Japanese person "white" and it's another example where they don't pratice what they preach
All of this shows that the there is no precise way of using these terms. They are o.k. for casual conversation but have no place in anthropology and becuase a given scientist may have used the term it doesn't change this, they could be wrong also or using it in a casual context.
There was a short period of time when African Americans primarily called themselves African Americans. But many of us prefer a term which refers to skin color "Black" and in addition implies to tha vast majority of Americans and on census forms and other official documents a person of African descent.
So why did we do this?
We did it because Europeans did it. They named themselves after a color.
While people like the Chinese have disowned the term "yellow" and Native Americans have disowned the term "red skins" we have accepted the term "black" now as used more and prferred over the term "African American" which actually shows our roots.
So in thinking pride in skin color is the best way to self identify it covers up our discomfort with our association with Africa.
Why did we do it? We went with "Black" over "African American" because European Americans did it. It's imitation of who is in power.
Why did European Americans do it?
two reasons
-they wanted to separate themselves from Europe, the authority of King George
-they wanted to distinguish themselves from darker skinned people and justify inhumane treatment of Africans
So us calling ourselves "Black" is reactionary in one sense
but in another sense it accepts skin color as a primary identity whereas the rest of the world doesn't
- and once the term "black" is considered acceptable, each time it's used by default it validates the dubious term "white" with every use. "African American" was actually an advance. The simple fact is we now prefer the term "Black" because the people in power use a color to be their primary identity and we figure we can become more powerful if we do the same. In other words we have been bamboozeled and hoodwinked.
This is why I am an African
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ All your blabber in no way refutes the definition of 'black' let alone the habit of calling heavy melaninated folks 'black' including indigenous Africans. Quit posting that Peruvian native as an example since he is NOT heavily melaninated and is never called 'black'! GTFOH Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Examples of twisted troll logic:
Lyinass calls this Peruvian man 'black'...
while Anglo-idiot says this Black American man is not "Negro"
Both of their claims have no sense and they make those claims in desperate and pathetic attempt to deny the obvious.
Both trolls belong in mental wards.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Quit posting that Peruvian native as such are not included as 'black. GTFOH
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The label black on the other hand is based solely on color alone
total hypocrisy
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Quit posting that Peruvian native as such are not included as 'black. GTFOH
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The label black on the other hand is based solely on color alone
total hypocrisy
Can you explain the underlying factor of what you see as his hypocrisy?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Is that why both series were still classified as Mediterranean by Coon?
Coon (1939) doesn't claim those crania are Mediterranean.
He does, and no amount of denialism is going to change that. After analyzing Keith's data, Coon's classification of the Natufians was:
The skulls which Keith describes are of a peculiarly Mediterranean type --Coon 1939
After analyzing his Badarian data, Coon's classification was:
The Badarian type represents a small branch of the Mediterranean racial group --Coon 1939
LMAO @ this pathological liar; focusing on the mentioned negroid traits and ignoring Coon's end conclusion (that they were Mediterranean) after those negroid traits were already taken into account.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: When wide nasal indices do crop up, he claims they are mixed ("of tendencies") with another racial source to account for them.
Cite the instances where Coon accounts for the medium to wide indices for the following Mediterranean remains:
This type, while well-characterized today, cannot be identified with any hitherto studied skeletal Mediterranean sub-race, although it appears closest to the small-sized, mesorrhine or chamaerrhine Mediterranean type which reached southwestern Europe during the Mesolithic or as a Neolithic advance Guard --Coon
Their type is a familiar one a small Mediterranean, with cephalic indices ranging from 68 to 81, and a mean of 73.6. The mean cranial length is 185.5 mm., but individually they go as high as 196 mm. The vault height, 139 mm. is elevated in comparison to the other dimensions. The faces are short (116 mm.), and moderately narrow (130 mm.); both foreheads and jaws (minimum frontal 96 mm., bigonial 94 mm.) are also of moderate breadth. The orbits are low, with an orbital index mean of 80, the noses chamaerrhine, with a nasal index mean of 55. The highest orbitted skull has an orbital index of 91, the most leptorrhine a nasal index of 45. --Coon
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: A minority borderline the mesorrhine, as I have posted twice. The widest nasal indices of Meds are 70.2 according to Deniker. The average is well under 70. Mediterraneans are thin nosed.
Coon never says that mesorrhiny is a rare borderline phenomena in the ancient remains he classifies as 'Mediterranean'. The majority of the ancient (Mediterranean) series he discusses are mesorrhine on average, and have, in the cases when they don't have that average, at least have a few cases of mesorrhiny. In other words, more then enough data to debunk your idiotic claims that a Mediterranean craniometric classification hinges on a leptorrhine index for all individuals.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:--fake claim that no Australian Abo over 20 is blonde
-- fake claim that NO tropical Africans have any diversity in hair, skin or eye color
-- fake Cavalli-Sforza citation
-- 2nd fake Cavalli-Sforza reference
-- Faked Watson reference
-- Faked Biblical reference
-- FAke representation of Peter Frost's work
-- Fake claim that "studies" say "egyptians were dark are not like 'light-skinned Europeans". COnveniently, the alleged study is missing..
--Fake Higgins claims
--Fake claim that Guiseppe Sergi's EurAfrican race concept is negro-free
--Fake claim that Vanessa Williams has no black ancestry but is "white and Indian"
--Fake claim that Egyptologists like Yurco consider the Egyptians "Caucasoid"
--Fake claim of white Nordic Egyptian royalty
--Fake claim of "blond" Hetepheres
--Fake claim of white males in BRitain "unable to get jobs"
--fAKE Crucuiani "quote" with "citation"
--fake claim that blacks have no sexual diomorphism and no male-female cranial differences
--Fake CDC claim of AUgust 2006
--Hypocritical double standards- bashing African Americans as black when they can be demonized as criminals but when exposed for hypocritical double standards calling them non-black
--Bogus claim that OOA never happened backed by "supporting" references that say nothingof the sort and directly contradict him.
I never made a single one of those claims (excluding sergi). You just create a long string of lies, spamming "faked". No one even reads your spams.
"There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty"
Melanesian Blond Hair Is Caused by an Amino Acid Change in TYRP1:
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Quit posting that Peruvian native as such are not included as 'black. GTFOH
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The label black on the other hand is based solely on color alone
total hypocrisy
Can you explain the underlying factor of what you see as his hypocrisy?
You said The label black on the other hand is based solely on color alone. This man is no lighter than millions of Sub Saharan Africans. Yet you say he's not not included black. That's why you are a hypocrite
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty"
Australoid hair darkens very quickly, its always darker in adults than in youths. If you read what I posted I was specifically refering to the hair darkening from the lightest or truest blonde shade hence I provided two sources on how the colour spectrum changes. Its exactly the same for skin colour as well. Aborigine babies are born far lighter, but darken as they get older.
Note how Zaharan when he put that quote up deliberately cut off where the "blonde" was meant as the lightest of the spectrum.
- Both Swenet and Zaharan mutilate people's posts to distort what they are saying (see what Swenet is doing to Carleton Coon above).
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Is that why both series were still classified as Mediterranean by Coon?
[qb]Coon (1939) doesn't claim those crania are Mediterranean.
He does, and no amount of denialism is going to change that. After analyzing Keith's data, Coon's classification of the Natufians was:
The skulls which Keith describes are of a peculiarly Mediterranean type --Coon 1939
After analyzing his Badarian data, Coon's classification was:
The Badarian type represents a small branch of the Mediterranean racial group --Coon 1939
LMAO @ this pathological liar; focusing on the mentioned negroid traits and ignoring Coon's end conclusion (that they were Mediterranean) after those negroid traits were already taken into account.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: When wide nasal indices do crop up, he claims they are mixed ("of tendencies") with another racial source to account for them.
Cite the instances where Coon accounts for the medium to wide indices for the following Mediterranean remains:
This type, while well-characterized today, cannot be identified with any hitherto studied skeletal Mediterranean sub-race, although it appears closest to the small-sized, mesorrhine or chamaerrhine Mediterranean type which reached southwestern Europe during the Mesolithic or as a Neolithic advance Guard --Coon
Their type is a familiar one a small Mediterranean, with cephalic indices ranging from 68 to 81, and a mean of 73.6. The mean cranial length is 185.5 mm., but individually they go as high as 196 mm. The vault height, 139 mm. is elevated in comparison to the other dimensions. The faces are short (116 mm.), and moderately narrow (130 mm.); both foreheads and jaws (minimum frontal 96 mm., bigonial 94 mm.) are also of moderate breadth. The orbits are low, with an orbital index mean of 80, the noses chamaerrhine, with a nasal index mean of 55. The highest orbitted skull has an orbital index of 91, the most leptorrhine a nasal index of 45. --Coon
He clarifies at the bottom of the page for one of those quotes:
"Relatively rare is a thick-set type with a large head, a square, low face, retreating forehead, heavy browridges, deep nasion depression, and a rather short and wide nose with a straight or concave profile. This type is not negroid, but is reminiscent of the Afalou type found in the Upper Palaeolithic remains of Algeria, and seems to be the oldest indigenous racial element. An ordinary Mediterranean type is also distinguishable, with a straight or slightly sloping forehead, moderate browridges, and a straight nasal profile. This Mediterranean type frequently shows an admixture with the first type, and this influence is evidenced by a rectangular facial contour and a considerable width and prominence of the gonial angles."
Wide noses he links to mixing with earlier/UP specimens and explicitly makes clear actual Mediterrenean metrics are "distinguishable" to these UP crania with wide noses and prognathism.
Meds have thin noses, never wide. Take a look at the appendix which include nasal indices here:
The countries with large/proportional Med populations, fall under 47, or only very slightly over.
quote:Coon never says that mesorrhiny is a rare borderline phenomena in the ancient remains he classifies as 'Mediterranean'. The majority of the ancient (Mediterranean) series he discusses are mesorrhine on average, and have, in the cases when they don't have that average, at least have a few cases of mesorrhiny. In other words, more then enough data to debunk your idiotic claims that a Mediterranean craniometric classification hinges on a leptorrhine index for all individuals.
Refuted by the tables, also: [Meds): "dolichomorphic skull (78) with rounded occiput; oval face; leptorrhine nose (68) with straight spine, horizontal or inclined downwards base of the septum" (Biasutti, 1958)
All the anthropologists who measured Med crania found an average NI under 47/70. Only minority samples borderline those figures.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Quit posting that Peruvian native as such are not included as 'black. GTFOH
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The label black on the other hand is based solely on color alone
total hypocrisy
Can you explain the underlying factor of what you see as his hypocrisy?
You said The label black on the other hand is based solely on color alone. This man is no lighter than millions of Sub Saharan Africans. Yet you say he's not not included black. That's why you are a hypocrite
So therefor your suggestion is?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty"
Australoid hair darkens very quickly, its always darker in adults than in youths. If you read what I posted I was specifically refering to the hair darkening from the lightest or truest blonde shade hence I provided two sources on how the colour spectrum changes. Its exactly the same for skin colour as well. Aborigine babies are born far lighter, but darken as they get older.
Note how Zaharan when he put that quote up deliberately cut off where the "blonde" was meant as the lightest of the spectrum.
- Both Swenet and Zaharan mutilate people's posts to distort what they are saying (see what Swenet is doing to Carleton Coon above).
Melanesian Blond Hair Is Caused by an Amino Acid Change in TYRP1
Your eugenic lord did not mention this.
And this man clearly surpassed the age of 20, by faaaaaaar!
quote:Originally posted by Fartheadbonkers: - Swenet and Zaharan are both notorious liars and are regarded as trolls on every forum I have been on.
LMAOH
You are definitely a psychopath projecting your own qualities on to Swenet and Zarahan. How are they the liars when everything they say is consistent and logical unlike YOU who backtracks, and self-contradicts??! You are a pathetic simpleton who tries to peddle crap to propagate your racial propaganda but smart people aren't buying.
quote:Fartheadbonkers posted: Regarding Sergi (the only claim I made without being distorted):
"Sergi's 1901 concept of Mediterranean as being a member of a Eurafrican species, and tropical African by ancestry (but not of a black or white race) add more complexity to this history" - Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships S. O. Y. Keita History in Africa Vol. 20, (1993) (pp. 129-154)
- Yes it's "Negroid free" dumbass, even as Keita (your hero) admits. What now?
LMAO
You dummy! Keita was merely quoting Sergi for what Sergi himself believes, that doesn't mean Keita shares his beliefs as Keita does NOT subscribe to debunked notions of 'race' such as "negroid" or "Caucasoid"!! It is YOU who is guilty of distortion by saying that because Keita cites Sergi that he also supports what Sergi says! Keita's whole reason for citing Sergi was to show just how inconsistent and thus invalid racial groupings are, you stupid sh|t for brains! LMAOH
He did not read this paper himself, he copied it from somewhere else by some other retard. Thus, is now sadly mistaking. There can't be no other explanation to this stupidity.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Regarding Sergi (the only claim I made without being distorted):
"Sergi's 1901 concept of Mediterranean as being a member of a Eurafrican species, and tropical Arican by ancestry (but not of a black or white race) add more complexity to this history" - Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships S. O. Y. Keita History in Africa Vol. 20, (1993) (pp. 129-154)
- Yes it's "Negroid free" dumbass, even as Keita (your hero) admits. What now?
^^Bitch please. Sergi did not use the explicit terms black and white for his race categories on that point, but if they were tropical African then indeed "Negroids" were among them. There are such as to tropical Africans. Are you always this stupid or are you making a special effort today. Wait, that every day for you dumbass.. lmao..
Djehuti said: LOL First you cite me to support your faulty argument but when Swenet calls on you to cite a specific post you then discard me or as you put it 'f' me! You're a pathetic fool. [Big Grin]
Tropical adaptation is tropical adaptation. You can't be tropically adapted in one way only i.e. have black skin but not other characters relating to body plan such as long limb ratios or reduced trunk mass. Thus this is the general rule. Are there exceptions to the rule?? Actually there is, especially in terms of abnormal allometric body growth which is observed in certain 'pymoid' populations. Swenet and I have discussed this before among Trent and Holliday studies of some Pygmies in Africa and Brandon brought up pygmy like Tazmanians whose limbs were also short. Of course these are anomalies due to allometric growth being interfered or stunted. The vast majority of tropically adapted populations who have normal growth patterns have longer limbs than temperate adapted and especially cold-adapted populations period.
^^You, Swenet and Patrol ought to stop using so much logic.. Its like kryptonite...
Swenet said: Even in the sentence you say I left out, Coon denies outside influences:
"In fact, while the prognathism and nose form would suggest a negroid tendency, this cannot be established, since the hair form is definitely not negroid.
Coon clearly though of them as fully Mediterranean, learn to read your own goddamn excerpts. LMAO. Your blatant retardation is peaking through the roof. Coon said that Mediterranean remains have a negroid tendency anyway:
Mediterranean Proper (hereafter meant when the word "Mediterranean" is used alone): Short stature, about 160 cm.; skull length 183-187 mm. male mean; vault height 132-137 mm. mean; cranial index means 73-75; browridges and bone development weak, face short, nose leptorrhine to mesorrhine. Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency. --Coon
^^More logic... lol
Troll Patrol said: He did not read this paper himself, he copied it from somewhere else by some other retard. Thus, is now sadly mistaking. There can't be no other explanation to this stupidity.
^^There is one other explanation. He is a retard to begin with. If they put his brain in a bird, it would fly backwards.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed. The Anglo-idiot is as utterly hopeless as he is stupid. He either takes writing totally out of context such as the case of Keita OR he makes bold face lies via omission in the case of Coon who was notoriously known for white-washing any remains with 'negroid' affinities as 'Mediterranean'! LOL Practically every student of physical anthropology who has heard of Coon knows that his work was at best flawed and at worst a non-objective and biased mockery of the science of anthropology.
Speaking of more idiots..
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Quit posting that Peruvian native as such are not included as 'black. GTFOH
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The label black on the other hand is based solely on color alone
total hypocrisy
Exactly where is the hypocrisy, twit?? Yes the label black is based solely on color but skin color that is very dark due to high concentrations of melanin NOT anyone who has a hint of darkness or moderate melanin, you dishonest b|tch!
Even in Peru, where the man in the picture above is from, the people there make a distinction between brown natives like the man and WHITE Spanish lighter than them, as well as BLACK peoples of African descent darker than them. This distinction is found in many South American and Latin countries! And your idiotic attempts at obfuscation cannot change that!
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Can you explain the underlying factor of what you see as his hypocrisy?
You said The label black on the other hand is based solely on color alone. This man is no lighter than millions of Sub Saharan Africans. Yet you say he's not not included black. That's why you are a hypocrite
You are as bad a liar as the Anglo-Idiot if you say there are millions of indigenous Sub-Saharans the same color as the Peruvian man! LMAO
And exactly which Sub-Saharans are you referring to? The Cape Coloureds of South Africa who are European mixed and aren't called 'black' but 'Coloured'? LOL Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Sergi did not use the explicit terms black and white for his race categories on that point.
Really?>
"a brown human variety, neither white nor Negroid, but pure in its elements, that is to say not a product of the mixture of Whites with Negroes or Negroid peoples." (Sergi, 1901, p. 205)
He explicitly uses those terms dunce.
His Eurafrican taxon is 100% Negroid free.
Don't embarrass yourself further. You don't own these texts or know a single thing about any of these anthropologists. Your knowledge is just literally equivilent to a google search, hence the amateur tables you create on paint tool.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
notice how Delusional Djehutie will claim these Khoisans are darker than the Peruvian when in fact the Peruvian is slightly darker and is as dark as many Central Africans.
Yet according to Delusional Djehutie none of the above are Black people.
According to Delusional Djehutie only somebody as dark as this qualifies as a True Black
and of course when he uses the term "Black" the average person realizes he means skin color alone and not the understanding of most Americans, rightly or wrongly that "Black" means a somewhat dark person of African descent only and that this dark skinned Mongolian is not "Black"
This clarification is all accomplished by winking when you speak. Then people are all on the same page ^^^^^ Accordingly a WHITE person as defined by Djehutie
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
notice how Delusional Djehutie will claim these Khoisans are darker than the Peruvian when in fact the Peruvian is slightly darker and is as dark as many Central Africans.
Yet according to Delusional Djehutie none of the above are Black people.
According to Delusional Djehutie only somebody as dark as this qualifies as a True Black
and of course when he uses the term "Black" the average person realizes he means skin color alone and not the understanding of most Americans, rightly or wrongly that "Black" means a somewhat dark person of African descent only and that this dark skinned Mongolian is not "Black"
This clarification is all accomplished by winking when you speak. Then people are all on the same page ^^^^^ Accordingly a WHITE person as defined by Djehutie
Ok, so what is the "SUBJECT and PURPOSE" of this thread?
Is it to show Peruvians / Amerindians, Mongolians, that other "Asian man".
Or is the purpose of this thread to show the African from the region of Northeast Africa? During the Neolithic time. Which one is it?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^ Lioness, Djehuti subconsciously knows that "Blacks" have only certain craniofacial features and hair textures. This is why dark skinned peruvians or Mongoloids, he doesn't label "Black" since they have non-Negroid facial features and straight hair.
subconsciously everyone knows the 'true Negro' model is true. If someone has wavy or straight hair, no one will claim they are "Black".
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
What I am asking is what is the purpose of this thread. Can you explain what it has to do with people from Peru, Mongolia etc....
I look forward to your answer thanks in advance.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ Lioness, Djehuti subconsciously knows that "Blacks" have only certain craniofacial features and hair textures. This is why dark skinned peruvians or Mongoloids, he doesn't label "Black" since they have non-Negroid facial features and straight hair.
subconsciously everyone knows the 'true Negro' model is true. If someone has wavy or straight hair, no one will claim they are "Black".
but he does label this Mongolian as BLACK and the Japanese person I posted as WHITE
Djehutie will varyify this shortly
__________BLACK_____________________________WHITE___________ ________________________Djehuti Defintion_____________________
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Wide noses he links to mixing with earlier/UP specimens
False. He clearly doesn’t, and this is shown by the fact that ‘wide nose’ isn’t listed among the traits he says are evidence of UP admixture (a rectangular facial contour and considerable width and prominence of the gonial angles), but also by the fact that the population he speaks of, that supposedly harbors individuals with UP admixture, are all leptorrhine. In other words, he attributes UP admixture to leptorrhine individuals and so wide noses have not been linked by him to UP admixture. You’re lying out of your ass as usual
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: and explicitly makes clear actual Mediterrenean metrics are "distinguishable" to these UP crania with wide noses and prognathism.
He doesn’t say that dumbass. He says that in the Arabo-Berber population there were several types present, and that out of this population, a Mediterranean type was distinguishable. This is something entirely different from what your dumbass is reading into it.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The countries with large/proportional Med populations, fall under 47, or only very slightly over.
Irrelevant. Coon was talking about Neolithic era Mediterraneans, and the majority were mesorrhine. Coon described Mediterranean remains with a nasal index of 55. That Leptorrhiny is required for a Mediterranean label, or that Coon thought of outside admixture as the reason for platyrrhiny in Mediterraneans is something that you keep pulling out of your ass.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Refuted by the tables, also: [Meds): "dolichomorphic skull (78) with rounded occiput; oval face; leptorrhine nose (68) with straight spine, horizontal or inclined downwards base of the septum" (Biasutti, 1958)
Those are measurements taken from modern people, as evinced by the anthropometric indices. You’re not fooling anyone. I dare you to put up a similar table of Neolithic European Nasal indices.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
This person is tanned or the image is dark. Most Amerindians who grew up in Europe or Northern America do not have this color. I know this because there is a show here in the Netherlands where adopted children hire film makers when they're adults, to search their parents. More than a few Dutch Southern Americans featured in this show, and they're all pale compared to the parents they want to be reunited with. Most of the fellow countrymen of the man in this pic don't even have this color.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ Lioness, Djehuti subconsciously knows that "Blacks" have only certain craniofacial features and hair textures. This is why dark skinned peruvians or Mongoloids, he doesn't label "Black" since they have non-Negroid facial features and straight hair.
subconsciously everyone knows the 'true Negro' model is true. If someone has wavy or straight hair, no one will claim they are "Black".
The person above lives in a delusional absurd world of fiction. This why such an amount of nonsense flows from the fingertips every time this creature hits the keyboard.
I BET WITH YOU A THOUSAND DOLLARS THIS PERSON CALLS HIMSELF BLACK! How do I know, because I have been there and heard it! Why do you think in Egypt they call you MUKTABA?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
What I am asking is what is the purpose of this thread. Can you explain what it has to do with people from Peru, Mongolia etc....
I look forward to your answer thanks in advance.
the thread had turned into a boring a collegiate logic discussion. Earlier in the thread Delusional Djehutie had capitalized the word BLACK and Truthcentric realized the ambiguous use of the term and Djehutie acrobatic displays. Truthcentric PM'd me and asked me to sort things out. I was reluctant at first but then agreed to do it. people of various ethnicities were brought in to test the terms being used for consistency, a fail was detected by the lioness productions team
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
What I am asking is what is the purpose of this thread. Can you explain what it has to do with people from Peru, Mongolia etc....
I look forward to your answer thanks in advance.
the thread had turned into a boring a collegiate logic discussion. Earlier in the thread Delusional Djehutie had capitalized the word BLACK and Truthcentric realized the ambiguous use of the term and Djehutie acrobatic displays. Truthcentric PM'd me and asked me to sort things out. I was reluctant at first but then agreed to do it. people of various ethnicities were brought in to test the terms being used for consistency, a fail was detected by the lioness productions team
Yes, we understand that somewhat like 90 % of the worlds population is of color.
But can you explain what thread has to do with people from Peru, Mongolia etc...this is what I like to know..
I look forward to your answer thanks in advance.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^ add Austrailians to the list and ask yourself
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^^ add Austrailians to the list and ask yourself
Yes, you can add them too, anyway.
So what do they have to do with this particular topic of this region, i.e.the Epipaleolithic?
Other than the people of the region.
I'll await your answer with passion.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Wide noses he links to mixing with earlier/UP specimens
False. He clearly doesn’t, and this is shown by the fact that ‘wide nose’ isn’t listed among the traits he says are evidence of UP admixture (a rectangular facial contour and considerable width and prominence of the gonial angles), but also by the fact that the population he speaks of, that supposedly harbors individuals with UP admixture, are all leptorrhine. In other words, he attributes UP admixture to leptorrhine individuals and so wide noses have not been linked by him to UP admixture. You’re lying out of your ass as usual
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: and explicitly makes clear actual Mediterrenean metrics are "distinguishable" to these UP crania with wide noses and prognathism.
He doesn’t say that dumbass. He says that in the Arabo-Berber population there were several types present, and that out of this population, a Mediterranean type was distinguishable. This is something entirely different from what your dumbass is reading into it.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The countries with large/proportional Med populations, fall under 47, or only very slightly over.
Irrelevant. Coon was talking about Neolithic era Mediterraneans, and the majority were mesorrhine. Coon described Mediterranean remains with a nasal index of 55. That Leptorrhiny is required for a Mediterranean label, or that Coon thought of outside admixture as the reason for platyrrhiny in Mediterraneans is something that you keep pulling out of your ass.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Refuted by the tables, also: [Meds): "dolichomorphic skull (78) with rounded occiput; oval face; leptorrhine nose (68) with straight spine, horizontal or inclined downwards base of the septum" (Biasutti, 1958)
Those are measurements taken from modern people, as evinced by the anthropometric indices. You’re not fooling anyone. I dare you to put up a similar table of Neolithic European Nasal indices.
Coon's tables are all of indices taken from old skulls, not living heads. The living heads are from Biasutti and Deniker (and others) which merely confirms Coon's data.
- You will see from the Neolithic/Bronze Age through to the Iron Age to more recent, that Meds are leptorrhine, with a small minority borderline mesorrhine. As an example the two Neolithic series in Spain are NI 47.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Negroes are not a primary sub-species but rather a product of mixture between invading Caucasoids and Pygmies who lived on the edges of the forest, which at the end of the Pleistocene extended farther north and east than it does now.
The Living Races of Man by Carleton S. Coon
The Proper Negroes
BY "PROPER NEGROES" we mean those peoples of Africa who are neither Pygmies nor Bushmen, Berbers, Arabs, or any of the clinal populations with a readily visible Caucasoid racial element. We mean the West Africans, some of the East Africans, and most of the Bantu. It was from these populations that most of the Negroes transported to the New World and to Arabia were drawn. We have left them to the end of the chapter because although they are the most numerous race in Africa, their origins are at the moment the least known. Moreover, we can understand them best after having reviewed the racial characteristics of the other peoples of Africa.
Earlier in this chapter we stated that to date no one has found a fully identifiable Negro skull, in the modern sense, in a Pleistoncene deposit. This does not mean that Negroes as we know them did not exist then or that such a skull will not eventually be unearthed. Meanwhile we may note that a detailed analysis of 571 modern Negro crania, made by advanced mathematical techniques, has shown that these crania gravitate between two poles, a Mediterranean Caucasoid and a Pygmy one. The former type is again divisible into an ordinary Mediterranean and a Western Asian type, which suggests more than a single northern point of origin for the Caucasoid element. As we shall in greater detail in Chapter 8 and 9, the Negroes resemble Caucasoids closely a number of genetic traits that are inherited in a simple fashion. Examples of these are fingerprints, types of earwax, and the major blood groups. The Negroes also have some of the same local, predominantly African, blood types as the Pymies.
This evidence suggests that the Negroes are not a primary sub-species but rather a product of mixture between invading Caucasoids and Pygmies who lived on the edges of the forest, which at the end of the Pleistocene extended farther north and east than it does now. To this combination may have been added remnant Capoid genes acquired in the Sahara and East Africa. Variations among Negroids and Negroes would depend not so much on the relative proportions of the parent elements as on where a given group of people lived at a particular time and to what selective influences they had been exposed. We suggest that such a mixture has been going on for at least 15,000 years, or more than 600 generations, ample time for the present regional and local variables to have arisen. We must also remember that Negroes have been numerous only since the introduction of agriculture, which occurred in three successive stages, the last two dating only from the Christian era. In Chapter 7 we will see, with better documentation, that Melanesians, who superficially resemble the Negroes in many ways, arose in a similar fashion.
Negro racial characteristics include tightly coiled black hai; black or dark brown skin color; black or dark brown eyes with pigmented spots in the sclera; pigmented lips and gums; a dolichocephalic or mesocephalic head, with a protruding occiput; broad noses; large, often prominent eyebals; everted ips; highly variable nasal bridge form and prognatism; large teeth; small ears with intricate antihelical patterns; broad shoulders; narrow hips; a relativele small rib cage, and considerable lorosis, usually without streatopygia,; long arms; relatively long dismal portions of the limbs; limb and shoulder muscles with short, thick bellies and long tendons; an unusual mobility of the extremities; large feet with low arches, both transverse and longitudinal, and thick underlying fat pads; and when young and in good health, little subcutaneous fat.
Comparative physiological studies of Negroes and whites have shown that the Negroes surpass the whites in tolerance of damp heat but are vulnerable both to dry heat and to cold, and excel at sports requiring short bursts of intense energy and great flexibility.
In reviewing these anatomical and physiological characters, we can find nothing except deep pigmentation that cannot also be found in Mediterranean Cacuasoids, Pygmies, and Bushmen. But virtually black Caucasoids can be found in parts of India, the Somalis are deeply pigmented, and Negroes have been subjected to intense selection for local environmental conditions, some of which undoubtedly favor deep pigmentation, although exactly how we are not sure. At any rate the hypothesis that all Negroes are partly Caucasoid eliminates the need for creating an artificial taxonomic barrier between Negroes and Negroids which makes our work much easier.
In the predominantly Negro populations of Africa regional variation are evident, as would be expected, because they mirror environmental differences. In the damp regions of the West Coast and the Congo, where the temperature is seldom extreme, Negroes tend to be short, stocky and mesocephalic, and some are even obese. On the West Coast the meant stature runs around 165 centimeters(5 feet 5 inches) and one tribe in the eastern Congo, bordering Rwanda and Urundi, has a mean as low as 160 centimeters(5 feet 3 inches). The Warega and their neighbors the Bashi both have a visible Pygmy component and resemble the potters of Lake Kivu. At the other extreme are the Dinka, Shilluk, Nuer, Suk, and other Nilotic tribes dwelling in the hot steamy swamps of the lower Sudan. They reach an extreme of tall stature, 183 centimeters(6 feet), combined with extremely slender bodies and long thin limbs. Some individuals even exceed the limits of ectomorphy specified by the somatotypist.
Ectomorphs are also common among some of the tribes of the East African highlands, but except for some individuals among the much-photographed Tutsi(Watusi), their linear body build is not as extreme as that of the Nilotes. What is more characteristic of the highlanders is an accent on long, high-bridges, narrow noses, probably in response to cool dry air, as we shall see in Chapter 8. The South African Bantu, who have lived for almost five centuries in a climate which is cool during part of the year and have mixed with their Capoid predecessors, are relatively large, heavy muscles, and in some cases fat. The Living Races of Man by Carleton S. Coon
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
If I am not mistaking, Carton Coon' claimed the Tutsi as cacasoids?
We have seen the horrific tragedy and results come from this eugenic crap. And this devil just wont stop!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: If I am not mistaking, Carton Coon' claimed the Tutsi as cacasoids?
We have seen the horrific tragedy and results come from this eugenic crap. And this devil just wont stop!
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides:
Somalis are Ethiopids and the Tutsi are Negrid-Ethiopid.
By assuring a Tutsi monopoly of power, the Belgians set the stage for future conflict in Rwanda. Such was not their intent. They were not implementing a“divide and rule” strategy so much as they were just putting into effect the racist convictions common to most early twentieth century Europeans. They believed Tutsi, Hutu, and Twa were three distinct, long-existent and internally coherent blocks of people, the local representatives of three major population groups, the Ethiopid, Bantu and Pygmoid. Unclear whether these were races, tribes, or language groups, the Europeans were nonetheless certain that the Tutsi were superior to the Hutu and the Hutu superior to the Twa—just as they knew themselves to be superior to all three. Because Europeans thought that the Tutsi looked more like themselves than did other Rwandans, they found it reasonable to suppose them closer to Europeans in the evolutionary hierarchy and hence closer to them in ability. Believing the Tutsi to be more capable, they found it logical for the Tutsi to rule Hutu and Twa just as it was reasonable for Europeans to rule Africans. Unaware of the “Hutu” contribution to building Rwanda, the Europeans saw only that the ruler of this impressive state and many of his immediate entourage were Tutsi, which led them to assume that the complex institutions had been created exclusively by Tutsi.
Not surprisingly, Tutsi welcomed these ideas about their superiority, which coincided with their own beliefs. In the early years of colonial rule, Rwandan poets and historians, particularly those from the milieu of the court, resisted providing Europeans with information about the Rwandan past. But as they became aware of European favoritism for the Tutsi in the late 1920s and early 1930s, they saw the advantage in providing information that would reinforce this predisposition. They supplied data to the European clergy and academics who produced the first written histories of Rwanda. The collaboration resulted in a sophisticated and convincing but inaccurate history that simultaneously served Tutsi interests and validated European assumptions. According to these accounts, the Twa hunters and gatherers were the first and indigenous residents of the area. The somewhat more advanced Hutu cultivators then arrived to clear the forest and displace the Twa. Next, the capable, if ruthless, Tutsi descended from the north and used their superior political and military abilities to conquer the far more numerous but less intelligent Hutu. This mythical history drew on and made concrete the “Hamitic hypothesis,” the then-fashionable theory that a superior, “Caucasoid” race from northeastern Africa was responsible for all signs of true civilization in “Black” Africa. This distorted version of the past told more about the intellectual atmosphere of Europe in the 1920s than about the early history of Rwanda. Packaged in Europe, it was returned to Rwanda where it was disseminated through the schools and seminaries. So great was Rwandan respect for European education that this faulty history was accepted by the Hutu, who stood to suffer from it, as well as by the Tutsi who helped to create it and were bound to profit from it. People of both groups learned to thinkof the Tutsi as the winners and the Hutu as the losers in every great contest in Rwandan history.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] with red-brown and black pigmentation.. Thus the Mediterranean stock is a race or variety of the Eurafrican species." --G. Sergi
You have again failed and are once again exposed. ------------------------------------------------------------
Zarahan, your ES message box is full, I need to post you something.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You will see from the Neolithic/Bronze Age through to the Iron Age to more recent, that Meds are leptorrhine, with a small minority borderline mesorrhine. As an example the two Neolithic series in Spain are NI 47.
The following series are all mesorrhine or Platyrhinne, and the highlighted ones are of European origin:
1 European Upper Palaeolithic 2 Afalou bou Rummel, Algeria 3 Téviec, Brittany (Platyrhinne) 4 Al ‘Ubaid, Sumeria 6 Naqada, Predynastic Egypt (Platyrhinne) 7 Upper Egypt, 6—12th Dynasties 8 Lower Egypt, 26—30th Dynasties 9 La Solana, Spain 10 Ticuso, Spain 11 Danubian Neolithic (Platyrhinne) 14 Chamblandes, Switzerland (Platyrhinne) 16 Beaumes Chaudes 17 Neolithic Brachycephals, Belgium 20 Bronze Age, Cyprus 21 Bell Beaker, Worms 25 Scottish Bronze Age 27 Aunjetjtz, Lower Austria and Moravia 28 Aunjetitz, Bohemia 29 Aunjetitz, Bohemia 30 Esthonian Bronze Age 31 Minussjnsk, Siberia 33 La Tène, Bohemia 36 Irish Iron Age and Early Christian 37 Scythians 40 Swedish Iron Age 41 Norwegian Iron Age 42 Hannover Germans 43 Anglo-Saxons, London Museum 44 Bajuvars, Reihengraber 45 Merovingians 47 Old Slavic, Wends 48 Old Slavic, Bohemia 49 Anan’ino, Early Finnic 50 Polom, 9th Century Finnic (Platyrhinne) 52 Jutas, Hungary 53 Tiszaderz, Hungary
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: with a small minority borderline mesorrhine.
A small minority my ass. They are by far the dominating majority. Only 13/50 series are European and leptorrhine (12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 24, 26, 32, 35, 38, 39, 46, 51), while 28/50 are European and Mesorrhine and 4/50 are European and Platyrrhine. Again, you're only showing what a phucking retard you are by making up sh!t left and right, and reading sh!t into your sources that have no basis in reality. Your own sources don't support you, in fact, they contradict you on ALL your claims.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
This person is tanned or the image is dark. Most Amerindians who grew up in Europe or Northern America do not have this color. I know this because there is a show here in the Netherlands where adopted children hire film makers when they're adults, to search their parents. More than a few Dutch Southern Americans featured in this show, and they're all pale compared to the parents they want to be reunited with. Most of the fellow countrymen of the man in this pic don't even have this color.
LOL Typical lyinass tactic is she compares the Peruvian above in dimmer lighting to Khoisan who are in bright sunlight which gives the latter the appearance that they are lighter when in fact Khoisan in general are still darker than Native Americans!
To Swenet, the Peruvian man is a member of the indigenous people known as the Quechua.
More Quechua.
Yet even a tanned Quechua cannot match the complexion of than a tanned Khoisan.
Anyway, while there actually are Native Americans who have complexions dark enough to be considered 'black' (and I have seen a few in person myself), the Quechua are obviously NOT one of them! LOL Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^he won't touch this, only the Peruvians, and speaking of Peruvians
. More Debunk: . Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Speaking of Khoisan peoples...
Despite their prognathism, Anglo-idiot is correct when he says that Khoisan tend to have flatter faces than stereotypical "negroids", yet that is what contradicts his claim that prehistoric Nubian skulls like that of Jebel Sahaba with its full projecting jaws and face are 'Capoid'! LOL
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: "with red-brown and black pigmentation.. Thus the Mediterranean stock is a race or variety of the Eurafrican species." --G. Sergi You have again failed and are once again exposed.
LMAO Indeed. This is how the idiot can get away with the crap that Caucasoids possess such great diversity that they range in color from pale Euros to black Mediterraneans, while Negroids have one set of features only!
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Truthcentric PM'd me and asked me to sort things out.
I don't recall ever sending you a private message on Egyptsearch. Either you are lying or have confused me with some other poster.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Why even bother guessing another options other than her lying?! LOL Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Speaking of Khoisan peoples...
Despite their prognathism, Anglo-idiot is correct when he says that Khoisan tend to have flatter faces than stereotypical "negroids", yet that is what contradicts his claim that prehistoric Nubian skulls like that of Jebel Sahaba with its full projecting jaws and face are 'Capoid'! LOL
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: "with red-brown and black pigmentation.. Thus the Mediterranean stock is a race or variety of the Eurafrican species." --G. Sergi You have again failed and are once again exposed.
LMAO Indeed. This is how the idiot can get away with the crap that Caucasoids possess such great diversity that they range in color from pale Euros to black Mediterraneans, while Negroids have one set of features only!
The dumbass lioness also only compares pictures of individuals rather than comparing two groups as a whole, that way she can use dark outliers (or dim pictures) in Eurasian groups and give the impression that dark color among them is typical.
If you notice, she also compares pictures of Khoisan in a very moderate climate, to Peruvians in a very hot climate. And even then, the Khoisan are still darker as a group. Like I said, many of the folks she flaunts around would have been relatively pale if they grew up in Northern Europe. No Khoisan would ever grow up pale after growing up in Northern Europe.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Truthcentric PM'd me and asked me to sort things out.
I don't recall ever sending you a private message on Egyptsearch. Either you are lying or have confused me with some other poster.
Truthcentric, that's funny.lol
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
What I am asking is what is the purpose of this thread. Can you explain what it has to do with people from Peru, Mongolia etc....
I look forward to your answer thanks in advance.
the thread had turned into a boring a collegiate logic discussion. Earlier in the thread Delusional Djehutie had capitalized the word BLACK and Truthcentric realized the ambiguous use of the term and Djehutie acrobatic displays. Truthcentric PM'd me and asked me to sort things out. I was reluctant at first but then agreed to do it. people of various ethnicities were brought in to test the terms being used for consistency, a fail was detected by the lioness productions team
This thread has turned into another beat down and defeat down for you and your alter ego, faheem.
Swenet, simply slam dunked it time after time.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ Djehutie sock pup
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
^^^Faheem (got slam dunked) sock pup!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Of course.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The dumbass lioness also only compares pictures of individuals rather than comparing two groups as a whole, that way she can use dark outliers (or dim pictures) in Eurasian groups and give the impression that dark color among them is typical.
If you notice, she also compares pictures of Khoisan in a very moderate climate, to Peruvians in a very hot climate. And even then, the Khoisan are still darker as a group. Like I said, many of the folks she flaunts around would have been relatively pale if they grew up in Northern Europe. No Khoisan would ever grow up pale after growing up in Northern Europe.
You think?! LOL Notice that ever since I debunked the lyinass with my pictures of Khoisan peoples as a whole she then moved the goal post by posting pictures of African Americans (Will Smith) LMAO Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: __________BLACK_____________________________WHITE___________ _______________________Djehuti Definition_____________________
^^^he won't touch this, only the Peruvians, and speaking of Peruvians
. More Debunk: .
_______________________Not dark enough to be Black, Djehutie definition__________________________
It's easy to expose Djehutie.
When asked what are the boundaries of use of the term "Black" he excludes people like Will Smith and suggests that bringing him up would be moving the goalpost for what is Black. And the man pictured above Will Smith who is darker than him he says is not black yet he claims it's only about skin tone. And he'll talk about blacks all day long but when Asians are introduced to test his racial skin color theories, it's too sensitive to talk about. My role is to test theories, in this cases his True Black Theory. I notice how people use theories but only in carefully selected situations. These theories fall apart when applied to other examples and Delusional Djehutie is a prime example of how things fall apart
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Where did I say anything about Will Smith not being black?? Where did I say there was a "boundary" between blacks and non-blacks?? You keep putting words in my mouth in a desperate attempt to support your b.s.
Meanwhile Peruvian Quechua still distinguish themselves between blanco Spaniards and negro African Diasporans. That you don't like this is not their problem but yours. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Where did I say anything about Will Smith not being black?? Where did I say there was a "boundary" between blacks and non-blacks?? You keep putting words in my mouth in a desperate attempt to support your b.s.
Meanwhile Peruvian Quechua still distinguish themselves between blanco Spaniards and negro African Diasporans. That you don't like this is not their problem but yours.
In other words your soley based on skin color True Black only works when you want it to work.
Again, you keep introducing the word "Negro" as if it's a valid concept and at other times hypocritically saying it's not
In addition the assumption that because Peruvians distinguish themselves from Africans it is soley based on skin color
and the Intellectual Beatdown of the Month and Asian example avoidance continues
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Where did I say anything about Will Smith not being black?? Where did I say there was a "boundary" between blacks and non-blacks?? You keep putting words in my mouth in a desperate attempt to support your b.s.
Meanwhile Peruvian Quechua still distinguish themselves between blanco Spaniards and negro African Diasporans. That you don't like this is not their problem but yours.
Why doesn't "she" post a picture of "her" color complexion? That would make a point.
Has this ever occurred, or am I just wild guessing?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Of course.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
The dumbass lioness also only compares pictures of individuals rather than comparing two groups as a whole, that way she can use dark outliers (or dim pictures) in Eurasian groups and give the impression that dark color among them is typical.
If you notice, she also compares pictures of Khoisan in a very moderate climate, to Peruvians in a very hot climate. And even then, the Khoisan are still darker as a group. Like I said, many of the folks she flaunts around would have been relatively pale if they grew up in Northern Europe. No Khoisan would ever grow up pale after growing up in Northern Europe.
You think?! LOL Notice that ever since I debunked the lyinass with my pictures of Khoisan peoples as a whole she then moved the goal post by posting pictures of African Americans (Will Smith) LMAO
That's Lyin'ass productions for ya.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
What I am asking is what is the purpose of this thread. Can you explain what it has to do with people from Peru, Mongolia etc....
I look forward to your answer thanks in advance.
the thread had turned into a boring a collegiate logic discussion. Earlier in the thread Delusional Djehutie had capitalized the word BLACK and Truthcentric realized the ambiguous use of the term and Djehutie acrobatic displays. Truthcentric PM'd me and asked me to sort things out. I was reluctant at first but then agreed to do it. people of various ethnicities were brought in to test the terms being used for consistency, a fail was detected by the lioness productions team
This thread has turned into another beat down and defeat down for you and your alter ego, faheem.
Swenet, simply slam dunked it time after time.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
For Troll, bonus Turk
Don't get mad at me I'm just going by Djehutie's stated definition of BLACK, "soley based on skin color"
____________________BLACK
____________________ BROWN
who's darker here? Obviously the Turk, now watch Djehutie do a back flip. Either they are as marked or they are both black and in either case Delusional Djehutie takes another boot
^^^^ see this here? Don't get mad at me this is pure and clear 100% fair example of Djehuti's terminolgy. but the coward will never own up to it
send help, lioness is pouncing again
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: who's darker here? Obviously the Turk, now watch Djehutie do a back flip.
LMAO. The dumb cockroach said the Turk is darker than the Morgan Freeman looking dude.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Of course.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
The dumbass lioness also only compares pictures of individuals rather than comparing two groups as a whole, that way she can use dark outliers (or dim pictures) in Eurasian groups and give the impression that dark color among them is typical.
If you notice, she also compares pictures of Khoisan in a very moderate climate, to Peruvians in a very hot climate. And even then, the Khoisan are still darker as a group. Like I said, many of the folks she flaunts around would have been relatively pale if they grew up in Northern Europe. No Khoisan would ever grow up pale after growing up in Northern Europe.
You think?! LOL Notice that ever since I debunked the lyinass with my pictures of Khoisan peoples as a whole she then moved the goal post by posting pictures of African Americans (Will Smith) LMAO
That's Lyin'ass productions for ya.
lol Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: the concave facial profile of that fisherman is typically European, and has nothing to do with how Egyptians depicted themselves, whatsoever.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:"From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that sub-Sabaran genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2001) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey (E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinniogclu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinniogelu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.
In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005), in concordance with a process of demie diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: the concave facial profile of that fisherman is typically European, and has nothing to do with how Egyptians depicted themselves, whatsoever.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You will see from the Neolithic/Bronze Age through to the Iron Age to more recent, that Meds are leptorrhine, with a small minority borderline mesorrhine. As an example the two Neolithic series in Spain are NI 47.
The following series are all mesorrhine or Platyrhinne, and the highlighted ones are of European origin:
1 European Upper Palaeolithic 2 Afalou bou Rummel, Algeria 3 Téviec, Brittany (Platyrhinne) 4 Al ‘Ubaid, Sumeria 6 Naqada, Predynastic Egypt (Platyrhinne) 7 Upper Egypt, 6—12th Dynasties 8 Lower Egypt, 26—30th Dynasties 9 La Solana, Spain 10 Ticuso, Spain 11 Danubian Neolithic (Platyrhinne) 14 Chamblandes, Switzerland (Platyrhinne) 16 Beaumes Chaudes 17 Neolithic Brachycephals, Belgium 20 Bronze Age, Cyprus 21 Bell Beaker, Worms 25 Scottish Bronze Age 27 Aunjetjtz, Lower Austria and Moravia 28 Aunjetitz, Bohemia 29 Aunjetitz, Bohemia 30 Esthonian Bronze Age 31 Minussjnsk, Siberia 33 La Tène, Bohemia 36 Irish Iron Age and Early Christian 37 Scythians 40 Swedish Iron Age 41 Norwegian Iron Age 42 Hannover Germans 43 Anglo-Saxons, London Museum 44 Bajuvars, Reihengraber 45 Merovingians 47 Old Slavic, Wends 48 Old Slavic, Bohemia 49 Anan’ino, Early Finnic 50 Polom, 9th Century Finnic (Platyrhinne) 52 Jutas, Hungary 53 Tiszaderz, Hungary
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: with a small minority borderline mesorrhine.
A small minority my ass. They are by far the dominating majority. Only 13/50 series are European and leptorrhine (12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 24, 26, 32, 35, 38, 39, 46, 51), while 28/50 are European and Mesorrhine and 4/50 are European and Platyrrhine. Again, you're only showing what a phucking retard you are by making up sh!t left and right, and reading sh!t into your sources that have no basis in reality. Your own sources don't support you, in fact, they contradict you on ALL your claims.
Looney tunes, most those specimen series arn't Meds. Do you think Meds are the only Caucasoid subtype? What a pointless post.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You will see from the Neolithic/Bronze Age through to the Iron Age to more recent, that Meds are leptorrhine, with a small minority borderline mesorrhine. As an example the two Neolithic series in Spain are NI 47.
The following series are all mesorrhine or Platyrhinne, and the highlighted ones are of European origin:
1 European Upper Palaeolithic 2 Afalou bou Rummel, Algeria 3 Téviec, Brittany (Platyrhinne) 4 Al ‘Ubaid, Sumeria 6 Naqada, Predynastic Egypt (Platyrhinne) 7 Upper Egypt, 6—12th Dynasties 8 Lower Egypt, 26—30th Dynasties 9 La Solana, Spain 10 Ticuso, Spain 11 Danubian Neolithic (Platyrhinne) 14 Chamblandes, Switzerland (Platyrhinne) 16 Beaumes Chaudes 17 Neolithic Brachycephals, Belgium 20 Bronze Age, Cyprus 21 Bell Beaker, Worms 25 Scottish Bronze Age 27 Aunjetjtz, Lower Austria and Moravia 28 Aunjetitz, Bohemia 29 Aunjetitz, Bohemia 30 Esthonian Bronze Age 31 Minussjnsk, Siberia 33 La Tène, Bohemia 36 Irish Iron Age and Early Christian 37 Scythians 40 Swedish Iron Age 41 Norwegian Iron Age 42 Hannover Germans 43 Anglo-Saxons, London Museum 44 Bajuvars, Reihengraber 45 Merovingians 47 Old Slavic, Wends 48 Old Slavic, Bohemia 49 Anan’ino, Early Finnic 50 Polom, 9th Century Finnic (Platyrhinne) 52 Jutas, Hungary 53 Tiszaderz, Hungary
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: with a small minority borderline mesorrhine.
A small minority my ass. They are by far the dominating majority. Only 13/50 series are European and leptorrhine (12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 24, 26, 32, 35, 38, 39, 46, 51), while 28/50 are European and Mesorrhine and 4/50 are European and Platyrrhine. Again, you're only showing what a phucking retard you are by making up sh!t left and right, and reading sh!t into your sources that have no basis in reality. Your own sources don't support you, in fact, they contradict you on ALL your claims.
Looney tunes, most those specimen series arn't Meds. Do you think Meds are the only Caucasoid subtype? What a pointless post.
"Analysis of Predinastic skeletal material showed "tropical African elements" in the population of the earliest populations of the earliest Badarian culture" [...] "a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times"
--Frank Yurco,
"Little change in body shape was found through time, suggesting that all body segments were varying in size in response to environmental and social conditions. The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a "more tropical" (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations".
--Sonia R. Zakrzewski* came to the same conclusions,
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: For Troll, bonus Turk
Don't get mad at me I'm just going by Djehutie's stated definition of BLACK, "soley based on skin color"
____________________BLACK
____________________ BROWN
who's darker here? Obviously the Turk, now watch Djehutie do a back flip. Either they are as marked or they are both black and in either case Delusional Djehutie takes another boot
^^^^ see this here? Don't get mad at me this is pure and clear 100% fair example of Djehuti's terminolgy. but the coward will never own up to it
send help, lioness is pouncing again
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: who's darker here? Obviously the Turk, now watch Djehutie do a back flip.
LMAO. The dumb cockroach said the Turk is darker than the Morgan Freeman looking dude.
This b|tch is definitely tripping if she can't tell who is darker-- a Turk or an African! LMAOH
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: the concave facial profile of that fisherman is typically European, and has nothing to do with how Egyptians depicted themselves, whatsoever.
Note that she compares a darkened version of the Minoan man with an obviously lightened version of the Ramses painting. LMAO This b|tch's desperation to obfuscate the meaning of black and it's applications is hilarious! It's just as hilarious as Anglo-idiot's desperate attempt to obfuscate the definition of "Negro". Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: For Troll, bonus Turk
Don't get mad at me I'm just going by Djehutie's stated definition of BLACK, "soley based on skin color"
____________________BLACK
Yes 'BLACK' as a color description IS based solely on skin color but where the f*ck did I say the Turkish man above was black??!! Nobody ever said anyone darker than pale was black except for YOU lying trick! LMAO
I'm done with this lying imbecilic worm! I would rather get back to the Anglo-Idiot since at least his arguments are not as overtly dumb. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yes 'BLACK' as a color description IS based solely on skin color but where the f*ck did I say the Turkish man above was black??!!
you know what determines if somebody is BLACK or not?
There's no method to it whatsoever.
It's simply whoever Djehuti wants to be BLACK, that's who is
Djehuti decides who BLACK people are,
And the thing is who is black and who isn't most people in this thread, myself and including Djehutie, though he will not admit it and bullshyt about "soley based on skin color" . actually go by the standard American definition:
> a dark skinned person of African descent, only
Enough games these people are not BLACK They both have the skin tone as darks as BLACKS but they are not BLACK becuase they are not of African descent
BLACK is a social construct, that means it has a made up by society defintition not a scientific definition. It is simply calling some brown people brown amd other brown people black based on ancestral home, Africa and for this reason even Anadaman Islanders, Austrailian Aborigees and Papua New Guinians who look very similar in some cases are not Black
.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You will see from the Neolithic/Bronze Age through to the Iron Age to more recent, that Meds are leptorrhine, with a small minority borderline mesorrhine. As an example the two Neolithic series in Spain are NI 47.
The following series are all mesorrhine or Platyrhinne, and the highlighted ones are of European origin:
1 European Upper Palaeolithic 2 Afalou bou Rummel, Algeria 3 Téviec, Brittany (Platyrhinne) 4 Al ‘Ubaid, Sumeria 6 Naqada, Predynastic Egypt (Platyrhinne) 7 Upper Egypt, 6—12th Dynasties 8 Lower Egypt, 26—30th Dynasties 9 La Solana, Spain 10 Ticuso, Spain 11 Danubian Neolithic (Platyrhinne) 14 Chamblandes, Switzerland (Platyrhinne) 16 Beaumes Chaudes 17 Neolithic Brachycephals, Belgium 20 Bronze Age, Cyprus 21 Bell Beaker, Worms 25 Scottish Bronze Age 27 Aunjetjtz, Lower Austria and Moravia 28 Aunjetitz, Bohemia 29 Aunjetitz, Bohemia 30 Esthonian Bronze Age 31 Minussjnsk, Siberia 33 La Tène, Bohemia 36 Irish Iron Age and Early Christian 37 Scythians 40 Swedish Iron Age 41 Norwegian Iron Age 42 Hannover Germans 43 Anglo-Saxons, London Museum 44 Bajuvars, Reihengraber 45 Merovingians 47 Old Slavic, Wends 48 Old Slavic, Bohemia 49 Anan’ino, Early Finnic 50 Polom, 9th Century Finnic (Platyrhinne) 52 Jutas, Hungary 53 Tiszaderz, Hungary
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: with a small minority borderline mesorrhine.
A small minority my ass. They are by far the dominating majority. Only 13/50 series are European and leptorrhine (12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 24, 26, 32, 35, 38, 39, 46, 51), while 28/50 are European and Mesorrhine and 4/50 are European and Platyrrhine. Again, you're only showing what a phucking retard you are by making up sh!t left and right, and reading sh!t into your sources that have no basis in reality. Your own sources don't support you, in fact, they contradict you on ALL your claims.
Looney tunes, most those specimen series arn't Meds. Do you think Meds are the only Caucasoid subtype? What a pointless post.
Shut up and cringe. Bask in the pain of knowing that your hero Coon never excluded series with platyrrhine averages from the Mediteranean category:
quote:The two series, Banded and Painted, are so close to each other anthropo- metrically that they may readily be pooled (see Appendix I, col. 11). Their type is a familiar one a small Mediterranean, with cephalic indices ranging from 68 to 81, and a mean of 73.6. The mean cranial length is 185.5 mm., but individually they go as high as 196 mm. The vault height, 139 mm. is elevated in comparison to the other dimensions. The faces are short (116 mm.), and moderately narrow (130 mm.); both foreheads and jaws (minimum frontal 96 mm., bigonial 94 mm.) are also of moderate breadth. The orbits are low, with an orbital index mean of 80, the noses chamaerrhine, with a nasal index mean of 55.
quote:Mediterranean Proper (hereafter meant when the word "Mediteranean" is used alone): Short stature, about 160 cm.; skull length 183-187 mm. male mean; vault height 132-137 mm. mean; cranial inlex means 73-75; browridges and bone development weak, face short, nose Jeptorrhine to mesorrhine. Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency.
Repeat: ''Type already met in Palestine in Late Mesolithic''
What features did this exemplary Palestinian Mediterranean type have?
quote:the wide, low- vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face. The browridges are smooth, and the whole system of muscular- ity in the male but slightly developed. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. 13 There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian. These small Mediter- raneans must have brought their microliths from some point farther south or east, impelled by changes of climate.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You will see from the Neolithic/Bronze Age through to the Iron Age to more recent, that Meds are leptorrhine, with a small minority borderline mesorrhine. As an example the two Neolithic series in Spain are NI 47.
The following series are all mesorrhine or Platyrhinne, and the highlighted ones are of European origin:
1 European Upper Palaeolithic 2 Afalou bou Rummel, Algeria 3 Téviec, Brittany (Platyrhinne) 4 Al ‘Ubaid, Sumeria 6 Naqada, Predynastic Egypt (Platyrhinne) 7 Upper Egypt, 6—12th Dynasties 8 Lower Egypt, 26—30th Dynasties 9 La Solana, Spain 10 Ticuso, Spain 11 Danubian Neolithic (Platyrhinne) 14 Chamblandes, Switzerland (Platyrhinne) 16 Beaumes Chaudes 17 Neolithic Brachycephals, Belgium 20 Bronze Age, Cyprus 21 Bell Beaker, Worms 25 Scottish Bronze Age 27 Aunjetjtz, Lower Austria and Moravia 28 Aunjetitz, Bohemia 29 Aunjetitz, Bohemia 30 Esthonian Bronze Age 31 Minussjnsk, Siberia 33 La Tène, Bohemia 36 Irish Iron Age and Early Christian **37 Scythians** 40 Swedish Iron Age 41 Norwegian Iron Age 42 Hannover Germans 43 Anglo-Saxons, London Museum 44 Bajuvars, Reihengraber 45 Merovingians 47 Old Slavic, Wends 48 Old Slavic, Bohemia 49 Anan’ino, Early Finnic 50 Polom, 9th Century Finnic (Platyrhinne) 52 Jutas, Hungary 53 Tiszaderz, Hungary
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: with a small minority borderline mesorrhine.
A small minority my ass. They are by far the dominating majority. Only 13/50 series are European and leptorrhine (12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 24, 26, 32, 35, 38, 39, 46, 51), while 28/50 are European and Mesorrhine and 4/50 are European and Platyrrhine. Again, you're only showing what a phucking retard you are by making up sh!t left and right, and reading sh!t into your sources that have no basis in reality. Your own sources don't support you, in fact, they contradict you on ALL your claims.
Scythian skulls
Scythians were stereotyped by Greeks as having pale ruddy complexions, blonde or red hair, blue eyes, and having snub noses.
Even today in eastern Europe snub or mesorrhine noses are not uncommon or peculiar. And obviously because this trait is found among pale, blonde haired people it has nothing to do with 'Mediterranean'.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: you know what determines if somebody is BLACK or not?
There's no method to it whatsoever.
It's simply whoever Djehuti wants to be BLACK, that's who is
Djehuti decides who BLACK people are,
And the thing is who is black and who isn't most people in this thread, myself and including Djehutie, though he will not admit it and bullshyt about "soley based on skin color"
Sorry but I did not coin the label of 'black', dummy.
quote: actually go by the standard American definition:
> a dark skinned person of African descent, only
I don't know what dictionary you got this from but if that's the definition you got, why then do you deny Egyptians and Moors as being black when that's exactly what they were-- dark skinned people of African descent??! You only contradict yourself, trick.
Also, it's not based on ancestry, stupid trick.
Here is a more accurate definitions from dictionary.com:
black 3. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a. pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia. b. African-American.
And here is another definition from black b (1) often capitalized : of or relating to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation of the skin
You don't have to be from Africa to be black.
quote:Enough games these people are not BLACK They both have the skin tone as darks as BLACKS but they are not BLACK becuase they are not of African descent
BLACK is a social construct, that means it has a made up by society defintition not a scientific definition. It is simply calling some brown people brown and other brown people black based on ancestral home, Africa and for this reason even Anadaman Islanders, Austrailian Aborigees and Papua New Guinians who look very similar in some cases are not Black
Black are those with very dark skins while 'brown' is used for not as dark or medium hues. The Indian man may be be black but I don't think the tanned Mongolian man in the darkened photo is lying twit, lest I post pictures of Mongolians in proper lighting.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
To Swenet, it's hilarious how the Anglo-turd claims certain specificity for 'Negroid' and even if a skull has negroid facial morphology if it has hair that is loose or wavy it is not 'Negroid', but then he denies that Coon considered the Badarian to be pure Mediterraneans devoid of 'Negroid' ancestry when Coon merely applied the same exact methods as the Anglo-Idiot in that even if a Badarian skull had negroid morphology including platyrhinny it was still Cacasoid because of the wavy hair! LOL Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: but I don't think the tanned Mongolian man in the darkened photo is lying twit, lest I post pictures of Mongolians in proper lighting. [/QB]
who gives a crap what you think. You don't determine who is black and who isn't twerp. You think you're anybody's go to guy for blackness? I'll put my black foot up your ass
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: To Swenet, it's hilarious how the Anglo-turd claims certain specificity for 'Negroid' and even if a skull has negroid facial morphology if it has hair that is loose or wavy it is not 'Negroid', but then he denies that Coon considered the Badarian to be pure Mediterraneans devoid of 'Negroid' ancestry when Coon merely applied the same exact methods as the Anglo-Idiot in that even if a Badarian skull had negroid morphology including platyrhinny it was still Cacasoid because of the wavy hair! LOL
The thing that makes it even more preposterous is that Angho' has used Coon in the past to argue that the Natufians were non-negroid Mediterraneans, in order to 'debunk' the Negroid affinities of Brace's Natufian sample. I don't know if you remember this but he was debating you when he did this.
Now that I use that exact same Coon citation to show that a non-leptorrhine nose wasn't seen as inconsistent with a 'Mediterranean' classification in Coon's mind, he backtracks to what we have been saying all along, namely, that the Natufians were Negroid. LMAO. Of course, admitting to the presence of Negroid skeletal remains around 12 kya just outside of the Nile Valley inadvertently phucks up his other retarded claims, namely, that the Negroid morphology showed up around 4kya in the Nile Valley and adjacent areas.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
^ that would be in a thread by Kokakola, "Is the Tunisian President Part Nubian?".
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: who gives a crap what you think. You don't determine who is black and who isn't twerp. You think you're anybody's go to guy for blackness? I'll put my black foot up your ass
1st off, it's NOT about what I alone think since I'm not the one who came up with the labels and I'm not the one using these labels. The Chinese during the 2008 Olympic Games put up signs in their bars that said 'No Blacks and Mongols Allowed'. Obviously they (like other peoples including the Mongols themselves) don't consider Mongols as black. That you continue to post that one cherry picked darkened picture of a Mongol is your idiocy.
2nd I don't determine what other people are to be called. It's called self-determination. We already told your dumbass that there are Africans who refuse to identify themselves as black or any color and I've even come across a European from your country of Sweden who does not like to identify as white. Frankly I don't care is tanned Sicilian wants to be called black while a northern Sudanese wants to be called white. Anymore than YOU identifying yourself as 'black' when we all know that is not the case.
LOL @ "my black foot". B|tch give up this 'I'm black' act. We all know your a deranged Swedish trick working for Mathilda.
Now I'm officially done arguing with your dumbass. Go argue color labels with someone as stupid as you are. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The thing that makes it even more preposterous is that Angho' has used Coon in the past to argue that the Natufians were non-negroid Mediterraneans, in order to 'debunk' the Negroid affinities of Brace's Natufian sample. I don't know if you remember this but he was debating you when he did this.
Oh yes, I remember very well, though I forgot exactly which thread that was.
quote:Now that I use that exact same Coon citation to show that a non-leptorrhine nose wasn't seen as inconsistent with a 'Mediterranean' classification in Coon's mind, he backtracks to what we have been saying all along, namely, that the Natufians were Negroid. LMAO. Of course, admitting to the presence of Negroid skeletal remains around 12 kya just outside of the Nile Valley inadvertently phucks up his other retarded claims, namely, that the Negroid morphology showed up around 4kya in the Nile Valley and adjacent areas.
LOL The guy is a complete nitwit! How dumb can you be citing an author to support your claims when that author's writings contradict you?! Has this fool even read Coon's work or at least passages from his work in its entirety??
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^ that would be in a thread by Kokakola, "Is the Tunisian President Part Nubian?".
You're right. But I think there were other threads as well where he argued his ridiculous position that Natufians had no 'negroid' traits.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: the concave facial profile of that fisherman is typically European, and has nothing to do with how Egyptians depicted themselves, whatsoever.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The thing that makes it even more preposterous is that Angho' has used Coon in the past to argue that the Natufians were non-negroid Mediterraneans, in order to 'debunk' the Negroid affinities of Brace's Natufian sample. I don't know if you remember this but he was debating you when he did this.
Oh yes, I remember very well, though I forgot exactly which thread that was.
quote:Now that I use that exact same Coon citation to show that a non-leptorrhine nose wasn't seen as inconsistent with a 'Mediterranean' classification in Coon's mind, he backtracks to what we have been saying all along, namely, that the Natufians were Negroid. LMAO. Of course, admitting to the presence of Negroid skeletal remains around 12 kya just outside of the Nile Valley inadvertently phucks up his other retarded claims, namely, that the Negroid morphology showed up around 4kya in the Nile Valley and adjacent areas.
LOL The guy is a complete nitwit! How dumb can you be citing an author to support your claims when that author's writings contradict you?! Has this fool even read Coon's work or at least passages from his work in its entirety??
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^ that would be in a thread by Kokakola, "Is the Tunisian President Part Nubian?".
You're right. But I think there were other threads as well where he argued his ridiculous position that Natufians had no 'negroid' traits.
If there were other threads as well, then he/she/it must have been really desperado.
Where is he/she/it now btw?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:LOL The guy is a complete nitwit! How dumb can you be citing an author to support your claims when that author's writings contradict you?!
They don't contradict my claims, and anyone objective reading can see what a fool Swenet made of himself. When wide NI's appear, Coon new they can not be identified as Mediterranids taxonomically, but altered through some degree through race crossing to account for them.
The few Natufians that have wide NI's and large browridges, are Australoid:
"Tooth removal or other forms of dental mutilation such as filing teeth in various patterns are common in other ethnic groups; perhaps the most interesting example in this context is to be found in the ancient Natufian skulls of Palestine for not only were these "Australoid" in appearance, they had also had upper front teeth removed during life." (Abbie, 1969)
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:The thing that makes it even more preposterous is that Angho' has used Coon in the past to argue that the Natufians were non-negroid Mediterraneans, in order to 'debunk' the Negroid affinities of Brace's Natufian sample. I don't know if you remember this but he was debating you when he did this.
Now that I use that exact same Coon citation to show that a non-leptorrhine nose wasn't seen as inconsistent with a 'Mediterranean' classification in Coon's mind, he backtracks to what we have been saying all along, namely, that the Natufians were Negroid. LMAO. Of course, admitting to the presence of Negroid skeletal remains around 12 kya just outside of the Nile Valley inadvertently phucks up his other retarded claims, namely, that the Negroid morphology showed up around 4kya in the Nile Valley and adjacent areas.
Wrong. I used Coon, 1962, not 1939. As I keep telling you, he revised his views. Where he talks of Negroid traits in the Natufians, he later retracted.
^ Also see the reconstruction of what a Natufian looked like by Israeli archaeologists. But according to you its a big conspiracy? lol. tinfoil hat
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
why doesn't metapedia tell you the user name of the person who created or edited the page?
Also why are they imitating wikipedia look whose essence is open source, that anybody can write an entry or edit when at metapedia you can't do that?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
[QUOTE]"From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that sub-Sabaran genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2001) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey (E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinniogclu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinniogelu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.
In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005), in concordance with a process of demie diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^ The Natufians were wavy haired, not wooly.
Game over again.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
"Analysis of Predinastic skeletal material showed "tropical African elements" in the population of the earliest populations of the earliest Badarian culture" [...] "a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times"
--Frank Yurco,
"Little change in body shape was found through time, suggesting that all body segments were varying in size in response to environmental and social conditions. The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a "more tropical" (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations".
--Sonia R. Zakrzewski* came to the same conclusions,
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Note the total hypocrisy of Afrocentrics who claim certain post-cranial indices = tropical but then thin noses (along with wide) are at the same time.
Thomson's Nose Rule however shows us that wide noses are adaptations in tropical zones, not thin.
Regarding hair texture, there is another biological rule that asserts short wooly hair is tropical.
The afronuts though are selective... they claim nontropical traits like thin noses and straight hair can be tropical.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^ Note also that Afrocentrics claim the WHOLE of Africa is "Tropical" (Zarahan's bogus "Tropical Africans") when it certainly isn't by climate (see the map above and below).
No extant climatic classification asserts all of Africa is tropical. The tropical zone is merely limited to the region above highlighted (Western/Central Sub-Sahara Africa): the Negroid belt. Races outside that zone don't look "Black".
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^ The "true negro" classification is actually based on empirical geography and climate. European scientists didn't just go to Africa and carve up the population(s) there into random x, y or z, but they noted different physiognomies correlate with observable boundaries. It is no coincidence that the Negroid belt (e.g. from Seligman's Races of Africa, 1930) matches strictly the "Tropical" climate zone within Sub-Sahara Africa.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: [QB] Why are you not answering any of my questions?
I've answered them, and read your latest long reply. The main problem you have is that your entire philosophy stems from a misunderstanding that subjective categorization is arbitrary.
For example the term arbitrary is defined as: "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.". This cannot be applied to a fuzzy set. Take a look:
Is C inside or outside of the forest? The answer is both, but as "nearly in" or "nearly out". Your philosophy however doesn't allow for partial truths or more than one membership because you are using binary logic (0, 1).
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: [QB] Why are you not answering any of my questions?
I've answered them, and read your latest long reply. The main problem you have is that your entire philosophy stems from a misunderstanding that subjective categorization is arbitrary.
For example the term arbitrary is defined as: "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.". This cannot be applied to a fuzzy set. Take a look:
Is C inside or outside of the forest? The answer is both, but as "nearly in" or "nearly out". Your philosophy however doesn't allow for partial truths or more than one membership because you are using binary logic (0, 1).
You're still doing it: throwing yet another example at me without addressing my previous answers or counter-questions. When will you answer the post on the top of page 4?
I have already explained that it cannot be both in the Protestant section of my previous post. I would say it is in the forest, as it is within the perimeter of tree coverage. Regardless, your very own source says the following: "It depends on a subjective (vague) opinion about the sense of the word "forest"." Equally, 'cool' and 'warm' depend on a subjective opinion about such terms. Fuzzy logic doesn't make a claim to objectivity; it is simply a means of accounting for the likelihood of somebody's subjective/arbitrary understanding of 'warm'/'cool'/etc. falling within a certain objective range (i.e., the numerical temperature is objective, but whether it is classed as hot, cold, warm, etc. is subjective outside of the absolute zero/hot explanations I have given). This is why it has applications in consumer appliances like air conditioning.
Find me a source that says the temperature ranges in the previous graphs you have posted are determined objectively. You also need to explain why the range of 'warm' is what it is and why someone saying 5 degrees C is 'warm' is apparently 'wrong'.
It cannot be both in and out of the forest simultaneously, as they are two antithetical concepts; it's equivalent to saying the lights are half on and half off. That example uses fuzzy logic to account for the different/subjective/opinionated/arbitrary understandings people have of the word 'forest', which may lead to some people saying it is in the forest and others saying it is out. Even though "full" and "empty" are also antithetical concepts, it can be "half full" and "half empty" simultaneously because they are synonymous, quantifiable phrases for the same state of being 50% of capacity.
In the case of the forest, it is 'true' if you use one definition and 'false' if you use another—NOT both simultaneously, as that is paradoxical. The truth value of the statement is contingent on which definition is used. Similarly, if you define populations by their lactose tolerance a Swede may cluster with a Nigerian. If you define populations by their skin tone (and arbitrarily create X number of categories of skin tone), a Swede may not cluster with a Nigerian. The choice of variable(s) is informed by social meaning, as Zagefka (2009) has explained. There is absolutely no objective reason that skin tone is more important than lactose tolerance when determining populations, or X range is more important than Y range when defining what 'cool' is, or X definition of 'forest' is more important than Y definition of 'forest' when defining whether or not C is part of it. This is why I say 'race' is a social construct/only exists at the individual, discontiguous unit or organism (at which point it becomes redundant as a concept).
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by Faheemdunkers/Anglo-Idiot: posted 16 November, 2012 03:15 PM
quote: Note the total hypocrisy of Afrocentrics who claim certain post-cranial indices = tropical but then thin noses (along with wide) are at the same time.
Thomson's Nose Rule however shows us that wide noses are adaptations in tropical zones, not thin.
Regarding hair texture, there is another biological rule that asserts short wooly hair is tropical.
The afronuts though are selective... they claim nontropical traits like thin noses and straight hair can be tropical. Posts: 152 | Registered: Sep 2012 |
Note also that Afrocentrics claim the WHOLE of Africa is "Tropical" (Zarahan's bogus "Tropical Africans") when it certainly isn't by climate (see the map above and below).
Bitch please... the tropics include a wide variety of micro-climates- from the snow-capped slopes of Kilimanjaro, to desert, to cool high altitude cloud forest, to cool lowlands, to sweltering lowlands. Labeling things Tropical wet, tropical dry, arid, semi-arid etc doesn't make a dime's worth of difference. ALL ARE WITHIN THE TROPICAL ZONE. You forgot about that didn't you stupid mothafuck?
And wide noses occur in tropical zones and narrow noses occur there too as well. Narrow noses can become so due to altitude, or the hot, dry air of desert zones, or cooler temperatures such as in certain coastal areas. Forgot about that too eh idiot? And African hair is highly variable. Straight hair occurs in hot zones and in cool zones whether the zones are in Africa, or in India.
And no one claims "the WHOLE of Africa is Tropical"- lmao - you are such a moron you can't even lie competently. THe map below has been posted numerous times on ES showing the Tropics and Cancer and Capricorn and associated zonal info. Posting a bogus "Afrocentric claim" to "refute" fools no one, and just makes you look even more retarded.
Debunked numerous times, ANglo-Idiot hoped his new “Faheem Dunkers” outfit would cover his failures ....
You have been debunked too many times to mention- simply whining like a little bitch that "it isn't so" will not change the facts.
Tropical climates are extremely diverse – from humid rainforest, to higher altitude cold zones, to arid deserts with sharply dropping night temperatures. Scientists find that nose width is correlated with climate – with narrower noses seen in dry, conditions such as desert areas in eastern parts of Africa. Tropical Africans are not static people but move around within the continent.
QUOTE: "Tropical climates range from oppressively hot and humid lowlands to cold, snow-covered mountains, from hot, dry deserts to cold, dry deserts, from extreme seasonal variability of precipitation to nearly constant year-round conditions." --Huston. M. (1994) Biological diversity: the coexistence of species on changing landscapes Cambridge university Press. p 498
QUOTE: "An important function of the nose is to warm and moisten inspired air. When air is exhaled, some heat and moisture are lost to the surroundings. The longer the nasal passage, the more efficient the nose is for warming and moistening incoming air and also the less heat and moisture are lost on exhalation. A narrow, high nose gives a longer nasal passage than a low, broad nose. Therefore, in cold or dry conditions, a high, narrow nose is preferable for warming and moistening air before it reaches the lings, and for reducing loss of heat and moisture in expired air. In hot, humid conditions a low, broad nose serves to dissipate heat (Wolpoff 1968; Franciscis and Long 1991)... The pattern of variation in nasal index corresponds very broadly to that expected if nasal form is indeed an adaptation to regional climate.
The highest nasal index values, representing broad, low noses, tend to be those of populations in humid tropical regions of Africa and south-east Asia. Populations with low mean nasal indices (high, narrow noses) tend to be found in the cold, northern latitudes, and also in arid regions, such as the desert areas of east Africa and the Arabian peninsula. ..Davies found the nasal index taken in the living was closely correlated with skeletal nasal index. This suggests that there should likewise be an association between skeletal nasal index and climatic zone, and indeed other workers have found this to be the case.“ -- Mays. S. (2010). The Archaeology of Human Bones. Pg 100-101
2011 study finds significant correlation between nasal shape and climate. Dry areas are common in tropical zone micro-climates such as deserts.
QUOTE: “"The nasal cavity is essential for humidifying and warming the air before it reaches the sensitive lungs. Because humans inhabit environments that can be seen as extreme from the perspective of respiratory function, nasal cavity shape is expected to show climatic adaptation.. We report significant correlations between nasal cavity shape and climatic variables of both temperature and humidity. Variation in nasal cavity shape is correlated with a cline from cold-dry climates to hot-humid climates, with a separate temperature and vapor pressure effect. " -- Noback, M. et al. (2011) Climate-related variation of the human nasal cavity. AJPA, 145: 4. 599-614
------
Tropical climates are extremely diverse – from humid rainforest, to higher altitude cold zones, to arid deserts with sharply dropping night temperatures. Scientists find that nose width is correlated with climate – with narrower noses seen in dry, conditions such as desert areas in eastern parts of Africa, and elsewhere in Africa. African people however are not static entities, staying in one spot- they move around.
QUOTE: "Tropical climates range from oppressively hot and humid lowlands to cold, snow-covered mountains, from hot, dry deserts to cold, dry deserts, from extreme seasonal variability of precipitation to nearly constant year-round conditions." --Huston. M. (1994) Biological diversity: the coexistence of species on changing landscapes Cambridge university Press. p 498
QUOTE: "An important function of the nose is to warm and moisten inspired air. When air is exhaled, some heat and moisture are lost to the surroundings. The longer the nasal passage, the more efficient the nose is for warming and moistening incoming air and also the less heat and moisture are lost on exhalation. A narrow, high nose gives a longer nasal passage than a low, broad nose. Therefore, in cold or dry conditions, a high, narrow nose is preferable for warming and moistening air before it reaches the lings, and for reducing loss of heat and moisture in expired air. In hot, humid conditions a low, broad nose serves to dissipate heat (Wolpoff 1968; Franciscis and Long 1991)... The pattern of variation in nasal index corresponds very broadly to that expected if nasal form is indeed an adaptation to regional climate. The highest nasal index values, representing broad, low noses, tend to be those of populations in humid tropical regions of Africa and south-east Asia. Populations with low mean nasal indices (high, narrow noses) tend to be found in the cold, northern latitudes, and also in arid regions, such as the desert areas of east Africa and the Arabian peninsula. ..Davies found the nasal index taken in the living was closely correlated with skeletal nasal index. This suggests that there should likewise be an association between skeletal nasal index and climatic zone, and indeed other workers have found this to be the case.“ -- Mays. S. (2010). The Archaeology of Human Bones. Pg 100-101
2011 study finds significant correlation between nasal shape and climate. Dry areas are common in tropical zone micro-climates such as deserts.
QUOTE: “"The nasal cavity is essential for humidifying and warming the air before it reaches the sensitive lungs. Because humans inhabit environments that can be seen as extreme from the perspective of respiratory function, nasal cavity shape is expected to show climatic adaptation.. We report significant correlations between nasal cavity shape and climatic variables of both temperature and humidity. Variation in nasal cavity shape is correlated with a cline from cold-dry climates to hot-humid climates, with a separate temperature and vapor pressure effect. " -- Noback, M. et al. (2011) Climate-related variation of the human nasal cavity. AJPA, 145: 4. 599-614 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGYPT- A PRODUCT OF INDIGENOUS TROPICAL AFRICANS
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Note the total hypocrisy of Afrocentrics who claim certain post-cranial indices = tropical but then thin noses (along with wide) are at the same time.
Thomson's Nose Rule however shows us that wide noses are adaptations in tropical zones, not thin.
Regarding hair texture, there is another biological rule that asserts short wooly hair is tropical.
The afronuts though are selective... they claim nontropical traits like thin noses and straight hair can be tropical.
semi-tropical/arid tropic zones, show clear limb proportion characteristics of tropically adapted people, and MORE closely resemble other tropically adapted Africans on the continent, than Europeans or Middle Easterners.(Raxter and Ruff 2008, Zakrewski 2003, 2007; Holliday et al, 2003, Kemp, 2005) 3) Undermining claims of cold-climate or skin color primacy for civilization, the great ancient Nile Valley civilization arose from the 'darker' more tropical south, NOT the cold climate or cool climate Mediterranean, Europe or Asia.(Clark, 1982; Shaw 1976, 2003; Bard, 2004; Vogel, 1997; Kemp 2005)
African peoples are the most diverse in the world whether analyzed by DNA or skeletal or cranial methods. The peoples of the Nile Valley vary but they are still related. The people most related ethnically to the ancient Egyptians are other Africans like Nubians not cold-climate/light skinned Europeans or Asiatics.(Keita 1996; Rethelford, 2001; Bianchi 2004, Yurco 1989; Godde 2009)
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ Note also that Afrocentrics claim the WHOLE of Africa is "Tropical" (Zarahan's bogus "Tropical Africans") when it certainly isn't by climate (see the map above and below).
No extant climatic classification asserts all of Africa is tropical. The tropical zone is merely limited to the region above highlighted (Western/Central Sub-Sahara Africa): the Negroid belt. Races outside that zone don't look "Black".
quote:"What we can say, however, is that in the Holocene, humans from southwest Asia do not exhibit tropically adapted body shape
(Crognier 1981; Eveleth and Tanner 1976; Schreider 1975) American anthropologist - Volume 102, Pg 57
quote: Given the well-documented fact that human body proportions covary with climate (presumably due to the action of selection), one would expect that the Ipiutak and Tigara Inuit samples from Point Hope, Alaska, would be characterized by an extremely cold adapted body shape. Comparison of the Point Hope Inuit samples to a large (n > 900) sample of European and European- derived, African and African-derived, and Native American skeletons (including Koniag Inuit from Kodiak Island, Alaska) confirms that the Point Hope Inuit evince a cold-adapted body form, but analyses also reveal some unexpected results. For example, one might suspect that the Point Hope samples would show a more cold-adapted body form than the Koniag, given their more extreme environment, but this is not the case. Additionally, univariate analyses seldom show the Inuit samples to be more cold-adapted in body shape than Europeans, and multivariate analyses that include a myriad of body shape variables such as femoral head diameter, biiliac breadth, and limb segment lengths fail to effectively separate the Inuit samples from Europeans.
Body proportions of circumpolar peoples as evidenced from skeletal data: Ipiutak and Tigara (Point Hope) versus Kodiak Island Inuit. Holliday TW, Hilton CE. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2009 Nov 19.
quote:In fact, in terms of body shape, the European and the Inuit samples tend to be cold-adapted and tend to be separated in multivariate space from "the more tropically adapted Africans," especially those groups from south of the Sahara.
J Hum Evol. 1997 May ;32 (5):423-48 9169992 Cit:51
quote: Body proportions covary with climate, apparently as the result of climatic selection. Ontogenic research and migrant studies have demonstrated that body proportions are largely genetically controlled and are under low selective rates; thus studies of body form can provide evidence for evolutionarily short-term dispersals and/or gene flow. Following these observations, competing models of modern human origins yield different predictions concerning body proportion shifts in Late Pleistocene Europe. Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess "tropical" body proportions (assuming Africa is the center of origin), while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering. This study tests these predictions via analyses of osteometric data reflective of trunk height and breadth, limb proportions and relative body mass for samples of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) and Mesolithic (MES) humans and 13 recent African and European populations. Results reveal a clear tendency for the EUP sample to cluster with recent Africans, while LUP and MES samples cluster with recent Europeans. These results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions. These data do not, however, preclude the possibility of some (albeit small) contribution of genes from Neandertals to succeeding populations, as is postulated in Bräuer's "Afro-European Sapiens" model.
Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins. T W Holliday
Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary,
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers: The Natufians were wavy haired, not wooly.
And you know this how? Last time I checked, there were no Natufian skulls with hair preserved.
Also, wavy hair is not uncommon among black Africans either.
Algerian Berber
Malian
Nubians
Speaking of which, the remains of ancient Nubians in Semna display negroid cranial morphology but have wavy hair. See here.
Beja
^ Notice how many of these folks have mesorhinic noses despite their wavy hair. The bottom picture compares a modern elderly Beja man with the Badarian Egyptian mummy 'Ginger'.
By the way, the difference between the wavy hair of Africans and so-called 'Caucasian' wavy hair is that the latter is thinner and silkier while the former is thicker and more wool like. In fact anthropologists have developed a more accurate way of assessing hair and its presumed 'racial' association through trichometric index. Virtually all wavy hair of Africans have trichometric indices the exact same range as 'kinky' haired Africans but different from Europeans and other 'Caucasoid' peoples.
So where does that leave you??...
And please don't tell any of the folks pictured above in this post are 'Australoid'. LMAO
quote:Game over again.
Yeah for YOU! LOL Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: [QB] Why are you not answering any of my questions?
I've answered them, and read your latest long reply. The main problem you have is that your entire philosophy stems from a misunderstanding that subjective categorization is arbitrary.
For example the term arbitrary is defined as: "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.". This cannot be applied to a fuzzy set. Take a look:
Is C inside or outside of the forest? The answer is both, but as "nearly in" or "nearly out". Your philosophy however doesn't allow for partial truths or more than one membership because you are using binary logic (0, 1).
quote:Evolutionary history of mtDNA haplogroup structure in African populations inferred from mtDNA d-loop and RFLP analysis.
(A) Relationships among different mtDNA haplogroup lineages inferred from mtDNA d-loop sequences and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies (Kivisild, Metspalu, et al. 2006). Dashed lines indicate previously unresolved relationships.(
B) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, L5, L2, L3, M, and N in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies.
(C) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, and L5 subhaplogroups (excluding L2 and L3) in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies. Haplogroup frequencies from previously published studies include East Africans (Ethiopia [Rosa et al. 2004], Kenya and Sudan [Watson et al. 1997; Rosa et al. 2004]), Mozambique (Pereira et al. 2001; Salas et al. 2002), Hadza (Vigilant et al. 1991), and Sukuma (Knight et al. 2003); South Africans (Botswana !Kung [Vigilant et al. 1991]); Central Africans (Mbenzele Pygmies [Destro-Bisol et al. 2004], Biaka Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991], and Mbuti Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991]); West Africans (Niger, Nigeria [Vigilant et al. 1991; Watson et al. 1997]; and Guinea [Rosa et al. 2004]). L1*, L2*, and L3* from previous studies indicate samples that were not further subdivided into subhaplogroups.
Whole-mtDNA Genome Sequence Analysis of Ancient African Lineages
Speaking of which, the remains of ancient Nubians in Semna display negroid cranial morphology but have wavy hair. See here.
Beja
1) no information about whether pictured individuals are shown with their hair in it's natural state or if is has been treated in some way
2) no information on the ancestry of these people
useless
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: [QB] Why are you not answering any of my questions?
I've answered them, and read your latest long reply. The main problem you have is that your entire philosophy stems from a misunderstanding that subjective categorization is arbitrary.
For example the term arbitrary is defined as: "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.". This cannot be applied to a fuzzy set. Take a look:
Is C inside or outside of the forest? The answer is both, but as "nearly in" or "nearly out". Your philosophy however doesn't allow for partial truths or more than one membership because you are using binary logic (0, 1).
You're still doing it: throwing yet another example at me without addressing my previous answers or counter-questions. When will you answer the post on the top of page 4?
I have already explained that it cannot be both in the Protestant section of my previous post. I would say it is in the forest, as it is within the perimeter of tree coverage. Regardless, your very own source says the following: "It depends on a subjective (vague) opinion about the sense of the word "forest"." Equally, 'cool' and 'warm' depend on a subjective opinion about such terms. Fuzzy logic doesn't make a claim to objectivity; it is simply a means of accounting for the likelihood of somebody's subjective/arbitrary understanding of 'warm'/'cool'/etc. falling within a certain objective range (i.e., the numerical temperature is objective, but whether it is classed as hot, cold, warm, etc. is subjective outside of the absolute zero/hot explanations I have given). This is why it has applications in consumer appliances like air conditioning.
Find me a source that says the temperature ranges in the previous graphs you have posted are determined objectively. You also need to explain why the range of 'warm' is what it is and why someone saying 5 degrees C is 'warm' is apparently 'wrong'.
It cannot be both in and out of the forest simultaneously, as they are two antithetical concepts; it's equivalent to saying the lights are half on and half off. That example uses fuzzy logic to account for the different/subjective/opinionated/arbitrary understandings people have of the word 'forest', which may lead to some people saying it is in the forest and others saying it is out. Even though "full" and "empty" are also antithetical concepts, it can be "half full" and "half empty" simultaneously because they are synonymous, quantifiable phrases for the same state of being 50% of capacity.
In the case of the forest, it is 'true' if you use one definition and 'false' if you use another—NOT both simultaneously, as that is paradoxical. The truth value of the statement is contingent on which definition is used. Similarly, if you define populations by their lactose tolerance a Swede may cluster with a Nigerian. If you define populations by their skin tone (and arbitrarily create X number of categories of skin tone), a Swede may not cluster with a Nigerian. The choice of variable(s) is informed by social meaning, as Zagefka (2009) has explained. There is absolutely no objective reason that skin tone is more important than lactose tolerance when determining populations, or X range is more important than Y range when defining what 'cool' is, or X definition of 'forest' is more important than Y definition of 'forest' when defining whether or not C is part of it. This is why I say 'race' is a social construct/only exists at the individual, discontiguous unit or organism (at which point it becomes redundant as a concept).
Say where you disagree:
1 - 10
1 = x (smallest) 10 = y (largest)
5 = medium (middle point in the membership scale)
7.5 = quite large
2.5 = quite small
----
2.51 = quite small
7.57 = quite big
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
The Fatheadbonkers still has not explained how exactly there is a racial difference between the following Africans.
'Pygmoids'
'Capoids'
'True Negroids' (as opposed to all those 'fake Negroids' in the other pictures)
'Hamitic Caucasoid (Aethiopid)' Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
The Fathead Anglo-Idiot like to cite old authors like Carleton S. Coon or Sir Arthur Keith without knowing fully what they stated in their works. He claims Keith retracted his statements regarding 'Negroid' features among Natufians yet here is what he says about black populations exhibiting 'Negroid' morphology in the world in general and their connection to Africans.
“The enigma of modern anthropology is the Black Belt of mankind. It commences in Africa and peters out amongst the natives of the Melanesian Islands of the Pacific. At each extremity of the belt, in Africa as in Melanesia we find peoples with black skins, woolly hair, more or less beardless, prognathous and long-headed. We cannot suppose these negro peoples, although now widely separated, have been evolved independently of each other. We therefore suppose that at one time a proto-negroid belt crossed the ancient world, occupying all intermediate lands, Arabia, Baluchistan, India, Further India, the Philippines and Malay Archipelago.” Sir Arthur Keith & Dr. Wilton Marion Krogman, “The Racial Characters of the Southern Arabs,” in Bertram Thomas, Arabia Felix, Across the ‘Empty Quarter’ of Arabia (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1932)
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
ALL ARE WITHIN THE TROPICAL ZONE.
So your definition of "tropical" you admit has absolutely nothing to do with climate. The definition you are using merely is based on the areas where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year.
The areas in this zone, aren't all tropical.
In scientific climate-zone classification, the tropical zone in Africa is limited to Western and Central Sub-Sahara Africa - the Negroid belt.
- The definition you are using is not scientific. You only use it so you can cluster many different races under a bogus "tropical" label.
quote:And wide noses occur in tropical zones and narrow noses occur there too as well.
No they don't retard.
quote:Narrow noses can become so due to altitude, or the hot, dry air of desert zones, or cooler temperatures such as in certain coastal areas. Forgot about that too eh idiot?
Which aren't tropical zones.
quote: And African hair is highly variable. Straight hair occurs in hot zones and in cool zones whether the zones are in Africa, or in India.
Now you've changed from tropical to just "Africa" but Note that according to your definition North Africans are Caucasoid. anyway since the tropic of cancer only runs through a tiny segment of Egypt. Above the tropic of cancer sits Algeria, Libya etc.
- So are you actually saying the Berbers and North Africans are not tropical Africans?
Wow, your a mess.
Even more a mess since in one post you claimed north african coastals who have light skin are tropical - despite the fact they dwell out the boundary of the tropic of cancer.
quote:
And no one claims "the WHOLE of Africa is Tropical"- lmao - you are such a moron you can't even lie competently.
Wrong. You used the term "tropical african" even claiming light skinned berbers are "tropical africans" despite the fact they dwell outside your own tropical barrier. You are a joke.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass in regards to pictures of wavy hair of Africans: 1) no information about whether pictured individuals are shown with their hair in it's natural state or if is has been treated in some way
Stupid Euronut ho! These are pictures of people from rural areas of Africa, specifically desert areas! You mean to tell me all these people including men and boys had their hair relaxed in salons??!
quote:2) no information on the ancestry of these people
Actually there was plenty of info on the genetic ancestries of Nubians, Berbers, and Beja posted in this forum numerous times and on numerous threads some of which you posted in as well. And NON of that info suffices foreign ancestry as the explanation for their hair texture, dumb trick!
You yourself created a thread on the Semna Nubian mummies having wavy hair which shows the hair was not treated or altered, and we already know about the genetic lineages of Nubians especially in the Semna area--both Y-DNA and mitochondria--showing nil Eurasian ancestry; in fact some of the Nubians I posted come from that area!
Of course as I and others have pointed out before if one were to show whites in Europe with thick curly or frizzy hair, you would not have the same questions of alteration or ancestry as you with Africans now would you, you dishonest skank?
quote:useless
Is exactly what YOU are! Which begs the question of why you still post in this forum. Surely you would serve your mistress Mathilda in other more useful ways then posting idiocy here. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: When wide NI's appear, Coon new they can not be identified as Mediterranids taxonomically, but altered through some degree through race crossing to account for them.
You can keep acting like the excerpts don't exist, but they aren't going to go away. He clearly classified them as Mediterraneans, not once, not twice, not even thrice, but MANY times, lying ass fraud:
quote:the wide, low- vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face. The browridges are smooth, and the whole system of muscular- ity in the male but slightly developed. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. 13 There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian. These small Mediter- raneans must have brought their microliths from some point farther south or east, impelled by changes of climate.
You called them Mediterranean as well:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: Natufians were Caucasoid, with no Negroid affinities.
Retard Afrocentrics just see the word 'Eurafrican' in older literature and are so dumb then equate the african to 'black' despite the fact the Eurafricans are Caucasoid Meds.
''The little Mediterranean people, whose ancestors were the Mesolithic Natufians of Palestine'' - Races of Man, Sonia Mary Cole, 1965, 2nd ed. p. 59.
''The Natufians lived in caves and temporary shelters: they were mainly a small- bodied, long-headed proto-Mediterranean race'' - Chambers's Encyclopaedia, 1967
''Physically the chacolithic Giblites are described as small, dark long-heads of the Mediterranean race, comparable to the Natufians'' - New light on the most ancient East, Vere Gordon Childe, 1953, p. 220.
''They were of rugged Eurafrican (Robust Mediterranean -Linear Basic White) stock with a dolichocephalic skull and of rather short stature'' - The Neolithic of the Near East, James Mellaart, 1975, p. 38.
^Pathological liar.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The few Natufians that have wide NI's and large browridges, are Australoid
What do you mean ''the few Natufians that had wide NI's''? The vast majority of the Natufians at Shukbah that were classified as 'Mediterranean' by Coon had wide nasal indices, you dumbass pathological liar:
Fifthly, their nasal bones were not narrow and high, but formed a wide, low arch. --Keith
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: the ancient Natufian skulls of Palestine for not only were these "Australoid" in appearance, they had also had upper front teeth removed during life." (Abbie, 1969)
You're so phucking retarded that you don't even see that your source debunks you. Nowhere does your source talk about ''a few Natufian skulls that were Australoid''. It says they were all ''Australoid''. You switch positions depending on whatever is convenient at the moment. When I point out that none of the Badarian hairs were peppercorn, you change up your original position that they were ''Bushmanoid''. You even flatout lie that you never said that there was a large Bushman population among the Badarians. When I point out that the Moroccan Aterian remains (Dar es sultan) had large brow ridges, you change up your position that they were Capoid. When I point out that the Natufians at Shuqbah had broad noses you change up your original position that they were purely Mediterranean. When I confront your dumbass about the impossibility that the Singa calvarium is Capoid, you abandon your earlier position that it was Bushman and say it is archaic. When I point out that European AMHs had a bodyplan that clusters with ''negroids'', you abandon your earlier position that European AMHs have been in Europe since the time of Swanscombe (300.000 years ago), and you say that they were recent immigrants from the Middle East (LMAO). You're phucking fraud, all you do is swap positions like a little slippery snake.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Where he talks of Negroid traits in the Natufians, he later retracted.
Prove it. To everyone else, notice how the bum will now cite something that says something totally different from what his crippled ass reads into it.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: However prognathism in fact has only been detected among a single specimen (Homo 3) at Wadi Hammeh 27 (Jordan).
Prove that the other Natufian remains at Wadi Hammeh weren't prognathous.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: All the other Natufian crania are orthognathic and gracile, as a more recent study notes
^Pathologically lying fraud. What Coon said about the Natufian remains at Shuqbah:
and a prevalence of alveolar prognathism.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Homo 3 however cannot be identified as Negroid, despite being prognathic, since it has well developed supraorbital ridges
LMAO. You phucking liar. You have no way of knowing whether or not Homo 3 had supraorbital ridges because Homo 3 consists of a mandible:
This individual is represented by a large, robust mandible (Table 7, Fig. 16).
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The Natufians were wavy haired, not wooly.
You mean just like how you lied earlier when you suggested that you had access to studies that showed that Mesolithic Nubians had wavy hair? LMAO. Phucking fraud.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadidiot: - So are you actually saying the Berbers and North Africans are not tropical Africans?
Wow, your a mess.
Even more a mess since in one post you claimed north african coastals who have light skin are tropical - despite the fact they dwell out the boundary of the tropic of cancer.
quote:
And no one claims "the WHOLE of Africa is Tropical"- lmao - you are such a moron you can't even lie competently.
Wrong. You used the term "tropical african" even claiming light skinned berbers are "tropical africans" despite the fact they dwell outside your own tropical barrier. You are a joke.
Hey moron, first of all, the areas just outside the tropics i.e. the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn are considered sub-tropical zones. And second, Troll Patrol and others have told your dumbass that the only reason why Berbers in coastal areas are light-skinned is because of recent admixture especially from Europe!
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Hey moron, first of all, the areas just outside the tropics i.e. the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn are considered sub-tropical zones
lolz. So is ITALY and SPAIN.
=== So are Caucasoids now tropically adapted?
You are destroying your argument that AE's = tropical adapted = black.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
As I have exposed the definition of "tropical" these afroloons are using has no scientific meaning. They are using merely the non-climatic definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year (not the climatic definition of a tropical environment). However by their own definition, they are claiming North Africans are NOT "Tropical Africans" since most of Libya, Algeria, Libya etc sits above the tropic of cancer! lol.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You are destroying your argument that AE's = tropical adapted = black.
Not at all, you dumbass. The data shows that AE's had limb proportions that were more in the equatorian direction than is predicted from the area in which they lived. Hence, why Smith (2002)'s data showed that pre-dynastic Lower Egyptians had limb proportions that grouped them with Africans rather than contemporary Palestinians who reside on a similar latitude.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass in regards to pictures of wavy hair of Africans: [qb] 1) no information about whether pictured individuals are shown with their hair in it's natural state or if is has been treated in some way
Stupid Euronut ho! These are pictures of people from rural areas of Africa, specifically desert areas! You mean to tell me all these people including men and boys had their hair relaxed in salons??!
It can be done with combing techniques but you wouldn't know that. Also recall Ancient Egyptian hair Gel thread, fool
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:2) no information on the ancestry of these people
Actually there was plenty of info on the genetic ancestries of Nubians, Berbers, and Beja posted in this forum numerous times and on numerous threads some of which you posted in as well. And NON of that info suffices foreign ancestry as the explanation for their hair texture, dumb trick!
I said pertaining to the people you posted not a generalized statement about whoever
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
You yourself created a thread on the Semna Nubian mummies having wavy hair which shows the hair was not treated or altered, and we already know about the genetic lineages of Nubians especially in the Semna area--both Y-DNA and mitochondria--showing nil Eurasian ancestry; in fact some of the Nubians I posted come from that area!
you posted some people with no background information and we are to assume that they represent descent from ancient Nubian mummies.
The Nubian mummy hair thread was created by Sweetnet
The wide variety of hair type shows the ancient Nubians were not homogeneous
"trick" is a silly attempt at Ebonics. you watch to many 90s movies
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: As I have exposed the definition of "tropical" these afroloons are using has no scientific meaning. They are using merely the non-climatic definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year (not the climatic definition of a tropical environment). However by their own definition, they are claiming North Africans are NOT "Tropical Africans" since most of Libya, Algeria, Libya etc sits above the tropic of cancer! lol.
the claim is that hot dry climates produce narrow noses and straight hair but they forgot to tell the Khosians that
Also Negroids are sexy
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass in regards to pictures of wavy hair of Africans: 1) no information about whether pictured individuals are shown with their hair in it's natural state or if is has been treated in some way
Stupid Euronut ho! These are pictures of people from rural areas of Africa, specifically desert areas! You mean to tell me all these people including men and boys had their hair relaxed in salons??!
The retarded Lyingass wants us to prove that the non-kinky hair on those recent Africans wasn't the result of hair treatment, but she doesn't hold her own mummie pictures to the same standard. The dumb b!tch has never demonstrated that wavy mummy hair (like on the Gebelein mummy) wasn't originally kinky hair that later turned non-kinky as the result of hair treatment.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ piece of shit does have a point I'll have to think about that
ok, thought...
^^^ Elder lady KV35
As I just mentioned there are two or more possibilities, treated/combed out hair
or
admixture from people of a more Northern region who had striaght hair
or
___________________________________________
as per treated hair analysis of mummy hair can detect these things whether the hair was treated and the cross section of a strand indicates hair type, this is detectable by microscope
If somebody has something to prove about a straight haired mummy not having naturally straight hair as a result of hair styling or mummification that has to be supported by scientific reports detecting that in a case by case basis of specific mummies
Looking at random contemporary people with no background information is not a substitute for that
You can't post such pictures and assume that's proof. Ther has to be documentation of an African tribe that is not admixted that has wavy straight hair. What is the name of the tribe?
lioness productions
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^ piece of shit does have a point I'll have to think about that
C'mon son, stop acting like that's the first time we've sent your dumbass back to the drawing board. You practically live there along with Faheemdunkers after all those intellectual trashings.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^ piece of shit does have a point I'll have to think about that
C'mon son, stop acting like that's the first time we've sent your dumbass back to the drawing board. You practically live there along with Faheemdunkers after all those intellectual trashings.
piece of shit, by intellectual thrashings do you mean the entirely subjective definition of Black which I exposed in this thread over and over again?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
"The vast majority of hair samples discovered at the site were cynotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid), a feature which is standard through dynastic times" - Fletcher, Joann. (2002). "Ancient Egyptian Hair and Wigs", The Ostracon: The Journal of the Egyptian Study Society, xiii. 2.
More info:
Craniometric analyses of the 19th century also clustered ancient egyptian crania with Caucasoids, particuarly Europeans, based on their tendency towards thin nasal aperture, and mostly orthognathic faces. Pettigrew, a surgeon who analysed ancient egyptian crania as early as 1834 remarked in his opinion that none showed "the slightest approximation to the Negro character".[5] Multivariate statistical analysis for craniometry were invented in the early 20th century, with Karl Pearson in 1926 applying his "Coefficient of Racial Likeness" (CRL) to a series of ancient egyptian crania, which clustered them with South Asians, loosely Caucasoid affiliated, noting a clear cut seperation to the "Negro type".[6] However the CRL is no longer considered valid, after its statistical flaws were pointed out. It was later replaced by more efficient disciminant function programmes, some of which have continued to cluster the ancient egyptians with South Asians.[7] Later anthropologists such as Carleton S. Coon (1962) and Alice M. Brues (1977) continued to identify the ancient egyptians as Caucasoids, while some modern anthropologists continue to do so.[8]
1.^ Cuvier, Georges.(1817). "Extrait d’observations faites sur le cadavre d’une femme connue à Paris et à Londres sous le nom de Vénus Hottentotte,". Mémoires de Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle. 3. pp. 259-274. 2.^ Granville, A. B. (1825). "An Essay on Egyptian Mummies". Phil. Trans. Vol. 115, pp. 269-316. 3.^ George, Rawlinson. (1881). History of Egypt. p. 50. 4.^ Fletcher, Joann. (2002). "Ancient Egyptian Hair and Wigs", The Ostracon: The Journal of the Egyptian Study Society, xiii. 2. 5.^ Pettigrew, Thomas. (1834). A History of Egyptian Mummies. Princeton University Press. p. 166. 6.^ Lefkowitz, Mary R. (1996). "Black Athena Revisited". University of North Carolina Press. p. 157. 7.^ Lefkowitz, 1996, p. 157; cf. Stoessiger, 1927; Wiercinski, 1965; Strouhal, 1971, and more recently Brace et al, 1993. 8.^ Pearson, Roger. (1996). Heredity and Humanity: Race, Eugenics and Modern Science. Washington, D.C.: Scott-Townsend.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Goes on to discuss unrelated issues that aren't even contested. Neither me, Troll Patroll, Djehuti or Zaharan deny wavy straight hair in AE's nor do we deny metric affinities to Indians due to similar adaptation. Nor do we deny distance to the extreme ''Negroid'' phenotype (again, due to adaptation). You're running away from the relevant points because of the pending thrashings that await you when you address the posts you're now running away from.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^ piece of shit does have a point I'll have to think about that
C'mon son, stop acting like that's the first time we've sent your dumbass back to the drawing board. You practically live there along with Faheemdunkers after all those intellectual trashings.
piece of shit, by intellectual thrashings do you mean the entirely subjective definition of Black which I exposed in this thread over and over again?
Yes, I include your preposterous claim that tanned to swarthy Mongolians, Turks and Peruvians are darker than light-brown to dark-brown Sub Saharan Africans, Aboriginals and Dravidians as but an example of your numerous intellectual thrashings (or in this case, self-thrashings, since you debunked yourself in your own comparisons).
Once you show swarthy Turks, Peruvians and Mongolians that are brown to dark brown, rather than reddish to dark reddish, and catch us saying they're not really black, as in, similar to dark brown folks all over the world, you may have proven inconsistency on our part. Good luck.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: He clearly classified them as Mediterraneans, not once, not twice, not even thrice, but MANY times, lying ass fraud
Can you not read what you quote? He claims they had a Negroid "tendency".
quote:You called them Mediterranean as well
Yes, which they were - excluding the prognathic, robust crania with high NI's. Nowhere have I ever claimed they had Negroid mixture. Coon (1939) retracted his statements on this by 1962, page 587. I uploaded the quote from this page (see the link I already provided).
quote:What do you mean ''the few Natufians that had wide NI's''? The vast majority of the Natufians at Shukbah that were classified as 'Mediterranean' by Coon had wide nasal indices, you dumbass pathological liar:
Fifthly, their nasal bones were not narrow and high, but formed a wide, low arch. --Keith
Keith was wrong. Vallois (1936) describes the Natufians as mostly leptorrhine, while even Coon describes a typical thin nosed specimen with a prominent nasal spine (absent in Negroids). Tables from Arensburg also show mostly low NI's.
quote:You're so phucking retarded that you don't even see that your source debunks you. Nowhere does your source talk about ''a few Natufian skulls that were Australoid''. It says they were all ''Australoid''. You switch positions depending on whatever is convenient at the moment.
Of course, since Abbie maintained Australoids are essentially Caucasoid.
quote:You even flatout lie that you never said that there was a large Bushman population among the Badarians. When I point out that the Moroccan Aterian remains (Dar es sultan) had large brow ridges, you change up your position that they were Capoid. When I point out that the Natufians at Shuqbah had broad noses you change up your original position that they were purely Mediterranean. When I confront your dumbass about the impossibility that the Singa calvarium is Capoid, you abandon your earlier position that it was Bushman and say it is archaic. When I point out that European AMHs had a bodyplan that clusters with ''negroids'', you abandon your earlier position that European AMHs have been in Europe since the time of Swanscombe (300.000 years ago), and you say that they were recent immigrants from the Middle East (LMAO). You're phucking fraud, all you do is swap positions like a little slippery snake.
All those positions are distortions or your misreadings. The only claim I retracted was regarding the Badarian crania which was months back (as shown with a quote).
quote:Prove it. To everyone else, notice how the bum will now cite something that says something totally different from what his crippled ass reads into it.
See the link and quote I provided. Since you are lazy here it is:
"What little we have from Palestine, mostly scraps of bone and a few teeth, is also Caucasoid. For example, the Mesolithic Natufian skulls and long bones from thet country are those of ancestral Mediterranean's."
Regarding the large browed specimen and hair samples, I have sources somewhere.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Goes on to discuss unrelated issues that aren't even contested. Neither me, Troll Patroll, Djehuti or Zaharan deny wavy straight hair in AE's nor do we deny metric affinities to Indians due to similar adaptation. Nor do we deny distance to the extreme ''Negroid'' phenotype (again, due to adaptation). You're running away from the relevant points because of the pending thrashings that await you when you address the posts you're now running away from.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] ^^^ piece of shit does have a point I'll have to think about that
C'mon son, stop acting like that's the first time we've sent your dumbass back to the drawing board. You practically live there along with Faheemdunkers after all those intellectual trashings.
piece of shit, by intellectual thrashings do you mean the entirely subjective definition of Black which I exposed in this thread over and over again?
Yes, I include your preposterous claim that tanned to swarthy Mongolians, Turks and Peruvians are darker than light-brown to dark-brown Sub Saharan Africans, Aboriginals and Dravidians as but an example of your numerous intellectual thrashings (or in this case, self-thrashings, since you debunked yourself in your own comparisons).
Once you show swarthy Turks, Peruvians and Mongolians that are brown to dark brown, rather than reddish to dark reddish, and catch us saying they're not really black, as in, similar to dark brown folks all over the world, you may have proven inconsistency on our part. Good luck.
You see this Peruvian man below? If Black is soley based on skin tone than he is Black, period end of story. And the determination of the cut off point between brown and Black is completely subjective based on whatever you clowns feel like at the moment. Now if you try to pulls some shyt like "he's darker than a typical Peruvian" then now you are adding something beyond skin tone to the definition, now you are saying that for a person to be black their skin tone can't just be dark but their whole ethnic group has to average "black" So are Khosians black or are you a bunch of clowns? Is the second man with the glasses Black or you a bunch of clowns? Now you try to turn an objective observation into an ethnic stereotype, new goal post All of the sudden you whip ouy words like "swarthy" with it's ethnic connotation. Now it's not really a shade of brown it's "swarthy'" GTFOH
Swenet, don't even bother if you can't tell me if the below man is white or not, just go home, you're scared and not on my level, lioness productions all day to infinity Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: [QB] Why are you not answering any of my questions?
I've answered them, and read your latest long reply. The main problem you have is that your entire philosophy stems from a misunderstanding that subjective categorization is arbitrary.
For example the term arbitrary is defined as: "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.". This cannot be applied to a fuzzy set. Take a look:
Is C inside or outside of the forest? The answer is both, but as "nearly in" or "nearly out". Your philosophy however doesn't allow for partial truths or more than one membership because you are using binary logic (0, 1).
You're still doing it: throwing yet another example at me without addressing my previous answers or counter-questions. When will you answer the post on the top of page 4?
I have already explained that it cannot be both in the Protestant section of my previous post. I would say it is in the forest, as it is within the perimeter of tree coverage. Regardless, your very own source says the following: "It depends on a subjective (vague) opinion about the sense of the word "forest"." Equally, 'cool' and 'warm' depend on a subjective opinion about such terms. Fuzzy logic doesn't make a claim to objectivity; it is simply a means of accounting for the likelihood of somebody's subjective/arbitrary understanding of 'warm'/'cool'/etc. falling within a certain objective range (i.e., the numerical temperature is objective, but whether it is classed as hot, cold, warm, etc. is subjective outside of the absolute zero/hot explanations I have given). This is why it has applications in consumer appliances like air conditioning.
Find me a source that says the temperature ranges in the previous graphs you have posted are determined objectively. You also need to explain why the range of 'warm' is what it is and why someone saying 5 degrees C is 'warm' is apparently 'wrong'.
It cannot be both in and out of the forest simultaneously, as they are two antithetical concepts; it's equivalent to saying the lights are half on and half off. That example uses fuzzy logic to account for the different/subjective/opinionated/arbitrary understandings people have of the word 'forest', which may lead to some people saying it is in the forest and others saying it is out. Even though "full" and "empty" are also antithetical concepts, it can be "half full" and "half empty" simultaneously because they are synonymous, quantifiable phrases for the same state of being 50% of capacity.
In the case of the forest, it is 'true' if you use one definition and 'false' if you use another—NOT both simultaneously, as that is paradoxical. The truth value of the statement is contingent on which definition is used. Similarly, if you define populations by their lactose tolerance a Swede may cluster with a Nigerian. If you define populations by their skin tone (and arbitrarily create X number of categories of skin tone), a Swede may not cluster with a Nigerian. The choice of variable(s) is informed by social meaning, as Zagefka (2009) has explained. There is absolutely no objective reason that skin tone is more important than lactose tolerance when determining populations, or X range is more important than Y range when defining what 'cool' is, or X definition of 'forest' is more important than Y definition of 'forest' when defining whether or not C is part of it. This is why I say 'race' is a social construct/only exists at the individual, discontiguous unit or organism (at which point it becomes redundant as a concept).
Say where you disagree:
1 - 10
1 = x (smallest) 10 = y (largest)
5 = medium (middle point in the membership scale)
7.5 = quite large
2.5 = quite small
----
2.51 = quite small
7.57 = quite big
(The midpoint between 1 and 10 is actually 5.5, so I'll assume you meant 0 and 10)
There are other possible systems:
0 = small 0<X<10 = quite large/small 10 = large
Or
<5 = small 5 = medium >5 = large
Or
0 = small 5 = medium 10 = large 0<X<5 = quite small 5<X<10 = quite large
Or
0 = small 0<X<=1 = very close to small 1<X<=2 = quite close to small 2<X<=3 = small/medium 3<X<=4 = close to medium on the small side 4<X<5 = very close to medium on the small side 5 = medium 5<X<=6 = very close to medium on the large side 6<X<=7 = quite close to medium on the large side 7<X<=8 = medium/large 8<X<=9 = close to large 9<X<10 = very close to large 10 = large
Or
<3.333... = small 3.333...<=X<=6.666... = medium >6.666... = large
Or we could make different classifications for 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, etc. or 0.0001, 0.0002, 0.0003, etc.
Your choice of classification system is arbitrary. There is absolutely no objective reason your system is any more 'right' than the other possible divisions. I've explained this in the top post on page 4. The only objective categories are small = 0 and large = 10, as these are the minimum and maximum points, respectively. Any divisions within these two points (a continuum) is intrinsically arbitrary.
How exactly does this differ from multi-valued logic then Boolean logic when each statement is assessed separately? On your scale, 'quite big' is still between a set data range. Represented as Boolean logic:
X is 7.8. Quite large is 7.5<X<10. X is quite large. This statement is true.
X is 4. Quite large is 7.5<X<10. X is quite large. This statement is false.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Goes on to discuss unrelated issues that aren't even contested. Neither me, Troll Patroll, Djehuti or Zaharan deny wavy straight hair in AE's nor do we deny metric affinities to Indians due to similar adaptation. Nor do we deny distance to the extreme ''Negroid'' phenotype (again, due to adaptation). You're running away from the relevant points because of the pending thrashings that await you when you address the posts you're now running away from.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] ^^^ piece of shit does have a point I'll have to think about that
C'mon son, stop acting like that's the first time we've sent your dumbass back to the drawing board. You practically live there along with Faheemdunkers after all those intellectual trashings.
piece of shit, by intellectual thrashings do you mean the entirely subjective definition of Black which I exposed in this thread over and over again?
Yes, I include your preposterous claim that tanned to swarthy Mongolians, Turks and Peruvians are darker than light-brown to dark-brown Sub Saharan Africans, Aboriginals and Dravidians as but an example of your numerous intellectual thrashings (or in this case, self-thrashings, since you debunked yourself in your own comparisons).
Once you show swarthy Turks, Peruvians and Mongolians that are brown to dark brown, rather than reddish to dark reddish, and catch us saying they're not really black, as in, similar to dark brown folks all over the world, you may have proven inconsistency on our part. Good luck.
You see this Peruvian man below? If Black is soley based on skin tone than he is Black, period end of story. And the determination of the cut off point between brown and Black is completely subjective based on whatever you clowns feel like at the moment. Now if you try to pulls some shyt like "he's darker than a typical Peruvian" then now you are adding something beyond skin tone to the definition, now you are saying that for a person to be black their skin tone can't just be dark but their whole ethnic group has to average "black" So are Khosians black or are you a bunch of clowns? Is the second man with the glasses Black or you a bunch of clowns? Now you try to turn an objective observation into an ethnic stereotype, new goal post All of the sudden you whip ouy words like "swarthy" with it's ethnic connotation. Now it's not really a shade of brown it's "swarthy'" GTFOH
Swenet, don't even bother if you can't tell me if the below man is white or not, just go home, you're scared and not on my level, lioness productions all day to infinity
Yep, everyone outside of African can have shades, color complexions, hair types of all short. And Africans can't. We get your message. Clown who has never set foot on Africa.
quote:Morphological characteristics ...like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones . This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.) As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies are not shaped by these same climatic factors
Gill, George W. Does Race Exist? A Proponent's Perspective. University of Wyoming, 2000
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Hey moron, first of all, the areas just outside the tropics i.e. the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn are considered sub-tropical zones
lolz. So is ITALY and SPAIN.
=== So are Caucasoids now tropically adapted?
You are destroying your argument that AE's = tropical adapted = black.
What you apparently still don't get is that large part of Egypt aren't tropical, this is what we have states multiple time. I even went into regions where there is variety. From very cold to very hot.
The fact is and remains that Ancient Egyptians were tropical to extreme tropical adapted. Eurasians and Europeans aren't, Europeans entered South Europe only recently, shortly after the Holocene, when they moved from arctic cold Eurasia.
Read the following, again again and again...
quote:"What we can say, however, is that in the Holocene, humans from southwest Asia do not exhibit tropically adapted body shape
(Crognier 1981; Eveleth and Tanner 1976; Schreider 1975) American anthropologist -Volume 102, Pg 57
quote: In fact, in terms of body shape, the European and the Inuit samples tend to be cold-adapted and tend to be separated in multivariate space from "the more tropically adapted Africans," especially those groups from south of the Sahara.
J Hum Evol. 1997 May ;32 (5):423-48 9169992 Cit:51
semi-tropical/arid tropic zones, show clear limb proportion characteristics of tropically adapted people, and MORE closely resemble other tropically adapted Africans on the continent, than Europeans or Middle Easterners.(Raxter and Ruff 2008, Zakrewski 2003, 2007; Holliday et al, 2003, Kemp, 2005) 3) Undermining claims of cold-climate or skin color primacy for civilization, the great ancient Nile Valley civilization arose from the 'darker' more tropical south, NOT the cold climate or cool climate Mediterranean, Europe or Asia.(Clark, 1982; Shaw 1976, 2003; Bard, 2004; Vogel, 1997; Kemp 2005)
African peoples are the most diverse in the world whether analyzed by DNA or skeletal or cranial methods. The peoples of the Nile Valley vary but they are still related. The people most related ethnically to the ancient Egyptians are other Africans like Nubians not cold-climate/light skinned Europeans or Asiatics.(Keita 1996; Rethelford, 2001; Bianchi 2004, Yurco 1989; Godde 2009)
The one who has been debunked is you yourself, the problem is you yourself doesn't get it yet.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
The place which comes closets to the Med temperature is Sharm el Sheikh.
Climate: Egypt has a desert climate (except the coastal strip along the Mediterranean). hot, dry summers with moderate winters. Daily sunshine averages 12 hours in the summer and 8-10 hours in the winter. There are some cloudy days in the north during the winter months, with some rain but few in the south.
Southern Egypt is hot in the summer with low humidity. During the winter months - December, January and February - average daily temperatures stay up around 20°C (68°F) on the Mediterranean coast and a pleasant 26°C (80°F) in Aswan. Maximum temperatures get to 31°C (88°F) and 50°C (122°F) respectively. Winter nights only get down to 8°C (45°F), a very Egyptian version of chilly. Alexandria receives the most rain, with 19cm (7.5in) each year, while Aswan is almost bone-dry with just 2mm annually. Between March and April the khamsin blows in from the Western Desert at up to 150kmph (93mph).
Weatherwise: June to August is unbearably hot and temperatures during the day can soar up to 40°C. The best time to visit is in the spring, March to May or Autumn, September to November. In January the weather can be overcast and frequent downpours in some areas. Sinai's beaches are a tad chilly for sunbathing.
The landscape in Egypt can be broadly divided into the elevated structural plateaus and the low plains (which include the fluviatile and coastal plains). These geomorphologic units play a significant role in determining the hydrogeological framework of Egypt and natural constraints facing population distribution. The structural plateaus constitute the active and semi-active watershed areas. The low plains can contain productive aquifers and are also, in places, areas of groundwater discharge.
Egypt lies in the dry equatorial region except its northern areas which lay in the moderate warm region with a climate similar to that of the Mediterranean region. Hot dry summers characterizes Egypt’s climate while in the winter it is moderate with limited rain fall that increases at the coast.
Summer temperatures are extremely high, reaching 38°C to 43°C with extremes of 49°C in the southern and western deserts. The northern areas on the Mediterranean coast are much cooler, with 32°C as a maximum. Around April, a hot windstorm called the Khamsin sweeps through Egypt. Its driving winds blow large amounts of sand and dust at high speeds. The khamsin may raise temperatures as much as 38°C in two hours, and the hot winds can damage crops.
Egypt is known for its hot arid climate. Luxor weather is no exception. The summers are extremely hot and dry. The average temperature at Luxor through the year is about 77°F i.e. about 25°C. Temperature through the year may go up to 104°F i.e. a scorching 40°C the average low temperature may dip to a lowest of about 44°F i.e. about 4°C. Thus we see that Luxor like the rest of Egypt is given to extreme temperature fluctuations. Summers are accompanied by extremely high temperatures and heat waves. Hot winds blow inward from the desert region making life extremely uncomfortable. Light cotton clothes are recommended to the tourists who visit the region in spring or autumn. Winter is the best season in Luxor. Tourists make a beeline to this historic city during this season. The days are warm and pleasant though the nights could get a bit cold. Tourists from European and other western nations often visit Luxor over the Christmas New Year extended weekend. The average temperature at Luxor in December is 60°F or 15.5°C and in January is about 57°F or 13.8°C. If you are visiting Luxor over winter do remember to carry winter clothes and a blanket. Luxor experiences almost no rainfall. The city's average precipitation is about 0.1 inches for the whole year round. Sometimes a rare thunderstorm hits the city in January, but even these are more of dust storms than rain. Though winter is the peak tourist season, autumn and spring is preferred by many as most accommodations offer off season discounts and the weather is quite pleasant. Spring and autumn are also the best seasons to enjoy long cruises down the Nile and picnic on the banks of this river. Before you embark on your trip to Luxor, do enquire about the current year's weather conditions.
quote: The Beja people are an ancient Cushitic people closely kin to the ancient Egyptians, who have lived in the desert between the Nile river and the Red Sea since at least 25000 BC.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Malian
Nubians
Speaking of which, the remains of ancient Nubians in Semna display negroid cranial morphology but have wavy hair. See here.
Beja
1) no information about whether pictured individuals are shown with their hair in it's natural state or if is has been treated in some way
2) no information on the ancestry of these people
useless
quote: Climate of Sudan. Sudan falls within three climatic zones. The northern half of the country falls within the tropical climate zone. The weather is hot and dry throughout the year. The largest desert in the world Sahara covers most of northern Sudan. A typical town in the Sudanese tropics is Wadi Halfa. It is situated near the border with Egypt and has a typical desert climate. The temperature ranging is from 24°С in January to 41°С in June. Nighttime temperatures are low during the winter - about 10°С, but may become also much lower. During the summer months the weather is warm even at night - about 25°С.
Sub-Saharan climate merges into subequatorial. Gradually the dry and barren desert turns into a typical African savanna. The sub-equator also has very hot climate, but rainfall is heavy compared with the dry northern areas. There are two seasons - dry and rainy. In the southern-most part of Sudan the climate is equatorial. The weather is warm and wet throughout the year and rainfall is abundant. Pronounced dry season is practically missing. In the city of Malacca, which is located in the central parts of the country temperatures are high throughout the year and range from 31 to 39°С. There are two seasons - dry and rainy. The rainy season coincides with the summer months. Because of the rainfall the summer temperatures are slightly lower. Winters are dry and sunny and for this reason are hotter.
In the south of Sudan the climate is equatorial. Precipitation is abundant almost throughout the year and weaker in the period from November to February. Here temperatures are slightly lower than in subequatorial zone. They are highest during the winter months and reach to about 36 - 37°С, while the “coldest” weather is during the summer months (July and August) - about 30°С. The reason for the lower summer temperatures is again the reduced rainfall and sunshine. Nighttime temperatures are pleasant throughout the year - about 20 - 22°С. Sandstorms are typical for Sudan. They are frequent, especially during the summer months. This terrifying phenomenon can not be described in words. The wall of sand at such times literally absorbs everything in its way.
quote: The Beja people are an ancient Cushitic people closely kin to the ancient Egyptians, who have lived in the desert between the Nile river and the Red Sea since at least 25000 BC.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Can you not read what you quote? He claims they had a Negroid "tendency".
Which one of the two is the classification? That they were Mediterraneans or that they had ''minor negroid affinities''? ''Minor negroid affinity'' is not a classification, dumbass, its just a side-note observation. Especially since Coon notes that Mediterraneans in general often have ''a slight negroid tendency'' anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Yes, which they were - excluding the prognathic, robust crania with high NI's.
You can ignore it all you want but I'm going to keep slamming it in your face. There is no ''other'' non-prognathous, non-platyrrhine European ''type'' distinguishable within the Shuqbah series. They predominantly prognathous and they were predominantly platyrrhine, which did nothing to prevent them from being classified as 'Mediterranean'.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: excluding the prognathic, robust crania with high NI's.
This only shows how dumb you are. The Natufians with the broad noses aren't the ones who are robust, you're just pulling that out of your ass. Coon clearly said that the same broad nosed Natufians he describes had smooth brow ridges, and that they had had slight muscle attachment. The only Natufians who are robust are the other type at erg el-ahmar, of which the exemplary female is described by Coon as ''perfectly European''. He says the cranium is thick walled and robust. Your own data is contradicting you left and right, and you're too dumb to realize it.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Keith was wrong.
Then provide a description of the Shuqbah remains that runs counter to what Keith was saying.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Vallois (1936) describes the Natufians as mostly leptorrhine
You said the same thing of Coon's table of European samples (all Med series are leptorrhine, only a small minority is mesorrhine), and we all know how that turned out for your lying dumbass. Since we know you can't be trusted with your own sources, I'm going to have to ask for the specifics.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: while even Coon describes a typical thin nosed specimen with a prominent nasal spine
Again, you don't even understand your own sources. Coon repeatedly said there was a change of types during the Natufian phase. The Natufian female you're describing was from an entirely different region.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Of course, since Abbie maintained Australoids are essentially Caucasoid.
Which still doesn't match with what you're ascribing to him. Your claim is that only a small minority is Australoid, while he says they're all Australoid. Your own sources don't even agree with you.
quote:All those positions are distortions or your misreadings.
Yeah, just like your account at Evolutionfairytales.com that had nothing to do with you, right?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: See the link and quote I provided. Since you are lazy here it is:
How can that excerpt be a retraction of anything he said in 1939, when it is identical to what he said in 1939? The classification was Caucasoid then, and its Caucasoid now. He never says that the Shuqbah Natufians were no longer ''a different Natufian type'' or that they no longer had ''minor negroid affinities''. He is merely reitorating his position on the Natufians. Again, your reading of your own sources cannot be trusted. None of your sources say what you say they say.
Funny that there isn't a shred of Austroloid ancestry in all the modern regions you say there were Australoids in Mesolithic/Neolithic times (Egypt, Jordan, Judea, Wadi Halfa, Jebel Sahaba, Morocco, Algeria, Tunesia) but plenty of African ancestry that was introduced at the exact same time you say the prognathous/wide nosed populations weren't Negroid, but Australoid.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: [QB]
scumbag, put up the source information for this, nobody cares that you are trying to make spammer of the year award. I've seen Mike post it before but I forgot
I will use the information to mount an argument against Faheemdunkers unlike you who are endlessly repetitious and ignored
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
scumbag, put up the source information for this, nobody cares that you are trying to make spammer of the year award. I've seen Mike post it before but I forgot
I will use the information to mount an argument against Faheemdunkers unlike you who are endlessly repetitious and ignored
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^ piece of shit does have a point I'll have to think about that
ok, thought...
^^^ Elder lady KV35
As I just mentioned there are two or more possibilities, treated/combed out hair
or
admixture from people of a more Northern region who had striaght hair
or
___________________________________________
as per treated hair analysis of mummy hair can detect these things whether the hair was treated and the cross section of a strand indicates hair type, this is detectable by microscope
If somebody has something to prove about a straight haired mummy not having naturally straight hair as a result of hair styling or mummification that has to be supported by scientific reports detecting that in a case by case basis of specific mummies
Looking at random contemporary people with no background information is not a substitute for that
You can't post such pictures and assume that's proof. Ther has to be documentation of an African tribe that is not admixted that has wavy straight hair. What is the name of the tribe?
lioness productions
Well, what we know is that she was from the South. And by now we know what people in the South look like. And I can testify that there are millions of females like that, in the South.
Tiye? (c. 1386?-13349? B.C. Dated to reign of Amenhotep III.) 18'th Dynasty
Provenance: KV35
Discovery Date: March 9, 1898, by Victor Loret
quote: Details: Discovered in side-chamber Jc of KV 35 (see photo from TVK, 162--mummy on far left--see also KV 35 diagram) this unwrapped, unidentified mummy was named the "Elder Woman" in lieu of more positive identification. It had been extensively damaged by thieves: the whole front of the abdomen and part of the thorax were broken away. G. E. Smith describes the mummy as that of a middle aged woman. The right arm of the mummy is extended vertically at the side with the palm of the right hand placed upon the right thigh. The left arm is crossed over the chest, and the left hand is tightly clenched, as though it had originally been holding something. Smith records that two ulcers were found on the mummy's left heel. He also noted that the mummy's teeth were worn, but otherwise in good condition.
Those who had reburied the mummy in KV 35 had made no attempt to rewrap it or place it in a coffin, and none of the (mostly broken) grave goods found in KV 35 seem to be associated with this mummy.
In the early 1970's, Edward F. Wente suggested that the "Elder Woman" might be Hatshepsut or Queen Tiye. In 1975, James Harris x-rayed the mummy and measured its skull. These measurements indicated a very close similarity between the skulls of the "Elder Woman" and that of Tuyu, the mother of Queen Tiye. Subsequent analysis of hair from the "Elder Woman," performed with an electron probe, revealed it to be identical to the hair of Queen Tiye found in a miniature coffin in the tomb of Tutankhamen. On this evidence, the "Elder Woman" has been identified as Queen Tiye, although the validity of the hair analysis has been questioned, most notably by Dr. Renate Germer. In an End Paper written for KMT (Fall, 1993,) Dr. Susan E. James pointed out that blood group testing indicated that the "Elder Woman" could not have been the daughter of Yuya and Tuyu. Additionally, Dr. James argued that it was "too speculative" to conclude that the hair found in KV 62 was Tiye's just because the miniature coffin which contained it bore Tiye's cartouche. (It must be noted that this line of reasoning, if consistently applied, would render most mummy identifications "too speculative," since most of them are also based on coffin inscriptions.) Dr. James proposes that the KV 62 hair sample came from Ankhesenamen and that the "Elder Woman" from KV 35 is consequently Tutankhamen's queen. In a letter published in KMT (Spring, 1994,) W. Good of the University of Sydney responds to Dr. James by saying that she does not adequately consider the context in which the KV 62 lock of hair was found. Good notes that the elaborate care taken to preserve both the lock of hair and the coffin in which it was placed clearly show that it was more than a mere "keepsake" and that it obviously bore the same ritual significance as the burial of a person. This, he feels, lends support to accepting the cartouche identification found on the miniature coffin as accurate. Herbert Winlock once wrote that ancient inscriptions should be accepted as accurate unless there is very good reason to doubt them, and there seems no valid reason for questioning the accuracy of the tiny coffin's cartouche. Majority opinion favors the conclusion that the lock of hair is Tiye's, and that the KV 35 "Elder Woman" is indeed Tiye herself. (Source Bibliography: BIE, [3 ser.] 9 [1898], 103; DRN, 197, 205, 211, 246; KMT, [Fall, 1993,] 86-87, [Spring, 1994,] 5-6; MiAE, 122, 123, 324, ill. 127; RM, 38, 39, pl. XCVII; SAK 11, 85ff.; Sci 200 [1978] 1149ff; XRA, 4C5-4D1; XRP, 135f .)
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
Tiye? (c. 1386?-13349? B.C. Dated to reign of Amenhotep III.) 18'th Dynasty
Provenance: KV35
Discovery Date: March 9, 1898, by Victor Loret
Well, what we know is that she was from the South. And by now we know what people in the South look like. And I can testify that there are millions of females like that, in the South.
I suupose you mean millions of women with relaxed hair.
Well who's to say that Queen Tiye didn't have a combed straight afro or starightened with some sort of ancient gel?
You can't tell if her hair was naturally wavy straight or not unless it is examined with a microscope.
There are millions of pure African people in Sudan with wavy straight hair that is not coarse and bushy? Looks like the same children or unknown ancestry posted over and over aging a million times
One day there shoud be a wide ranging study of hair type for Africa. Stright hair evolved in Africa? I don't say it;s impossible but I find it counterintuitive.
If straight hair and narrow noses were an adaptation to dry hot climates the Khosians would have it or at least something approaching it. They don't
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
No longer able to hide his tracks, “Faheem Dunkers” decided on a change in outfits. It didn’t help.
So your definition of "tropical" you admit has absolutely nothing to do with climate. The definition you are using merely is based on the areas where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year.
No dumbass. Tropical African includes everything within the tropical zone as demarcated by the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn in Africa AND the movement, dwelling and presence of said tropical Africans peoples to areas adjacent to this zone, as already stated. There are numerous micro-climates WITHIN that zone fathead. LEarn to read.
The areas in this zone, aren't all tropical.
^^Dummy... the tropical zone is diverse and includes numerous micro-climates: from desert to snow-capped mountain. Its all within that zone. Are you always this stupid, or are you making your usual special effort?
No they don;t
Witless buffoon, you can deny it all you want, butit still makes no difference. Narrow noses do occur routinely within the tropical zone and among tropical Africans. WHining in denial is not going to change the facts one but. Get over it.
Now you've changed from tropical to just "Africa" but Note that according to your definition North Africans are Caucasoid. anyway since the tropic of cancer only runs through a tiny segment of Egypt. Above the tropic of cancer sits Algeria, Libya etc.
^^Bumbling dolt... You have been debunked so you are now trying to assert some sort of bogus "Definition" I have made. No one is being fooled. I have not said anything about "Caucasoids North African" previously re climate. You are adding that as a diversionary smoke-screen to cover your failures. There has been no "change".
So are you actually saying the Berbers and North Africans are not tropical Africans?
Stating this the 3rd time since you lack reading comprehension- perhaps comprehension in general- Tropical Africans are not static entities. They move freely in and out of, and settle in adjacent sub-tropical zones and have been doing so for millennia, without needing "approval" from anybody Your attempt to create "apartheid" lines fails miserably. Tropical Africans are found throughout the continent. No line bounds them. And "North Africa" even the coastal areas, have long been inhabited by people that cluster with other tropical Africans. They were to be later joined by elements from the Middle East and Europe to create a variable population, but tropical Africans have been in place from the beginning.
As for Berbers, they are a diverse, mixed grouping. Those in Egypt for example show haplotypes that cluster with some sub-Saharan groups, as to others in Algeria, as do others in Chad or Mali. Other Berbers show haplotype clusters with Middle Eastern groups, others show other variant mixes. SO Berbers and "North Africans" can be very much indeed tropical Africans depending on the group sampled, time era, place of origin, degree of tropical adaptation, etc. And the pN2 transition of Haplogroup "E" links 70% of Africans together across the continent.
Even more a mess since in one post you claimed north african coastals who have light skin are tropical - despite the fact they dwell out the boundary of the tropic of cancer.
^^Bich please, quit lying. Actually the “coastals” referenced in the data I posted are in the Angolan region. You can’t even lie competently.
Wrong. You used the term "tropical african" even claiming light skinned berbers are "tropical africans" despite the fact they dwell outside your own tropical barrier. You are a joke.
Bumbling buffoon. Actually I did not even bring up Berbers until this post addressing your BS. Bogus claims will not help your case. And Berber is a language category not a racial one. Berbers have a mixed pattern of ancestry and genetic makeup depending on who and at what time and place is measured.
Now run along…
RECAP
Tropical climates are extremely diverse – from humid rainforest, to higher altitude cold zones, to arid deserts with sharply dropping night temperatures. Scientists find that nose width is correlated with climate – with narrower noses seen in dry, conditions such as desert areas in eastern parts of Africa. Tropical Africans are not static people but move around within the continent.
QUOTE: "Tropical climates range from oppressively hot and humid lowlands to cold, snow-covered mountains, from hot, dry deserts to cold, dry deserts, from extreme seasonal variability of precipitation to nearly constant year-round conditions." --Huston. M. (1994) Biological diversity: the coexistence of species on changing landscapes Cambridge university Press. p 498
QUOTE: "An important function of the nose is to warm and moisten inspired air. When air is exhaled, some heat and moisture are lost to the surroundings. The longer the nasal passage, the more efficient the nose is for warming and moistening incoming air and also the less heat and moisture are lost on exhalation. A narrow, high nose gives a longer nasal passage than a low, broad nose. Therefore, in cold or dry conditions, a high, narrow nose is preferable for warming and moistening air before it reaches the lings, and for reducing loss of heat and moisture in expired air. In hot, humid conditions a low, broad nose serves to dissipate heat (Wolpoff 1968; Franciscis and Long 1991)... The pattern of variation in nasal index corresponds very broadly to that expected if nasal form is indeed an adaptation to regional climate.
The highest nasal index values, representing broad, low noses, tend to be those of populations in humid tropical regions of Africa and south-east Asia. Populations with low mean nasal indices (high, narrow noses) tend to be found in the cold, northern latitudes, and also in arid regions, such as the desert areas of east Africa and the Arabian peninsula. ..Davies found the nasal index taken in the living was closely correlated with skeletal nasal index. This suggests that there should likewise be an association between skeletal nasal index and climatic zone, and indeed other workers have found this to be the case.“ -- Mays. S. (2010). The Archaeology of Human Bones. Pg 100-101
2011 study finds significant correlation between nasal shape and climate. Dry areas are common in tropical zone micro-climates such as deserts.
QUOTE: “"The nasal cavity is essential for humidifying and warming the air before it reaches the sensitive lungs. Because humans inhabit environments that can be seen as extreme from the perspective of respiratory function, nasal cavity shape is expected to show climatic adaptation.. We report significant correlations between nasal cavity shape and climatic variables of both temperature and humidity. Variation in nasal cavity shape is correlated with a cline from cold-dry climates to hot-humid climates, with a separate temperature and vapor pressure effect. " -- Noback, M. et al. (2011) Climate-related variation of the human nasal cavity. AJPA, 145: 4. 599-614
------
Tropical climates are extremely diverse – from humid rainforest, to higher altitude cold zones, to arid deserts with sharply dropping night temperatures. Scientists find that nose width is correlated with climate – with narrower noses seen in dry, conditions such as desert areas in eastern parts of Africa, and elsewhere in Africa. African people however are not static entities, staying in one spot- they move around.
QUOTE: "Tropical climates range from oppressively hot and humid lowlands to cold, snow-covered mountains, from hot, dry deserts to cold, dry deserts, from extreme seasonal variability of precipitation to nearly constant year-round conditions." --Huston. M. (1994) Biological diversity: the coexistence of species on changing landscapes Cambridge university Press. p 498
QUOTE: "An important function of the nose is to warm and moisten inspired air. When air is exhaled, some heat and moisture are lost to the surroundings. The longer the nasal passage, the more efficient the nose is for warming and moistening incoming air and also the less heat and moisture are lost on exhalation. A narrow, high nose gives a longer nasal passage than a low, broad nose. Therefore, in cold or dry conditions, a high, narrow nose is preferable for warming and moistening air before it reaches the lings, and for reducing loss of heat and moisture in expired air. In hot, humid conditions a low, broad nose serves to dissipate heat (Wolpoff 1968; Franciscis and Long 1991)... The pattern of variation in nasal index corresponds very broadly to that expected if nasal form is indeed an adaptation to regional climate. The highest nasal index values, representing broad, low noses, tend to be those of populations in humid tropical regions of Africa and south-east Asia. Populations with low mean nasal indices (high, narrow noses) tend to be found in the cold, northern latitudes, and also in arid regions, such as the desert areas of east Africa and the Arabian peninsula. ..Davies found the nasal index taken in the living was closely correlated with skeletal nasal index. This suggests that there should likewise be an association between skeletal nasal index and climatic zone, and indeed other workers have found this to be the case.“ -- Mays. S. (2010). The Archaeology of Human Bones. Pg 100-101
2011 study finds significant correlation between nasal shape and climate. Dry areas are common in tropical zone micro-climates such as deserts.
QUOTE: “"The nasal cavity is essential for humidifying and warming the air before it reaches the sensitive lungs. Because humans inhabit environments that can be seen as extreme from the perspective of respiratory function, nasal cavity shape is expected to show climatic adaptation.. We report significant correlations between nasal cavity shape and climatic variables of both temperature and humidity. Variation in nasal cavity shape is correlated with a cline from cold-dry climates to hot-humid climates, with a separate temperature and vapor pressure effect. " -- Noback, M. et al. (2011) Climate-related variation of the human nasal cavity. AJPA, 145: 4. 599-614 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGYPT- A PRODUCT OF INDIGENOUS TROPICAL AFRICANS
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
No dumbass. Tropical African includes everything within the tropical zone as demarcated by the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn in Africa AND the movement, dwelling and presence of said tropical Africans peoples to areas adjacent to this zone, as already stated. There are numerous micro-climates WITHIN that zone fathead. LEarn to read.
^^Dummy... the tropical zone is diverse and includes numerous micro-climates: from desert to snow-capped mountain. Its all within that zone. Are you always this stupid, or are you making your usual special effort?
comprehension in general- Tropical Africans are not static entities. They move freely in and out of, and settle in adjacent sub-tropical zones and have been doing so for millennia, without needing "approval" from anybody Your attempt to create "apartheid" lines fails miserably. Tropical Africans are found throughout the continent. No line bounds them. And
So what relavance is there in mentioning snowy peaks if Africans are so mobile they don't have a chance to adapt to it? Are you saying there are cold adapted Africans?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
if Coon revised ideas he had in 1939 to 1969 who knows what other revisions he would have made had he lived to the present day
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by mena7: [QB] Mike the Tuareg of Mali are stupid.The brown nomadic Tuareg have been living in Mali and Niger with the black sedentary blacks for hundreds of year.Because of their nomadic lifestyle they are sometime victim of discrimination.
^^^^ actual African person calling the Tuareg brown rather than black. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but it's very subjective and of the moment, how the term "black" is applied
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
Tiye? (c. 1386?-13349? B.C. Dated to reign of Amenhotep III.) 18'th Dynasty
Provenance: KV35
Discovery Date: March 9, 1898, by Victor Loret
Well, what we know is that she was from the South. And by now we know what people in the South look like. And I can testify that there are millions of females like that, in the South.
I suupose you mean millions of women with relaxed hair.
Well who's to say that Queen Tiye didn't have a combed straight afro or starightened with some sort of ancient gel?
You can't tell if her hair was naturally wavy straight or not unless it is examined with a microscope.
There are millions of pure African people in Sudan with wavy straight hair that is not coarse and bushy? Looks like the same children or unknown ancestry posted over and over aging a million times
One day there shoud be a wide ranging study of hair type for Africa. Stright hair evolved in Africa? I don't say it;s impossible but I find it counterintuitive.
If straight hair and narrow noses were an adaptation to dry hot climates the Khosians would have it or at least something approaching it. They don't
YOU1 [with clause] think or assume that something is true or probable but lack proof or certain knowledge:
The hair is thick and curly, a lot of women and gris (of course) from where the mummy was found have this trait.
This is the difference between assuming and knowing Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
I am sorry to disappoint you again, buy your are cold adapted and you lack many other characteristics such as:
"The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."
Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7Á/13
Nor do you have any NEGROID TENDENCIES!
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: if Coon revised ideas he had in 1939 to 1969 who knows what other revisions he would have made had he lived to the present day
quote:"What we can say, however, is that in the Holocene, humans from southwest Asia do not exhibit tropically adapted body shape
(Crognier 1981; Eveleth and Tanner 1976; Schreider 1975) American anthropologist -Volume 102, Pg 57
quote: In fact, in terms of body shape, the European and the Inuit samples tend to be cold-adapted and tend to be separated in multivariate space from "the more tropically adapted Africans," especially those groups from south of the Sahara.
J Hum Evol. 1997 May ;32 (5):423-48 9169992 Cit:51
semi-tropical/arid tropic zones, show clear limb proportion characteristics of tropically adapted people, and MORE closely resemble other tropically adapted Africans on the continent, than Europeans or Middle Easterners.(Raxter and Ruff 2008, Zakrewski 2003, 2007; Holliday et al, 2003, Kemp, 2005) 3) Undermining claims of cold-climate or skin color primacy for civilization, the great ancient Nile Valley civilization arose from the 'darker' more tropical south, NOT the cold climate or cool climate Mediterranean, Europe or Asia.(Clark, 1982; Shaw 1976, 2003; Bard, 2004; Vogel, 1997; Kemp 2005)
African peoples are the most diverse in the world whether analyzed by DNA or skeletal or cranial methods. The peoples of the Nile Valley vary but they are still related. The people most related ethnically to the ancient Egyptians are other Africans like Nubians not cold-climate/light skinned Europeans or Asiatics.(Keita 1996; Rethelford, 2001; Bianchi 2004, Yurco 1989; Godde 2009)
The one who has been debunked is you yourself, the problem is you yourself doesn't get it yet.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
So what relavance is there in mentioning snowy peaks if Africans are so mobile they don't have a chance to adapt to it? Are you saying there are cold adapted Africans?
^^Who says Africans have not adapted to the colder micro-climates within the tropic zone? And why would being mobile mean people would not have a chance to adapt? Are you saying people can't range over a wide area or are limited to a certain group size in Africa?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: So what relavance is there in mentioning snowy peaks if Africans are so mobile they don't have a chance to adapt to it? Are you saying there are cold adapted Africans?
^^Who says Africans have not adapted to the colder micro-climates within the tropic zone? And why would being mobile mean people would not have a chance to adapt? Are you saying people can't range over a wide area or are limited to a certain group size in Africa?
Yep, so true.
But we are speaking of:
quote: In fact, in terms of body shape, the European and the Inuit samples tend to be cold-adapted and tend to be separated in multivariate space from "the more tropically adapted Africans," especially those groups from south of the Sahara.
J Hum Evol. 1997 May ;32 (5):423-48 9169992 Cit:51
quote:"What we can say, however, is that in the Holocene, humans from southwest Asia do not exhibit tropically adapted body shape
(Crognier 1981; Eveleth and Tanner 1976; Schreider 1975) American anthropologist -Volume 102, Pg 57
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers:
quote:Hey moron, first of all, the areas just outside the tropics i.e. the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn are considered sub-tropical zones
lolz. So is ITALY and SPAIN.
=== So are Caucasoids now tropically adapted?
There's no such thing as "Caucasoids" but if you mean indigenous Europeans like Italians and Spanish, if one were to exclude the African admixture among them the reason why they are not tropically adapted comes from the time period of their evolution-- the Ice Age
Euros evolved in cold Ice Age climates living in caves of the refuges shown above that's why they lost the tropical adaptations of their ancestors.
quote:You are destroying your argument that AE's = tropical adapted = black.
How so?!! Egyptians are NOT Europeans like Spanish and Italians which I explained above and their skeletal remains are definitely tropically adapted even called super-tropical or "super negroid" by anthropologists! LMAO Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass in regards to pictures of wavy hair of Africans: 1) no information about whether pictured individuals are shown with their hair in it's natural state or if is has been treated in some way
Stupid Euronut ho! These are pictures of people from rural areas of Africa, specifically desert areas! You mean to tell me all these people including men and boys had their hair relaxed in salons??!
The retarded Lyingass wants us to prove that the non-kinky hair on those recent Africans wasn't the result of hair treatment, but she doesn't hold her own mummie pictures to the same standard. The dumb b!tch has never demonstrated that wavy mummy hair (like on the Gebelein mummy) wasn't originally kinky hair that later turned non-kinky as the result of hair treatment.
Indeed, just as I've pointed out to her dumbass. LOL
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: ^^^ piece of shit does have a point I'll have to think about that
C'mon son, stop acting like that's the first time we've sent your dumbass back to the drawing board. You practically live there along with Faheemdunkers after all those intellectual trashings.
LOL Unfortunately is a fact of life for these idiots. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass:
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers: As I have exposed the definition of "tropical" these afroloons are using has no scientific meaning. They are using merely the non-climatic definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year (not the climatic definition of a tropical environment). However by their own definition, they are claiming North Africans are NOT "Tropical Africans" since most of Libya, Algeria, Libya etc sits above the tropic of cancer! lol.
the claim is that hot dry climates produce narrow noses and straight hair but they forgot to tell the Khoisans that.
As we've told the Anglo-bonkers, just outside the tropical zones are the subtropical zones NOT cold zones. The sunlight in the subtropics may not be as intense as the tropics but it is still high which is why fair-skinned Berbers as well as European tourists still get sunburn and even skin cancer unlike the indigenous (black) natives.
As for the Khoisan, lyinass, you assume that the region they inhabit today has always been arid and dry when geology shows that the climate of their native region was more humid millennia ago than it is today. You like the Anglo-idiot forget that while biological adaptations correlate with environment like climate, climate changes from time period to another as I've demonstrated with indigenous Europeans developing during the Ice Age.
quote:Also Negroids are sexy
Who's the negrophile now? LOL Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Which one of the two is the classification? That they were Mediterraneans or that they had ''minor negroid affinities''? ''Minor negroid affinity'' is not a classification, dumbass, its just a side-note observation.
If they show Negroid traits, then aren't uniformly Caucasoid, but admixed. Crania with non-Caucasoid features are not Caucasoid. Why would they be? Would you call a cross of two dog breeds a single breed? Where high NI's and prognathism appear in crania, Coon (1939) always notes they are not Mediterraneans but show other racial "tendencies".
quote:You can ignore it all you want but I'm going to keep slamming it in your face. There is no ''other'' non-prognathous, non-platyrrhine European ''type'' distinguishable within the Shuqbah series. They predominantly prognathous and they were predominantly platyrrhine, which did nothing to prevent them from being classified as 'Mediterranean'.
Nowhere were these skulls labeled Mediterranean. Like the others, Coon asserts if they have high NI's and prognathism they show race admixture or other tendencies - which even your quotes show. The quotes you put up actually assert the crania is not Mediterranean but admixed with other racial tendencies. Yet according to you they are Med. What it boils down to, is that you omissed the other racial "tendencies" quote in your first post (you pulled the quote from someone who left that part out) and now you can't admit your mistake.
quote:This only shows how dumb you are. The Natufians with the broad noses aren't the ones who are robust, you're just pulling that out of your ass. Coon clearly said that the same broad nosed Natufians he describes had smooth brow ridges, and that they had had slight muscle attachment. The only Natufians who are robust are the other type at erg el-ahmar, of which the exemplary female is described by Coon as ''perfectly European''. He says the cranium is thick walled and robust. Your own data is contradicting you left and right, and you're too dumb to realize it.
The Caucasoid (Med) specimen Coon describes has a low NI. The other type which have high NI's, and greater prognathism are not Caucasoid. The robust vs. gracile features of these also generally correlate, although there is some overlap which I never denied - same for the Afalou specimens (Briggs, 1955).
quote:Then provide a description of the Shuqbah remains that runs counter to what Keith was saying.
"The orbits were low and rectangular, the nose high and narrower than that of Afalou, chin prominent." (Gedda, 1961)
Coon, Vallois and Gedda show that the Natufians match the Muge crania from Portugul, which are borderline mesorrhine (48) with mostly sharp nasal spines. The "outliers" are a few crania of the Australoid type. Your claims Natufians are mostly/all wide nosed is simply fantasy, not even Keith asserts it. You can't quote properly, you cut up entire passages into one liners.
Regarding your lies on Coon's table, where did I claim all Europeans = Mediterraneans? I said look at the table for the typical Med indices. Instead you come back, with the stupid view that all Europeans are Meds. There are numerous different Caucasoid subraces in Europe. If you looked at the Med crania though you would see they are all leptorrhine, excluding some that have borderline tendency towards mesorrhine (the crania from Neolithic spain which are NI 47).
Abbie's quote also doesn't contradict my claims (you failed again) since his Australoid taxon includes Caucasoids -- that is precisely why he saw these affinities because he maintained both were so closely related.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Getting back to the Natufians...
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers: The few Natufians that have wide NI's and large browridges, are Australoid:
"Tooth removal or other forms of dental mutilation such as filing teeth in various patterns are common in other ethnic groups; perhaps the most interesting example in this context is to be found in the ancient Natufian skulls of Palestine for not only were these "Australoid" in appearance, they had also had upper front teeth removed during life." (Abbie, 1969)
You do realize that such forms of dental mutilation--both teeth filing and especially incisor removal-- are practices that survive in Sub-Sahara today. The incisor removal for example is a tradition practiced in Sudan.
This is just another of the many cultural incidences that point to Natufian origins in Africa!
Even scholars like Ofer Bar-Yosef has pointed out that the microlithic technology of the Natufians matches that of earlier African tool assemblies, namely the Mushabians. Bar-Yosef, “Early colonizations and cultural continuities in the Lower Palaeolithic of western Asia",Early Human Behaviour in Global Context. Edited by Michael D. Petraglia and Ravi Korisettar.
Even scholar Christopher Ehret identifies the Natufians as the Proto-Semites and says this: After all, the early Semites were just a few Africans arriving to find a lot of other people already in the area. So they're going to have to accommodate. Some groups, maybe ones who live in peripheries, in areas with lower population densities, may be able to impose the henotheistic religion they arrived with... One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern. Out of this, you get the Natufian people. Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago. But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people the Mushabaeans? are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges. Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well. Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East. World History Connected: A Conversation with Christopher Ehret
Neither scholar says anything about 'Australoids'! LOL Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:No dumbass. Tropical African includes everything within the tropical zone as demarcated by the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn in Africa AND the movement, dwelling and presence of said tropical Africans peoples to areas adjacent to this zone, as already stated.
The climatic tropical zone is limited to mostly western and central sub-sahara africa.
The definition of tropical you are using has no link to climate. You're using the definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year --- a completely bogus definition in regards to population biology, and physical anthropology.
LMAO. The only thing that supposedly "connects" your "tropical" africans is the fact they can see the sun directly overhead during the year. You self admit your definition is bogus, and has nothing to do with climate.
In actual scientifc climate classification, tropical Africa is as follows:
Only Green = tropical climate.
Instead your bogus "Tropical africans" are just populations that happen to dwell in an area that can overhead see the sun.
-- Keep the comedy coming.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Btw Zaharan, not even Keita uses your stupid terminology based on who can see the sun in the sky. He uses the term "Saharo-Tropical African Variant" (1981). You are more a less a poser in your own field.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Faheem “DUMBER” said: The climatic tropical zone is limited to mostly western and central sub-sahara africa.
The definition of tropical you are using has no link to climate. You're using the definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year --- a completely bogus definition in regards to population biology, and physical anthropology.
LMAO. The only thing that supposedly "connects" your "tropical" africans is the fact they can see the sun directly overhead during the year. You self admit your definition is bogus, and has nothing to do with climate.
In actual scientifc climate classification, tropical Africa is as follows:
-
Only Green = tropical climate.
Instead your bogus "Tropical africans" are just populations that happen to dwell in an area that can overhead see the sun.
Keep the comedy coming.
The only comedian is you fool because the tropic zone is linked to climate. The tropics of Cancer and Capricorn denote a climatic zone fool.. DUH.. . You want to deny this because it debunks your bogus “white Egypt” and “Caucasoid African” or “Hamitic” claims. The green areas in your map show ONE TYPE of tropical micro-climate. Different authors use different terminology to denote a classification by rainfall, season, mean temperature etc.. but it makes no difference. Wetness, coolness, dryness, rainfall, temp, season, mix and match- makes no difference. They are all variants WITHIN the tropics as the Koppen climate map below shows.
Btw Zaharan, not even Keita uses your stupid terminology based on who can see the sun in the sky. He uses the term "Saharo-Tropical African Variant" (1981).
Hapless dullard! Must we yet again instruct you? Keita uses "tropical" yes- to identify those in the SAHARAN area that were tropical. Got it? He STILL identifies them as tropical. DUH.. And you are even more incompetent in your citation. Keita did not use the terminology in "1981" as you claim. Learn to cite accurately. End of today's lesson. Quote:
”The Tropic of Cancer and The Tropic of Capricorn The Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn each lie at 23.5 degrees latitude. The Tropic of Cancer is located at 23.5° North of the equator and runs through Mexico, the Bahamas, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, and southern China. The Tropic of Capricorn lies at 23.5° South of the equator and runs through Australia, Chile, southern Brazil (Brazil is the only country that passes through both the equator and a tropic), and northern South Africa. The tropics are the two lines where the sun is directly overhead at noon on the two solstices - near June and December 21. The sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Cancer on June 21 (the beginning of summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of winter in the Southern Hemisphere) and the sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Capricorn on December 21 (the beginning of winter in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of summer in the Southern Hemisphere). The reason for the location of the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn at 23.5° north and south respectively is due to the axial tilt of the Earth. The Earth is titled 23.5 degrees from the plane of the Earth's revolution around the sun each year. The area bounded by the Tropic of Cancer on the north and Tropic of Capricorn on the south is known as the "tropics." --From worldAtlas.com and Geographic Information - Page 33 Jenny Marie Johnson - 2003
Why do you think they are called the TROPIC of Cancer and the TROPIC of Capricorn? You big dummy…
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
^^^
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:No dumbass. Tropical African includes everything within the tropical zone as demarcated by the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn in Africa AND the movement, dwelling and presence of said tropical Africans peoples to areas adjacent to this zone, as already stated.
The climatic tropical zone is limited to mostly western and central sub-sahara africa.
The definition of tropical you are using has no link to climate. You're using the definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year --- a completely bogus definition in regards to population biology, and physical anthropology.
LMAO. The only thing that supposedly "connects" your "tropical" africans is the fact they can see the sun directly overhead during the year. You self admit your definition is bogus, and has nothing to do with climate.
In actual scientifc climate classification, tropical Africa is as follows:
Only Green = tropical climate.
Instead your bogus "Tropical africans" are just populations that happen to dwell in an area that can overhead see the sun.
-- Keep the comedy coming.
What you area showing is the TROPICAL RAIN FOREST! LOL
Indeed pure comedy, keep it coming!
Remote sensing and past climatic changes in tropical deserts: Example of the Sahara
Sahara desert is the second largest desert in the world, after Antarctica, and the largest hot desert in the world.
The desert extensively covers almost all the parts of Northern Africa. It stretches from the Red Sea and includes parts of the Mediterranean coasts to the outskirts of the Atlantic Ocean. In the southward region, it is limited by the Sahel, a belt of semi-arid tropical savanna separating it from Sub-Saharan Africa.
The countries which Sahara desert encompasses include Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Sudan, Tunisia and Western Sahara.
The history of the desert dates back to 3 million years ago.
Sahara desert has a combination climate. While it has subtropical climate in the northern parts, the region in south experiences tropical conditions.
Geographically, Sahara desert is rocky, with varied elevation. It contains underground rivers, which sometime penetrate the surface, resulting in oases.
There are some sand dunes in the desert which reach a height of about 180 meters.
The central region of Sahara desert is elevated, when compared to the other areas, with peaks such as Emi Koussi and Tahat.
It might sound strange, but the peaks in the desert are snowcapped during the winter. The eastern part of Sahara - Libyan Desert, is dry and has very few oases.
The climate of Sahara desert is very hot and dry. During the day, it is very hot, while night brings along chill.
Sahara desert receives only 8 inches of rainfall per annum. This is one of the reasons for the meager population in the region, with just 2 million people here.
Earlier, the desert used to be a fertile area, in which elephants, giraffes and other animals grazed. Slowly it started becoming drier and the fertile landscape gave way to infertile region, as we see today.
The center of Sahara desert is excessively dry, with little or no vegetation. There is sparse grassland and desert shrub with trees and tall shrubs, where moisture collects.
During the last ice age, the desert was bigger than what it is now, extending south beyond its current boundaries. Sahara desert has one of the harshest climates in the world. The prevailing north-easterly wind often causes the sand to form sand storms and dust devils.
Arabic is the most widely spoken language in the Sahara region, from the Atlantic to the Red Sea.
Sahara stands divided into Western Sahara, Central Ahaggar Mountains, Tibesti Mountains, Aïr Mountains (a region of desert mountains and high plateaus), Tenere Desert and Libyan Desert (the most arid region).
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Btw Zaharan, not even Keita uses your stupid terminology based on who can see the sun in the sky. He uses the term "Saharo-Tropical African Variant" (1981). You are more a less a poser in your own field.
Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change
Paul C. Sereno et al.
quote: Pollen spectra from phase 3 burials indicate a mosaic of habitats. Open savannas with shrubland and grassland vegetation dominated, with sporadic presence of a fairly diversified Sudanian and tropical tree flora (Figure 10). Plants linked to wet environments include hydrophytes, which indicate the presence of shallow freshwater lakes. Xeric and psammophilous plants indicate the presence of sandy soils.
quote:Sudanian and tropical elements, such as Celtis, Ficus, Salvadora persica, Hyphaene thebaica, could have been part of riverine forests that also included Combretum, Cadaba, Ziziphus, Pterocarpus and Capparis. None of these taxa, however, occur in very high frequencies among non-arboreal pollen (Figure 10C). Pollen from burial samples, in sum, suggests that the landscape was a mosaic of xeric and wet environments.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: So what relavance is there in mentioning snowy peaks if Africans are so mobile they don't have a chance to adapt to it? Are you saying there are cold adapted Africans?
^^Who says Africans have not adapted to the colder micro-climates within the tropic zone? And why would being mobile mean people would not have a chance to adapt? Are you saying people can't range over a wide area or are limited to a certain group size in Africa?
if you are talking about Kilamanjaro's Chagga people don't live on in it's colder upper altitude. It has 5 climate zones and the Chagga live in the first and second climate zones, the bushland and rainforest. The Chagga have only lived in the region 4-600 years
If people lived in a cold microclimate for thousands of years they would become cold adapated.
True or false, there are no cold adpated Africans?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
One of the things that is creating confusion in this thread is that no one has established the complete set of terms for human adapatation to climate
Are tropical and cold-adapted the only two categories?
maybe yes maybe no but unless that question is answered only more confusion will ensue.
Without establishing that first it is pointless to to into an example and talk about specifics, what parts of it are categorized as in relation to climate
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^^^
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:No dumbass. Tropical African includes everything within the tropical zone as demarcated by the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn in Africa AND the movement, dwelling and presence of said tropical Africans peoples to areas adjacent to this zone, as already stated.
The climatic tropical zone is limited to mostly western and central sub-sahara africa.
The definition of tropical you are using has no link to climate. You're using the definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year --- a completely bogus definition in regards to population biology, and physical anthropology.
LMAO. The only thing that supposedly "connects" your "tropical" africans is the fact they can see the sun directly overhead during the year. You self admit your definition is bogus, and has nothing to do with climate.
In actual scientifc climate classification, tropical Africa is as follows:
Only Green = tropical climate.
Instead your bogus "Tropical africans" are just populations that happen to dwell in an area that can overhead see the sun.
-- Keep the comedy coming.
What you area showing is the TROPICAL RAIN FOREST! LOL
Indeed pure comedy, keep it coming!
Remote sensing and past climatic changes in tropical deserts: Example of the Sahara
Sahara desert is the second largest desert in the world, after Antarctica, and the largest hot desert in the world.
The desert extensively covers almost all the parts of Northern Africa. It stretches from the Red Sea and includes parts of the Mediterranean coasts to the outskirts of the Atlantic Ocean. In the southward region, it is limited by the Sahel, a belt of semi-arid tropical savanna separating it from Sub-Saharan Africa.
The countries which Sahara desert encompasses include Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Sudan, Tunisia and Western Sahara.
The history of the desert dates back to 3 million years ago.
Sahara desert has a combination climate. While it has subtropical climate in the northern parts, the region in south experiences tropical conditions.
Geographically, Sahara desert is rocky, with varied elevation. It contains underground rivers, which sometime penetrate the surface, resulting in oases.
There are some sand dunes in the desert which reach a height of about 180 meters.
The central region of Sahara desert is elevated, when compared to the other areas, with peaks such as Emi Koussi and Tahat.
It might sound strange, but the peaks in the desert are snowcapped during the winter. The eastern part of Sahara - Libyan Desert, is dry and has very few oases.
The climate of Sahara desert is very hot and dry. During the day, it is very hot, while night brings along chill.
Sahara desert receives only 8 inches of rainfall per annum. This is one of the reasons for the meager population in the region, with just 2 million people here.
Earlier, the desert used to be a fertile area, in which elephants, giraffes and other animals grazed. Slowly it started becoming drier and the fertile landscape gave way to infertile region, as we see today.
The center of Sahara desert is excessively dry, with little or no vegetation. There is sparse grassland and desert shrub with trees and tall shrubs, where moisture collects.
During the last ice age, the desert was bigger than what it is now, extending south beyond its current boundaries. Sahara desert has one of the harshest climates in the world. The prevailing north-easterly wind often causes the sand to form sand storms and dust devils.
Arabic is the most widely spoken language in the Sahara region, from the Atlantic to the Red Sea.
Sahara stands divided into Western Sahara, Central Ahaggar Mountains, Tibesti Mountains, Aïr Mountains (a region of desert mountains and high plateaus), Tenere Desert and Libyan Desert (the most arid region).
LMAOH
The Anglo-idiot apparently does not know that climatic terms like tropical, subtropical, temperate, cold (sub-polar), and polar are all based on latitudes. Just as you said, everything within the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn are tropical and areas along the equator are called equatorial! These are the areas of the globe that receive the most sunlight and therefore are the hottest. Of course overall climate is based not only on latitude but altitude as well and high mountainous areas within a tropical zone are cooler than lower lying areas close to sea level.
The map he posted of tropical rainforests is hilariously obvious since not all areas are highlighted even when they are equatorial like the Horn and huge swaths of Africa and parts of India and Indonesia. LOL
Anglo-Idiot is definitely a desperate and dishonest dimwit. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass idiot: One of the things that is creating confusion in this thread is that no one has established the complete set of terms for human adapatation to climate
Are tropical and cold-adapted the only two categories?
maybe yes maybe no but unless that question is answered only more confusion will ensue.
Without establishing that first it is pointless to to into an example and talk about specifics, what parts of it are categorized as in relation to climate
Hey idiot #2, we explained this to you before! The latitudinal climate zones are continuous, therefore there is no clear cut separation in the localized adaptations of various human populations. It's not like there is only tropically adapted and cold adapted humans only. There are also temperate adapted humans who display an intermediary position. Skin color for instance is one trait among many of adaptation to climate. The darkest i.e. BLACKEST populations are definitely tropically adapted and specifically equatorial compared to pale peoples of cold climates.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:The only comedian is you fool because the tropic zone is linked to climate. The tropics of Cancer and Capricorn denote a climatic zone fool
The tropical zone is not linked to climate, it is solely defined by the boundary of where the sun can be observed directly overhead.
Tropical climate is only found mostly in western and central sub-sahara africa, as any scientific climatic classification will show. Why are you quoting the Koppen climate scheme when they debunk your claims?
Here is the Koppen map:
Tropical = only green shades.
Your using of the term tropical is not climatic or scientific, you use it so you can steal North & East Africans who don't posess the Negroid (tropical) physiognomy: wide noses (because of the humidity of tropics) and wooly hair.
Do you even read your own quotes?
"In hot, humid conditions a low, broad nose serves to dissipate heat (Wolpoff 1968; Franciscis and Long 1991)... The pattern of variation in nasal index corresponds very broadly to that expected if nasal form is indeed an adaptation to regional climate. The highest nasal index values, representing broad, low noses, tend to be those of populations in humid tropical regions of Africa and south-east Asia." http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/blog-post_31.html
You quote this on your blog, but then claim thin noses are adaptations in the humid tropical climatic regions:
quote: Narrow noses do occur routinely within the tropical zone and among tropical Africans
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:The only comedian is you fool because the tropic zone is linked to climate. The tropics of Cancer and Capricorn denote a climatic zone fool
The tropical zone is not linked to climate, it is solely defined by the boundary of where the sun can be observed directly overhead.
Tropical climate is only found mostly in western and central sub-sahara africa, as any scientific climatic classification will show. Why are you quoting the Koppen climate scheme when they debunk your claims?
Here is the Koppen map:
Tropical = only green shades.
Your using of the term tropical is not climatic or scientific, you use it so you can steal North & East Africans who don't posess the Negroid (tropical) physiognomy: wide noses (because of the humidity of tropics) and wooly hair.
Do you even read your own quotes?
"In hot, humid conditions a low, broad nose serves to dissipate heat (Wolpoff 1968; Franciscis and Long 1991)... The pattern of variation in nasal index corresponds very broadly to that expected if nasal form is indeed an adaptation to regional climate. The highest nasal index values, representing broad, low noses, tend to be those of populations in humid tropical regions of Africa and south-east Asia." http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/blog-post_31.html
You quote this on your blog, but then claim thin noses are adaptations in the humid tropical climatic regions:
quote: Narrow noses do occur routinely within the tropical zone and among tropical Africans
The sign of your racist desperation has taken another toll. Your map is showing a CURRENT EVENT!!!!!
All because you're cold adapted in limb portions, you're mad.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers:
quote:The only comedian is you fool because the tropic zone is linked to climate. The tropics of Cancer and Capricorn denote a climatic zone fool
The tropical zone is not linked to climate, it is solely defined by the boundary of where the sun can be observed directly overhead.
Tropical climate is only found mostly in western and central sub-sahara africa, as any scientific climatic classification will show. Why are you quoting the Koppen climate scheme when they debunk your claims?
Here is the Koppen map:
Tropical = only green shades.
LOL Dummy, tropical refers to latitudinal zone NOT moisture. Thus there are tropical deserts as there are tropical rainforest! You just love to wriggle your way out of things with red herrings don't you. According to your Koppen map Sudan and Ethiopia are not tropical either yet both are home to so-called "negroid" types!
quote:Your using of the term tropical is not climatic or scientific, you use it so you can steal North & East Africans who don't possess the Negroid (tropical) physiognomy: wide noses (because of the humidity of tropics) and wooly hair.
You're saying latitudinal zones based on sun ray intensities hitting the earth are not scientific?? LOL Also, who said wide noses or even humid whether is associated with the tropical zone only??
quote:Do you even read your own quotes?
"In hot, humid conditions a low, broad nose serves to dissipate heat (Wolpoff 1968; Franciscis and Long 1991)... The pattern of variation in nasal index corresponds very broadly to that expected if nasal form is indeed an adaptation to regional climate. The highest nasal index values, representing broad, low noses, tend to be those of populations in humid tropical regions of Africa and south-east Asia." http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/blog-post_31.html
You quote this on your blog, but then claim thin noses are adaptations in the humid tropical climatic regions:
quote: Narrow noses do occur routinely within the tropical zone and among tropical Africans
The theory is that broad noses are adapted to humid areas while narrow noses are adapted to arid or dry conditions. Again, YOU are the only idiot who claims tropical = humid when that is obviously NOT the case!
Again you apparently haven't heard of the term tropical desert.
A tropically adapted man of Africa, indigenous to an arid area.
But according to you his nose must be a cold adapted trait from Caucasoid admixture!
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Climatic Regions
quote:Both Tropical and Dry climates are found within the Nile basin. Climate within the Nile basin has been classified into three Köppen subclasses: tropical wet and dry climates (savanna), steppe, and desert climates. Highland climates are also found in the Nile basin, but are strongly influenced by the more general climatic region in which they lie.
Tropical Wet and Dry
quote: Tropical wet and dry climates (savanna) lie between about 5º and 20º latitude; that is, between equatorial tropical rainforest climates and tropical deserts. These climates are characterized by seasonal rainfall and warm temperatures (all months have a mean temperature greater than 18ºC), and significant variation in precipitation may occur within a year and between years. Tropical wet and dry climates are found in portions of the Lake Victoria basin, the Sudan, and Ethiopia."
Hydrology of the Nile Basin, Volume 2 By M M Shahin
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^ The Anglo-Idiot fails to understand that the tropical zone is a latitudinal zone with its borders being the Tropic of Cancer in the north and the Tropic of Capricorn in the south, and the equator in the center being the most tropical.
He was already caught lying by posting a map of tropical rainforest areas instead of the entire tropical zone. So now his tactic is to cling to that same lie that 'tropical' only means humid areas?? In the mean time all those areas that are not humid but arid including Mali, Niger, Chad, and even Sudan with all those 'Negroids', where does he think they came from? The rainforests?? LOL Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: If they show Negroid traits, then aren't uniformly Caucasoid, but admixed.
Like I said, you can keep running away from reality, but I'm going to keep slamming it in your face. Coons view of Mediterraneans:
Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency.. --Coon
So no, the presence of negroid traits on remains that are classed as 'mediterranean' are not thought of by Coon as inconsistent with their Mediterranean classification
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Crania with non-Caucasoid features are not Caucasoid.
Not according to your boy Coon:
Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency. --Coon
quote:Where high NI's and prognathism appear in crania, Coon (1939) always notes they are not Mediterraneans
About the tenth time you're flatout lying about their mediterranean status according to Coon. No matter, I'm going to keep stuffing the data in your face:
These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. 13 There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian. These small Mediter- raneans must have brought their microliths from some point farther south or east, impelled by changes of climate.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The quotes you put up actually assert the crania is not Mediterranean
As noted about you before, you hide behind your sources, but they are radically different from what you're saying. The traits you say are ''not mediterranean'' are the traits Coon says are normal on Mediterranean skulls:
and often carries a slight negroid tendency. --Coon
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The Caucasoid (Med) specimen Coon describes has a low NI.
Lying out of your ass again. Nowhere is this erg el ahmar cranium described as Mediterranean. It is described as similar to late UP North Africa and UP Europe.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The robust vs. gracile features of these also generally correlate
WTF are you talking about with your incoherent conjecture. I told your dumbass that the broad nosed and prognathic Natufian remains were not robust, but the most gracile among the Natufian remains. The only robust Natufian specimen discussed by Coon 1939 was European looking according to him. You fabricated your claim that robusticity is correlated with broad noses and prognatishm in Natufian remains. You also fabricated your claim that Homo 3 had prognatism, or that it had brow ridges. You're fabricating these correlations because you desperately want to pretend that these broad nosed Natufian populations weren't Africans but Austaloids. You're fabricating your claims that you have access to studies that concluded that Natufians and Mesolithic Nubians were wavy haired. You've fabricated your claim that Bar Yosef said that the Mushabian industry was found in Upper and Lower Egypt. You've fabricated your claim that Coon retracted his statement regarding the prognathism and other traits observed in the Shuqbah series. You've fabricated your claim that Proto-Mediterranean Capsian samples all had narrow noses. You've fabricated your claim that Coon said that broad nose is a trait that arabo-berbers retained from UP populations. I can go on and on, because fabricating is all you do.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: "The orbits were low and rectangular, the nose high and narrower than that of Afalou, chin prominent." (Gedda, 1961)
This is not a description of the Shuqbah remains discussed by Keith, you phuckn liar.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Your claims Natufians are mostly/all wide nosed is simply fantasy
No phuckin liar, I just told your dumbass that there were several types during the Natufian, and that the other type was described by Coon as ''perfectly European''. You're obviously fuming out of your ass as usual. I never claimed that all Natufians are wide nosed. You, on the other hand, are claiming only one Natufian specimen is prognathous (homo 3), even though it isn't even called prognathous by the source that examined it. Furthermore, your own primary source destroys your position that, out of all the Natufian remains, only Homo 3 had prognathism. Coon clearly says that the Natufians at Shuqbah had a prevalence of prognathism. You're a phuckn pathological liar.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Regarding your lies on Coon's table, where did I claim all Europeans = Mediterraneans?
You're seeing ghosts as usual. I never claimed that you said that all Europeans are mediterraneans. I merely highlighted all non-leptorrhine series, which included Mediterranean series.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: If you looked at the Med crania though you would see they are all leptorrhine, excluding some that have borderline tendency towards mesorrhine
Again, you're lying out of your ass. The Naqadan skeletal remains were platyrrhine, even though they're seen as mediterraneans by Coon. The same goes for the Danubian remains.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Abbie's quote also doesn't contradict my claims (you failed again) since his Australoid taxon includes Caucasoids
Prove it. Post the relevant except, complete with its surrounding context.
Funny that there isn't a shred of Austroloid ancestry in all the modern regions you say there were Australoids in Mesolithic/Neolithic times (Egypt, Jordan, Judea, Wadi Halfa, Jebel Sahaba, Morocco, Algeria, Tunesia) but plenty of African ancestry that was introduced at the exact same time you say the prognathous/wide nosed populations weren't Negroid, but Australoid.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^ LOL The idiot knows he was caught with his flaming pants down lying, first about 'Mediterraneans' and now about the tropics. Watch him twist and spin like the worm he is! Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The theory is that broad noses are adapted to humid areas while narrow noses are adapted to arid or dry conditions.
Mainstream anthropologisical thinking is that the narrow nose is an adpatation to cold and dry conditions. You knew that but you left out cold for obvious reasons.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^ The Anglo-Idiot fails to understand that the tropical zone is a latitudinal zone with its borders being the Tropic of Cancer in the north and the Tropic of Capricorn in the south, and the equator in the center being the most tropical.
He was already caught lying by posting a map of tropical rainforest areas instead of the entire tropical zone. So now his tactic is to cling to that same lie that 'tropical' only means humid areas?? In the mean time all those areas that are not humid but arid including Mali, Niger, Chad, and even Sudan with all those 'Negroids', where does he think they came from? The rainforests?? LOL
Thus far I know they came from:
Y-chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau: a multiethnic perspective
Alexandra Rosa et al.
Tajima's D and Fu's Fs, our unpublished data). An intriguing increased frequency of L0a1 in the Balanta might parallel A1-M31 and A3b2-M13 Y chromosomes in representing East African traces. Although the founder L0a1 haplotype is shared in an east-to-west corridor, the emerging lineages are exclusive of Guineans, indicating a rapid spread and local expansion after arrival.
The analysis of our data provides further evidence for the homogeneity of the Y chromosome gene pool of sub-Saharan West Africans, due to the high frequency of haplogroup E3a-M2. Its frequency and diversity in West Africa are among the highest found, suggesting an early local origin and expansion in the last 20–30 ky. Hypothesizing on the existence of an important local agricultural centre, this could have supported a demographic expansion, on an E3a-M2 background, that almost erased the pre-existing Y chromosome diversity. Its pattern of diversity within Mandenka and Balanta hints at a more marked populational growth, these people possibly related to the local diffusion of agricultural expertise.[]The Papel and Felupe-Djola people retain traces of their East African relatives, to which the short timescale of residence in Guinea-Bissau and higher isolation from major influences have contributed.[/b]
These minor imprints may represent movements from Sahel's more central and eastern parts, seen, for example, in the typically Ethiopian/Sudanese E3*-PN2 lineages that have reached Senegambia [2,3,5]. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^ The Anglo-Idiot fails to understand that the tropical zone is a latitudinal zone with its borders being the Tropic of Cancer in the north and the Tropic of Capricorn in the south, and the equator in the center being the most tropical.
He was already caught lying by posting a map of tropical rainforest areas instead of the entire tropical zone. So now his tactic is to cling to that same lie that 'tropical' only means humid areas?? In the mean time all those areas that are not humid but arid including Mali, Niger, Chad, and even Sudan with all those 'Negroids', where does he think they came from? The rainforests?? LOL
.
"tropical adaptation" does not refer to the tropical zone which encompasses more than one climate.
Although a desert might be a tropical desert in a longitudal tropic zone it's climate is not tropic it's arid. Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
You are logged in on your other account, do you realize that?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The theory is that broad noses are adapted to humid areas while narrow noses are adapted to arid or dry conditions.
Mainstream anthropologisical thinking is that the narrow nose is an adpatation to cold and dry conditions. You knew that but you left out cold for obvious reasons.
Climatic Regions
quote:Both Tropical and Dry climates are found within the Nile basin.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Although a desert might be a tropical desert in a longitudal tropic zone it's climate is not tropic it's arid.
Yep.
- Tropics is red/pink only.
Most of Africa is not tropical in climate. Congoids (Pygmies/Negroids) are only subspecies in Africa that are tropically adapted (wide nosed, wooly haired etc).
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Climatic Regions
quote:Both Tropical and Dry climates are found within the Nile basin. Climate within the Nile basin has been classified into three Köppen subclasses: tropical wet and dry climates (savanna), steppe, and desert climates. Highland climates are also found in the Nile basin, but are strongly influenced by the more general climatic region in which they lie.
Tropical Wet and Dry
quote: Tropical wet and dry climates (savanna) lie between about 5º and 20º latitude; that is, between equatorial tropical rainforest climates and tropical deserts. These climates are characterized by seasonal rainfall and warm temperatures (all months have a mean temperature greater than 18ºC), and significant variation in precipitation may occur within a year and between years. Tropical wet and dry climates are found in portions of the Lake Victoria basin, the Sudan, and Ethiopia."
Hydrology of the Nile Basin, Volume 2 By M M Shahin
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Although a desert might be a tropical desert in a longitudal tropic zone it's climate is not tropic it's arid.
Yep.
- Tropics is red/pink only.
Most of Africa is not tropical in climate. Congoids (Pygmies/Negroids) are only subspecies in Africa that are tropically adapted (wide nosed, wooly haired etc).
Khoisan don't live in a tropical zone. They live in a totally different terrain.
You are confused and desperate.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:In the mean time all those areas that are not humid but arid including Mali, Niger, Chad, and even Sudan with all those 'Negroids', where does he think they came from? The rainforests?? LOL
Why lol? That is precisely where they came from.
"True Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia" (Frost, 1999)
Also interesting is the fact, that Negroid dark skin arose probably in the rainforests:
"According to Mayr (1970), dark skin coloring is most often correlated with humid areas where vegetation is abundant and tend to produce dark shadows. This is not a coincidence because research by R.B. Cowles (1959, 1967) has shown that humans often follow the same rules of protective coloration as other mammals. So while the black panther of the jungle, by virtue of his ability to blend in with the dark shadows cast by the many trees and plants, is better able to stalk his prey, dark coloration likewise allowed ancestral hunter-gatherers of the forest to both hide from predators and hunt down their next meal."
Capoids are much lighter as they came from the desert (non-tropical) regions.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: WTF are you talking about with your incoherent conjecture. I told your dumbass that the broad nosed and prognathic Natufian remains were not robust, but the most gracile among the Natufian remains. The only robust Natufian specimen discussed by Coon 1939 was European looking according to him. You fabricated your claim that robusticity is correlated with broad noses and prognatishm in Natufian remains.
Indeed...
In Kenya the remains from Gamble’s Cave …have been interpreted as showing Caucasoid features. And possible archaeological affinities with the Mediterranean Capsian industries (Ferembach). As we have seen in previous chapters recent sub-Saharan Africans are cranially more gracile than Europeans and therefore fossil African specimens of greater size and robusticity have been traditionally considered non-African in character. ---P. 283 The Evolution of Moderrn Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Variation, Mart Mirazon Lahr 1996
Incidentally, as I recall women have more gracile bones than men. If Africans have more cranial gracility than Europeans, I wonder what that bodes for the racist argument that African women are mannish and thus objectively unattractive?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: WTF are you talking about with your incoherent conjecture. I told your dumbass that the broad nosed and prognathic Natufian remains were not robust, but the most gracile among the Natufian remains. The only robust Natufian specimen discussed by Coon 1939 was European looking according to him. You fabricated your claim that robusticity is correlated with broad noses and prognatishm in Natufian remains.
Indeed...
In Kenya the remains from Gamble’s Cave …have been interpreted as showing Caucasoid features. And possible archaeological affinities with the Mediterranean Capsian industries (Ferembach). As we have seen in previous chapters recent sub-Saharan Africans are cranially more gracile than Europeans and therefore fossil African specimens of greater size and robusticity have been traditionally considered non-African in character. ---P. 283 The Evolution of Moderrn Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Variation, Mart Mirazon Lahr 1996
Incidentally, as I recall women have more gracile bones than men. If Africans have more cranial gracility than Europeans, I wonder what that bodes for the racist argument that African women are mannish and thus objectively unattractive?
Indeed. He has called low sexual dimorphism a negroid trait on numerous occasions, and high sexual dimorphism a Caucasoid trait. Almost all of the populations he calls Caucasoid in Africa and adjacent areas (Badarians, Naqadans, Shuqbah Natufians, Elmenteitans, Gamble cave specimen, Somali's, Masai, ancient Nubians, etc) have attenuated and slender limbs in both sexes and thus a correspondingly low sexual dimorphism for these characters.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The theory is that broad noses are adapted to humid areas while narrow noses are adapted to arid or dry conditions.
Mainstream anthropologisical thinking is that the narrow nose is an adpatation to cold and dry conditions. You knew that but you left out cold for obvious reasons.
Too dumb to realize that the selective agent is dry ambient air, like Djehuti says, in both cold areas, as well as arid areas. Cold has nothing to do with it, dumbass.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:In the mean time all those areas that are not humid but arid including Mali, Niger, Chad, and even Sudan with all those 'Negroids', where does he think they came from? The rainforests?? LOL
Why lol? That is precisely where they came from.
"True Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia" (Frost, 1999)
Also interesting is the fact, that Negroid dark skin arose probably in the rainforests:
"According to Mayr (1970), dark skin coloring is most often correlated with humid areas where vegetation is abundant and tend to produce dark shadows. This is not a coincidence because research by R.B. Cowles (1959, 1967) has shown that humans often follow the same rules of protective coloration as other mammals. So while the black panther of the jungle, by virtue of his ability to blend in with the dark shadows cast by the many trees and plants, is better able to stalk his prey, dark coloration likewise allowed ancestral hunter-gatherers of the forest to both hide from predators and hunt down their next meal."
Capoids are much lighter as they came from the desert (non-tropical) regions.
LOL your claims make it only worse, giving Swenet the upper hand. The hand that slaps you in the face constantly. And you seem to like it, like a fetish.
4000 years ago (ancient) Egypt arose from out of Naqada (further South). So it's a matter of interpretation. Indeed, there was no "real" Egypt before.
Anyway,
Y-chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau: a multiethnic perspective
Alexandra Rosa et al.
Tajima's D and Fu's Fs, our unpublished data). An intriguing increased frequency of L0a1 in the Balanta might parallel A1-M31 and A3b2-M13 Y chromosomes in representing East African traces. Although the founder L0a1 haplotype is shared in an east-to-west corridor, the emerging lineages are exclusive of Guineans, indicating a rapid spread and local expansion after arrival.
The analysis of our data provides further evidence for the homogeneity of the Y chromosome gene pool of sub-Saharan West Africans, due to the high frequency of haplogroup E3a-M2. Its frequency and diversity in West Africa are among the highest found, suggesting an early local origin and expansion in the last 20–30 ky. Hypothesizing on the existence of an important local agricultural centre, this could have supported a demographic expansion, on an E3a-M2 background, that almost erased the pre-existing Y chromosome diversity. Its pattern of diversity within Mandenka and Balanta hints at a more marked populational growth, these people possibly related to the local diffusion of agricultural expertise.[]The Papel and Felupe-Djola people retain traces of their East African relatives, to which the short timescale of residence in Guinea-Bissau and higher isolation from major influences have contributed.[/b]
These minor imprints may represent movements from Sahel's more central and eastern parts, seen, for example, in the typically Ethiopian/Sudanese E3*-PN2 lineages that have reached Senegambia [2,3,5]. Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
What you area showing is the TROPICAL RAIN FOREST! LOL
^^lol good catch Patrol- you can see how bogus this fool is. He tries to pass off rainforest areas as the sum total of the tropics.. lol Then he claims that the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn are not related to climate... lmao..
THE Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-IDIOT EXPOSED PART 20: He tries ot make out that only rainforest areas define the tropics and says: ----------------------------------------------------------------- quote
The climatic tropical zone is limited to mostly western and central sub-sahara africa. Posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo_Pyramidologist osted 17 November, 2012 04:53 PM ____________________________________
When in fact any credible geography book denotes the tropics within the zone marked out by the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a denotation itself based on climate.
THE Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-IDIOT EXPOSED- PART 19: He says there is no OOA but the very "supporting reference" he proffers directy contradicts his claim. ------------------------- [b]Posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on 07 May, 2012 08:45 AM:
OOA never happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans ----------------------------- The idiot gives a Wikipedia "reference" to back up his claim but the very same "supporting reference" he gives states that multi-regionalists acknowledge that hominid species came from Africa in the first place. Their argument is for continuity and distinct development in separate locations AFTER the initial OOA exit putting hominins in different places. This approach STILL recognizes and acknowledges hominin OOA.
Quote from Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Idiot's "supporting" reference: This species arose in Africa two million years ago as H. erectus and then spread out over the world, developing adaptations to regional conditions. Some populations became isolated for periods of time, developing in different directions, but through continuous interbreeding, replacement, genetic drift and selection, adaptations that were an advantage anywhere on earth would spread, keeping the development of the species in the same overall direction while maintaining adaptations to regional factors. By these mechanisms, surviving local varieties of the species evolved into modern humans, retaining some regional adaptations but with many features common to all regions.[10]
^^Note they say that their founding population Homo Erectus came from Africa. In short, the Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-idiot's own "supporting" reference contradicts his claim. What a pathetic fool.
THE Faheem Dunkers/ANglo- IDIOT EXPOSED - PART 18. The faker says Negroids are defined as having Caucasoid admixture. But when he sees bla-ck models with admixture he suddenly claims they aint black at all. Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo_Pyramidologist: posted 12 June, 2012 05:34 PM http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008168 Topic: Carleton Coon: Negoids are hybrids of Pygmies and Caucasians [QB] Yes. A fact well known today.
''The Negroid type is not homogeneous.'' - Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994.
Hiernaux (1975) distinguishes the Pygmies to Negroids on the grounds the latter are a product of the former (a recent mutation) but that there was probable geneflow with Caucasoids as Coon (1967, 1982) maintains.
Also note that on page 123 of 'Living Races of Man', Coon also states that ''To this combination may have been added remnant Capoid genes''. So Negroids are basically a recent mutation from the Pygmies, but with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture.
^^Bitch please. Your own words contradict your punk ass. Up above you say that "NEgroids" are a recent mutation with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture. Look bich, look. You say blacks are defined as having that admixture, and quote your favorite racist, Carleton Coon to that effect. But when your hypocrisy is exposed, you all of a sudden deny that the black models posted are "really" black. IN one thread "admixed" Negroes like the black models are black, but when your idiocy is exposed, they suddenly ain't black. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-IDIOT EXPOSED PART 17: - He says there is no sexual diomorphism in Africans or skeletal differences between men and women, when the very anthropologists he quotes say the opposite.
---------]Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo- Buffoon: Faheem Dunkers/ANglo_Pyramidologist member # 18853 posted 03 June, 2012 05:47 PM
Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Buffoon 17a- "Frost and other anthropologists have noted that sexual dimorphism in Negroids is completely lacking. Check Frost's online blog."
Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Buffoon 17b- "Black females are not lighter or different to black males in craniofacial terms."
^^Stupid muthafucka. The very Frost quote you paste says this:
Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys).." FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103u
------- Can't you read imbecile? ALL females differ from males and are lighter. ALL human humans have sexual dimorphism to one degree or another. SO how can blacks "completely lack" said dimorphism according to you, when your own boy Peter Frost says all human have it?
------- ANd in studies of crania men and women do show differences, and these differences can be detected with a battery of modern measurements, as already shown in previous threads where your idiocy was destroyed- example (zakrewski2004-Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania)
your own peter frost debunks you: ---------------------------------------
"If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman’s skin correlates with the thickness of her subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men (Aoki, 2002; Feinman Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost, 2005; Van den Berghe & Frost, 1986)."
FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103
and:
"A different perspective on sexual dimorphism in skin pigmentation comes from the recognition that human females require significantly higher amounts of calcium during pregnancy and lactation and, thus, must have lighter skin than males in the same environment in order to maximize their cutaneous vitamin D3 production (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000)... Thus strong clinical evidence continues to support the hypothesis that lighter skin pigmentation in females evolved primarily as a means to enhance the the potential for cutaneous vitamin D production and maintain healthy long-term calcium status and skeletal health." -- Human Evolutionary Biology. 2010. By Michael P. Muehlenbein Damm you are one of the most pathetic idiots in existence.
Tell us -- were you born such a retarded shithead, or were you originally a slug who managed to rise to such prominence?
quote:Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo_Pyramidologist: [QB] E1b1b is not Negroid.
Read it an weep -
''Sub-Saharan Africans belong to subclades of E other than E1b1b, while most non-Africans who belong to haplogroup E belong to its E1b1b subclade.” - Fulvio Cruciani et al, Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa, Am. J. Hum. Genet, p. 74)
The foul faker doctored the quote not knowing the article has been much discussed at ES. Testifying even more to his incompetence, Cruciani actually does show E3b or E1b1b occuring in numerous places within "sub-Saharan" Africa. The three main subclades of haplogroup E3b (E-M78, E-M81, and E-M34) and the paragroup E-M35* are not homogeneously distributed on the African continent: E-M78 has been observed in both northern and eastern Africa, E-M81 is restricted t o northern Africa, E-M34 is common only in eastern Africa, and E-M35* is shared by eastern and southern Africans (Cruciani et al. 2002)" --Cruciani
And there is no "page 74" in the Cruciani article. THE FAKER AND BUFFOON IS AGAIN BUSTED IN A LIE!
THE FAKER'S BOGUS CLAIM PART- 15 - QUOTE: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/Cassiterides/Anglo: posted 14 January, 2012 11:41 AM If you are a white heterosexual male in Britain you have virtually zero chance of getting a job. All the jobs go to blacks or other immigrants.
^^LOL - Idiotic nonsense. As of 2001, 92.1% of the UK population identified themselves as White, leaving 7.9%[270] of the UK population identifying themselves as mixed race or of an ethnic minority. The population of the United Kingdom in the 2001 census was 58,789,194, UK Office for National Statistics- 2001.
That leaves approx 54 million white people. About 33% of that population were adult men. Let's take away 8% or so for minorities. So you are saying then that 25% of the approx 54 million white people in the UK are all unemployed? Damn you are dumb, but you only expose the bankruptcy of your racism.
The Fake C-Ass -Hole exposed PART 14 - BOGUS "NORDIC BLONDS FLITTING AROUND EGYPT
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/Cassiterides/Anglo: posted 29 December, 2011 06:05 AM
Hetepheres II was a blonde
^^Hapless dullard, you are exposed in another lie. Your own reference was checked. It yielded detailed citations which revealed a quite different story. Scholars say in the mainstream Cambridge Ancient History:
"We must give up the idea that she was of Libyan origin, an attractive theory which was based on blond hair of Hetepheres II, who was then thought to be her daughter. It is now evident that the yellow wig is part of a costume worn b other great ladies." --I. Edwards, C. Gadd, N. Hammond. 1971. The Cambridge Ancient History. 3ed Volume 1, Part 2, Early History of the Middle East
Yet another history says: "The walls of this interior room are decorated with hunting and fishing scenes, including a charming image of Meresankh and her mother, Hetepheres II picking lotus flowers from the river.. The pillars have images of Meresankh wearing a blond wig." --P. Lacovara. 2004. The pyramids and the SPhinx: tombs and temples of GIza
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 13- HIS BOGUS CLAIM OF "NORDIC" EGYPTIAN ROYALTY
quote:Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/Cassiterides/Anglo: posted 28 December, 2011 05:40 PM Early dynastic & old kingdom royalty was Nordic (blonde and fair skinned)
^^^Ha hahahahah you stupid mass of camel vomit! Up above you reference scholar Frank Yurco, but here is what Yurco said about the 12th Dynasty, debunking your claim of "Nordic" Egyptian royalty. You dumbass.... You are again debunked, with your own "supporting" references... lmao...
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989)
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 12 HE says Egyptologists like Frank Yurco says the Egyptians were "Caucasoid" --- "Virtually every egyptologist believes the egyptians were Caucasoid" --
BUt Yurco says nothing of the sort.. Here for example, is what he says about the 12the Dynasty rulers aho were Nubian descent: They seem really "Caucasoid"... yeah, right.. - quote-
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989) -
Another dodge is to twist an old chat/forum discussion statement by conservative Egyptologist Frank Yurco out of context. Yurco rejected those who "a priori" claimed the Egyptians were "black", that is, a dogmatic claim without presenting empirical evidence. He never rejected reasonable argument with data showing the Egyptians were an indigenous African population -QUOTE: .. basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times.. (Yurco 1996- An Egyptological Review, in Black Athena Revisited)
The Faker exposed- part 11
quote: Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/Cassiterides/Anglo: ^You claim Vanessa Williams is a black woman when her heritage is white welsh and native american
quote:Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/Cassiterides/Anglo: ^ Eurafrican is Caucasoid.
^^You are once again exposed. You said EurAfrican is Caucasoid, and cited Serti in support. But using your own citation any reader can see that Sergi considers EurAfricans to be an amalgamation or mixture of many types, directly contradicting your claim.
SErgi says: QUOTE: "This human species, with cranial and facial characters thus well determined, I call Eurafrican; and this because, having had its origin in Africa, where it is still represented by many peoples, it has been diffused from prehistoric times in Europe... The Eurafrican species thus falls into three races: the African, with red-brown and black pigmentation.. Thus the Mediterranean stock is a race or variety of the Eurafrican species." --G. Sergi
You have again failed and are once again exposed. ------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED PART 9- HE CLAIMS ALL THESE HIGGINS "DISTORTIONS" BUT WHEN ASKED TO NAME THE SPECIFIC WEBSITES OF THIS ALLEGED "AFROCENTRIC' HORROR, HE RUNS AWAY. WHY IS THAT FAKER?
In fact, Godfrey Higgins ALSO says this about "negroes"
quote: "I believe all the Blavk bambinos of Italy are negroes- not merely blacks; this admitted, it would prove they very early date of their entrance into Italy." pg 286 pg 434 "the ancient Eturians had the countenances of Negroes, the same as the images of Buddah in INdia." pg 166 pg 474- "They aere in fact, all one nation, with one religion, that of Buddah, and they were originally NEgroes" pg 59: "nor can it be reasonably doubted, that a race of Negroes formerly had power and pre-eminence in India" pg 59- AS TO ETHIOPIA: And it is probable that an Ethiopian, a negro, correctly speaking, may have been meant, not merely a black person; and it seems probable that the following may have ben the real fact, viz, that a race of NEgroes or Blacks, but probably of the former, came to India to the west."
cASSIRETEDES own source debunks him. Note the footnote by his own author- QUOTE: "may not have been Negroes, though Blacks, though it is probably they were so."
His own source says they may not have been Negroes then adds: THOUGH IT IS PROBABLY THEY WERE SO."
^The Faker once again, debunks himself. And he seems not to realize that Ethiopia is in "sub-Saharan" Africa.. lol.. pathetic incompetent..
And he never shows these massive number of websites "all over the internet". Like what? How many? If they are "all over" then he should at least be able to give direct links to 6 showing pages where the "Afrocentrics: are "distorting" Higgins work. LEt's say what the faker has besides hot air. Post DIRECT LINKS to 6 of the huge number of alleged "Afrocentric" websites where the Afrocentrics are "distorting" Higgins. SHow how they are distorting Higgins with specific quotes and specific context.
Watch the Faker duck and run when he is again called on a claim, or make up yet another lie to cover his exposure... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- part 8:
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
But then, in your own thread, by your own hand, you present a picture of an African albino that has pale skin, light brown or hazel eyes and fair hair. You said it was impossible, but then debunk yourself with your own posted picture.. This is like the 8-9th time you keep tripping over yourself with lies, contradictions, and bogus claims.
RECAP The Faker exposed- part 7 Originally posted by Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
^^Your claim is is completely bogus. Native diversity or albinism causes some tropical Africans to have light eyes and light hair. You fail againn..
bbvv
================================================
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 1-- ^^Faker! In your initial posts you claimed that it was Cavalli-Sforza talking 'bout negroes "mutating" from Pygmies. Now in your "corrected" post, YOU STILL APPEAR A FAKE. You now remove Cavalli- Sforza's name on the "mutant" claim, admitting that you were lying all along! Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah..
2-- Second point- Peter Frost is debunked by Cavalli-Sforza who says as to his so-called "mutation" theory: QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
Frost mentions Cavalli-Sforza in connection with sexual selection, and movement of some groups from Nigeria-Cameroon to other parts of Africa. He never says Cavalli Sforza talks bout any "negro mutation" and in fact any mutation claim is directly contradicted by Sforza. Sucka, you not only lied bout Cavalli-Sforza, you lied about your own white writer- Peter Frost, and misrepresented him.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Pyr/CassiREDES says: ''There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty''
^^LMAO! Totally fake! Credible up to date sources note that blondism is prevalent in early life BUT, contrary to your claim that: "There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty", the shade of color varies. In maturity the hair usually turns a darker brown color, but sometimes remains blond. See: "Gene Expression: Blonde Australian Aboriginals". Gnxp.com. http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/blonde-australian-aboriginals.php.
^^Here is one of your Australians over 20 years old who does have blonde hair. YOu are caught out spinning bogus claims AGAIN!. Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah.. -
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 5a [b]So where are these tropical african peoples with pale white or fair skin? blonde red hair?
^^You fail again. African populations can readily produce blond or reddish blond hair as noted by hair study author Hrdy 1978 himself, and he references Nubia as an example. Albinism is another source of red or blond hair in Africa, and albinism is much more prevalent in African populations than among Europeans. Even African Americans produce more albinos than white Americans. (The pigmentary system: physiology and pathophysiology- By James J. Nordlund 2006: 603) (E. Roach and V. Miller 2004. Neurocutaneous disorders.) QUOTE: "In general, the prevalence of albinism in Africa is much higher, in the range of 1 in 1 100 to 1 in 3900."
So Africa can and does routinely produce red and blond hair. All non-Africans are MORE LIMITED subsets of ORIGINAL African diversity. THe originals have more built-in diversity than the limited sub-set populations. This is straight science as noted by the quote from TIshkoff 2000.
Nor are Africans the only tropical peoples who can produce reddish hair or blond hair. Among Australian Aborigines, some tropical groups produce 100% of individuals with blond hair. Melanesians can also produce blond or reddish hair, and do so routinely.
White people have no monopoly at all on that hair color. They merely show more of it, but even among whites, red hair for example is minor- occurring in less than 5% of the overall European populations, mostly in northern Europe.
So the claim that there are no tropical Africans with such variation is once again, proved fake. You made the claim.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 4 ime and time again, you stand debunked and exposed for falsifying claims and references. Let's recap:
Originally posted by CASSIFAKedes::
quote: The source is Cavalli-Sforza's book on the Pygmies entitled 'African pygmies' (Academic Press, 1986).
This work shows that Negroids mutated from an ancestral pygmy population around 9,000 BC in West Africa. So the 'true' Black African today is a recent mutation. Caucasoids and Mongoloids predate them. [Wink] Negroids only migrated into other parts of Africa during the Bantu expansion or slightly earlier. Prior to them, Caucasoids inhabited North Africa and Bushmen (Capoids) to the south who were displaced by the Caucasoids from the Mediterranean around 12,000 BC.
^^A bogus reference. Why should anyone take your word for it given past bogus references? Quote where Cavalli-Sforza says these so-called "negroids" "mutated" from Pygmies. The burden of proof is on you, since you made the claim.
While you scurry to cover your tracks with yet more bogus claims, Cavali Sforza, in his well known The History and Geography of Human Genes, 1994 Cavalli-Sforza summarizes his 1986 work on Pygmies and specifically debunks the "Pygmy as ancestor" theory held by other older writings. QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
SO much for your lying claims of "mutations" from "Pygymy" ancestors. In short, you lied about Cavalli-Sforza, creating a falsified claim and a bogus "supporting" reference to a claim that is nowhere supported in his work. You are once again exposed as yet another racist faker You are not fooling anyone.
------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED-PART 3- YOu then tried to cover up your lie with even more bogus nformation and STILL fail
You "modified" your Cavalli Sforza claim by including page numbers, and then changing some wording to "adaptive radiation" hoping to divert attention from your exposure.. lmao..
However pages 361-362 of Cavalli Sforza's 1986 book says absolutely nothing about any Negroes "mutating" from pygmies, nor any "adaptive radiation." It merely discusses Pygmy history and geography. You picked out a page at random, not knowing it can be verified via Google Books. You were asked to provide a direct quote but are still running. Now why is that?
""It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
--------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 2 And Your pathetic "modification" STILL turned out to be bogus. You then said:
"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996).
^^But in fact, Watson 1996 has nothing to do with osteological data and does not even mention it. It has to do with mtDNA.
----------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 1C YOU THEN PROFFERED ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM BELOW: He says:
quote: "Note that in the Old Testament the Danites are the only Hebrew people described as being maritime and associated with ships.."
^^Complete Nonsense. In the Old Testament, the tribe of Zebulun is mentioned as specifically associated with ships and maritime elements. QUOTE:
Genesis 49:13 "Zebulun will dwell at the shore of the seas; Yea, he will be at the shore of the ships, And his side toucheth upon Sidon. "
Faheem Dunkers/ANglo-Pyr/Cassi-Fakdes: MULTIPLE TIMES AT BAT, MULTIPLE EXPOSURES AS A FAKE...
--fake claim that no Australian Abo over 20 is blonde
-- fake claim that NO tropical Africans have any diversity in hair, skin or eye color
-- fake Cavalli-Sforza citation
-- 2nd fake Cavalli-Sforza reference
-- Faked Watson reference
-- Faked Biblical reference
-- FAke representation of Peter Frost's work
-- Fake claim that "studies" say "egyptians were dark are not like 'light-skinned Europeans". COnveniently, the alleged study is missing..
--Fake Higgins claims
--Fake claim that Guiseppe Sergi's EurAfrican race concept is negro-free
--Fake claim that Vanessa Williams has no black ancestry but is "white and Indian"
--Fake claim that Egyptologists like Yurco consider the Egyptians "Caucasoid"
--Fake claim of white Nordic Egyptian royalty
--Fake claim of "blond" Hetepheres
--Fake claim of white males in BRitain "unable to get jobs"
--fAKE Crucuiani "quote" with "citation"
--fake claim that blacks have no sexual diomorphism and no male-female cranial differences
--Fake CDC claim of AUgust 2006
--Hypocritical double standards- bashing African Americans as black when they can be demonized as criminals but when exposed for hypocritical double standards calling them non-black
--Bogus claim that OOA never happened backed by "supporting" references that say nothingof the sort and directly contradict him.
--Fake claim that the tropics is mostly rainforest area
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: [QB]
quote:The only comedian is you fool because the tropic zone is linked to climate. The tropics of Cancer and Capricorn denote a climatic zone fool
The tropical zone is not linked to climate, it is solely defined by the boundary of where the sun can be observed directly overhead.
Tropical climate is only found mostly in western and central sub-sahara africa, as any scientific climatic classification will show. Why are you quoting the Koppen climate scheme when they debunk your claims?
Here is the Koppen map:
Tropical = only green shades.
Your using of the term tropical is not climatic or scientific, you use it so you can steal North & East Africans who don't posess the Negroid (tropical) physiognomy: wide noses (because of the humidity of tropics) and wooly hair.
Do you even read your own quotes?
"In hot, humid conditions a low, broad nose serves to dissipate heat (Wolpoff 1968; Franciscis and Long 1991)... The pattern of variation in nasal index corresponds very broadly to that expected if nasal form is indeed an adaptation to regional climate. The highest nasal index values, representing broad, low noses, tend to be those of populations in humid tropical regions of Africa and south-east Asia." http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/blog-post_31.html
You claim that the people of the Tropical green region are significantly different than the people of the Arid orange region.
yet they don't live that far away from each other.
Yet at the same time all of Western Europe is marked as Marine West coast gray and South Europe and a tiny sliver of coastal North Africa is Mediterranean
So why should Caucasians have any more claim to the Arid Adapted than the Negroids? At least the Negroids are on the same continent and don't have to use boats to get to the arid regions. Obviously the Caucasian are more biologically adapted to Western Europe than they are to North Africa and don't originate there.
Actually as I look at this map the most notable thing is Ethiopia having the same color as Western Europe
Ethiopia is in the tropical zone laying between the Equator and the Tropic of Cancer. It has three different climate zones according to elevation.
You can go from 60 - 95 Fahrenheit (15 C to 35 C) in a matter of hours when you travel in Ethiopia, so bring layers! Scroll down to find temperature charts, average sunlight hours and rainfall.
The capital Addis Ababa stays quite cool throughout the year, with daily high average temperatures rarely exceed 68 Fahrenheit (20 C). Dire Dawa to the east is much warmer and drier (similar to Harar). Mekele in the northern highlands (check these average temperatures below if you are doing the "historical route") tend to have cool daytime temperatures, around 68 Fahrenheit (20 C), along with a heavy short rainy season. If you are planning to visit the Omo Region in the south, be prepared for very hot temperatures.
In the highland areas of central, eastern and western Ethiopia, it gets cool very quickly at night. Frosty mornings are common so you'll want to pack a jacket. Not as cold as Sweden and Denmark but zarahan partially vindicated -but can Ethiopians from these regions be described as tropically adapted? maybe not
It is possible that even apart from Arab migrations parts of Ethiopia have some similarity to European climate and thus the people there might have some traits similar to Europeans. But does that make them or you superior, this adaptation to colder temperatures? This is superficial difference You cannot say the Ethiopians are at one with the Europeans the are too far away.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
OOA never happened?
I beg to differ.
quote:"Molecular biology has traced the ancestry of the Cro-Magnons deep into tropical Africa, into the territory of the hypothetical African Eve"...
--Cro-Magnon:How the Ice Age Gave Birth to the First Modern Humans, By Brian Fagan,pg 89 (2010).
--B. Lewis et al. 2008. Understanding Humans: Introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. p 297
quote:Evolutionary history of mtDNA haplogroup structure in African populations inferred from mtDNA d-loop and RFLP analysis.
(A) Relationships among different mtDNA haplogroup lineages inferred from mtDNA d-loop sequences and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies (Kivisild, Metspalu, et al. 2006). Dashed lines indicate previously unresolved relationships.
(B) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, L5, L2, L3, M, and N in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies.
(C) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, and L5 subhaplogroups (excluding L2 and L3) in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies. Haplogroup frequencies from previously published studies include East Africans (Ethiopia [Rosa et al. 2004], Kenya and Sudan [Watson et al. 1997; Rosa et al. 2004]), Mozambique (Pereira et al. 2001; Salas et al. 2002), Hadza (Vigilant et al. 1991), and Sukuma (Knight et al. 2003); South Africans (Botswana !Kung [Vigilant et al. 1991]); Central Africans (Mbenzele Pygmies [Destro-Bisol et al. 2004], Biaka Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991], and Mbuti Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991]); West Africans (Niger, Nigeria [Vigilant et al. 1991; Watson et al. 1997]; and Guinea [Rosa et al. 2004]). L1*, L2*, and L3* from previous studies indicate samples that were not further subdivided into subhaplogroups.
--Norman A. Johnson (2007) Darwinian Detectives: Revealing the Natural History of Genes and Genomes pg100
quote:Genetic evidence of an early exit of Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa through eastern Africa
The mitochondrial haplogroup M, first regarded as an ancient marker of East-Asian origin4, 5, has been found at high frequency in India6 and Ethiopia7, raising the question of its origin.(A haplogroup is a group of haplotypes that share some sequence variations.) Its variation and geographical distribution suggest that Asian haplogroup M separated from eastern-African haplogroup M more than 50,000 years ago.
Two other variants (489C and 10873C) also support a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa.
These findings, together with the virtual absence of haplogroup M in the Levant and its high frequency in the South-Arabian peninsula, render M the first genetic indicator for the hypothesized exit route from Africa through eastern Africa/western India. This was possibly the only successful early dispersal event of modern humans out of Africa.
quote:In modern humans, this elongation is a pattern characteristic of warm-adapted populations, and this physique may be an early Cro-Magnon retention from African ancestors. Similar retentions may be observed in certain indices of facial shape ...
--Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory: Second Edition by Eric Delson
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
OOA never happened? LOL
quote: The estimates of their dates overlap (around fifth thousand years ago) and they both probably lived in northeast Africa. Africa? Yes, Africa. Although nearly all EUrasian mtDNA and Y chromosomes currently existing can be traced back to L3 and M168 respectively, M168 and L3 also had African descendants."
--Norman A. Johnson (2007) Darwinian Detectives: Revealing the Natural History of Genes and Genomes pg100
quote: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.
Y-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.
quote:Some geographic structuring is seen between the sub-groups B2a (B-M150) and B2b (B-M112). Sub-group B2b is seen among Central African Pygmies and South African Khoisan. Sub-group B2a is seen among Cameroonians, East Africans, and among South African Bantu speakers. B2a1a (B-M109) is the most commonly seen sub-group of B2a. About 2.3% of African-Americans belong to haplogroup B - with 1.5% of them belonging to the sub-group B2a1a.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The theory is that broad noses are adapted to humid areas while narrow noses are adapted to arid or dry conditions.
Mainstream anthropologisical thinking is that the narrow nose is an adaptation to cold and dry conditions. You knew that but you left out cold for obvious reasons.
Too dumb to realize that the selective agent is dry ambient air, like Djehuti says, in both cold areas, as well as arid areas. Cold has nothing to do with it, dumbass.
that is just a Djehooty opinion that dryness is the selective agent (there Sweeny goes with the lingo)
-and it is not the most common opinion amongst contemporary anthropologists - go to the literature and see for yourself. The current thinking is that it is primarily and adaptation to the cold and that it is adaptation to dryness is usually a secondary theory. It's easy to notice the commonality of the narrow nose in temperate countries with cold winters but not necessarily dry.
You two are dishonest any current textbook on physical anthropology is going to call the narrow nose an adaptation to cold temperature and dryness. The literature does not say the narrow nose is an adaptation to dryness and some cold climates are dry,
"cold has nothing to do with it" - that is not what most scientists say idiot
lioness
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: narrow noses are adapted to arid or dry conditions.
If that's the case these Moroccans with wide noses represent people who are more recent and less adapted to the arid climate of North Africa.
.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Tropical climate in Africa is limited to a small region of Sub-Sahara Africa, as the standard (Köppen) climatic map above shows.
Köppen's classification divides climate of the world into tropical (A), dry (B), temperate (C), cold (D), and snow and ice (E) types/zones.
Under (A) falls: AF - Tropical Rainforest, Arm - Tropical Monsoon and Aw - Tropical savanna.
Anything that falls outside of that region in Africa is not tropical climate.
The bogus definition Zaharan is using has no relation to climate, it merely refers to the zone where earth is hit by perpendicular rays by the sun at least once a year: it could be a region covered in snow, a desert, ice, highland etc. Hence under his bogus definition of tropical he can claim people with diverse phenotypes are all "black/tropical" despite the fact they aren't.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Not even Keita agrees with Zaharan's bogus definition. Keita at least understands that "tropical africans" are sub-saharan africans (below the sahara) because tropical climate is not found anywhere above that boundary. In fact his term "Saharo-Tropical African Variant" is nothing more than a euphemism for Negroid:
"Saharo-tropical variant (or Africoid), as used here refers to African populations which have the range of currently observable characteristics which can be traced back to the early holocene or earlier in Saharo-tropical Africa" (Keita, 1993)
Tropical Africans Keita does not claim are above the sahara desert.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed Keita uses the term "Saharo-tropical" for the very reason that the Sahara spans from tropical to outside the tropical zone (sub-tropical). That said, Keita like many bio-anthropologists of his day don't even like racial terms like 'Negroid' because they are specious and non-objective as YOU yourself have proven over and over and over again, especially in this very thread. LOL Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: and it is not the most common opinion amongst contemporary anthropologists
According to what source?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: It's easy to notice the commonality of the narrow nose in temperate countries with cold winters but not necessarily dry.
LMAO @ ''cold winters that aren't necessarily dry''. Have you ever inspired humid cold air? Do dogs with short snouts have trouble breathing in cold environments like they do in the tropics? Have you ever felt cold air that didn't chap your lips, but that moisturized your lips? Cold air is always dry dumbass cretin, while air in tropical rainforests is humid and therefore, harder to inspire. Get some common sense into that microcephalic head of yours.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The theory is that broad noses are adapted to humid areas while narrow noses are adapted to arid or dry conditions.
Mainstream anthropologisical thinking is that the narrow nose is an adaptation to cold and dry conditions. You knew that but you left out cold for obvious reasons.
Too dumb to realize that the selective agent is dry ambient air, like Djehuti says, in both cold areas, as well as arid areas. Cold has nothing to do with it, dumbass.
Yet the lyinass insists on 'cold'. Why is that? Could it be that she, like Anglo-idiot, wants to believe in gene-flow from their 'Cacasoid' brethren into Africa to explain the presence of Africans even in Sub-Sahara who have narrow noses??
quote:that is just a Djehooty opinion that dryness is the selective agent (there Sweeny goes with the lingo)
-and it is not the most common opinion amongst contemporary anthropologists - go to the literature and see for yourself. The current thinking is that it is primarily and adaptation to the cold and that it is adaptation to dryness is usually a secondary theory. It's easy to notice the commonality of the narrow nose in temperate countries with cold winters but not necessarily dry.
You two are dishonest any current textbook on physical anthropology is going to call the narrow nose an adaptation to cold temperature and dryness. The literature does not say the narrow nose is an adaptation to dryness and some cold climates are dry,
"cold has nothing to do with it" - that is not what most scientists say idiot
lyinass sh*t
Fine, let us take a look at the literature then and see what it says.
"An important function of the nose is to warm and moisten inspired air. When air is exhaled, some heat and moisture are lost to the surroundings. The longer the nasal passage, the more efficient the nose is for warming and moistening incoming air and also the less heat and moisture are lost on exhalation. A narrow, high nose gives a longer nasal passage than a low, broad nose. Therefore, in cold or dry conditions, a high, narrow nose is preferable for warming and moistening air before it reaches the lings, and for reducing loss of heat and moisture in expired air. In hot, humid conditions a low, broad nose serves to dissipate heat (Wolpoff 1968; Franciscis and Long 1991)... The pattern of variation in nasal index corresponds very broadly to that expected if nasal form is indeed an adaptation to regional climate. The highest nasal index values, representing broad, low noses, tend to be those of populations in humid tropical regions of Africa and south-east Asia. Populations with low mean nasal indices (high, narrow noses) tend to be found in the cold, northern latitudes, and also in arid regions, such as the desert areas of east Africa and the Arabian peninsula. ..Davies found the nasal index taken in the living was closely correlated with skeletal nasal index. This suggests that there should likewise be an association between skeletal nasal index and climatic zone, and indeed other workers have found this to be the case." Mays. S., The Archaeology of Human Bones. (2010)
As the literature shows, Swenet and I are correct. And you lyinass twit are wrong. While long narrow noses do play a part in temperate or cold areas that are humid, they also play a part in hot areas that are dry and arid like tropical deserts such as the Sahara in Africa or dry shrub lands such as the Sahel in Africa. We are talking about African populations here which is why I didn't bother bringing up 'cold' because these areas are obviously not cold at all. Africans with long narrow noses are found in populations throughout the Saharan zone and even among peoples in the Sahelian zone from Nigeria in the west to Somalia in the east. Please explain how their noses are the result of 'cold' adaptation when not only are they areas they inhabit not cold but all other features are tropically adapted from black even very black skins to supra-tropical (once called 'super-negroid') limb proportions and linear torso builds. Thus the major factor or agent as Swenet says for adaption of narrow noses in Africans is dryness not cold.
So get your lyinass back to Mathilda's brothel, ho!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: narrow noses are adapted to arid or dry conditions.
If that's the case these Moroccans with wide noses represent people who are more recent and less adapted to the arid climate of North Africa.
Gee, what about these northeast Asians?
There are many northeast Asians especially Siberians who live in arctic areas yet have platyrhinne noses that you associate with hot climates. Perhaps they represent people who are recent or less adapted to the weather even though they show cold adaptation biologically in many other ways. Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 145, Issue 4, pages 599–614, August 2011
Climate-related variation of the human nasal cavity
Marlijn L. Noback1,2,*, Katerina Harvati1, Fred Spoor2,3
Abstract
The nasal cavity is essential for humidifying and warming the air before it reaches the sensitive lungs. Because humans inhabit environments that can be seen as extreme from the perspective of respiratory function, nasal cavity shape is expected to show climatic adaptation.
This study examines the relationship between modern human variation in the morphology of the nasal cavity and the climatic factors of temperature and vapor pressure, and tests the hypothesis that within increasingly demanding environments (colder and drier), nasal cavities will show features that enhance turbulence and air-wall contact to improve conditioning of the air.
We use three-dimensional geometric morphometrics methods and multivariate statistics to model and analyze the shape of the bony nasal cavity of 10 modern human population samples from five climatic groups.
We report significant correlations between nasal cavity shape and climatic variables of both temperature and humidity.
Variation in nasal cavity shape is correlated with a cline from cold–dry climates to hot–humid climates, with a separate temperature and vapor pressure effect. The bony nasal cavity appears mostly associated with temperature, and the nasopharynx with humidity.
The observed climate-related shape changes are functionally consistent with an increase in contact between air and mucosal tissue in cold–dry climates through greater turbulence during inspiration and a higher surface-to-volume ratio in the upper nasal cavity.
Am J Phys Anthropol 2011.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 145, Issue 4, pages 599–614, August 2011
Climate-related variation of the human nasal cavity
Marlijn L. Noback1,2,*, Katerina Harvati1, Fred Spoor2,3
Abstract
The nasal cavity is essential for humidifying and warming the air before it reaches the sensitive lungs. Because humans inhabit environments that can be seen as extreme from the perspective of respiratory function, nasal cavity shape is expected to show climatic adaptation.
This study examines the relationship between modern human variation in the morphology of the nasal cavity and the climatic factors of temperature and vapor pressure, and tests the hypothesis that within increasingly demanding environments (colder and drier), nasal cavities will show features that enhance turbulence and air-wall contact to improve conditioning of the air.
We use three-dimensional geometric morphometrics methods and multivariate statistics to model and analyze the shape of the bony nasal cavity of 10 modern human population samples from five climatic groups.
We report significant correlations between nasal cavity shape and climatic variables of both temperature and humidity.
Variation in nasal cavity shape is correlated with a cline from cold–dry climates to hot–humid climates, with a separate temperature and vapor pressure effect. The bony nasal cavity appears mostly associated with temperature, and the nasopharynx with humidity.
The observed climate-related shape changes are functionally consistent with an increase in contact between air and mucosal tissue in cold–dry climates through greater turbulence during inspiration and a higher surface-to-volume ratio in the upper nasal cavity.
Am J Phys Anthropol 2011.
"The bony nasal cavity appears mostly associated with temperature"
" The observed climate-related shape changes are functionally consistent with an increase in contact between air and mucosal tissue in cold–dry climates "
_________________________________________
quote: Originally posted by Swenet Cold has nothing to do with it, dumbass.
This is why you're the dumbass, dumbass The above is a typical article on the topic. Often they don't even mention hot dry climates. yet you guys edit
The Kalahari is theirized by some to have experienced a wetter episode from 16,000–13,000 B.P. There's over 10,000 after that as the region becasue dry again. At least the San peoples noses should have been get somewhat narrower than thei neighbors in tropical regions. Instead in many cases their noses quite wide.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
^ The Sahara has cold wet nightly temperatures, dumbass who has never set foot on Africa, let alone the Sahara or Sahel!
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Mainstream anthropologisical thinking is that the narrow nose is an adpatation to cold and dry conditions. You knew that but you left out cold for obvious reasons.
quote: The Sahara is located in a climatic divide. The Intercontinental Convergence Zone moves up from the south, but stops before the center of the Sahara, and consequently hardly carries any rain. Similarly, the winter rainfall of North Africa does not reach far south enough to regularly bring rain to the central Sahara. Consequently, the rainfall, albeit extremely rare, can fall in any season. The annual rainfall is below 25 millimetres (mm), and in the eastern part of the desert it is less than five mm per annum. The scarcity of rainfall in this ecoregion is aggravated by its irregularity, as no rain may fall for many years in some areas, followed by a single intense thunderstorm.
The Sahara is one of the hottest regions in the world, with mean annual temperatures exceeding 30°C. In the hottest months, temperatures can rise over 50°C, and temperatures can fall below freezing in the winter. A single daily variation of -0.5°C to 37.5°C has been recorded. The Sahara is also extremely windy. Hot, dust-filled winds create dust devils which can make the temperatures seem even hotter.
quote:Tropical Dry. This climate is found roughly along the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn. The tropical dry climate is both very hot and very dry. The Sahara Desert, located on the Tropic of Cancer, is the largest and hottest desert on earth; the Kalahari Desert is located along the Tropic of Capricorn in southern Africa. Areas within the tropical dry region receive less than 20 inches (51 centimeters) of rain per year, but there is wide variation in the actual amount an area receives from year to year. Temperatures during the day are high, but often nighttime temperatures are much lower.
quote: Tropical Wet and Dry. Between the tropical dry and tropical wet climates is found the tropical wet and dry climate, which has some characteristics of each. Temperatures are warm and stable throughout the year, but seasonal changes in wind patterns result in distinct wet and dry seasons. There is a wide range in the total seasonal rainfall, but the minimum is at least 20 inches (51 centimeters) per year.
All this hassle because some white folks can't except the fact that ancient Egyptians were indeed black/ and indignious Africans from the Sahel/ Sahara region, with tropical adapted body portions.
Yet, all Africans have to look the same, according to the white man' s stereotype.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
The Varna Necropolis (Bulgarian: Варненски некропол) (also Varna Cemetery) is a burial site in the western industrial zone of Varna (approximately half a kilometre from Lake Varna and 4 km from the city centre), Bulgaria, internationally considered one of the key archaeological sites in world prehistory. The oldest golden treasure in the world, dating to 5,000 BC, was discovered at the site.
Faheemdunkers what is your opinion on this? The ancient Bulgarian's nose shape more resembles the modern African's nasal opening shape more than the European. The ancient Bulgarian and the modern African both have a nasal opening shape that is rounder and less triangular than the modern European. They also have a similar bridge. Did Bulgarians have Negroid traits?
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Don't call on your fellow Euronut for help on another issue to wiggle out of another one just yet, twit.
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass:
This is why you're the dumbass, dumbass The above is a typical article on the topic. Often they don't even mention hot dry climates. yet you guys edit
No. Dummy, the authors specifically mention either cold OR dry climates. You are the one distorting their words. The article I cited also mentioned narrow noses in southern Arabia and East Africa because of the arid climate in those regions. Are you saying East African and southern Arabia are cold??
quote:The Kalahari is theorized by some to have experienced a wetter episode from 16,000–13,000 B.P. There's over 10,000 after that as the region because dry again. At least the San peoples noses should have been get somewhat narrower than their neighbors in tropical regions. Instead in many cases their noses quite wide.
LOL I was the one who told you that the Khoisan territory was not always the arid region it is now, so now you are basically affirming what I said. Also, that was just the latest wet phase. There were others and the Khoisan have been inhabiting their range for well over 50,000 years now. I also noticed you ignored my post about northeast Asians in the coldest climates i.e. the arctic who have broad noses as well.
Face it, b|tch you are toasted. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^ The Sahara has cold wet nightly temperatures, dumbass who has never set foot on Africa, let alone the Sahara or Sahel!
Yet despite those cold nights, most Saharans have super-tropical limb proportions and body builds for heat dissipation as well as black skin. What does that tell her? That only their noses adapted?! LOL
quote:The Sahara is located in a climatic divide. The Intercontinental Convergence Zone moves up from the south, but stops before the center of the Sahara, and consequently hardly carries any rain. Similarly, the winter rainfall of North Africa does not reach far south enough to regularly bring rain to the central Sahara. Consequently, the rainfall, albeit extremely rare, can fall in any season. The annual rainfall is below 25 millimetres (mm), and in the eastern part of the desert it is less than five mm per annum. The scarcity of rainfall in this ecoregion is aggravated by its irregularity, as no rain may fall for many years in some areas, followed by a single intense thunderstorm.
The Sahara is one of the hottest regions in the world, with mean annual temperatures exceeding 30°C. In the hottest months, temperatures can rise over 50°C, and temperatures can fall below freezing in the winter. A single daily variation of -0.5°C to 37.5°C has been recorded. The Sahara is also extremely windy. Hot, dust-filled winds create dust devils which can make the temperatures seem even hotter.
Tropical Dry. This climate is found roughly along the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn. The tropical dry climate is both very hot and very dry. The Sahara Desert, located on the Tropic of Cancer, is the largest and hottest desert on earth; the Kalahari Desert is located along the Tropic of Capricorn in southern Africa. Areas within the tropical dry region receive less than 20 inches (51 centimeters) of rain per year, but there is wide variation in the actual amount an area receives from year to year. Temperatures during the day are high, but often nighttime temperatures are much lower. Tropical Wet and Dry. Between the tropical dry and tropical wet climates is found the tropical wet and dry climate, which has some characteristics of each. Temperatures are warm and stable throughout the year, but seasonal changes in wind patterns result in distinct wet and dry seasons. There is a wide range in the total seasonal rainfall, but the minimum is at least 20 inches (51 centimeters) per year.http://www.calacademy.org/exhibits/africa/discover/nathistory/climate.htm
She uses the Khoisan a strawman defense. She does not realize that Khoisan have been inhabiting their area for tens of thousands of years since the time of OOA and that southern Africa was more humid and wet than North Africa was. In fact Southern Africa used to be wetlands with Mediterranean climate around the Tropic of Capricorn.
quote:All this hassle because some white folks can't except the fact that ancient Egyptians were indeed black/ and indigenous Africans from the Sahel/ Sahara region, with tropical adapted body portions.
Yet, all Africans have to look the same, according to the white man' s stereotype.
Not only that, but all non-Africans as descended from a subset of East Africans only carry a small fraction of the genetic diversity that indigenous Africans have, yet folks like the lyinass twit contemplate that Africans with narrow noses and even loose wavy hair must be because of admixture from cold adapted ancestors even though these same people exhibit very dark (black) skin linear low mass torso builds and extra elongated limbs via super-tropical adaptation. It is hilarious.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 145, Issue 4, pages 599–614, August 2011
Climate-related variation of the human nasal cavity
Marlijn L. Noback1,2,*, Katerina Harvati1, Fred Spoor2,3
Abstract
The nasal cavity is essential for humidifying and warming the air before it reaches the sensitive lungs. Because humans inhabit environments that can be seen as extreme from the perspective of respiratory function, nasal cavity shape is expected to show climatic adaptation.
This study examines the relationship between modern human variation in the morphology of the nasal cavity and the climatic factors of temperature and vapor pressure, and tests the hypothesis that within increasingly demanding environments (colder and drier), nasal cavities will show features that enhance turbulence and air-wall contact to improve conditioning of the air.
We use three-dimensional geometric morphometrics methods and multivariate statistics to model and analyze the shape of the bony nasal cavity of 10 modern human population samples from five climatic groups.
We report significant correlations between nasal cavity shape and climatic variables of both temperature and humidity.
Variation in nasal cavity shape is correlated with a cline from cold–dry climates to hot–humid climates, with a separate temperature and vapor pressure effect. The bony nasal cavity appears mostly associated with temperature, and the nasopharynx with humidity.
The observed climate-related shape changes are functionally consistent with an increase in contact between air and mucosal tissue in cold–dry climates through greater turbulence during inspiration and a higher surface-to-volume ratio in the upper nasal cavity.
Am J Phys Anthropol 2011.
"The bony nasal cavity appears mostly associated with temperature"
" The observed climate-related shape changes are functionally consistent with an increase in contact between air and mucosal tissue in cold–dry climates "
_________________________________________
quote: Originally posted by Swenet Cold has nothing to do with it, dumbass.
This is why you're the dumbass, dumbass The above is a typical article on the topic. Often they don't even mention hot dry climates. yet you guys edit
The Kalahari is theirized by some to have experienced a wetter episode from 16,000–13,000 B.P. There's over 10,000 after that as the region becasue dry again. At least the San peoples noses should have been get somewhat narrower than thei neighbors in tropical regions. Instead in many cases their noses quite wide.
Hey cretin, prey tell, wtf does that article have to do with nasal index?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
The Varna Necropolis (Bulgarian: Варненски некропол) (also Varna Cemetery) is a burial site in the western industrial zone of Varna (approximately half a kilometre from Lake Varna and 4 km from the city centre), Bulgaria, internationally considered one of the key archaeological sites in world prehistory. The oldest golden treasure in the world, dating to 5,000 BC, was discovered at the site.
Faheemdunkers what is your opinion on this? The ancient Bulgarian's nose shape more resembles the modern African's nasal opening shape more than the European. The ancient Bulgarian and the modern African both have a nasal opening shape that is rounder and less triangular than the modern European. They also have a similar bridge. Did Bulgarians have Negroid traits?
.
^^^ oops, I had the label switched, above the corrected version
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
^ it's okay, I post some more bantus fro ya', with crania included.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ you get ignored because you post too many pictures and they are not captioned and you are afraid to make a strong statement about what the pictures are supposed to prove.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Even a retard does not need captions to know that Troll Patrol's pictures prove your claims wrong, twit.
All those Bantus with low nasal indices and even high bridged noses all hail from central-east Africa. Therefore your theories of cold climate fly right out your lyinass.
Rwandan Bantus
Ramses II Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^ you get ignored because you post too many pictures and they are not captioned and you are afraid to make a strong statement about what the pictures are supposed to prove.
Sounds like a description of what you do all the time. For example, you have no shortage of retarded posts such as this one, where only you know wtf it is you're saying:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: groups as wildly different as San, Khoi and Nilo-Saharan, Bantu and Pygmy in the Great Lakes and South Africa
lol, Djehuti
And no, I didn't shorten her post. That was actually her trying to say something, right before her brain suffered another one of those recurring short-circuits that cause her to spaz out every 5 seconds. If she doesn't complete her post within 5 seconds, something incoherent like the above will come out.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ Even a retard does not need captions to know that Troll Patrol's pictures prove your claims wrong, twit.
All those Bantus with low nasal indices and even high bridged noses all hail from central-east Africa. Therefore your theories of cold climate fly right out your lyinass.
Rwandan Bantus
Those pictures aren't of Negroid Hutu but Tutsis. Some have a tendency towards narrower features because they have Aethiopid admixture.
The Hutu and Tutsis regard themselves as seperate races, the Tutsis have always acknowledged a foreign racial component in them which gave them narrower features -- which oral legends also place to the east (the horn).
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
"Out of a population of 7.3 million people–84% of whom were Hutu, 15% Tutsi and 1% Twa–the official figures published by the Rwandan government estimated the number of victims of the genocide to be 1,174,000 in 100 days (10,000 murdered every day, 400 every hour, 7 every minute). It is estimated that about 300,000 Tutsi survived the genocide. Thousands of widows, many of whom were subjected to rape, are now HIV-positive"
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^You sure have some audacity to rear your head, and open up a new can of worms in this thread, as if you don't have more urgent and pending issues to address:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: If they show Negroid traits, then aren't uniformly Caucasoid, but admixed.
Like I said, you can keep running away from reality, but I'm going to keep slamming it in your face. Coons view of Mediterraneans:
Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency.. --Coon
So no, the presence of negroid traits on remains that are classed as 'mediterranean' are not thought of by Coon as inconsistent with their Mediterranean classification
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Crania with non-Caucasoid features are not Caucasoid.
Not according to your boy Coon:
Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency. --Coon
quote:Where high NI's and prognathism appear in crania, Coon (1939) always notes they are not Mediterraneans
About the tenth time you're flatout lying about their mediterranean status according to Coon. No matter, I'm going to keep stuffing the data in your face:
These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. 13 There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian. These small Mediter- raneans must have brought their microliths from some point farther south or east, impelled by changes of climate.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The quotes you put up actually assert the crania is not Mediterranean
As noted about you before, you hide behind your sources, but they are radically different from what you're saying. The traits you say are ''not mediterranean'' are the traits Coon says are normal on Mediterranean skulls:
and often carries a slight negroid tendency. --Coon
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The Caucasoid (Med) specimen Coon describes has a low NI.
Lying out of your ass again. Nowhere is this erg el ahmar cranium described as Mediterranean. It is described as similar to late UP North Africa and UP Europe.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The robust vs. gracile features of these also generally correlate
WTF are you talking about with your incoherent conjecture. I told your dumbass that the broad nosed and prognathic Natufian remains were not robust, but the most gracile among the Natufian remains. The only robust Natufian specimen discussed by Coon 1939 was European looking according to him. You fabricated your claim that robusticity is correlated with broad noses and prognatishm in Natufian remains. You also fabricated your claim that Homo 3 had prognatism, or that it had brow ridges. You're fabricating these correlations because you desperately want to pretend that these broad nosed Natufian populations weren't Africans but Austaloids. You're fabricating your claims that you have access to studies that concluded that Natufians and Mesolithic Nubians were wavy haired. You've fabricated your claim that Bar Yosef said that the Mushabian industry was found in Upper and Lower Egypt. You've fabricated your claim that Coon retracted his statement regarding the prognathism and other traits observed in the Shuqbah series. You've fabricated your claim that Proto-Mediterranean Capsian samples all had narrow noses. You've fabricated your claim that Coon said that broad nose is a trait that arabo-berbers retained from UP populations. I can go on and on, because fabricating is all you do.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: "The orbits were low and rectangular, the nose high and narrower than that of Afalou, chin prominent." (Gedda, 1961)
This is not a description of the Shuqbah remains discussed by Keith, you phuckn liar.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Your claims Natufians are mostly/all wide nosed is simply fantasy
No phuckin liar, I just told your dumbass that there were several types during the Natufian, and that the other type was described by Coon as ''perfectly European''. You're obviously fuming out of your ass as usual. I never claimed that all Natufians are wide nosed. You, on the other hand, are claiming only one Natufian specimen is prognathous (homo 3), even though it isn't even called prognathous by the source that examined it. Furthermore, your own primary source destroys your position that, out of all the Natufian remains, only Homo 3 had prognathism. Coon clearly says that the Natufians at Shuqbah had a prevalence of prognathism. You're a phuckn pathological liar.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Regarding your lies on Coon's table, where did I claim all Europeans = Mediterraneans?
You're seeing ghosts as usual. I never claimed that you said that all Europeans are mediterraneans. I merely highlighted all non-leptorrhine series, which included Mediterranean series.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: If you looked at the Med crania though you would see they are all leptorrhine, excluding some that have borderline tendency towards mesorrhine
Again, you're lying out of your ass. The Naqadan skeletal remains were platyrrhine, even though they're seen as mediterraneans by Coon. The same goes for the Danubian remains.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Abbie's quote also doesn't contradict my claims (you failed again) since his Australoid taxon includes Caucasoids
Prove it. Post the relevant except, complete with its surrounding context.
Funny that there isn't a shred of Austroloid ancestry in all the modern regions you say there were Australoids in Mesolithic/Neolithic times (Egypt, Jordan, Judea, Wadi Halfa, Jebel Sahaba, Morocco, Algeria, Tunesia) but plenty of African ancestry that was introduced at the exact same time you say the prognathous/wide nosed populations weren't Negroid, but Australoid.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
^ He also needs to respond to several of my posts.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Swenet, i've already responded to your posts.
You quote Coon where he asserts crania are not Mediterranean but show Negroid (other racial) "tendencies", and then you claim they are Mediterranean.
Can you not get it into your thick skull? If crania show other racial "tendencies" then they aren't going to be a homogenous racial taxon.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Utter retard, lol. Look how the quotes you put up refute your own position:
quote:These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. 13 There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian. These small Mediter- raneans must have brought their microliths from some point farther south or east, impelled by changes of climate.
See bold: "negroid affinities". This race isn't homogenous Mediterranean, but as Coon notes has affinities with another morphological type or race.
Why is this hard to understand exactly? Why don't you stop wasting my time and just admit you are trolling. No one for genuine can be that stupid.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^For every mention of ''minor negroid affinity'', there are two to three times more instances where he says they are a Mediterranean type. This is even reflected in the excerpt you post above, where he refers to them as Mediterraneans twice, and says nothing to the effect that the negroid affinities were so overwhelming that they conflict with his and Keith's Mediterranean classification.
Coon saying ''These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type'' is what constitutes the classification. Him saying ''minor Negroid affinities'' (notice he said minor) is nothing out of the ordinary since Coon noted that Mediterraneans often had Negroid traits:
Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency. --Coon
^There you have it. Your own primary source destroys your claim that minor negroid affinities are not part of the Mediterranean range. It's game over for you. All you can do is hammer on ''minor negroid traits'' which phucks up your position even more, because Coon explicitly associated those traits with the Mediterranean stock. Coon was even nice enough to explicitly mention the broad nosed and prognathism having Shuqbah Natufians in his explanation of what a ''Mediterranean proper'' looks like":
Mediterranean Proper (....) Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. --Coon
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
^!
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ Even a retard does not need captions to know that Troll Patrol's pictures prove your claims wrong, twit.
All those Bantus with low nasal indices and even high bridged noses all hail from central-east Africa. Therefore your theories of cold climate fly right out your lyinass.
Rwandan Bantus
Those pictures aren't of Negroid Hutu but Tutsis. Some have a tendency towards narrower features because they have Aethiopid admixture.
The Hutu and Tutsis regard themselves as seperate races, the Tutsis have always acknowledged a foreign racial component in them which gave them narrower features -- which oral legends also place to the east (the horn).
How can you reason like that about "fellow" cacasoids?
REMEMBER WHERE YOU GOT YOUR TRAITS FROM, OK!
Here are "caucasoid mummies",
Oh yeah, the war was instigated by the Catholic church.
quote: Rwanda’s economy has remained on a strong growth path with real gross domestic product (GDP) growth increasing to 8.8% in 2011 from 7.6% in 2010 higher than the initial projection of 7.0%. Growth was driven in 2011 by good harvests thanks to the crop-intensification programme, leading to an 8.2% expansion in the agriculture sector, an increase in exports largely due to rising commodity prices and high domestic demand supported by expanding credit to the private sector. Industry reported the highest growth rate, 15.1%, owing to a rebound in mining and construction, which grew by 15.5% and 22.3% respectively. Expansion in government spending and recovery in tourism have also contributed to growth. Growth in services at 7.2% was lower than the 9.6% reported in 2010, owing to slower growth in transport and communications as well as in financial services.
GDP growth is projected to go down to 7.6% in 2012 as programmed fiscal consolidation reduces aggregate demand and also on account of global economic uncertainties. Inflation is still single-digit but rising, having increased from 0.2% at end-2010 to 8.3% year-on-year in December 2011, and leading to a rise in average headline inflation from 2.3% in 2010 to 5.6% in 2011. Average headline inflation is projected to edge further upwards to 6.0% and 6.9% in 2012 and 2013 respectively, reflecting growing fuel prices and the high energy share of imports, estimated at 18% in 2011.
Coon uses the term "Mediterranean Race" even though he means "Mediterranean Sub-race" of the Caucasian race. He also refers to them as "white" even though some are of brown complexion.
Similarly when he says "Capoid Race" or "Congoid Race" he means "Capoid Sub-race" or "Congoid Sub-race" of the"Negroid Race"
However Faheem abides by the one drop rule. If a Mediterranean has 1/16 Negroid blood they are no longer a Mediterranean. They're of mixed race
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^For every mention of ''minor negroid affinity'', there are two to three times more instances where he says they are a Mediterranean type. This is even reflected in the excerpt you post above, where he refers to them as Mediterraneans twice, and says nothing to the effect that the negroid affinities were so overwhelming that they conflict with his and Keith's Mediterranean classification.
Coon saying ''These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type'' is what constitutes the classification. Him saying ''minor Negroid affinities'' (notice he said minor) is nothing out of the ordinary since Coon noted that Mediterraneans often had Negroid traits:
Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency. --Coon
^There you have it. Your own primary source destroys your claim that minor negroid affinities are not part of the Mediterranean range. It's game over for you. All you can do is hammer on ''minor negroid traits'' which phucks up your position even more, because Coon explicitly associated those traits with the Mediterranean stock. Coon was even nice enough to explicitly mention the broad nosed and prognathism having Shuqbah Natufians in his explanation of what a ''Mediterranean proper'' looks like":
Mediterranean Proper (....) Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. --Coon
When high NI's and prognathism (non-Caucasoid traits) are discussed in North African crania, Coon notes they are not Mediterranean but composite, having "other" racial tendencies. Precisely the same for any European series of Mesolithic/Neolithic crania. His earlier Tribes of Rif (1931) came to the same conclusion: "This may represent an early infiltration of negroids, or of so called Mediterraneans, or of negroids producing in mixture a Mediterranean type". Back in the 1930's Coon had not explored Negroid racial origins, by 1965 he knew this "other" racial tendency was not Negroid, but another race, and he retracted his initial claims. Its only Afrocentric loons who continue to quote this. A google search shows the "negroid tendencies" only coming up on Afrocentric forums and Crimson Guard (who is a fake account run by an Afronut and distorts Coon's literature). The misquote by Troll Patrol in this thread on the Fulani was started by Crimson Guard and its now on over 50 webforums. In his defence Crimson Guard claimed he was using a different book edition, yet Coon's The Living Races of Man only went though one edition. The people running wild on the internet misquoting and distorting Coon - have never read his literature.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Crimson Guard makes one little typo and you want to srtip him of his White Sumpremacist credentials. It sounds like jealousy.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [QB] Coon uses the term "Mediterranean Race" even though he means "Mediterranean Sub-race" of the Caucasian race.
Race is any taxonomic level below the species. This ranges from subspecies to microraces. The Mediterranean is a race, within the Caucasoid subspecies (geographical race).
quote:He also refers to them as "white" even though some are of brown complexion.
He sometimes used the term "white race" which is synonymous with Caucasoid; the same way "black race" is with Negroid. In taxonomic nomenclature the names do not have to be literal, or even descriptive. Its just a name.
quote: Similarly when he says "Capoid Race" or "Congoid Race" he means "Capoid Sub-race" or "Congoid Sub-race" of the"Negroid Race"
That's wrong. Capoid and Congoids he maintained were two seperate subspecies as do some taxonomists today. Congoids are split into (a) African Pygmy (Negrillo) and (b) Negroid. The former though are the more homogenous taxon.
quote:However Faheem abides by the one drop rule. If a Mediterranean has 1/16 Negroid blood they are no longer a Mediterranean. They're of mixed race
No I don't at all. I abide by the laws of hereditary. If someone looks clearly mixed then they shouldn't be placed into a standard racial taxon. African-Americans for example are not Negroids. The problem though is the threshold level, and what to identify mixed populations as - are they a race of their own? That's a question no one has ever been able to answer.
The people who love the one drop rule are AA's including yourself - as you can claim heavily Caucasoid admixed peoples with wavy or looser hair are "Black". This is what most AA's do. Its why when you go on forums and see "Black women appreciation threads" -- all the females posted are only 1/4 or 1/8 Black since they have looser hair and not the true negro phenotype.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Crimson Guard makes one little typo and you want to srtip him of his White Sumpremacist credentials. It sounds like jealousy.
It wasn't a typo, it was a deliberate misquote. Furthermore he claimed the book went through more than one edition when it didn't. He doesn't own the texts, and is a fake account. His buddy RR is just the same. According to RR: "Nordics are Negroids". Does that sound like a comment a genuine "race realist" would make?
- He claims Armenids and Indids are also part-"Black". No genuine race realist would assert such a thing.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Congoids are split into (a) African Pygmy (Negrillo) and (b) Negroid. The former though are the more homogenous taxon.
^^^^ clip and save
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
I abide by the laws of hereditary. If someone looks clearly mixed then they shouldn't be placed into a standard racial taxon. African-Americans for example are not Negroids. The problem though is the threshold level, and what to identify mixed populations as - are they a race of their own? That's a question no one has ever been able to answer.
This is your scientific methodology "if someone looks" mixed then they are?
>>>> What traits in African Americans are not Negroid enough to place them in the racial category you call Negroid? That sounds ridiculous
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
LOL Swenet, the Anglo-Idiot has opened up a can of worms indeed!
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Rwandan Bantus
Those pictures aren't of Negroid Hutu but Tutsis. Some have a tendency towards narrower features because they have Aethiopid admixture.
The Hutu and Tutsis regard themselves as separate races, the Tutsis have always acknowledged a foreign racial component in them which gave them narrower features -- which oral legends also place to the east (the horn).
Dummy! The Hutu and Tutsis never regarded themselves as separate races until they were colonized by Europeans specifically the Belgians and put under their hegemony. It were Euronut scholars such as Speke who invented the lie that Tutsis were Hamites of Caucasoid ancestry which was then propagated and taught to Rwandans to the point of brainwashing them!
This was discussed many times in this forum particularly here.
The Hutus and Tutsis of Rwanda
John Hannign Speke (1827-1864) was an colonial explorer and officer in the British army and the ingenious architect of the Hamitic myth: the idea that Rwanda's Tutsi minority is racially superior to its Hutu minority.
When Speke arrived in what was then the Kingdom of Rwanda, he came to the rather inane conclusion that the Tutsis must be a superior race and were not native to Rwanda.
The evidence? Tutsis, which he supposed to be descendants of the Biblical figure, Ham, had lighter skin and more "European" features than the Bantu-featured Hutu that they ruled.
Speke's hypothesis became widely held fact by the time the Belgians came to rule Rwanda, give Tutsis special privileges, and begin issuing identity cards, forever relegating the Hutu and the Tutsi to separate castes.
The Hamitic Myth would be central to the Hutu extremists' efforts to mobilize ordinary citizens to commit the mass murder of the Tutsi "invaders."
Read about the origins of the Rwandan genocide and why the world stood by and did nothing to stop it.
Hidden Transcripts of Emerging Identities - Interview with Jan Vancina http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~africa/africaforum/VansinaInterview.htm Conventional views on precolonial Rwanda are frequently based on a 'coming together' where the three groups, Twa, Hutu and Tutsi, have populated ancient Rwanda in that order.
Your book is apparently defending an alternative stand.
JV: Indeed, in my opinion, the Twa, Hutu and Tutsi did not arrive in different waves to populate Rwanda and the differences between them developed essentially on site.
In addition, until some time after 1900, there was no general concept of 'Rwanda'. Rwanda as a word refers to 'a central place with a surrounding area'.
Thus, we may refer to the rwanda of Nyiginya, to the Rwanda of Burundi, to the Rwanda of other places.
Rwanda is therefore not an ethnonym; you have to add another word in order to transform it into an ethnonym. The self-awareness of all the inhabitants that they were Rwandan came only with the colonial period and was related to their shared experiences during that time. That is something that is never discussed in the light of the current problems of Rwanda: since when do all these people believe that they are Rwandans? Formerly, such group awareness was connected with the various kingdoms or, in some cases, with the family communities to which they belonged.
KA&HV: So it is in this context of state formation that you situate the origin of the concepts of Hutu and Tutsi?
JV: That is partly a separate process. The terms 'Hutu' and 'Tutsi' date back much earlier than Rwanda.
In fact, Burundi, Buha and other small areas in Northern Congo also have Hutu and Tutsi, but the origin of the concept of 'Hutu' there differs from that in Rwanda.
Hutu and Tutsi are ancient words with changing meanings.
First in Rwanda and subsequently in Burundi, 'Hutu' was opposed to 'Tutsi'; both terms began to exclude each other: if you were a Hutu you could not possibly be a Tutsi.
But be careful: these developments occurred only after 1800. We have found traces of that. We know about people who did not refer to themselves as Hutu and who used a place name to indicate their ethnic identity.
Then gradually the term 'Hutu' developed among the large peasant population to denote their common social position.
KA&HV: That is historiographic dynamite ! In historical literature about Rwanda the suspicion is still smouldering that indeed some ethnic 'essence' is being hidden behind the concepts of Hutu and Tutsi.
JV: Well, if we look back far enough we find that the word 'hutu' originally meant 'servant'.
Actually, this word is still used with that meaning in Rwanda. For instance, the person carrying the suitcase of a minister is called a 'hutu'.
He may actually be a high-ranking Tutsi but in this situation he is a hutu, namely the case-carrier of a dignitary.
In the course of the 19th century, the meaning of this word has changed, which is shown, for instance, in a story of around 1850 about a certain Mrs. Shongoka [cf. Le Rwanda ancien, p. 174-5], mother of a Tutsi (i.e. noble) cattle-breeding family. The household, however, went all astray because Shongoka did not have a servant and she refused to use her Tutsi relatives as servants (i.e. as 'Hutu'). And that is the difference: half a century earlier, this gap was by far not as deep.
KA&HV: Hence, in your account, there is no reference to any primordial (ethnic) content of the Hutu concept, but you are less radical where the ethnic term Tutsi is concerned.
JV: The content of the Tutsi concept has also changed thoroughly in this process. At the beginning of the kingdom, most of the cattle-breeders considered themselves to be Hima. Furthermore, there was a small group of people who called themselves Tutsi, and that was a genuine ethnic term. The first king, Ndori, originated from the North and was a Hima, not a Tutsi. But one generation or more later, the members of the royal lineages also referred to themselves as Tutsi. This proves that at that time, the term Tutsi had more prestige than Hima. Besides, the etymology of the word Tutsi cannot be traced either in Kinyarwanda or in Kirundi or Kiga. This is entirely different where Hutu is concerned; the term can be found in Angola and in Lower Congo for someone who is either poor or a servant.
KA&HV: This series of alternative views regarding the precolonial history of Rwanda is being formulated by you on the basis of new or rather previously unused source material.
JV: Yes, I draw on two sources that have remained mostly unused until now. First there are the records of Father Schumacher who worked as a full-time researcher during the period from 1928 to 1936. Schumacher co-operated with 4 major informants who were all attached to the royal court and he always accurately noted who had given him what piece of information. This early research was done just prior to the beginning of Abbé Kagame's investigations. There is, in fact, a perfect continuity: when Schumacher left, his most important informant (Sekarama) began to co-operate with Kagame and became Kagame's tutor.
So Hutu and Tutsi were not even 'races' but social positions or castes until Europeans made them into 'races'!
The so-called 'Caca-soid' features of Tutsi and so-called 'Negroid' features of Hutu are nothing more than stereotypes. Like all stereotypes, there is some truth to it but the truths are not absolute which is why Hutus and Tutsis had to have ID cards!! This is frightening akin to what happened in Holocaust Europe starting with Germany, where Jews had to have ID badges as well. Though the stereotype was that all Jews had dark hair, dark eyes, and long noses while 'Aryans' had blonde hair, blue eyes, and shorter noses, the reality is that many non-Jewish Germans especially in southern Germany had these 'Jewish' features while there were many Jews in not only northern Germany but in Austria and Eastern Europe who had 'Aryan' features! Reality itself often times contradicts the ridiculous beliefs and notions of race.
Genetics itself has soundly disproved the entire 'Hamitic' hypothesis especially in regards to Tutsi, who are shown to share the exact same lineages as Hutu!
^ The ultimate irony is that while Hutu and Tutsi share the same lineages, it is the 'Negroid' Hutu who have slightly higher frequencies of E3b (E1b1b) associated with 'Aethiopids' than the Tutsi. While the Tutsi possess significantly more B lineages associated with 'Negroids'!
Though the sad irony as Rasol had once pointed out, is in the ridiculous animosity between Bantu and Ethiopian which reached its most horrifying conclusion in Rwanda, there were no Ethiopians involved at all but ONLY Bantu! Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
This is what Faheempyramidologist believes as per Coon:
before the Pleistocene Khoisans[purple] originated and lived in North Africa. Caucasians [green] lived in Europe, Anatolia, the Middle East and part of South Asia
___________________________________________
After the Pleistocene Caucasians [green] not indigenous to North Africa migrated there and pushed the Capoid (Khoisans) [purple] out, the Capoid (Khoisans) migrating to Southern Africa
But there is no evidence that the Khosians (Capoid) were living in North Africa before they were living in Soutthern Africa
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL Swenet, the Anglo-Idiot has opened up a can of worms indeed!
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: [qb] Rwandan Bantus
Those pictures aren't of Negroid Hutu but Tutsis. Some have a tendency towards narrower features because they have Aethiopid admixture.
The Hutu and Tutsis regard themselves as separate races, the Tutsis have always acknowledged a foreign racial component in them which gave them narrower features -- which oral legends also place to the east (the horn).
Dummy! The Hutu and Tutsis never regarded themselves as separate races until they were colonized by Europeans specifically the Belgians and put under their hegemony. It were Euronut scholars such as Speke who invented the lie that Tutsis were Hamites of Caucasoid ancestry which was then propagated and taught to Rwandans to the point of brainwashing them!
Faheemologist says that the men below have traits by virtue of shape alone that classify those traits as Caucasian yet complety indigenous to Africa Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Again, lyinass you have a bad habit of misrepresenting what others actually say. The Fathead Anglo has made it clear as per the definitions of biological race that Caca-soid entails more than just mere morphology but actual genetic lineages. Thus Tutsi, as he claims, have their features due to Caca-soid ancestry from the Horn and ultimately from outside of Africa.
quote: This is what Faheempyramidologist believes as per Coon:
before the Pleistocene Khoisans[purple] originated and lived in North Africa and the horn. Caucasians [green] lived in Europe, Anatolia, the Middle East and part of South Asia
___________________________________________
After the Pleistocene Caucasians [green] not indigenous to North Africa migrated there and pushed the Capoid (Khoisans) [purple] out, the Capoid (Khoisans) migrating to Southern Africa
But there is no evidence that the Khosians (Capoid) were living in North Africa before they were living in Soutthern Africa
LOL Yet again Coon's writings contradict the Anglo-idiots claims. Note that the Anglo-Idiot called the robust Natufian remains 'Australoid' even though Coon's map shows Australoid presence being nowhere in Southwest Asia. He even began calling the Mesolithic Nubians 'Australoid' after his Coonian claims that they were Capoid were busted. Note that Anglo-Idiot claims 'Negroids' or 'Congoids' before the Pleistocene were confined to the jungles of West and Central Africa alone, yet his idol Coon apparently stated otherwise as his pre-Pleistocene map show 'Congoids' predominate all throughout Sub-Sahara and it is only after the Pleistocene today that they are largely confined to central and West Africa-- the opposite of what Anglo-Fathead says! LOL Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Again, lioness you have a bad habit of misrepresenting what others actually say. The Fathead Anglo has made it clear as per the definitions of biological race that Caca-soid entails more than just mere morphology but actual genetic lineages. Thus Tutsi, as he claims, have their features due to Caca-soid ancestry from the Horn and ultimately from outside of Africa.
yes piece of shyt but he seems to switch around on this sometimes avoiding origins
- also correction, I had written as per the Coon map:
"before the Pleistocene Khoisans[purple] originated and lived in North Africa and the Horn"
^^^^ not the Horn according to the map as per Coon -still early enough to correct it, which I did
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
.
people listen to me closely: if narrow noses develop in climates that are cold and dry OR hot and dry why don't the Austrailans have narrow noses? -another problem Narrow noses evolve from hot arid dry conditions??? it's becoming harder and harder to believe.
Faheem sidebar: you said Austrailans over 20 didn't have blond hair, than what's this ? I suppose it's called "dirty blond" Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Another adult Aussie aboriginal with copper blonde hair.
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: yes piece of shyt but he seems to switch around on this sometimes avoiding origins
- also correction, I had written as per the Coon map:
"before the Pleistocene Khoisans[purple] originated and lived in North Africa and the Horn"
^^^^ not the Horn according to the map as per Coon -still early enough to correct it, which I did
LOL Don't hate cuz you have nearly the same intelligence as your brethren Anglo-Idiot my Swedish sour tart. Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
^ Dje, they are frustrated it didn't work out for them as was planned.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: When high NI's and prognathism (non-Caucasoid traits) are discussed in North African crania, Coon notes they are not Mediterranean but composite, having "other" racial tendencies.
LMAO. That is not what your 1930 Coon source says you phucking cretin. You're just going to keep posting Coon data that agrees with me, aren't you? The excerpt says:
This may represent an early infiltration of negroids, or of so called Mediterraneans, or of negroids producing in mixture a Mediterranean type --Coon
^This only confirms what I've been saying all along, namely, that negroid features are a part of the picture of what Coon considers ''Mediterranean'' (he has trouble keeping the two apart). Apparently, he even believes that negroids are capable of producing a Mediterranean type. Phuckin' idiot, in what way does this excerpt prove your claim that Mediterranean is a physical type free of Negroid traits?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Back in the 1930's Coon had not explored Negroid racial origins, by 1965 he knew this "other" racial tendency was not Negroid
Prove it. Not that I think its relevant, because putting another label on this other element (e.g., ''Australoid'' instead of ''Negroid'') would still destroy your claim that the Mediterranean type is free of this ''other tendency''.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: and he retracted his initial claims.
And you give priority to his supposed later revisions because of what scientific improvements over his 1939 methodology?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Note that Anglo-Idiot claims 'Negroids' or 'Congoids' before the Pleistocene were confined to the jungles of West and Central Africa alone
Actually, his claim is that ''Negroids'' are no older than 11 ky (Iwo Eleru remains), and thus, unattested in the (late) pleistocene. Of course, since Angho' has the habit of getting caught with an unrelenting stream of verbal diarrhea dripping down his mouth, it is unsurprising that, even here, Angho's runs into trouble. The Iwo Eleru remains have the prominent brow ridges he claims are Australoid and decidedly non-negroid.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LMAO You're right! The fool back-tracks and contradicts himself so much, I forgot some of these claims you now bring up! LOL Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Iwo Eleru is proto-Negroid, not Negroid:
"A human burial described as "proto-Negroid" was found at the base of the succession at Iwo Eleru with a date of 11200 ± 200 BP" (Shaw, 2008)
It would appear the oldest Negroid (AMH) is only actually 6,500 years old: "A tall, clearly Negroid skeleton (Asselar Man) has been dated to 6500 B.P." (Camp, 1974).
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Congoids are split into (a) African Pygmy (Negrillo) and (b) Negroid. The former though are the more homogenous taxon.
^^^^ clip and save
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
I abide by the laws of hereditary. If someone looks clearly mixed then they shouldn't be placed into a standard racial taxon. African-Americans for example are not Negroids. The problem though is the threshold level, and what to identify mixed populations as - are they a race of their own? That's a question no one has ever been able to answer.
This is your scientific methodology "if someone looks" mixed then they are?
>>>> What traits in African Americans are not Negroid enough to place them in the racial category you call Negroid? That sounds ridiculous
Faheem can you explain your BS here?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^ Just look at AA's when they first arrived in the US. Yes there are photos.
Now compare to modern AA's like Will Smith.
-- Modern African Americans are Caucasoid admixed.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^ Btw, Look at the females in that photo. No sexual dimorphism whatsoever. This was also before AA's started en masse artifically straightening their nappy hair to emulate European women. If those women in the photo were not in dresses are you saying you could tell they were female? Look at their faces, they look like men. There is no diversity in Negroids whatsoever.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Coon apparently stated otherwise as his pre-Pleistocene map show 'Congoids' predominate all throughout Sub-Sahara and it is only after the Pleistocene today that they are largely confined to central and West Africa-- the opposite of what Anglo-Fathead says!
Those are Congoids A - Pygmies, not Negroids.
Everyone accepts Pygmies are indigenous to large parts of Sub-Sahara Africa, having originated in the tropical rainforests.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^ So you are saying that African American men are Negroid but women aren't ? you are really full of it.
Why do you hate Africans so much? Did you get beat up as a child? There has got to be something personal there
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Compare the above photo of AA's before admixture with Zaharan's models (who are all heavily european caucasoid admixed):
Btw, not only are Zaharan's models caucasoid admixed through being modern AA's but one of the models he posted even has a recent Italian (white) grandparent. I went to internet movie database typed in the model to find her ancestry listed as part italian. LOL.
- "Black" men hate true Negroid women.
"The frequency with which Negro men choose women fairer than they are attests at least in part to the connection in the mind of the black man between fair skin and beauty" (Grier and Cobbs 1968:80)
Several research projects conducted in the last few years suggest that African-American men are more attracted to women who are lighter than they are, and that African-American women believe light skin makes them, or would make them, more appealing" (Layng 2006).
-- "Black" American men prefer the heavily white admixed african-american females who have lighter skin and looser hair.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
I abide by the laws of hereditary. If someone looks clearly mixed then they shouldn't be placed into a standard racial taxon. African-Americans for example are not Negroids. The problem though is the threshold level, and what to identify mixed populations as - are they a race of their own? That's a question no one has ever been able to answer.
you are truly full of shit
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [QB] ^^^^ So you are saying that African American men are Negroid but women aren't ? you are really full of it.
I'm saying simply the fact that Negroids have little to no sexual dimorphism. "Black" women and "Black" men -- they both look the same. This explains statistically why Negroids or those of Negroid ancestry are the least endogamous.
Can you tell who is female and male if the females didn't wear female clothes?
Why do all Black models have FAKE hair?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
the only thing that separates you from being a homely woman is lipstick
where's the sexual dimorphism ?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
I abide by the laws of hereditary. If someone looks clearly mixed then they shouldn't be placed into a standard racial taxon. African-Americans for example are not Negroids. The problem though is the threshold level, and what to identify mixed populations as - are they a race of their own? That's a question no one has ever been able to answer.
you are truly full of shit
We can't be sure about their genetic background. That is all hypothetical.
Below we can read how one has become paranoid. As per, we are speaking of color complexions and facial traits.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^ Dull blonde or tawny hair is often found in Negroid populations. Its not however hereditary, but arises through protein-calorie malutrition, through poor lack of diet (Hammond-Took, 1980).
You can find whole villages of black africans with blondish hair shades through this malutrition.
-- It would only be Afrocentrics who count malutrition and birth defects a part of your "phenotype diversity". You are honestly depraved.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
"In cases of severe malnutrition, normally dark human hair may turn red or blonde. The condition, part of a syndrome known as kwashiorkor, is a sign of critical starvation caused chiefly by protein deficiency, and is common during periods of famine."
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Pyramidologist, why are you ignoring so many people's posts and only selectively quoting some of them? If you truly believe your argument is logically coherent and truthful, you should be able to deliver full responses to everyone who challenges your position.
What does your failure to reply say about the integrity of your argument?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
"In cases of severe malnutrition, normally dark human hair may turn red or blonde. The condition, part of a syndrome known as kwashiorkor, is a sign of critical starvation caused chiefly by protein deficiency, and is common during periods of famine."
It's save to say that blonde hair by itself has become fixed MC1R allele by gene mutation. The MC1R allele constitutes albinism as well (but perhaps with different receptors)
The irony is in it that it's considered a Nordic trait, close related with Saami people. What we know of Saami people is that they were hunter gatherers, and perhaps the oldest people of North Europe. They entered North Europe during the Holocene, when large parts weren't fertile. I suspect that severe malnutrition caused for the hair to be come reddish/ blonde. And due to conditional longterm exposure in shortage of specific nutrition the specific gene became a fixed allele.
What do you think?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
They all have fake hair. If they had their natural hair texture, then it would be hard to tell if they were female or male.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
They all have fake hair. If they had their natural hair texture, then it would be hard to tell if they were female or male.
What constitutes 'fake hair'? Does any kind of styling at all = fake?
Do you wash/brush/comb your hair? Have you ever shaved any part of your body or face? Do you trim your nails? Do you wash yourself in order to remove your various natural body odours? Do you suggest every 'white' person who cuts their hair 'hates their natural phenotype'?
You shouldn't impute your incompetence onto others; it is very obvious who is male and female in both this picture and the one you posted.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
As for above, indeed when Afro hair is taken out of braids it becomes loose. Like below, or even looser. If one braids more often it loosens up the hair too. From this point on, one could just brunch it, till almost straight.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
They all have fake hair. If they had their natural hair texture, then it would be hard to tell if they were female or male.
I understand its hard for you to follow, but we were speaking of facial traits and color complexion. Remember?
Well let's stick to that. From there we can perhaps take it further.
Now, the following. Is the color complexion of these models and those boys much different from Nas and Will Smith?
:....
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Pyramidologist, why are you ignoring so many people's posts and only selectively quoting some of them? If you truly believe your argument is logically coherent and truthful, you should be able to deliver full responses to everyone who challenges your position.
What does your failure to reply say about the integrity of your argument?
You went offtopic into philosophy. All the answers I gave you are from physical (forensic)anthropology: k-nearest neighbor/fuzzy sets/coefficient variation ranges/law of frequency of type etc I covered.
There are also many other definitions to refute your position for example cladistics. Each race is a different clade, because they have different ancestors.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Pyramidologist, why are you ignoring so many people's posts and only selectively quoting some of them? If you truly believe your argument is logically coherent and truthful, you should be able to deliver full responses to everyone who challenges your position.
What does your failure to reply say about the integrity of your argument?
You went offtopic into philosophy. All the answers I gave you are from physical (forensic)anthropology: k-nearest neighbor/fuzzy sets/coefficient variation ranges/law of frequency of type etc I covered.
There are also many other definitions to refute your position for example cladistics. Each race is a different clade, because they have different ancestors.
The fun part in it was that I answered you from a genetic point of view.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
They all have fake hair. If they had their natural hair texture, then it would be hard to tell if they were female or male.
What constitutes 'fake hair'? Does any kind of styling at all = fake?
Do you wash/brush/comb your hair? Have you ever shaved any part of your body or face? Do you trim your nails? Do you wash yourself in order to remove your various natural body odours? Do you suggest every 'white' person who cuts their hair 'hates their natural phenotype'?
You shouldn't impute your incompetence onto others; it is very obvious who is male and female in both this picture and the one you posted.
- Explain why ebonics coined terms like "white girl flow" and "good hair". Type the first into google. Black women en masse crave the flowing wavy hair white women have. However Black males as well in sizable numbers are also artifically straightening their hair, or they shave their heads to kill off the roots.
Everyone knows this self-hatred exists in the black community. What happens though is that they try to blame europeans for pushing an aesthetic ideal onto other races, when the truth is as everyone really knows - nappy hair is just ugly.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Now, the following. Is the color complexion of these models and those boys much different from Nas and Will Smith?
They are using lightening cremes. Note how their hands are far darker than their faces.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Now, the following. Is the color complexion of these models and those boys much different from Nas and Will Smith?
They are using lightening cremes. Note how their hands are far darker than their faces.
Who is they?
Anyway, something you don't understand is, that pigmentation doesn't always even-out all over the body. I understand that you as a white person will not understand that phenomenon. Your hand fixation is therefore irrelevant. Especially when not all of the body is exposed equally to light. I however understand how you think your a specialist, but unfortunately for you you're not. But in this case, it has to do with how the picture was taken, if you follow the light lines, you'll notice that the photographer had more light set in the center. Anyway, if you look closely you'll see how some of the dark skinned girls have a darker face, yet the neck and chest is lighter completed. Did they use skin lightening cream to on the neck and chest light too?
Are these boys usingskin lightening cream?
P.s. skin lightning products are to even out unnatural spots.
And did they put skin lightning creme on this Nigerian baby too? Look at the arm of the mother, it's of the same complexion.
And what would be the benefit and or intention for these Nigerian men, to use skin lightning creme?
The post below, constitutes to the same range ratio. What is lighter what is darker.
Boolean, true() if color is > 50
Boolean, false() if color is < 50
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Pyramidologist, why are you ignoring so many people's posts and only selectively quoting some of them? If you truly believe your argument is logically coherent and truthful, you should be able to deliver full responses to everyone who challenges your position.
What does your failure to reply say about the integrity of your argument?
You went offtopic into philosophy. All the answers I gave you are from physical (forensic)anthropology: k-nearest neighbor/fuzzy sets/coefficient variation ranges/law of frequency of type etc I covered.
There are also many other definitions to refute your position for example cladistics. Each race is a different clade, because they have different ancestors.
Both of our posts were philosophical. Don't suddenly declare it's off-topic because you find yourself unable to defend your position. You asked me where I disagreed with your divisions and I gave you an answer. What do you have to say for yourself now?
You haven't established why the sets used in forensic anthropology are in any way objective. As I have explained in many of our previous discussions, forensic anthropologists (implicit in the word 'forensic') conform to whatever systems their crime agency wants them to find. Whichever traits conform to that country's socially constructed 'race' system are seen as important. As Ousley (2009) demonstrated, it is possible to differentiate between North and South Japanese people and even American 'whites' from different time periods. If people considered there to be a 'ginger hair' or 'O blood type' 'race' then that is what forensic scientists would seek. Forensic categories differ from country to country for this reason.
'Many other definitions'? HAHAHAHAHA. You're an absolute joke. All of a sudden 'other definitions' are valid? Why are they not 'false definitions' of 'race' like you claimed all of my sources were? You've just confirmed that Amadon's definition has fallen under my scrutiny; it is arbitrary and you have not been able to demonstrate otherwise. Fine. If we're going to use multiple definitions to construct different categories, then you have just proven Zagefka's (2009) point that categorisation systems are informed by social meaning and different things cluster differently depending on what system is used. Using <1000kg as a classification system, lawnmowers and plums will cluster together. Using elemental composition as a classification system, lawnmowers and plums will cluster differently.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
They all have fake hair. If they had their natural hair texture, then it would be hard to tell if they were female or male.
What constitutes 'fake hair'? Does any kind of styling at all = fake?
Do you wash/brush/comb your hair? Have you ever shaved any part of your body or face? Do you trim your nails? Do you wash yourself in order to remove your various natural body odours? Do you suggest every 'white' person who cuts their hair 'hates their natural phenotype'?
You shouldn't impute your incompetence onto others; it is very obvious who is male and female in both this picture and the one you posted.
- Explain why ebonics coined terms like "white girl flow" and "good hair". Type the first into google. Black women en masse crave the flowing wavy hair white women have. However Black males as well in sizable numbers are also artifically straightening their hair, or they shave their heads to kill off the roots.
Everyone knows this self-hatred exists in the black community. What happens though is that they try to blame europeans for pushing an aesthetic ideal onto other races, when the truth is as everyone really knows - nappy hair is just ugly.
Can you answer my questions:
Do you wash/brush/comb your hair? Have you ever shaved any part of your body or face? Do you trim your nails? Do you wash yourself in order to remove your various natural body odours? Do you suggest every 'white' person who cuts their hair 'hates their natural phenotype'?
How does shaving kill off the roots? As I said, it is far easier to manage and has considerably more styling options. Is it easier to comb through a corkscrew or a straight line? This is in addition to the social pressures surrounding them of what is and isn't considered 'beautiful'. In that 'black girl appreciation thread', I showed you various pictures of African tribes who apply red powder to themselves, wear lip discs and ear gauges, have various hairstyles and accessories, etc. In these societies, having those attributes are considered beautiful, which is why they continue to do them. I doubt people in this society would consider these traits to be desirable, just like they wouldn't consider straight hair, non-reddened skin, normal lips/ears, etc. to be desirable.
This aesthetic ideal inflicts everybody, regardless of who they are. Are you seriously telling me that you don't acknowledge yourself as different for having long hair? How many other males in your lectures have hair like yours? Browse TSR and you will find various threads where people are self-conscious about their paleness, shortness, fatness, ginger hair, etc. People are concerned that their teeth are not straight or white enough, or that their hair is the wrong colour. Look at the size 0 and 00 model furore. Is there any particular need to be muscular/physically strong in this society? No, yet I'm sure you can identify multiple people who go to the gym frequently to reach these states. Why do people do the things I've mentioned in the bold section without drawing claims of 'self-hatred'? Because:
--They are acknowledged as being done due to social pressures --They confer greater utilitarian benefits (having short nails makes it easier to handle things, just like having straight hair is easier to manage)
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Oh, and if 'other definitions' are valid, why not declare there are 'blood group races' or a '>191cm race' or a 'cystic fibrosis race'?
Or do various definitions only become valid when you say so? Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Everyone knows this self-hatred exists in the black community. What happens though is that they try to blame europeans for pushing an aesthetic ideal onto other races, when the truth is as everyone really knows - nappy hair is just ugly.
If that's true, then why is it Africans uneffected by European notions don't have such self-hatred and cherish their own natural features including 'nappy' hair while viewing European features-- both light skin and long lank hair-- as oddities and even as 'ugly'?? This has often been remarked by [white] cultural anthropologists who study rural African cultures that have been largely isolated. It's even been remarked by these same cultures that white people are actually 'unhuman' or 'subhuman' and their appearance is 'ugly'.
Obviously the claim that 'Negroid' looks are inherently ugly and inferior and 'Negroids' instinctively know it is a lie of your own fancy.
To everyone else with intelligence I call attention to these articles:
Faheem says that afro hair is ugly. At the same time he interprets that the women with afro hair who straighten it hate themselves. What a sick little asshole. If our hair is truly ugly than we would love ourselves by improving on it to straighten it. Yet these are simply variations of style that women of African descent have as options. I have straightened my hair and I have gone natural and I have braided. These are simply variations of style. You have no style, no nothing about it, except that you wear your limp hair long. I suppose that is your feminine side. This focus on hair you have so many posts on and in other threads is quite androgenous.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Refutation of the race = clade concept:
We've had this discussion before and your final argument was that mtDNA lineages were compatible with the multiregionalism hypothesis and could be explained via horizontal gene transfer. You're wrong:
"Neandertals, the archaic human form documented in Eurasia until 29,000 years ago, share no mitochondrial haplotype with modern Europeans. Whether this means that the two groups were reproductively isolated is controversial, and indeed nuclear data have been interpreted as suggesting that they admixed. We explored the range of demographic parameters that may have generated the observed mitochondrial diversity, simulating 3.0 million genealogies under six models differing as for the relationships among contemporary Europeans, Neandertals, and Upper Palaeolithic European early modern humans (EEMH), who coexisted with Neandertals for millennia. We compared by Approximate Bayesian Computations the simulation results with mitochondrial diversity in 7 Neandertals, 3 EEMH, and 150 opportunely chosen modern Europeans. A model of genealogical continuity between EEMH and contemporary Europeans, with no Neandertal contribution, received overwhelming support from the analyses. The maximum degree of Neandertal admixture, under the model of gene flow supported by nuclear data, was estimated at 1.5%, but this model proved 20-32 times less likely than a model without any gene flow" (Ghirotto et al., 2011).
After I posted this quote you stopped responding. More refutation:
"The first issue to keep in mind is that the Fst computations for the distribution of autosomal, X-linked, mtDNA, or Y-chromosomal markers across geographic regions do not match (Tishkoff and Kidd 2004). Oftentimes, each of these markers tells us a different but complementary story about human evolutionary history and migration patterns" (Maglo, 2011).
You will recall Barbujani and Belle's (2006) findings that various different clusters are found depending on the assumptions, methodologies and datasets of the model. Various different lineages are found via cladistics, too. More refutation:
"Unlike the mtDNA nomenclature, there are many competing Y-chromosomal cladistic nomenclatures. In the 1990s, the nomenclature of male lineages derived from the P49a,f/TaqI haplotypes seemed to dominate in the literature. But at the turn of the 21st century, the study of the non-recombining Y-chromosome (NRY) showed a greater resolution and supplied the currently dominant cladistic system of male lines of descent (Underhill et al. 2001; Underhill and Kivisild 2007; Karafet et al. 2008). The tree under construction by the Y-Chromosome Consortium is a nested cladistic system of lineages partitioned into clades ranging from A to T (Y-chromosome Consortium 2002). The phylogeography of the NRY, just like the mtDNA, sheds a new light on Eurasian populations. Consider Europe for example, one of the sub-continental groups that has the smallest human genetic variation. It may be tempting to speculatively suggest that Europeans form a monophyletic group. However, on empirical grounds, European male lineages do not form a clade. The major European Y-chromosal clade, based on the currently available evidence, is the haplogroup R. But this clade is ubiquitous and is found not only across Eurasia but also across Africa. For example, the sub-clades R1a1* and R1b1* respectively reach as high a frequency as ~72% in some Indian castes and ~90% in some Northern Cameroonian ethnic groups (Sharma et al. 2009; Cruciani et al. 2002; Scozzari et al. 1999). That is, the majority of European males share paternal lineages with non-Europeans. While the second important European male clade, haplogroup I, seems so far to be confined to Europe, a significant proportion of males in southern and Eastern Europe and the Caucasus share the E clade lineages with African males. For instance, the E3b1-M78 sub-clade (nested in the African specific E clade) was reported in some studies with moderate frequencies (sometimes as high as ~20 or ~27%) in Southern and Eastern Europe and the Balkans (Semino et al. 2004; Cruciani et al. 2004). In a word, Europe forms a polyphyletic rather than a monophyletic taxon because European males do not share a common ancestor.
To be sure, the frequencies of E clade lineages in North Africa—often simplistically and misleadingly construed in genetic studies as Eurasia or Non-Africa—is very high contrary to received racial views. For example, ~76% of Moroccan, ~80% of Saharawi, ~65% of Algerian, and ~55% of Tunisian males, whether or not they self-identify as Arabs, do not share the Middle Eastern male lines of descent (12f2a), but instead share the E lineages with sub-Saharan Africans. The E clade unites ~70% of all African males from Algiers in North Africa to the Zulu land in South Africa, Northern Africans being predominantly on the nested E3b2-M81 and E3b1-M78 sub-lineages (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004; Karafet et al. 2008). To wit, there seem to be higher frequencies of Eurasian paternal lines of descent in northern Cameroon (~40%) than in Morocco and the Saharawish Republic, but the same as in Tunisia and Algeria (Scozzari et al. 1999; Cruciani et al. 2002). Thus, North African males can be said to be Africans based on the binary polymorphisms of the Y-chromosome. But they can also be said to be Eurasians based on the study of autosome genetic markers. That is, two different cladistic taxonomies derived from two different mode of inheritance radically cross-classify the same population. The obvious lessons are that: (1) a clade is a clade, not a race" (Maglo, 2011).
More refutation:
"[...] [W]e demonstrate that the observed pattern of global gene identity variation is consistent with a history of serial population fissions, bottlenecks and long-range migrations associated with the peopling of major geographic regions, and gene flow between local populations. This history has produced a nested pattern of genetic structure that is inconsistent with the existence of independently evolving biological races" (Hunley et al., 2009).
"Whether the investigator uses external information or makes estimates from the samples at hand, the parental populations are abstractions that conform to only the simplest kind of genetic structure. This structure places heavy emphasis on the idea that the world once harbored distinct and independently evolved populations that have now undergone admixture of an unstated type (often seeming to connote admixture due to colonial era migrations). Regardless of the intent, this idea of population structure is unfortunately more in line with race concepts held by European explorers and traders than with the recent genetic evidence supporting the serial sampling model of human evolutionary history" (Weiss and Long, 2009).
"A classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub-Saharan African populations also includes every non-Sub-Saharan African population" (Long et al., 2009).
"The apparently easy way out of the difficulties of the racial cladistic approach may consist of simply equating race with clade by claiming that any individual sub-continental clade represents race. So if scientific investigations reveal, for example, hundreds of human genetic clades in Sub-Saharan Africa alone, we should conclude that there are hundreds of Sub-Saharan African human races. Yet not only does this fallback fail to provide a solution to the problem of the scientific proliferation of human races but it also simply begs the question of the scientific necessity of race" (Maglo, 2011).
"The pattern of DNA diversity is one of nested subsets, such that the diversity in non-Sub-Saharan African populations is essentially a subset of the diversity found in Sub-Saharan African populations. The actual pattern of DNA diversity creates some unsettling problems for using race as meaningful genetic categories. For example, the pattern of DNA diversity implies that some populations belong to more than one race (e.g., Europeans), whereas other populations do not belong to any race at all (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africans). As Frank Livingstone noted long ago, the Linnean classification system cannot accommodate this pattern because within the system a population cannot belong to more than one named group within a taxonomic level" (Long et al., 2009).
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Badumtish, somebody can select a set of traits and them make a label for people who have those traits
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Badumtish, somebody can select a set of traits and them make a label for people who have those traits
I know—that's all that 'race' is: an arbitrary, socially constructed selection of traits that are given 'racial' status whilst other equally significant traits (blood group, hair colour, eye colour, shoe size, etc.) are said to be irrelevant. Since the various different categorisation systems cannot simultaneously be important (due to the amount of discordance), any given one is a social construct, which is what Zagefka (2009) has explained:
"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).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Iwo Eleru is proto-Negroid, not Negroid:
"A human burial described as "proto-Negroid" was found at the base of the succession at Iwo Eleru with a date of 11200 ± 200 BP" (Shaw, 2008)
It would appear the oldest Negroid (AMH) is only actually 6,500 years old: "A tall, clearly Negroid skeleton (Asselar Man) has been dated to 6500 B.P." (Camp, 1974).
LMAO, so, what's the difference between a ''proto-negroid'' and a ''negroid'', and how come their brow ridges don't make them Australoid?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: When high NI's and prognathism (non-Caucasoid traits) are discussed in North African crania, Coon notes they are not Mediterranean but composite, having "other" racial tendencies.
LMAO. That is not what your 1930 Coon source says you phucking cretin. You're just going to keep posting Coon data that agrees with me, aren't you? The excerpt says:
This may represent an early infiltration of negroids, or of so called Mediterraneans, or of negroids producing in mixture a Mediterranean type --Coon
^This only confirms what I've been saying all along, namely, that negroid features are a part of the picture of what Coon considers ''Mediterranean'' (he has trouble keeping the two apart). Apparently, he even believes that negroids are capable of producing a Mediterranean type. Phuckin' idiot, in what way does this excerpt prove your claim that Mediterranean is a physical type free of Negroid traits?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Back in the 1930's Coon had not explored Negroid racial origins, by 1965 he knew this "other" racial tendency was not Negroid
Prove it. Not that I think its relevant, because putting another label on this other element (e.g., ''Australoid'' instead of ''Negroid'') would still destroy your claim that the Mediterranean type is free of this ''other tendency''.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: and he retracted his initial claims.
And you give priority to his supposed later revisions because of what scientific improvements over his 1939 methodology?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] Badumtish, somebody can select a set of traits and them make a label for people who have those traits
I know—that's all that 'race' is: an arbitrary, socially constructed selection of traits that are given 'racial' status whilst other equally significant traits (blood group, hair colour, eye colour, shoe size, etc.) are said to be irrelevant. Since the various different categorisation systems cannot simultaneously be important (due to the amount of discordance), any given one is a social construct, which is what Zagefka (2009) has explained:
So somebody says "I call the following traits group A and the rule is to be part of group A you have to have all the traits on the list" then you can either say "I don't like your list" (no further discussion necessary) or "I accept your list for the purposes of argument so what else do you have to say about group A"
-so if they then have something more to say about group A you can still test the claim they are making about group A
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] Badumtish, somebody can select a set of traits and them make a label for people who have those traits
I know—that's all that 'race' is: an arbitrary, socially constructed selection of traits that are given 'racial' status whilst other equally significant traits (blood group, hair colour, eye colour, shoe size, etc.) are said to be irrelevant. Since the various different categorisation systems cannot simultaneously be important (due to the amount of discordance), any given one is a social construct, which is what Zagefka (2009) has explained:
So somebody says "I call the following traits group A and the rule is to be part of group A you have to have all the traits on the list" then you can either say "I don't like your list" (no further discussion necessary) or "I accept your list for the purposes of argument so what else do you have to say about group A"
-so if they then have something more to say about group A you can still test the claim they are making about group A
The argument is tautological and lacks any scientific merit. Group A is not a naturally significant category, it is a socially constructed one. You cannot then treat it as holding any degree of overarching biological significance, whether that be in relation to crime, academic performance, IQ, athleticism, propensity to various diseases, etc. The only thing that can be said about Group A is whatever essential qualities place somebody in Group A; i.e., if Group A is comprised of people with X lip size, Y nose width and Z height, then all we can say about Group A is that the people within it have X lip size, Y nose width and Z height. Other things may be present in some members of group A, but not necessarily (being in Group A is not intrinsically causal to the possession of these other things). These other things may also be present in members outside of group A. Various things are non-concordant and no single quality/set of qualities is any more important than any other one either independently or when inferring things about other qualities.
Furthermore, people who say 'Group A' have different understandings of what 'Group A' even constitutes, which is explained by Pena (2011), Megyesi et al. (2011), Hunt (2008) and Hunt and Megyesi (2006). Hunt (2008) provides a nice summary:
"But how could researchers in such an otherwise rigorous field be so tolerant, even embracing of variables with so little precision? We argue that in part, it is precisely this imprecision that sustains itself. The wide use of this vague and unsystematic terminology results in a semantic illusion of consistency between very different types of research. For example, those we interviewed were working on a wide assortment of types of genetic studies, ranging from DNA sequencing, population modeling, to linkage studies. Their target populations were equally varied, depending on the goals of their project: some chosen because of their geographic isolation, others for their disease characteristics, and others for their mere availability. However, when all are labeled with the same simplistic set of terms, it may seem that there is a growing body of data about specific racial populations, when in fact there is no reason at all to presume they belong to a "group" of any kind, beyond their being subject to having the same label affixed to them. In other words, the only equivalence that can be presumed between these groups is that they are subject to equivalent terminology" (Hunt, 2008).
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] Badumtish, somebody can select a set of traits and them make a label for people who have those traits
I know—that's all that 'race' is: an arbitrary, socially constructed selection of traits that are given 'racial' status whilst other equally significant traits (blood group, hair colour, eye colour, shoe size, etc.) are said to be irrelevant. Since the various different categorisation systems cannot simultaneously be important (due to the amount of discordance), any given one is a social construct, which is what Zagefka (2009) has explained:
So somebody says "I call the following traits group A and the rule is to be part of group A you have to have all the traits on the list" then you can either say "I don't like your list" (no further discussion necessary) or "I accept your list for the purposes of argument so what else do you have to say about group A"
-so if they then have something more to say about group A you can still test the claim they are making about group A
The argument is tautological and lacks any scientific merit. Group A is not a naturally significant category, it is a socially constructed one. You cannot then treat it as holding any degree of overarching biological significance, whether that be in relation to crime, academic performance, IQ, athleticism, propensity to various diseases, etc.
what if a requirement for group A) is ancestry to a particular geographic region as well as a list of required physical traits?
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] Badumtish, somebody can select a set of traits and them make a label for people who have those traits
I know—that's all that 'race' is: an arbitrary, socially constructed selection of traits that are given 'racial' status whilst other equally significant traits (blood group, hair colour, eye colour, shoe size, etc.) are said to be irrelevant. Since the various different categorisation systems cannot simultaneously be important (due to the amount of discordance), any given one is a social construct, which is what Zagefka (2009) has explained:
So somebody says "I call the following traits group A and the rule is to be part of group A you have to have all the traits on the list" then you can either say "I don't like your list" (no further discussion necessary) or "I accept your list for the purposes of argument so what else do you have to say about group A"
-so if they then have something more to say about group A you can still test the claim they are making about group A
The argument is tautological and lacks any scientific merit. Group A is not a naturally significant category, it is a socially constructed one. You cannot then treat it as holding any degree of overarching biological significance, whether that be in relation to crime, academic performance, IQ, athleticism, propensity to various diseases, etc.
what if a requirement for group A) is ancestry to a particular geographic region as well as a list of required physical traits?
It doesn't change its tautological nature. It makes it even more arbitrary, as we are now including both biology and geography, irrespective of their relationships.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] Badumtish, somebody can select a set of traits and them make a label for people who have those traits
I know—that's all that 'race' is: an arbitrary, socially constructed selection of traits that are given 'racial' status whilst other equally significant traits (blood group, hair colour, eye colour, shoe size, etc.) are said to be irrelevant. Since the various different categorisation systems cannot simultaneously be important (due to the amount of discordance), any given one is a social construct, which is what Zagefka (2009) has explained:
So somebody says "I call the following traits group A and the rule is to be part of group A you have to have all the traits on the list" then you can either say "I don't like your list" (no further discussion necessary) or "I accept your list for the purposes of argument so what else do you have to say about group A"
-so if they then have something more to say about group A you can still test the claim they are making about group A
The argument is tautological and lacks any scientific merit. Group A is not a naturally significant category, it is a socially constructed one. You cannot then treat it as holding any degree of overarching biological significance, whether that be in relation to crime, academic performance, IQ, athleticism, propensity to various diseases, etc. The only thing that can be said about Group A is whatever essential qualities place somebody in Group A; i.e., if Group A is comprised of people with X lip size, Y nose width and Z height, then all we can say about Group A is that the people within it have X lip size, Y nose width and Z height. Other things may be present in some members of group A, but not necessarily (being in Group A is not intrinsically causal to the possession of these other things). These other things may also be present in members outside of group A. Various things are non-concordant and no single quality/set of qualities is any more important than any other one either independently or when inferring things about other qualities.
Furthermore, people who say 'Group A' have different understandings of what 'Group A' even constitutes, which is demonstrated in Pena (2011), Megyesi et al. (2011), Hunt (2008) and Hunt and Megyesi (2006).
Since you brought this up,
I recently bumped into something very interesting.
Prof. Richard Lynn — Eugenics and Dysgenics: A Promise Denied
what if a requirement for group A) is ancestry to a particular geographic region as well as a list of required physical traits? [/qb][/QUOTE]It doesn't change its tautological nature. It makes it even more arbitrary, as we are now including both biology and geography, irrespective of their relationships. [/QB][/QUOTE]
What tautological nature? A definition is given. You may not like it but it's not a redundancy it's just a definition.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: What tautological nature? A definition is given. You may not like it but it's not a redundancy it's just a definition.
A definition of what? You've just selected traits and a particular geographical space to construct a group that has certain traits and occupies a particular geographical space—this is a tautology. What does it demonstrate?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: What tautological nature? A definition is given. You may not like it but it's not a redundancy it's just a definition.
A definition of what? You've just selected traits and a particular geographical space to construct a group that has certain traits and occupies a particular geographical space—this is a tautology. What does it demonstrate?
you have a point
However if you look at some group of people who have been living in an area for thousands of years you might conclude that that group of people have traits which were caused by adaptation to that area.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Oh, and if 'other definitions' are valid, why not declare there are 'blood group races' or a '>191cm race' or a 'cystic fibrosis race'?
Or do various definitions only become valid when you say so?
Only racial traits are valid. You still don't even know what races are. The fallacy you are setting up was done so by Montagu, Diamond and so forth ages back. They chose random genetic traits which have nothing to do with races to then cluster silly groups like Swedes and Bantus together.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Oh, and if 'other definitions' are valid, why not declare there are 'blood group races' or a '>191cm race' or a 'cystic fibrosis race'?
Or do various definitions only become valid when you say so?
Only racial traits are valid. You still don't even know what races are. The fallacy you are setting up was done so by Montagu, Diamond and so forth ages back. They chose random genetic traits which have nothing to do with races to then cluster silly groups like Swedes and Bantus together.
You still don't know what circular reasoning is, do you?
I've demonstrated on multiple occasions that Amadon's definition is arbitrary and that is doesn't specify 'physical' or 'adaptive' traits are necessary for separating populations. There is nothing 'silly' about the clusters they found; you're rejecting everything that doesn't conform to Coon due to confirmation bias and the fact that your entire life philosophy revolves around these specific divisions existing. You're stuck in the past and are unable to defend your position because it is indefensible, which is why you simply ignore so many people's posts.
You asked me where I disagreed with your divisions and I gave you an answer. What do you have to say for yourself now?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Badumtish, somebody can select a set of traits and them make a label for people who have those traits
I know—that's all that 'race' is: an arbitrary, socially constructed selection of traits that are given 'racial' status whilst other equally significant traits (blood group, hair colour, eye colour, shoe size, etc.) are said to be irrelevant. Since the various different categorisation systems cannot simultaneously be important (due to the amount of discordance), any given one is a social construct, which is what Zagefka (2009) has explained:
"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).
See above, same fallacy. This has been debunked.
"Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race". (Rushton, 1998)
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Badumtish, somebody can select a set of traits and them make a label for people who have those traits
I know—that's all that 'race' is: an arbitrary, socially constructed selection of traits that are given 'racial' status whilst other equally significant traits (blood group, hair colour, eye colour, shoe size, etc.) are said to be irrelevant. Since the various different categorisation systems cannot simultaneously be important (due to the amount of discordance), any given one is a social construct, which is what Zagefka (2009) has explained:
"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).
See above, same fallacy. This has been debunked.
"Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race". (Rushton, 1998)
Why cut off the quote? Fucking liar.
"Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race -- a recognizable (or distinguishable) geographic population based on common descent."
You previously said Amadon defined what 'races' were:
"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"
Why is Rushton using a 'false definition'? Did you even get the quote from Rushton?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Oh, and if 'other definitions' are valid, why not declare there are 'blood group races' or a '>191cm race' or a 'cystic fibrosis race'?
Or do various definitions only become valid when you say so?
Only racial traits are valid. You still don't even know what races are. The fallacy you are setting up was done so by Montagu, Diamond and so forth ages back. They chose random genetic traits which have nothing to do with races to then cluster silly groups like Swedes and Bantus together.
You still don't know what circular reasoning is, do you?
I've demonstrated on multiple occasions that Amadon's definition is arbitrary and that is doesn't specify 'physical' or 'adaptive' traits are necessary for separating populations.
You asked me where I disagreed with your divisions and I gave you an answer. What do you have to say for yourself now?
You cannot take random traits, only the traits that arose through vicariance (race formation):
"In their bodies and in their pattern of behaviour, the human beings alive today reflect the climatic changes to which their ancestors were exposed and which they met by suitable modifications." (Coon, 1982)
"As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies are not shaped by... climatic factors” (Gill, 2000).
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Oh, and if 'other definitions' are valid, why not declare there are 'blood group races' or a '>191cm race' or a 'cystic fibrosis race'?
Or do various definitions only become valid when you say so?
Only racial traits are valid. You still don't even know what races are. The fallacy you are setting up was done so by Montagu, Diamond and so forth ages back. They chose random genetic traits which have nothing to do with races to then cluster silly groups like Swedes and Bantus together.
You still don't know what circular reasoning is, do you?
I've demonstrated on multiple occasions that Amadon's definition is arbitrary and that is doesn't specify 'physical' or 'adaptive' traits are necessary for separating populations.
You asked me where I disagreed with your divisions and I gave you an answer. What do you have to say for yourself now?
You cannot take random traits, only the traits that arose through vicariance (race formation):
"In their bodies and in their pattern of behaviour, the human beings alive today reflect the climatic changes to which their ancestors were exposed and which they met by suitable modifications." (Coon, 1982)
"As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies are not shaped by... climatic factors” (Gill, 2000).
"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"
"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"
"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"
"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"
"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"
"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"
Says who? Certainly not Amadon. Stop using 'false definitions'. Thanks.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Badumtish, somebody can select a set of traits and them make a label for people who have those traits
I know—that's all that 'race' is: an arbitrary, socially constructed selection of traits that are given 'racial' status whilst other equally significant traits (blood group, hair colour, eye colour, shoe size, etc.) are said to be irrelevant. Since the various different categorisation systems cannot simultaneously be important (due to the amount of discordance), any given one is a social construct, which is what Zagefka (2009) has explained:
"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).
See above, same fallacy. This has been debunked.
"Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race". (Rushton, 1998)
Why cut off the quote? Fucking liar.
"Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race -- a recognizable (or distinguishable) geographic population based on common descent."
You previously said Amadon defined what 'races' were:
"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"
Why is Rushton using a 'false definition'?
Nowhere did I say Amadon's rule defines races. The 75% rule is just an anthropological test to see who can pass as them. The definition of race I gave from Sarich & Miele (2004, p. 207).
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
- Races are just the geographical (allopatric)populations or aggregates of individuals within a polytypic species.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:"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).
This is so lame. You are quoting oddball philosophers who have nothing to do with the real biological world.
You have not put up a single scientific argument that counters the biological reality of race.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Badumtish, somebody can select a set of traits and them make a label for people who have those traits
I know—that's all that 'race' is: an arbitrary, socially constructed selection of traits that are given 'racial' status whilst other equally significant traits (blood group, hair colour, eye colour, shoe size, etc.) are said to be irrelevant. Since the various different categorisation systems cannot simultaneously be important (due to the amount of discordance), any given one is a social construct, which is what Zagefka (2009) has explained:
"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).
See above, same fallacy. This has been debunked.
"Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race". (Rushton, 1998)
Why cut off the quote? Fucking liar.
"Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race -- a recognizable (or distinguishable) geographic population based on common descent."
You previously said Amadon defined what 'races' were:
"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"
Why is Rushton using a 'false definition'?
Nowhere did I say Amadon's rule defines races. The 75% rule is just an anthropological test to see who can pass as them. The definition of race I gave from Sarich & Miele (2004, p. 207).
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
- Races are just the geographical (allopatric)populations or aggregates of individuals within a polytypic species.
Is blood group not heritable? Lactose tolerance? Sickle cell? Cystic fibrosis? Height? Not even Sarich and Miele's definition supports you. I can distinguish between people on the basis of these heritable features. The patterned geographical distribution of the frequency of these things indicates geographical distance/separation plays a role.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:"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).
This is so lame. You are quoting oddball philosophers who have nothing to do with the real biological world.
You have not put up a single scientific argument that counters the biological reality of race.
I've put up multiple, and you've been forced to either ignore my posts, selectively quote me or alter your position.
You still have not refuted Zagefka's logic or defended fuzzy logic as an objective system. Your entire paradigm is redundant and is nothing more than an arbitrary social construct.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Barbujani and Belle (2006) have demonstrated the geographical partitioning of humanity is not consistent across studies, methodologies, assumptions and datasets. People can be distinguished by anything.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Badumtish, somebody can select a set of traits and them make a label for people who have those traits
I know—that's all that 'race' is: an arbitrary, socially constructed selection of traits that are given 'racial' status whilst other equally significant traits (blood group, hair colour, eye colour, shoe size, etc.) are said to be irrelevant. Since the various different categorisation systems cannot simultaneously be important (due to the amount of discordance), any given one is a social construct, which is what Zagefka (2009) has explained:
"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).
See above, same fallacy. This has been debunked.
"Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race". (Rushton, 1998)
Why cut off the quote? Fucking liar.
"Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race -- a recognizable (or distinguishable) geographic population based on common descent."
You previously said Amadon defined what 'races' were:
"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"
Why is Rushton using a 'false definition'?
Nowhere did I say Amadon's rule defines races. The 75% rule is just an anthropological test to see who can pass as them. The definition of race I gave from Sarich & Miele (2004, p. 207).
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
- Races are just the geographical (allopatric)populations or aggregates of individuals within a polytypic species.
Is blood group not heritable? Lactose tolerance? Sickle cell? Cystic fibrosis? Height? Not even Sarich and Miele's definition supports you. I can distinguish between people on the basis of these heritable features. The patterned geographical distribution of the frequency of these things indicates geographical distance/separation plays a role.
Yes, Amadon's rule is how they are identified, but not the definition. Secondly, none of those traits are racial as they are randomly distributed. This is the Diamond fallacy crucial to your race denialism. Note that actual racial traits you completely ignore because you know geographical populations differ in them which match the typological race classification: Caucasoid, Mongoloid etc. This is precisely why Molnar (1975) omissed all this out in his book.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
But here you are saying the following:
"The criterion has to be physical as outlined above, non-adaptive traits have no racial value."
I don't see the terms 'physical', 'adaptive' or 'non-adaptive' in that quote. They only specified that the populations must be distinguishable 'on the basis of heritable features'. I can distinguish between everybody due to the unique genetic and phenotypic features they have inherited.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Badumtish, somebody can select a set of traits and them make a label for people who have those traits
I know—that's all that 'race' is: an arbitrary, socially constructed selection of traits that are given 'racial' status whilst other equally significant traits (blood group, hair colour, eye colour, shoe size, etc.) are said to be irrelevant. Since the various different categorisation systems cannot simultaneously be important (due to the amount of discordance), any given one is a social construct, which is what Zagefka (2009) has explained:
"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).
See above, same fallacy. This has been debunked.
"Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race". (Rushton, 1998)
Why cut off the quote? Fucking liar.
"Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race -- a recognizable (or distinguishable) geographic population based on common descent."
You previously said Amadon defined what 'races' were:
"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"
Why is Rushton using a 'false definition'?
Nowhere did I say Amadon's rule defines races. The 75% rule is just an anthropological test to see who can pass as them. The definition of race I gave from Sarich & Miele (2004, p. 207).
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
- Races are just the geographical (allopatric)populations or aggregates of individuals within a polytypic species.
Is blood group not heritable? Lactose tolerance? Sickle cell? Cystic fibrosis? Height? Not even Sarich and Miele's definition supports you. I can distinguish between people on the basis of these heritable features. The patterned geographical distribution of the frequency of these things indicates geographical distance/separation plays a role.
Yes, Amadon's rule is how they are identified, but not the definition. Secondly, none of those traits are racial as they are randomly distributed. This is the Diamond fallacy crucial to your race denialism. Note that actual racial traits you completely ignore because you know geographical populations differ in them which match the typological race classification: Caucasoid, Mongoloid etc. This is precisely why Molnar (1975) omissed all this out in his book.
They are not randomly distributed. They are 'heritable' and have geographical patterning in their incidences and frequencies (indicating the carriers are geographically separated). People can be separated on the basis of these traits; hence, 'races' can be defined by blood group.
Nowhere in that quote are the terms 'adaptive', 'physical' or 'non-adaptive' used. Anything that is heritable and can be used to distinguish one population from another is suitable for determining a 'race'.
I haven't ignored anything: people can be separated by a variety of different things. The choice of separation is arbitrary, which is explained by Zagefka (2009).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: and you've been forced to either ignore my posts, selectively quote me or alter your position.
Exactly. The most funny part is where he repeatedly tries to convince people that being forced to increasingly abandon more and more previously held beliefs, and being forced to selectively reply to only convenient points, doesn't mean he's getting his ass handed to him.
His favorite way to deal with insurmountable evidence is by either citing real studies that don't even comment on what he says you can find in there (e.g., his claim that Bar-Yosef said the Mushabian was found in Upper and Lower Egypt), misconstruing what his own sources say (Coon said Mediterraneans are free of negroid traits), selectively replying to only convenient points (hasn't replied even once to the issue of why Australoid ancestry is absent, but sub saharan lineages present, in all the regions where he tries to explain away Negroid features as Australoid features, or why Australoid looking Palaeo-american remains yield Amerindian, instead of Australian lineages), referring to studies that have never been performed (Mesolithic Nubians and Natufians with wavy hair), arbitrarily manipulating 'racial' boundaries when its convenient (e.g., Sub Saharan African ancestry cannot be ascribed to ancient wavy haired African samples, but Khoisan ancestry can be ascribed to the same wavy haired ancient populations even though Khoisan often have even more curly hair than West Africans. Another variation of this retarded tendency is his claim that bone ridge having remains cannot be negroid but have to be australoid, yet he doesn't explain why his touted proto-negroid specimen have prominent brow ridges) and of course, then there is also his favorite one liner. When everything fails, just say ''I already refuted this'', LMAO:
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.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Why are you not answering any of my questions?
I've already answered everything and shown how categorization does not require x to be discrete.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^ Randomly distributed in regards to race.
Do Bantu Sub-Saharan Africans an Scandinavians look a like to you? Yet you can cluster them through Diamond's fallacy.
We covered this with McCulloch (2002) months back.
"Argument by false methods of racial identification and classification. Similar to #3 above, this argument claims that the traditional typological methods of racial identification and classification based on morphological traits or phenotype is arbitrary. It contends that other methods would yield very different results, classifying different types as measured by these different methods into groupings that differ from the traditional racial groupings, making them meaningless and arbitrary. Blood groups, for example, are not distributed in a manner that coincides with the traditional racial groupings. But the traditional methods of racial classification by racial typology or physical appearance are not arbitrary for the simple reason that they are based on, reflect and are consistent with the real geographic populations of humanity, as they really exist, and therefore with objectively observable and verifiable reality. They are the traits that differ between these real populations, the differences in physical appearance by which these populations can be accurately distinguished and identified, and by which they are and have been accurately distinguished and identified for millennia. Those traits that are not distributed in a manner that coincides with real populations are not valid methods of racial identification in the real world."
- See bold.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ Randomly distributed in regards to race.
Do Bantu Sub-Saharan Africans an Scandinavians look a like to you? Yet you can cluster them through Diamond's fallacy.
We covered this with McCulloch (2002) months back.
"Argument by false methods of racial identification and classification. Similar to #3 above, this argument claims that the traditional typological methods of racial identification and classification based on morphological traits or phenotype is arbitrary. It contends that other methods would yield very different results, classifying different types as measured by these different methods into groupings that differ from the traditional racial groupings, making them meaningless and arbitrary. Blood groups, for example, are not distributed in a manner that coincides with the traditional racial groupings. But the traditional methods of racial classification by racial typology or physical appearance are not arbitrary for the simple reason that they are based on, reflect and are consistent with the real geographic populations of humanity, as they really exist, and therefore with objectively observable and verifiable reality. They are the traits that differ between these real populations, the differences in physical appearance by which these populations can be accurately distinguished and identified, and by which they are and have been accurately distinguished and identified for millennia. Those traits that are not distributed in a manner that coincides with real populations are not valid methods of racial identification in the real world."
- See bold.
What is fallacious about it as per Sarich and Miele's definition? I've already explained that they are similar in some dimensions and different in others with Zagefka (2009).
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
The traditional groupings are based on one (arbitrary) system, and blood groups are based on another. The latter (alongside lactose tolerance, cystic fibrosis, height, sickle cell, etc.) is perfectly applicable to Sarich and Miele.
Individuals exist. Certain traits exist. The individuals may be considered a collective or singular population (organisms within a specified geographical area) based on a variety of different, non-concordant traits. These are all 'real populations'. McCulloch isn't saying much of anything. I can distinguish between two populations as long as there is a difference in the incidence of various traits.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Oh, and if 'other definitions' are valid, why not declare there are 'blood group races' or a '>191cm race' or a 'cystic fibrosis race'?
Or do various definitions only become valid when you say so?
Only racial traits are valid. You still don't even know what races are. The fallacy you are setting up was done so by Montagu, Diamond and so forth ages back. They chose random genetic traits which have nothing to do with races to then cluster silly groups like Swedes and Bantus together.
You still don't know what circular reasoning is, do you?
I've demonstrated on multiple occasions that Amadon's definition is arbitrary and that is doesn't specify 'physical' or 'adaptive' traits are necessary for separating populations.
You asked me where I disagreed with your divisions and I gave you an answer. What do you have to say for yourself now?
You cannot take random traits, only the traits that arose through vicariance (race formation):
"In their bodies and in their pattern of behaviour, the human beings alive today reflect the climatic changes to which their ancestors were exposed and which they met by suitable modifications." (Coon, 1982)
"As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies are not shaped by... climatic factors” (Gill, 2000).
quote:Morphological characteristics ...like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones . This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.) As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies are not shaped by these same climatic factors
Gill, George W. Does Race Exist? A Proponent's Perspective. University of Wyoming, 2000
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Badumtish, somebody can select a set of traits and them make a label for people who have those traits
I know—that's all that 'race' is: an arbitrary, socially constructed selection of traits that are given 'racial' status whilst other equally significant traits (blood group, hair colour, eye colour, shoe size, etc.) are said to be irrelevant. Since the various different categorisation systems cannot simultaneously be important (due to the amount of discordance), any given one is a social construct, which is what Zagefka (2009) has explained:
"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).
See above, same fallacy. This has been debunked.
"Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race". (Rushton, 1998)
Why cut off the quote? Fucking liar.
"Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race -- a recognizable (or distinguishable) geographic population based on common descent."
You previously said Amadon defined what 'races' were:
"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"
Why is Rushton using a 'false definition'?
Nowhere did I say Amadon's rule defines races. The 75% rule is just an anthropological test to see who can pass as them. The definition of race I gave from Sarich & Miele (2004, p. 207).
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
- Races are just the geographical (allopatric)populations or aggregates of individuals within a polytypic species.
Is blood group not heritable? Lactose tolerance? Sickle cell? Cystic fibrosis? Height? Not even Sarich and Miele's definition supports you. I can distinguish between people on the basis of these heritable features. The patterned geographical distribution of the frequency of these things indicates geographical distance/separation plays a role.
Yes, Amadon's rule is how they are identified, but not the definition. Secondly, none of those traits are racial as they are randomly distributed. This is the Diamond fallacy crucial to your race denialism. Note that actual racial traits you completely ignore because you know geographical populations differ in them which match the typological race classification: Caucasoid, Mongoloid etc. This is precisely why Molnar (1975) omissed all this out in his book.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Badumtish, somebody can select a set of traits and them make a label for people who have those traits
I know—that's all that 'race' is: an arbitrary, socially constructed selection of traits that are given 'racial' status whilst other equally significant traits (blood group, hair colour, eye colour, shoe size, etc.) are said to be irrelevant. Since the various different categorisation systems cannot simultaneously be important (due to the amount of discordance), any given one is a social construct, which is what Zagefka (2009) has explained:
"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).
See above, same fallacy. This has been debunked.
"Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race". (Rushton, 1998)
Why cut off the quote? Fucking liar.
"Such schemes are not only confused, but dishonest, because they deliberately side-step the long accepted scientific meaning of race -- a recognizable (or distinguishable) geographic population based on common descent."
You previously said Amadon defined what 'races' were:
"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"
Why is Rushton using a 'false definition'?
Nowhere did I say Amadon's rule defines races. The 75% rule is just an anthropological test to see who can pass as them. The definition of race I gave from Sarich & Miele (2004, p. 207).
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
- Races are just the geographical (allopatric)populations or aggregates of individuals within a polytypic species.
Is blood group not heritable? Lactose tolerance? Sickle cell? Cystic fibrosis? Height? Not even Sarich and Miele's definition supports you. I can distinguish between people on the basis of these heritable features. The patterned geographical distribution of the frequency of these things indicates geographical distance/separation plays a role.
Yes, Amadon's rule is how they are identified, but not the definition. Secondly, none of those traits are racial as they are randomly distributed. This is the Diamond fallacy crucial to your race denialism. Note that actual racial traits you completely ignore because you know geographical populations differ in them which match the typological race classification: Caucasoid, Mongoloid etc. This is precisely why Molnar (1975) omissed all this out in his book.
But, the Saami people have been considered Asian, because of their appearance. By early anthropologist.
And the Ainu, well you know have been considered cacasoid, as you put it "quasi-Caucasiod".
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
I genuinely do not understand why you keep on saying these traits are random. Tell me how I can 'randomly' acquire sickle cell, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs and other hereditary diseases if neither of my parents possess them in their genotype. Tell me how I can acquire certain blood groups if none of my parents have them in their genotype (notwithstanding bone marrow transplants). If neither of my parents have them then it is impossible for me to have them either in my genotype or phenotype.
They are not random, they are distributed amongst a particular lineage/population.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: I genuinely do not understand why you keep on saying these traits are random. Tell me how I can 'randomly' acquire sickle cell, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs and other hereditary diseases if neither of my parents possess them in their genotype. Tell me how I can acquire certain blood groups if none of my parents have them in their genotype (notwithstanding bone marrow transplants). If neither of my parents have them then it is impossible for me to have them either in my genotype or phenotype.
They are not random, they are distributed amongst a particular lineage/population.
See Krantz, 1980. Diseases in relation to races are randomly distributed. You can find sickle cell alleles in different populations: Indians and West Africans, yet they are different races.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: I genuinely do not understand why you keep on saying these traits are random. Tell me how I can 'randomly' acquire sickle cell, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs and other hereditary diseases if neither of my parents possess them in their genotype. Tell me how I can acquire certain blood groups if none of my parents have them in their genotype (notwithstanding bone marrow transplants). If neither of my parents have them then it is impossible for me to have them either in my genotype or phenotype.
They are not random, they are distributed amongst a particular lineage/population.
See Krantz, 1980. Diseases in relation to races are randomly distributed. You can find sickle cell alleles in different populations: Indians and West Africans, yet they are different races.
Its distribution has a clear tropical geography:
"All of the areas in question have been or are now endemic locations of malarial infestation. This observation is consistent with the idea that the high incidence of sickle mutation in these areas is derived from natural selection" (Desai and Dhanani, 2004).
All the mutations that produce sickle cell are found amongst populations residing where there are high rates of malaria. Mosquitoes are found in hot and humid areas. These represent specific populations that continue the lineage of sickle cell hereditarily.
Why is there a specific geographic pattern to sickle cell incidence? Why can it not be found in any northern regions? Does this seem random to you?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: I genuinely do not understand why you keep on saying these traits are random. Tell me how I can 'randomly' acquire sickle cell, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs and other hereditary diseases if neither of my parents possess them in their genotype. Tell me how I can acquire certain blood groups if none of my parents have them in their genotype (notwithstanding bone marrow transplants). If neither of my parents have them then it is impossible for me to have them either in my genotype or phenotype.
They are not random, they are distributed amongst a particular lineage/population.
Faheem is saying disregard 20th and 21st century knowledge about internal medicine or genetics and just go by 19th century concepts :physical appearance related traits only. -the desire to go back in time to the "good old days" the implication: race is exterior not interior
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Refutation of the race = clade concept:
We've had this discussion before and your final argument was that mtDNA lineages were compatible with the multiregionalism hypothesis and could be explained via horizontal gene transfer. You're wrong:
"Neandertals, the archaic human form documented in Eurasia until 29,000 years ago, share no mitochondrial haplotype with modern Europeans. Whether this means that the two groups were reproductively isolated is controversial, and indeed nuclear data have been interpreted as suggesting that they admixed. We explored the range of demographic parameters that may have generated the observed mitochondrial diversity, simulating 3.0 million genealogies under six models differing as for the relationships among contemporary Europeans, Neandertals, and Upper Palaeolithic European early modern humans (EEMH), who coexisted with Neandertals for millennia. We compared by Approximate Bayesian Computations the simulation results with mitochondrial diversity in 7 Neandertals, 3 EEMH, and 150 opportunely chosen modern Europeans. A model of genealogical continuity between EEMH and contemporary Europeans, with no Neandertal contribution, received overwhelming support from the analyses. The maximum degree of Neandertal admixture, under the model of gene flow supported by nuclear data, was estimated at 1.5%, but this model proved 20-32 times less likely than a model without any gene flow" (Ghirotto et al., 2011).
After I posted this quote you stopped responding. More refutation:
"The first issue to keep in mind is that the Fst computations for the distribution of autosomal, X-linked, mtDNA, or Y-chromosomal markers across geographic regions do not match (Tishkoff and Kidd 2004). Oftentimes, each of these markers tells us a different but complementary story about human evolutionary history and migration patterns" (Maglo, 2011).
You will recall Barbujani and Belle's (2006) findings that various different clusters are found depending on the assumptions, methodologies and datasets of the model. Various different lineages are found via cladistics, too. More refutation:
"Unlike the mtDNA nomenclature, there are many competing Y-chromosomal cladistic nomenclatures. In the 1990s, the nomenclature of male lineages derived from the P49a,f/TaqI haplotypes seemed to dominate in the literature. But at the turn of the 21st century, the study of the non-recombining Y-chromosome (NRY) showed a greater resolution and supplied the currently dominant cladistic system of male lines of descent (Underhill et al. 2001; Underhill and Kivisild 2007; Karafet et al. 2008). The tree under construction by the Y-Chromosome Consortium is a nested cladistic system of lineages partitioned into clades ranging from A to T (Y-chromosome Consortium 2002). The phylogeography of the NRY, just like the mtDNA, sheds a new light on Eurasian populations. Consider Europe for example, one of the sub-continental groups that has the smallest human genetic variation. It may be tempting to speculatively suggest that Europeans form a monophyletic group. However, on empirical grounds, European male lineages do not form a clade. The major European Y-chromosal clade, based on the currently available evidence, is the haplogroup R. But this clade is ubiquitous and is found not only across Eurasia but also across Africa. For example, the sub-clades R1a1* and R1b1* respectively reach as high a frequency as ~72% in some Indian castes and ~90% in some Northern Cameroonian ethnic groups (Sharma et al. 2009; Cruciani et al. 2002; Scozzari et al. 1999). That is, the majority of European males share paternal lineages with non-Europeans. While the second important European male clade, haplogroup I, seems so far to be confined to Europe, a significant proportion of males in southern and Eastern Europe and the Caucasus share the E clade lineages with African males. For instance, the E3b1-M78 sub-clade (nested in the African specific E clade) was reported in some studies with moderate frequencies (sometimes as high as ~20 or ~27%) in Southern and Eastern Europe and the Balkans (Semino et al. 2004; Cruciani et al. 2004). In a word, Europe forms a polyphyletic rather than a monophyletic taxon because European males do not share a common ancestor.
To be sure, the frequencies of E clade lineages in North Africa—often simplistically and misleadingly construed in genetic studies as Eurasia or Non-Africa—is very high contrary to received racial views. For example, ~76% of Moroccan, ~80% of Saharawi, ~65% of Algerian, and ~55% of Tunisian males, whether or not they self-identify as Arabs, do not share the Middle Eastern male lines of descent (12f2a), but instead share the E lineages with sub-Saharan Africans. The E clade unites ~70% of all African males from Algiers in North Africa to the Zulu land in South Africa, Northern Africans being predominantly on the nested E3b2-M81 and E3b1-M78 sub-lineages (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004; Karafet et al. 2008). To wit, there seem to be higher frequencies of Eurasian paternal lines of descent in northern Cameroon (~40%) than in Morocco and the Saharawish Republic, but the same as in Tunisia and Algeria (Scozzari et al. 1999; Cruciani et al. 2002). Thus, North African males can be said to be Africans based on the binary polymorphisms of the Y-chromosome. But they can also be said to be Eurasians based on the study of autosome genetic markers. That is, two different cladistic taxonomies derived from two different mode of inheritance radically cross-classify the same population. The obvious lessons are that: (1) a clade is a clade, not a race" (Maglo, 2011).
More refutation:
"[...] [W]e demonstrate that the observed pattern of global gene identity variation is consistent with a history of serial population fissions, bottlenecks and long-range migrations associated with the peopling of major geographic regions, and gene flow between local populations. This history has produced a nested pattern of genetic structure that is inconsistent with the existence of independently evolving biological races" (Hunley et al., 2009).
"Whether the investigator uses external information or makes estimates from the samples at hand, the parental populations are abstractions that conform to only the simplest kind of genetic structure. This structure places heavy emphasis on the idea that the world once harbored distinct and independently evolved populations that have now undergone admixture of an unstated type (often seeming to connote admixture due to colonial era migrations). Regardless of the intent, this idea of population structure is unfortunately more in line with race concepts held by European explorers and traders than with the recent genetic evidence supporting the serial sampling model of human evolutionary history" (Weiss and Long, 2009).
"A classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub-Saharan African populations also includes every non-Sub-Saharan African population" (Long et al., 2009).
"The apparently easy way out of the difficulties of the racial cladistic approach may consist of simply equating race with clade by claiming that any individual sub-continental clade represents race. So if scientific investigations reveal, for example, hundreds of human genetic clades in Sub-Saharan Africa alone, we should conclude that there are hundreds of Sub-Saharan African human races. Yet not only does this fallback fail to provide a solution to the problem of the scientific proliferation of human races but it also simply begs the question of the scientific necessity of race" (Maglo, 2011).
"The pattern of DNA diversity is one of nested subsets, such that the diversity in non-Sub-Saharan African populations is essentially a subset of the diversity found in Sub-Saharan African populations. The actual pattern of DNA diversity creates some unsettling problems for using race as meaningful genetic categories. For example, the pattern of DNA diversity implies that some populations belong to more than one race (e.g., Europeans), whereas other populations do not belong to any race at all (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africans). As Frank Livingstone noted long ago, the Linnean classification system cannot accommodate this pattern because within the system a population cannot belong to more than one named group within a taxonomic level" (Long et al., 2009).
^^Excellent work Badmuntish, but you are using a bit too much logic for our slower paced buoy there.. lol
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers: See Krantz, 1980. Diseases in relation to races are randomly distributed. You can find sickle cell alleles in different populations: Indians and West Africans, yet they are different races.
Its distribution has a clear tropical geography:
"All of the areas in question have been or are now endemic locations of malarial infestation. This observation is consistent with the idea that the high incidence of sickle mutation in these areas is derived from natural selection" (Desai and Dhanani, 2004).
All the mutations that produce sickle cell are found amongst populations residing where there are high rates of malaria. Mosquitoes are found in hot and humid areas. These represent specific populations that continue the lineage of sickle cell hereditarily.
Why is there a specific geographic pattern to sickle cell incidence? Why can it not be found in any northern regions? Does this seem random to you?
So can the fathead explain why southern Europeans possess the West African originated Benin form of sickle cell then, as well as East African E1b1b if they didn't inherit them from black ancestors?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:So can the fathead explain why southern Europeans possess the West African originated Benin form of sickle cell then, as well as East African E1b1b if they didn't inherit them from black ancestors?
Explain how you are linking mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid to race which has no link to phenotype/"Black"...
"Modern political-prostitute population-geneticists, in expanding on the myth of the so-called “African Eve”, that is, of the origin of all modern races from Equatorial Africa, from one blackskinned woman approximately 100,000 years ago, on the basis of studies of mitochondrial DNA, complete a disgraceful scientific forgery. In a similar work cited by us, The Problem of Race in Russian Physical Anthropology, E.V. Balanovskaya clearly indicates that “unfortunately, mitochondrial genes have no kind of relationship to racial traits.” It so happens, that propagandist ideas about the “oneness of Mankind”, which proclaim a common origin for all races, are based on a trait which, in general, carries no racial information within itself." (Avdeyev, 2007)
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] If people lived in a cold microclimate for thousands of years they would become cold adapated.
True or false, there are no cold adpated Africans?
Of course. And the Chagga have not been in residence say 10,000 or more years, like people of the Nile Valley. And Africans have adapted to areas with colder temperatures. That adaptation is a matter of degree, just as it is with all other humans when adapting. And a partial adaptation does not at all cancel out what could be a dominant adaptive feature overall. Skin color in the temperate zone is influenced by degree of UV radiation, but that does not at all cancel out dominant features from hotter zones. Both can go together, as they often do in Africa.
Adaptation to the lesser radiation of temperate zones in Africa does not at all cancel out the dominant tropical adaptive pattern of people from hotter zones. Degrees if adaption can mean all kinds of variation. And climates and temperatures change. What is a cool area in one millennium, could be a arid hot zone in another. The climatic history of the Sahara shows this. End of today's lesson.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Faheem “DUMBER” said: [QUOTE][QB] The climatic tropical zone is limited to mostly western and central sub-sahara africa.
The definition of tropical you are using has no link to climate. You're using the definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year --- a completely bogus definition in regards to population biology, and physical anthropology.
LMAO. The only thing that supposedly "connects" your "tropical" africans is the fact they can see the sun directly overhead during the year. You self admit your definition is bogus, and has nothing to do with climate.
Only Green = tropical climate.
Instead your bogus "Tropical africans" are just populations that happen to dwell in an area that can overhead see the sun. [/b]
Dumbass.. Are you even in touch with elementary reality? The tropics of Cancer and Capricorn denote a climatic zone fool.. DUH.. . You want to deny this because it debunks your bogus “white Egypt” and “Caucasoid African” or “Hamitic” claims. The green areas in your map show ONE TYPE of tropical micro-climate. Different authors use different terminology to denote a classification by rainfall, season, mean temperature etc.. but it makes no difference. Wetness, coolness, dryness, rainfall, temp, season, mix and match- makes no difference. They are all variants WITHIN the tropics as the Koppen climate map below shows.
Btw Zaharan, not even Keita uses your stupid terminology based on who can see the sun in the sky. He uses the term "Saharo-Tropical African Variant" (1981).
Hapless dullard! Must we yet again instruct you? Keita uses "tropical" yes- to identify those in the SAHARAN area that were tropical. Got it? He STILL identifies them as tropical. DUH.. And you are even more incompetent in your citation. Keita did not use the terminology in "1981" as you claim. Learn to cite accurately. End of today's lesson. Quote:
”The Tropic of Cancer and The Tropic of Capricorn The Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn each lie at 23.5 degrees latitude. The Tropic of Cancer is located at 23.5° North of the equator and runs through Mexico, the Bahamas, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, and southern China. The Tropic of Capricorn lies at 23.5° South of the equator and runs through Australia, Chile, southern Brazil (Brazil is the only country that passes through both the equator and a tropic), and northern South Africa. The tropics are the two lines where the sun is directly overhead at noon on the two solstices - near June and December 21. The sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Cancer on June 21 (the beginning of summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of winter in the Southern Hemisphere) and the sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Capricorn on December 21 (the beginning of winter in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of summer in the Southern Hemisphere). The reason for the location of the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn at 23.5° north and south respectively is due to the axial tilt of the Earth. The Earth is titled 23.5 degrees from the plane of the Earth's revolution around the sun each year. The area bounded by the Tropic of Cancer on the north and Tropic of Capricorn on the south is known as the "tropics." --From worldAtlas.com and Geographic Information - Page 33 Jenny Marie Johnson - 2003
Why do you think they are called the TROPIC of Cancer and the TROPIC of Capricorn? You big dummy…
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:So can the fathead explain why southern Europeans possess the West African originated Benin form of sickle cell then, as well as East African E1b1b if they didn't inherit them from black ancestors?
Explain how you are linking mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid to race which has no link to phenotype/"Black"...
"Modern political-prostitute population-geneticists, in expanding on the myth of the so-called “African Eve”, that is, of the origin of all modern races from Equatorial Africa, from one blackskinned woman approximately 100,000 years ago, on the basis of studies of mitochondrial DNA, complete a disgraceful scientific forgery. In a similar work cited by us, The Problem of Race in Russian Physical Anthropology, E.V. Balanovskaya clearly indicates that “unfortunately, mitochondrial genes have no kind of relationship to racial traits.” It so happens, that propagandist ideas about the “oneness of Mankind”, which proclaim a common origin for all races, are based on a trait which, in general, carries no racial information within itself." (Avdeyev, 2007)
Derp, it shows the genetic lineage of somebody. Since sickle cell/haemoglobin S is hereditary, things that indicate lineage like mtDNA are obviously relevant.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
Why is there a specific geographic pattern to sickle cell incidence? Why can it not be found in any northern regions? Does this seem random to you?
Their distribution is random in regards to race, "The geographical concentrations of genetic traits bear no relation to those of classical traits" (Krantz, 1980). You can cluster seperate races that look nothing a like together through this fallacy - that is why you use it. This has been debunked, why do you think it is a well known race denial fallacy? Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Liar They are all variants WITHIN the tropics as the Koppen climate map below shows.
Fail. Look at a real Koppen map:
Tropical climate in Africa is limited to a small region of Sub-Sahara Africa, as the standard (Köppen) climatic map above shows.
Köppen's classification divides climate of the world into tropical (A), dry (B), temperate (C), cold (D), and snow and ice (E) types/zones.
Under (A) falls: AF - Tropical Rainforest, Arm - Tropical Monsoon and Aw - Tropical savanna.
Anything that falls outside of that region in Africa is not tropical climate.
The bogus definition Zaharan is using has no relation to climate, it merely refers to the zone where earth is hit by perpendicular rays by the sun at least once a year: it could be a region covered in snow, a desert, ice, highland etc. Hence under his bogus definition of tropical he can claim people with diverse phenotypes are all "black/tropical" despite the fact they aren't, and are seperate races.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
Why is there a specific geographic pattern to sickle cell incidence? Why can it not be found in any northern regions? Does this seem random to you?
Their distribution is random in regards to race, "The geographical concentrations of genetic traits bear no relation to those of classical traits" (Krantz, 1980). You can cluster seperate races that look nothing a like together through this fallacy - that is why you use it. This has been debunked, why do you think it is a well known race denial fallacy?
'Bear no relation to those of classical traits'? Well, no ****. Classical traits aren't the only things that define 'races', or Sarich and Miele's definition would have said so. According to Sarich and Miele's definition they are perfectly suitable markers of different 'races':
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
The traits in question are heritable features. Their centralised distribution (high incidence in one area then a gradual tapering into absence over a large distance) indicates a geographically separated population. Using Amadon's definition, we can quite clearly form a population on the basis of whether or not they have haemoglobin S, as opposed to those who do not have this gene.
Nobody is identical in their phenotype and genotype, which means they share some things with some people and nothing with others. I've already explained that they may cluster in one dimension without clustering in another. The only way they would cluster in every respect is if the cluster only comprised the individual's phenotype and genotype. Some parts of their phenotype and genotype are different and other parts are the same/similar. The choice of marker is arbitrary and informed by socially constructed meaning; 'race' is an arbitrary social construct.
You keep on calling it a fallacy, but you haven't justified it. I've asked you to explain what is fallacious about it as per Sarich and Miele's definition. Don't invoke other 'false definitions'. I want you to use Sarich and Miele's apparently unconditionally correct definition to defend yourself. Tell me what part of the definition I violate.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Classical traits aren't the only things that define 'races', or Sarich and Miele's definition would have said so.
Classical traits are the only racial traits. You need them not to be otherwise your race denial fallacy doesn't work as Krantz (1980), Rushton (1998) and McCulloch (2002) all have shown.
Sarich and Miele throughout their work, and other studies note of the fallacy you are using. Their usage of "heritable" only pertains to racial traits, not random. This is obvious to anyone who understands what races are.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Badumtish, he is saying race is only defined by exterior physical appearance traits. Why? because he likes it that way. You are right it's arbitrary
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote: The threonine allele was present in 98.7 to 100% among several European samples, while the alanine form was found in 93 to 100% of samples of Africans, East Asians and Indigenous Americans. The variation is a SNP polymorphism rs1426654, which had been previously shown to be second among 3011 tabulated SNPs ranked as ancestry-informative markers. They also showed that SLC24A5 explains between 25 and 38% of the European-African difference in skin melanin index.
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Classical traits aren't the only things that define 'races', or Sarich and Miele's definition would have said so.
Classical traits are the only racial traits. You need them not to be otherwise your race denial fallacy doesn't work as Krantz (1980), Rushton (1998) and McCulloch (2002) all have shown.
Sarich and Miele throughout their work, and other studies note of the fallacy you are using. Their usage of "heritable" only pertains to racial traits, not random. This is obvious to anyone who understands what races are.
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
Not "on the basis of whatever heritable features Pyramidologist needs to uphold his antiquated racial typologies."
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
Is sickle cell heritable? Yes.
Get out.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers:
quote:So can the fathead explain why southern Europeans possess the West African originated Benin form of sickle cell then, as well as East African E1b1b if they didn't inherit them from black ancestors?
Explain how you are linking mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid to race which has no link to phenotype/"Black"...
"Modern political-prostitute population-geneticists, in expanding on the myth of the so-called “African Eve”, that is, of the origin of all modern races from Equatorial Africa, from one blackskinned woman approximately 100,000 years ago, on the basis of studies of mitochondrial DNA, complete a disgraceful scientific forgery. In a similar work cited by us, The Problem of Race in Russian Physical Anthropology, E.V. Balanovskaya clearly indicates that “unfortunately, mitochondrial genes have no kind of relationship to racial traits.” It so happens, that propagandist ideas about the “oneness of Mankind”, which proclaim a common origin for all races, are based on a trait which, in general, carries no racial information within itself." (Avdeyev, 2007)
Where did I say anything about mitochondrial DNA??! My post as you cited above explicitly mentions Benin HBS (Sickle Cell) and Y-chromosomal DNA. As far as 'race', as you can see in my post, I never used the term. My question is how do YOU especially using your own notions of 'race' explain this? Y-chromosomal DNA like mitochondrial DNA is uniparental and passed on from parent to child-- father to son in the case of Y-chromosome and mother to daughter in the case of mitochondria. Benin HBS like all HBS are alleles that can be carried by either sex, and unlike Y-DNA or mtDNA actually codes for a phenotypic trait which in this case is hemoglobin of red blood cells.
All human beings descend from a mitochondrial Eve and a Y-chromosomal Adam in Africa. Both as agreed by virtually all anthropologists would have been 'black' as they are indigenous to equatorial Africa. That there was differentiation of populations that diverged especially in non-tropical areas outside of the continent is known as evolution. Though the attempt to isolate such differences as a correlation between physical appearance and genetic lineage has FAILED. In other word 'race' does not exist!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^I told you this cretin has a never ending stream of verbal diarrhea dripping down his mouth. He just keeps phucking up.
Hey Angho', when you're done running away from my posts, like the little b!tch that you are, we can resume your intellectual thrashing (as if you haven't been routed already, in every possible way).
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Iwo Eleru is proto-Negroid, not Negroid:
"A human burial described as "proto-Negroid" was found at the base of the succession at Iwo Eleru with a date of 11200 ± 200 BP" (Shaw, 2008)
It would appear the oldest Negroid (AMH) is only actually 6,500 years old: "A tall, clearly Negroid skeleton (Asselar Man) has been dated to 6500 B.P." (Camp, 1974).
LMAO, so, what's the difference between a ''proto-negroid'' and a ''negroid'', and how come their brow ridges don't make them Australoid?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: When high NI's and prognathism (non-Caucasoid traits) are discussed in North African crania, Coon notes they are not Mediterranean but composite, having "other" racial tendencies.
LMAO. That is not what your 1930 Coon source says you phucking cretin. You're just going to keep posting Coon data that agrees with me, aren't you? The excerpt says:
This may represent an early infiltration of negroids, or of so called Mediterraneans, or of negroids producing in mixture a Mediterranean type --Coon
^This only confirms what I've been saying all along, namely, that negroid features are a part of the picture of what Coon considers ''Mediterranean'' (he has trouble keeping the two apart). Apparently, he even believes that negroids are capable of producing a Mediterranean type. Phuckin' idiot, in what way does this excerpt prove your claim that Mediterranean is a physical type free of Negroid traits?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Back in the 1930's Coon had not explored Negroid racial origins, by 1965 he knew this "other" racial tendency was not Negroid
Prove it. Not that I think its relevant, because putting another label on this other element (e.g., ''Australoid'' instead of ''Negroid'') would still destroy your claim that the Mediterranean type is free of this ''other tendency''.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: and he retracted his initial claims.
And you give priority to his supposed later revisions because of what scientific improvements over his 1939 methodology?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Faheem “DUMBER” said:
quote: The climatic tropical zone is limited to mostly western and central sub-sahara africa.
The definition of tropical you are using has no link to climate. You're using the definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year --- a completely bogus definition in regards to population biology, and physical anthropology.
LMAO. The only thing that supposedly "connects" your "tropical" africans is the fact they can see the sun directly overhead during the year. You self admit your definition is bogus, and has nothing to do with climate.
Only Green = tropical climate.
Instead your bogus "Tropical africans" are just populations that happen to dwell in an area that can overhead see the sun.
Dumbass.. Are you even in touch with elementary reality? The map I gave you below DOES use the Koppen system. DUH.. The tropics of Cancer and Capricorn denote a climatic zone fool.. DUH.. . You want to deny this because it debunks your bogus “white Egypt” and “Caucasoid African” or “Hamitic” claims. The green areas in your map show ONE TYPE of tropical micro-climate. Different authors use different terminology to denote a classification by rainfall, season, mean temperature etc.. but it makes no difference. Wetness, coolness, dryness, rainfall, temp, season, mix and match- makes no difference. They are all variants WITHIN the tropics as the Koppen climate map below shows.
And dummy, the labels "tropical wet" and tropical wet/dry" on your map all identify areas WITHIN the larger tropical zone. Your own Koppen map shows this- you keep debunking your own argument fool... DUH....
Btw Zaharan, not even Keita uses your stupid terminology based on who can see the sun in the sky. He uses the term "Saharo-Tropical African Variant" (1981).
Hapless dullard! Must we yet again instruct you? Keita uses "tropical" yes- to identify those in the SAHARAN area that were tropical. Got it? He STILL identifies them as tropical. DUH.. And you are even more incompetent in your citation. Keita did not use the terminology in "1981" as you claim. Learn to cite accurately. End of today's lesson. Quote:
”The Tropic of Cancer and The Tropic of Capricorn The Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn each lie at 23.5 degrees latitude. The Tropic of Cancer is located at 23.5° North of the equator and runs through Mexico, the Bahamas, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, and southern China. The Tropic of Capricorn lies at 23.5° South of the equator and runs through Australia, Chile, southern Brazil (Brazil is the only country that passes through both the equator and a tropic), and northern South Africa. The tropics are the two lines where the sun is directly overhead at noon on the two solstices - near June and December 21. The sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Cancer on June 21 (the beginning of summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of winter in the Southern Hemisphere) and the sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Capricorn on December 21 (the beginning of winter in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of summer in the Southern Hemisphere). The reason for the location of the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn at 23.5° north and south respectively is due to the axial tilt of the Earth. The Earth is titled 23.5 degrees from the plane of the Earth's revolution around the sun each year. The area bounded by the Tropic of Cancer on the north and Tropic of Capricorn on the south is known as the "tropics." --From worldAtlas.com and Geographic Information - Page 33 Jenny Marie Johnson - 2003
Why do you think they are called the TROPIC of Cancer and the TROPIC of Capricorn? You big dummy…
You're using the definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year --- a completely bogus definition in regards to population biology, and physical anthropology.
No stupid mothafuck. The definition, which I posted long ago is shown below. You are so stupid it went over your head. ANd do you realize that you continually debunk yourself with your "refutations"? The lines where the sun is directly overhead mark out the tropics which is defined by thermal requirements and, as the standard definition shows below, include jungle, deserts and mountainous highlands, at temperatures that can be quite cool and even a non-thermally depressed winter season. You claim the tropics is only jungle but your are such an idiot you cannot even understand basic geography.
And you can't even spin your bogus claims right- dummy. The marking of the tropics is not where the sun is overhead "once during the solar year." Idiot, the markers are the TWO lines where the sun is directly overhead at noon on the two solstices - near June and December 21. That's TWICE.. at TWO separate marking points, and everything within is the tropics.. DUH..
QUOTE:
"The thermal requirement for a tropical climate is considered to be an average mean temperature above 18 degrees C for the coldest month. Within this average, tropics are also marked by receiving a large amount of solar radiation throughout the year with no true or distinct winter season. Tropics not only include jungle, but deserts and mountainous highlands as well. The cooler local temperatures of these highlands are still within the overall averages, and are still part of the tropic zone, receiving high levels of solar radiation and not having a thermally depressed winter season. (Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995)." --Kumar et al. 1999. Biodeterioration of Stone in Tropical Environments and Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995. HUmid Tropical Environments. WIley PUb.
Maybe you can get help with map reading, indeed basic reading wanker boy..
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
This monkey is sgtill using its fake names trying to convince folks that race is just a social construct! LOL
In other words the filthy pink assed monkey is desperately attempting to hide its ancestral origins and the fact that it is an ape hybrid and a sub species of homo sapiens
The filthy monkey wants to hide the fact that it possesses 48 chromosome ape DNA (Neanderthal and denisova) and monkey DNA (RH factor)
The cracker is a reprobate! The cracker is a degenerate that DEVOLVED in Central Asia and thousands more folks WORLDWIDE accept this reality!
Did you know that Obama recieved a greater percentage of the Asian vote than he did of the hispanic vote? Hahahahahaha!!!!!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
this is what is called the Tropic zone between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn
this is a large section above the Tropic of cancer, not in the Tropic zone but above it
The important term here is not just "Tropical zone" The important term here is "Tropically adapted"
If Tropically adapted people are people that live in the Tropical Zone as demarked by the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn if we look at the several climate types in this region and compare it ot the North of the Tropic Zone section we see that there are many areas of the same climate type as there are in the Tropic Zone. Therefore people in any of these map sections could be similarly adapted, despite the term "Tropic" not being attached to the name
However if "Tropically Adpated" only applies to people who live in the areas marked green (Tropical Wet) or light green (Tropical Dry) then it's restricted to only such areas
in other words you can't have it both ways in terms of adaptatation
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ And here I thought you had more intelligence than Fatheadretard.
Tropics The tropics is a region of the Earth surrounding the Equator. It is limited in latitude by the Tropic of Cancer in the northern hemisphere at approximately 23° 26′ 16″ (or 23.4378°) N and the Tropic of Capricorn in the southern hemisphere at 23° 26′ 16″ (or 23.4378°) S; these latitudes correspond to the axial tilt of the Earth. The tropics are also referred to as the tropical zone and the torrid zone (see geographical zone). The tropics include all the areas on the Earth where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year...
the tropical (torrid) zone
Tropically adapted means adaptation to the zone as defined above!
Yet the Fatheadretard makes the idiotic conjecture of limiting the definition of tropical to tropical climate A tropical climate is a climate of the tropics. In the Köppen climate classification it is a non-arid climate in which all twelve months have mean temperatures above 18 °C (64 °F). Unlike the extra-tropics, where there are strong variations in day length and temperature, with season, tropical temperature remains relatively constant throughout the year and seasonal variations are dominated by precipitation.
Tropical Climate per Köppen classification
The 'Tropical Zone' proper includes BOTH 'tropical climate' AND 'extra-tropical' climate per the Köppen classification.
But we are not talking about Köppen or any specific climate but the entire tropical zone as the first definition I provided. It is the entire zone which receives the most sunlight including UV rays that hit the earth at its curvature, especially in the equator that defines what is tropical in general! It is this sunlight/UV intensity that is that makes the entire tropical zone hot in general. And it is the hotness due to sunlight exposure that gives the tropical zone its characteristic. Humidity has NOTHING to do with it, which is why there are tropical deserts as well!
This is why many of the most tropically adapted African populations i.e. those who display 'super-tropical' adaptation don't even live in the Köppen designated 'tropical climate' regions proper but in areas outside it like Somalia and Ethiopia, the rest of Sudan, Chad, Niger, Mali, etc. And what Fatheadretard and YOU yourself have a problem digs into your panties is that such super-tropically adapted traits are also found among peoples, and especially ancient peoples, of countries farther north like Egypt, Libya, Algeria, etc.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
lIONESS SAYS: The important term here is not just "Tropical zone" The important term here is "Tropically adapted"
If Tropically adapted people are people that live in the Tropical Zone as demarked by the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn if we look at the several climate types in this region and compare it ot the North of the Tropic Zone section we see that there are many areas of the same climate type as there are in the Tropic Zone. Therefore people in any of these map sections could be similarly adapted, despite the term "Tropic" not being attached to the name
However if "Tropically Adpated" only applies to people who live in the areas marked green (Tropical Wet) or light green (Tropical Dry) then it's restricted to only such areas -
in other words you can't have it both ways in terms of adaptatation
^^So what if people outside the tropic zone living in cool areas have similar adaptations to people within the zone that live in cool areas? That does not at all affect the fact that within the tropics there are people with a wide range of physical adatations. They can have narrow noses, they can have light skin, etc AND they can move around freely within and without of adjacent zones. Nothing you say affects this basic fact. There 's nothing to have "both ways". They live in varied micro-climates, and have varied adaptations, and can do so in various degrees, PLUS they have the greatest genetic diversity in the world- irrespective of the zone they live in. Case closed.
However if "Tropically Adpated" only applies to people who live in the areas marked green (Tropical Wet) or light green (Tropical Dry) then it's restricted to only such areas
As already explained to the idiotic "Faheem Dumb and Dumber" above said people do not live only in areas marked green. And the desert areas are also within the tropical zone of Africa. You like him, seem to have this conception that "true" tropical Africans are only "supposed" to live in one particular place - like the "black side of town" in apartheid SOuth Africa, or the Jim Crow USA. Sorry.. The real world does not work that way..
Let's recap since you seem to lack reading comprehension:
QUOTE: "The thermal requirement for a tropical climate is considered to be an average mean temperature above 18 degrees C for the coldest month. Within this average, tropics are also marked by receiving a large amount of solar radiation throughout the year with no true or distinct winter season. Tropics not only include jungle, but deserts and mountainous highlands as well. The cooler local temperatures of these highlands are still within the overall averages, and are still part of the tropic zone, receiving high levels of solar radiation and not having a thermally depressed winter season. (Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995)." --Kumar et al. 1999. Biodeterioration of Stone in Tropical Environments and Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995. HUmid Tropical Environments. WIley PUb.
Maybe you can get help with map reading, indeed basic reading wanker boy..
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ And here I thought you had more intelligence than Fatheadretard.
Tropics The tropics is a region of the Earth surrounding the Equator. It is limited in latitude by the Tropic of Cancer in the northern hemisphere at approximately 23° 26′ 16″ (or 23.4378°) N and the Tropic of Capricorn in the southern hemisphere at 23° 26′ 16″ (or 23.4378°) S; these latitudes correspond to the axial tilt of the Earth. The tropics are also referred to as the tropical zone and the torrid zone (see geographical zone). The tropics include all the areas on the Earth where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year...
the tropical (torrid) zone
Tropically adapted means adaptation to the zone as defined above!
In theory there woud be at least two types of Tropical Adpatation.
Tropical Humid Adaptation and Tropical Dry Adpation
So while both are hot and have a high UV index there are the dry and there are the moist types
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
All humans are tropically adapted monkey!
The humans that lived in Austrailia, Africa, India, the so called middle east and the americas were ALL tropically adapted because they were 100% homo sapiens or HUMAN
The cracker on the other hand is an ape hybrid (Neanderthal, Denisova) with a dash of monkey DNA (RH factor)
The cracker is a sub species of homo sapiens and that fact seems to be problematic for these degenerates!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vansertimavindicated: All humans are tropically adapted monkey!
The humans that lived in Austrailia, Africa, India, the so called middle east and the americas were ALL tropically adapted because they were 100% homo sapiens or HUMAN
The cracker on the other hand is an ape hybrid (Neanderthal, Denisova) with a dash of monkey DNA (RH factor)
The cracker is a sub species of homo sapiens and that fact seems to be problematic for these degenerates!
Neanderthals are smarter than you
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: "Tropically Adpated" only applies to people who live in the areas marked green (Tropical Wet) or light green (Tropical Dry) then it's restricted to only such areas
That is precisely what tropical climate and tropical adapted is limited to -- as even Keita understands (see the quote a few pages back).
Zaharan is a poser. Not even Keita agrees with his bogus definition. Keita's concept of "tropical africa" is limited to below the saharan region.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
The limit of Tropical Climate:
- McKnight, Tom L; Hess, Darrel (2000). "Climate Zones and Types: The Köppen System". Physical Geography: A Landscape Appreciation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tropical climate in Africa is restricted to Sub-Sahara Africa (below the Sahara Desert). As you can see it corresponds to the Negroid belt of early race typologies. This is because only Negroids (and Pygmies) are tropically adapted (Coon's Congoid taxon). Other African races show different adaptations to different climates and are in no way tropical.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Classical traits aren't the only things that define 'races', or Sarich and Miele's definition would have said so.
Classical traits are the only racial traits. You need them not to be otherwise your race denial fallacy doesn't work as Krantz (1980), Rushton (1998) and McCulloch (2002) all have shown.
Sarich and Miele throughout their work, and other studies note of the fallacy you are using. Their usage of "heritable" only pertains to racial traits, not random. This is obvious to anyone who understands what races are.
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
Not "on the basis of whatever heritable features Pyramidologist needs to uphold his antiquated racial typologies."
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
Is sickle cell heritable? Yes.
Get out.
Same fallacy.
You won't give this fallacy up because without it you can't use the staw mans or red herrings.
As Levin (2002) and Sesardic (2010) note such fallacies are "critical" to race denialism, when in the first place no proponent of race asserts such a position exists - they are added by the denier. They then knock down a fake definition of race or fake race criteria.
--- Racial traits are inherited, but not everything inherited is racial. Someone could be born with a deformity, which is not racial.
The fallacy you continue to use, is to list non-racial traits as racial. This is what Montagu (1942) through to Diamond (1994) were doing. Very lame boring old fallacies. Next you will be quoting your little charts again claiming up to 200 races have been proclaimed to exist. That's fallacy no. 2.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Tropical climate in Africa is restricted to Sub-Sahara Africa (below the Sahara Desert). As you can see it corresponds to the Negroid belt of early race typologies. This is because only Negroids (and Pygmies) are tropically adapted (Coon's Congoid taxon). Other African races show different adaptations to different climates and are in no way tropical. [/QB]
I thought you said Negroids are more recent than Caucasoids. Now you suddenly call them " early race typologies"
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Classical traits aren't the only things that define 'races', or Sarich and Miele's definition would have said so.
Classical traits are the only racial traits. You need them not to be otherwise your race denial fallacy doesn't work as Krantz (1980), Rushton (1998) and McCulloch (2002) all have shown.
Sarich and Miele throughout their work, and other studies note of the fallacy you are using. Their usage of "heritable" only pertains to racial traits, not random. This is obvious to anyone who understands what races are.
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
Not "on the basis of whatever heritable features Pyramidologist needs to uphold his antiquated racial typologies."
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
Is sickle cell heritable? Yes.
Get out.
Same fallacy.
You won't give this fallacy up because without it you can't use the staw mans or red herrings.
As Levin (2002) and Sesardic (2010) note such fallacies are "critical" to race denialism, when in the first place no proponent of race asserts such a position exists - they are added by the denier. They then knock down a fake definition of race or fake race criteria.
--- Racial traits are inherited, but not everything inherited is racial. Someone could be born with a deformity, which is not racial.
The fallacy you continue to use, is to list non-racial traits as racial. This is what Montagu (1942) through to Diamond (1994) were doing. Very lame boring old fallacies. Next you will be quoting your little charts again claiming up to 200 races have been proclaimed to exist. That's fallacy no. 2.
You are simply bringing up deformities, a red herring to the discussion, which are anomolies that no one has been using in the arguments. If you remove the rare anomolies you are still left with the fact that you are defining race only on a looks basis of physical appearance features.
That is outdated because in earlier times there was much less knowledge about genetics and internal traits.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Classical traits aren't the only things that define 'races', or Sarich and Miele's definition would have said so.
Classical traits are the only racial traits. You need them not to be otherwise your race denial fallacy doesn't work as Krantz (1980), Rushton (1998) and McCulloch (2002) all have shown.
Sarich and Miele throughout their work, and other studies note of the fallacy you are using. Their usage of "heritable" only pertains to racial traits, not random. This is obvious to anyone who understands what races are.
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
Not "on the basis of whatever heritable features Pyramidologist needs to uphold his antiquated racial typologies."
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
Is sickle cell heritable? Yes.
Get out.
Same fallacy.
You won't give this fallacy up because without it you can't use the staw mans or red herrings.
As Levin (2002) and Sesardic (2010) note such fallacies are "critical" to race denialism, when in the first place no proponent of race asserts such a position exists - they are added by the denier. They then knock down a fake definition of race or fake race criteria.
--- Racial traits are inherited, but not everything inherited is racial. Someone could be born with a deformity, which is not racial.
The fallacy you continue to use, is to list non-racial traits as racial. This is what Montagu (1942) through to Diamond (1994) were doing. Very lame boring old fallacies. Next you will be quoting your little charts again claiming up to 200 races have been proclaimed to exist. That's fallacy no. 2.
Let me repeat myself, yet again:
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
In what part of this quote did Sarich and Miele say any particular heritable features were precluded? Let me repeat myself: In what part of this quote did Sarich and Miele say any particular hertiable features were precluded? THIS QUOTE. Okay? Use THIS quote to answer my question. Do. You. Understand?
This quote, okay? Not any others. This one. Let's see if your imbecilic mind can handle this very, very simple request. One more time: In what part of this quote did Sarich and Miele say any particular heritable features were precluded?
-----------------
Levin (2002): "Races as comnmonly understood are clades defined by continent."
'False definition'. Do not quote him again.
Sesardic (2010) had a whole section dedicated to criticising other people's definitions of 'race', but did not once actually give a definition of 'race' himself. Do not quote him again, as he hasn't brought anything new to the table. I wonder why he didn't refer to Sarich and Miele if it is apparently the unconditionally correct definition...
I've already refuted the notion that sets in fuzzy logic are objective, so Sesardic's criticisms are completely redundant; 'race' is still arbitrary. If you disagree, respond to my post where I explained where and why I disagreed with your divisions. I've also explained why Amadon's definition is arbitrary and offered two sources that attest to the fact that it is arbitrary.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
In fact, I will render it as a simple yes or no question. In the following quote, which you believe is the unconditionally correct definition of 'race', is there any specification of what heritable features can or cannot be used? Yes or no?
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
Again:
In the following quote, which you believe is the unconditionally correct definition of 'race', is there any specification of what heritable features can or cannot be used? Yes or no?
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
see the Nordic section at the top?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Heritability
Heritability often comes up in discussions of the nature-nuture question. Heritability is often misinterpreted as describing how much heredity contributes to some trait that an individual shows. This is WRONG! A more accurate, but simplified, definition is this: Heritability is the proportion of this total variation between individuals in a given population due to genetic variation. This number can range from 0 (no genetic contribution) to 1 (all differences on a trait reflect genetic variation).
Two important points follow from this definition: 1. The number does NOT apply to individuals -- only to variations within a group (or population). 2. The number is NOT fixed. Differences among groups in range of genetic variation and/or environmental variation will result in different estimates of heritability.
Heritability reflects the fact that all individuals in any species of living things differ in many ways among each other. The variation (~differences) among individuals within a species depends on both genetic and environmental differences. For example, people differ in height. How much of this variation among people is due to genetic differences, how much is due to environmental differences, and how much is due to their interaction? Both genetic and environmental factors contribute. Taller parents have on the average taller children than do shorter parents, and identical twins are almost identically tall. These and other data show a genetic role in height differences. However, Japanese-Americans are on the average taller and heavier than their second cousins who grew up in Japan. This is one of kind of data that indicates the role of environment.
Heritability sounds simple, but it can act in unexpected ways. For example, if everyone in a population has the same allele for a trait and shows little variation (differences) on that trait, then the heritability for that trait is zero. It is zero because that trait has no genetic variation. One example is hair color among Eskimos (N. Carlson & W Buskirt, 1997). The whole Eskimo population appears to have the same alleles for hair color, so for Eskimos, the heritability for hair color is 0.00, even though the color is under strong genetic control! It's 0.00 because there is no genetic variation for hair color.
The calculations for heritability were originally developed for experiments on plant and animal breeding, but they have also been applied to human genetic processes. The application to behavioral processes has been controversial. Some scientists believe that the calculations require assumptions that human behavior genetic data do not meet. Therefore, these scientists believe that calculations of heritability for psychological processes like intelligence and personality factors are invalid.
Behavior geneticists disagree. They calculate heritability, using statistical models of twin and adoption data, for processes like intelligence, extraversion (outgoing personality), mental abnormality, etc. For example, heritability of extraversion is estimated at about 0.35, based on data from several studies done in different parts of the world (Loehlin, 1992).
The frequent misinterpretation of heritability reflects the traditional nature versus nurture question, which, as mentioned above, is the wrong question. A trait cannot be divided into environmentally and genetically controlled parts. To repeat once more: Everything about an animal or a plant depends both on heredity and on the environment in which its heredity is expressed. Every gene must express itself in an environment, and all environments must act on the genotype an individual gets.
We call some traits "genetically controlled." These traits are little affected by the range of environments that a developing individual normally encounters. For example, the human body is programmed to develop arms and hands with five fingers. But this genetic program can encounter a very unusual environment, which disrupts expression of this program. For example, the human embryo (very early stage of development after conception) develops very abnormal hands and arms if it is exposed to the medication thalidomide early in development.
Factors that we call "environmentally controlled" depend much more on the environment in which the individual develops. For example, the language a person speaks depends on the speech environment in which s/he develops. But all humans learn some language, even under many language-deprived conditions. This fact implies that the human brain is genetically programmed to develop language with a system specialized for language. Many linguists (people who study language) claim that all languages have basic universal features.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Classical traits aren't the only things that define 'races', or Sarich and Miele's definition would have said so.
Classical traits are the only racial traits. You need them not to be otherwise your race denial fallacy doesn't work as Krantz (1980), Rushton (1998) and McCulloch (2002) all have shown.
Sarich and Miele throughout their work, and other studies note of the fallacy you are using. Their usage of "heritable" only pertains to racial traits, not random. This is obvious to anyone who understands what races are.
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
Not "on the basis of whatever heritable features Pyramidologist needs to uphold his antiquated racial typologies."
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
Is sickle cell heritable? Yes.
Get out.
Same fallacy.
You won't give this fallacy up because without it you can't use the staw mans or red herrings.
As Levin (2002) and Sesardic (2010) note such fallacies are "critical" to race denialism, when in the first place no proponent of race asserts such a position exists - they are added by the denier. They then knock down a fake definition of race or fake race criteria.
--- Racial traits are inherited, but not everything inherited is racial. Someone could be born with a deformity, which is not racial.
The fallacy you continue to use, is to list non-racial traits as racial. This is what Montagu (1942) through to Diamond (1994) were doing. Very lame boring old fallacies. Next you will be quoting your little charts again claiming up to 200 races have been proclaimed to exist. That's fallacy no. 2.
Let me repeat myself, yet again:
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
In what part of this quote did Sarich and Miele say any particular heritable features were precluded? Let me repeat myself: In what part of this quote did Sarich and Miele say any particular hertiable features were precluded? THIS QUOTE. Okay? Use THIS quote to answer my question. Do. You. Understand?
This quote, okay? Not any others. This one. Let's see if your imbecilic mind can handle this very, very simple request. One more time: In what part of this quote did Sarich and Miele say any particular heritable features were precluded?
-----------------
Levin (2002): "Races as comnmonly understood are clades defined by continent."
'False definition'. Do not quote him again.
Sesardic (2010) had a whole section dedicated to criticising other people's definitions of 'race', but did not once actually give a definition of 'race' himself. Do not quote him again, as he hasn't brought anything new to the table. I wonder why he didn't refer to Sarich and Miele if it is apparently the unconditionally correct definition...
I've already refuted the notion that sets in fuzzy logic are objective, so Sesardic's criticisms are completely redundant; 'race' is still arbitrary. If you disagree, respond to my post where I explained where and why I disagreed with your divisions. I've also explained why Amadon's definition is arbitrary and offered two sources that attest to the fact that it is arbitrary.
Same fallacy.
You won't give it up, because if you do your position is destroyed.
Sarich & Miele by definition are only discussing racial heritable traits as they are defining races.
You are notorious for playing around with words. Where they say heritable, they mean traits that only pertain to races -- as does any other definition. You are just setting up the same fallacy again, asserting they maintain non-racial traits define races.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
The human genome has substantially more than is listed. There can be a new 'race' classification system based on every single trait if we go by Sarich and Miele's definition.
You said earlier that "I don't give a crap about genes, and never have. They are not how races are defined."
Let's see:
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
Absolutely nothing in that quote says genes are forbidden as the basis of classification. I don't know why you dismiss them (actually, I do: you desperately want to uphold your antiquated typologies by any means necessary, even if it is illogical and has been debunked by everybody), but this apparently unconditionally correct definition of 'race' doesn't support you. Amadon doesn't either.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Classical traits aren't the only things that define 'races', or Sarich and Miele's definition would have said so.
Classical traits are the only racial traits. You need them not to be otherwise your race denial fallacy doesn't work as Krantz (1980), Rushton (1998) and McCulloch (2002) all have shown.
Sarich and Miele throughout their work, and other studies note of the fallacy you are using. Their usage of "heritable" only pertains to racial traits, not random. This is obvious to anyone who understands what races are.
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
Not "on the basis of whatever heritable features Pyramidologist needs to uphold his antiquated racial typologies."
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
Is sickle cell heritable? Yes.
Get out.
Same fallacy.
You won't give this fallacy up because without it you can't use the staw mans or red herrings.
As Levin (2002) and Sesardic (2010) note such fallacies are "critical" to race denialism, when in the first place no proponent of race asserts such a position exists - they are added by the denier. They then knock down a fake definition of race or fake race criteria.
--- Racial traits are inherited, but not everything inherited is racial. Someone could be born with a deformity, which is not racial.
The fallacy you continue to use, is to list non-racial traits as racial. This is what Montagu (1942) through to Diamond (1994) were doing. Very lame boring old fallacies. Next you will be quoting your little charts again claiming up to 200 races have been proclaimed to exist. That's fallacy no. 2.
Let me repeat myself, yet again:
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
on the basis of heritable features.
In what part of this quote did Sarich and Miele say any particular heritable features were precluded? Let me repeat myself: In what part of this quote did Sarich and Miele say any particular hertiable features were precluded? THIS QUOTE. Okay? Use THIS quote to answer my question. Do. You. Understand?
This quote, okay? Not any others. This one. Let's see if your imbecilic mind can handle this very, very simple request. One more time: In what part of this quote did Sarich and Miele say any particular heritable features were precluded?
-----------------
Levin (2002): "Races as comnmonly understood are clades defined by continent."
'False definition'. Do not quote him again.
Sesardic (2010) had a whole section dedicated to criticising other people's definitions of 'race', but did not once actually give a definition of 'race' himself. Do not quote him again, as he hasn't brought anything new to the table. I wonder why he didn't refer to Sarich and Miele if it is apparently the unconditionally correct definition...
I've already refuted the notion that sets in fuzzy logic are objective, so Sesardic's criticisms are completely redundant; 'race' is still arbitrary. If you disagree, respond to my post where I explained where and why I disagreed with your divisions. I've also explained why Amadon's definition is arbitrary and offered two sources that attest to the fact that it is arbitrary.
Same fallacy.
You won't give it up, because if you do your position is destroyed.
Sarich & Miele by definition are only discussing racial heritable traits as they are defining races.
You are notorious for playing around with words. Where they say heritable, they mean traits that only pertain to races -- as does any other definition. You are just setting up the same fallacy again, asserting they maintain non-racial traits define races.
I implore you to look up what 'circular reasoning' and 'begging the question' is. Thanks. You cannot use the conclusion in the premise.
It seems that you couldn't answer a very, very simple question. You really are an absolute imbecile.
'Races' are, according to Sarich and Miele, "populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
Things like sickle cell, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs are both heritable and distributed amongst specific geographic populations (indicating separation). Thus, those who have these features are different 'races'.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
I'm going to keep on posting this until you can answer using their specific quote:
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
on the basis of heritable features.
In what part of this quote did Sarich and Miele say any particular heritable features were precluded? Let me repeat myself: In what part of this quote did Sarich and Miele say any particular heritable features were precluded? THIS QUOTE. Okay? Use THIS quote to answer my question. Do. You. Understand?
This quote, okay? Not any others. This one. Let's see if your imbecilic mind can handle this very, very simple request. One more time: In what part of this quote did Sarich and Miele say any particular heritable features were precluded?
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Let me break it down for you so you can understand better. This is a non-circular argument:
You say 'races' are defined by, for example, cranial morphology because it is a heritable trait that is only present in certain geographical areas. Thus, since it is heritable and geographically variable (indicating separation), it is suitable as the basis of 'racial' classifications.
(Our argument about fuzzy logic has demonstrated why the division of a continuum is inherently arbitrary. If you disagree, respond to the post where I explained where and why I disagreed with your divisions.)
My logically equivalent argument is as follows:
I say 'races' are defined by, for example, sickle cell because it is a heritable trait that is only present in certain geographical areas. Thus, since it is heritable and geographically variable (indicating separation), it is suitable as the basis of 'racial' classifications.
(Since you either have it or you don't, the designation of who is and isn't in the sickle cell 'race' is non-arbitrary. However, using sickle cell as a system over all the other logically equivalent systems is arbitrary. Morphology relies on arbitrary distinctions of a continuum and using it as a system above all the other logically equivalent systems is arbitrary.)
Do you see why that argument isn't circular or begging the question? It draws directly from the terms used in Sarich and Miele's definition and instantiates them. Morphology can be applied to their definition (although the division is arbitrary) and blood groups, cystic fibrosis incidence, sickle cell incidence, Tay-Sachs disease incidence, etc. are also all equally applicable to their definition.
Since they cannot all be the definitive classification of 'race', choosing any given one is a product of socially constructed meaning, which is what Zagefka (2009) has explained. Thus, 'race' is a social construct.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Sarich and Miele on page 234 clarify that racial heritable traits are morphological.
These authors aren't stupid, they know the race denial fallacy you are using which is as old as Montagu (1942). This fallacy though won't die.
Anyone can take a non-racial trait and make any racial classification (x, y, z) out of it. In contrast genuine racial traits do not lead to an arbitrary classification. Races are objective realities only if properly identified, hence they have predictive value. Non-racial traits which lead to random classifications have no predictive value -- what use is clustering Bantus and Swedes?
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Sarich and Miele on page 234 clarify that racial heritable traits are morphological.
These authors aren't stupid, they know the race denial fallacy you are using which is as old as Montagu (1942). This fallacy though won't die.
Anyone can take a non-racial trait and make any racial classification (x, y, z) out of it. In contrast genuine racial traits do not lead to an arbitrary classification. Races are objective realities only if properly identified, hence they have predictive value. Non-racial traits which lead to random classifications have no predictive value -- what use is clustering Bantus and Swedes?
Take a picture/scan of that page and upload it so we can see if you're telling the truth. I've already explained why morphology is merely an instantiation of their definition, but is not the definition in itself (or they would have said so in the quote).
You posted this definition and I am using it:
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
I've given a table of various traits that are heritable. These traits have a specific geographic distribution, which indicates separation.
They are not random. You know that if somebody has sickle cell they are from a specific geographic region/population/lineage. Why? Because sickle cell only occurs in a specific geographic region/population/lineage.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Learn the difference between an instantiation of a definition and the definition itself. This is the definition of a vehicle:
"A thing used for transporting people or goods"
You're pretty much saying that because a train can fulfil the criteria of this definition, the authors of that quote must have meant 'train' when they said 'thing'. No, a train is merely an instantiation of the definition, but not the definition in itself.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Sarich and Miele on page 234 clarify that racial heritable traits are morphological.
These authors aren't stupid, they know the race denial fallacy you are using which is as old as Montagu (1942). This fallacy though won't die.
Anyone can take a non-racial trait and make any racial classification (x, y, z) out of it. In contrast genuine racial traits do not lead to an arbitrary classification. Races are objective realities only if properly identified, hence they have predictive value. Non-racial traits which lead to random classifications have no predictive value -- what use is clustering Bantus and Swedes?
If you can't answer this question you have no case:
Looking at all heritable traits how can you tell which ones are racial and which are not?
Are the ones that are racial just because somebody else said so or is there a scientific justifcation to call some heritable traits racial and other heritable traits not racial?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: In theory there would be at least two types of Tropical Adaptation.
Tropical Humid Adaptation and Tropical Dry Adaptation
So while both are hot and have a high UV index there are the dry and there are the moist types
No. There is just ONE type of tropical adaptation and that is adaptation to the tropical zone in general regardless of moisture or dryness. Also, human populations in the African continent in general and even those of 'Sub-Sahara' specifically are not static but move and migrate from place to place, so you cannot divide those who adapted to humid conditions vs. those who adapted to dry conditions.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: In theory there would be at least two types of Tropical Adaptation.
Tropical Humid Adaptation and Tropical Dry Adaptation
So while both are hot and have a high UV index there are the dry and there are the moist types
No. There is just ONE type of tropical adaptation and that is adaptation to the tropical zone in general regardless of moisture or dryness. Also, human populations in the African continent in general and even those of 'Sub-Sahara' specifically are not static but move and migrate from place to place, so you cannot divide those who adapted to humid conditions vs. those who adapted to dry conditions.
There are numeous populations who have not migrated out of humid tropical rainforests for many thousands of years in some cases never.
They would have some different adapatations compared to people from tropical deserts.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: This is what Faheempyramidologist believes as per Coon:
before the Pleistocene Khoisans[purple] originated and lived in North Africa. Caucasians [green] lived in Europe, Anatolia, the Middle East and part of South Asia
___________________________________________
After the Pleistocene Caucasians [green] not indigenous to North Africa migrated there and pushed the Capoid (Khoisans) [purple] out, the Capoid (Khoisans) migrating to Southern Africa
But there is no evidence that the Khosians (Capoid) were living in North Africa before they were living in Soutthern Africa
Indeed. Disregarding the fact that biological race does not exist among the human species, there is no evidence at all that Khoisan inhabited North Africa, let alone limited to that area until they were "pushed" to the confines of the south. In the same token, there is no evidence that 'Cacasoids' or any population of close European affinity every being indigenous or predominant in the Levant before the Pleistocene, let alone in Arabia and throughout India to its tip.
In fact the very zones of distribution with its clear cut demarcations make no sense whatsoever. It's as if the entire population of these supposed 'races' practiced a form of segregation where they all neatly kept to themselves and did not overlap in territory. Notice how in the pre-Pleistocene, so-called 'Capoids' solely inhabited North Africa alone and 'Congoids' inhabited the rest of Africa to the south with a clear horizontal line between them. Meanwhile the India subcontinent has a vertical line division with 'Cacasoids' in the west and 'Australoids' in the east. It is hilarious! LMAO
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers:
quote:Coon apparently stated otherwise as his pre-Pleistocene map show 'Congoids' predominate all throughout Sub-Sahara and it is only after the Pleistocene today that they are largely confined to central and West Africa-- the opposite of what Anglo-Fathead says!
Those are Congoids A - Pygmies, not Negroids.
Everyone accepts Pygmies are indigenous to large parts of Sub-Sahara Africa, having originated in the tropical rainforests.
Another red lie! 'Capoids' as designated by Coon as a racial group included BOTH Pygmies and 'Negroids'!! To Coon, Pygmies and 'Negroids' are but subraces of the same 'Congoid' race.
Later extensions, such as Carleton S. Coon's "Origin of Races" placed this theory in an evolutionary context - Coon divided the species homo sapiens into five groups, Caucasoid, Capoid, Congoid, Australoid, and Mongoloid, based on the timing of their evolution from Homo erectus. Labeling Congoids the "African Negroes" and "Pygmies", he divided indigenous Africans into these two distinct groups based on their date of origin, and loosened classification from mere appearance - however, this led to disagreement between approaches to dating divergence, and consequent conflicting results. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: There are numerous populations who have not migrated out of humid tropical rainforests for many thousands of years in some cases never.
Which populations, specifically those in Africa??
quote:They would have some different adaptations compared to people from tropical deserts.
Such as??
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehutbuteater:
Tropically adapted means adaptation to the zone as defined above!
Therfore the longest term inhabitants of the non-tropical zone in Africa above the Tropic of Cancer are the most adapted to this region and are not Tropically Adpated
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ That would depend on how long they have been living there. By the way, as was explained to your lyinass many times before, the zones just outside of the tropical zone are the sub-tropics. The subtropics may not be as sunny and hot as the tropics but it is not exactly a place of cold adaptation. Even fair-skinned folks get sunburned in the Maghreb and in the Levant and it can still get hot in these areas. All the earliest known human remains found in North Africa north of the Tropic of Cancer show tropical adaptations even supra-tropical traits. Even the oldest indigenous lineages found among Berber groups only date back as far as the neolithic. So really the only examples you will probably find of populations aboriginal to the subtropics and having adaptations to those areas are the Khoisan people who live in southern Africa south of the Tropic of Capricorn. Both archaeology and anthropological remains show habitation in that region since perhaps before OOA. The limb proportions of the Khoisan for example are outlier when compared to other Africans in that they are not as pronounced in length as other Africans.
By the way, here is a map showing Africa's climate during the Wet Sahara Phase.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: .
Hurry up and post that page.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Buy and read the book yourself. Page 234 notes that races are not Platonic entities (that's another one of your key fallacies) and that no clear cut seperation exists, but that "using a select set of morphological characters" approaches a clear cut seperation - which it does: 12 variables (non-metric/metric) are 99.5% accurate in identifying someone's race or geographical place of origin.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Another red lie! 'Capoids' as designated by Coon as a racial group included BOTH Pygmies and 'Negroids'!! To Coon, Pygmies and 'Negroids' are but subraces of the same 'Congoid' race.
That's wrong. Capoids are not Congoids.
Capoids are the Khoisanids, while the Congoids are (a) African Pygmies (Negrillos) and (b) Negroids. There are subraces or localized types within all of these. There is the "true" (Forest)Negro or palaeonegrid form, but then a more elongated variety (Nilotid). Compared to the other races though, Negroids show the least physical variation and in the face all look very similar. Go to any anthropology forum and look at polls asking what race has the least variation. Negroids always appear first, then Mongoloids, and lastly Caucasoids -- who have the most. Just look at a North Indian and Englishman. Despite being uniform in bone structure, the Caucasoid race shows the most diversity in pigmentation and surface features. That's why compared to the other major racial stocks, so many subraces exist in Caucasoids, far more than the others.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Buy and read the book yourself. Page 234 notes that races are not Platonic entities (that's another one of your key fallacies) and that no clear cut seperation exists, but that "using a select set of morphological characters" approaches a clear cut seperation - which it does: 12 variables (non-metric/metric) are 99.5% accurate in identifying someone's race or geographical place of origin.
Why are you so afraid to take a picture of the page? Is it because you know you have distorted it?
I can use anything to approach an almost clear-cut or clear-cut separation amongst anybody. Using a 'select set of genetic characters' (or indeed morphological characters, as demonstrated in Ousley et al. (2009)), I can divide humanity in any way I choose. What is your point? The very term 'select set' very clearly demonstrates its socially constructed nature to all but the desperate and obtuse.
That doesn't actually make the claim that they meant morphology when they said 'heritable features'. Try again.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
The Adaptionist Yardstick: Rethinking the Social Implications of Sarich’s and Miele’s Fast-Track Micro-Evolution A REVIEW BY ALONDRA OUBRÉ
IN RACE: THE REALITY OF HUMAN DIFFERENCES, Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele attempt to prove the existence of human biological races in a discourse that challenges the claims made in the PBS documentary, Race: the Power of an Illusion. Drawing on research in paleoanthropology, molecular anthropology, genetics, and to some extent, history, Sarich and Miele endeavor to trace the origin of race as a biological construct. They claim that “human racial differences are both real and significant,” not only in regard to physical traits, but also (and perhaps more importantly), to cognitive and behavioral traits. Sarich and Miele assert that human social behaviors, which they contend differ along racial lines, are functional adaptations that emerged fairly quickly in each “race” as a result of natural selection. While much of their presentation is based on well-known scientific studies, their work is distinguished by their seminal claim that contemporary biological races of modern humans, Homo sapiens, evolved rapidly within a time span of only 50,000 years. The notion that modern human races are not more than 50,000 years old, and perhaps only 15,000 years old, represents a radical departure from the conventional wisdom that until quite recently has dominated the field of human bioevolution. Sarich and Miele offer noteworthy findings to support a revised, indeed a considerably shorter, timeline for the making of modern human “races” (or, more accurately, geographical mega-populations). However, it is their interpretation of what a revamped timeline of this sort signals for “racial adaptations”—alleged race-based functional differences—that potentially places Race: The Reality of Human Differences in the controversial realm of racialist writings—the genre of modern scientific racism. Race meets the main criterion that defines a pro-race work. It incisively embraces the perspective that human races are valid biological categories, despite the fact that they remain fuzzy sets, at best, without clearly defined borders. Yet it may be unfair to label Race as intrinsically racialist simply because the authors maintain that human races are a biological reality. To their credit, Sarich and Miele base their conclusion not on a whimsical ideological stance of fear-based “race realism” (as some folk in the pro-race camp label themselves), but instead on a broad (though arbitrarily selected) cross-section of published research in biological sciences. Nonetheless, the relevance of some of their supporting evidence is open to debate. Codifying selective research findings that appear to lend credibility to one’s hypothesis is one thing. Formulating a compelling theory that successfully explains contradictions to one’s own hypothesis (in other words, that can account for anomalies in various sets of data) is quite another. In a casual journalistic style designed to entice the average lay reader, Sarich and Miele cover a wide array of topics which, though pertinent, are not well integrated into a cohesive thesis. Although the book is one of the latest additions to scientifically-informed books on race-realism, it lacks the focus, cogency, and conviction, if you will, of writings in the “new racial science,” perhaps best embodied in Richard Herrnstein’s and Charles Murray’s 1994 The Bell Curve. As staunch proponents of the race concept, both Sarich and Miele claim that human races are biological phenomena and not, as those in the anti-race camp proclaim, only social constructs. Sarich and Miele hold impressive track records in their respective fields of academia and journalism that should make them, individually and combined, qualified to write this book. Sarich, after all, attained widespread acclaim in the scientific community after he and his then senior co-worker, Alan Wilson, of the University of California at Berkeley, recalculated the evolutionary timeline of the ape-hominid divergence using immunological data (in this case, proteins) rather than fossil evidence. 1 Sarich (who has graduate level training in chemistry) was one of the first physical anthropologists to apply quantitative laboratory techniques used in biological sciences, particularly molecular biology, to paleoanthropology—the study of fossil remains of human ancestors. Sarich has earned a legitimate place in the halls of biological anthropology as that rare icon who (at least during the early part of his career) helped catalyze the cross-fertilization of several fields, namely biochemistry, genetics, and osteology. Although Sarich’s critics may point out, and correctly so, that his empirical research experience is limited, he is nonetheless well-respected by his peers across the political spectrum for his intellectual contributions to theoretical and conceptual developments in molecular anthropology. On more than one occasion, Sarich has been right in his predictions—his “scientific hunches”—even after his colleagues thought him wrong. For example, during the 1990s Sarich insisted that the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) timeline estimated for the divergence of human races (or more accurately, human populations) was longer than that projected at that time by Alan Wilson, Mark Stoneking, and Rebecca Cann. Sarich appeared initially to be way off the mark, but the data eventually proved his position to be correct. In an analogous situation, over the past decade Sarich has publicly stated that the timeline for the micro-evolution, or differentiation, of modern human races is much shorter than scientists ever thought possible. 2 As the research summaries presented in Race reveal, once again Sarich’s maverick position on a temporal event in human bioevolution may have some validation, even in the face of initial opposition. In like manner, Frank Miele is not just another science writer. Miele’s curriculum vitae is several cuts above the vast majority of science journalists, particularly those who focus on race and human evolution, for several reasons. As Senior Editor of Skeptic magazine, Miele has interviewed a coterie of highly public (if not controversial) scientists, including E.O. Wilson, Charles Murray, Richard Dawkins, and Arthur Jensen. Miele’s knowledge of evolutionary biology, including its contentious spin-off field of evolutionary psychology (and its sister field, sociobiology) is not entirely self-taught, however. Earlier in his career, Miele pursued graduate studies in psychology, including subfields of behavioral genetics and psychometrics, at the University of Georgia. During his tenure as an undergraduate student majoring in psychology, he was published in journals such as Mankind Quarterly (which, incidentally, is one of the premier voices of academic racial science). More recently, Miele has collaborated on scholarly projects with Richard Lynn, a British racial scientist and eugenicist. Regardless of any controversy that may surround Sarich and Miele, the pivotal issue at stake here is not whether or not human races per se exist, regardless of what biological criteria are used to define a race. Rather, the crux of their book, I submit, is the assertion that over the past 15,000 to 30,000 years, modern human races evolved different sets of behavioral traits because each race was subjected to differing ecological selection pressures. Many experts agree that natural selection was the predominant Darwinian force that determined which traits were adaptive for a given population, or local geographical race, in a given environment. According to Sarich and Miele, however, natural selection not only shaped the physical traits that distinguish different populations, but it also drove the emergence of certain social behavioral patterns that (allegedly) vary from one “race” to another. The implications of Sarich and Miele’s contention are staggering. If true, they suggest that what appear to be ethnic behavioral styles are linked more to inborn racial genetic tendencies than to nongenetic causes—that is, environmental and developmental causes. In the tradition of the post-Jensenian contemporary racial scholars, Sarich and Meile imply, rather meekly, that ethnic disparities in educational, economic, vocational, and social achievement are the result of race-based differences in physical and behavioral traits. Furthermore, they maintain that because these traits evolved through natural selection acting on the level of the population (which for them is tantamount to race), social behaviors are generally fixed and unchangeable in any population. The authors make this assertion while ignoring a wide array of environmental constraints as well as the impact of environmental influences known to affect human developmental biology, including the soft-wiring of the brain. If Sarich and Miele’s goal is to garner praise from their own choir—“hard” and “softer” race-realists alike—for an eclipsed (and thus potentially distorted) canon of the origin of modern human races, they may have succeeded. If, however, their intent is to advance a substantive, data-driven argument for the evolutionary-genetic origins of race-based behavioral traits—traits which they seem to think are “fixed” by natural selection—then they have short-changed their readers (on “both sides” of this fierce debate). The predictive power and scientific valence of their assertions must ultimately be gauged by the strength of the replicable empirical evidence used to buttress their arguments. In the final analysis, Sarich and Miele may have failed to persuade a significant portion of their readers not because they have taken a (presumably) politically incorrect position. Rather, their treatise falls short because they have opted to pander a “mainstream public” that is (understandably) irritated by growing ethnic gaps in social performance rather than uphold the rigor of the scientific process. Although portions of their presentation may be entertaining (especially to dog lovers), Sarich and Miele ignore a wealth of pertinent research findings that must be considered in any discourse on group differences, particularly differences in such highly valued human traits as intelligence and social behaviors. Regardless of one’s position on the race-genes-and-ability debate, omitting salient counter-findings that go against the grain of one’s own a priori stance can severely compromise the scientific method. It can impede inductive reasoning, a quality critical to hypothesis testing. And it can render ineffective parsimonious interpretations of the available evidence as a whole needed to construct valid scientific models. There are several lines of counter-evidence that cast doubt on, if not patently refute, the validity of Sarich and Miele’s hypothesis that human “races” are genetically predisposed to varying levels of cognitive ability and pro-social (or anti-social) behaviors. This review focuses on the validity and parsimony of the authors’ hypothesis that human races vary in their innate predispositions toward certain social behaviors. It addresses their idea that alleged behavioral tendencies in ethnic groups are rooted in racially-linked adaptations to varying ecological environments. More importantly, this critique challenges Sarich and Miele’s assertion that presumed race-based behavioral adaptations that occurred during the course of human micro-evolution are necessarily a direct outcome of natural selection and, therefore, are generally fixed in most members of a racial group. It should be noted, however, that Sarich and Miele do allow for individual exceptions to what they call race-based behavioral proclivities. For this reason, they endorse a meritocracy in the United States that rewards individuals on the basis of individual achievement, regardless of the individual’s “racial” heritage. The Sarich-Miele Proposition: Fast-Track Human Evolution As Evidence of Race-Based Behavioral Adaptations
In order to evaluate the validity of the Sarich-Miele hypothesis, we must consider not only the supporting evidence presented by the authors, but also salient counter-findings that the authors have ignored. This critique considers four crucial issues within bio-evolution that bear directly on the validity, or lack thereof, of Sarich and Miele’s hypothesis about inborn, race-based behavioral traits. 1. Population-based (or race-based) differentials in the selection-driven functionality of physical, behavioral, and cognitive traits
Sarich and Miele propose that natural selection explains the origins of alleged behavioral differences along racial lines, yet, they never answer the question (in fact, they never even raise it): How do we know for certain whether a trait evolved through natural selection or instead, through a neutral evolutionary mechanism of genetic drift? This question (as well as any answers we may offer) is fundamental to understanding the adaptive significance, if any, of population-based (or race-based) differences in functional traits. Many experts maintain that although natural selection plays a critical role in the evolutionary origin of many traits, it is not the driving force behind all biological phenomena. In fact, according to some evolutionary biologists who conduct empirical field research, genetic drift is typically assumed by default to account for most traits. Proving that natural selection is involved in the origin of a particular trait is a complicated process. Given the complexity of natural selection, it is not surprising that biologists cannot ascertain if there are long term differences in traits that have evolved through natural selection versus those that emerged through neutral selection. 3 There are other enigmas that must be sorted out as well if we are to identify the features that distinguish natural selection from neutral selection. For instance, genetic drift tends to be more influential in small populations while natural selection is more powerful in large populations. The microevolution of human races that occurred over the past 15,000 to 30,000 years affected smaller human populations. At the same time, however, natural selection had a momentous impact on the evolution of certain anatomical and physiological traits in larger geographical populations. Both genetic drift and selection could have operated in tandem to initiate the emergence of different traits in the same populations, or in clusters of geographical populations. Positive natural selection increases fitness, which is measured in terms of survival and reproduction. However, natural selection may act on different levels of biological organization, even simultaneously at times. Classic bioevolutionary studies emphasize the influence of natural selection on individual organisms, populations, and even species. Yet, selection can also act at the level of the genome, chromosomes, and genes (DNA sequences). 4 Sarich and Miele’s treatise may have been more scientifically credible if they had clarified, even briefly, the limitation of our current scientific understanding of natural selection as the ultimate determinant of racial adaptations. To call for this clarification is neither to deny or espouse the existence of human races. Rather, it is a plea for scientific accountability: presentation of balanced pro and con evidence on the presumed functionality of race-based traits, particularly behavioral traits which the authors speculate differ along racial lines. 2. Population-based (or race-based) differentials in life history traits
Sarich and Miele do not examine the multifactorial causes—and the delicate interplay between biology and environment—that best explain population differentials in life history traits, such as rate of sexual maturation, fertility and birth rate, average number of births, and longevity. On the other hand, had they thoroughly examined the literature, they would have uncovered numerous inconsistencies in studies which show one of two things: either natural selection is not pivotally involved in the evolution of all life-history traits in human races; or life-history traits vary within the geographical mega-groups that Sarich and Meile insist on calling human races. Consider, for instance, the rate of sexual maturation in African American girls, which is considerably faster than in girls in raised in various African populations living in Africa. 5 The mixed-race ancestry of African Americans does not account for this phenomenon. Instead, the differences in these rates appear to be linked to developmental biology. In a similar vein, Sarich and Miele cite published studies on “race and brain size” without ever mentioning the well-known limitations of these studies. According to Michael Peters of the University of Guelph in Canada, and his colleagues, researchers who indiscriminately use only one formula for measuring human skulls of different shapes are more likely to make systematic errors in measuring brain size. 6 For example, the German Formula gives a smaller average brain size for male Blacks who have dolichocephalic, or long-headed, skulls. There is a wide amount of variation in skull shapes among people of African descent—even within a single African ethnic group, or local population. Peters and his co-investigators note that the solution for producing accurate calculations for cranial size in Blacks, in particular, is to use multiple cranial size formulas. For instance, the Ainu formula places more weight on the length rather than the breadth of the skull. In one study, the cranial size of Black skulls was 1359 cm3 when using the German formula. By contrast, the same skulls of Blacks averaged 1418 cm3 when the researchers used the Ainu formula (which gives more weight to the length of the skull) . As Leonard Lieberman points out, human populations that evolved in cold climates have a more spherical brain case to prevent loss of body heat during cold weather. 7 In addition, Sarich and Miele do not consider the nature of gene expression in the genes that guide the development of neural patterning. Nor do they address the complex phenomenon of gene-environment interactions, which can result in varying manifestations of genetic proclivities. They support Spearman’s hypothesis: the claim that Blacks typically score lower on the more difficult “g-loaded” IQ test questions that are reportedly associated with abstract reasoning. However, they ignore the fact that there is no consensus among experts on precisely what g signals. In fact, leading scholars cannot even agree on which IQ test questions are more “g-loaded.” 8 3. The role of developmental biology versus population genetics in determining human cognitive and behavioral traits
In their discussion of purported inborn, race-based behavioral patterns, Sarich and Miele omit findings from several relevant fields of study that reveal the powerful role of developmental genetics in shaping human cognition and behavior. These authors fail to clarify both the evolutionary constraints and environmental influences (including psychosocial and biotic factors) that are known to affect developmental biology. Experts have shown that long term developmental biology can mimic genetic transmission in producing some traits in certain populations. Slight population differences in life-history traits such as growth and maturation, fertility, and reproductive rate in some populations may appear to be a result of population genetics—“racial genetics”—when in fact, in certain situations the ethnic differences mainly reflect varying environmental exposures. In the United States the age of menarche in African American girls is earlier than that of European American girls. 9 However, as noted previously, a similar “precocious” onset of menstruation (“precocious” only if a White female standard is used) has not been reported in various Black African girls born and reared in West and Central African societies 10 or in East African nations. 11 Yet, some racial scientists are erroneously convinced that the earlier average age of sexual maturation seen in African American girls reflects a genetic predisposition. 12 The evidence does not support their view. Cross-cultural surveys clearly show that the age of onset of menarche varies rather widely across geographical populations and ethnic groups. Ethnic differences in developmental patterns appear to be associated with environmental influences. Candidate environmental factors include a wide range of nutritional deficiencies; exposure to lead, fluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride used tofluoridate water; and possibly estrogenic compounds found in both soy-based infant formula and placenta-containing hair cosmetic products. 13 Preliminary findings from various studies suggest that African American infants, toddlers, and girls may be over-exposed to estrogen-like compounds, including PCB’s, from environmental toxins found in certain ethnic, placenta-containing hair products and in phytoestrogens (natural plant estrogens) found in soy-based infant formula. Compared to non-Black newborns in the United States, a higher proportion of African American babies are fed soy-based infant formula. (It should be noted, however, that even though these particular environmental factors are correlated with aberrant neurological and behavioral conditions, unequivocal cause-and-effect relationships have not been established.) While findings linking environmental toxins such as lead, silicoflourides, manganese and estrogen-like compounds to psychosexual development are inconclusive, certain environmental factors have been shown to influence testosterone and serotonin levels. Research strongly suggests that “racial” differences—especially Black/White/Asian differences in testosterone levels in men—is associated with diet and social factors such as dominance and social status. Several studies contradict the claim that variations in this male sex hormone are tied to racial genetics. 14 Similarly, population differences in the levels of key neurotransmitters—brain chemicals such as serotonin and dopamine—may be linked to environmental influences rather than race-based genetics. 15 Sarich and Miele suggest that brain size and certain other neurological traits are associated with intelligence, or cognitive performance. They draw on data that seemingly supports their claim that Black African populations and their Diasporas have smaller cranial volumes. For these authors, “race-based” differences in brain size are the result of different adaptations to different geographical climates. Nonetheless, emerging evidence increasingly counters the long-held scientific claim, if not folk belief, that Blacks are genetically wired for a smaller cranial capacity. According to several neuroscientists, the differences reported in the brain size of populations, especially in comparative studies on White, Northeast Asian, and Black African populations, reflect developmental differences rather than inborn race-based differences. The developmental biology of the human brain is influenced by myriad environmental and epigenetic factors—complex interactions between genes and environment. These factors include not only a gamut of nutritional factors, but also environmental toxins. As noted previously, the problems of objectively measuring brain size have distorted at least some of the reported population (“race-based”) differences in brain volume. Sarich and Miele also fail to explain critical anomalies regarding g—the “thing” that IQ tests supposedly measure—in relation to Black/White differences in IQ tests scores. First, as noted, is the fact that there is a lack of consensus among experts on which IQ test questions are more abstract—that is, allegedly more difficult to answer. 16 Second, even pro-nature researchers, including some behavioral geneticists, cannot agree among themselves on either the neurophysiological or genetic substrates of g. And third, the relatively lower heritabilities for IQ in black twins suggests that environmental forces may play a relatively greater role in influencing the average IQ scores in African Americans compared to Whites. 17 In fact, a host of counter findings strongly suggests that the wide range of IQ scores reported in African populations depends on prior academic learning, including experience with taking tests. While racialists continually point to the “African IQ of 70,” the evidence clearly indicates that African populations as a whole do not have single average IQ. There is considerable variation in average IQ scores among Black Africans, even within the same population. Ugandans living in Uganda, for example, earned an average score of 80 on the Terman Vocabulary and Kohs Blocks Test, and a score of 88 points on Raven’s Progressive Matrices. In another study, Tanzanians in Tanzania also averaged 88 points on Raven’s Progressive Matrices. 18 Note that these latter scores, while low, are slightly higher then the typically reported IQ norm for African Americans. 19 If Sarich and Miele’s hypothesis carries any weight, then it must be allow researchers to differentiate traits shaped by developmental biology from traits that are primarily under genetic control. This concern immediately raises several questions. How strong of an influence do multiple environmental forces have on the genes and haplotypes that guide developmental biology? Do genes linked to developmental biology have a higher heritability? In other words, are they less subject to natural selection and therefore more easily influenced by environmental fluctuations—both internal and external environmental forces? Can environmental change affect the gene expression of functional traits that evolved through natural selection? Detailed answers to these questions are beyond the scope of this review. In general, however, it appears that environment can change gene expression because developmental biology is itself subject to ongoing environmental influences that act through continuous—at times competing and at times cooperating—environmental forces. Supporting evidence for this claim may explain some of the inconsistencies in research on “race-based” genes linked to testosterone and serotonin. To ignore, let alone discount, the impact of the environment on any life-history trait in humans is not simply incomplete science, but also disingenuous science. The mere act of dismissing crucial evidence in regard to scientific topics such as ethnicity and IQ—topics that have far-reaching social ramifications—borders on questionable science at best and, at its worse, fraudulent science. 4. The Role of neutral selection versus natural selection in population-based (or race-based) molecular traits associated with behavior
In the late 1960s, Motoo Kimura, a Japanese biologist, challenged the canons of evolutionary science when he stated that natural selection, particularly on the molecular level, was not necessarily a potent force in evolution. Extending the theory of genetic drift first proposed in the 1930s, Kimura argued that molecular variation was selectively neutral. Kimura focused on the randomness, or selective neutrality, of variation in proteins and DNA. The gist of his neutral theory of molecular evolution, usually called “neutral drift,” is that the vast amount of evolutionary change observed on the molecular level—the level of DNA and proteins—is driven by genetic drift rather than natural selection. This position contrasts with the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary perspective in which molecular evolution is thought to be the result of natural selection. 20 Although Kimura’s anti-selectionist position challenged the neo-Darwinian synthetic theory of evolution, his arguments were so compelling that his neutral theory was eventually incorporated into the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology. In other words, although Kimura is considered an anti-Darwinist, his theory is compatible with the tenets of neo-Darwinism. During the 1970s, leading neo-Darwinists such as Ernst Mayr critiqued the limitations of the neutral theory which, in Mayr’s initial view, did not address traits that have become fixed in a species or population. Nonetheless, Mayr’s perspective could not explain a possible relationship between random molecular variation and fitness, including cumulative DNA changes that could ultimately lead to fitness. By the 1980s, Mayr shifted his own position, noting that an increasing number of sites in the largest molecules were found to have specific functions. For Mayr, it was only a matter of time before the function of “functionless sites” of large molecules (conceivably both nucleotide sequences and amino acids) would be discovered. As Mayr pointed out, “neutral” base-pair replacements are widespread. More importantly, however, he acknowledged that numerous alleles once thought to be neutral had “selective significance.” In so doing, Mayr gave Kimura’s neutral theory a boost of credibility within the scientific community. At the same time, Kimura admitted that the neutral theory is inadequate in explaining Darwinian evolutionary change at the phenotypic level—the level on which a trait manifests. Instead, Kimura argued, the value of the neutral theory lies in its prediction that the most variation occurs in the functionally less critical parts of a gene. 21 According to the neutral selection theory, the functionally significant components of a molecule will change more slowly than the functionally insignificant components. This view contrasts with the Darwinian position, which predicts that evolution will be most rapid in the functionally important parts of molecules—the area where selection is strongest. In the neutral theory, genetic drift plays a comparatively larger role than natural selection in evolutionary processes. Evolutionary change is assumed to result from genetic drift acting on neutral alleles. In neutral selection, gene variants that become more prevalent in a population may decline or even disappear through random events. On rare occasion, a neutral substitution to one of these gene variants may become “fixed” and give rise to a widespread trait. If enough new substitutions accumulate on the gene variant, the genome will evolve. However, the evolution that occurs in such a rare case results from the additive effects of neutral substitutions to the gene variant. It does not emerge through natural selection. Ironically, Sarich and Meile never mention the neutral selection theory in relation to the micro-evolution of human behavioral phenotypes. There are at least two reasons why they could have mentioned this theory in relation to their hypothesis about race-based differences in behavior. First, the early techniques used to determine the molecular clock—techniques that Sarich helped to develop—are based on the neutral theory. And second, if as Sarich and Miele claim, purported “race-base” behavioral differences reflect each “race’s” unique genetic-evolutionary history, then the molecular source—the genetics—of those differences should have been closely examined. Consider new findings in molecular psychiatry—the study of the role of genetics in behavioral traits, or what scientists call behavioral phenotypes. Human geneticists working at the interface between molecular biology and the behavioral sciences have identified a small number of population-based (the term preferred by most mainstream researchers) polymorphisms, or differences in the genes that regulate brain chemicals involved in mood and certain social behaviors. For example, some populations differ slightly in their frequency of dopamine and serotonin gene variants linked to behavioral traits such as alcoholism, drug addiction, novelty seeking, and anxiety. 22 This line of research is highly controversial because of its potential use, or misuse, to support the existence of inborn race-based hierarchies in law-abiding behaviors, emotional stability, and even the capacity for (Western) cultural achievement. On a cautionary note, experts have yet to draw any definitive conclusions about cause-and-effect relationships between most of the neurochemical gene variants studied so far and social behaviors across a wide gamut of populations. Only a few associations have been established for individuals, and even fewer for populations. The research conducted to date typically has focused on smaller regional populations instead of huge, ill-defined social groupings that correspond to popular notions of human races. Yet, this is one of the most important arenas in which pro-race advocates such as Sarich and Miele should search if they are seeking irrefutable cause-and-effect evidence linking racial genetics and perceived ethnic behavioral patterns. What happens when we examine the evidence produced thus far in this field? Alas, in a few cases we discover gene variants that do differ along population lines. In most cases, however, even race-based gene variants that reportedly predict certain behaviors in individuals are not consistently predictive at the group level. Whether or not an individual who carries one or more gene variants linked with socially deviant and unproductive behaviors actually manifests aberrant behaviors depends on myriad other influences, including an array of environmental factors. Moreover, there is no evidence for robust associations between specific gene variants and behaviors at the mega-population (racial) level. For the sake of argument, let us assume that Sarich and Miele are correct in their thesis about relatively rapid evolution resulting in modern human races (as some findings suggest may be the case). If so, then certain gene variants that are linked to social behaviors and that may also differ slightly along population lines become likely biological (in this case, molecular and genetic) substrates for race-based behavioral differences. If Sarich and Meile are right, this variation is the product of natural selection. Yet, the differences seen in variant genes regulating serotonin, dopamine, and testosterone, as well as other genes involved in brain chemical and hormonal production, may reflect molecular variation. From the vantage of Kimura’s neutral theory, the molecular differences in these gene variants are a prime example of neutral evolutionary change. Granted, preliminary findings from a recent study suggest that selection may operate at the molecular level. 23 (see Yaris, 2002.) However, in many (though certainly not all) cases, evolutionary changes appear to have resulted from molecular genetic drift rather than selection, whether natural selection or sexual selection. 24 Conclusion
Although an in-depth analysis of the “neutralist-selectionist” debate is outside the purview of this critique, this debate is relevant to the assertions made in Sarich and Miele’s Race: The Reality of Human Differences. The central question is not whether or not natural selection accounts for certain traits in human populations since it clearly does. Instead, the paramount concern is over the relative proportion of neutral and selected, or non-neutral, alleles that determine traits. If a trait emerged through selection, the trait can be assumed to have fitness and functionality. However, if it arose through genetic drift, then it is neutral in terms of fitness. By definition it could not have evolved as an adaptation. Moreover, because neutral traits are not normally fixed, they can decrease in frequency or even vanish in a given population over time. Are neutral genetic traits linked to mood and behavior more influenced by the environment than selected traits? This would appear to be the case—after all selected traits are fixed. This idea is consistent with the neutral theory, which states that evolution at the molecular level is non-adaptive. In fact, research in molecular psychiatry suggests that this may well be the case. This also may explain numerous inconsistencies in the relationship between, on the one hand, serotonin- and dopamine-related genes and, on the other hand, certain mood and behavioral states across ethnic populations. 25 This does not mean that population differences found at the molecular level, including gene variants implicated in human psychosocial behaviors, are irrelevant. They are. However, population variance at the molecular level is more likely the outcome of random evolutionary processes. The point here is that within the context of molecular micro-evolution, human population differences—“racial differences”—in gene variants linked with mood and behavior may not be unchangeable or fixed as in the case of a physical traits shaped by natural selection. A growing body of research suggests that a wide array of environmental factors can significantly affect the manner in which a particular gene, or gene variant, is expressed. An introductory level treatise such as Race: The Reality of Human Differences cannot be expected to be comprehensive, but surely it is not prudent to overlook salient data, including important counter-data. To ignore the profound implications of developmental biology when talking about race-based differences in behavior is to offer bold, if not ludicrous, claims that often have no basis in reality. This misguided process renders scientific inquiry a frivolous pursuit of “perilous notions.” By relying on assertions more than arguments throughout much of their text, Sarich and Miele unwittingly do scientific inquiry an injustice. While some of their material may be new to some readers, the misleading information, if not unfounded contentions, that plagues much of their text is disappointing. Despite their best intentions to present an objective, scientifically informed discussion of human race, Race: The Reality of Human Differences ironically may only further the “scientific dumbing down of America.”
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:The limb proportions of the Khoisan for example are outlier when compared to other Africans in that they are not as pronounced in length as other Africans.
They are not tropically adapted. Even their skin pigmentation shows this -- its a colour linked to the yellow-brown deserts which by climate are not tropical.
The tropical boundary of current climatic schemes corresponds to the Negroid belt of traditional race typologies. Its only limited to a region of Sub-Sahara Africa.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:The Adaptionist Yardstick: Rethinking the Social Implications of Sarich’s and Miele’s Fast-Track Micro-Evolution A REVIEW BY ALONDRA OUBRÉ
That review was written by an African-American - so of course they will deny races exist. AA's are purely motivated through politics. They openly admit all the time they don't believe races are biological, since "white scientists like Linneaus and Blumenbach invented taxonomy". Here is a retarded post in that vein from Zarahan:
"Who invented the concept of the "black race" in modern science? White Europeans. Who created the notion of race and racism? White Europeans. Who invented the concept of "caucasoid" or non black African ancient Egyptians? European scholars"
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:The Adaptionist Yardstick: Rethinking the Social Implications of Sarich’s and Miele’s Fast-Track Micro-Evolution A REVIEW BY ALONDRA OUBRÉ
That review was written by an African-American - so of course they will deny races exist. AA's are purely motivated through politics. They openly admit all the time they don't believe races are biological, since "white scientists like Linneaus and Blumenbach invented taxonomy". Here is a retarded post in that vein from Zarahan:
"Who invented the concept of the "black race" in modern science? White Europeans. Who created the notion of race and racism? White Europeans. Who invented the concept of "caucasoid" or non black African ancient Egyptians? European scholars"
Who is 'they'? Is there a psychic network of which I unaware that causes a group of people have the same thoughts, motives and intentions?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Why are you so afraid to take a picture of the page? Is it because you know you have distorted it?
Miele is a veteran in this debate (I have his papers going back to the 1960's) and he is familiar with the fallacy you are using. I'm not distorting anything. The only reason I used this text is because you moan if something isn't recent, and it was published in 2004.
quote:I can use anything to approach an almost clear-cut or clear-cut separation amongst anybody. Using a 'select set of genetic characters' (or indeed morphological characters, as demonstrated in Ousley et al. (2009)), I can divide humanity in any way I choose. What is your point?
Yes, anyone can. However:
(a) It would be false. (b) It would have no predictive value.
Genuine racial typologies in contrast have predictive value and are clearly not false -- as they are based on real populations with real affinities. Diamond's fallacious "Bantus cluster with Swedes" in contrast doesn't tell us anything and is clearly contradicted by the known fact these populations have nothing in common and look nothing a like.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:The limb proportions of the Khoisan for example are outlier when compared to other Africans in that they are not as pronounced in length as other Africans.
They are not tropically adapted. Even their skin pigmentation shows this -- its a colour linked to the yellow-brown deserts which by climate are not tropical.
The tropical boundary of current climatic schemes corresponds to the Negroid belt of traditional race typologies. Its only limited to a region of Sub-Sahara Africa.
Djehutie said the Khoisan are sub tropical and people living in North Africa above the Tropic of Cancer came from the South haven't been there long enough to adapt to it's climate which is still quite hot and UV intense
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Why are you so afraid to take a picture of the page? Is it because you know you have distorted it?
Miele is a veteran in this debate (I have his papers going back to the 1960's) and he is familiar with the fallacy you are using. I'm not distorting anything. The only reason I used this text is because you moan if something isn't recent, and it was published in 2004.
quote:I can use anything to approach an almost clear-cut or clear-cut separation amongst anybody. Using a 'select set of genetic characters' (or indeed morphological characters, as demonstrated in Ousley et al. (2009)), I can divide humanity in any way I choose. What is your point?
Yes, anyone can. However:
(a) It would be false. (b) It would have no predictive value.
Genuine racial typologies in contrast have predictive value and are clearly not false -- as they are based on real populations with real affinities. Diamond's fallacious "Bantus cluster with Swedes" in contrast doesn't tell us anything and is clearly contradicted by the known fact these populations have nothing in common and look nothing a like.
I was under the impression you used this text because it was the definitive, peremptory definition of 'race' and everything else was a 'false definition'.
Well, they clearly do have something in common or they wouldn't cluster, you dolt. 'False' on what basis? I've already demonstrated that it fufils the criteria of your definition. It does have a predictive value because the traits in question have a specific geographical distribution. Anyone who has these traits is definitely from a specific area.
Where in that quote did they say anything about 'predictive value' anyway? Why are you imposing 'false criteria' on 'races'? Stop doing it. Thanks.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Why are you so afraid to take a picture of the page? Is it because you know you have distorted it?
maybe he doesn't have the scanner or know how about image hosting etc.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Why are you so afraid to take a picture of the page? Is it because you know you have distorted it?
maybe he doesn't have the scanner or know how about image hosting etc.
He was happy to post his ugly mug all over the Internet and now he is suddenly reluctant to take a picture of a page?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:The Adaptionist Yardstick: Rethinking the Social Implications of Sarich’s and Miele’s Fast-Track Micro-Evolution A REVIEW BY ALONDRA OUBRÉ
That review was written by an African-American - so of course they will deny races exist. AA's are purely motivated through politics. They openly admit all the time they don't believe races are biological, since "white scientists like Linneaus and Blumenbach invented taxonomy". Here is a retarded post in that vein from Zarahan:
"Who invented the concept of the "black race" in modern science? White Europeans. Who created the notion of race and racism? White Europeans. Who invented the concept of "caucasoid" or non black African ancient Egyptians? European scholars"
Who is 'they'? Is there a psychic network of which I unaware that causes a group of people have the same thoughts, motives and intentions?
You know who they are, and you are one of them. You are in the same boat as someone who through their political bias denies races exist. You have admitted this numerous times when you declared believing in race is "dangerous" and has "consequences". Your philosophy garbage is just a cover for the fact you don't believe races exist because they conflict with your political/social views.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:The Adaptionist Yardstick: Rethinking the Social Implications of Sarich’s and Miele’s Fast-Track Micro-Evolution A REVIEW BY ALONDRA OUBRÉ
That review was written by an African-American - so of course they will deny races exist. AA's are purely motivated through politics. They openly admit all the time they don't believe races are biological, since "white scientists like Linneaus and Blumenbach invented taxonomy". Here is a retarded post in that vein from Zarahan:
"Who invented the concept of the "black race" in modern science? White Europeans. Who created the notion of race and racism? White Europeans. Who invented the concept of "caucasoid" or non black African ancient Egyptians? European scholars"
Who is 'they'? Is there a psychic network of which I unaware that causes a group of people have the same thoughts, motives and intentions?
You know who they are, and you are one of them. You are in the same boat as someone who through their political bias denies races exist. You have admitted this numerous times when you declared believing in race is "dangerous" and has "consequences". Your philosophy garbage is just a cover for the fact you don't believe races exist because they conflict with your political/social views.
So philosophy is 'garbage' once you found yourself unable to defend fuzzy logic as an objective system... okay. You made several posts trying to defend the concept; it clearly isn't 'garbage' if you're willing to do that.
See Hunt and Megyesi (2006), Hunt (2008), Megyesi et al. (2011) and Pena (2011). I've already explained (and cited) why taxonomy as a discipline is arbitrary and that my logic is universal; See the Patten and Unitt (2002) quote a few pages ago.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Carleton Coon
"Racial Adaptations", 1982.
DURING THE PLEISTOCENE ICE AGE, successive retreats of the continental ice caps opened cool, currently uninhabited hunting grounds to bordering peoples. Following the game into them, the adventurers faced new environmental challenges, and the select survivors greatly multiplied.
These events took place mostly in the northern hemispheres and in the Old World. The Americas, Australia, Oceania, and Madagascar were free of humans until after the living races of man had fully evolved. In the Southern hemisphere portions of Africa and Asia, and in Australia, no comparable glaciers have been recorded, and none of the primary races seem to have originated below the Tropic of Capricorn. They all rose in Africa, Asia, Indonesia west of Wallace's Line, or Europe(see map 1.1)
The five primary races are the Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, Congoid(more commonly called Negroid), and the Capoid, mostly the Bushmen of southern Africa(see map 2.1). Some of my colleagues lump the last named with the Negroes, into those ranks some of them have been absorbed.
Codons, fingerprints, and cranial shapes confirm in concert what our senses tell us - that the living races of man are not alike. Codons differentiate the Caucasoids, Congoids, and Mongoloids on a hereditary molecular basis. (We have no comparable figures for the other races.) Fingerprints split the living races into two geographic halves - a western Old World group that lumps Africans with the Europeans, and an eastern Old World group that unites the Australoids and Mongoloids as primary groupings, while casting Caucasoids, Native Americans, and Pacific Ocean peoples into secondary, or derivative roles.
Carleton Coon
The Living Races of Man
Meanwhile we may note that a detailed analysis of 571 modern Negro crania, made by advanced mathematical techniques, has shown that these crania gravitate between two poles, a Mediterranean Caucasoid and a Pygmy one. The former type is again divisible into an ordinary Mediterranean and a Western Asian type, which suggests more than a single northern point of origin for the Caucasoid element. As we shall in greater detail in Chapter 8 and 9, the Negroes resemble Caucasoids closely a number of genetic traits that are inherited in a simple fashion. Examples of these are fingerprints, types of earwax, and the major blood groups. The Negroes also have some of the same local, predominantly African, blood types as the Pygmies.
This evidence suggests that the Negroes are not a primary sub-species but rather a product of mixture between invading Caucasoids and Pygmies who lived on the edges of the forest, which at the end of the Pleistocene extended farther north and east than it does now.
^^^^^ try to make this all add up
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Not sure why predictability is alien to you, when you pose as a scientist:
"In science, a concept is useful if it groups facts so that general laws and conclusions can be drawn from them. Predictions can be made using the taxonomic category of race because, on average, the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans are similar to each other and different from White Americans, Germans, and Russians, who are similar to each other and different from Black Americans, Haitians, and sub-Saharan Africans. Predictability is the criterion by which the value of a hypothetical construct like race is evaluated. As I will show, race is highly predictive." (Rushton, 2001)
Prediction or predictive value is an element of the scientific method. Standard race typology has predictive value, its not arbitrary/random. Furthermore I showed how races are objective realities through the law of similarity. You deny this empirical fact though and asserted a Pygmy is as similar looking than my father to myself. Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Not sure why predictability is alien to you, when you pose as a scientist:
"In science, a concept is useful if it groups facts so that general laws and conclusions can be drawn from them. Predictions can be made using the taxonomic category of race because, on average, the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans are similar to each other and different from White Americans, Germans, and Russians, who are similar to each other and different from Black Americans, Haitians, and sub-Saharan Africans. Predictability is the criterion by which the value of a hypothetical construct like race is evaluated. As I will show, race is highly predictive." (Rushton, 2001)
Prediction or predictive value is an element of the scientific method. Standard race typology has predictive value, its not arbitrary/random. Furthermore I showed how races are objective realities through the law of similarity. You deny this empirical fact though and asserted a Pygmy is as similar looking than my father to myself.
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
Absolutely nothing about 'predictive value' in there. Try again.
'Law of similarity'? Which relies on arbitrarily selecting traits and arbitrary fuzzy logic? Arbitrary + arbitrary = objective? Not in my books.
"You deny this empirical fact though and asserted a Pygmy is as similar looking than my father to myself."
Quote where I said this.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Two individuals from geographically separated populations are never as genetically similar as two individuals from the same population
"A good measure of the robustness of racial genetic differentiation is the answer to the following question: 'How often does it happen that a pair of individuals from one population is genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?' In fact, if many thousands of loci are used as a basis for judging genetic similarity and when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations, the correct answer, which many will probably find surprising, is: 'Never'" (Witherspoon et al. 2007)
-- This works on morphological grounds obviously. To escape the reality of race, the denialists will have to resort to false criteria for identification such as junk dna or genes that have no racial meaning hence Diamond could cluster Bantus with Swedes -- and this is the fallacy Badumtish is left with...
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^^ you have yet to give a reason why some heritable traits are "race" traits and other heritable traits are not traits of "race". Therefore you lose the argument
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:'Law of similarity'? Which relies on arbitrarily selecting traits and arbitrary fuzzy logic? Arbitrary + arbitrary = objective? Not in my books
Lame again. Are you saying with 100% sorting accuracy you can not distinguish between a cat an a giraffe? Taxonomy merely is based on the empirical fact offspring resembles their parents. Why is it arbitrary to distinguish between a cat and a fly? These arn't arbitrary social constructs. They would be if someone was lumping trees in with dogs. Your views are completely out of touch with reality. That is why on studentforums most percieved you as a parody. Google: poe's law.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Two individuals from geographically separated populations are never as genetically similar as two individuals from the same population
"A good measure of the robustness of racial genetic differentiation is the answer to the following question: 'How often does it happen that a pair of individuals from one population is genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?' In fact, if many thousands of loci are used as a basis for judging genetic similarity and when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations, the correct answer, which many will probably find surprising, is: 'Never'" (Witherspoon et al. 2007)
-- This works on morphological grounds obviously. To escape the reality of race, the denialists will have to resort to false criteria for identification such as junk dna or genes that have no racial meaning hence Diamond could cluster Bantus with Swedes -- and this is the fallacy Badumtish is left with...
"This works on morphological grounds" Right, okay.
Earlier, you said the following: "I don't give a crap about genes, and never have. They are not how races are defined. You set up an endless string of false definitions."
Witherspoon et al. (2007) said "racial genetic differentiation". You're already using a source with which you don't actually agree that, according to you, is predicated on a 'false definition'. Why is this?
Strauss and Hubbe actually repeated this study with cranial data:
"The statement that pairs of individuals from different populations are often more genetically similar than pairs from the same population is a widespread idea inside and outside the scientific community. Witherspoon et al. [“Genetic similarities within and between human populations,” Genetics 176:351–359 (2007)] proposed an index called the dissimilarity fraction (ω) to access in a quantitative way the validity of this statement for genetic systems. Witherspoon demonstrated that, as the number of loci increases, ω decreases to a point where, when enough sampling is available, the statement is false. In this study, we applied the dissimilarity fraction to Howells’s craniometric database to establish whether or not similar results are obtained for cranial morphological traits. Although in genetic studies thousands of loci are available, Howells’s database provides no more than 55 metric traits, making the contribution of each variable important. To cope with this limitation, we developed a routine that takes this effect into consideration when calculating ω. Contrary to what was observed for the genetic data, our results show that cranial morphology asymptotically approaches a mean ω of 0.3 and therefore supports the initial statement—that is, that individuals from the same geographic region do not form clear and discrete clusters—further questioning the idea of the existence of discrete biological clusters in the human species" (Strauss and Hubbe, 2010).
Do not forget that Barbujani (2005) found statistically significant differences between people at geographical distance zero or very nearby. "Population" can mean absolutely anything. Using my family's genotype and enough loci, we can be said to be a 'race' of our own.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:'Law of similarity'? Which relies on arbitrarily selecting traits and arbitrary fuzzy logic? Arbitrary + arbitrary = objective? Not in my books
Lame again. Are you saying with 100% sorting accuracy you can not distinguish between a cat an a giraffe? Taxonomy merely is based on the empirical fact offspring resembles their parents. Why is it arbitrary to distinguish between a cat and a fly? These arn't arbitrary social constructs. They would be if someone was lumping trees in with dogs. Your views are completely out of touch with reality. That is why on studentforums most percieved you as a parody. Google: poe's law.
"Admittedly, the lower boundary for defining a valid diagnosable subspecies is arbitrary. That arbitrariness has been a focal point of criticism for the subspecies concept (e.g. Wilson and Brown 1953, Inger 1961, Selander 1971). One must bear in mind, however, that definitions for placement into all taxonomic groups other than a species are arbitrary (presuming some sort of biology-based species concept). Just how much difference is needed to define a genus? What level of distinction is necessary to define a new phylum? Do all genera or phyla differ from each other equally? Even if all such higher categories could be defined cladistically or on the basis of some degree of genetic difference, arbitrary definitions are unavoidable. Also consider that our beloved alpha=0.05, the underpinning of inferential statistics, is an arbitrary level. We accept a Type I error rate of 5% not because it is superior to any other; it is merely accepted convention. (Patten and Unitt, 2002).
I've already refuted fuzzy sets as an objective system. Also see Zagefka (2009).
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Are you saying that, with 100% sorting accuracy, you cannot distinguish between somebody with sickle cell and somebody without sickle cell?
Are you saying that, with 100% sorting accuracy, you cannot distinguish between objects weighing less than 1000kg and objects weighing 1000kg and above?
If being able to distinguish something from another thing means each thing deserves its own category, then we are all of our own 'race', as we are all distinguishable from any other entity:
"No one denies that human populations differ in allele frequencies. The problem is that Dobzhansky seems to label any genetic differences racial differences while at the same time claiming that not every racially distinct population is a race or should be recognized as such. He wrote, for example, in response to Frank Livingstone's ([1962] 2008a) rejection of the application of the concept of geographic race to humans that: "Since human populations [. . .] often, differ in the frequencies of one or more, usually several to many, genetic variables, they are by this test racially distinct. But it does not follow that any racially distinct populations should be given racial (or subspecific) labels" (Dobzhansky 2008b, p. 298).
The difficulties in Dobzhansky's thought about the existence of biological human races were highlighted by Livingstone in his reply, in which he rejected as simply untenable "Dobzhansky's dichotomy" between the issue of the putative biological reality of human races and the allegedly unconnected issue of the nomenclatorial recognition of such biological human races. Livingstone argued that: "the concepts of a science are also logically interconnected and form a coherent, consistent theory or system. The concepts of such a system are defined in terms of one another and certain primitive terms, and then the formal, mathematical, or logical properties of the system derived (2008b, p. 300). Livingstone's point was that if the concept of race is being introduced in human population genetics because it allegedly has a scientific necessity and a unique explanatory value, then the nomenclatorial identification of human races cannot be at the same time a matter of arbitrary choice" (Maglo, 2011).
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
I said junk genes are of no use. The Human Genome project has identified hardly any genes for phenotypic traits. However if the genes are identified for phenotypic traits, they can be used. This is why the allele for light skin pigmentation which was recently mapped by geneticists matches traditional race typology. Mongoloids and Negroids are absent in the allele, while Caucasoids posesses it. Obviously since morphological traits are already mapped there is no actually need for the genetics.
"The test of validity here is that the people within the racial area tend to be more or less similar and can be distinguished from those found in major areas elsewhere." (Krantz, 1980)
- You belong to a race, subrace, microrace and further localized types of variation.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
You don't seem to realise race taxonomy deals with a hierarchal categorization of types down to the geographical individual level. In between the individual and subspecies (major races) are subraces, microraces and in specialist literature you can find others between micro and individual. Garn (1971) popularised them.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
-- All variations have been recorded. I can give your race, subrace, microrace etc, if I saw your photo. I know my own. If you go on any anthropology forum, people can also tell you what race and subrace you belong to. Call this eyeball anthropology - but its science.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I said junk genes are of no use. The Human Genome project has identified hardly any genes for phenotypic traits. However if the genes are identified for phenotypic traits, they can be used. This is why the allele for light skin pigmentation which was recently mapped by geneticists matches traditional race typology. Mongoloids and Negroids are absent in the allele, while Caucasoids posesses it. Obviously since morphological traits are already mapped there is no actually need for the genetics.
"The test of validity here is that the people within the racial area tend to be more or less similar and can be distinguished from those found in major areas elsewhere." (Krantz, 1980)
- You belong to a race, subrace, microrace and further localized types of variation.
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
Nothing about any particular trait being excluded; as long as it is heritable and can be used to distinguish people it is acceptable. Stop adding 'false criteria' to 'racial' classification. Thanks.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: -- All variations have been recorded. I can give your race, subrace, microrace etc, if I saw your photo. I know my own. If you go on any anthropology forum, people can also tell you what race and subrace you belong to. Call this eyeball anthropology - but its science.
It's an arbitrary system (as I demonstrated in our discussion on fuzzy sets) that is arbitrarily prioritised over the innumerable other possible classification systems that can be used.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You don't seem to realise race taxonomy deals with a hierarchal categorization of types down to the geographical individual level. In between the individual and subspecies (major races) are subraces, microraces and in specialist literature you can find others between micro and individual. Garn (1971) popularised them.
All arbitrary, as Patten and Unitt (2002) have explained. Nature doesn't deal with 'types', it deals with continuous variation.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
- Explain why they are arbitrary.
You throw "arbitrary" around a lot, when you don't appear to know what it means: random.
How is race typology random when it is highly accurate? Someone can pinpoint not only your continental ancestry, but regional, down to even more localized areas just by looking at your photo. If it was random this wouldn't be possible.
"innumerable other possible classification systems that can be used."
How? Show them then.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: - Explain why they are arbitrary.
You throw "arbitrary" around a lot, when you don't appear to know what it means: random.
How is race typology random when it is highly accurate? Someone can pinpoint not only your continental ancestry, but regional, down to even more localized areas just by looking at your photo. If it was random this wouldn't be possible.
"innumerable other possible classification systems that can be used."
How? Show them then.
If I meant 'random' I would have said 'random'. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'arbitrary' as:
"Derived from mere opinion or preference" and "To be decided by one's liking"
I've already linked you to a table with a partial list of heritable features. I've also explained how they are valid under Sarich and Miele's definition (nobody else matters, as their specific quote is apparently the definitive and peremptory definition of 'race'; hence, anything that fulfils it is 'racial' and anyone who disagrees is imposing 'false criteria' or is using a 'false definition').
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Nature doesn't deal with 'types', it deals with continuous variation.
You are setting up another fallacy. Nature isn't a single variable or cline, but multiple:
"If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice at once that the observed variation does not form a single probability distribution or any other kind of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete, distributions are found. In other words, the living world is not a single array of individuals in which any two variants are connected by unbroken series of intergrades but an array of more or less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare. Each array is a cluster of individuals, usually possessing some common characteristics and gravitating to a definite modal point in their variations" (Dobzhansky, 1937)
Variations can easily be categorized.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Nature doesn't deal with 'types', it deals with continuous variation.
You are setting up another fallacy. Nature isn't a single variable or cline, but multiple:
"If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice at once that the observed variation does not form a single probability distribution or any other kind of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete, distributions are found. In other words, the living world is not a single array of individuals in which any two variants are connected by unbroken series of intergrades but an array of more or less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare. Each array is a cluster of individuals, usually possessing some common characteristics and gravitating to a definite modal point in their variations" (Dobzhansky, 1937)
Variations can easily be categorized.
Arbitrarily.
"No one denies that human populations differ in allele frequencies. The problem is that Dobzhansky seems to label any genetic differences racial differences while at the same time claiming that not every racially distinct population is a race or should be recognized as such. He wrote, for example, in response to Frank Livingstone's ([1962] 2008a) rejection of the application of the concept of geographic race to humans that: "Since human populations [. . .] often, differ in the frequencies of one or more, usually several to many, genetic variables, they are by this test racially distinct. But it does not follow that any racially distinct populations should be given racial (or subspecific) labels" (Dobzhansky 2008b, p. 298).
The difficulties in Dobzhansky's thought about the existence of biological human races were highlighted by Livingstone in his reply, in which he rejected as simply untenable "Dobzhansky's dichotomy" between the issue of the putative biological reality of human races and the allegedly unconnected issue of the nomenclatorial recognition of such biological human races. Livingstone argued that: "the concepts of a science are also logically interconnected and form a coherent, consistent theory or system. The concepts of such a system are defined in terms of one another and certain primitive terms, and then the formal, mathematical, or logical properties of the system derived (2008b, p. 300). Livingstone's point was that if the concept of race is being introduced in human population genetics because it allegedly has a scientific necessity and a unique explanatory value, then the nomenclatorial identification of human races cannot be at the same time a matter of arbitrary choice" (Maglo, 2011).
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: -- All variations have been recorded. I can give your race, subrace, microrace etc, if I saw your photo. I know my own. If you go on any anthropology forum, people can also tell you what race and subrace you belong to. Call this eyeball anthropology - but its science.
It's arbitrary because you are arbitrarily selecting only heritable traits that you can see in a photo.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: -- All variations have been recorded. I can give your race, subrace, microrace etc, if I saw your photo. I know my own. If you go on any anthropology forum, people can also tell you what race and subrace you belong to. Call this eyeball anthropology - but its science.
It's arbitrary because you are arbitrarily selecting only heritable traits that you can see in a photo.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers:
quote:Another red lie! 'Capoids' as designated by Coon as a racial group included BOTH Pygmies and 'Negroids'!! To Coon, Pygmies and 'Negroids' are but subraces of the same 'Congoid' race.
That's wrong. Capoids are not Congoids.
Capoids are the Khoisanids, while the Congoids are (a) African Pygmies (Negrillos) and (b) Negroids. There are subraces or localized types within all of these. There is the "true" (Forest)Negro or palaeonegrid form, but then a more elongated variety (Nilotid). Compared to the other races though, Negroids show the least physical variation and in the face all look very similar. Go to any anthropology forum and look at polls asking what race has the least variation. Negroids always appear first, then Mongoloids, and lastly Caucasoids -- who have the most. Just look at a North Indian and Englishman. Despite being uniform in bone structure, the Caucasoid race shows the most diversity in pigmentation and surface features. That's why compared to the other major racial stocks, so many subraces exist in Caucasoids, far more than the others.
Sorry, I meant to say Congoids. Coon's "Congoid" classification included both Pygmies and 'Negroids' as subraces. And according to his pre-Pleistocene map, Congoids including 'Negroids' predominated Sub-Sahara including the Horn of Africa.
Either way, the division between so-called 'Capoid' populations and 'Congoid' populations is a falsity since both so called races share and converge on a number of cranial features as well as genetic lineages and autosomal alleles.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally edited by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: This is what Faheempyramidologist believes as per Coon:
before the Pleistocene Khoisans[purple] originated and lived in North Africa. Caucasians [green] lived in Europe, Anatolia, the Middle East and part of South Asia
___________________________________________
After the Pleistocene Caucasians [green] not indigenous to North Africa migrated there and pushed the Capoid (Khoisans) [purple] out, the Capoid (Khoisans) migrating to Southern Africa
But there is no evidence that the Khosians (Capoid) were living in North Africa before they were living in Soutthern Africa
Indeed. Disregarding the fact that biological race does not exist among the human species, there is no evidence at all that Khoisan inhabited North Africa, let alone limited to that area until they were "pushed" to the confines of the south. In the same token, there is no evidence that 'Cacasoids' or any population of close European affinity every being indigenous or predominant in the Levant before the Pleistocene, let alone in Arabia and throughout India to its tip.
In fact the very zones of distribution with its clear cut demarcations make no sense whatsoever. It's as if the entire population of these supposed 'races' practiced a form of segregation where they all neatly kept to themselves and did not overlap in territory. Notice how in the pre-Pleistocene, so-called 'Capoids' solely inhabited North Africa alone and 'Congoids' inhabited the rest of Africa to the south with a clear horizontal line between them. Meanwhile the India subcontinent has a vertical line division with 'Cacasoids' in the west and 'Australoids' in the east. It is hilarious! LMAO
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers:
quote:Coon apparently stated otherwise as his pre-Pleistocene map show 'Congoids' predominate all throughout Sub-Sahara and it is only after the Pleistocene today that they are largely confined to central and West Africa-- the opposite of what Anglo-Fathead says!
Those are Congoids A - Pygmies, not Negroids.
Everyone accepts Pygmies are indigenous to large parts of Sub-Sahara Africa, having originated in the tropical rainforests.
Another red lie! 'Congoids' as designated by Coon as a racial group included BOTH Pygmies and 'Negroids'!! To Coon, Pygmies and 'Negroids' are but subraces of the same 'Congoid' race.
Later extensions, such as Carleton S. Coon's "Origin of Races" placed this theory in an evolutionary context - Coon divided the species homo sapiens into five groups, Caucasoid, Capoid, Congoid, Australoid, and Mongoloid, based on the timing of their evolution from Homo erectus. Labeling Congoids the "African Negroes" and "Pygmies", he divided indigenous Africans into these two distinct groups based on their date of origin, and loosened classification from mere appearance - however, this led to disagreement between approaches to dating divergence, and consequent conflicting results.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote: Either way, the division between so-called 'Capoid' populations and 'Congoid' populations is a falsity since both so called races share and converge on a number of cranial features as well as genetic lineages and autosomal alleles.
That's true today, because most Khoisanids are hybridised, especially the Khoi. However if you look at earlier photographs and eyewitness accounts you will see they appear dictinctly non-Negroid with pronounced facial flatness, epicanthic folds and steatopygia.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
Yes that is true you congenital lying, pieve of white trash degenerate!
The socalled Capoid and Congoid possess ZERO% Neanderthal and ZERO% Denisovan DNA
Why dont you talk about some ancient remains found in Central Asia monkey? You might find out where you come from! LOL
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:And according to his pre-Pleistocene map, Congoids including 'Negroids' predominated Sub-Sahara including the Horn of Africa.
Nope, because modern Negroids weren't in existence then. Those are where Pygmies occupied.
Negroids radiated from Pygmies in West Africa during the Holocene.
"True Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia". (Frost, 1999)
As recent as 4-3k years ago, Negroids were not in North/East or Southern Africa.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Nature doesn't deal with 'types', it deals with continuous variation.
You are setting up another fallacy. Nature isn't a single variable or cline, but multiple:
"If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice at once that the observed variation does not form a single probability distribution or any other kind of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete, distributions are found. In other words, the living world is not a single array of individuals in which any two variants are connected by unbroken series of intergrades but an array of more or less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare. Each array is a cluster of individuals, usually possessing some common characteristics and gravitating to a definite modal point in their variations" (Dobzhansky, 1937)
Variations can easily be categorized.
Arbitrarily.
"No one denies that human populations differ in allele frequencies. The problem is that Dobzhansky seems to label any genetic differences racial differences while at the same time claiming that not every racially distinct population is a race or should be recognized as such. He wrote, for example, in response to Frank Livingstone's ([1962] 2008a) rejection of the application of the concept of geographic race to humans that: "Since human populations [. . .] often, differ in the frequencies of one or more, usually several to many, genetic variables, they are by this test racially distinct. But it does not follow that any racially distinct populations should be given racial (or subspecific) labels" (Dobzhansky 2008b, p. 298).
The difficulties in Dobzhansky's thought about the existence of biological human races were highlighted by Livingstone in his reply, in which he rejected as simply untenable "Dobzhansky's dichotomy" between the issue of the putative biological reality of human races and the allegedly unconnected issue of the nomenclatorial recognition of such biological human races. Livingstone argued that: "the concepts of a science are also logically interconnected and form a coherent, consistent theory or system. The concepts of such a system are defined in terms of one another and certain primitive terms, and then the formal, mathematical, or logical properties of the system derived (2008b, p. 300). Livingstone's point was that if the concept of race is being introduced in human population genetics because it allegedly has a scientific necessity and a unique explanatory value, then the nomenclatorial identification of human races cannot be at the same time a matter of arbitrary choice" (Maglo, 2011).
If they are arbitrary, explain why no contradictory classifications exist. The obvious answer is because they are objective, and independent observers come to the same conclusion:
"The subdivisions of the animal and plant kingdoms established by Linnaeus are, with few exceptions, retained in the modern classification, and this despite the enormous number of new forms discovered since then. These new forms were either included in the Linnaean groups, or else new groups were created to accommodate them. There has been no necessity for a basic change in the classification. [T]he only inference that can be drawn from it is that the classification now adopted is not an arbitrary but a natural one, reflecting the objective state of things." (Dobzhansky, 1937)
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^ All cats give birth to kittens and not puppies. Do you agree? Who wouldn't? Yet according to you, that it is arbitrary to maintain cats biologically exist. Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Remember also Mayr in New Guinea.
"Some of the most persuasive evidence in support of this is the close correspondence between the species identified by western taxonomists and those identified in the "folk taxonomy" of relatively isolated non-western societies. For example, Ernst Mayr, a noted bird taxonomist, identified 137 species of birds in his field work in the mountains of New Guinea; the folk taxonomy of the native New Guineans identifies 136 species. Similar correlations occur with plants. For example, an extensive interdisciplinary study of the native people and plants of the Chiapas highlands of Mexico showed a very close correspondence between species identified by western botanists and those identified by Chiapas natives."
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Nature doesn't deal with 'types', it deals with continuous variation.
You are setting up another fallacy. Nature isn't a single variable or cline, but multiple:
"If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice at once that the observed variation does not form a single probability distribution or any other kind of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete, distributions are found. In other words, the living world is not a single array of individuals in which any two variants are connected by unbroken series of intergrades but an array of more or less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare. Each array is a cluster of individuals, usually possessing some common characteristics and gravitating to a definite modal point in their variations" (Dobzhansky, 1937)
Variations can easily be categorized.
Arbitrarily.
"No one denies that human populations differ in allele frequencies. The problem is that Dobzhansky seems to label any genetic differences racial differences while at the same time claiming that not every racially distinct population is a race or should be recognized as such. He wrote, for example, in response to Frank Livingstone's ([1962] 2008a) rejection of the application of the concept of geographic race to humans that: "Since human populations [. . .] often, differ in the frequencies of one or more, usually several to many, genetic variables, they are by this test racially distinct. But it does not follow that any racially distinct populations should be given racial (or subspecific) labels" (Dobzhansky 2008b, p. 298).
The difficulties in Dobzhansky's thought about the existence of biological human races were highlighted by Livingstone in his reply, in which he rejected as simply untenable "Dobzhansky's dichotomy" between the issue of the putative biological reality of human races and the allegedly unconnected issue of the nomenclatorial recognition of such biological human races. Livingstone argued that: "the concepts of a science are also logically interconnected and form a coherent, consistent theory or system. The concepts of such a system are defined in terms of one another and certain primitive terms, and then the formal, mathematical, or logical properties of the system derived (2008b, p. 300). Livingstone's point was that if the concept of race is being introduced in human population genetics because it allegedly has a scientific necessity and a unique explanatory value, then the nomenclatorial identification of human races cannot be at the same time a matter of arbitrary choice" (Maglo, 2011).
If they are arbitrary, explain why no contradictory classifications exist. The obvious answer is because they are objective, and independent observers come to the same conclusion:
"The subdivisions of the animal and plant kingdoms established by Linnaeus are, with few exceptions, retained in the modern classification, and this despite the enormous number of new forms discovered since then. These new forms were either included in the Linnaean groups, or else new groups were created to accommodate them. There has been no necessity for a basic change in the classification. [T]he only inference that can be drawn from it is that the classification now adopted is not an arbitrary but a natural one, reflecting the objective state of things." (Dobzhansky, 1937)
See the 'species problem' for a brief history of how classification changed over time, see the 'cryptic species complex' that details how different concepts of 'species' must be invoked to preserve the system, refer to Barbujani's (2005) table for how different authors had different conceptions of 'race' over time and see Patten and Unitt (2002) for why taxonomy is arbitrary. Also see Mishler (2009) for a critique of Linnean taxonomy.
Contradictory classifications do exist, which is why blood group doesn't correspond with lactose tolerance and asexually reproductive concepts of 'species' don't correspond to sexually reproductive concepts.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ All cats give birth to kittens and not puppies. Do you agree? Who wouldn't? Yet according to you, that it is arbitrary to maintain cats biologically exist.
Reread the Patten and Unitt quote: with the exception of the interbreeding biological species concept, taxonomic classification is arbitrary. Taxonomy as a discipline is completely arbitrary, as not all organisms are subject to the biological species concept but are still called species regardless, as they conform to some other arbitrary definition for 'species'. Ranked, linear classifications do not work with the multidimensional characteristics of nature.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Do you really believe the retention of a concept means that concept is objective?
Why are there 7 days in a week in the Gregorian calendar? Why do we consider it to be the year 2012 AD? Are these objective systems, or are they socially constructed ones that people are content with using because they pose no ethical problems and deliver a large enough amount (arbitrarily determined) of conceptual/functional understanding? A paradigm shift will need a cross-disciplinary terminological transition, and that is quite unfeasible. Similarly, it would take many generations for chronological classifications (7 day week, year 2012 AD, etc.) to be completely forgotten and it would render all the historical literature redundant as they have relied on these systems. It's not a matter of objectivity, it's a matter of the feasibility of changing such an ingrained concept. Even if somebody wanted to start a new system, just to be able to communicate with other people and convey a point would require their defecting to well-known inter-subjective concepts, which is why I must still use the terms 'black' and 'white' in the various discussions I have.
"We need to keep firmly in mind that biological classification is a human construct, to be adopted for the uses we find most compelling in light of current understanding. Particular classifications, or general principles of classification, are not immutable or important to conserve for tradition’s sake alone. Our knowledge of the biological world has changed greatly since Linnaeus, we must be free to consider changing his classification system to keep pace. Perhaps all scientists would agree in principle to this point, yet because of the weight of tradition, discussions about possible changes to the Linnaean classification rapidly become emotional, even angry (Laurin, 2008). Many systematists seem threatened to the core by any suggestion to change the classification system radically. But like any other scientific product, classification is subject to revision as knowledge increases — science should have no sacred cows" (Mishler, 2009).
On the notion that it is consistent:
"In translating the standard Linnean framework into a working taxonomy, one operational problem has been an instability of taxon names partly as a result of historical shifts in the meanings attached to ranked taxa (de Queiroz & Gauthier, 1990, 1992, 1994). Traditionally, taxa were treated (implicitly or explicitly) as abstract classes of organisms based on shared traits rather than shared ancestry per se. However, even when taxa were interpreted under a strict phylogenetic framework to be monophyletic assemblages or clades (which themselves can have several different meanings; de Queiroz, 2007), cascades of name changes for Linnean ranks often have been necessitated when new taxa were discovered or previously named taxa were either split or lumped subsequent to reinterpretations of new or existing data.
Systematists have attempted to alleviate the instability problem in various ways. The mainstream approach has been to adopt and periodically update an official International Code of Zoological Nomenclature that formalizes how to name organisms (Polaszek & Wilson, 2005), whereas proponents of an entirely different approach known as the PhyloCode (Cantino & de Queiroz, 2007) want to convert to a system in which clade names (traditionally referring to taxonomic rank) are redefined as clade types delimited in the context of a phylogeny.
Another obvious flaw of the traditional Linnean system is that its implementation to date has not entailed any serious attempt to standardize taxonomic ranks across different kinds of organisms. This problem has both conceptual and empirical aspects. One conceptual inconsistency arises because some traditional Linnean taxa of a given rank (such as Class Aves) are monophyletic, whereas others of identical rank (such as Reptilia) are paraphyletic or even polyphyletic. The empirical inconsistencies originate because disparate groups of organisms of identical rank in the traditional Linnean hierarchy are not necessarily identical or even similar in other attributes such as morphological diversity, rate of phenotypic evolution, contribution to extant biodiversity, diversity of ecological roles, or any other biological or evolutionary features of which we are aware. For example, some genera have dozens of species, whereas others are monotypic; species in some genera are phenotypically diverse, whereas those in other genera are almost indistinguishable in morphology; some taxonomic families encompass major components of an ecosystem, whereas others include only rare species of negligible impact; some taxonomic families are quite ancient, whereas others are relatively young; and so on. These points all have been made before repeatedly (Laurin, 2008; Lee & Skinner, 2007; Minelli, 2000) but, in any event, the undisputed fact is that conventional Linnean ranks are blatantly nonstandardized and thus inconsistent. In other words, under the current Linnean system, a taxonomic genus or family of insects, for example, does not necessarily compare in any specifiable way to a genus or family of plants, fungi, birds or amphibians. [Hence, arbitrary. ]
This type of inconsistency is not just a minor inventorial glitch in taxonomy but, rather, it is a fundamental impediment to cross-taxon research and interdisciplinary communication in the biological sciences" (Avise and Xiu, 2010).
There is nothing objective about a system that is constantly changing. Note the parallel between the last emboldened section of the previous quote and Hunt's (2008) commentary on studies that rely on 'race':
"But how could researchers in such an otherwise rigorous field be so tolerant, even embracing of variables with so little precision? We argue that in part, it is precisely this imprecision that sustains itself. The wide use of this vague and unsystematic terminology results in a semantic illusion of consistency between very different types of research. For example, those we interviewed were working on a wide assortment of types of genetic studies, ranging from DNA sequencing, population modeling, to linkage studies. Their target populations were equally varied, depending on the goals of their project: some chosen because of their geographic isolation, others for their disease characteristics, and others for their mere availability. However, when all are labeled with the same simplistic set of terms, it may seem that there is a growing body of data about specific racial populations, when in fact there is no reason at all to presume they belong to a "group" of any kind, beyond their being subject to having the same label affixed to them. In other words, the only equivalence that can be presumed between these groups is that they are subject to equivalent terminology" (Hunt, 2008).
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
The filthy, pink assed wicked monster is twisted its low IQ degenerate cracker ass in knots! Hahahaha!!!!!!!
By the way folks, the full genome of the Khoisan was sequeneced nearly 3 years ago and we now KNOW that the Khoisan possess ZERO% Neanderthal DNA admixture and ZERO% Denisovan admixture.
you knmow the capoid! LOL
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Faheendunkers noticed Persian cats look different from Siamese cats therefore the must be different cat races
"evidence suggests that the Negroes are not a primary sub-species but rather a product of mixture between invading Caucasoids and Pygmies" - Carleton Coon, Living Races of Man 1962
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
The reference should say Avise and Liu, not Avise and Xiu.
Anyway, more commentary on the arbitrariness:
"In a recent review Avise & Liu (2011) have shown that currently recognized taxa of the same Linnean rank are not temporally standardized (i.e. they do not represent lineages of similar age), which makes it hard to compare them objectively. This is a further item on the long list of inconsistencies among disparate taxa of identical rank. It has long been known (and bemoaned) that the Linnean categories veil biological phenomena rather than help to elucidate them (Ereshefsky, 2001; Zachos, 2006). This is because their designation is arbitrary and mainly based on tradition. By contrast to the species that may be defined according to one of the many existing species concepts, there are essentially no non-arbitrary definitions of the higher ranks. This weakness is not only of philosophical relevance, but also has important practical implications: any quantitative approach using higher rank taxa as a proxy for biodiversity (as frequently carried out in palaeontology and conservation biology) is distorted because there are no objective criteria by which to define if a certain number of species belong to one or more genera or if these genera form one or more families, etc. Taxonomic surrogacy therefore inevitably leads to subjective and spurious results and hampers cross-taxon research (for revealing examples in palaeontology and zoology, see Allmon, 1992 and Bertrand, Pleijel & Rouse, 2006, respectively).
[...]
The Linnean hierarchy was introduced in a pre-evolutionary paradigm, and there is no necessity to stick desperately to it. Systematics and taxonomy in an evolutionary paradigm have to come up with reproducible results and testable conclusions. Linnean ranks are useful for neither! These ranks appear to be of no benefit other than that we are used to them.
[...]
Ultimately, there may only be one way of overcoming apples and oranges: renunciation of the Linnean hierarchy. Comparative biologists will then have to choose very carefully in every single case what they are going to compare (and justify it!) and can no longer rely on simple ranks that deceptively suggest similarity where in reality there is none" (Zachos, 2011).
I'll repeat this:
"This is because their designation is arbitrary and mainly based on tradition."
"arbitrary"
"The Linnean hierarchy was introduced in a pre-evolutionary paradigm, and there is no necessity to stick desperately to it. Systematics and taxonomy in an evolutionary paradigm have to come up with reproducible results and testable conclusions. Linnean ranks are useful for neither! These ranks appear to be of no benefit other than that we are used to them."
As I said, nature does not deal with types (à la Creationism), it deals with continuous and multidimensional variation. I'm very fond of Hunt's (2008) "semantic illusion of consistency" phrase because it encapsulates the entirety of conventional taxonomy. Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
You're simply wrong about taxonomy having any consistency and objectivity. As I and the multiple sources I have used in this thread have stated, it is an arbitrary discipline. Hunt (2008) explains how this arbitrariness is self-sustaining due to the equivalent nomenclature being applied to various different concepts.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
"Absolute (Linnaean) ranks are essential to rank-based nomenclature (RN), which has been used by the vast majority of systematists for the last 150 years. They are widely recognized as being subjective among taxonomists. but not necessarily in other fields. For this reason, phylogenetic nomenclature (PN) and other alternative nomenclatural systems have been developed. However, reluctance to accept alternative nomenclatural systems and continued use of higher taxa of a given Linnaean category in comparative analyses presumably reflect a lack of appreciation of the deleterious effects of the subjective nature of Linnaean categories in other biological fields such as conservation and evolutionary biology. To make that point clearer, evolutionary models under which such categories would be natural are presented and are shown to be highly unrealistic and to lack empirical support. Under all realistic evolutionary models, ranking of taxa into Linnaean categories is highly subjective.
[...]
As summarized by Bertrand et al. (2006), rank allocation is complex and is dictated by many requirements, some of which conflict with each other, and none of which is absolute.
[...]
Thus, ranking decisions are influenced by previous generations of systematists, but these ranking traditions may be highly variable between taxa since taxonomists often specialize in one or a few closely related taxa. For such reasons, ranking taxa into Linnaean categories is almost universally recognized as a fairly subjective exercise among taxonomists
[...]
Given that the absolute rank assignment of taxa is subjective, ranking and delimitation of taxa can vary substantially between authors, or even between papers by a single author.
[...]
No objective criterion can be used to assign ranks to taxa, and even attempts at applying such a system have been rare and unsuccessful (Hennig, 1966, 1981). Ranks are devoid of objective reality and are ‘ontologically empty designations’ (Ereshefsky, 2002: S309); therefore, they should be dropped" (Laurin, 2010).
"Various different ways of defining species can be found in the literature. There seem to be 26 to 28 separate definitions [...] No successful definitions have been found which capture necessary and sufficient properties that determine membership in Species – at least not for all types of species, as I will demonstrate shortly. Most definitions are successfully applicable only within a limited scope of cases. Overall, those definitions and delineation concepts are applied very inconsistently, and different ones may be called upon in different contexts; so much so, that the claim or aspiration for a unified Species kind, category, or rank that is arrived at by way of those species definitions, seems rather manifestly to not hold" (Kober, 2007).
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by FAHEEM- dumber Here is a post in that vein from Zarahan:
"Who invented the concept of the "black race" in modern science? White Europeans. Who created the notion of race and racism? White Europeans. Who invented the concept of "caucasoid" or non black African ancient Egyptians? European scholars"
^^Actually I made no such statement. You are simply lying again as you usually do.
Furthermore idiot, you debunked your own argument with the article below.
The Adaptionist Yardstick: Rethinking the Social Implications of Sarich’s and Miele’s Fast-Track Micro-Evolution A REVIEW BY ALONDRA OUBRÉ
IN RACE: THE REALITY OF HUMAN DIFFERENCES, Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele attempt to prove the existence of human biological races in a discourse that challenges the claims made in the PBS documentary, Race: the Power of an Illusion. Drawing on research in paleoanthropology, molecular anthropology, genetics, and to some extent, history, Sarich and Miele endeavor to trace the origin of race as a biological construct. They claim that “human racial differences are both real and significant,” not only in regard to physical traits, but also (and perhaps more importantly), to cognitive and behavioral traits. Sarich and Miele assert that human social behaviors, which they contend differ along racial lines, are functional adaptations that emerged fairly quickly in each “race” as a result of natural selection.
While much of their presentation is based on well-known scientific studies, their work is distinguished by their seminal claim that contemporary biological races of modern humans, Homo sapiens, evolved rapidly within a time span of only 50,000 years. The notion that modern human races are not more than 50,000 years old, and perhaps only 15,000 years old, represents a radical departure from the conventional wisdom that until quite recently has dominated the field of human bioevolution. Sarich and Miele offer noteworthy findings to support a revised, indeed a considerably shorter, timeline for the making of modern human “races” (or, more accurately, geographical mega-populations).
However, it is their interpretation of what a revamped timeline of this sort signals for “racial adaptations”—alleged race-based functional differences—that potentially places Race: The Reality of Human Differences in the controversial realm of racialist writings—the genre of modern scientific racism. Race meets the main criterion that defines a pro-race work. It incisively embraces the perspective that human races are valid biological categories, despite the fact that they remain fuzzy sets, at best, without clearly defined borders.
Yet it may be unfair to label Race as intrinsically racialist simply because the authors maintain that human races are a biological reality. To their credit, Sarich and Miele base their conclusion not on a whimsical ideological stance of fear-based “race realism” (as some folk in the pro-race camp label themselves), but instead on a broad (though arbitrarily selected) cross-section of published research in biological sciences. Nonetheless, the relevance of some of their supporting evidence is open to debate. Codifying selective research findings that appear to lend credibility to one’s hypothesis is one thing. Formulating a compelling theory that successfully explains contradictions to one’s own hypothesis (in other words, that can account for anomalies in various sets of data) is quite another.
In a casual journalistic style designed to entice the average lay reader, Sarich and Miele cover a wide array of topics which, though pertinent, are not well integrated into a cohesive thesis. Although the book is one of the latest additions to scientifically-informed books on race-realism, it lacks the focus, cogency, and conviction, if you will, of writings in the “new racial science,” perhaps best embodied in Richard Herrnstein’s and Charles Murray’s 1994 The Bell Curve.
As staunch proponents of the race concept, both Sarich and Miele claim that human races are biological phenomena and not, as those in the anti-race camp proclaim, only social constructs. Sarich and Miele hold impressive track records in their respective fields of academia and journalism that should make them, individually and combined, qualified to write this book. Sarich, after all, attained widespread acclaim in the scientific community after he and his then senior co-worker, Alan Wilson, of the University of California at Berkeley, recalculated the evolutionary timeline of the ape-hominid divergence using immunological data (in this case, proteins) rather than fossil evidence. 1 Sarich (who has graduate level training in chemistry) was one of the first physical anthropologists to apply quantitative laboratory techniques used in biological sciences, particularly molecular biology, to paleoanthropology—the study of fossil remains of human ancestors. Sarich has earned a legitimate place in the halls of biological anthropology as that rare icon who (at least during the early part of his career) helped catalyze the cross-fertilization of several fields, namely biochemistry, genetics, and osteology.
Although Sarich’s critics may point out, and correctly so, that his empirical research experience is limited, he is nonetheless well-respected by his peers across the political spectrum for his intellectual contributions to theoretical and conceptual developments in molecular anthropology. On more than one occasion, Sarich has been right in his predictions—his “scientific hunches”—even after his colleagues thought him wrong. For example, during the 1990s Sarich insisted that the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) timeline estimated for the divergence of human races (or more accurately, human populations) was longer than that projected at that time by Alan Wilson, Mark Stoneking, and Rebecca Cann. Sarich appeared initially to be way off the mark, but the data eventually proved his position to be correct. In an analogous situation, over the past decade Sarich has publicly stated that the timeline for the micro-evolution, or differentiation, of modern human races is much shorter than scientists ever thought possible. 2 As the research summaries presented in Race reveal, once again Sarich’s maverick position on a temporal event in human bioevolution may have some validation, even in the face of initial opposition.
In like manner, Frank Miele is not just another science writer. Miele’s curriculum vitae is several cuts above the vast majority of science journalists, particularly those who focus on race and human evolution, for several reasons. As Senior Editor of Skeptic magazine, Miele has interviewed a coterie of highly public (if not controversial) scientists, including E.O. Wilson, Charles Murray, Richard Dawkins, and Arthur Jensen. Miele’s knowledge of evolutionary biology, including its contentious spin-off field of evolutionary psychology (and its sister field, sociobiology) is not entirely self-taught, however. Earlier in his career, Miele pursued graduate studies in psychology, including subfields of behavioral genetics and psychometrics, at the University of Georgia. During his tenure as an undergraduate student majoring in psychology, he was published in journals such as Mankind Quarterly (which, incidentally, is one of the premier voices of academic racial science). More recently, Miele has collaborated on scholarly projects with Richard Lynn, a British racial scientist and eugenicist.
Regardless of any controversy that may surround Sarich and Miele, the pivotal issue at stake here is not whether or not human races per se exist, regardless of what biological criteria are used to define a race. Rather, the crux of their book, I submit, is the assertion that over the past 15,000 to 30,000 years, modern human races evolved different sets of behavioral traits because each race was subjected to differing ecological selection pressures. Many experts agree that natural selection was the predominant Darwinian force that determined which traits were adaptive for a given population, or local geographical race, in a given environment. According to Sarich and Miele, however, natural selection not only shaped the physical traits that distinguish different populations, but it also drove the emergence of certain social behavioral patterns that (allegedly) vary from one “race” to another.
The implications of Sarich and Miele’s contention are staggering. If true, they suggest that what appear to be ethnic behavioral styles are linked more to inborn racial genetic tendencies than to nongenetic causes—that is, environmental and developmental causes. In the tradition of the post-Jensenian contemporary racial scholars, Sarich and Meile imply, rather meekly, that ethnic disparities in educational, economic, vocational, and social achievement are the result of race-based differences in physical and behavioral traits. Furthermore, they maintain that because these traits evolved through natural selection acting on the level of the population (which for them is tantamount to race), social behaviors are generally fixed and unchangeable in any population. The authors make this assertion while ignoring a wide array of environmental constraints as well as the impact of environmental influences known to affect human developmental biology, including the soft-wiring of the brain.
If Sarich and Miele’s goal is to garner praise from their own choir—“hard” and “softer” race-realists alike—for an eclipsed (and thus potentially distorted) canon of the origin of modern human races, they may have succeeded. If, however, their intent is to advance a substantive, data-driven argument for the evolutionary-genetic origins of race-based behavioral traits—traits which they seem to think are “fixed” by natural selection—then they have short-changed their readers (on “both sides” of this fierce debate). The predictive power and scientific valence of their assertions must ultimately be gauged by the strength of the replicable empirical evidence used to buttress their arguments.
In the final analysis, Sarich and Miele may have failed to persuade a significant portion of their readers not because they have taken a (presumably) politically incorrect position. Rather, their treatise falls short because they have opted to pander a “mainstream public” that is (understandably) irritated by growing ethnic gaps in social performance rather than uphold the rigor of the scientific process. Although portions of their presentation may be entertaining (especially to dog lovers), Sarich and Miele ignore a wealth of pertinent research findings that must be considered in any discourse on group differences, particularly differences in such highly valued human traits as intelligence and social behaviors. Regardless of one’s position on the race-genes-and-ability debate, omitting salient counter-findings that go against the grain of one’s own a priori stance can severely compromise the scientific method. It can impede inductive reasoning, a quality critical to hypothesis testing. And it can render ineffective parsimonious interpretations of the available evidence as a whole needed to construct valid scientific models.
There are several lines of counter-evidence that cast doubt on, if not patently refute, the validity of Sarich and Miele’s hypothesis that human “races” are genetically predisposed to varying levels of cognitive ability and pro-social (or anti-social) behaviors. This review focuses on the validity and parsimony of the authors’ hypothesis that human races vary in their innate predispositions toward certain social behaviors. It addresses their idea that alleged behavioral tendencies in ethnic groups are rooted in racially-linked adaptations to varying ecological environments.
More importantly, this critique challenges Sarich and Miele’s assertion that presumed race-based behavioral adaptations that occurred during the course of human micro-evolution are necessarily a direct outcome of natural selection and, therefore, are generally fixed in most members of a racial group. It should be noted, however, that Sarich and Miele do allow for individual exceptions to what they call race-based behavioral proclivities. For this reason, they endorse a meritocracy in the United States that rewards individuals on the basis of individual achievement, regardless of the individual’s “racial” heritage.
The Sarich-Miele Proposition: Fast-Track Human Evolution As Evidence of Race-Based Behavioral Adaptations
In order to evaluate the validity of the Sarich-Miele hypothesis, we must consider not only the supporting evidence presented by the authors, but also salient counter-findings that the authors have ignored. This critique considers four crucial issues within bio-evolution that bear directly on the validity, or lack thereof, of Sarich and Miele’s hypothesis about inborn, race-based behavioral traits.
1. Population-based (or race-based) differentials in the selection-driven functionality of physical, behavioral, and cognitive traits
Sarich and Miele propose that natural selection explains the origins of alleged behavioral differences along racial lines, yet, they never answer the question (in fact, they never even raise it): How do we know for certain whether a trait evolved through natural selection or instead, through a neutral evolutionary mechanism of genetic drift? This question (as well as any answers we may offer) is fundamental to understanding the adaptive significance, if any, of population-based (or race-based) differences in functional traits.
Many experts maintain that although natural selection plays a critical role in the evolutionary origin of many traits, it is not the driving force behind all biological phenomena. In fact, according to some evolutionary biologists who conduct empirical field research, genetic drift is typically assumed by default to account for most traits. Proving that natural selection is involved in the origin of a particular trait is a complicated process. Given the complexity of natural selection, it is not surprising that biologists cannot ascertain if there are long term differences in traits that have evolved through natural selection versus those that emerged through neutral selection. 3
There are other enigmas that must be sorted out as well if we are to identify the features that distinguish natural selection from neutral selection. For instance, genetic drift tends to be more influential in small populations while natural selection is more powerful in large populations. The microevolution of human races that occurred over the past 15,000 to 30,000 years affected smaller human populations. At the same time, however, natural selection had a momentous impact on the evolution of certain anatomical and physiological traits in larger geographical populations. Both genetic drift and selection could have operated in tandem to initiate the emergence of different traits in the same populations, or in clusters of geographical populations.
Positive natural selection increases fitness, which is measured in terms of survival and reproduction. However, natural selection may act on different levels of biological organization, even simultaneously at times. Classic bioevolutionary studies emphasize the influence of natural selection on individual organisms, populations, and even species. Yet, selection can also act at the level of the genome, chromosomes, and genes (DNA sequences). 4
Sarich and Miele’s treatise may have been more scientifically credible if they had clarified, even briefly, the limitation of our current scientific understanding of natural selection as the ultimate determinant of racial adaptations. To call for this clarification is neither to deny or espouse the existence of human races. Rather, it is a plea for scientific accountability: presentation of balanced pro and con evidence on the presumed functionality of race-based traits, particularly behavioral traits which the authors speculate differ along racial lines.
2. Population-based (or race-based) differentials in life history traits
Sarich and Miele do not examine the multifactorial causes—and the delicate interplay between biology and environment—that best explain population differentials in life history traits, such as rate of sexual maturation, fertility and birth rate, average number of births, and longevity. On the other hand, had they thoroughly examined the literature, they would have uncovered numerous inconsistencies in studies which show one of two things: either natural selection is not pivotally involved in the evolution of all life-history traits in human races; or life-history traits vary within the geographical mega-groups that Sarich and Meile insist on calling human races.
Consider, for instance, the rate of sexual maturation in African American girls, which is considerably faster than in girls in raised in various African populations living in Africa. 5 The mixed-race ancestry of African Americans does not account for this phenomenon. Instead, the differences in these rates appear to be linked to developmental biology. In a similar vein, Sarich and Miele cite published studies on “race and brain size” without ever mentioning the well-known limitations of these studies. According to Michael Peters of the University of Guelph in Canada, and his colleagues, researchers who indiscriminately use only one formula for measuring human skulls of different shapes are more likely to make systematic errors in measuring brain size. 6 For example, the German Formula gives a smaller average brain size for male Blacks who have dolichocephalic, or long-headed, skulls. There is a wide amount of variation in skull shapes among people of African descent—even within a single African ethnic group, or local population. Peters and his co-investigators note that the solution for producing accurate calculations for cranial size in Blacks, in particular, is to use multiple cranial size formulas. For instance, the Ainu formula places more weight on the length rather than the breadth of the skull. In one study, the cranial size of Black skulls was 1359 cm3 when using the German formula. By contrast, the same skulls of Blacks averaged 1418 cm3 when the researchers used the Ainu formula (which gives more weight to the length of the skull) . As Leonard Lieberman points out, human populations that evolved in cold climates have a more spherical brain case to prevent loss of body heat during cold weather. 7
In addition, Sarich and Miele do not consider the nature of gene expression in the genes that guide the development of neural patterning. Nor do they address the complex phenomenon of gene-environment interactions, which can result in varying manifestations of genetic proclivities. They support Spearman’s hypothesis: the claim that Blacks typically score lower on the more difficult “g-loaded” IQ test questions that are reportedly associated with abstract reasoning. However, they ignore the fact that there is no consensus among experts on precisely what g signals. In fact, leading scholars cannot even agree on which IQ test questions are more “g-loaded.” 8
3. The role of developmental biology versus population genetics in determining human cognitive and behavioral traits
In their discussion of purported inborn, race-based behavioral patterns, Sarich and Miele omit findings from several relevant fields of study that reveal the powerful role of developmental genetics in shaping human cognition and behavior. These authors fail to clarify both the evolutionary constraints and environmental influences (including psychosocial and biotic factors) that are known to affect developmental biology. Experts have shown that long term developmental biology can mimic genetic transmission in producing some traits in certain populations. Slight population differences in life-history traits such as growth and maturation, fertility, and reproductive rate in some populations may appear to be a result of population genetics—“racial genetics”—when in fact, in certain situations the ethnic differences mainly reflect varying environmental exposures.
In the United States the age of menarche in African American girls is earlier than that of European American girls. 9 However, as noted previously, a similar “precocious” onset of menstruation (“precocious” only if a White female standard is used) has not been reported in various Black African girls born and reared in West and Central African societies 10 or in East African nations. 11 Yet, some racial scientists are erroneously convinced that the earlier average age of sexual maturation seen in African American girls reflects a genetic predisposition. 12 The evidence does not support their view. Cross-cultural surveys clearly show that the age of onset of menarche varies rather widely across geographical populations and ethnic groups.
Ethnic differences in developmental patterns appear to be associated with environmental influences. Candidate environmental factors include a wide range of nutritional deficiencies; exposure to lead, fluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride used tofluoridate water; and possibly estrogenic compounds found in both soy-based infant formula and placenta-containing hair cosmetic products. 13 Preliminary findings from various studies suggest that African American infants, toddlers, and girls may be over-exposed to estrogen-like compounds, including PCB’s, from environmental toxins found in certain ethnic, placenta-containing hair products and in phytoestrogens (natural plant estrogens) found in soy-based infant formula. Compared to non-Black newborns in the United States, a higher proportion of African American babies are fed soy-based infant formula. (It should be noted, however, that even though these particular environmental factors are correlated with aberrant neurological and behavioral conditions, unequivocal cause-and-effect relationships have not been established.) While findings linking environmental toxins such as lead, silicoflourides, manganese and estrogen-like compounds to psychosexual development are inconclusive, certain environmental factors have been shown to influence testosterone and serotonin levels. Research strongly suggests that “racial” differences—especially Black/White/Asian differences in testosterone levels in men—is associated with diet and social factors such as dominance and social status. Several studies contradict the claim that variations in this male sex hormone are tied to racial genetics. 14 Similarly, population differences in the levels of key neurotransmitters—brain chemicals such as serotonin and dopamine—may be linked to environmental influences rather than race-based genetics. 15
Sarich and Miele suggest that brain size and certain other neurological traits are associated with intelligence, or cognitive performance. They draw on data that seemingly supports their claim that Black African populations and their Diasporas have smaller cranial volumes. For these authors, “race-based” differences in brain size are the result of different adaptations to different geographical climates. Nonetheless, emerging evidence increasingly counters the long-held scientific claim, if not folk belief, that Blacks are genetically wired for a smaller cranial capacity.
According to several neuroscientists, the differences reported in the brain size of populations, especially in comparative studies on White, Northeast Asian, and Black African populations, reflect developmental differences rather than inborn race-based differences. The developmental biology of the human brain is influenced by myriad environmental and epigenetic factors—complex interactions between genes and environment. These factors include not only a gamut of nutritional factors, but also environmental toxins. As noted previously, the problems of objectively measuring brain size have distorted at least some of the reported population (“race-based”) differences in brain volume.
Sarich and Miele also fail to explain critical anomalies regarding g—the “thing” that IQ tests supposedly measure—in relation to Black/White differences in IQ tests scores. First, as noted, is the fact that there is a lack of consensus among experts on which IQ test questions are more abstract—that is, allegedly more difficult to answer. 16 Second, even pro-nature researchers, including some behavioral geneticists, cannot agree among themselves on either the neurophysiological or genetic substrates of g. And third, the relatively lower heritabilities for IQ in black twins suggests that environmental forces may play a relatively greater role in influencing the average IQ scores in African Americans compared to Whites. 17
In fact, a host of counter findings strongly suggests that the wide range of IQ scores reported in African populations depends on prior academic learning, including experience with taking tests. While racialists continually point to the “African IQ of 70,” the evidence clearly indicates that African populations as a whole do not have single average IQ. There is considerable variation in average IQ scores among Black Africans, even within the same population. Ugandans living in Uganda, for example, earned an average score of 80 on the Terman Vocabulary and Kohs Blocks Test, and a score of 88 points on Raven’s Progressive Matrices. In another study, Tanzanians in Tanzania also averaged 88 points on Raven’s Progressive Matrices. 18 Note that these latter scores, while low, are slightly higher then the typically reported IQ norm for African Americans. 19
If Sarich and Miele’s hypothesis carries any weight, then it must be allow researchers to differentiate traits shaped by developmental biology from traits that are primarily under genetic control. This concern immediately raises several questions. How strong of an influence do multiple environmental forces have on the genes and haplotypes that guide developmental biology? Do genes linked to developmental biology have a higher heritability? In other words, are they less subject to natural selection and therefore more easily influenced by environmental fluctuations—both internal and external environmental forces? Can environmental change affect the gene expression of functional traits that evolved through natural selection?
Detailed answers to these questions are beyond the scope of this review. In general, however, it appears that environment can change gene expression because developmental biology is itself subject to ongoing environmental influences that act through continuous—at times competing and at times cooperating—environmental forces. Supporting evidence for this claim may explain some of the inconsistencies in research on “race-based” genes linked to testosterone and serotonin. To ignore, let alone discount, the impact of the environment on any life-history trait in humans is not simply incomplete science, but also disingenuous science. The mere act of dismissing crucial evidence in regard to scientific topics such as ethnicity and IQ—topics that have far-reaching social ramifications—borders on questionable science at best and, at its worse, fraudulent science.
4. The Role of neutral selection versus natural selection in population-based (or race-based) molecular traits associated with behavior
In the late 1960s, Motoo Kimura, a Japanese biologist, challenged the canons of evolutionary science when he stated that natural selection, particularly on the molecular level, was not necessarily a potent force in evolution. Extending the theory of genetic drift first proposed in the 1930s, Kimura argued that molecular variation was selectively neutral. Kimura focused on the randomness, or selective neutrality, of variation in proteins and DNA. The gist of his neutral theory of molecular evolution, usually called “neutral drift,” is that the vast amount of evolutionary change observed on the molecular level—the level of DNA and proteins—is driven by genetic drift rather than natural selection. This position contrasts with the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary perspective in which molecular evolution is thought to be the result of natural selection. 20 Although Kimura’s anti-selectionist position challenged the neo-Darwinian synthetic theory of evolution, his arguments were so compelling that his neutral theory was eventually incorporated into the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology. In other words, although Kimura is considered an anti-Darwinist, his theory is compatible with the tenets of neo-Darwinism. During the 1970s, leading neo-Darwinists such as Ernst Mayr critiqued the limitations of the neutral theory which, in Mayr’s initial view, did not address traits that have become fixed in a species or population. Nonetheless, Mayr’s perspective could not explain a possible relationship between random molecular variation and fitness, including cumulative DNA changes that could ultimately lead to fitness.
By the 1980s, Mayr shifted his own position, noting that an increasing number of sites in the largest molecules were found to have specific functions. For Mayr, it was only a matter of time before the function of “functionless sites” of large molecules (conceivably both nucleotide sequences and amino acids) would be discovered. As Mayr pointed out, “neutral” base-pair replacements are widespread. More importantly, however, he acknowledged that numerous alleles once thought to be neutral had “selective significance.” In so doing, Mayr gave Kimura’s neutral theory a boost of credibility within the scientific community.
At the same time, Kimura admitted that the neutral theory is inadequate in explaining Darwinian evolutionary change at the phenotypic level—the level on which a trait manifests. Instead, Kimura argued, the value of the neutral theory lies in its prediction that the most variation occurs in the functionally less critical parts of a gene. 21 According to the neutral selection theory, the functionally significant components of a molecule will change more slowly than the functionally insignificant components. This view contrasts with the Darwinian position, which predicts that evolution will be most rapid in the functionally important parts of molecules—the area where selection is strongest.
In the neutral theory, genetic drift plays a comparatively larger role than natural selection in evolutionary processes. Evolutionary change is assumed to result from genetic drift acting on neutral alleles. In neutral selection, gene variants that become more prevalent in a population may decline or even disappear through random events. On rare occasion, a neutral substitution to one of these gene variants may become “fixed” and give rise to a widespread trait. If enough new substitutions accumulate on the gene variant, the genome will evolve. However, the evolution that occurs in such a rare case results from the additive effects of neutral substitutions to the gene variant. It does not emerge through natural selection. Ironically, Sarich and Meile never mention the neutral selection theory in relation to the micro-evolution of human behavioral phenotypes. There are at least two reasons why they could have mentioned this theory in relation to their hypothesis about race-based differences in behavior. First, the early techniques used to determine the molecular clock—techniques that Sarich helped to develop—are based on the neutral theory. And second, if as Sarich and Miele claim, purported “race-base” behavioral differences reflect each “race’s” unique genetic-evolutionary history, then the molecular source—the genetics—of those differences should have been closely examined.
Consider new findings in molecular psychiatry—the study of the role of genetics in behavioral traits, or what scientists call behavioral phenotypes. Human geneticists working at the interface between molecular biology and the behavioral sciences have identified a small number of population-based (the term preferred by most mainstream researchers) polymorphisms, or differences in the genes that regulate brain chemicals involved in mood and certain social behaviors. For example, some populations differ slightly in their frequency of dopamine and serotonin gene variants linked to behavioral traits such as alcoholism, drug addiction, novelty seeking, and anxiety. 22
This line of research is highly controversial because of its potential use, or misuse, to support the existence of inborn race-based hierarchies in law-abiding behaviors, emotional stability, and even the capacity for (Western) cultural achievement. On a cautionary note, experts have yet to draw any definitive conclusions about cause-and-effect relationships between most of the neurochemical gene variants studied so far and social behaviors across a wide gamut of populations. Only a few associations have been established for individuals, and even fewer for populations. The research conducted to date typically has focused on smaller regional populations instead of huge, ill-defined social groupings that correspond to popular notions of human races. Yet, this is one of the most important arenas in which pro-race advocates such as Sarich and Miele should search if they are seeking irrefutable cause-and-effect evidence linking racial genetics and perceived ethnic behavioral patterns.
What happens when we examine the evidence produced thus far in this field? Alas, in a few cases we discover gene variants that do differ along population lines. In most cases, however, even race-based gene variants that reportedly predict certain behaviors in individuals are not consistently predictive at the group level. Whether or not an individual who carries one or more gene variants linked with socially deviant and unproductive behaviors actually manifests aberrant behaviors depends on myriad other influences, including an array of environmental factors. Moreover, there is no evidence for robust associations between specific gene variants and behaviors at the mega-population (racial) level. For the sake of argument, let us assume that Sarich and Miele are correct in their thesis about relatively rapid evolution resulting in modern human races (as some findings suggest may be the case). If so, then certain gene variants that are linked to social behaviors and that may also differ slightly along population lines become likely biological (in this case, molecular and genetic) substrates for race-based behavioral differences. If Sarich and Meile are right, this variation is the product of natural selection. Yet, the differences seen in variant genes regulating serotonin, dopamine, and testosterone, as well as other genes involved in brain chemical and hormonal production, may reflect molecular variation. From the vantage of Kimura’s neutral theory, the molecular differences in these gene variants are a prime example of neutral evolutionary change. Granted, preliminary findings from a recent study suggest that selection may operate at the molecular level. 23 (see Yaris, 2002.) However, in many (though certainly not all) cases, evolutionary changes appear to have resulted from molecular genetic drift rather than selection, whether natural selection or sexual selection. 24
Conclusion
Although an in-depth analysis of the “neutralist-selectionist” debate is outside the purview of this critique, this debate is relevant to the assertions made in Sarich and Miele’s Race: The Reality of Human Differences. The central question is not whether or not natural selection accounts for certain traits in human populations since it clearly does. Instead, the paramount concern is over the relative proportion of neutral and selected, or non-neutral, alleles that determine traits. If a trait emerged through selection, the trait can be assumed to have fitness and functionality. However, if it arose through genetic drift, then it is neutral in terms of fitness. By definition it could not have evolved as an adaptation. Moreover, because neutral traits are not normally fixed, they can decrease in frequency or even vanish in a given population over time. Are neutral genetic traits linked to mood and behavior more influenced by the environment than selected traits? This would appear to be the case—after all selected traits are fixed. This idea is consistent with the neutral theory, which states that evolution at the molecular level is non-adaptive. In fact, research in molecular psychiatry suggests that this may well be the case. This also may explain numerous inconsistencies in the relationship between, on the one hand, serotonin- and dopamine-related genes and, on the other hand, certain mood and behavioral states across ethnic populations. 25
This does not mean that population differences found at the molecular level, including gene variants implicated in human psychosocial behaviors, are irrelevant. They are. However, population variance at the molecular level is more likely the outcome of random evolutionary processes. The point here is that within the context of molecular micro-evolution, human population differences—“racial differences”—in gene variants linked with mood and behavior may not be unchangeable or fixed as in the case of a physical traits shaped by natural selection. A growing body of research suggests that a wide array of environmental factors can significantly affect the manner in which a particular gene, or gene variant, is expressed.
An introductory level treatise such as Race: The Reality of Human Differences cannot be expected to be comprehensive, but surely it is not prudent to overlook salient data, including important counter-data. To ignore the profound implications of developmental biology when talking about race-based differences in behavior is to offer bold, if not ludicrous, claims that often have no basis in reality. This misguided process renders scientific inquiry a frivolous pursuit of “perilous notions.” By relying on assertions more than arguments throughout much of their text, Sarich and Miele unwittingly do scientific inquiry an injustice. While some of their material may be new to some readers, the misleading information, if not unfounded contentions, that plagues much of their text is disappointing. Despite their best intentions to present an objective, scientifically informed discussion of human race, Race: The Reality of Human Differences ironically may only further the “scientific dumbing down of America.
----------------------------------------
RECAP Faheem “DUMBER” said: The climatic tropical zone is limited to mostly western and central sub-sahara africa.
The definition of tropical you are using has no link to climate. You're using the definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year --- a completely bogus definition in regards to population biology, and physical anthropology.
LMAO. The only thing that supposedly "connects" your "tropical" africans is the fact they can see the sun directly overhead during the year. You self admit your definition is bogus, and has nothing to do with climate.
Only Green = tropical climate.
Instead your bogus "Tropical africans" are just populations that happen to dwell in an area that can overhead see the sun.
Dumbass.. Are you even in touch with elementary reality? The map I gave you below DOES use the Koppen system. DUH.. The tropics of Cancer and Capricorn denote a climatic zone fool.. DUH.. . You want to deny this because it debunks your bogus “white Egypt” and “Caucasoid African” or “Hamitic” claims. The green areas in your map show ONE TYPE of tropical micro-climate. Different authors use different terminology to denote a classification by rainfall, season, mean temperature etc.. but it makes no difference. Wetness, coolness, dryness, rainfall, temp, season, mix and match- makes no difference. They are all variants WITHIN the tropics as the Koppen climate map below shows.
And dummy, the labels "tropical wet" and tropical wet/dry" on your map all identify areas WITHIN the larger tropical zone. Your own Koppen map shows this- you keep debunking your own argument fool... DUH....
Btw Zaharan, not even Keita uses your stupid terminology based on who can see the sun in the sky. He uses the term "Saharo-Tropical African Variant" (1981).
Hapless dullard! Must we yet again instruct you? Keita uses "tropical" yes- to identify those in the SAHARAN area that were tropical. Got it? He STILL identifies them as tropical. DUH.. And you are even more incompetent in your citation. Keita did not use the terminology in "1981" as you claim. Learn to cite accurately. End of today's lesson. Quote:
”The Tropic of Cancer and The Tropic of Capricorn The Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn each lie at 23.5 degrees latitude. The Tropic of Cancer is located at 23.5° North of the equator and runs through Mexico, the Bahamas, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, and southern China. The Tropic of Capricorn lies at 23.5° South of the equator and runs through Australia, Chile, southern Brazil (Brazil is the only country that passes through both the equator and a tropic), and northern South Africa. The tropics are the two lines where the sun is directly overhead at noon on the two solstices - near June and December 21. The sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Cancer on June 21 (the beginning of summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of winter in the Southern Hemisphere) and the sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Capricorn on December 21 (the beginning of winter in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of summer in the Southern Hemisphere). The reason for the location of the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn at 23.5° north and south respectively is due to the axial tilt of the Earth. The Earth is titled 23.5 degrees from the plane of the Earth's revolution around the sun each year. The area bounded by the Tropic of Cancer on the north and Tropic of Capricorn on the south is known as the "tropics." --From worldAtlas.com and Geographic Information - Page 33 Jenny Marie Johnson - 2003
Why do you think they are called the TROPIC of Cancer and the TROPIC of Capricorn? You big dummy…
You're using the definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year --- a completely bogus definition in regards to population biology, and physical anthropology.
No stupid mothafuck. The definition, which I posted long ago is shown below. You are so stupid it went over your head. ANd do you realize that you continually debunk yourself with your "refutations"? The lines where the sun is directly overhead mark out the tropics which is defined by thermal requirements and, as the standard definition shows below, include jungle, deserts and mountainous highlands, at temperatures that can be quite cool and even a non-thermally depressed winter season. You claim the tropics is only jungle but your are such an idiot you cannot even understand basic geography.
And you can't even spin your bogus claims right- dummy. The marking of the tropics is not where the sun is overhead "once during the solar year." Idiot, the markers are the TWO lines where the sun is directly overhead at noon on the two solstices - near June and December 21. That's TWICE.. at TWO separate marking points, and everything within is the tropics.. DUH..
QUOTE:
"The thermal requirement for a tropical climate is considered to be an average mean temperature above 18 degrees C for the coldest month. Within this average, tropics are also marked by receiving a large amount of solar radiation throughout the year with no true or distinct winter season. Tropics not only include jungle, but deserts and mountainous highlands as well. The cooler local temperatures of these highlands are still within the overall averages, and are still part of the tropic zone, receiving high levels of solar radiation and not having a thermally depressed winter season. (Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995)." --Kumar et al. 1999. Biodeterioration of Stone in Tropical Environments and Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995. HUmid Tropical Environments. WIley PUb.
Maybe you can get help with map reading, indeed basic reading wanker boy..
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Actually I made no such statement. You are simply lying again as you usually do.
-- only 8 edits on your "Zaharan10" account, and you just so happened to comment on Big-dynamo's page board.
You've had over 20 accounts on wikipedia, most are banned though since you were trolling the ancient egyptian race page. On "Zaharan10" you add an AC/DC rock fan icon to try and pass yourself off as someone else. lol. I'm surprised they didn't IP that account and add it to your banning list of sockpuppets.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: You're simply wrong about taxonomy having any consistency and objectivity. As I and the multiple sources I have used in this thread have stated, it is an arbitrary discipline. Hunt (2008) explains how this arbitrariness is self-sustaining due to the equivalent nomenclature being applied to various different concepts.
Taxonomy doesn't deal with crisp sets, but partial (fuzzy) truths:
"According to Simpson (1961), the recognition of subspecies taxa is appropiate if this happens to be useful to the taxonomist, and it will be if there is some nonarbitrary element of definition of the groupings concerned. A grouping may be considered as real and as existing in nature rather than in the taxonomist's mind if three-fourths of the subspecies in adjacent subspecies are unequivocally determinable." (Hulse, 1975)
Back to the law of similaritiy, if races resemble each other more than others then they are worthy of a taxonomic recognition through Amadon's rule. They are not arbitrary as they have predictive value. This means there is an element of objectivity to them. If it was just any Joe Bloggs carving up organisms into x, y, z with no pattern/truth then the taxonomy would be of no use and have no predictive value.
And you have yet to show a contradiction in Linneaus.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
"The subdivisions of the animal and plant kingdoms established by Linnaeus are, with few exceptions, retained in the modern classification, and this despite the enormous number of new forms discovered since then. These new forms were either included in the Linnaean groups, or else new groups were created to accommodate them. There has been no necessity for a basic change in the classification. [T]he only inference that can be drawn from it is that the classification now adopted is not an arbitrary but a natural one, reflecting the objective state of things." (Dobzhansky, 1937)
-- If according to you taxonomy is 100% arbitrary, why haven't dogs been clustered with trees? Or flies with cabbages?
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: You're simply wrong about taxonomy having any consistency and objectivity. As I and the multiple sources I have used in this thread have stated, it is an arbitrary discipline. Hunt (2008) explains how this arbitrariness is self-sustaining due to the equivalent nomenclature being applied to various different concepts.
Taxonomy doesn't deal with crisp sets, but partial (fuzzy) truths:
"According to Simpson (1961), the recognition of subspecies taxa is appropiate if this happens to be useful to the taxonomist, and it will be if there is some nonarbitrary element of definition of the groupings concerned. A grouping may be considered as real and as existing in nature rather than in the taxonomist's mind if three-fourths of the subspecies in adjacent subspecies are unequivocally determinable." (Hulse, 1975)
Back to the law of similaritiy, if races resemble each other more than others then they are worthy of a taxonomic recognition through Amadon's rule. They are not arbitrary as they have predictive value. This means there is an element of objectivity to them. If it was just any Joe Bloggs carving up organisms into x, y, z with no pattern/truth then the taxonomy would be of no use and have no predictive value.
And you have yet to show a contradiction in Linneaus.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: "The subdivisions of the animal and plant kingdoms established by Linnaeus are, with few exceptions, retained in the modern classification, and this despite the enormous number of new forms discovered since then. These new forms were either included in the Linnaean groups, or else new groups were created to accommodate them. There has been no necessity for a basic change in the classification. [T]he only inference that can be drawn from it is that the classification now adopted is not an arbitrary but a natural one, reflecting the objective state of things." (Dobzhansky, 1937)
-- If according to you taxonomy is 100% arbitrary, why haven't dogs been clustered with trees? Or flies with cabbages?
All my recent quotes have demonstrated the arbitrary, contradictory and inconsistent nature of Linnean taxonomy. There is really no point in quoting a 75-year-old and almost 40-year-old article because they do not refute the articles written within the last 3 years. You're commenting without refuting.
Need I refer you, again, to the quote saying the 75% figure is arbitrary in itself? As I have explained, I can differentiate between things using multiple different and non-concordant systems; being able to differentiate is meaningless if only one system is arbitrarily prioritised over the innumerable range of other systems.
Need I refer you, again, to my comprehensive refutation of fuzzy sets as objective systems?
Numerous things have predictability, as numerous things have specific geographies.
"As summarized by Bertrand et al. (2006), rank allocation is complex and is dictated by many requirements, some of which conflict with each other, and none of which is absolute."
"The Linnean hierarchy was introduced in a pre-evolutionary paradigm, and there is no necessity to stick desperately to it. Systematics and taxonomy in an evolutionary paradigm have to come up with reproducible results and testable conclusions. Linnean ranks are useful for neither! These ranks appear to be of no benefit other than that we are used to them."
"To make that point clearer, evolutionary models under which such categories would be natural are presented and are shown to be highly unrealistic and to lack empirical support. Under all realistic evolutionary models, ranking of taxa into Linnaean categories is highly subjective."
"Absolute (Linnaean) ranks are essential to rank-based nomenclature (RN), which has been used by the vast majority of systematists for the last 150 years. They are widely recognized as being subjective among taxonomists. but not necessarily in other fields. "
Refer to the Avise and Liu study for a quantitative demonstration of the inconsistent and arbitrary nature of Linnean taxonomy. Reread my other quotes. Also read the quote regarding Hunt's (2008) semantic illusion of consistency.
"Given that the absolute rank assignment of taxa is subjective, ranking and delimitation of taxa can vary substantially between authors, or even between papers by a single author."
They haven't been clustered that way because people have been raised in an academic environment that, due to tradition and NOT an objective system, does not classify them like that. As the quotes above have demonstrated, people stick to the traditional paradigm, regardless of its [lack of] objectivity.
All the quotes have explained why it has been retained, despite being a subjective and arbitrary system. Read the fucking quotes; its retention does not support your position.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Your quotes all come back to the same fallacy:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
"You don't 'look like' your father either.
Yes I do. Offspring resemble their parents, this is the law of hereditary, as was stated pages back:
"Individuals of population x, closer resemble other individuals of that population when compared to y. You are still running away from this empirical fact. I look a heck of a lot more similar to my father than a Sub-Saharan African Pygmy or a Native American."
-- Through their similarity, we can cluster aggregates of individuals based on their resemblences. They are not social constructs.
Any two Scandinavians resemble each other closer than an East Asian.
"On average, the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese are more similar to each other and are different from Australians, Israelis and the Swedes, who in turn are similar to each other and are different from Nigerians, Kenyans, and Jamaicans. Of course, individuals vary greatly within each racial group. It is correct to point out that the variation within each race is extremely large, that there is disagreement as to exactly how many races there are, and that there is a blurring of category edges because of admixture. But it is an error when critics claim that classifications are arbitrary." (Rushton, 1998)
Taxonomy merely is the science that classifies based on similarities. They clearly have an element of objectivity because individuals of population x, closer resemble other individuals of that population when compared to y.
Races are just geographical populations. So as Levin (2002) remarks unless you want to deny Sub-Sahara Africa and Europe exist -- races are realities.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Need I refer you, again, to the quote saying the 75% figure is arbitrary in itself? As I have explained, I can differentiate between things using multiple different and non-concordant systems; being able to differentiate is meaningless if only one system is arbitrarily prioritised over the innumerable range of other systems.
This is just another lame race denial fallacy (very boring). There are no other systems or methods that will produce different categorization. See McCulloch (2002).
Are you saying an East Asian individual resembles a Scandinavian more than another Scandinavian? Does a cat to you cluster with an apple or fly before another cat?
Why according to you can't individuals be clustered and there be an objective basis?
The answer is because your entire worldview is boolean (0, 1). Aristotle who crisp sets are tracable to even criticised them with the example of the battles:
A battle/attack will happen (1) A battle/attack will not happen (2)
However aristotle noted a 3rd category of answer could be a battle/attack may happen. In other words categorizes can be partially true/objective.
According to your flawed logic, something is either objective or arbitrary. You dismiss partial objectivity or answers in between.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Need I refer you, again, to the quote saying the 75% figure is arbitrary in itself? As I have explained, I can differentiate between things using multiple different and non-concordant systems; being able to differentiate is meaningless if only one system is arbitrarily prioritised over the innumerable range of other systems.
This is just another lame race denial fallacy (very boring). There are no other systems or methods that will produce different categorization. See McCulloch (2002).
Are you saying an East Asian individual resembles a Scandinavian more than another Scandinavian? Does a cat to you cluster with an apple or fly before another cat?
Why according to you can't individuals be clustered and there be an objective basis?
The answer is because your entire worldview is boolean (0, 1). Aristotle who crisp sets are tracable to even criticised them with the example of the battles:
A battle/attack will happen (1) A battle/attack will not happen (2)
However aristotle noted a 3rd category of answer could be a battle/attack may happen. In other words categorizes can be partially true/objective.
According to your flawed logic, something is either objective or arbitrary. You dismiss partial objectivity or answers in between.
When you learn to directly respond to a quote and continue a previous discussion, get back to me. I'm quite bored of your continuing invocation of arguments I have already refuted.
I have addressed everything you have to say and you seem unable to directly respond; instead, you continue to pose questions that I have already answered. You continue to ramble on about 'false definitions' and 'fallacies' but find yourself completely unable to demonstrate how they violate Sarich and Miele's specific definition. You go from saying philosophy is pseudo-science on TSR to having a philosophical discussion about fuzzy sets and logic here, then saying philosophy is 'garbage' and now you're back to philosophy again.
You're washed up.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Your quotes all come back to the same fallacy:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
"You don't 'look like' your father either.
Yes I do. Offspring resemble their parents, this is the law of hereditary, as was stated pages back:
"Individuals of population x, closer resemble other individuals of that population when compared to y. You are still running away from this empirical fact. I look a heck of a lot more similar to my father than a Sub-Saharan African Pygmy or a Native American."
-- Through their similarity, we can cluster aggregates of individuals based on their resemblences. They are not social constructs.
Any two Scandinavians resemble each other closer than an East Asian.
"On average, the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese are more similar to each other and are different from Australians, Israelis and the Swedes, who in turn are similar to each other and are different from Nigerians, Kenyans, and Jamaicans. Of course, individuals vary greatly within each racial group. It is correct to point out that the variation within each race is extremely large, that there is disagreement as to exactly how many races there are, and that there is a blurring of category edges because of admixture. But it is an error when critics claim that classifications are arbitrary." (Rushton, 1998)
Taxonomy merely is the science that classifies based on similarities. They clearly have an element of objectivity because individuals of population x, closer resemble other individuals of that population when compared to y.
Races are just geographical populations. So as Levin (2002) remarks unless you want to deny Sub-Sahara Africa and Europe exist -- races are realities.
I've demonstrated fuzzy sets are arbitrary. If you are unwilling or unable to respond to my post where I explained where I disagreed with your divisions, your entire argument is baseless.
Do you even read my posts? Some of the questions you're asking and points you're raising have been answered and refuted several pages ago. The argument terminated due to your inability to respond, and now you are going back to square one by repeating your same same initial argument. What is wrong with you? Try continuing from where we left off instead of asking a question that I've already answered and we've already discussed.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by FAHEEM- dumber u made that statement here:
^Actually "zarahan10" is not my account on Wikipedia. "zarahan" is actually a fairly common name in some places. You simply lied again. Strange that you find so much time to look up old user names of people but never get around to any choherent or logical answers to Badmintish's incisive questions. WHat's sa matter? Attempting to create a diversionary smokescreen to hide your failures? Sorry, you can't escape. You fail again? And why are you ducking the questions Badmuntish raised? Why are you running away wanker boy?
RECAP:
The Adaptionist Yardstick: Rethinking the Social Implications of Sarich’s and Miele’s Fast-Track Micro-Evolution A REVIEW BY ALONDRA OUBRÉ
IN RACE: THE REALITY OF HUMAN DIFFERENCES, Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele attempt to prove the existence of human biological races in a discourse that challenges the claims made in the PBS documentary, Race: the Power of an Illusion. Drawing on research in paleoanthropology, molecular anthropology, genetics, and to some extent, history, Sarich and Miele endeavor to trace the origin of race as a biological construct. They claim that “human racial differences are both real and significant,” not only in regard to physical traits, but also (and perhaps more importantly), to cognitive and behavioral traits. Sarich and Miele assert that human social behaviors, which they contend differ along racial lines, are functional adaptations that emerged fairly quickly in each “race” as a result of natural selection.
While much of their presentation is based on well-known scientific studies, their work is distinguished by their seminal claim that contemporary biological races of modern humans, Homo sapiens, evolved rapidly within a time span of only 50,000 years. The notion that modern human races are not more than 50,000 years old, and perhaps only 15,000 years old, represents a radical departure from the conventional wisdom that until quite recently has dominated the field of human bioevolution. Sarich and Miele offer noteworthy findings to support a revised, indeed a considerably shorter, timeline for the making of modern human “races” (or, more accurately, geographical mega-populations).
However, it is their interpretation of what a revamped timeline of this sort signals for “racial adaptations”—alleged race-based functional differences—that potentially places Race: The Reality of Human Differences in the controversial realm of racialist writings—the genre of modern scientific racism. Race meets the main criterion that defines a pro-race work. It incisively embraces the perspective that human races are valid biological categories, despite the fact that they remain fuzzy sets, at best, without clearly defined borders.
Yet it may be unfair to label Race as intrinsically racialist simply because the authors maintain that human races are a biological reality. To their credit, Sarich and Miele base their conclusion not on a whimsical ideological stance of fear-based “race realism” (as some folk in the pro-race camp label themselves), but instead on a broad (though arbitrarily selected) cross-section of published research in biological sciences. Nonetheless, the relevance of some of their supporting evidence is open to debate. Codifying selective research findings that appear to lend credibility to one’s hypothesis is one thing. Formulating a compelling theory that successfully explains contradictions to one’s own hypothesis (in other words, that can account for anomalies in various sets of data) is quite another.
In a casual journalistic style designed to entice the average lay reader, Sarich and Miele cover a wide array of topics which, though pertinent, are not well integrated into a cohesive thesis. Although the book is one of the latest additions to scientifically-informed books on race-realism, it lacks the focus, cogency, and conviction, if you will, of writings in the “new racial science,” perhaps best embodied in Richard Herrnstein’s and Charles Murray’s 1994 The Bell Curve.
As staunch proponents of the race concept, both Sarich and Miele claim that human races are biological phenomena and not, as those in the anti-race camp proclaim, only social constructs. Sarich and Miele hold impressive track records in their respective fields of academia and journalism that should make them, individually and combined, qualified to write this book. Sarich, after all, attained widespread acclaim in the scientific community after he and his then senior co-worker, Alan Wilson, of the University of California at Berkeley, recalculated the evolutionary timeline of the ape-hominid divergence using immunological data (in this case, proteins) rather than fossil evidence. 1 Sarich (who has graduate level training in chemistry) was one of the first physical anthropologists to apply quantitative laboratory techniques used in biological sciences, particularly molecular biology, to paleoanthropology—the study of fossil remains of human ancestors. Sarich has earned a legitimate place in the halls of biological anthropology as that rare icon who (at least during the early part of his career) helped catalyze the cross-fertilization of several fields, namely biochemistry, genetics, and osteology.
Although Sarich’s critics may point out, and correctly so, that his empirical research experience is limited, he is nonetheless well-respected by his peers across the political spectrum for his intellectual contributions to theoretical and conceptual developments in molecular anthropology. On more than one occasion, Sarich has been right in his predictions—his “scientific hunches”—even after his colleagues thought him wrong. For example, during the 1990s Sarich insisted that the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) timeline estimated for the divergence of human races (or more accurately, human populations) was longer than that projected at that time by Alan Wilson, Mark Stoneking, and Rebecca Cann. Sarich appeared initially to be way off the mark, but the data eventually proved his position to be correct. In an analogous situation, over the past decade Sarich has publicly stated that the timeline for the micro-evolution, or differentiation, of modern human races is much shorter than scientists ever thought possible. 2 As the research summaries presented in Race reveal, once again Sarich’s maverick position on a temporal event in human bioevolution may have some validation, even in the face of initial opposition.
In like manner, Frank Miele is not just another science writer. Miele’s curriculum vitae is several cuts above the vast majority of science journalists, particularly those who focus on race and human evolution, for several reasons. As Senior Editor of Skeptic magazine, Miele has interviewed a coterie of highly public (if not controversial) scientists, including E.O. Wilson, Charles Murray, Richard Dawkins, and Arthur Jensen. Miele’s knowledge of evolutionary biology, including its contentious spin-off field of evolutionary psychology (and its sister field, sociobiology) is not entirely self-taught, however. Earlier in his career, Miele pursued graduate studies in psychology, including subfields of behavioral genetics and psychometrics, at the University of Georgia. During his tenure as an undergraduate student majoring in psychology, he was published in journals such as Mankind Quarterly (which, incidentally, is one of the premier voices of academic racial science). More recently, Miele has collaborated on scholarly projects with Richard Lynn, a British racial scientist and eugenicist.
Regardless of any controversy that may surround Sarich and Miele, the pivotal issue at stake here is not whether or not human races per se exist, regardless of what biological criteria are used to define a race. Rather, the crux of their book, I submit, is the assertion that over the past 15,000 to 30,000 years, modern human races evolved different sets of behavioral traits because each race was subjected to differing ecological selection pressures. Many experts agree that natural selection was the predominant Darwinian force that determined which traits were adaptive for a given population, or local geographical race, in a given environment. According to Sarich and Miele, however, natural selection not only shaped the physical traits that distinguish different populations, but it also drove the emergence of certain social behavioral patterns that (allegedly) vary from one “race” to another.
The implications of Sarich and Miele’s contention are staggering. If true, they suggest that what appear to be ethnic behavioral styles are linked more to inborn racial genetic tendencies than to nongenetic causes—that is, environmental and developmental causes. In the tradition of the post-Jensenian contemporary racial scholars, Sarich and Meile imply, rather meekly, that ethnic disparities in educational, economic, vocational, and social achievement are the result of race-based differences in physical and behavioral traits. Furthermore, they maintain that because these traits evolved through natural selection acting on the level of the population (which for them is tantamount to race), social behaviors are generally fixed and unchangeable in any population. The authors make this assertion while ignoring a wide array of environmental constraints as well as the impact of environmental influences known to affect human developmental biology, including the soft-wiring of the brain.
If Sarich and Miele’s goal is to garner praise from their own choir—“hard” and “softer” race-realists alike—for an eclipsed (and thus potentially distorted) canon of the origin of modern human races, they may have succeeded. If, however, their intent is to advance a substantive, data-driven argument for the evolutionary-genetic origins of race-based behavioral traits—traits which they seem to think are “fixed” by natural selection—then they have short-changed their readers (on “both sides” of this fierce debate). The predictive power and scientific valence of their assertions must ultimately be gauged by the strength of the replicable empirical evidence used to buttress their arguments.
In the final analysis, Sarich and Miele may have failed to persuade a significant portion of their readers not because they have taken a (presumably) politically incorrect position. Rather, their treatise falls short because they have opted to pander a “mainstream public” that is (understandably) irritated by growing ethnic gaps in social performance rather than uphold the rigor of the scientific process. Although portions of their presentation may be entertaining (especially to dog lovers), Sarich and Miele ignore a wealth of pertinent research findings that must be considered in any discourse on group differences, particularly differences in such highly valued human traits as intelligence and social behaviors. Regardless of one’s position on the race-genes-and-ability debate, omitting salient counter-findings that go against the grain of one’s own a priori stance can severely compromise the scientific method. It can impede inductive reasoning, a quality critical to hypothesis testing. And it can render ineffective parsimonious interpretations of the available evidence as a whole needed to construct valid scientific models.
There are several lines of counter-evidence that cast doubt on, if not patently refute, the validity of Sarich and Miele’s hypothesis that human “races” are genetically predisposed to varying levels of cognitive ability and pro-social (or anti-social) behaviors. This review focuses on the validity and parsimony of the authors’ hypothesis that human races vary in their innate predispositions toward certain social behaviors. It addresses their idea that alleged behavioral tendencies in ethnic groups are rooted in racially-linked adaptations to varying ecological environments.
More importantly, this critique challenges Sarich and Miele’s assertion that presumed race-based behavioral adaptations that occurred during the course of human micro-evolution are necessarily a direct outcome of natural selection and, therefore, are generally fixed in most members of a racial group. It should be noted, however, that Sarich and Miele do allow for individual exceptions to what they call race-based behavioral proclivities. For this reason, they endorse a meritocracy in the United States that rewards individuals on the basis of individual achievement, regardless of the individual’s “racial” heritage.
The Sarich-Miele Proposition: Fast-Track Human Evolution As Evidence of Race-Based Behavioral Adaptations
In order to evaluate the validity of the Sarich-Miele hypothesis, we must consider not only the supporting evidence presented by the authors, but also salient counter-findings that the authors have ignored. This critique considers four crucial issues within bio-evolution that bear directly on the validity, or lack thereof, of Sarich and Miele’s hypothesis about inborn, race-based behavioral traits.
1. Population-based (or race-based) differentials in the selection-driven functionality of physical, behavioral, and cognitive traits
Sarich and Miele propose that natural selection explains the origins of alleged behavioral differences along racial lines, yet, they never answer the question (in fact, they never even raise it): How do we know for certain whether a trait evolved through natural selection or instead, through a neutral evolutionary mechanism of genetic drift? This question (as well as any answers we may offer) is fundamental to understanding the adaptive significance, if any, of population-based (or race-based) differences in functional traits.
Many experts maintain that although natural selection plays a critical role in the evolutionary origin of many traits, it is not the driving force behind all biological phenomena. In fact, according to some evolutionary biologists who conduct empirical field research, genetic drift is typically assumed by default to account for most traits. Proving that natural selection is involved in the origin of a particular trait is a complicated process. Given the complexity of natural selection, it is not surprising that biologists cannot ascertain if there are long term differences in traits that have evolved through natural selection versus those that emerged through neutral selection. 3
There are other enigmas that must be sorted out as well if we are to identify the features that distinguish natural selection from neutral selection. For instance, genetic drift tends to be more influential in small populations while natural selection is more powerful in large populations. The microevolution of human races that occurred over the past 15,000 to 30,000 years affected smaller human populations. At the same time, however, natural selection had a momentous impact on the evolution of certain anatomical and physiological traits in larger geographical populations. Both genetic drift and selection could have operated in tandem to initiate the emergence of different traits in the same populations, or in clusters of geographical populations.
Positive natural selection increases fitness, which is measured in terms of survival and reproduction. However, natural selection may act on different levels of biological organization, even simultaneously at times. Classic bioevolutionary studies emphasize the influence of natural selection on individual organisms, populations, and even species. Yet, selection can also act at the level of the genome, chromosomes, and genes (DNA sequences). 4
Sarich and Miele’s treatise may have been more scientifically credible if they had clarified, even briefly, the limitation of our current scientific understanding of natural selection as the ultimate determinant of racial adaptations. To call for this clarification is neither to deny or espouse the existence of human races. Rather, it is a plea for scientific accountability: presentation of balanced pro and con evidence on the presumed functionality of race-based traits, particularly behavioral traits which the authors speculate differ along racial lines.
2. Population-based (or race-based) differentials in life history traits
Sarich and Miele do not examine the multifactorial causes—and the delicate interplay between biology and environment—that best explain population differentials in life history traits, such as rate of sexual maturation, fertility and birth rate, average number of births, and longevity. On the other hand, had they thoroughly examined the literature, they would have uncovered numerous inconsistencies in studies which show one of two things: either natural selection is not pivotally involved in the evolution of all life-history traits in human races; or life-history traits vary within the geographical mega-groups that Sarich and Meile insist on calling human races.
Consider, for instance, the rate of sexual maturation in African American girls, which is considerably faster than in girls in raised in various African populations living in Africa. 5 The mixed-race ancestry of African Americans does not account for this phenomenon. Instead, the differences in these rates appear to be linked to developmental biology. In a similar vein, Sarich and Miele cite published studies on “race and brain size” without ever mentioning the well-known limitations of these studies. According to Michael Peters of the University of Guelph in Canada, and his colleagues, researchers who indiscriminately use only one formula for measuring human skulls of different shapes are more likely to make systematic errors in measuring brain size. 6 For example, the German Formula gives a smaller average brain size for male Blacks who have dolichocephalic, or long-headed, skulls. There is a wide amount of variation in skull shapes among people of African descent—even within a single African ethnic group, or local population. Peters and his co-investigators note that the solution for producing accurate calculations for cranial size in Blacks, in particular, is to use multiple cranial size formulas. For instance, the Ainu formula places more weight on the length rather than the breadth of the skull. In one study, the cranial size of Black skulls was 1359 cm3 when using the German formula. By contrast, the same skulls of Blacks averaged 1418 cm3 when the researchers used the Ainu formula (which gives more weight to the length of the skull) . As Leonard Lieberman points out, human populations that evolved in cold climates have a more spherical brain case to prevent loss of body heat during cold weather. 7
In addition, Sarich and Miele do not consider the nature of gene expression in the genes that guide the development of neural patterning. Nor do they address the complex phenomenon of gene-environment interactions, which can result in varying manifestations of genetic proclivities. They support Spearman’s hypothesis: the claim that Blacks typically score lower on the more difficult “g-loaded” IQ test questions that are reportedly associated with abstract reasoning. However, they ignore the fact that there is no consensus among experts on precisely what g signals. In fact, leading scholars cannot even agree on which IQ test questions are more “g-loaded.” 8
3. The role of developmental biology versus population genetics in determining human cognitive and behavioral traits
In their discussion of purported inborn, race-based behavioral patterns, Sarich and Miele omit findings from several relevant fields of study that reveal the powerful role of developmental genetics in shaping human cognition and behavior. These authors fail to clarify both the evolutionary constraints and environmental influences (including psychosocial and biotic factors) that are known to affect developmental biology. Experts have shown that long term developmental biology can mimic genetic transmission in producing some traits in certain populations. Slight population differences in life-history traits such as growth and maturation, fertility, and reproductive rate in some populations may appear to be a result of population genetics—“racial genetics”—when in fact, in certain situations the ethnic differences mainly reflect varying environmental exposures.
In the United States the age of menarche in African American girls is earlier than that of European American girls. 9 However, as noted previously, a similar “precocious” onset of menstruation (“precocious” only if a White female standard is used) has not been reported in various Black African girls born and reared in West and Central African societies 10 or in East African nations. 11 Yet, some racial scientists are erroneously convinced that the earlier average age of sexual maturation seen in African American girls reflects a genetic predisposition. 12 The evidence does not support their view. Cross-cultural surveys clearly show that the age of onset of menarche varies rather widely across geographical populations and ethnic groups.
Ethnic differences in developmental patterns appear to be associated with environmental influences. Candidate environmental factors include a wide range of nutritional deficiencies; exposure to lead, fluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride used tofluoridate water; and possibly estrogenic compounds found in both soy-based infant formula and placenta-containing hair cosmetic products. 13 Preliminary findings from various studies suggest that African American infants, toddlers, and girls may be over-exposed to estrogen-like compounds, including PCB’s, from environmental toxins found in certain ethnic, placenta-containing hair products and in phytoestrogens (natural plant estrogens) found in soy-based infant formula. Compared to non-Black newborns in the United States, a higher proportion of African American babies are fed soy-based infant formula. (It should be noted, however, that even though these particular environmental factors are correlated with aberrant neurological and behavioral conditions, unequivocal cause-and-effect relationships have not been established.) While findings linking environmental toxins such as lead, silicoflourides, manganese and estrogen-like compounds to psychosexual development are inconclusive, certain environmental factors have been shown to influence testosterone and serotonin levels. Research strongly suggests that “racial” differences—especially Black/White/Asian differences in testosterone levels in men—is associated with diet and social factors such as dominance and social status. Several studies contradict the claim that variations in this male sex hormone are tied to racial genetics. 14 Similarly, population differences in the levels of key neurotransmitters—brain chemicals such as serotonin and dopamine—may be linked to environmental influences rather than race-based genetics. 15
Sarich and Miele suggest that brain size and certain other neurological traits are associated with intelligence, or cognitive performance. They draw on data that seemingly supports their claim that Black African populations and their Diasporas have smaller cranial volumes. For these authors, “race-based” differences in brain size are the result of different adaptations to different geographical climates. Nonetheless, emerging evidence increasingly counters the long-held scientific claim, if not folk belief, that Blacks are genetically wired for a smaller cranial capacity.
According to several neuroscientists, the differences reported in the brain size of populations, especially in comparative studies on White, Northeast Asian, and Black African populations, reflect developmental differences rather than inborn race-based differences. The developmental biology of the human brain is influenced by myriad environmental and epigenetic factors—complex interactions between genes and environment. These factors include not only a gamut of nutritional factors, but also environmental toxins. As noted previously, the problems of objectively measuring brain size have distorted at least some of the reported population (“race-based”) differences in brain volume.
Sarich and Miele also fail to explain critical anomalies regarding g—the “thing” that IQ tests supposedly measure—in relation to Black/White differences in IQ tests scores. First, as noted, is the fact that there is a lack of consensus among experts on which IQ test questions are more abstract—that is, allegedly more difficult to answer. 16 Second, even pro-nature researchers, including some behavioral geneticists, cannot agree among themselves on either the neurophysiological or genetic substrates of g. And third, the relatively lower heritabilities for IQ in black twins suggests that environmental forces may play a relatively greater role in influencing the average IQ scores in African Americans compared to Whites. 17
In fact, a host of counter findings strongly suggests that the wide range of IQ scores reported in African populations depends on prior academic learning, including experience with taking tests. While racialists continually point to the “African IQ of 70,” the evidence clearly indicates that African populations as a whole do not have single average IQ. There is considerable variation in average IQ scores among Black Africans, even within the same population. Ugandans living in Uganda, for example, earned an average score of 80 on the Terman Vocabulary and Kohs Blocks Test, and a score of 88 points on Raven’s Progressive Matrices. In another study, Tanzanians in Tanzania also averaged 88 points on Raven’s Progressive Matrices. 18 Note that these latter scores, while low, are slightly higher then the typically reported IQ norm for African Americans. 19
If Sarich and Miele’s hypothesis carries any weight, then it must be allow researchers to differentiate traits shaped by developmental biology from traits that are primarily under genetic control. This concern immediately raises several questions. How strong of an influence do multiple environmental forces have on the genes and haplotypes that guide developmental biology? Do genes linked to developmental biology have a higher heritability? In other words, are they less subject to natural selection and therefore more easily influenced by environmental fluctuations—both internal and external environmental forces? Can environmental change affect the gene expression of functional traits that evolved through natural selection?
Detailed answers to these questions are beyond the scope of this review. In general, however, it appears that environment can change gene expression because developmental biology is itself subject to ongoing environmental influences that act through continuous—at times competing and at times cooperating—environmental forces. Supporting evidence for this claim may explain some of the inconsistencies in research on “race-based” genes linked to testosterone and serotonin. To ignore, let alone discount, the impact of the environment on any life-history trait in humans is not simply incomplete science, but also disingenuous science. The mere act of dismissing crucial evidence in regard to scientific topics such as ethnicity and IQ—topics that have far-reaching social ramifications—borders on questionable science at best and, at its worse, fraudulent science.
4. The Role of neutral selection versus natural selection in population-based (or race-based) molecular traits associated with behavior
In the late 1960s, Motoo Kimura, a Japanese biologist, challenged the canons of evolutionary science when he stated that natural selection, particularly on the molecular level, was not necessarily a potent force in evolution. Extending the theory of genetic drift first proposed in the 1930s, Kimura argued that molecular variation was selectively neutral. Kimura focused on the randomness, or selective neutrality, of variation in proteins and DNA. The gist of his neutral theory of molecular evolution, usually called “neutral drift,” is that the vast amount of evolutionary change observed on the molecular level—the level of DNA and proteins—is driven by genetic drift rather than natural selection. This position contrasts with the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary perspective in which molecular evolution is thought to be the result of natural selection. 20 Although Kimura’s anti-selectionist position challenged the neo-Darwinian synthetic theory of evolution, his arguments were so compelling that his neutral theory was eventually incorporated into the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology. In other words, although Kimura is considered an anti-Darwinist, his theory is compatible with the tenets of neo-Darwinism. During the 1970s, leading neo-Darwinists such as Ernst Mayr critiqued the limitations of the neutral theory which, in Mayr’s initial view, did not address traits that have become fixed in a species or population. Nonetheless, Mayr’s perspective could not explain a possible relationship between random molecular variation and fitness, including cumulative DNA changes that could ultimately lead to fitness.
By the 1980s, Mayr shifted his own position, noting that an increasing number of sites in the largest molecules were found to have specific functions. For Mayr, it was only a matter of time before the function of “functionless sites” of large molecules (conceivably both nucleotide sequences and amino acids) would be discovered. As Mayr pointed out, “neutral” base-pair replacements are widespread. More importantly, however, he acknowledged that numerous alleles once thought to be neutral had “selective significance.” In so doing, Mayr gave Kimura’s neutral theory a boost of credibility within the scientific community.
At the same time, Kimura admitted that the neutral theory is inadequate in explaining Darwinian evolutionary change at the phenotypic level—the level on which a trait manifests. Instead, Kimura argued, the value of the neutral theory lies in its prediction that the most variation occurs in the functionally less critical parts of a gene. 21 According to the neutral selection theory, the functionally significant components of a molecule will change more slowly than the functionally insignificant components. This view contrasts with the Darwinian position, which predicts that evolution will be most rapid in the functionally important parts of molecules—the area where selection is strongest.
In the neutral theory, genetic drift plays a comparatively larger role than natural selection in evolutionary processes. Evolutionary change is assumed to result from genetic drift acting on neutral alleles. In neutral selection, gene variants that become more prevalent in a population may decline or even disappear through random events. On rare occasion, a neutral substitution to one of these gene variants may become “fixed” and give rise to a widespread trait. If enough new substitutions accumulate on the gene variant, the genome will evolve. However, the evolution that occurs in such a rare case results from the additive effects of neutral substitutions to the gene variant. It does not emerge through natural selection. Ironically, Sarich and Meile never mention the neutral selection theory in relation to the micro-evolution of human behavioral phenotypes. There are at least two reasons why they could have mentioned this theory in relation to their hypothesis about race-based differences in behavior. First, the early techniques used to determine the molecular clock—techniques that Sarich helped to develop—are based on the neutral theory. And second, if as Sarich and Miele claim, purported “race-base” behavioral differences reflect each “race’s” unique genetic-evolutionary history, then the molecular source—the genetics—of those differences should have been closely examined.
Consider new findings in molecular psychiatry—the study of the role of genetics in behavioral traits, or what scientists call behavioral phenotypes. Human geneticists working at the interface between molecular biology and the behavioral sciences have identified a small number of population-based (the term preferred by most mainstream researchers) polymorphisms, or differences in the genes that regulate brain chemicals involved in mood and certain social behaviors. For example, some populations differ slightly in their frequency of dopamine and serotonin gene variants linked to behavioral traits such as alcoholism, drug addiction, novelty seeking, and anxiety. 22
This line of research is highly controversial because of its potential use, or misuse, to support the existence of inborn race-based hierarchies in law-abiding behaviors, emotional stability, and even the capacity for (Western) cultural achievement. On a cautionary note, experts have yet to draw any definitive conclusions about cause-and-effect relationships between most of the neurochemical gene variants studied so far and social behaviors across a wide gamut of populations. Only a few associations have been established for individuals, and even fewer for populations. The research conducted to date typically has focused on smaller regional populations instead of huge, ill-defined social groupings that correspond to popular notions of human races. Yet, this is one of the most important arenas in which pro-race advocates such as Sarich and Miele should search if they are seeking irrefutable cause-and-effect evidence linking racial genetics and perceived ethnic behavioral patterns.
What happens when we examine the evidence produced thus far in this field? Alas, in a few cases we discover gene variants that do differ along population lines. In most cases, however, even race-based gene variants that reportedly predict certain behaviors in individuals are not consistently predictive at the group level. Whether or not an individual who carries one or more gene variants linked with socially deviant and unproductive behaviors actually manifests aberrant behaviors depends on myriad other influences, including an array of environmental factors. Moreover, there is no evidence for robust associations between specific gene variants and behaviors at the mega-population (racial) level. For the sake of argument, let us assume that Sarich and Miele are correct in their thesis about relatively rapid evolution resulting in modern human races (as some findings suggest may be the case). If so, then certain gene variants that are linked to social behaviors and that may also differ slightly along population lines become likely biological (in this case, molecular and genetic) substrates for race-based behavioral differences. If Sarich and Meile are right, this variation is the product of natural selection. Yet, the differences seen in variant genes regulating serotonin, dopamine, and testosterone, as well as other genes involved in brain chemical and hormonal production, may reflect molecular variation. From the vantage of Kimura’s neutral theory, the molecular differences in these gene variants are a prime example of neutral evolutionary change. Granted, preliminary findings from a recent study suggest that selection may operate at the molecular level. 23 (see Yaris, 2002.) However, in many (though certainly not all) cases, evolutionary changes appear to have resulted from molecular genetic drift rather than selection, whether natural selection or sexual selection. 24
Conclusion
Although an in-depth analysis of the “neutralist-selectionist” debate is outside the purview of this critique, this debate is relevant to the assertions made in Sarich and Miele’s Race: The Reality of Human Differences. The central question is not whether or not natural selection accounts for certain traits in human populations since it clearly does. Instead, the paramount concern is over the relative proportion of neutral and selected, or non-neutral, alleles that determine traits. If a trait emerged through selection, the trait can be assumed to have fitness and functionality. However, if it arose through genetic drift, then it is neutral in terms of fitness. By definition it could not have evolved as an adaptation. Moreover, because neutral traits are not normally fixed, they can decrease in frequency or even vanish in a given population over time. Are neutral genetic traits linked to mood and behavior more influenced by the environment than selected traits? This would appear to be the case—after all selected traits are fixed. This idea is consistent with the neutral theory, which states that evolution at the molecular level is non-adaptive. In fact, research in molecular psychiatry suggests that this may well be the case. This also may explain numerous inconsistencies in the relationship between, on the one hand, serotonin- and dopamine-related genes and, on the other hand, certain mood and behavioral states across ethnic populations. 25
This does not mean that population differences found at the molecular level, including gene variants implicated in human psychosocial behaviors, are irrelevant. They are. However, population variance at the molecular level is more likely the outcome of random evolutionary processes. The point here is that within the context of molecular micro-evolution, human population differences—“racial differences”—in gene variants linked with mood and behavior may not be unchangeable or fixed as in the case of a physical traits shaped by natural selection. A growing body of research suggests that a wide array of environmental factors can significantly affect the manner in which a particular gene, or gene variant, is expressed.
An introductory level treatise such as Race: The Reality of Human Differences cannot be expected to be comprehensive, but surely it is not prudent to overlook salient data, including important counter-data. To ignore the profound implications of developmental biology when talking about race-based differences in behavior is to offer bold, if not ludicrous, claims that often have no basis in reality. This misguided process renders scientific inquiry a frivolous pursuit of “perilous notions.” By relying on assertions more than arguments throughout much of their text, Sarich and Miele unwittingly do scientific inquiry an injustice. While some of their material may be new to some readers, the misleading information, if not unfounded contentions, that plagues much of their text is disappointing. Despite their best intentions to present an objective, scientifically informed discussion of human race, Race: The Reality of Human Differences ironically may only further the “scientific dumbing down of America.
------------------------------------------
Dumbass.. Are you even in touch with elementary reality? The map I gave you below DOES use the Koppen system. DUH.. The tropics of Cancer and Capricorn denote a climatic zone fool.. DUH.. . You want to deny this because it debunks your bogus “white Egypt” and “Caucasoid African” or “Hamitic” claims. The green areas in your map show ONE TYPE of tropical micro-climate. Different authors use different terminology to denote a classification by rainfall, season, mean temperature etc.. but it makes no difference. Wetness, coolness, dryness, rainfall, temp, season, mix and match- makes no difference. They are all variants WITHIN the tropics as the Koppen climate map below shows.
And dummy, the labels "tropical wet" and tropical wet/dry" on your map all identify areas WITHIN the larger tropical zone. Your own Koppen map shows this- you keep debunking your own argument fool... DUH....
Btw Zaharan, not even Keita uses your stupid terminology based on who can see the sun in the sky. He uses the term "Saharo-Tropical African Variant" (1981).
Hapless dullard! Must we yet again instruct you? Keita uses "tropical" yes- to identify those in the SAHARAN area that were tropical. Got it? He STILL identifies them as tropical. DUH.. And you are even more incompetent in your citation. Keita did not use the terminology in "1981" as you claim. Learn to cite accurately. End of today's lesson. Quote:
”The Tropic of Cancer and The Tropic of Capricorn The Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn each lie at 23.5 degrees latitude. The Tropic of Cancer is located at 23.5° North of the equator and runs through Mexico, the Bahamas, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, and southern China. The Tropic of Capricorn lies at 23.5° South of the equator and runs through Australia, Chile, southern Brazil (Brazil is the only country that passes through both the equator and a tropic), and northern South Africa. The tropics are the two lines where the sun is directly overhead at noon on the two solstices - near June and December 21. The sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Cancer on June 21 (the beginning of summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of winter in the Southern Hemisphere) and the sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Capricorn on December 21 (the beginning of winter in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of summer in the Southern Hemisphere). The reason for the location of the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn at 23.5° north and south respectively is due to the axial tilt of the Earth. The Earth is titled 23.5 degrees from the plane of the Earth's revolution around the sun each year. The area bounded by the Tropic of Cancer on the north and Tropic of Capricorn on the south is known as the "tropics." --From worldAtlas.com and Geographic Information - Page 33 Jenny Marie Johnson - 2003
Why do you think they are called the TROPIC of Cancer and the TROPIC of Capricorn? You big dummy…
You're using the definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year --- a completely bogus definition in regards to population biology, and physical anthropology.
No stupid mothafuck. The definition, which I posted long ago is shown below. You are so stupid it went over your head. ANd do you realize that you continually debunk yourself with your "refutations"? The lines where the sun is directly overhead mark out the tropics which is defined by thermal requirements and, as the standard definition shows below, include jungle, deserts and mountainous highlands, at temperatures that can be quite cool and even a non-thermally depressed winter season. You claim the tropics is only jungle but your are such an idiot you cannot even understand basic geography.
QUOTE:
"The thermal requirement for a tropical climate is considered to be an average mean temperature above 18 degrees C for the coldest month. Within this average, tropics are also marked by receiving a large amount of solar radiation throughout the year with no true or distinct winter season. Tropics not only include jungle, but deserts and mountainous highlands as well. The cooler local temperatures of these highlands are still within the overall averages, and are still part of the tropic zone, receiving high levels of solar radiation and not having a thermally depressed winter season. (Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995)." --Kumar et al. 1999. Biodeterioration of Stone in Tropical Environments and Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995. HUmid Tropical Environments. WIley PUb.
Maybe you can get help with map reading, indeed basic reading wanker boy..
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Need I refer you, again, to the quote saying the 75% figure is arbitrary in itself? As I have explained, I can differentiate between things using multiple different and non-concordant systems; being able to differentiate is meaningless if only one system is arbitrarily prioritised over the innumerable range of other systems.
This is just another lame race denial fallacy (very boring). There are no other systems or methods that will produce different categorization. See McCulloch (2002).
Are you saying an East Asian individual resembles a Scandinavian more than another Scandinavian? Does a cat to you cluster with an apple or fly before another cat?
Why according to you can't individuals be clustered and there be an objective basis?
The answer is because your entire worldview is boolean (0, 1). Aristotle who crisp sets are tracable to even criticised them with the example of the battles:
A battle/attack will happen (1) A battle/attack will not happen (2)
However aristotle noted a 3rd category of answer could be a battle/attack may happen. In other words categorizes can be partially true/objective.
According to your flawed logic, something is either objective or arbitrary. You dismiss partial objectivity or answers in between.
When you learn to directly respond to a quote and continue a previous discussion, get back to me. I'm quite bored of your continuing invocation of arguments I have already refuted.
I have addressed everything you have to say and you seem unable to directly respond; instead, you continue to pose questions that I have already answered. You continue to ramble on about 'false definitions' and 'fallacies' but find yourself completely unable to demonstrate how they violate Sarich and Miele's specific definition. You go from saying philosophy is pseudo-science on TSR to having a philosophical discussion about fuzzy sets and logic here, then saying philosophy is 'garbage' and now you're back to philosophy again.
You're washed up.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Your quotes all come back to the same fallacy:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
"You don't 'look like' your father either.
Yes I do. Offspring resemble their parents, this is the law of hereditary, as was stated pages back:
"Individuals of population x, closer resemble other individuals of that population when compared to y. You are still running away from this empirical fact. I look a heck of a lot more similar to my father than a Sub-Saharan African Pygmy or a Native American."
-- Through their similarity, we can cluster aggregates of individuals based on their resemblences. They are not social constructs.
Any two Scandinavians resemble each other closer than an East Asian.
"On average, the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese are more similar to each other and are different from Australians, Israelis and the Swedes, who in turn are similar to each other and are different from Nigerians, Kenyans, and Jamaicans. Of course, individuals vary greatly within each racial group. It is correct to point out that the variation within each race is extremely large, that there is disagreement as to exactly how many races there are, and that there is a blurring of category edges because of admixture. But it is an error when critics claim that classifications are arbitrary." (Rushton, 1998)
Taxonomy merely is the science that classifies based on similarities. They clearly have an element of objectivity because individuals of population x, closer resemble other individuals of that population when compared to y.
Races are just geographical populations. So as Levin (2002) remarks unless you want to deny Sub-Sahara Africa and Europe exist -- races are realities.
I've demonstrated fuzzy sets are arbitrary. If you are unwilling or unable to respond to my post where I explained where I disagreed with your divisions, your entire argument is baseless.
Do you even read my posts? Some of the questions you're asking and points you're raising have been answered and refuted several pages ago. The argument terminated due to your inability to respond, and now you are going back to square one by repeating your same same initial argument. What is wrong with you? Try continuing from where we left off instead of asking a question that I've already answered and we've already discussed.
All your points were refuted. Click on the "fact" url link. Since you disagree with empirical laws e.g. law of frequency of type, as I posted ages back - this debate cannot proceed. I even wasted time showing you the mathematical formula. By denying the reality that geographical populations are more similar than others, you admit yourself you are anti-science. Taxonomy merely lumps polytypic groups of such variation together based on these objective similarities. Yes, they are objective not arbitrary: two Eskimo's look more similar than an Englishman. See Rushton (1998). It's objective whether you like it or not, and you yourself know it is. If you saw a photo of an Eskimo or Negroid -- you would know their geographical place of origin.
You wrote this (see above where quoted):
"You don't 'look like' your father either."
People resemble their parents, this is another law - the law of hereditary. Cats don't give birth to puppies. But according to you - they do/or they are "arbitrary". You aren't someone interested in the evidence - you've admitted twice you deny races exist because they are "dangerous" and have "consequences". Like all race denialists your views are based through emotions and politics. This is why to deny races exist you have to deny empirical laws and science and post absurd statements such as denying hereditary itself: "You don't 'look like' your father either". Offspring resemble their parents, yet you deny this.
You have not shown one shred of evidence that counters the reality of race. All you've done is resort as time progresses as taking more extreme denialist positions even admitting you made a mistake with time and forgot to apply your philosophy to it. In that post you claimed something was "old", yet you retracted that position claiming it was arbitrary and time cannot be categorized.
-- Throughout this thread you defy your own "logic" many other times. Do you want me to post them? In many places you've categorized a part of a spectrum or continuous gradation. You have no problem with it. However suddenly when it comes to races you deny they exist. Why the double standard? Its because to you race is a sensitive and emotional topic. Your views are therefore not objective and biased.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Why even bother trying to distort what I said in the same thread?
"All your points were refuted. Click on the "fact" url link. Since you disagree with empirical laws e.g. law of frequency of type, as I posted ages back - this debate cannot proceed. I even wasted time showing you the mathematical formula. By denying the reality that geographical populations are more similar than others, you admit yourself you are anti-science. Taxonomy merely lumps polytypic groups of such variation together based on these objective similarities. Yes, they are objective not arbitrary: two Eskimo's look more similar than an Englishman. See Rushton (1998). It's objective whether you like it or not, and you yourself know it is. If you saw a photo of an Eskimo or Negroid -- you would know their geographical place of origin."
Is a person with sickle cell more similar to another person with sickle cell or a person without sickle cell?
You wrote this (see above where quoted):
"You don't 'look like' your father either."
People resemble their parents, this is another law - the law of hereditary. Cats don't give birth to puppies. But according to you - they do/or they are "arbitrary". You aren't someone interested in the evidence - you've admitted twice you deny races exist because they are "dangerous" and have "consequences". Like all race denialists your views are based through emotions and politics. This is why to deny races exist you have to deny empirical laws and science and post absurd statements such as denying hereditary itself: "You don't 'look like' your father either". Offspring resemble their parents, yet you deny this.
Yes, in response to your suggestion that because two people don't look the same, they are two different 'races'. You don't look the same as your father, so why are you not of different 'races'? Who decides when somebody stops 'looking like' another person? Who decides which dimensions are compared to measure this? I've already refuted the notion that fuzzy sets are objective systems. Since you cannot objectively declare when somebody is 'wrong' for saying somebody doesn't 'look like' another person (everything has a similarity in at least one dimension with something else), this is an inadequate criterion for separating people. You may declare somebody stops 'looking like' another person when certain aspects of their craniofacial morphology cross an arbitrary threshold. I may declare every individual looks unique because somebody stops resembling another person the moment they have a genetic/phenotypic difference. Somebody else may declare somebody with a tumour on their face doesn't 'look like' anyone without a tumour on their face.
There is an overlapping and non-concordant continuum of 'similarity'; I have proven the separation of a continuum is INHERENTLY arbitrary and you have failed to respond to my request for you to prove otherwise on multiple occasions.
'Resemble' by what measure?
Where have I said I've "[denied] races exist because they are "dangerous" and have "consequences""? Why lie? Where have I even said it was "dangerous"? It is a fact that it is a social construct across the board; I said I am particularly hostile to the notion of human 'races' due to the ethical implications and problems it causes, as expressed in Hunt and Megyesi (2006), Hunt (2008), Megyesi et al. (2011) and Pena (2011). I don't feel it has any value. The whole discipline of taxonomy needs to be overturned, but these things occur in time.
I do not 'deny' it exists BECAUSE it is a problematic concept; I acknowledge it doesn't exist and advocate its eradication BECAUSE it is a problematic concept. Similarly, I don't 'deny' there is a pink unicorn on my bed; I acknowledge there isn't a pink unicorn on my bed. Similarly, I don't 'deny' 'red' exists as an objective category, I acknowledge it doesn't exist as an objective category. These are facts. Whether or not the socially constructed notions of 'race', pink unicorns and electromagnetic spectrum classifications have any value is what I was discussing with democracyforum.
You have not shown one shred of evidence that counters the reality of race. All you've done is resort as time progresses as taking more extreme denialist positions even admitting you made a mistake with time and forgot to apply your philosophy to it. In that post you claimed something was "old", yet you retracted that position claiming it was arbitrary and time cannot be categorized.
I've presented multiple arguments that you have consciously ignored because you couldn't reply to them (I'm STILL waiting for you to respond to the post on the top of page 4 and the one where I challenged your divisions). Are you going to deny selectively quoting and outright ignoring a large proportion of the posts I have made? Swenet has also observed this.
It cannot be categorised objectively and my statement that it was old was indeed arbitrary. I say "the fact that" as a figure of speech, not a literal term. Clearly, it isn't factual, just like it is clear that it isn't factual that 'warm' is 10 degrees C < X < 30 degrees C.
-- Throughout this thread you defy your own "logic" many other times. Do you want me to post them? In many places you've categorized a part of a spectrum or continuous gradation. You have no problem with it. However suddenly when it comes to races you deny they exist. Why the double standard? Its because to you race is a sensitive and emotional topic. Your views are therefore not objective and biased.
Of course I don't have a problem with it; this is implicit in the definition of 'arbitrary'. It is merely my subjective opinion that I have arbitrarily chosen to construct. Equally, I can arbitrarily construct a 'group' based on whether or not they have sickle cell, just like you are arbitrarily constructing a 'group' based on certain aspects of their craniofacial morphology. I have a problem with people, like you, who try to pass off these arbitrary opinions as having any degree of objectivity. The question is, "should these arbitrary social constructs be upheld in society"? I would argue "no", in the case of 'race'. I would argue taxonomy also needs a paradigm shift due to the sentiments of the quotes I have expressed above. Subjectivity has no place in what should be objective scientific knowledge.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Taxonomy merely lumps polytypic groups of such variation together based on these objective similarities. Yes, they are objective not arbitrary: two Eskimo's look more similar than an Englishman. See Rushton (1998). It's objective whether you like it or not, and you yourself know it is. If you saw a photo of an Eskimo or Negroid -- you would know their geographical place of origin.
You wrote this (see above where quoted):
"You don't 'look like' your father either."
People resemble their parents, this is another law - the law of hereditary. Cats don't give birth to puppies.
Your analogy is certainly wrong. The difference between an Eskimo and an African is nowhere near as different than the difference between a cat and a dog. A more accurate analogy is that the difference between an Eskimo and an African is like the difference bewteen breeds of cats. You have revealed your basic error, gross exaggertion
so the abstract discussion of logic is a waste of time, it's a matter of degree and you exaggerate the degree so it's implications are distorted
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Badumtish throughout this thread you have categorized outside of crisp sets. You've employed fuzzy sets. If you want me to show where I easily can. My criticism is that you don't apply your logic to everything, you are selective, which reveals that to you - race is an emotional and senstitive issue.
The claim that you want to overturn Linnean taxonomy is laughable. Biodiversity can not be remotely analysed with crisp sets. Individuals in nature - tell us nothing. Your views are sheer fantasy, taxonomy will never change - you will die in 60 or so years having changed nothing. I don't believe you are aware how absurd your views are.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Badumtish throughout this thread you have categorized outside of crisp sets. You've employed fuzzy sets. If you want me to show where I easily can. My criticism is that you don't apply your logic to everything, you are selective, which reveals that to you - race is an emotional and senstitive issue.
Assuming you're equating 'fuzzy sets' with 'subjective terminology', then yes: fuzzy sets that I've arbitrarily constructed. As I said previously, the use of a fuzzy set does not imply that set is objective, it simply implies I believe you "know what I mean" when I say X, Y or Z. I wouldn't use the same terminology in an objective context or around someone who I don't believe would "know what I mean" (e.g., different languages that have different conceptions of colour classifications". Blue and green are meaningless to them because they see them as the same category). Just because you would have a 'similar' opinion of what cool is to me, it doesn't mean there is an objective range of 'cool'.
The claim that you want to overturn Linnean taxonomy is laughable. Biodiversity can not be remotely analysed with crisp sets. Individuals in nature - tell us nothing. Your views are sheer fantasy, taxonomy will never change - you will die in 60 or so years having changed nothing. I don't believe you are aware how absurd your views are.
I never said I wanted to do anything. I said I think it should be, not that I will take steps to do anything to achieve this. I don't care enough. This is unlike the person who thinks his idiotic, undergraduate mind can write a paper that will undermine the theory of evolution. Don't project your insecurities onto me. Thanks.
It can be. Not in my lifetime, but in future where everything can be assessed individually and there is individual genotype mapping. This specific knowledge (as opposed to generalised types and proxy knowledge) is the goal of biology, economics sociology, criminology, psychology, etc. Human biomedicine is currently one of the closest biological fields to achieving this goal, and we may very well see it become a dominant feature of medicine within our generation. Trends, averages, aggregates and inferences from 'samples' become redundant in the face of individualised knowledge.
Lol. You're an idiot if you think any non-objective scientific field (i.e., things outside of subjects like physics and maths (thinking about it, even they are not invincible to change, as things become illogical at a quantum level)) will remain the same for eternity. All the quotes presented in the previous page have explained why it is arbitrary, conflicting and subjective, but the weight of tradition and entrenchment are currently insurmountable.
What do you mean they 'tell us nothing'? The traits we are discussing only exist because individuals possess them. Biodiversity is intrinsically relational; there is biodiversity between two individual organisms, which makes the individual organism the fundamental unit of analysis.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
I really don't understand on what basis you're still claiming fuzzy sets are objective when you can't even respond to the post on the top of page 4 and my answer to your question about where I disagreed with your categories.
Why are you still saying it is objective when you cannot respond to my very simple objections? I'm asking you to give me an objective reason that your divisions are 'more right' than my divisions. For an apparently objective concept, this should be very easy.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Is a person with sickle cell more similar to another person with sickle cell or a person without sickle cell?
Obviously not. You can find people in completely different areas belonging to different races with that trait -- its not circumscribed:
"The genetic mechanism of sickle-cell anemia and its resistance to malaria is the best known of these. For the most part these are ommitted from this work for the simple reason that they are not properly racial traits." (Krantz, 1980)
"Their distributions tend to follow the distributions of the disease in question and bear no particular relationship to classical traits [...] there is nothing about having dark skin, wide noses or spiral hair that predisposes Negroes to sickle-cell anemia." (Krantz, 1980)
As already explained these have nothing to do with races, you need them though to be, to set up Diamond's fallacy which through using non-racial traits can cluster Swedes with Bantus and Australian Aborigines with Eskimos.
Why are you so ignorant you won't admit you are using this fallacy (repeatedly)?
quote: Yes, in response to your suggestion that because two people don't look the same, they are two different 'races'. You don't look the same as your father, so why are you not of different 'races'? Who decides when somebody stops 'looking like' another person? Who decides which dimensions are compared to measure this?
Racial typology deals with statistics - metrics and even non-metric traits can be assigned a number (the latter you either do/don't posess, 0, 1). Races merely fall in statistical ranges, hence Gill (1990) a world leading authority in forensic antrhopology calls races statistical representations of "trait complexes".
"If the subject of individuals are considered as points of an n-dimensional space, whose selection is determined by coordinates which correspond to their anthropological traits, these points form centers of crystallization that correspond to the races - or rather the racial complexes of the morphologist." (Kuttner et al, "Race and Modern Science". 1967)
quote:I've already refuted the notion that fuzzy sets are objective systems. Since you cannot objectively declare when somebody is 'wrong' for saying somebody doesn't 'look like' another person (everything has a similarity in at least one dimension with something else), this is an inadequate criterion for separating people.
Refuted by the fact there is universal agreement on most fuzzy sets. As Sarich and Miele (2004) show, everyone with 100% sorting accuracy can distinguish between a Chimpanzee and a Human. Your absurd views have has no place in science, are you saying you can't seperate 50 Chimps and 50 Humans?
quote: There is an overlapping and non-concordant continuum of 'similarity'; I have proven the separation of a continuum is INHERENTLY arbitrary and you have failed to respond to my request for you to prove otherwise on multiple occasions.
You're wrong, and for someone who claims to oppose creationism, your posts completely reject natural selection or adaptation. Morphological traits correspond to geographical zones, hence they are delimited by boundaries and such combinations of traits in regards to geographical regions do not overlap. Someone can look at your traits and pinpoint your geographical place of origin.
quote: Where have I said I've "[denied] races exist because they are "dangerous" and have "consequences""? Why lie? Where have I even said it was "dangerous"? It is a fact that it is a social construct across the board; I said I am particularly hostile to the notion of human 'races' due to the ethical implications and problems it causes, as expressed in Hunt and Megyesi (2006), Hunt (2008), Megyesi et al. (2011) and Pena (2011). I don't feel it has any value. The whole discipline of taxonomy needs to be overturned, but these things occur in time.
What ethical problems? The truth is the reverse. By denying races exist you are increasing strife and tension - because reality shows races don't mix because they have a built in cognitive defence mechanism to prefer their own kind. Just look up racial/ethnic nepotism.
quote:
I do not 'deny' it exists BECAUSE it is a problematic concept; I acknowledge it doesn't exist and advocate its eradication BECAUSE it is a problematic concept. Similarly, I don't 'deny' there is a pink unicorn on my bed; I acknowledge there isn't a pink unicorn on my bed. Similarly, I don't 'deny' 'red' exists as an objective category, I acknowledge it doesn't exist as an objective category. These are facts. Whether or not the socially constructed notions of 'race', pink unicorns and electromagnetic spectrum classifications have any value is what I was discussing with democracyforum.
Most race/species denialists do not call for them to be eradicated in thought. You will find most argue they are arbitrary but should be kept for convenience in biodiversity. So your views are actually shared by no one else -- you purposely took this extreme stance to be "different" as this is what your entire philosophy resolves around.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: I really don't understand on what basis you're still claiming fuzzy sets are objective when you can't even respond to the post on the top of page 4 and my answer to your question about where I disagreed with your categories.
Why are you still saying it is objective when you cannot respond to my very simple objections? I'm asking you to give me an objective reason that your divisions are 'more right' than my divisions. For an apparently objective concept, this should be very easy.
- I've not listed categorizes unless you are talking about temperature ranges pages back, the topic is though race.
- Your position is easily falsified by typology. We have metric/non-metric data on all world populations -- so everyone objectively can be clustered. Just look up world databanks on craniometry. All known combinations and statistical ranges/complexes are mapped.
- You agree 6,973,738,433 races exist. Racial taxonomy merely clusters these into larger divisions based on their similarities. I have not heard a valid argument why this can't be done with a degree of objectivity. You continue to set up the same boolean assertion that partial truths don't exist which isn't true.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Obviously not. You can find people in completely different areas belonging to different races with that trait -- its not circumscribed:
"The genetic mechanism of sickle-cell anemia and its resistance to malaria is the best known of these. For the most part these are ommitted from this work for the simple reason that they are not properly racial traits." (Krantz, 1980)
"Their distributions tend to follow the distributions of the disease in question and bear no particular relationship to classical traits [...] there is nothing about having dark skin, wide noses or spiral hair that predisposes Negroes to sickle-cell anemia." (Krantz, 1980)
As already explained these have nothing to do with races, you need them though to be, to set up Diamond's fallacy which through using non-racial traits can cluster Swedes with Bantus and Australian Aborigines with Eskimos.
Why are you so ignorant you won't admit you are using this fallacy (repeatedly)?
The only ignorance is expressed by the person who cannot tell me why sickle cell is exempt from Sarich and Miele's specific quote, USING their quote. Is it because their quote doesn't actually invalidate it and you must rely on 'false definitions' and 'false criteria' to do so?
Racial typology deals with statistics - metrics and even non-metric traits can be assigned a number (the latter you either do/don't posess, 0, 1). Races merely fall in statistical ranges, hence Gill (1990) a world leading authority in forensic antrhopology calls races statistical representations of "trait complexes".
"If the subject of individuals are considered as points of an n-dimensional space, whose selection is determined by coordinates which correspond to their anthropological traits, these points form centers of crystallization that correspond to the races - or rather the racial complexes of the morphologist." (Kuttner et al, "Race and Modern Science". 1967)
"A number" and "ranges" = arbitrary, as demonstrated in our discussion on fuzzy sets
n = arbitrary
Amadon's criterion = arbitrary
There's nothing that makes Sarich and Miele's definition unequivocally correct (which is why it was expressed in a book and not a leading journal like Science and Nature and why I'm not aware of any dictionaries that use it), but their definition is not compatible with sickle cell being a valid 'heritable trait'.
Refuted by the fact there is universal agreement on most fuzzy sets. As Sarich and Miele (2004) show, everyone with 100% sorting accuracy can distinguish between a Chimpanzee and a Human. Your absurd views have has no place in science, are you saying you can't seperate 50 Chimps and 50 Humans?
All the quotes in the previous page very, very clearly demonstrate the lack of agreement.
Are you saying you can't separate 50 sufferers of sickle cell and 50 people with ordinary blood?
It begs the question: If I say "warm" = 10-30 degrees C, give people a chart and ask them to identify the range of warm, of course they can identify what warm is. If I show people a group of organisms with certain properties, say "those with X properties are a group" (chimpanzees) and "those without X properties are another group" (humans), of course they can identify which organism belongs to which.
I've already explained why begging the question proves nothing.
You're wrong, and for someone who claims to oppose creationism, your posts completely reject natural selection or adaptation. Morphological traits correspond to geographical zones, hence they are delimited by boundaries and such combinations of traits in regards to geographical regions do not overlap. Someone can look at your traits and pinpoint your geographical place of origin.
Yes, an arbitrary combination of traits conform to a certain geographical delineation, whilst the numerous ones that don't conform to this delineation are rejected. The geographical distribution of various traits is non-concordant, which is why you must arbitrarily construct a combination whilst conveniently rejecting those that do not conform to the delineation that this combination is trying to resemble. I can construct a combination of any number of traits to conform to a whole variety of geographical delineations. Barbujani (2005) showed the existence of statistically significant differences between nearby populations and even those within the same geographical location.
What ethical problems? The truth is the reverse. By denying races exist you are increasing strife and tension - because reality shows races don't mix because they have a built in cognitive defence mechanism to prefer their own kind. Just look up racial/ethnic nepotism.
See Hunt and Megyesi (2006), Hunt (2008), Megyesi et al. (2011) and Pena (2011) for the ethical problems.
Ethnicities are socially constructed; nepotism is equally socially constructed. There's a reason folk 'racial' classification varies from place to place; the notion that people are naturally predisposed to your particular 'racial taxonomy' is baseless.
Most race/species denialists do not call for them to be eradicated in thought. You will find most argue they are arbitrary but should be kept for convenience in biodiversity. So your views are actually shared by no one else -- you purposely took this extreme stance to be "different" as this is what your entire philosophy resolves around.
You're confusing denial with acknowledgement.
See Hunt and Megyesi (2006), Hunt (2008), Megyesi et al. (2011) and Pena (2011) for why they should not be maintained and why any argument that they offer convenience is opposed to reality.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
- I've not listed categorizes unless you are talking about temperature ranges pages back, the topic is though race.
Yes, you used temperatures as an analogy to clines. Neither clines nor the temperature 'sets' depicted in that graph are objective divisions.
- Your position is easily falsified by typology. We have metric/non-metric data on all world populations -- so everyone objectively can be clustered. Just look up world databanks on craniometry. All known combinations and statistical ranges/complexes are mapped.
They can be clustered according to the arbitrary sets that have been created from cranial dimensions.
They can be clustered according to whether or not they have sickle cell.
They can be clustered according to whether or not they have Tay-Sachs.
And so on.
- You agree 6,973,738,433 races exist. Racial taxonomy merely clusters these into larger divisions based on their similarities. I have not heard a valid argument why this can't be done with a degree of objectivity. You continue to set up the same boolean assertion that partial truths don't exist which isn't true.
The individual is the indivisible unit, so this is an objective category. The individual may objectively share certain things (sickle cell, for example) with other people, or they may be more similar in one or various dimensions (height, weight, shoe size, etc.). The choice of dimension is arbitrary, as Zagefka (2009) has explained.
Based on their similarities in arbitrarily selected dimensions, which is why I keep on asking '"resemble" by what measure'. The quotes on the previous page demonstrate the lack of sameness in taxonomy; i.e., the criteria used to call something a species amongst one group of organisms is the not the same criteria used to call something a species amongst another group. I showed you a quote a few pages back that demonstrated some taxonomists designate subspecies by whether or not a bird has a dot on its back. All arbitrary. I can cluster plums and watermelons by their weight or their elemental composition. Which one I choose is arbitrary. You have constructed arbitrary divisions in the continuum that is facial morphology, but you are relying on this over all the other possible classification systems. This is an arbitrary decision.
As I explained, the point at which somebody 'stops resembling' something else is also arbitrarily determined.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
You are being selective again. If someone has no legs and arms -- are they still an individual? How are you defining an individual?
What makes an individual objective but 50 individuals from the same geographical location not?
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You are being selective again. If someone has no legs and arms -- are they still an individual? How are you defining an individual?
What makes an individual objective but 50 individuals from the same geographical location not?
In this context: That which exists as a distinct, living entity. A quadriplegic is still an individual.
Because the 50 are clearly divisible, which you yourself have even admitted by calling an individual a "nano-race" and saying that there are subdivisions of the social construct that is 'race'. It is implicit by saying "50 individuals"; i.e., it is an arbitrary collection of 50 discrete units.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: - I've not listed categorizes unless you are talking about temperature ranges pages back, the topic is though race.
Yes, you used temperatures as an analogy to clines. Neither clines nor the temperature 'sets' depicted in that graph are objective divisions.
- Your position is easily falsified by typology. We have metric/non-metric data on all world populations -- so everyone objectively can be clustered. Just look up world databanks on craniometry. All known combinations and statistical ranges/complexes are mapped.
They can be clustered according to the arbitrary sets that have been created from cranial dimensions.
They can be clustered according to whether or not they have sickle cell.
They can be clustered according to whether or not they have Tay-Sachs.
And so on.
- You agree 6,973,738,433 races exist. Racial taxonomy merely clusters these into larger divisions based on their similarities. I have not heard a valid argument why this can't be done with a degree of objectivity. You continue to set up the same boolean assertion that partial truths don't exist which isn't true.
The individual is the indivisible unit, so this is an objective category. The individual may objectively share certain things (sickle cell, for example) with other people, or they may be more similar in one or various dimensions (height, weight, shoe size, etc.). The choice of dimension is arbitrary, as Zagefka (2009) has explained.
Based on their similarities in arbitrarily selected dimensions, which is why I keep on asking '"resemble" by what measure'. The quotes on the previous page demonstrate the lack of sameness in taxonomy; i.e., the criteria used to call something a species amongst one group of organisms is the not the same criteria used to call something a species amongst another group. I showed you a quote a few pages back that demonstrated some taxonomists designate subspecies by whether or not a bird has a dot on its back. All arbitrary. I can cluster plums and watermelons by their weight or their elemental composition. Which one I choose is arbitrary. You have constructed arbitrary divisions in the continuum that is facial morphology, but you are relying on this over all the other possible classification systems. This is an arbitrary decision.
As I explained, the point at which somebody 'stops resembling' something else is also arbitrarily determined.
Your posts just entirely resolve around Diamond's fallacy. Without it your position is destroyed. You are actually terrible at trying to defend your position races aren't real as you are left with the same fallacy over and over. This is why I know my position is true, and yours false.
How many times have you been told those aren't racial traits? 10, 20? You won't listen though as you have to use that fallacy otherwise you would have to acknowledge races are objective. This is why you stay away in your posts from proper racial traits -- craniofacial metrics and hair texture you want nothing to do with as you know they are geographically circumscribed with no overlap in combination.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: - I've not listed categorizes unless you are talking about temperature ranges pages back, the topic is though race.
Yes, you used temperatures as an analogy to clines. Neither clines nor the temperature 'sets' depicted in that graph are objective divisions.
- Your position is easily falsified by typology. We have metric/non-metric data on all world populations -- so everyone objectively can be clustered. Just look up world databanks on craniometry. All known combinations and statistical ranges/complexes are mapped.
They can be clustered according to the arbitrary sets that have been created from cranial dimensions.
They can be clustered according to whether or not they have sickle cell.
They can be clustered according to whether or not they have Tay-Sachs.
And so on.
- You agree 6,973,738,433 races exist. Racial taxonomy merely clusters these into larger divisions based on their similarities. I have not heard a valid argument why this can't be done with a degree of objectivity. You continue to set up the same boolean assertion that partial truths don't exist which isn't true.
The individual is the indivisible unit, so this is an objective category. The individual may objectively share certain things (sickle cell, for example) with other people, or they may be more similar in one or various dimensions (height, weight, shoe size, etc.). The choice of dimension is arbitrary, as Zagefka (2009) has explained.
Based on their similarities in arbitrarily selected dimensions, which is why I keep on asking '"resemble" by what measure'. The quotes on the previous page demonstrate the lack of sameness in taxonomy; i.e., the criteria used to call something a species amongst one group of organisms is the not the same criteria used to call something a species amongst another group. I showed you a quote a few pages back that demonstrated some taxonomists designate subspecies by whether or not a bird has a dot on its back. All arbitrary. I can cluster plums and watermelons by their weight or their elemental composition. Which one I choose is arbitrary. You have constructed arbitrary divisions in the continuum that is facial morphology, but you are relying on this over all the other possible classification systems. This is an arbitrary decision.
As I explained, the point at which somebody 'stops resembling' something else is also arbitrarily determined.
Your posts just entirely resolve around Diamond's fallacy. Without it your position is destroyed. You are actually terrible at trying to defend your position races aren't real as you are left with the same fallacy over and over. This is why I know my position is true, and yours false.
How many times have you been told those aren't racial traits? 10, 20? You won't listen though as you have to use that fallacy otherwise you would have to acknowledge races are objective. This is why you stay away in your posts from proper racial traits -- craniofacial metrics and hair texture you want nothing to do with as you know they are geographically circumscribed with no overlap in combination.
Using Sarich and Miele's definition and only Sarich and Miele's definition, tell me what is fallacious about sickle cell. I want to see you relying on the statements in that specific quote to demonstrate your point.
If you cannot rely on the apparently peremptory definition of 'race' to prove your point, it means:
--the definition is wrong and you implicitly admit anyone can use any definitions/classifications due to the lack of 'standard'.
--you are imposing 'false criteria' or using 'false definitions'. If you cannot prove I'm wrong using their quote, I must be right. Again, this proves 'race' is arbitrary and virtually anything can qualify as a 'racial' category.
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
Let me reiterate: I want you to use the statements expressed in this specific quote. I do not want to see you use any key terms like 'circumscribed', 'craniofacial' and 'hair texture' that are not explicitly mentioned in this quote, as they would fall under 'false criteria'.
If you avoid the question I will simply repost it until you either answer it or admit you cannot do so. Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^ Page 234 (+ 235). The only person imposing false criteria is you. Let me remind you:
"The genetic mechanism of sickle-cell anemia and its resistance to malaria is the best known of these. For the most part these are ommitted from this work for the simple reason that they are not properly racial traits." (Krantz, 1980)
This is taken from a renowned physical anthropologist, I can show the same from many more. So stop using the same fallacy.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ Page 234 (+ 235). The only person imposing false criteria is you. Let me remind you:
"The genetic mechanism of sickle-cell anemia and its resistance to malaria is the best known of these. For the most part these are ommitted from this work for the simple reason that they are not properly racial traits." (Krantz, 1980)
This is taken from a renowned physical anthropologist, I can show the same from many more. So stop using the same fallacy.
Using Sarich and Miele's definition and only Sarich and Miele's definition, tell me what is fallacious about sickle cell. I want to see you relying on the statements in that specific quote to demonstrate your point.
If you cannot rely on the apparently peremptory definition of 'race' to prove your point, it means:
--the definition is wrong and you implicitly admit anyone can use any definitions/classifications due to the lack of 'standard'.
--you are imposing 'false criteria' or using 'false definitions'. If you cannot prove I'm wrong using their quote, I must be right. Again, this proves 'race' is arbitrary and virtually anything can qualify as a 'racial' category.
"Races are populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features."
Let me reiterate: I want you to use the statements expressed in this specific quote. I do not want to see you use any key terms like 'circumscribed', 'craniofacial' and 'hair texture' that are not explicitly mentioned in this quote, as they would fall under 'false criteria'.
If you avoid the question I will simply repost it until you either answer it or admit you cannot do so. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ Page 234 (+ 235). The only person imposing false criteria is you. Let me remind you:
"The genetic mechanism of sickle-cell anemia and its resistance to malaria is the best known of these. For the most part these are ommitted from this work for the simple reason that they are not properly racial traits." (Grover Krantz, 1980)
This is taken from a renowned physical anthropologist, I can show the same from many more. So stop using the same fallacy.
the sole reason that a trait is a "properly racial" is that a renowned anthropologist said so, no need to think whatever an arbitrtily selected anthropologist says is true
Grover Krantz (November 5, 1931 – February 14, 2002) was a professor of physical anthropology at Washington State University, perhaps most famous to the general public as one of the few scientists to research Bigfoot
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Taxonomy merely lumps polytypic groups of such variation together based on these objective similarities. Yes, they are objective not arbitrary: two Eskimo's look more similar than an Englishman. See Rushton (1998). It's objective whether you like it or not, and you yourself know it is. If you saw a photo of an Eskimo or Negroid -- you would know their geographical place of origin.
You wrote this (see above where quoted):
"You don't 'look like' your father either."
People resemble their parents, this is another law - the law of hereditary. Cats don't give birth to puppies.
Your analogy is certainly wrong. The difference between an Eskimo and an African is nowhere near as wide than the difference between a cat and a dog. A more accurate analogy is that the difference between an Eskimo and an African is like the difference between breeds of cats. You have revealed your error, gross exaggertion and a lack of basic biology comprehension.
so the abstract discussion of logic is a waste of time, it's a matter of degree and you exaggerate the degree so it's implications are distorted
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
I have a hard time understanding why there is so much talk about Europeans.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers: All cats give birth to kittens and not puppies. Do you agree? Who wouldn't? Yet according to you, that it is arbitrary to maintain cats biologically exist.
Dumbass! You are comparing apples to shoes! Cats and dogs are distinct species from different biological families. This is a biological reality and NOT mere arbitration supported not only by a large number of morphological traits but by phylogenetics as well, that is both genetics and fossils. What YOU are doing is totally different in that you try (in vain) to separate human populations of the same species based on morphological differences that are NOT supported by genetics and therefore the very basis of biological 'race' or subspecies is unsupported meaning it doesn't exist!!
quote:
quote:And according to his pre-Pleistocene map, Congoids including 'Negroids' predominated Sub-Sahara including the Horn of Africa.
Nope, because modern Negroids weren't in existence then. Those are where Pygmies occupied.
Negroids radiated from Pygmies in West Africa during the Holocene.
"True Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia". (Frost, 1999)
As recent as 4-3k years ago, Negroids were not in North/East or Southern Africa.
Funny, that's not what the other experts say: The early Holocene deposits at Lake Besaka and Buur Heybe have provided the earliest evidence in the Horn of intentional human burial. At the site of FeJx 2 at Lake Besaka the incomplete remains of five human skeletons were found buried in Abadir Phase sediments alongside an irregular pile of stones, with the most complete specimen composed of the upper half of the body only. No evidence of carnivore activity could be observed, while many of the bones were burnt (Clark and Williams 1978). However, no cut marks or any other indication of cannibalism was discovered, while the texture of the bones indicated they were probably surrounded by flesh when buried (Dechant and Crader t982). Of particular interest was a fragment of a human long bone through which a hole approximately 6 mm in diameter had been intentionally drilled as if for suspension (McCown n.d.). Needless to say', 'some unusual burial custom' is suggested (Clark and Williams 1978:37). No evidence of grave goods was found in direct association with the burials, although two bone tubes and a cache of over thirty gastropod shells pierced as if for suspension were found next to the stone pile (ibid.). Morphological features of the crania indicate Negroid affinities and can best be compared to the Sudanese skeletons of Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Halfa (McCown rod.). Steven A. Brandt, 'The Upper Pleistocene and early Holocene prehistory of the Horn of Africa', The African Archaeological Review, 4 (I986), pp. 41-82
In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian. -- Pierre M. Vermeersch (Author & Editor), 'Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt', Egyptian Prehistory Monographs Vol. 4, Leuven University Press (2002).
Both hypotheses are compatible with the hypothesis proposed by Brothwell (1963) of an East African proto-Khoisan Negro stock which migrated southwards and westwards at some time during the Upper Pleistocene, and replaced most of the local populations of South Africa. Under such circumstances, it is possible that the Nazlet Khater specimen is part of a relict population of this proto-Khoisan Negro stock which extended as far north as Nazlet Khater at least until the late part of the Late Pleistocene. --- 'The Position of the Nazlet Khater Specimen Among Prehistoric and Modern African and Levantine Populations', Ron Pinhasi, Departent of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, U.K., Patrick Semal, Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Belgium; Journal of Human Evolution (2000) vol. 39.
I posted the above material many times before for your stupid-ass. How many more times must I post them?! Not only are the mesolithic Nubian skulls specifically described as 'Negroid' despite your futile protests, but that such 'Negroid' affinities are also found in early remains of the Horn region. Even the neolithic Badarian crania of Egypt are classified as 'Negroid' and the earlier Nazlet-Khater fossils still appear morphologically to be ancestral to both 'Capoids' AND 'Negroids' at least in appearance!
As to what your idol Coon states about "Negroes", here is what he says in full: The Proper Negroes
BY "PROPER NEGROES" we mean those peoples of Africa who are neither Pygmies nor Bushmen, Berbers, Arabs, or any of the clinal populations with a readily visible Caucasoid racial element. We mean the West Africans, some of the East Africans, and most of the Bantu. It was from these populations that most of the Negroes transported to the New World and to Arabia were drawn. We have left them to the end of the chapter because although they are the most numerous race in Africa, their origins are at the moment the least known. Moreover, we can understand them best after having reviewed the racial characteristics of the other peoples of Africa.
Earlier in this chapter we stated that to date no one has found a fully identifiable Negro skull, in the modern sense, in a Pleistocene deposit. This does not mean that Negroes as we know them did not exist then or that such a skull will not eventually be unearthed. Meanwhile we may note that a detailed analysis of 571 modern Negro crania, made by advanced mathematical techniques, has shown that these crania gravitate between two poles, a Mediterranean Caucasoid and a Pygmy one. The former type is again divisible into an ordinary Mediterranean and a Western Asian type, which suggests more than a single northern point of origin for the Caucasoid element. As we shall in greater detail in Chapter 8 and 9, the Negroes resemble Caucasoids closely a number of genetic traits that are inherited in a simple fashion. Examples of these are fingerprints, types of earwax, and the major blood groups. The Negroes also have some of the same local, predominantly African, blood types as the Pygmies.
This evidence suggests that the Negroes are not a primary sub-species but rather a product of mixture between invading Caucasoids and Pygmies who lived on the edges of the forest, which at the end of the Pleistocene extended farther north and east than it does now... Carleton S. Coon, The Living Races of Man
So Coon states that 'Negroes' do not readily show a 'Caucasoid' element, yet he claims that they are the result of hybridization between 'Caucasoids' and Pygmies!! LMAO Of course Lioness exposed this ridiculous paradox before, which you steadfastly support!
So you mean to tell us that...
this ('Negro')
is the result of a cross between...
this (Pygmy)
and this ('Caucasoid')
I hope everyone can see just how insane you and Coon really are! Though one can guess which is crazier, a racist from the early 20th century whose ridiculous racial theories have been discredited, or a racist of the early 21st century right now who still supports the crap of the former. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers:
quote: Either way, the division between so-called 'Capoid' populations and 'Congoid' populations is a falsity since both so called races share and converge on a number of cranial features as well as genetic lineages and autosomal alleles.
That's true today, because most Khoisanids are hybridised, especially the Khoi. However if you look at earlier photographs and eyewitness accounts you will see they appear dictinctly non-Negroid with pronounced facial flatness, epicanthic folds and steatopygia.
Another lie! "Hybridization" has nothing to do with it! Even many physical anthropologists from early times have recognized similarities between pristine 'Capoid' folk like hunter-gatherer San of isolated communities and the so-called 'Congoid' folks like Negroids and Pygmies. And such similarities were long theorized as being due to common ancestry as evidenced from the studies I cited. Here's another one. 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. A protruding upper jaw is characteristic of Negroids, but this part of the face is not always preserved in fossil remains. There is no certain evidence of the presence of Caucasoids in Sub-Saharan Africa before post-Pleistocene times, when presumably they spread southward into the Horn (the region of modern Ethiopia and Somalia) from either North Africa or western Asia. For present purposes, therefore, only the Negroids and the Khoisan people need to be discussed. Blood-group evidence shows that the Khoisan group must be closely related to the Negroids, although at the present time they are very different in skin colour and appearance. Peoples living specialized environments, either from choice or as a result of pressure from other groups, become adapted physically in response to intensive selective pressures. Small stature, for instance, is an advantage in forests where there is a shortage of protein. Pygmies may well have had taller Negroid ancestors, and San, who have been forced to retreat into the Kalahari Desert, are evidently the remnants of a once widespread stock, probably physically much larger, but known only from their larger braincases. Negroids and Khoisan people may have shared a common ancestor as far back as the Lower Paleolithic. It is also possible that Kabwe Man made a genetic contribution to such forms as the Florisbad and Singa individuals. It is known that the makers of Stillbay artifacts, such as the Mumbwa people, were Bushmanoid. Although no Negroids can be recognized with certainty before post-Pleistocene times, it seems reasonable to suggest that the contemporaries of the Stillbay people in the more forested areas of West and Central Africa, the Lupembans, were Negroid.
'Phylogenetic Affinities of African Fossils to Modern Man', The New Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia Vol. 13, 15th ed (1990)
Despite the outdated notions of race, the above source clearly points out the commonality of so-called 'Capoids' and so-called 'Negroids' from cranial and blood-group evidence alone. Of course, today we know have genetics which shows they also share a number of genetic lineages both mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal and even share some autosomal affinities as well, rendering the so-called racial division between them null and void.
As for differences in cranio-facial traits, again you contradict yourself because you acknowledge that 'Capoids' tend to have flatter faces than 'Negroids' yet in your pathetic attempt to deny the Mesolithic Nubian skulls as having 'Negroid' affinities, you claim them to be 'Capoids' even though the Mesolithic Nubian skulls had pronounced prognathism! As for steatopygia, I already told your dumbass before that steatopygia is a common trait among black Africans in general including 'Negroids' and that your silly narrow definition that there has to be a 90 degree angle between the back and butt is hilarious especially since predynastic and dynastic art showing steatopygia fails that limited criteria!
Natufian female figurine
I suppose now you'll change your story from the Natufians being 'Mediterranean Caucasoids' into them being 'Capoids'. LOL Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Dumbass! You are comparing apples to shoes! Cats and dogs are distinct species from different biological families. This is a biological reality and NOT mere arbitration supported not only by a large number of morphological traits but by phylogenetics as well, that is both genetics and fossils. What YOU are doing is totally different in that you try (in vain) to separate human populations of the same species based on morphological differences that are NOT supported by genetics and therefore the very basis of biological 'race' or subspecies is unsupported meaning it doesn't exist!!
Why are you being selective? If species exist -- so do subspecies. The reason you accept the former but not the latter is because you are biased by political correctness. To you dividing up the Human species is an emotional and sensitive issue.
All polytypic species have races, including Homo sapiens. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature includes subspecies (races) as an official rank below species.
"Let me begin with race. 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. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms 11 subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature." (Mayr, 2002)
You are such a fraud.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: All polytypic species have races, including Homo sapiens. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature includes subspecies (races) as an official rank below species.
YOU are the fraud. I already schooled your dumbass on the fact that human morphological variation is due to plasticity, and that the said variation cannot be interpreted as evidence for races. Read again, slime:
Subspecies are commonly used taxonomic units to formally describe intraspecific geographic variation in morphological traits. However, the concept of subspecies is not clearly defined, and there is little agreement about what they represent in terms of evolutionary units, and whether they can be used as reliably useful units in conservation, evolutionary theory and taxonomy. We here investigate whether the morphologically well-characterized subspecies in the North American butterfly Polygonia faunus are supported by genetic data from mitochondrial sequences and eight microsatellite loci. We also investigate the phylogeographic structure of P. faunus and test whether similarities in host-plant use among populations are related to genetic similarity. Neither the nuclear nor the mitochondrial data corroborated subspecies groupings.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? The same observations were made in the other thread about so called ''australoid'' Palaeo-americans and ''mongoloid'' Ameridians: the morphological differentiation is inconsistent with their genetic closeness. All you do is taking genetically close populations and turning their morphological variations (which arose due to plasticity, not speciation due to the long term accumulation of mutations), and arbitrarily assigning definite boundaries to those morphological variations, regardless of whether the two groups are overlapping, genetically. You can keep running away from this data, but I'm going to keep stomping it in your face.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^ Same race denial (aka Diamond's) fallacy. Like Badumtish you employ the same fallacies. These fallacies are now tens of years old and have been debunked repeatedly, but clinging to these is all you have.
Mitochondrial DNA has nothing to do with race.
"In a similar work cited by us, The Problem of Race in Russian Physical Anthropology, E.V. Balanovskaya clearly indicates that “unfortunately, mitochondrial genes have no kind of relationship to racial traits.” It so happens, that propagandist ideas about the “oneness of Mankind”, which proclaim a common origin for all races, are based on a trait which, in general,carries no racial information within itself." (Avdeyev, 2007)
Subspecies are recognised in zoology simply through Amadon's rule and their geographical boundaries. They are just polytypic variants.
Read this article Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
You really have to love observing this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
The same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peel back the onion on these evil, wicked monsters, you find some very interesting RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape (Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
"Different races have evolved among animal species in accordance with the same principles as among humans. For instance, there are two races of gorilla. These are the mountain gorilla (Gorilla ber-ingei) native to the mountains around lakes Edward and Kivu in eastern Zaire, Rwanda, and western Uganda, and the coast gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) of the forests of Cameroon and Gabon. The two races are geographically isolated from one another by about a thousand miles and have evolved differences in physical appearance [...] The mountain gorilla has a narrower skull, shorter arms, longer legs, thicker hair." (Lynn, 2006)
"The reason for the rejection of the concept of race by a number of American anthropologists is apparent from the title of Montagu's book Man's Most Dangerous Myth. Montagu evidently believed that people's consciousness of race is dangerous because it tends to foster racial an-tagonisms that can escalate into conflict. To prevent this it would be better for the concept of race to be suppressed. In Europe most anthropologists accept the validity of the concept of race. Thus, a survey of Polish anthropologists carried out in 2001 found that 75 percent agreed with the proposition "There are biological races within the species Homo sapiens" (Kaszycka and Strzalko, 2003). It is mainly in the United States that the existence of race has come to be denied by a number of anthropologists and a few biologists and social scientists who have sacrificed their scientific integrity to political correctness. (Lynn, 2006)
- Swenet you deny races for political reasons because you are an AA, same for Zaharan.
Why does America have such a high rate of race denialism but everywhere else in the world scientists agree races exist?
This has already been answered:
"It may be wondered why a number of American anthropologists reject the concept of race. The answer has been given by two Polish anthropologists, Kaszycka and Strkalj (2002, p. 334). They write:"
Americans have become very sensitive to race, and the term has acquired strongly sensitive connotations. Many American scientists have opted for the non-existence of human races. Furthermore, the growing demands of "political correctness" militate against the use of the term in and outside science.... Few scientists dare to study racial origins, lest they be branded racists simply for being interested in the problem."
- As soon as you move out of politically correct or multiracial societies, race denialism is unheard of in academia.
"It is mainly in the United States that the existence of race has come to be denied by a number of anthropologists and a few biologists and social scientists who have sacrificed their scientific integrity to political correctness."
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
"It was only in the 1960s that the United States and West European discourse on the anthropological concept of “race” reached some countries of the Eastern Bloc (e.g., Poland). Naturally,much has changed since then and, since the 1990s, so has almost everything in science. Despite this, however, racial stereotypes have survived in many places of Eastern Europe, and many lecturers teaching anthropology today formulated their views based on the intraspecific variability of humans of the 1960s and 1970s.
On the one hand, our results would seem to justify the following statement: deeper knowledge in the field of human biology inclines one to reject race conceptions as inconsistent with biological knowledge (i.e., impossible to verify by the methods of modern biology). [Note: "modern biology", not "50-year-old biology"]
The oldest generation of Eastern European anthropologists grew up with a strong sense of the reality of race (first in the typological, then in the populational sense) and, therefore, it is hardly surprising that they still believe that human races exist. Experience of the following factors probably influenced this belief: half a century of socialism; a protracted period of isolation of Eastern European science from that of the West; curtailment of international contact; lack of exposure to the Western world’s literature; and, therefore, unfamiliarity with the details of the U.S. debate over race of the 1960s and the human clinal data. These scientists therefore retain their original understanding of “race” probably from the perspective of tradition and convenience."
It's really no surprise when these people are referring to 40- and 50-year-old science. These people are ignorant and have a superficial, antiquated knowledge, as the emboldened part demonstrates.
This is their conclusion and corroborates the notion that the people who still believe in the myth of 'races' are ignorant and outdated:
The discourse on division of the human species into races—their definition, origin, number, and genetic determinants—has continued for over 200 years and does not seem likely to end soon. It is time, perhaps, to agree on one point: the problem of human races has ceased to be an issue of biological knowledge. Race is a vague term that is impossible to define. In biological terms, enough arguments (above all, the genetic ones) have accumulated against the notion of human races as taxonomic units to consider the matter closed. As George Armelagos aptly summarizes: “Race is dead as a scientific method for understanding human variation” (1995:108).
[...]
We are well aware that dispensing with the term altogether has proved difficult. One of the reasons is an attachment to paradigms (we might call it “tradition”), but there is also a second factor: convenience. Hence, the struggle against the concept of “race”—in all of its connotations—is bound still to be long and arduous. Nonetheless, it is one eminently worthwhile to continue to undertake" (Kaszycka, Strkalj and Strzałko, 2009).
They do not agree with you; they agree with me in saying 'race' is a myth that needs to go. There's a good reason that virtually no notable literature on 'race' originates in Eastern Europe: they're out of touch with modern science. The empirical data demonstrates 'race' is a myth.
Are those quotes even real or did you make them up?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
You are manipulating sources. Few biologists or anthropologists deny races exist. Those that do are confined to politically correct America and Western Europe where race is seen as a taboo. There are plenty of polls which show this. The most recent poll in Poland showed 75% believe in the biological reality of race, while polls in Russia, China show an almost universal agreement. So Lynn (2006) is correct when he asserts this: "It is mainly in the United States that the existence of race has come to be denied by a number of anthropologists and a few biologists and social scientists who have sacrificed their scientific integrity to political correctness."
If there was objective science behind race denialism then we would not see only the politically correct countries where it is pushed. However we don't "race denialism" outside that very small western zone.
See the following study: Lieberman L, Kaszycka KA, Martinez Fuentes AJ, Yablonsky L, Kirk RC, Strkalj G, Wang Q, Sun L., "The race concept in six regions: variation without consensus" Coll Antropol. 2004 Dec;28(2):907-21.
Six regions were analysed. It was discovered race denial only appeared in America and a small portion of Western Europe.
A study examined papers published in China's leading journal in biological anthropology during the 1982-2002 period. Every single one of the 324 articles dealing with human variation used traditional race concepts. (Štrkalj, 2007)
By the way your hopes of race being eradicated from genetics is a sheer fantasy. Look at the data again:
A 2008 study examined several important American and British journals in genetics, epidemiology and medicine for their content during the 1946-2003 period. It stated "Based upon my findings I argue that the category of race only seemingly disappeared from scientific discourse after World War II and has had a fluctuating yet continuous use during the time span from 1946 to 2003, and has even become more pronounced from the early 1970s on".(italics in original text).
Genetic data is becoming more racial. I don't even agree with this as I am a race typologist and I think genetics is a red herring, however the point is modern molecular anthropology is increasingly race based. In my area of physical anthropology though, race is still highly prevalent:
"A 2010 examination of 18 widely used English anatomy textbooks found that every one relied on the existence of races." (Solyali, 2010)
What exactly were you saying about the future objecting to the reality of race and only focusing in individuals? Neither modern genetics or traditional physical anthropology show this.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
"We are well aware that dispensing with the term altogether has proved difficult. One of the reasons is an attachment to paradigms (we might call it “tradition”), but there is also a second factor: convenience. Hence, the struggle against the concept of “race”—in all of its connotations—is bound still to be long and arduous. Nonetheless, it is one eminently worthwhile to continue to undertake" (Kaszycka, Strkalj and Strzałko, 2009)."
-- Yes, but look up Strkalj. I own some of his papers. What he says is that races don't exist, but that "forms" do. See his paper "Form and Race" (2000) published in the Mankind Quaterly.
This is just a play of words. We see the same in Huxley (1937): "monotype", Brace (1964) "peak", and more recently Cavalli-Sforza (1994) "cluster" -- all are euphemisms for race. These are people who just substitute the words. They agree with the reality of race as geographical populations, they just think the word is "dangerous" and has bad connotations.
I know all the tricks. Strkalj believes populations of humans are "forms". This is exactly the same as races. Among race realists themselves there are those that are politically correct in fear of loosing their jobs and so defend races by employing other words which won't offend anyone.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ Same race denial (aka Diamond's) fallacy. Like Badumtish you employ the same fallacies. These fallacies are now tens of years old and have been debunked repeatedly, but clinging to these is all you have.
Mitochondrial DNA has nothing to do with race.
"In a similar work cited by us, The Problem of Race in Russian Physical Anthropology, E.V. Balanovskaya clearly indicates that “unfortunately, mitochondrial genes have no kind of relationship to racial traits.” It so happens, that propagandist ideas about the “oneness of Mankind”, which proclaim a common origin for all races, are based on a trait which, in general,carries no racial information within itself." (Avdeyev, 2007)
Subspecies are recognised in zoology simply through Amadon's rule and their geographical boundaries. They are just polytypic variants.
You're such a phuckin' dumbass. You don't even know what a phuckin' mtdna lineage is. No one on this forum believes that mtDNA codes for cranio-facial traits. MtDNA is only used as a tool to measure relatedness, because related populations carry related mtDNA lineages. They could've used any other ancestry-informative marker, and the result is the same: two genetically related populations can easily have phenotypes that cluster them both with other populations who are genetically unrelated to them. In fact, they DID use other ancestry informative markers (Short Tandem Repeats), and the mtDNA results were in harmony with their microsatellite data:
Neither the nuclear nor the mitochondrial data corroborated subspecies groupings. --Kodandaramaiah et al, 2012
Now, what the phuck does the non-racial information coded in mtDNA have to do with what I just said: that neither 'subspecies' nor 'races' can be inferred from phenotype, because the plasticity of the human face and neurocranium may mimic cues used to infer speciation and genetic (un)relatedness.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
How many "race denialists" actually deny races exist? Actually very few. Most just say they do for political reasons. If you actually look through their work, you will see euphemisms for race and that they believe in races.
Montagu's book "Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy Of Race" (1942) does not deny races exist despite its title.
One of my old reviews -
"Contrary to the book title, Montagu does not deny races exist. Most other reviewers here have clearly never read the work. For example on page 236, of the 2nd ed. (1945) he writes: "In the biological sense there do, of course, exist races of mankind". In the original 1942 print, through to at least the 3rd revised edition published ten years later, Montagu in his introduction (pp. 1-3) also asserts that: "In biology a race is defined as a subdivision of a species... in this sense there are a number of human races". In the later 4th revised edition (1964) this use of the term race change to the transparent euphemism "distinctive populations". In the final edition published in 1997, this remains unchanged (p. 46). Throughout Montagu' literature can also be found his belief in 4 biological races (later, "distinctive populations" or "major groups"): Negroid, Australoid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid. The fact a substitute term is used instead of race, does not not hide the fact Montagu was a race believer. Substituting words is usually just a ploy of political correctness, more recently the geneticist Cavalli-Sforza following in Montagu's footsteps uses the term "geographical clusters", which is again synonymous with race. If Montagu did believe races exist, why the misleading book title? As Richard Lynn (2006) remarks: "Considering that Montagu evidently accepted that races exist it seems strange that he should have given his book such a misleading title". However one doesn't have to look far, to realise Montagu was a self-proclaimed "Humanist", who openly declared in numerous of his writings that no 'divisions' among Human populations should exist. He was therefore committed through his own socio-political bias to deconstruct race, despite the fact as a scientist he knew they existed. The book is therefore incredibly dishonest and should be avoided."
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ Same race denial (aka Diamond's) fallacy. Like Badumtish you employ the same fallacies. These fallacies are now tens of years old and have been debunked repeatedly, but clinging to these is all you have.
Mitochondrial DNA has nothing to do with race.
"In a similar work cited by us, The Problem of Race in Russian Physical Anthropology, E.V. Balanovskaya clearly indicates that “unfortunately, mitochondrial genes have no kind of relationship to racial traits.” It so happens, that propagandist ideas about the “oneness of Mankind”, which proclaim a common origin for all races, are based on a trait which, in general,carries no racial information within itself." (Avdeyev, 2007)
Subspecies are recognised in zoology simply through Amadon's rule and their geographical boundaries. They are just polytypic variants.
You're such a phuckin' dumbass. You don't even know what a phuckin' mtdna lineage is. No one on this forum believes that mtDNA codes for cranio-facial traits. MtDNA is only used as a tool to measure relatedness, because related populations carry related mtDNA lineages. They could've used any other ancestry-informative marker, and the result is the same: two genetically related populations can easily have phenotypes that cluster them both with other populations who are genetically unrelated. In fact, they DID use other ancestry informative markers (Short Tandem Repeats), and the mtDNA results were in harmony with their microsatellite data:
Neither the nuclear nor the mitochondrial data corroborated subspecies groupings. --Kodandaramaiah1 et al, 2012
Now, what the phuck does the non-racial information coded in mtDNA have to do with what I just said: that neither 'subspecies' nor 'races' can be inferred from phenotype, because the plasticity of the human face and neurocranium may mimic speciation.
"MtDNA is only used as a tool to measure relatedness" -- Wolpoff and others have already highlighted the flaws with this. MtDNA is not accurate in accessing race/population history.
"A basic cautionary attitude would indicate that it is no longer tenable to assert that the history of the mtDNA of a population is the same as the history of the population. There are just too many unaccounted variables to believe that methods that assume complete neutrality for mtDNA are giving accurate dates for population movements, expansions, or other events." (Hawks, 2005)
As usual you will dismiss this as it doesn't fit your views. You don't look at the data objectively. Anything that doesn't fit with your views you ignore or exclude by calling it "retarded" despite the fact world leading scientists have acknowldged mtdna is completely bogus in reconstructing population histories.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
-- If you think Mtdna is accurate why has "Eve" been dated from 4 million years to 800,000 to 400,000 to now 120,000-80,000?
Which one is true?
How do you know mutation rates are constant?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
And note again the hypocrisy with Badumtish. He claims he only supports objective truths yet goes along with the mitochondrial eve theory which has produced completely arbitrary date ranges. lol. Once again he is being selective.
Tell me what one is true: 4 million years, 800,000, 400,000 or 120,000-80,000.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: "MtDNA is only used as a tool to measure relatedness" -- Wolpoff and others have already highlighted the flaws with this. MtDNA is not accurate in accessing race/population history.
This is irrelevant bullsh!t since, as I've already told your dumbass, the study I cited above didn't rely on mtDNA. They included microsatellite data in their analysis, and their results are in harmony with their mtDNA data. Nuclear DNA is NOT subject to Wolpoff's amateurish objections.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: As usual you will dismiss this as it doesn't fit your views.
I've addressed your irrelevant smoke-screenish objections towards mtDNA--which only serve to delay your inevitable intellectual ass whooping BTW--numerous times. You, on the other hand, have yet to reply to the data that, not only doesn't fit your views, but that destroys your views. Again:
They could've used any other ancestry-informative marker, and the result is the same: two genetically related populations can easily have phenotypes that cluster them both with other populations who are genetically unrelated. In fact, they DID use other ancestry informative markers (Short Tandem Repeats), and the mtDNA results were in harmony with their microsatellite data --Swenet
^Start addressing and refuting this, you slimy snake.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: If you think Mtdna is accurate why has "Eve" been dated from 4 million years to 800,000 to 400,000 to now 120,000-80,000?
^You're lying out your ass, as usual. The date when mtDNA Eve was proposed to have lived was pinned down to 200.000 years ago when Cann et al made the discovery more than 2 decades ago, and that date is still maintained today:
ScienceDaily (Aug. 17, 2010) — The most robust statistical examination to date of our species' genetic links to "mitochondrial Eve" -- the maternal ancestor of all living humans -- confirms that she lived about 200,000 years ago. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Swenet is "biologically African" a valid term ?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Of course it is.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers:
quote:Dumbass! You are comparing apples to shoes! Cats and dogs are distinct species from different biological families. This is a biological reality and NOT mere arbitration supported not only by a large number of morphological traits but by phylogenetics as well, that is both genetics and fossils. What YOU are doing is totally different in that you try (in vain) to separate human populations of the same species based on morphological differences that are NOT supported by genetics and therefore the very basis of biological 'race' or subspecies is unsupported meaning it doesn't exist!!
Why are you being selective? If species exist -- so do subspecies. The reason you accept the former but not the latter is because you are biased by political correctness. To you dividing up the Human species is an emotional and sensitive issue.
All polytypic species have races, including Homo sapiens. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature includes subspecies (races) as an official rank below species.
"Let me begin with race. 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. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms 11 subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature." (Mayr, 2002)
You are such a fraud.
YOU are the fraud, you delusional twit who not only lies to others but to yourself!! I never said subspecies don't exist! They do in other species but NOT in humans which we have plenty of genetic information for!! As Swenet has demonstrated, this genetic information comes from a number of lines short-tandem-repeats and single-nuclear-polymorphisms!! They all show that morphology does NOT correlate with genetic lines and therefore there are no races of subspecies within Homo sapiens, you dumbfuck!
We've told you this hundreds of times already since you first showed your studpidass in this forum, yet you keep denying or talking your way around it. You are a scientifically illiterate moron, who only relies on outdated info from debunked authors of the early 20th century like Carleton Coon!!
Notice how you totally IGNORED other parts of my posts concerning "Negroid" affinities of early African crania as well as your ridiculous notion that "Negroids" are themselves hybrids between Pygmies and Caca-soids! You are a pathetic nutcase whom even other white racists won't listen to so, what... you come to websites predominated by blacks such as this one in hopes to sell us your b.s.?! LMAO This demonstrates the depths of your insanity-- that you try sell your pig-sh*t to black people that they are a race of inferior, ugly, and non-ancient people! LOL
Too bad for you not only are the blacks here not stupid but they are even more than enough scientifically literate to expose your idiotic fallacies and play you like a marionette you are!
So my question is why oh why do you continue to spew your nonsense? Do you get a high being "challenged" by the supposedly low-IQ blacks you love to talk about? LOL
By the way, I myself am Asian and I dare you to spout the same stupid sh*t on Asian forums and websites, or do you not consider their IQs low enough to be challenged? Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Swenet is "biologically African" a valid term ?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Of course it is.
folks, stop using the term "Negroid"
replace it with the term "biologically African"
and proceed
lioness productions
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You are manipulating sources. Few biologists or anthropologists deny races exist. Those that do are confined to politically correct America and Western Europe where race is seen as a taboo. There are plenty of polls which show this. The most recent poll in Poland showed 75% believe in the biological reality of race, while polls in Russia, China show an almost universal agreement. So Lynn (2006) is correct when he asserts this: "It is mainly in the United States that the existence of race has come to be denied by a number of anthropologists and a few biologists and social scientists who have sacrificed their scientific integrity to political correctness."
If there was objective science behind race denialism then we would not see only the politically correct countries where it is pushed. However we don't "race denialism" outside that very small western zone.
See the following study: Lieberman L, Kaszycka KA, Martinez Fuentes AJ, Yablonsky L, Kirk RC, Strkalj G, Wang Q, Sun L., "The race concept in six regions: variation without consensus" Coll Antropol. 2004 Dec;28(2):907-21.
Six regions were analysed. It was discovered race denial only appeared in America and a small portion of Western Europe.
A study examined papers published in China's leading journal in biological anthropology during the 1982-2002 period. Every single one of the 324 articles dealing with human variation used traditional race concepts. (Štrkalj, 2007)
My previous quote demonstrated that the continued belief in 'race' in developing countries and regions is due to their ignorance, insulation from the developed world and ideological history with the concept. The Lieberman et al. study explains how China continue to use it due to its sociopolitical history. It's no surprise that it is historically communist: of course an 'us vs. them' narrative would be constructed with the aim of promoting solidarity and unionism.
The study also notes how there are different conceptions of the meaning of 'race' and how fundamental it is.
quote:By the way your hopes of race being eradicated from genetics is a sheer fantasy. Look at the data again:
A 2008 study examined several important American and British journals in genetics, epidemiology and medicine for their content during the 1946-2003 period. It stated "Based upon my findings I argue that the category of race only seemingly disappeared from scientific discourse after World War II and has had a fluctuating yet continuous use during the time span from 1946 to 2003, and has even become more pronounced from the early 1970s on".(italics in original text).
Genetic data is becoming more racial. I don't even agree with this as I am a race typologist and I think genetics is a red herring, however the point is modern molecular anthropology is increasingly race based.
Lol.
It isn't becoming 'more racial', it is just calling groups that have been constructed for specific purposes 'races'. Certainly, the notion that they accept your or a common definition of 'race' is completely and utterly false:
Hunt and Megyesi (2006):
"Many researchers are currently studying the distribution of genetic variations among diverse groups, with particular interest in explaining racial/ethnic health disparities. However, the use of racial/ethnic categories as variables in biological research is controversial. Just how racial/ethnic categories are conceptualized, operationalized, and interpreted is a key consideration in determining the legitimacy of their use, but has received little attention. We conducted semi-structured, open-ended interviews with 30 human genetics scientists from the US and Canada who use racial/ethnic variables in their research. They discussed the types of classifications they use, the criteria upon which they are based, and their methods for classifying individual samples and subjects. We found definitions of racial/ethnic variables were often lacking or unclear, the specific categories they used were inconsistent and context specific, and classification practices were often implicit and unexamined. We conclude that such conceptual and practical problems are inherent to routinely used racial/ethnic categories themselves, and that they lack sufficient rigor to be used as key variables in biological research. It is our position that it is unacceptable to persist in the constructing of scientific arguments based on these highly ambiguous variables."
[...]
"First, let us consider specifically how racial/ethnic groups were defined by these researchers. Several said they classified their samples primarily based on the geographic locations from which they were collected, for example, using labels such as “Chinese,” “Irish,” “Finnish,” or “West African.” More commonly, the researchers said that they used the familiar racial/ethnic categories that corresponded to those used in the US Census and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB): American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black (not Hispanic), White (not Hispanic), or Hispanic (OMB, 2000). In describing their samples, the researchers most often used everyday racial/ethnic labels such as “black,” “white,” “European,” “African American,” and “Mexican American.”
[...]
"A serious problem in using racial and ethnic classifications in scientific endeavors is that they are not used consistently, and the categories themselves are varied, shifting, and highly context specific (Bhopal, 1998; Braun, 2002; Keita & Kittles, 1997; Lee et al., 2001). A sound classification system should have three basic features: (1) consistent and unique principles of classification; (2) categories which are mutually exclusive; and (3) capacity to absorb all cases (Bowker & Star, 1999). To what extent do the racial/ethnic categories used by the genetic researchers we interviewed meet these criteria?"
[...]
"Classification term used -- Type of classification
Caucasian -- Skin color or geographic origin White -- Skin color Non-Hispanic white -- Language & skin color Jewish/Ashkenazi Jews -- Religion & geographic origin Asian -- Continental origin Asian American -- Continental ancestral origin & geographic region African American -- Continental ancestral origin & geographic region West African -- Geographic region Afro-Carib -- Continental ancestral origin & geographic region Hispanic/Latino -- Language Mexican -- Country Mexican American -- Country of ancestral origin & geographic region Native American -- Ancestral group membership
Laid out this way, the arbitrariness of these categories is striking. There are no fewer than ten distinct types of classifications being used, which consider a wide variety of characteristics ranging from physical appearance, to religious and linguistic groups, to geographic location. Clearly, when considered in this light, these seem almost capricious criteria for drawing boundaries around different “populations.” Clearly, such vaguely and inconsistently conceived categories do not begin to meet the basic standards for a classificatory system."
[...]
"What is routinely forgotten, and what this study illuminates, is that racial and ethnic categories are created and classified arbitrarily, based on colloquial notions of similarity and difference. We have argued elsewhere that, without rigor in defining terms and criteria in research on minority groups, widely held stereotypes may be allowed to drive the research (Hunt et al., 2004)."
Hunt (2008):
"But how could researchers in such an otherwise rigorous field be so tolerant, even embracing of variables with so little precision? We argue that in part, it is precisely this imprecision that sustains itself. The wide use of this vague and unsystematic terminology results in a semantic illusion of consistency between very different types of research. For example, those we interviewed were working on a wide assortment of types of genetic studies, ranging from DNA sequencing, population modeling, to linkage studies. Their target populations were equally varied, depending on the goals of their project: some chosen because of their geographic isolation, others for their disease characteristics, and others for their mere availability. However, when all are labeled with the same simplistic set of terms, it may seem that there is a growing body of data about specific racial populations, when in fact there is no reason at all to presume they belong to a "group" of any kind, beyond their being subject to having the same label affixed to them. In other words, the only equivalence that can be presumed between these groups is that they are subject to equivalent terminology"
Megyesi et al. (2011):
"The variety of racial/ethnic labels we found in these articles is strikingly diverse, including more than 50 distinct labels. The terms, more often than not, are idiosyncratic, appearing in only a single article."
[...]
Racial/ethnic labels -- Type of classification criteria
Black, Caucasian, white, non-white -- Skin color
Non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic white, Black/Hispanic -- Skin color and language
US Black, South African Black, South African white, US white -- Skin color and political unit
European Caucasian -- Skin color and continental region
Chinese, Japanese, Somali, Puerto Rican, American, Norwegian, Indian, Malay, Pakistani, Filipina -- Political unit
Gujarati Hindu, Pakistani Muslim -- Political unit and religion
Canadian Aboriginal, Mexican American, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander -- Political unit, ancestral group, and place of birth
American Indian, Native American -- Political unit and ancestral group
European American, African American, Asian American -- Political unit and continental region
US-born Black, Mexican-born Mexican American, US-born Mexican American, US-born white -- Skin color, political unit, and place of birth
Asian, South Asian, West African, European -- Continental region
Indian/Pakistani -- Two political units
Hispanic, Latina -- Language
Gujarati, Chinese Han -- Ancestral group and political unit
Inuit -- Ancestral group
Multi-racial, non-white, other -- Skin color and other
"As we saw in Table 1, only a handful of these labels were used in more than one study; however, we found an additional problem when labels were being used across different studies. The same label was often used to refer to groups of people who were from vastly different geographic regions. For example, the label “Caucasian” appeared in nine studies, but referred to people living in Greenland, the USA, Australia, and England. Similarly, the label “Chinese” was used in eight studies and referred to people in Australia, the USA, China, and Singapore."
[...]
We found an impressive variety and inconsistency in the racial/ethnic labels used across these studies, as illustrated by Table 1. The way we have organized this table, according to the standard labels used in US Federal Reporting, is clearly only one of many different ways the table could be constructed. This reflects precisely one of the most concerning aspects of the variety of labels used in these articles. Presented in this format, these labels are shown to be arbitrary and haphazard. The implications of findings based on such weakly defined variables, for the purpose of understanding variation in bone health, would therefore seem difficult to predict. Thus, in reviewing the array of categories used in these studies, we see a number of serious problems: Different labels are used to refer to people in the same groups, the same label is used to refer to people on different continents, and these labels are based on a dizzying array of types of classification criteria.
[...]
"The variety of terms used coupled with the highly cryptic way in which they are assigned to subjects raise important concerns about the replicability and comparability of the findings of such studies. We have argued elsewhere that, despite their pervasiveness in medical research, these haphazard practices for labeling race/ethnicity can seriously undermine the scientific reliability of the findings such studies produce."
Pena (2011):
"A peculiar aspect of the literature about "race" is that there does not appear to be a consensus about its exact meaning, which is often subjected to ideological manipulation (8). We can actually identify different ways in which the word "race" is used. The first is phenotypic, generally associated with iconic physical characteristics, more especially skin color, such as Blacks, Whites, etc. "Race" can also assume the meaning of "geographic ancestry", such as Africans, Asians, etc. But the rotary machine gun of race spares no one. "Race" has also been used, when politically convenient, to denote groups, which have in common religion and/or culture, such as the case of the Jewish people, who are not a "race" in either the phenotypic or geographical sense, and yet were the victims of the "racially" perpetrated Nazi holocaust. "Race" can finally be applied even to persons with very vague elements in common, such as the bizarre American category of "Hispanics", which covers all Mexicans, Central Americans and South Americans, including Portuguese-speaking Brazilians."
quote:In my area of physical anthropology though, race is still highly prevalent:
"A 2010 examination of 18 widely used English anatomy textbooks found that every one relied on the existence of races." (Solyali, 2010)
That quote is not by Solyali, it is by Štrkalj and Solyali.
The study demonstrated the very different concepts of 'races' used in these textbooks. One said:
“Racial differences may be seen in the colour of the skin, hair, and eyes, and in the shape and size of the eyes, nose, and lips. Africans and Scandinavians tend to be tall, as a result of long legs, whereas Asians tend to be short, with short legs. The heads of central Europeans and Asians also tend to be round and broad”
Another one said:
"It presents “principal races of humans”, namely the Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid, people of the Indian subcontinent, Capoid and Australoid"
Another one said:
"the frequency of variation often differs among human groups, and variations collected in one population may not apply to members of another population"
Another one said:
"The spinous processes of the C3-C6 vertebrae are short and usually bifid in white people, especially males, but usually not as commonly in people of African descent or in females...”, while in the other (Tortora and Nielsen 2009: 154) it was highlighted that “... risk factors for developing osteoporosis include... European and Asian ancestry...”"
Neither of them agree with each other or your classifications. Why? Because 'race' is arbitrary, the amount of division and basis of it is arbitrary and, as Hunt (2008) noted, a semantic illusion of consistency is born when all of these arbitrary ways of dividing are called 'race':
"But how could researchers in such an otherwise rigorous field be so tolerant, even embracing of variables with so little precision? We argue that in part, it is precisely this imprecision that sustains itself. The wide use of this vague and unsystematic terminology results in a semantic illusion of consistency between very different types of research. For example, those we interviewed were working on a wide assortment of types of genetic studies, ranging from DNA sequencing, population modeling, to linkage studies. Their target populations were equally varied, depending on the goals of their project: some chosen because of their geographic isolation, others for their disease characteristics, and others for their mere availability. However, when all are labeled with the same simplistic set of terms, it may seem that there is a growing body of data about specific racial populations, when in fact there is no reason at all to presume they belong to a "group" of any kind, beyond their being subject to having the same label affixed to them. In other words, the only equivalence that can be presumed between these groups is that they are subject to equivalent terminology"
They all use different systems to arbitrary divide the overlapping continuum that is biological variation. 'Race' is socially constructed.
They concluded with:
"Students learning about anatomy, however, need accurate explanation (even if in very basic terms) of the nature of human variation. They should know from the early years of their studies that humans do vary morphologically due to their ancestry, but that the race concept is, as recently argued “both too broad and too narrow” (Feldman et al. 2003: 374), to explain this variation. Students should also be taught that they need to focus on processes that produce the complex patterns of variation rather than fruitless attempts at classifying humans into races."
quote:What exactly were you saying about the future objecting to the reality of race and only focusing in individuals? Neither modern genetics or traditional physical anthropology show this.
"As a consequence, incorporation of personal genomes into clinical practice has been achieved (34) and is already becoming commonplace. [...] In summary, human clinical genomic knowledge and tools are advancing at enormous speed. Personalized pharmacogenomics should soon become a reality in routine clinical practice" (Pena, 2011).
The (34) is a reference to the Lancet, a leading journal in medicine.
China and Eastern Europe have no sway on science. Why? Because they are out of date and their views are not corroborated by modern science, as my previous post demonstrated. These are developing countries and regions that do not have access to the academic and technological resources that Western academics do.
And I don't know how many times I have to tell you that books do not have any influence on science; peer-reviewed and high impact journals do. No worthwhile scientist derives their knowledge from a textbook that can be out of date before it is even published. Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: "We are well aware that dispensing with the term altogether has proved difficult. One of the reasons is an attachment to paradigms (we might call it “tradition”), but there is also a second factor: convenience. Hence, the struggle against the concept of “race”—in all of its connotations—is bound still to be long and arduous. Nonetheless, it is one eminently worthwhile to continue to undertake" (Kaszycka, Strkalj and Strzałko, 2009)."
-- Yes, but look up Strkalj. I own some of his papers. What he says is that races don't exist, but that "forms" do. See his paper "Form and Race" (2000) published in the Mankind Quaterly.
This is just a play of words. We see the same in Huxley (1937): "monotype", Brace (1964) "peak", and more recently Cavalli-Sforza (1994) "cluster" -- all are euphemisms for race. These are people who just substitute the words. They agree with the reality of race as geographical populations, they just think the word is "dangerous" and has bad connotations.
I know all the tricks. Strkalj believes populations of humans are "forms". This is exactly the same as races. Among race realists themselves there are those that are politically correct in fear of loosing their jobs and so defend races by employing other words which won't offend anyone.
The only person playing on words here is you. Nobody is saying everyone looks the same: we are all morphologically and genetically different. Hence, there might be a >200cm form/cluster, or a sickle cell cluster of people.
'Race' is far too an ambiguous term to have any meaning: Hunt and Megyesi (2006), Hunt (2008), Megyesi et al. (2011) and Pena (2011) have all demonstrated that various studies that say 'race', 'black', 'white', etc. are referring to completely different things. Being explicit with the terms in the various that use individuals or groups is preferable. Strkalj says the following:
"A possible solution to the problem of infraspecific classification of the human species was suggested almost half a century ago by several geneticists and anthropologists, most forcibly by Theodosius Dobzhansky (Štrkalj, 2006). More recently, a similar position was advocated by Diamond (1994). All these scientists recognized that any classification of the human species would inevitably be arbitrary. This seemed acceptable to them, as they understood it as only a convenience, i.e., a device that would help researchers organize their data. Infraspecific classification, therefore, is only an expedient research tool. As Dobzhansky (1962: 266) noted, “race differences are objectively ascertainable facts. The number of races we choose to recognize is a matter of convenience”. In other words, there are quantifiable biological differences between diverse human populations. Human groups can therefore be classified, but only relatively, as the classification changes with a change of trait or set of traits used in that particular classification. There are, therefore, no fixed races that can be identified. How one divides humans on biological grounds depends on which set of data one utilizes, and this is defined by the objective of each particular research project. Race, as Kohn (1995) observed, by such an approach became more fluid. Sherwood Washburn (1963: 527), the father or the New Physical Anthropology, emphasised that “since races are open systems which are intergrading, the number of races will depend on the purpose of classification.”
The classificatory process outlined above is known in systematics as an artificial classification. It is defined by Mayr and Ashlock (1991: 409) as “classification based on convenient and conspicuous diagnostic characters, without attention to characters indicating relationship; often a classification based on a single arbitrarily chosen character instead of an evaluation of the totality of characters”. As defined in The Cambridge Dictionary of Human Biology and Evolution, artificial classification is “any classification system in which the members of a group resemble each other in the defining characters only, and show no similarity in non-defining characters” (Mai et al., 2005: 39)."
So, your classification may mean people are 'similar' in various aspects of their craniofacial morphology, but they may be 'dissimilar' in their height, hair colour, skin tone, weight, etc. The classification system you choose is arbitrary.
Continuing: "Any classification of the human species other than an artificial one seems to be impossible. It would appear that much of the confusion and misunderstanding stems from the fact that numerous racial classifications in the history of anthropology have been presented as ‘natural’ divisions of humankind when, in fact, they were purely artificial."
It is an arbitrary social construct. Various categories can be created for specific research purposes, but these are artificially constructed for that specific research purpose. As Zagefka (2009) said, you may categorise lawnmowers and plums in a variety of different ways; the way you choose is a product of socially constructed meaning.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: And note again the hypocrisy with Badumtish. He claims he only supports objective truths yet goes along with the mitochondrial eve theory which has produced completely arbitrary date ranges. lol. Once again he is being selective.
Tell me what one is true: 4 million years, 800,000, 400,000 or 120,000-80,000.
What is arbitrary about the date ranges?
Which sources have estimated those numbers?
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Furthermore, Strkalj said:
"Finally, bearing in mind that classification is artificial, it would be appropriate to use a new neutral term to name the groups into which humans are classified. ‘Form’, defined as “a neutral term for a single individual, phenon, or taxon” (Mayr and Ashlock, 1991: 416), is one possible term (Štrkalj, 2000a, b). In this way, confusion with old systems of racial classification (cf. Templeton, 1998) would be avoided."
He didn't say 'form' was a substitute for 'race' exclusively, he said 'form' was a substitute for any kind of group/classification, including the individual.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
It's funny that you dismiss my and many other people's quotes by saying "ZOMG FALSE DEFINITION! FALSE DEFINITION! THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT RACES, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT OTHER NON-RACIAL THINGS BECAUSE THEY ARE USING A FALSE DEFINITION!!!!!111"
And now you are suggesting the 'race' concept is growing, despite the fact that none of the books and articles quoted in the studies used definitions/instantiations that you use and all of them had different conceptions/classifications schemes.
You said this:
"Genetic data is becoming more racial. I don't even agree with this as I am a race typologist and I think genetics is a red herring, however the point is modern molecular anthropology is increasingly race based."
"A 2008 study examined several important American and British journals in genetics, epidemiology and medicine for their content during the 1946-2003 period. It stated "Based upon my findings I argue that the category of race only seemingly disappeared from scientific discourse after World War II and has had a fluctuating yet continuous use during the time span from 1946 to 2003, and has even become more pronounced from the early 1970s on".(italics in original text). "
But you said this before:
"I don't give a crap about genes, and never have. They are not how races are defined. You set up an endless string of false definitions."
How can you claim it is becoming 'more racial' when they are using definitions and classification schemes that you do not consider to be 'racial'? Are you claiming genetic, epidemiological and medical journals rely on the structure of someone's skull in their studies? LOL. None of them use craniofacial morphology so none of them are actually using 'races', according to you.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: It's funny that you dismiss my and many other people's quotes by saying "ZOMG FALSE DEFINITION! FALSE DEFINITION! THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT RACES, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT OTHER NON-RACIAL THINGS BECAUSE THEY ARE USING A FALSE DEFINITION!!!!!111"
And now you are suggesting the 'race' concept is growing, despite the fact that none of the books and articles quoted in the studies used definitions/instantiations that you use and all of them had different conceptions/classifications schemes.
You said this:
"Genetic data is becoming more racial. I don't even agree with this as I am a race typologist and I think genetics is a red herring, however the point is modern molecular anthropology is increasingly race based."
"A 2008 study examined several important American and British journals in genetics, epidemiology and medicine for their content during the 1946-2003 period. It stated "Based upon my findings I argue that the category of race only seemingly disappeared from scientific discourse after World War II and has had a fluctuating yet continuous use during the time span from 1946 to 2003, and has even become more pronounced from the early 1970s on".(italics in original text). "
But you said this before:
"I don't give a crap about genes, and never have. They are not how races are defined. You set up an endless string of false definitions."
How can you claim it is becoming 'more racial' when they are using definitions and classification schemes that you do not consider to be 'racial'? Are you claiming genetic, epidemiological and medical journals rely on the structure of someone's skull in their studies? LOL. None of them use craniofacial morphology so none of them are actually using 'races', according to you.
Proponents of race are split into two factions: "The ultimate conclusion of the population thinker and of the typologist are precisely the opposite. For the typologist, the type (eidos) is real and the variation an illusion, while for the populationist the type (average) is an abstraction and only the variation is real. No two ways of looking at nature could be more different." (Mayr, 1976)
There are three ways at looking at biodiversity: (a) Typological (b) Populationist (c) Clinal. The first two admit races exist, while (c) denies them. Most proponents of race today are populationists, meaning population geneticists. Those minority that are typologists are forensic or physical anthropologists.
Despite opposing the population geneticists, I acknowledge the fact they still admit races exist (I own Garn's, Dobzhansky's etc texts) . They just go about a different way of looking at them. The fact though remains as genetics or molecular anthropology continues to be researched as sources prove - it is becoming more racial. Even watching the recent garbage programme "is it better to be mixed race", turned out all the geneticists on the show all admitted races exist which they argue are cline peaks in the genome. That's coming from the world's top geneticists. So what exactly are you saying? Is there some sort of conspiracy to claim races are real when they aren't? Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: It's funny that you dismiss my and many other people's quotes by saying "ZOMG FALSE DEFINITION! FALSE DEFINITION! THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT RACES, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT OTHER NON-RACIAL THINGS BECAUSE THEY ARE USING A FALSE DEFINITION!!!!!111"
And now you are suggesting the 'race' concept is growing, despite the fact that none of the books and articles quoted in the studies used definitions/instantiations that you use and all of them had different conceptions/classifications schemes.
You said this:
"Genetic data is becoming more racial. I don't even agree with this as I am a race typologist and I think genetics is a red herring, however the point is modern molecular anthropology is increasingly race based."
"A 2008 study examined several important American and British journals in genetics, epidemiology and medicine for their content during the 1946-2003 period. It stated "Based upon my findings I argue that the category of race only seemingly disappeared from scientific discourse after World War II and has had a fluctuating yet continuous use during the time span from 1946 to 2003, and has even become more pronounced from the early 1970s on".(italics in original text). "
But you said this before:
"I don't give a crap about genes, and never have. They are not how races are defined. You set up an endless string of false definitions."
How can you claim it is becoming 'more racial' when they are using definitions and classification schemes that you do not consider to be 'racial'? Are you claiming genetic, epidemiological and medical journals rely on the structure of someone's skull in their studies? LOL. None of them use craniofacial morphology so none of them are actually using 'races', according to you.
Proponents of race are split into two factions: "The ultimate conclusion of the population thinker and of the typologist are precisely the opposite. For the typologist, the type (eidos) is real and the variation an illusion, while for the populationist the type (average) is an abstraction and only the variation is real. No two ways of looking at nature could be more different." (Mayr, 1976)
There are three ways at looking at biodiversity: (a) Typological (b) Populationist (c) Clinal. The first two admit races exist, while (c) denies them. Most proponents of race today are populationists, meaning population geneticists. Those minority that are typologists are forensic or physical anthropologists.
Despite opposing the population geneticists, I acknowledge the fact they still admit races exist (I own Garn's, Dobzhansky's etc texts) . They just go about a different way of looking at them. The fact though remains as genetics or molecular anthropology continues to be researched as sources prove - it is becoming more racial. Even watching the recent garbage programme "is it better to be mixed race", turned out all the geneticists on the show all admitted races exist which they argue are cline peaks in the genome. That's coming from the world's top geneticists. So what exactly are you saying? Is there some sort of conspiracy to claim races are real when they aren't?
But you said this:
"I don't give a crap about genes, and never have. They are not how races are defined."
Clearly, whatever they believe in, according to you, is not a 'race'/'racial'. How can they acknowledge 'races' exist when they are basing this 'acknowledgement' on traits that, according to you, have nothing to do with 'race'?
What do you mean 'a different way of looking at them'? You have stated on multiple occasions that anything outside of your specific conception of craniofacial morphology is not 'racial'. They are no longer looking at 'them', they are constructing categories based on 'false definitions' and 'false criteria', according to you.
If genetics is apparently okay now, you must accept Barbujani and Belle's (2006) demonstration that genetic clusters are not consistent across studies, methodologies and datasets and that there are no 'races'. You must also accept Barbujani's (2005) finding that significant genetic differences exist everywhere when enough loci are studied.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:I never said subspecies don't exist! They do in other species but NOT in humans which we have plenty of genetic information for!!
LOL. So races exist in all other polytypic animals and plants, but just not Humans...
Stop the politically correct nonsense.
If races exist -- you have to apply the same zoological principles to Homo sapiens.
As I said you are a fraud. You are driven by politics and emotions. Hence you will admit races exist in all other animals, but suddenly when it comes to Humans they don't exist. You are retarded.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] Swenet is "biologically African" a valid term ?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Of course it is.
the term "Biologically African" is equivalent to race
"Biologically African" is simply an update of "Negroid" and includes additional more recent genetics and pathology information.
It's just a semantic difference "race" by another name, people are just arguing words.
- just as dubious as Negroid, Asian and Caucasian
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: It's funny that you dismiss my and many other people's quotes by saying "ZOMG FALSE DEFINITION! FALSE DEFINITION! THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT RACES, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT OTHER NON-RACIAL THINGS BECAUSE THEY ARE USING A FALSE DEFINITION!!!!!111"
And now you are suggesting the 'race' concept is growing, despite the fact that none of the books and articles quoted in the studies used definitions/instantiations that you use and all of them had different conceptions/classifications schemes.
You said this:
"Genetic data is becoming more racial. I don't even agree with this as I am a race typologist and I think genetics is a red herring, however the point is modern molecular anthropology is increasingly race based."
"A 2008 study examined several important American and British journals in genetics, epidemiology and medicine for their content during the 1946-2003 period. It stated "Based upon my findings I argue that the category of race only seemingly disappeared from scientific discourse after World War II and has had a fluctuating yet continuous use during the time span from 1946 to 2003, and has even become more pronounced from the early 1970s on".(italics in original text). "
But you said this before:
"I don't give a crap about genes, and never have. They are not how races are defined. You set up an endless string of false definitions."
How can you claim it is becoming 'more racial' when they are using definitions and classification schemes that you do not consider to be 'racial'? Are you claiming genetic, epidemiological and medical journals rely on the structure of someone's skull in their studies? LOL. None of them use craniofacial morphology so none of them are actually using 'races', according to you.
Proponents of race are split into two factions: "The ultimate conclusion of the population thinker and of the typologist are precisely the opposite. For the typologist, the type (eidos) is real and the variation an illusion, while for the populationist the type (average) is an abstraction and only the variation is real. No two ways of looking at nature could be more different." (Mayr, 1976)
There are three ways at looking at biodiversity: (a) Typological (b) Populationist (c) Clinal. The first two admit races exist, while (c) denies them. Most proponents of race today are populationists, meaning population geneticists. Those minority that are typologists are forensic or physical anthropologists.
Despite opposing the population geneticists, I acknowledge the fact they still admit races exist (I own Garn's, Dobzhansky's etc texts) . They just go about a different way of looking at them. The fact though remains as genetics or molecular anthropology continues to be researched as sources prove - it is becoming more racial. Even watching the recent garbage programme "is it better to be mixed race", turned out all the geneticists on the show all admitted races exist which they argue are cline peaks in the genome. That's coming from the world's top geneticists. So what exactly are you saying? Is there some sort of conspiracy to claim races are real when they aren't?
But you said this:
"I don't give a crap about genes, and never have. They are not how races are defined."
Clearly, whatever they believe in, according to you, is not a 'race'/'racial'. How can they acknowledge 'races' exist when they are basing this 'acknowledgement' on traits that, according to you, have nothing to do with 'race'?
What do you mean 'a different way of looking at them'? You have stated on multiple occasions that anything outside of your specific conception of craniofacial morphology is not 'racial'. They are no longer looking at 'them', they are constructing categories based on 'false definitions' and 'false criteria', according to you.
If genetics is apparently okay now, you must accept Barbujani and Belle's (2006) demonstration that genetic clusters are not consistent across studies, methodologies and datasets and that there are no 'races'. You must also accept Barbujani's (2005) finding that significant genetic differences exist everywhere when enough loci are studied.
Yes they are using false definitions and criteria which has actually led to the race denial fallacies (see Hamilton, 2008). But at the end of the day some of their work is more useful than the race denialists.
Why the shift from typology to genetics?
"Genetic analysis, Cavalli-Sforza assures us, provides a deeper and more reliable measure of biological differences [...] This cunning assertion appeals to our psychological proclivity to believe that a science we don’t understand, which requires the mediation of experts for its interpretation, is more “true” than a science that deals with readily observable phenomena." (Hamilton, 2008)
- psychological proclivity i'm sure you know a lot about. Use a big word or post a 'complex' looking graph or formula and it wrongly fools people into thinking you know what you are talking about.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Pyramidologist's 'logic':
Person A: "Races exist; my study based on genetics demonstrates this."
Pyramidologist: That's fine. Genetics is just a 'different way of looking at them'.
Person B (Barbujani and Belle, 2006; Barbujani, 2005): "'Races' don't exist; my study based on genetics demonstrates this."
Pyramidologist: No, races have absolutely nothing to do with genetics. You are using a false definition and false criteria.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: It's funny that you dismiss my and many other people's quotes by saying "ZOMG FALSE DEFINITION! FALSE DEFINITION! THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT RACES, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT OTHER NON-RACIAL THINGS BECAUSE THEY ARE USING A FALSE DEFINITION!!!!!111"
And now you are suggesting the 'race' concept is growing, despite the fact that none of the books and articles quoted in the studies used definitions/instantiations that you use and all of them had different conceptions/classifications schemes.
You said this:
"Genetic data is becoming more racial. I don't even agree with this as I am a race typologist and I think genetics is a red herring, however the point is modern molecular anthropology is increasingly race based."
"A 2008 study examined several important American and British journals in genetics, epidemiology and medicine for their content during the 1946-2003 period. It stated "Based upon my findings I argue that the category of race only seemingly disappeared from scientific discourse after World War II and has had a fluctuating yet continuous use during the time span from 1946 to 2003, and has even become more pronounced from the early 1970s on".(italics in original text). "
But you said this before:
"I don't give a crap about genes, and never have. They are not how races are defined. You set up an endless string of false definitions."
How can you claim it is becoming 'more racial' when they are using definitions and classification schemes that you do not consider to be 'racial'? Are you claiming genetic, epidemiological and medical journals rely on the structure of someone's skull in their studies? LOL. None of them use craniofacial morphology so none of them are actually using 'races', according to you.
Proponents of race are split into two factions: "The ultimate conclusion of the population thinker and of the typologist are precisely the opposite. For the typologist, the type (eidos) is real and the variation an illusion, while for the populationist the type (average) is an abstraction and only the variation is real. No two ways of looking at nature could be more different." (Mayr, 1976)
There are three ways at looking at biodiversity: (a) Typological (b) Populationist (c) Clinal. The first two admit races exist, while (c) denies them. Most proponents of race today are populationists, meaning population geneticists. Those minority that are typologists are forensic or physical anthropologists.
Despite opposing the population geneticists, I acknowledge the fact they still admit races exist (I own Garn's, Dobzhansky's etc texts) . They just go about a different way of looking at them. The fact though remains as genetics or molecular anthropology continues to be researched as sources prove - it is becoming more racial. Even watching the recent garbage programme "is it better to be mixed race", turned out all the geneticists on the show all admitted races exist which they argue are cline peaks in the genome. That's coming from the world's top geneticists. So what exactly are you saying? Is there some sort of conspiracy to claim races are real when they aren't?
But you said this:
"I don't give a crap about genes, and never have. They are not how races are defined."
Clearly, whatever they believe in, according to you, is not a 'race'/'racial'. How can they acknowledge 'races' exist when they are basing this 'acknowledgement' on traits that, according to you, have nothing to do with 'race'?
What do you mean 'a different way of looking at them'? You have stated on multiple occasions that anything outside of your specific conception of craniofacial morphology is not 'racial'. They are no longer looking at 'them', they are constructing categories based on 'false definitions' and 'false criteria', according to you.
If genetics is apparently okay now, you must accept Barbujani and Belle's (2006) demonstration that genetic clusters are not consistent across studies, methodologies and datasets and that there are no 'races'. You must also accept Barbujani's (2005) finding that significant genetic differences exist everywhere when enough loci are studied.
Yes they are using false definitions and criteria which has actually led to the race denial fallacies (see Hamilton, 2008). But at the end of the day some of their work is more useful than the race denialists.
Why the shift from typology to genetics?
"Genetic analysis, Cavalli-Sforza assures us, provides a deeper and more reliable measure of biological differences [...] This cunning assertion appeals to our psychological proclivity to believe that a science we don’t understand, which requires the mediation of experts for its interpretation, is more “true” than a science that deals with readily observable phenomena." (Hamilton, 2008)
- psychological proclivity i'm sure you know a lot about. Use a big word or post a 'complex' looking graph or formula and it wrongly fools people into thinking you know what you are talking about.
You're backtracking. Their work is completely irrelevant because they are using false definitions and criteria; it has absolutely nothing to do with 'race', according to you.
Who is 'we'? Biologists and geneticists completely understand what they're discussing. It's like saying people should stick to earth, wind, water and fire as chemical categories because 'we' don't understand the complexities of atoms and atomic elements. Ignorance and ignorant people do not dictate science.
Funny that you have to quote from a 'white' supremacist magazine instead of a peer-reviewed journal.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Notice how you totally IGNORED other parts of my posts concerning "Negroid" affinities of early African crania as well as your ridiculous notion that "Negroids" are themselves hybrids between Pygmies and Caca-soids! You are a pathetic nutcase whom even other white racists won't listen to so, what... you come to websites predominated by blacks such as this one in hopes to sell us your b.s.?! LMAO This demonstrates the depths of your insanity-- that you try sell your pig-sh*t to black people that they are a race of inferior, ugly, and non-ancient people! LOL
Too bad for you not only are the blacks here not stupid but they are even more than enough scientifically literate to expose your idiotic fallacies and play you like a marionette you are!
So my question is why oh why do you continue to spew your nonsense? Do you get a high being "challenged" by the supposedly low-IQ blacks you love to talk about? LOL
By the way, I myself am Asian and I dare you to spout the same stupid sh*t on Asian forums and websites, or do you not consider their IQs low enough to be challenged?
You didn't check those sources. They actually categorized the crania you mentioned as proto-Khoisan. Vermeersch (2002) who you quote actually supports my claims and backs up Coon's theory that Bushmanoid populations once extended into North Africa.
The oldest Negroid (AMH) skull is the 6500-year-old Asselar skeleton. Yet the earliest Caucasoid (AMH) crania are thousands and thousands of years earlier.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Funny that you have to quote from a 'white' supremacist magazine instead of a peer-reviewed journal.
Its peer-reviewed.
"Of the thirteen individuals on its editorial board, ten hold Ph.D.s".
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Funny that you have to quote from a 'white' supremacist magazine instead of a peer-reviewed journal.
Its peer-reviewed.
"Of the thirteen individuals on its editorial board, ten hold Ph.D.s".
The editorial board simply decides what goes into a journal/magazine; they are not a neutral party of qualified professionals who scrutinise an academic article (i.e., the peer-review process).
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Funny that you have to quote from a 'white' supremacist magazine instead of a peer-reviewed journal.
Its peer-reviewed.
"Of the thirteen individuals on its editorial board, ten hold Ph.D.s".
The editorial board simply decides what goes into a journal/magazine; they are not a neutral party of qualified professionals who scrutinise an academic article (i.e., the peer-review process).
Peer review doesn't make them objective. Gould had several papers peer reviewed on Morton's cranial collection. A year or so back it was discovered he falsified all the data. Those that "peer reviewed" his work for over ten years never pointed his mistakes out because he was an active "anti-racist" and they thought his message was a positive one by demonising Morton as a "white supremacist". In the process though, Gould falsified all the data.
When you post a peer-review here do you expect someone to accept it as factual or worth something?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] Swenet is "biologically African" a valid term ?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Of course it is.
the term "Biologically African" is equivalent to race
"Biologically African" is simply an update of "Negroid" and includes additional more recent genetics and pathology information.
It's just a semantic difference "race" by another name, people are just arguing words.
The reason for objecting to the existence of phenotypical races is because it is undermined by simple science. Science says that any population has an appearance that is best understood as simply a current state in evolution that may change (for many reasons other than geneflow) to show more affinity to other populations, without the need to be actually related to those other populations (e.g., Australian Aboriginals and Africans). Having 'missed' (read: ignored) this scientific understanding, the 'Race' proponents argue that the cranio-facial configuration of any population is static and non-changing, and therefore, reliable as a marker to determine 'race'. This causes them to repeatedly blunder, for example, in their supposition that Africans with a ''negroid'' cranio-facial configuration have genetic variation that nicely matches up with the idea of a single negroid 'race' or cluster---not the case. You'd actually have to have multiple negroid 'races' for this to work, which they can't admit because that messes with their other assumptions (i.e., their assumption that all races are parallel variants, with the exception of negro, who appeared late in the skeletal record).
The term 'biologically African' is not at all subject to any of those race problems. Taking into account what I said above, please specify how the term 'biologically African' even vaguely overlaps with the negroid racial archetype.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Funny that you have to quote from a 'white' supremacist magazine instead of a peer-reviewed journal.
Its peer-reviewed.
"Of the thirteen individuals on its editorial board, ten hold Ph.D.s".
The editorial board simply decides what goes into a journal/magazine; they are not a neutral party of qualified professionals who scrutinise an academic article (i.e., the peer-review process).
Peer review doesn't make them objective. Gould had several papers peer reviewed on Morton's cranial collection. A year or so back it was discovered he falsified all the data. Those that "peer reviewed" his work for over ten years never pointed his mistakes out because he was an active "anti-racist" and they thought his message was a positive one by demonising Morton as a "white supremacist". In the process though, Gould falsified all the data.
When you post a peer-review here do you expect someone to accept it as factual or worth something?
I never said it made them objective. It makes them a whole lot more reliable, though, as they have been scrutinised by impartial academics.
An anecdote doesn't modify that fact. There's a reason peer-review is ubiquitous amongst all the notable (and less notable) journals in every academic field and it isn't because it is somehow inferior to non peer-reviewed articles.
I'm simply not going to accept the 'scrutiny' of somebody who has published in a 'white' supremacist magazine. It's functionally equivalent to citing a post on Stormfront that was written by a Ph.D.: meaningless.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] Swenet is "biologically African" a valid term ?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Of course it is.
the term "Biologically African" is equivalent to race
"Biologically African" is simply an update of "Negroid" and includes additional more recent genetics and pathology information.
It's just a semantic difference "race" by another name, people are just arguing words.
The reason for objecting to the existence of phenotypical races is because it is undermined by simple science. Science says that any population has an appearance that is best understood as simply a current state in evolution that may change (for many reasons other than geneflow) to show more affinity to other populations, without the need to be actually related to those other populations (e.g., Australian Aboriginals and Africans). Having 'missed' (read: ignored) this scientific understanding, the 'Race' proponents argue that the cranio-facial configuration of any population is static and non-changing, and therefore, reliable as a marker to determine 'race'. This causes them to repeatedly blunder, for example, in their supposition that Africans with a ''negroid'' cranio-facial configuration have genetic variation that nicely matches up with the idea of a single negroid 'race' or cluster---not the case. You'd actually have to have multiple negroid 'races' for this to work, which they can't admit because that messes with their other assumptions (i.e., their assumption that all races are parallel variants, with the exception of negro, who appeared late in the skeletal record).
The term 'biologically African' is not at all subject to any of those race problems. Taking into account what I said above, please specify how the term 'biologically African' even vaguely overlaps with the negroid racial archetype.
What you regard as in situ variation is in fact interracial clinal. That's why you don't grasp the reality of race. You cling to the absurd Afrocentric theory "Blacks have wavy hair and thin noses", and Europeans "wide noses", the former largely stems from the self-hatred within the African-American community of 'broad' features, nothing more. Those Sub-Saharan Africans with wavy hair (e.g. some Ethiopians) are an interacial clinal population created through the mixture of two types:
“Coon described the genetic gradient that resulted from such admixture in the marginal area located between the two geographical extremes of genetic variation as an "interracial cline." The term "interracial" referred to hybrid populations which resulted from an admixture of two genetically different race groups, while an ‘intraracial cline’ referred to the genetic variation which resulted from natural selection operating on colonies subjected to new and different environmental pressures not experienced by their parent group. Racial clines have complicated modern efforts to reconstruct racial history by comparing the gene pools of different populations and calculating the genetic distance between these populations. Clearly, intraracial clines result from speciation, they are produced as a result of an evolutionary process, but interracial clines result from crossbreeding as a result of genetic migration (where invaders or immigrants mix their genes with the former proprietors of a territory).” (Pearson, 2002)
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Negroids
Nigerians
Mali
Niger
Cameroon
Congo
So much for "Black" diversity. LMAO.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
And the top photo were females by the way -- yet they look like the men.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ But you have yet to explain how the above peoples are the result of a cross between..
these
and these
LOL Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] Swenet is "biologically African" a valid term ?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Of course it is.
the term "Biologically African" is equivalent to race
"Biologically African" is simply an update of "Negroid" and includes additional more recent genetics and pathology information.
It's just a semantic difference "race" by another name, people are just arguing words.
The reason for objecting to the existence of phenotypical races is because it is undermined by simple science. Science says that any population has an appearance that is best understood as simply a current state in evolution that may change (for many reasons other than geneflow) to show more affinity to other populations, without the need to be actually related to those other populations (e.g., Australian Aboriginals and Africans). Having 'missed' (read: ignored) this scientific understanding, the 'Race' proponents argue that the cranio-facial configuration of any population is static and non-changing, and therefore, reliable as a marker to determine 'race'. This causes them to repeatedly blunder, for example, in their supposition that Africans with a ''negroid'' cranio-facial configuration have genetic variation that nicely matches up with the idea of a single negroid 'race' or cluster---not the case. You'd actually have to have multiple negroid 'races' for this to work, which they can't admit because that messes with their other assumptions (i.e., their assumption that all races are parallel variants, with the exception of negro, who appeared late in the skeletal record).
The term 'biologically African' is not at all subject to any of those race problems. Taking into account what I said above, please specify how the term 'biologically African' even vaguely overlaps with the negroid racial archetype.
What you regard as in situ variation is in fact interracial clinal. That's why you don't grasp the reality of race. You cling to the absurd Afrocentric theory "Blacks have wavy hair and thin noses", and Europeans "wide noses", the former largely stems from the self-hatred within the African-American community of 'broad' features, nothing more. Those Sub-Saharan Africans with wavy hair (e.g. some Ethiopians) are an interacial clinal population created through the mixture of two types:
“Coon described the genetic gradient that resulted from such admixture in the marginal area located between the two geographical extremes of genetic variation as an "interracial cline." The term "interracial" referred to hybrid populations which resulted from an admixture of two genetically different race groups, while an ‘intraracial cline’ referred to the genetic variation which resulted from natural selection operating on colonies subjected to new and different environmental pressures not experienced by their parent group. Racial clines have complicated modern efforts to reconstruct racial history by comparing the gene pools of different populations and calculating the genetic distance between these populations. Clearly, intraracial clines result from speciation, they are produced as a result of an evolutionary process, but interracial clines result from crossbreeding as a result of genetic migration (where invaders or immigrants mix their genes with the former proprietors of a territory).” (Pearson, 2002)
B!tch, stop addressing posts that weren't directed to you (I was talking to Lioness), and start addressing the ones that were directed to you hours ago. You think I'm going to keep discussing new matter with you, only to have your faggot ass run away again when I slam your face in the facts? First things first:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: "MtDNA is only used as a tool to measure relatedness" -- Wolpoff and others have already highlighted the flaws with this. MtDNA is not accurate in accessing race/population history.
This is irrelevant bullsh!t since, as I've already told your dumbass, the study I cited above didn't rely on mtDNA. They included microsatellite data in their analysis, and their results are in harmony with their mtDNA data. Nuclear DNA is NOT subject to Wolpoff's amateurish objections.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: As usual you will dismiss this as it doesn't fit your views.
I've addressed your irrelevant smoke-screenish objections towards mtDNA--which only serve to delay your inevitable intellectual ass whooping BTW--numerous times. You, on the other hand, have yet to reply to the data that, not only doesn't fit your views, but that destroys your views. Again:
They could've used any other ancestry-informative marker, and the result is the same: two genetically related populations can easily have phenotypes that cluster them both with other populations who are genetically unrelated. In fact, they DID use other ancestry informative markers (Short Tandem Repeats), and the mtDNA results were in harmony with their microsatellite data --Swenet
^Start addressing and refuting this, you slimy snake.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: If you think Mtdna is accurate why has "Eve" been dated from 4 million years to 800,000 to 400,000 to now 120,000-80,000?
^You're lying out your ass, as usual. The date when mtDNA Eve was proposed to have lived was pinned down to 200.000 years ago when Cann et al made the discovery more than 2 decades ago, and that date is still maintained today:
ScienceDaily (Aug. 17, 2010) — The most robust statistical examination to date of our species' genetic links to "mitochondrial Eve" -- the maternal ancestor of all living humans -- confirms that she lived about 200,000 years ago.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-IDIOT EXPOSED PART 20: He tries ot make out that only rainforest areas define the tropics and says: ----------------------------------------------------------------- quote
The climatic tropical zone is limited to mostly western and central sub-sahara africa. Posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist osted 17 November, 2012 04:53 PM ____________________________________
When in fact any credible geography book denotes the tropics within the zone marked out by the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a denotation itself based on climate.
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-IDIOT EXPOSED- PART 19: He says there is no OOA but the very "supporting reference" he proffers directy contradicts his claim. ------------------------- [b]Posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on 07 May, 2012 08:45 AM:
OOA never happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans ----------------------------- The idiot gives a Wikipedia "reference" to back up his claim but the very same "supporting reference" he gives states that multi-regionalists acknowledge that hominid species came from Africa in the first place. Their argument is for continuity and distinct development in separate locations AFTER the initial OOA exit putting hominins in different places. This approach STILL recognizes and acknowledges hominin OOA.
Quote from FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Idiot's "supporting" reference: This species arose in Africa two million years ago as H. erectus and then spread out over the world, developing adaptations to regional conditions. Some populations became isolated for periods of time, developing in different directions, but through continuous interbreeding, replacement, genetic drift and selection, adaptations that were an advantage anywhere on earth would spread, keeping the development of the species in the same overall direction while maintaining adaptations to regional factors. By these mechanisms, surviving local varieties of the species evolved into modern humans, retaining some regional adaptations but with many features common to all regions.[10]
^^Note they say that their founding population Homo Erectus came from Africa. In short, the FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-idiot's own "supporting" reference contradicts his claim. What a pathetic fool.
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi- IDIOT EXPOSED - PART 18. The faker says Negroids are defined as having Caucasoid admixture. But when he sees bla-ck models with admixture he suddenly claims they aint black at all. Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist: posted 12 June, 2012 05:34 PM http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008168 Topic: Carleton Coon: Negoids are hybrids of Pygmies and Caucasians [QB] Yes. A fact well known today.
''The Negroid type is not homogeneous.'' - Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994.
Hiernaux (1975) distinguishes the Pygmies to Negroids on the grounds the latter are a product of the former (a recent mutation) but that there was probable geneflow with Caucasoids as Coon (1967, 1982) maintains.
Also note that on page 123 of 'Living Races of Man', Coon also states that ''To this combination may have been added remnant Capoid genes''. So Negroids are basically a recent mutation from the Pygmies, but with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture.
^^Bitch please. Your own words contradict your punk ass. Up above you say that "NEgroids" are a recent mutation with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture. Look bich, look. You say blacks are defined as having that admixture, and quote your favorite racist, Carleton Coon to that effect. But when your hypocrisy is exposed, you all of a sudden deny that the black models posted are "really" black. IN one thread "admixed" Negroes like the black models are black, but when your idiocy is exposed, they suddenly ain't black. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-IDIOT EXPOSED PART 17: - He says there is no sexual diomorphism in Africans or skeletal differences between men and women, when the very anthropologists he quotes say the opposite.
---------]Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi- Buffoon: FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist member # 18853 posted 03 June, 2012 05:47 PM
FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Buffoon 17a- "Frost and other anthropologists have noted that sexual dimorphism in Negroids is completely lacking. Check Frost's online blog."
FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Buffoon 17b- "Black females are not lighter or different to black males in craniofacial terms."
^^Stupid muthafucka. The very Frost quote you paste says this:
Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys).." FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103u
------- Can't you read imbecile? ALL females differ from males and are lighter. ALL human humans have sexual dimorphism to one degree or another. SO how can blacks "completely lack" said dimorphism according to you, when your own boy Peter Frost says all human have it?
------- ANd in studies of crania men and women do show differences, and these differences can be detected with a battery of modern measurements, as already shown in previous threads where your idiocy was destroyed- example (zakrewski2004-Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania)
your own peter frost debunks you: ---------------------------------------
"If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman’s skin correlates with the thickness of her subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men (Aoki, 2002; Feinman Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost, 2005; Van den Berghe & Frost, 1986)."
FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103
and:
"A different perspective on sexual dimorphism in skin pigmentation comes from the recognition that human females require significantly higher amounts of calcium during pregnancy and lactation and, thus, must have lighter skin than males in the same environment in order to maximize their cutaneous vitamin D3 production (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000)... Thus strong clinical evidence continues to support the hypothesis that lighter skin pigmentation in females evolved primarily as a means to enhance the the potential for cutaneous vitamin D production and maintain healthy long-term calcium status and skeletal health." -- Human Evolutionary Biology. 2010. By Michael P. Muehlenbein Damm you are one of the most pathetic idiots in existence.
Tell us -- were you born such a retarded shithead, or were you originally a slug who managed to rise to such prominence?
quote:Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist: [QB] E1b1b is not Negroid.
Read it an weep -
''Sub-Saharan Africans belong to subclades of E other than E1b1b, while most non-Africans who belong to haplogroup E belong to its E1b1b subclade.” - Fulvio Cruciani et al, Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa, Am. J. Hum. Genet, p. 74)
The foul faker doctored the quote not knowing the article has been much discussed at ES. Testifying even more to his incompetence, Cruciani actually does show E3b or E1b1b occuring in numerous places within "sub-Saharan" Africa. The three main subclades of haplogroup E3b (E-M78, E-M81, and E-M34) and the paragroup E-M35* are not homogeneously distributed on the African continent: E-M78 has been observed in both northern and eastern Africa, E-M81 is restricted t o northern Africa, E-M34 is common only in eastern Africa, and E-M35* is shared by eastern and southern Africans (Cruciani et al. 2002)" --Cruciani
And there is no "page 74" in the Cruciani article. THE FAKER AND BUFFOON IS AGAIN BUSTED IN A LIE!
THE FAKER'S BOGUS CLAIM PART- 15 - QUOTE: [QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 14 January, 2012 11:41 AM If you are a white heterosexual male in Britain you have virtually zero chance of getting a job. All the jobs go to blacks or other immigrants.
^^LOL - Idiotic nonsense. As of 2001, 92.1% of the UK population identified themselves as White, leaving 7.9%[270] of the UK population identifying themselves as mixed race or of an ethnic minority. The population of the United Kingdom in the 2001 census was 58,789,194, UK Office for National Statistics- 2001.
That leaves approx 54 million white people. About 33% of that population were adult men. Let's take away 8% or so for minorities. So you are saying then that 25% of the approx 54 million white people in the UK are all unemployed? Damn you are dumb, but you only expose the bankruptcy of your racism.
The Fake C-Ass -Hole exposed PART 14 - BOGUS "NORDIC BLONDS FLITTING AROUND EGYPT
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 29 December, 2011 06:05 AM
Hetepheres II was a blonde
^^Hapless dullard, you are exposed in another lie. Your own reference was checked. It yielded detailed citations which revealed a quite different story. Scholars say in the mainstream Cambridge Ancient History:
"We must give up the idea that she was of Libyan origin, an attractive theory which was based on blond hair of Hetepheres II, who was then thought to be her daughter. It is now evident that the yellow wig is part of a costume worn b other great ladies." --I. Edwards, C. Gadd, N. Hammond. 1971. The Cambridge Ancient History. 3ed Volume 1, Part 2, Early History of the Middle East
Yet another history says: "The walls of this interior room are decorated with hunting and fishing scenes, including a charming image of Meresankh and her mother, Hetepheres II picking lotus flowers from the river.. The pillars have images of Meresankh wearing a blond wig." --P. Lacovara. 2004. The pyramids and the SPhinx: tombs and temples of GIza
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 13- HIS BOGUS CLAIM OF "NORDIC" EGYPTIAN ROYALTY
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 28 December, 2011 05:40 PM Early dynastic & old kingdom royalty was Nordic (blonde and fair skinned)
^^^Ha hahahahah you stupid mass of camel vomit! Up above you reference scholar Frank Yurco, but here is what Yurco said about the 12th Dynasty, debunking your claim of "Nordic" Egyptian royalty. You dumbass.... You are again debunked, with your own "supporting" references... lmao...
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989)
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 12 HE says Egyptologists like Frank Yurco says the Egyptians were "Caucasoid" --- "Virtually every egyptologist believes the egyptians were Caucasoid" --
BUt Yurco says nothing of the sort.. Here for example, is what he says about the 12the Dynasty rulers aho were Nubian descent: They seem really "Caucasoid"... yeah, right.. - quote-
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989) -
Another dodge is to twist an old chat/forum discussion statement by conservative Egyptologist Frank Yurco out of context. Yurco rejected those who "a priori" claimed the Egyptians were "black", that is, a dogmatic claim without presenting empirical evidence. He never rejected reasonable argument with data showing the Egyptians were an indigenous African population -QUOTE: .. basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times.. (Yurco 1996- An Egyptological Review, in Black Athena Revisited)
The Faker exposed- part 11
quote: Originally posted by cassiterides: ^You claim Vanessa Williams is a black woman when her heritage is white welsh and native american
But when Marc Washingrton smoked him out, and the actual facts were checked, FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/Cassifaker is lying again: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1354054/Vanessa-Williamss-ancestry-revealed-Who-Do-You-Think-You-Are.html According to the Faker, anyone with any white ancestry is not "really" black. SO since a majority of African Americans have white ancestry ranging from 5 to 30% then most Black Americans are not "truly" black you see...
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 10
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Eurafrican is Caucasoid.
^^You are once again exposed. You said EurAfrican is Caucasoid, and cited Serti in support. But using your own citation any reader can see that Sergi considers EurAfricans to be an amalgamation or mixture of many types, directly contradicting your claim.
SErgi says: QUOTE: "This human species, with cranial and facial characters thus well determined, I call Eurafrican; and this because, having had its origin in Africa, where it is still represented by many peoples, it has been diffused from prehistoric times in Europe... The Eurafrican species thus falls into three races: the African, with red-brown and black pigmentation.. Thus the Mediterranean stock is a race or variety of the Eurafrican species." --G. Sergi
You have again failed and are once again exposed. ------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED PART 9- HE CLAIMS ALL THESE HIGGINS "DISTORTIONS" BUT WHEN ASKED TO NAME THE SPECIFIC WEBSITES OF THIS ALLEGED "AFROCENTRIC' HORROR, HE RUNS AWAY. WHY IS THAT FAKER?
In fact, Godfrey Higgins ALSO says this about "negroes"
quote: "I believe all the Blavk bambinos of Italy are negroes- not merely blacks; this admitted, it would prove they very early date of their entrance into Italy." pg 286 pg 434 "the ancient Eturians had the countenances of Negroes, the same as the images of Buddah in INdia." pg 166 pg 474- "They aere in fact, all one nation, with one religion, that of Buddah, and they were originally NEgroes" pg 59: "nor can it be reasonably doubted, that a race of Negroes formerly had power and pre-eminence in India" pg 59- AS TO ETHIOPIA: And it is probable that an Ethiopian, a negro, correctly speaking, may have been meant, not merely a black person; and it seems probable that the following may have ben the real fact, viz, that a race of NEgroes or Blacks, but probably of the former, came to India to the west."
cASSIRETEDES own source debunks him. Note the footnote by his own author- QUOTE: "may not have been Negroes, though Blacks, though it is probably they were so."
His own source says they may not have been Negroes then adds: THOUGH IT IS PROBABLY THEY WERE SO."
^The Faker once again, debunks himself. And he seems not to realize that Ethiopia is in "sub-Saharan" Africa.. lol.. pathetic incompetent..
And he never shows these massive number of websites "all over the internet". Like what? How many? If they are "all over" then he should at least be able to give direct links to 6 showing pages where the "Afrocentrics: are "distorting" Higgins work. LEt's say what the faker has besides hot air. Post DIRECT LINKS to 6 of the huge number of alleged "Afrocentric" websites where the Afrocentrics are "distorting" Higgins. SHow how they are distorting Higgins with specific quotes and specific context.
Watch the Faker duck and run when he is again called on a claim, or make up yet another lie to cover his exposure... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- part 8:
quote:
Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
But then, in your own thread, by your own hand, you present a picture of an African albino that has pale skin, light brown or hazel eyes and fair hair. You said it was impossible, but then debunk yourself with your own posted picture.. This is like the 8-9th time you keep tripping over yourself with lies, contradictions, and bogus claims.
RECAP The Faker exposed- part 7 Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
^^Your claim is is completely bogus. Native diversity or albinism causes some tropical Africans to have light eyes and light hair. You fail againn..
bbvv
================================================
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 1-- ^^Faker! In your initial posts you claimed that it was Cavalli-Sforza talking 'bout negroes "mutating" from Pygmies. Now in your "corrected" post, YOU STILL APPEAR A FAKE. You now remove Cavalli- Sforza's name on the "mutant" claim, admitting that you were lying all along! Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah..
2-- Second point- Peter Frost is debunked by Cavalli-Sforza who says as to his so-called "mutation" theory: QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
Frost mentions Cavalli-Sforza in connection with sexual selection, and movement of some groups from Nigeria-Cameroon to other parts of Africa. He never says Cavalli Sforza talks bout any "negro mutation" and in fact any mutation claim is directly contradicted by Sforza. Sucka, you not only lied bout Cavalli-Sforza, you lied about your own white writer- Peter Frost, and misrepresented him.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/CassiREDES says: ''There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty''
^^LMAO! Totally fake! Credible up to date sources note that blondism is prevalent in early life BUT, contrary to your claim that: "There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty", the shade of color varies. In maturity the hair usually turns a darker brown color, but sometimes remains blond. See: "Gene Expression: Blonde Australian Aboriginals". Gnxp.com. http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/blonde-australian-aboriginals.php.
^^Here is one of your Australians over 20 years old who does have blonde hair. YOu are caught out spinning bogus claims AGAIN!. Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah.. -
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 5a [b]So where are these tropical african peoples with pale white or fair skin? blonde red hair?
^^You fail again. African populations can readily produce blond or reddish blond hair as noted by hair study author Hrdy 1978 himself, and he references Nubia as an example. Albinism is another source of red or blond hair in Africa, and albinism is much more prevalent in African populations than among Europeans. Even African Americans produce more albinos than white Americans. (The pigmentary system: physiology and pathophysiology- By James J. Nordlund 2006: 603) (E. Roach and V. Miller 2004. Neurocutaneous disorders.) QUOTE: "In general, the prevalence of albinism in Africa is much higher, in the range of 1 in 1 100 to 1 in 3900."
So Africa can and does routinely produce red and blond hair. All non-Africans are MORE LIMITED subsets of ORIGINAL African diversity. THe originals have more built-in diversity than the limited sub-set populations. This is straight science as noted by the quote from TIshkoff 2000.
Nor are Africans the only tropical peoples who can produce reddish hair or blond hair. Among Australian Aborigines, some tropical groups produce 100% of individuals with blond hair. Melanesians can also produce blond or reddish hair, and do so routinely.
White people have no monopoly at all on that hair color. They merely show more of it, but even among whites, red hair for example is minor- occurring in less than 5% of the overall European populations, mostly in northern Europe.
So the claim that there are no tropical Africans with such variation is once again, proved fake. You made the claim.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 4 ime and time again, you stand debunked and exposed for falsifying claims and references. Let's recap:
Originally posted by CASSIFAKedes::
quote: The source is Cavalli-Sforza's book on the Pygmies entitled 'African pygmies' (Academic Press, 1986).
This work shows that Negroids mutated from an ancestral pygmy population around 9,000 BC in West Africa. So the 'true' Black African today is a recent mutation. Caucasoids and Mongoloids predate them. [Wink] Negroids only migrated into other parts of Africa during the Bantu expansion or slightly earlier. Prior to them, Caucasoids inhabited North Africa and Bushmen (Capoids) to the south who were displaced by the Caucasoids from the Mediterranean around 12,000 BC.
^^A bogus reference. Why should anyone take your word for it given past bogus references? Quote where Cavalli-Sforza says these so-called "negroids" "mutated" from Pygmies. The burden of proof is on you, since you made the claim.
While you scurry to cover your tracks with yet more bogus claims, Cavali Sforza, in his well known The History and Geography of Human Genes, 1994 Cavalli-Sforza summarizes his 1986 work on Pygmies and specifically debunks the "Pygmy as ancestor" theory held by other older writings. QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
SO much for your lying claims of "mutations" from "Pygymy" ancestors. In short, you lied about Cavalli-Sforza, creating a falsified claim and a bogus "supporting" reference to a claim that is nowhere supported in his work. You are once again exposed as yet another racist faker You are not fooling anyone.
------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED-PART 3- YOu then tried to cover up your lie with even more bogus nformation and STILL fail
You "modified" your Cavalli Sforza claim by including page numbers, and then changing some wording to "adaptive radiation" hoping to divert attention from your exposure.. lmao..
However pages 361-362 of Cavalli Sforza's 1986 book says absolutely nothing about any Negroes "mutating" from pygmies, nor any "adaptive radiation." It merely discusses Pygmy history and geography. You picked out a page at random, not knowing it can be verified via Google Books. You were asked to provide a direct quote but are still running. Now why is that?
""It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
--------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 2 And Your pathetic "modification" STILL turned out to be bogus. You then said:
"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996).
^^But in fact, Watson 1996 has nothing to do with osteological data and does not even mention it. It has to do with mtDNA.
----------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 1C YOU THEN PROFFERED ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM BELOW: He says:
quote: "Note that in the Old Testament the Danites are the only Hebrew people described as being maritime and associated with ships.."
^^Complete Nonsense. In the Old Testament, the tribe of Zebulun is mentioned as specifically associated with ships and maritime elements. QUOTE:
Genesis 49:13 "Zebulun will dwell at the shore of the seas; Yea, he will be at the shore of the ships, And his side toucheth upon Sidon. "
FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/Cassi-Fakdes: MULTIPLE TIMES AT BAT, MULTIPLE EXPOSURES AS A FAKE...
--fake claim that no Australian Abo over 20 is blonde
-- fake claim that NO tropical Africans have any diversity in hair, skin or eye color
-- fake Cavalli-Sforza citation
-- 2nd fake Cavalli-Sforza reference
-- Faked Watson reference
-- Faked Biblical reference
-- FAke representation of Peter Frost's work
-- Fake claim that "studies" say "egyptians were dark are not like 'light-skinned Europeans". COnveniently, the alleged study is missing..
--Fake Higgins claims
--Fake claim that Guiseppe Sergi's EurAfrican race concept is negro-free
--Fake claim that Vanessa Williams has no black ancestry but is "white and Indian"
--Fake claim that Egyptologists like Yurco consider the Egyptians "Caucasoid"
--Fake claim of white Nordic Egyptian royalty
--Fake claim of "blond" Hetepheres
--Fake claim of white males in BRitain "unable to get jobs"
--fAKE Crucuiani "quote" with "citation"
--fake claim that blacks have no sexual diomorphism and no male-female cranial differences
--Fake CDC claim of AUgust 2006
--Hypocritical double standards- bashing African Americans as black when they can be demonized as criminals but when exposed for hypocritical double standards calling them non-black
--Bogus claim that OOA never happened backed by "supporting" references that say nothingof the sort and directly contradict him.
--Fake claim that the tropics is mostly rainforest area
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The term 'biologically African' is not at all subject to any of those race problems. Taking into account what I said above, please specify how the term 'biologically African' even vaguely overlaps with the negroid racial archetype.
Personally I feel a special affinity for Keita's term "Saharo-tropical African". It accurately encompasses the whole lot of dark-skinned African people we call "black" without carrying the "True Negro" baggage. Pity most people aren't familiar with it. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The term 'biologically African' is not at all subject to any of those race problems. Taking into account what I said above, please specify how the term 'biologically African' even vaguely overlaps with the negroid racial archetype.
Personally I feel a special affinity for Keita's term "Saharo-tropical African". It accurately encompasses the whole lot of dark-skinned African people we call "black" without carrying the "True Negro" baggage. Pity most people aren't familiar with it.
The term "biologically African" is entirely defined by genetics not skin color.
In the future when the average person from birth might have their DNA ancestry tested as routine proceedure. It's possible that people might try to develop a new similar to racism type of thing where they say "my genes are better than yours" (s.o.s.)
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Of course the entire human species is biologically African as that is the origin of the species so even a pale skinned European is biologically African as well. If one is referring specifically to indigenous or aboriginal African populations then I agree with Truth, that the term 'saharo-tropical' would be more accurate.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The term 'biologically African' is not at all subject to any of those race problems. Taking into account what I said above, please specify how the term 'biologically African' even vaguely overlaps with the negroid racial archetype.
Personally I feel a special affinity for Keita's term "Saharo-tropical African". It accurately encompasses the whole lot of dark-skinned African people we call "black" without carrying the "True Negro" baggage. Pity most people aren't familiar with it.
Are the Khoisans "Saharo-tropical African" ?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Of course they are, because they are adapted to the same tropical and sub-tropical range as northern Saharans and coastal North Africans. Don't try to make the Khoisan into something special or 'unique' the same way outdated anthropologists did with their classification of 'Capoid' which the Primeidiot continues today.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Of course they (Khoisans) are, because they are adapted to the same tropical and sub-tropical range as northern Saharans and coastal North Africans. Don't try to make the Khoisan into something special or 'unique' the same way outdated anthropologists did with their classification of 'Capoid' which the Primeidiot continues today.
You said there weren't any Northern Saharans who were in North Africa long enough to have become adapted to the Northern Sahara sub tropical climate. If they were they might look like Khoisans but they don't.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Click here to see Keita's 1993 paper asserting North African coastals are NOT "Saharo-Tropical-Africans" but instead cluster with Southern Europeans (Caucasoids).
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Accidentally deleted my other post, however click on the above paper.
Why is Zaharan claiming North African coastals with pale skin and blondism are "Tropical Africans" when Keita claims otherwise?
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vansertimavindicated: You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
...
Man, you are chewing them up, eating them up, vomiting them out!!!
VANSERTIMAVINDICATED! my boi Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: You said there weren't any Northern Saharans who were in North Africa long enough to have become adapted to the Northern Sahara sub tropical climate. If they were they might look like Khoisans but they don't.
Yeah, and your point? The north Sahara is still the 'Saharo' in Saharo-tropical. The Khoisan still adapted to a similar environment which is only slightly off the tropical margin and some Khoisan populations even lived within the margins of the tropical zone in ancient times. So what? Why are you trying to separate Khoisan from other African populations when they clearly are continuous with them??
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: The term "biologically African" is entirely defined by genetics not skin color.
So, human skin color isn't a part of biology? First you claim out of nowhere, and with zero explanation, that the term 'biologically African' is a race based term, and now you're back at it again, with a claim that's just as nonsensical. You'd think someone would sit down after being put in her place so often, but you just keep on masquerading as someone who knows what she is talking about.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL I know. Now she questions the Khoisan people's status as being continuous with other tropical (BLACK) Africans. She might as well join PrimeIdiot's bandwagon that they are a separate race called 'Capoid'. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^The b!tch is on the prowl, looking for anything we say that can be misconstrued as contradictory. She's too low IQ to understand any of the terms, hence why she sees contradictions all the time where there are none. Anyway, who gives a sh!t that Khoisan don't live in the tropical zone? Their morphology as a whole clearly evinces tropical adaptation. Khoisan are Saharo-Tropical variants, the same way predynastic Ancient Egyptian colonizers in the Levant, or African Americans in the West are still Saharo-Tropical variants, without any need for any of them to be geographically confined to the Sahara or Tropics.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Click here to see Keita's 1993 paper asserting North African coastals are NOT "Saharo-Tropical-Africans" but instead cluster with Southern Europeans (Caucasoids).
Running away as usual, like the faggot that you've demonstrated yourself to be, time after time again. None of your ideas have withstood the test of scrutiny, and that's why you've repeatedly backed away from them:
1.You've fabricated your claim that Bar Yosef said that the Mushabian was excavated in Upper and Lower Egypt
2.You've fabricated your claim that Indians never cluster with certain Africans, whether metrically or non-metrically
3.You've fabricated your claim that Mesolithic Nubians and Natufians had wavy hair
4.You've fabricated your claim that the Mediterranean 'race' is free of negroid traits per Coon
5.You've fabricated your claim that Wadi Halfans can't be negroid because of their browridges, since the remains you classify as undoubtedly negroid, (Asselar man and Iwo Eleru) have brow ridges
6.You've fabricated your claim that your fake Australoid phenotypical cluster (Palaeo-americans, Wadi Halfans, Jebel Sahabans, Natufians, European Eurafricans, Mesopotamian Eurafricans, Arabian Veddoids, Indian Veddoids etc) is a cluster of related people
7.You've failed to explain why modern descendants of those ancient populations have zero Australian aboriginal ancestry, but African ancestry with Mesolithic time depths instead.
8.You've fabricated your claim that sub species or races are identifiable by morphological clusters
9.You've fabricated your claim that there have never been studies that detected African affinities with Iranian/Iraqi prehistorical skeletal remains
10.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual had brow ridges, since it consists out of a mandible
11.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual was described as having prognathism
12.You've fabricated your claim that Homo 3 was the only Natufian individual with prognathism
13.You've fabricated your claim that Keith's analysis of the Shukbah remains were somehow refuted or inaccurate
14.You've fabricated your claim that Coon retracted his view of minor Negroid affinities in the Shuqbah Natufians series
15.You've fabricated your claim that Tigray Ethiopians are the only Ethiopians with leptorrhine averages
16.You've fabricated your claim that all Tigray Ethiopians are leptorrhine
17.You've fabricated your claim that non-leptorrhiny in Cushitic speaking groups is necessarily due to admixture with negroid groups.
17.You've fabricated your claim that Wolpoff's list of Erectus to Australoid continuation traits denote a special relationship indicative of continuation.
18.There is no evidence of lineage loss in Upper Palaeolithic Australian, European, West Asian and Amerindian fossils; all fossil mtDNA lineages are attested in contemporaries, and none are pre-M or pre-N. No form of lineage loss can account for the lack of pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians, and no explanations have been offered as to why Sub Saharan Africans have managed to maintain their pre-M and pre-N mtDNA. Additionally, the derived state of Eurasian DNA is also confirmed in genome-wide analysis, which is not subject to Wolpoff's silly caveat that pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians may have died out due to lineage loss.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Accidentally deleted my other post, however click on the above paper.
Why is Zaharan claiming North African coastals with pale skin and blondism are "Tropical Africans" when Keita claims otherwise?
^^Just one thing idiot- I never "claimed" that. Your diversionary smokescreens will not work, nor will they disguise your failures.
Click here to see Keita's 1993 paper asserting North African coastals are NOT "Saharo-Tropical-Africans" but instead cluster with Southern Europeans (Caucasoids).
^^But earlier you said Keita claimed this in a 1981 paper. QUOTE: "Btw Zaharan, not even Keita uses your stupid terminology based on who can see the sun in the sky. He uses the term "Saharo-Tropical African Variant" (1981).
^^WHich is it wanker boy?
And where in Keita's 1993 paper does he "assert" that (quoting you) "North African coastals are NOT "Saharo-Tropical-Africans" but instead cluster with Southern Europeans (Caucasoids)."
^^YOu are lying again. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you a chance to prove your statement. Can you quote from Keita's 1993 paper here as you say he is "asserting North African coastals are NOT "Saharo-Tropical-Africans" but instead cluster with Southern Europeans (Caucasoids)."? Here's the paper you posted where Keita "asserted" this. http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita-1993.pdf
Don't run away and hide. Prove your case. Quote Keita saying that you claim he is saying. We'll wait...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: The term "biologically African" is entirely defined by genetics not skin color.
So, human skin color isn't a part of biology? First you claim out of nowhere, and with zero explanation, that the term 'biologically African' is a race based term, and now you're back at it again, with a claim that's just as nonsensical. You'd think someone would sit down after being put in her place so often, but you just keep on masquerading as someone who knows what she is talking about.
you're the one who said the term "biologically African" was valid
I didn't say it was valid you did.
I dare you define how "biologically African" is determined. Djehuti says Europeans, etc, any human are biologically African. I suppose it's just a an alternate term for "anybody"
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL I know. Now she questions the Khoisan people's status as being continuous with other tropical (BLACK) Africans. She might as well join PrimeIdiot's bandwagon that they are a separate race called 'Capoid'.
I never said a separate race.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
the tropical (torrid) zone
Tropically adapted means adaptation to the zone as defined above!
accordingly the many of the Khoisans and people of the whole Southern half of Austrailia are not Tropically adapted - unless you want to retract the above
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Just one thing idiot- I never "claimed" that.
Was your account hacked then?
You change your views in a short space of time, and then deny your former postings. If you want to retract previous views you held that's fine, but why are you denying posts when you made them?
Only a little while ago you claimed the Tamahu --blonde haired "whites" -- falled in the range of "tropical africans". Remember the thread on Diop and Sertima where this was discussed, and you rejected their claims that the Tahamu were Caucasoid Nordics, but (according to you) the Tamahu fall within the range of tropical africans.
"Tropical Africans" you have claimed have white skin, light eyes and blonde hair.
quote:Flinders Petrie in his Religion and Conscience in Ancient Egypt (1898) has noted: ''That Set belongs to the Libyans or Westerns is probable, because he is considered to have red hair and a white skin'' (p. 32). In ancient Greek literature the Libyans are also described as red haired or blonde. The Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax (4th century BC) for example notes of xanthos Libyes, ''fair Libyans'' (Geographi Graeci Minores, Vol. i, p. 88, col. B) and Callimachus in his hymns wrote of ''yellow-haired Libyan women'' (Hymn II to Apollo, 85). The Roman poet Lucan (61 AD) also wrote of Libyans with reddish hair (Pharsalia, x. 155). In ancient sources the Libyans are also called Tamahu, Tjehenu or Temehu (tmfiw). The root of this word is ''Tam'', created, and ''Hu'', white, the Tamahu are thus the ''created white people'' (Massey, 1881, vol. 1, p. 27).
''The Libyans, however, were originally Caucasian troglodytes who occupied territory in the far north central position of Africa. Their presence has been documented since the first dynasty in Egypt, circa 3100 BC.'' - Sertima, African Presence in Early Europe, p. 149
--->
THESE ARE YOUR POSTINGS IDIOT:
"But van Sertima and Diop never said they were pure white "Nordic." Even if from North Africa they could be just another negro variant that some people call "white." Red hair and light skin occur in native Africa, and occur in Western and southern Asia. Red hair "
"In fact they suggest that "Nordics" can also be black..."
"an INDIGENOUS EUROPEAN **NORDIC NEGRO** variant or mix is identified. Hence "Nordids" are not at all pure whites but themselves have "negro" characteristics"
You made those claims, but now deny you made them. Fucking idiot. All I expect is usual is a long spam of abuse.
You claimed a few months back that milky white skinned berbers with blonde and red hair are "negro/tropical" variants. LMAO.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Click here to see Keita's 1993 paper asserting North African coastals are NOT "Saharo-Tropical-Africans" but instead cluster with Southern Europeans (Caucasoids).
^^But earlier you said Keita claimed this in a 1981 paper.
Learn to read. The 1981 paper in a UNESCO report is first where "tropical-african" is first traced. The 1993 paper I said is where Keita claims North African coastals are not tropical-africans but southern europeans:
"[...]coastal northern africans are viewed here as perhaps being biologically more, but not only, related to southern Europeans, primarily by gene flow." (Keita, 1993)
Keita explicity excludes north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
as Coon says the Negro is a recent hybrid of Caucasians and Pygmies, basically the Caucasian component brought height to the Pygmy The Negroid is a sub species, aka the Caucigmy
(Coon, 1962)
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^The b!tch is on the prowl, looking for anything we say that can be misconstrued as contradictory. She's too low IQ to understand any of the terms, hence why she sees contradictions all the time where there are none. Anyway, who gives a sh!t that Khoisan don't live in the tropical zone? Their morphology as a whole clearly evinces tropical adaptation. Khoisan are Saharo-Tropical variants, the same way predynastic Ancient Egyptian colonizers in the Levant, or African Americans in the West are still Saharo-Tropical variants, without any need for any of them to be geographically confined to the Sahara or Tropics.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Click here to see Keita's 1993 paper asserting North African coastals are NOT "Saharo-Tropical-Africans" but instead cluster with Southern Europeans (Caucasoids).
Running away as usual, like the faggot that you've demonstrated yourself to be, time after time again. None of your ideas have withstood the test of scrutiny, and that's why you've repeatedly backed away from them:
1.You've fabricated your claim that Bar Yosef said that the Mushabian was excavated in Upper and Lower Egypt
2.You've fabricated your claim that Indians never cluster with certain Africans, whether metrically or non-metrically
3.You've fabricated your claim that Mesolithic Nubians and Natufians had wavy hair
4.You've fabricated your claim that the Mediterranean 'race' is free of negroid traits per Coon
5.You've fabricated your claim that Wadi Halfans can't be negroid because of their browridges, since the remains you classify as undoubtedly negroid, (Asselar man and Iwo Eleru) have brow ridges
6.You've fabricated your claim that your fake Australoid phenotypical cluster (Palaeo-americans, Wadi Halfans, Jebel Sahabans, Natufians, European Eurafricans, Mesopotamian Eurafricans, Arabian Veddoids, Indian Veddoids etc) is a cluster of related people
7.You've failed to explain why modern descendants of those ancient populations have zero Australian aboriginal ancestry, but African ancestry with Mesolithic time depths instead.
8.You've fabricated your claim that sub species or races are identifiable by morphological clusters
9.You've fabricated your claim that there have never been studies that detected African affinities with Iranian/Iraqi prehistorical skeletal remains
10.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual had brow ridges, since it consists out of a mandible
11.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual was described as having prognathism
12.You've fabricated your claim that Homo 3 was the only Natufian individual with prognathism
13.You've fabricated your claim that Keith's analysis of the Shukbah remains were somehow refuted or inaccurate
14.You've fabricated your claim that Coon retracted his view of minor Negroid affinities in the Shuqbah Natufians series
15.You've fabricated your claim that Tigray Ethiopians are the only Ethiopians with leptorrhine averages
16.You've fabricated your claim that all Tigray Ethiopians are leptorrhine
17.You've fabricated your claim that non-leptorrhiny in Cushitic speaking groups is necessarily due to admixture with negroid groups.
17.You've fabricated your claim that Wolpoff's list of Erectus to Australoid continuation traits denote a special relationship indicative of continuation.
18.There is no evidence of lineage loss in Upper Palaeolithic Australian, European, West Asian and Amerindian fossils; all fossil mtDNA lineages are attested in contemporaries, and none are pre-M or pre-N. No form of lineage loss can account for the lack of pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians, and no explanations have been offered as to why Sub Saharan Africans have managed to maintain their pre-M and pre-N mtDNA. Additionally, the derived state of Eurasian DNA is also confirmed in genome-wide analysis, which is not subject to Wolpoff's silly caveat that pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians may have died out due to lineage loss.
You must be incredibly dumb to raise most these points again when you debunked yourself on them. You repeatedly quoted Coon (1939) claiming he maintained crania with high NI's were Mediterranean. However then it was pointed out you were lifting your quotes from a dubious source. What you omitted was the fact where in each case Coon explained the wide indices through race admixture. In your first post you cut these passages off. Then you are too ignorant and bigheaded to admit you made the mistake.
Swenet retard: Coon claims crania with high NI's are Mediterranean.
*The actual full quote is shown where Coon explains admixture/"affinities" with another race.
Swenet retard: They are still Mediterranean.
If crania has admixture or affinities with another racial type, how does it belong to a single race category? Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Faheem Dumba says:
"But van Sertima and Diop never said they were pure white "Nordic." Even if from North Africa they could be just another negro variant that some people call "white." Red hair and light skin occur in native Africa, and occur in Western and southern Asia. Red hair "
"In fact they suggest that "Nordics" can also be black..."
Wrong again stupid mothafucka. You are trying to hide your failures with bogus "claims" that I supposedly made and presenting chopped up quotes out of context, that actually show you being exposed once again as a pathetic idiot. You can;t even lie competently. In fact, guess what fool. The very link you proffer as proof shows that I was actually debunking ANOTHER LIE you were asserting about what Diop and VanSertima said.
You just debunked your own lie, and exposed where you were earlier debunked, with your own "proof".. You absolute asshole.
LEt's look at the original context- quote:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
^^lol.. but wait, ANglo may be right about "nordids" but not in the way he thinks. There may very well have been "Nordids" in Egypt. The only thing though, is that the "Nordics" may have been black - a delicious irony. This means that when "Aryan" volk celebrate "Nordic Egypt" they are actually celebrating a variant or tribe of "Nordic Negroes" long resident in Europe. This knocks white people even further out of the loop. See below. Thanks ANglo! For pointing folk to the information below.
Originally posted by Anglo-Pyramidlogist: Sertima and Diop both admitted Nordid Caucasoids are indigenous to North Africa. Now though if someone says this to an Afronut they are a ''neo-naziracistevileurocentricwhitesupremacist''
But van Sertima and Diop never said they were pure white "Nordic." Even if from North Africa they could be just another negro variant that some people call "white." Red hair and light skin occur in native Africa, and occur in Western and southern Asia. Red hair and lighter skin this do not mean northern Europe. These characteristics occur even in Africa, which has the highest albino populations in the world. ANd neither van Sertima or Diop credit Europe with being the source of the "Nordids" that they wrote about. In fact they suggest that "Nordics" can also be black...
Anglo-Idiot said: Basically over time afrocentrism has become more and more militant and delusional. 30 years back afronuts at least admitted Nordids were in North Africa
-- great white hope debunked-- Wrong again. They admit no White European "Nordids." In fact van Sertima on page 226 mocks the "Nordic" claim as "the great white hope" in critizing a white "biodiversity" type writer: QUOTE "He [the erring white writer] then proceeds to credit everything to his great white hope, the Nordic-Teutons and other white types." In fact, the book goes on to say- "Hence this question of a pure race among Europeans was nothing but a myth.."
-- Black Nordic Negro variant or mix.. Furthermore, van Sertima's book, pg 205, notes that rather than "Nordics" being exclusively white EUropean, there were actually "NORDIC NEGRO" types. These would be African migrants or settlers for centuries within Europe. If they were back-migrants to Africa, the migrants would still be "black" under the one drop rule, even if mixed. In short, according to the same Afrocentric writers, your "pure" Nordids, do actually have a negro variant. QUOTE: "This GErman princess has been said by eminent historians and anthropologists to be of the early blond Nordic Negroid type, much in evidence in GErmany."
You have failed again on 2 counts:
1) Van Sertima and Diop label a variant "Caucasian" because of red hair or pale skin, but this does not at all mean they are identical to your white "Nordids". Red hair/paler skin in fact occurs in Asia, and even in Africa, both as a regular native variant and due to Africa's diversity itself- which has the highest albinism. You fail in saying that van Sertima/Diop agree with your Nordid thesis.
2) In Van Sertima's book an INDIGENOUS EUROPEAN **NORDIC NEGRO** variant or mix is identified. Hence "Nordids" are not at all pure whites but themselves have "negro" characteristics. So even if there are "Nordids" they could very well be the "NORDIC NEGROES" variant identified in van Sertima's book. Either way, you lose.
In short hapless buffoon, you lied about Diop and VanSertima and were exposed way back on that thread. You then attempt to hide the lie with another lie, thinking you can get away by presenting "proof" via a link, but your own "proof" only exposes once again that you are lying. -------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore Swenet has repeatedly exposed your lies which you still attempt to maintain when exposed as the dull buffoon you are. Why havent you addressed you failures below rather than attempt to hide behind smokescreens Asperberger boy?
Running away as usual, like the faggot that you've demonstrated yourself to be, time after time again. None of your ideas have withstood the test of scrutiny, and that's why you've repeatedly backed away from them:
1.You've fabricated your claim that Bar Yosef said that the Mushabian was excavated in Upper and Lower Egypt
2.You've fabricated your claim that Indians never cluster with certain Africans, whether metrically or non-metrically
3.You've fabricated your claim that Mesolithic Nubians and Natufians had wavy hair
4.You've fabricated your claim that the Mediterranean 'race' is free of negroid traits per Coon
5.You've fabricated your claim that Wadi Halfans can't be negroid because of their browridges, since the remains you classify as undoubtedly negroid, (Asselar man and Iwo Eleru) have brow ridges
6.You've fabricated your claim that your fake Australoid phenotypical cluster (Palaeo-americans, Wadi Halfans, Jebel Sahabans, Natufians, European Eurafricans, Mesopotamian Eurafricans, Arabian Veddoids, Indian Veddoids etc) is a cluster of related people
7.You've failed to explain why modern descendants of those ancient populations have zero Australian aboriginal ancestry, but African ancestry with Mesolithic time depths instead.
8.You've fabricated your claim that sub species or races are identifiable by morphological clusters
9.You've fabricated your claim that there have never been studies that detected African affinities with Iranian/Iraqi prehistorical skeletal remains
10.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual had brow ridges, since it consists out of a mandible
11.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual was described as having prognathism
12.You've fabricated your claim that Homo 3 was the only Natufian individual with prognathism
13.You've fabricated your claim that Keith's analysis of the Shukbah remains were somehow refuted or inaccurate
14.You've fabricated your claim that Coon retracted his view of minor Negroid affinities in the Shuqbah Natufians series
15.You've fabricated your claim that Tigray Ethiopians are the only Ethiopians with leptorrhine averages
16.You've fabricated your claim that all Tigray Ethiopians are leptorrhine
17.You've fabricated your claim that non-leptorrhiny in Cushitic speaking groups is necessarily due to admixture with negroid groups.
17.You've fabricated your claim that Wolpoff's list of Erectus to Australoid continuation traits denote a special relationship indicative of continuation.
18.There is no evidence of lineage loss in Upper Palaeolithic Australian, European, West Asian and Amerindian fossils; all fossil mtDNA lineages are attested in contemporaries, and none are pre-M or pre-N. No form of lineage loss can account for the lack of pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians, and no explanations have been offered as to why Sub Saharan Africans have managed to maintain their pre-M and pre-N mtDNA. Additionally, the derived state of Eurasian DNA is also confirmed in genome-wide analysis, which is not subject to Wolpoff's silly caveat that pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians may have died out due to lineage loss.
How pathetic can you be Asperberger boy?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:18.There is no evidence of lineage loss in Upper Palaeolithic Australian, European, West Asian and Amerindian fossils; all fossil mtDNA lineages are attested in contemporaries, and none are pre-M or pre-N. No form of lineage loss can account for the lack of pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians, and no explanations have been offered as to why Sub Saharan Africans have managed to maintain their pre-M and pre-N mtDNA. Additionally, the derived state of Eurasian DNA is also confirmed in genome-wide analysis, which is not subject to Wolpoff's silly caveat that pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians may have died out due to lineage loss.
"and no explanations have been offered as to why Sub Saharan Africans have managed to maintain their pre-M and pre-N mtDNA."
This has already been answered:
"If the analysis of mitochondrial DNA has produced a theory that jars with the fossil record, has the testimony of mitochondria been misinterpreted? Proponents of the Eve theory argue that the mitochondrial DNA of non-African people shows no signs of local ancestry, only the telltale signs of Eve and her descendants. They interpret this as the result of replacement of those ancient populations by Eve’s descendants. But we believe this evidence could also reflect the very first expansions of humankind (archaic rather than modern) from Africa, over a million years ago. It all depends on the date calculated for Eve, and for this we must rely on DNA, whose reliability as a molecular clock has yet to be proven." (Wolpoff, 1991, 2000)
Masatoshi Nei of Pennsylvania State University calculated "Eve" to be over a million years old. Wolpoff replied "Fine by me".
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
zarahan is so very redundant, same pics 50,000 times
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Faheem Aspberga says: he 1981 paper in a UNESCO report is first where "tropical-african" is first traced. The 1993 paper I said is where Keita claims North African coastals are not tropical-africans but southern europeans:
"[...]coastal northern africans are viewed here as perhaps being biologically more, but not only, related to southern Europeans, primarily by gene flow." (Keita, 1993)
Keita explicity excludes north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping.
^^No fool. The term "tropical African" occurs is not "traced" to 1981. It can be found in books going back to the 1800s.
And Keita does not "exclude" "north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping."
The very quote you proffer debunks your own claim. Let me quote your own proof:
"[...]coastal northern africans are viewed here as perhaps being biologically more, but not only, related to southern Europeans, primarily by gene flow." (Keita, 1993)
^^Dumbass, Keita says more "but not only". How therefore has he "excluded" "north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping"? It is clear that southern Europeans are not the only relation to the coastals, and the Sahara itself makes up a large chunk of North Africa, that even in places extends close to the Medit coast. SO how could "north Africans" be "excluded" from the Saharan zone? Hapless dullard, must we instruct you on such elementary matters?
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:You have failed again on 2 counts:
1) Van Sertima and Diop label a variant "Caucasian" because of red hair or pale skin, but this does not at all mean they are identical to your white "Nordids". Red hair/paler skin in fact occurs in Asia, and even in Africa, both as a regular native variant and due to Africa's diversity itself- which has the highest albinism. You fail in saying that van Sertima/Diop agree with your Nordid thesis.
2) In Van Sertima's book an INDIGENOUS EUROPEAN **NORDIC NEGRO** variant or mix is identified. Hence "Nordids" are not at all pure whites but themselves have "negro" characteristics. So even if there are "Nordids" they could very well be the "NORDIC NEGROES" variant identified in van Sertima's book. Either way, you lose.
Both Diop and Sertima claimed North African coastals were Caucasoids. The fact they regarded the Caucasoid race to be albino african is irrelevent. You are setting up another fallacy. They regarded the Caucasoid as a seperate race -- along with a "Mongoloid" division, unlike you they weren't claiming blonde haired white europeans were "negro's". The only reason I can presume you say this is because you have posted interracial pornography on this site and seem to have a fetish for white women. You appear to be attempting to justify your sick interracial fetish by claiming "whites" are a "black variety". Your messed in the head.
Niether Sertima or Diop were race deniers. Afrocentrics like Clyde Winters and Mike111 who follow their work don't deny races exist.
So how do you explain your views?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: zarahan is so very redundant, same pics 50,000 times
Note how he never responded to my post about his user account on wikipedia listed as being an "AC/DC" fan. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: What you omitted was the fact where in each case Coon explained the wide indices through race admixture.
False. In all our back and forths on this issue, you've utterly failed to produce a citation where Coon does this. If, on the other hand, we take a look at Coon's pre and post-pleistocene maps, it becomes obvious that he thought of the Levantine area as exclusively populated by Caucasoids. Nowhere does Coon depict Sub-Saharan Africans or Australoids in the Levant pior or after 10.000bc, therefore, there couldn't have been actual ''race admixture'' implied in his description of the Shuqbah Natufians.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: If crania has admixture or affinities with another racial type, how does it belong to a single race category?
Don't ask me those retarded questions, I never said Coonian anthropology was consistent or rational. Coon clearly disagrees with your reasoning. Coon said that Cushitic Ethiopians whom he classified as Mediterranean, can have up to 25% Negroid ancestry. He described ''various related Mediterranean types'' in Ethiopia, whom he describes as ''mixed in varying degrees with negroes''. Later on he describes an Agau Ethiopian man as phenotypically purely Mediterranean, but that, genetically, negroid admixture must be present in him. Nowhere does Coon note that minor exotic ancestry compromises a Mediterranean classification. We can pile that fabricated claim right on top of the many others fabricated claims I've compiled in my previous post.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: [QUOTE]This has already been answered:
"If the analysis of mitochondrial DNA has produced a theory that jars with the fossil record, has the testimony of mitochondria been misinterpreted? Proponents of the Eve theory argue that the mitochondrial DNA of non-African people shows no signs of local ancestry, only the telltale signs of Eve and her descendants. They interpret this as the result of replacement of those ancient populations by Eve’s descendants. But we believe this evidence could also reflect the very first expansions of humankind (archaic rather than modern) from Africa, over a million years ago. It all depends on the date calculated for Eve, and for this we must rely on DNA, whose reliability as a molecular clock has yet to be proven." (Wolpoff, 1991, 2000)[/qb]
Dumbass, does mtDNA lineage loss explain why Eurasian nuclear DNA is derived as well?
The shorter genetic distance between the African populations (Afr-Am and YRI) and the hypothetical ancestral population is consistent with previous analyses of Alu insertions suggesting that the ancestral state is more common in African populations (Watkins et al., 2001; Watkins et al., 2003). Our analysis showing the preservation of human ancestral alleles in an African population, however, is based on a much larger number of polymorphisms. It is consistent with the Out-of- Africa hypothesis since demographic effects like bottlenecks and adaptations to new environments likely drove genetic differentiation in Eurasians. --Magalhaes & Matsuda 2011
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Deleted and added to my previous post.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass twit:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
the tropical (torrid) zone
Tropically adapted means adaptation to the zone as defined above!
accordingly the many of the Khoisans and people of the whole Southern half of Australia are not Tropically adapted - unless you want to retract the above
And as Swenet has pointed out, who said Khoisan or aboriginal populations in most of Australia show no tropical adaptation??!
You are saying that just because they live just outside the tropical zone they somehow lost any tropically adapted traits even though they are right next to the tropical zone! LOL
As Swenet says, your IQ must be too low. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I notice the Prime-Idiot has a penchant for ignoring info that conflicts with his idiotic ideology. He claims that Mesolithic Nubians were not 'Negroid' but 'Capoid' yet we have this: The early Holocene deposits at Lake Besaka and Buur Heybe have provided the earliest evidence in the Horn of intentional human burial. At the site of FeJx 2 at Lake Besaka the incomplete remains of five human skeletons were found buried in Abadir Phase sediments alongside an irregular pile of stones, with the most complete specimen composed of the upper half of the body only. No evidence of carnivore activity could be observed, while many of the bones were burnt (Clark and Williams 1978). However, no cut marks or any other indication of cannibalism was discovered, while the texture of the bones indicated they were probably surrounded by flesh when buried (Dechant and Crader t982). Of particular interest was a fragment of a human long bone through which a hole approximately 6 mm in diameter had been intentionally drilled as if for suspension (McCown n.d.). Needless to say', 'some unusual burial custom' is suggested (Clark and Williams 1978:37). No evidence of grave goods was found in direct association with the burials, although two bone tubes and a cache of over thirty gastropod shells pierced as if for suspension were found next to the stone pile (ibid.). Morphological features of the crania indicate Negroid affinities and can best be compared to the Sudanese skeletons of Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Halfa (McCown rod.). Steven A. Brandt, 'The Upper Pleistocene and early Holocene prehistory of the Horn of Africa', The African Archaeological Review, 4 (I986), pp. 41-82
In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian. -- Pierre M. Vermeersch (Author & Editor), 'Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt', Egyptian Prehistory Monographs Vol. 4, Leuven University Press (2002).
Both hypotheses are compatible with the hypothesis proposed by Brothwell (1963) of an East African proto-Khoisan Negro stock which migrated southwards and westwards at some time during the Upper Pleistocene, and replaced most of the local populations of South Africa. Under such circumstances, it is possible that the Nazlet Khater specimen is part of a relict population of this proto-Khoisan Negro stock which extended as far north as Nazlet Khater at least until the late part of the Late Pleistocene. --- 'The Position of the Nazlet Khater Specimen Among Prehistoric and Modern African and Levantine Populations', Ron Pinhasi, Departent of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, U.K., Patrick Semal, Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Belgium; Journal of Human Evolution (2000) vol. 39.
I posted the above material many times before for your stupid-ass. How many more times must I post them?! Not only are the mesolithic Nubian skulls specifically described as 'Negroid' despite your futile protests, but that such 'Negroid' affinities are also found in early remains of the Horn region. Even the neolithic Badarian crania of Egypt are classified as 'Negroid' and the earlier Nazlet-Khater fossils still appear morphologically to be ancestral to both 'Capoids' AND 'Negroids' at least in appearance!
As to what your idol Coon states about "Negroes", here is what he says in full: The Proper Negroes
BY "PROPER NEGROES" we mean those peoples of Africa who are neither Pygmies nor Bushmen, Berbers, Arabs, or any of the clinal populations with a readily visible Caucasoid racial element. We mean the West Africans, some of the East Africans, and most of the Bantu. It was from these populations that most of the Negroes transported to the New World and to Arabia were drawn. We have left them to the end of the chapter because although they are the most numerous race in Africa, their origins are at the moment the least known. Moreover, we can understand them best after having reviewed the racial characteristics of the other peoples of Africa.
Earlier in this chapter we stated that to date no one has found a fully identifiable Negro skull, in the modern sense, in a Pleistocene deposit. This does not mean that Negroes as we know them did not exist then or that such a skull will not eventually be unearthed. Meanwhile we may note that a detailed analysis of 571 modern Negro crania, made by advanced mathematical techniques, has shown that these crania gravitate between two poles, a Mediterranean Caucasoid and a Pygmy one. The former type is again divisible into an ordinary Mediterranean and a Western Asian type, which suggests more than a single northern point of origin for the Caucasoid element. As we shall in greater detail in Chapter 8 and 9, the Negroes resemble Caucasoids closely a number of genetic traits that are inherited in a simple fashion. Examples of these are fingerprints, types of earwax, and the major blood groups. The Negroes also have some of the same local, predominantly African, blood types as the Pygmies.
This evidence suggests that the Negroes are not a primary sub-species but rather a product of mixture between invading Caucasoids and Pygmies who lived on the edges of the forest, which at the end of the Pleistocene extended farther north and east than it does now... Carleton S. Coon, The Living Races of Man
So Coon states that 'Negroes' do not readily show a 'Caucasoid' element, yet he claims that they are the result of hybridization between 'Caucasoids' and Pygmies!! LMAO Of course Lioness exposed this ridiculous paradox before, which you steadfastly support!
So you mean to tell us that...
this ('Negro')
is the result of a cross between...
this (Pygmy)
and this ('Caucasoid')
Which is crazier? A racist nut from the early 20th century (Coon) whose ridiculous racial theories have been discredited, or a racist nut of the early 21st century right now (YOU) who still supports the crap of the former?? Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Faheem Aspberga says: he 1981 paper in a UNESCO report is first where "tropical-african" is first traced. The 1993 paper I said is where Keita claims North African coastals are not tropical-africans but southern europeans:
"[...]coastal northern africans are viewed here as perhaps being biologically more, but not only, related to southern Europeans, primarily by gene flow." (Keita, 1993)
^^No fool. The term "tropical African" occurs is not "traced" to 1981. It can be found in books going back to the 1800s.
Keita explicity excludes north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping.
And Keita does not "exclude" "north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping."
The very quote you proffer debunks your own claim. And diversionary smokescreens abut AC/DC wont save you, nor will trying to hide your debunking above re Diop and Vansertima.Let me quote your own proof:
"[...]coastal northern africans are viewed here as perhaps being biologically more, but not only, related to southern Europeans, primarily by gene flow." (Keita, 1993)
^^Dumbass, Keita says more "but not only". How therefore has he "excluded" "north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping"? It is clear that southern Europeans are not the only relation to the coastals, and the Sahara itself makes up a large chunk of North Africa, that even in places extends close to the Medit coast. SO how could "north Africans" be "excluded" from the Saharan zone stupid muthafucka?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadbonkers: That's true today, because most Khoisanids are hybridised, especially the Khoi. However if you look at earlier photographs and eyewitness accounts you will see they appear dictinctly non-Negroid with pronounced facial flatness, epicanthic folds and steatopygia.
What "hybridization"?? The San bushmen communities in the Namib Desert are well isolated and still preserve the so-called 'Capoid' features well, but there are many features held in common with other so-called 'Negroid' Africans such as steatopygia and even epicanthic eye folds occur among some 'Negroid' groups as well. There's more: 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. A protruding upper jaw is characteristic of Negroids, but this part of the face is not always preserved in fossil remains. There is no certain evidence of the presence of Caucasoids in Sub-Saharan Africa before post-Pleistocene times, when presumably they spread southward into the Horn (the region of modern Ethiopia and Somalia) from either North Africa or western Asia. For present purposes, therefore, only the Negroids and the Khoisan people need to be discussed. Blood-group evidence shows that the Khoisan group must be closely related to the Negroids, although at the present time they are very different in skin colour and appearance. Peoples living specialized environments, either from choice or as a result of pressure from other groups, become adapted physically in response to intensive selective pressures. Small stature, for instance, is an advantage in forests where there is a shortage of protein. Pygmies may well have had taller Negroid ancestors, and San, who have been forced to retreat into the Kalahari Desert, are evidently the remnants of a once widespread stock, probably physically much larger, but known only from their larger braincases. Negroids and Khoisan people may have shared a common ancestor as far back as the Lower Paleolithic. It is also possible that Kabwe Man made a genetic contribution to such forms as the Florisbad and Singa individuals. It is known that the makers of Stillbay artifacts, such as the Mumbwa people, were Bushmanoid. Although no Negroids can be recognized with certainty before post-Pleistocene times, it seems reasonable to suggest that the contemporaries of the Stillbay people in the more forested areas of West and Central Africa, the Lupembans, were Negroid. 'Phylogenetic Affinities of African Fossils to Modern Man', The New Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia Vol. 13, 15th ed (1990)
Despite the outdated notions of race, the above source clearly points out the commonality of so-called 'Capoids' and so-called 'Negroids' from cranial and blood-group evidence alone. Of course, today we know have genetics which shows they also share a number of genetic lineages both mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal and even share some autosomal affinities as well, rendering the so-called racial division between them null and void.
As for differences in cranio-facial traits, again you contradict yourself because you acknowledge that 'Capoids' tend to have flatter faces than 'Negroids' yet in your pathetic attempt to deny the Mesolithic Nubian skulls as having 'Negroid' affinities, you claim them to be 'Capoids' even though the Mesolithic Nubian skulls had pronounced prognathism! As for steatopygia, I already told your dumbass before that steatopygia is a common trait among black Africans in general including 'Negroids' and that your silly narrow definition that there has to be a 90 degree angle between the back and butt is hilarious especially since predynastic and dynastic art showing steatopygia fails that limited criteria!
Natufian female figurine
So were the Natufians Capoid because they exhibit similar steatopygia or are they still "Mediterranean Caca-soid"??
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
By the way, Keita's 'North African Coastal Type' has been explained in multiple threads already including here and here. So either discuss that issue in those threads of bring up the relevant data from those threads.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass twit:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
the tropical (torrid) zone
Tropically adapted means adaptation to the zone as defined above!
accordingly the many of the Khoisans and people of the whole Southern half of Australia are not Tropically adapted - unless you want to retract the above
And as Swenet has pointed out, who said Khoisan or aboriginal populations in most of Australia show no tropical adaptation??!
You are saying that just because they live just outside the tropical zone they somehow lost any tropically adapted traits even though they are right next to the tropical zone! LOL
As Swenet says, your IQ must be too low.
LOL..
Indeed. Just because an African group lives now in the sub--tropics does not mean they have no tropical adaptations or do not derive from the tropical zone. As stated multiple times on multiple thread which liaress is too dull to grasp, tropical Africans can migrate to any part of the adjacent sub-tropical zone. They are not limited by any hoped for "biodiversity" "apartheid" lines as to where they are "supposed" to stay. Khosians originated in the tropic zone and like other such Africans adapted to other adjacent zones. And Africans with the highest diversity need not rely solely on environmental factors to have phenotypical variation. That variation is built in. As for the Khosians, per credible scholars: QUOTE:
"Several other long-range migration events have shaped the genetic l andscape of Africa. Analyses of mtDNA and the Y chromosome supports studies of classical polymorphisms as well as archaeological data indicating that Khoisian-speaking populations (those whose languages contain clicks, which includes the !Kung San) may have originated in Eastern Africa and migrated into southern Africa >20 - 10kya (Cavalli-Sforza, 1997, Scozzari, et al. 1999). Analyses of Y-Chromosome haplotype variation have identified that the most ancestral Y-chromosome haplotype is present at moderate to high frequency in East African Sudanese and Ethiopians, as well as in southern African !Kung San .." -- Michael Crawford 2006. Anthropological Genetics: Theory, Methods and Applications. p. 363-364
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
tell us what the tropical adpatations the Khosians have, I'll wait
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Tell us what makes you think the Khoisan are not tropically adapted?? I'll wait on that.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Tell us what makes you think the Khoisan are not tropically adapted?? I'll wait on that.
bluff called, yours
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Tell us what makes you think the Khoisan are not tropically adapted?? I'll wait on that.
lol... Liaress is debunked again and is trying to wriggle away with diversionary tactics. But they fail too. The data was posted way back, but the doofus is trying to run away form it. Let's recap. When cold-adapted populations are run against the Khoisans, the Khoisans show a pattern of more tropical adaptation.
"The shallower slope, that of the Inuit, has a value of 0.77 versus 0.86 for the Khoisan, indicating that the tibiae of the cold-adapted Inuit grow less per increment of femral growth theoughout their entire ontogenetic sequence than do those of the Khoisan. The Neanderthal data points can be seen to follow the Inuit trajectory." --Nancy Minugh-Purvis, Kenneth J. McNamara. Human Evolution through Developmental Change 2001
So let's see. The Khoisan came from the tropical zone and show more tropical adaptations. Imagine that.. Liaress can duck, dodge and deny all she wants. It will not make any difference.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^^ grow up with the Darth Vader ten times in this thread, where's the creativity ??
Mitt Romney's more tropical than an Inuit, come on
two down, one to go
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Tell us what makes you think the Khoisan are not tropically adapted?? I'll wait on that.
lol... Liaress is debunked again and is trying to wriggle away with diversionary tactics. But they fail too. The data was posted way back, but the doofus is trying to run away form it. Let's recap. When cold-adapted populations are run against the Khoisans, the Khoisans show a pattern of more tropical adaptation.
"The shallower slope, that of the Inuit, has a value of 0.77 versus 0.86 for the Khoisan, indicating that the tibiae of the cold-adapted Inuit grow less per increment of femral growth theoughout their entire ontogenetic sequence than do those of the Khoisan. The Neanderthal data points can be seen to follow the Inuit trajectory." --Nancy Minugh-Purvis, Kenneth J. McNamara. Human Evolution through Developmental Change 2001
So let's see. The Khoisan came from the tropical zone and show more tropical adaptations. Imagine that.. Liaress can duck, dodge and deny all she wants. It will not make any difference.
Indeed. The literature is littered with instances where Khoisan are rightfully labeled a 'tropical population', despite living in a temperate zone:
Previous studies report that Jomon foragers had higher brachial and crural indices than Yayoi people and were similar in limb proportions to low latitude, tropical groups such as the African San (Yamaguchi, 1989). --Temple et al, 2008
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Tell us what makes you think the Khoisan are not tropically adapted?? I'll wait on that.
They don't have tropical brachial/crural indices. They fall in-between European Caucasoids and Negroids, and actually overlap with West Asian/Circum-Mediterranean Caucasoids -who are "warm" adapted.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^^^ grow up with the Darth Vader ten times in this thread, where's the creativity ??
Mitt Romney's more tropical than an Inuit, come on
two down, one to go
The whole "cold vs. tropical" = "whites vs. blacks" the Afronuts set up is a false dichotomy so they can claim anything even medium in index range is "tropical" or "black" by setting up the fallacy "whites are extreme cold adapted" (just look at Troll Patrol's post to see this fallacy).
No Europeans, not even Lapps, are cold adapted in limb proportion. Take a look at true cold adapted indices in European Neanderthals, which modern Europeans (Caucasoids) are nowhere near as low.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^^^ grow up with the Darth Vader ten times in this thread, where's the creativity ??
Mitt Romney's more tropical than an Inuit, come on
two down, one to go
The whole "cold vs. tropical" = "whites vs. blacks" the Afronuts set up is a false dichotomy so they can claim anything even medium in index range is "tropical" or "black" by setting up the fallacy "whites are extreme cold adapted" (just look at Troll Patrol's post to see this fallacy).
No Europeans, not even Lapps, are cold adapted in limb proportion. Take a look at true cold adapted indices in European Neanderthals, which modern Europeans (Caucasoids) are nowhere near as low.
whatever the term used you seem to be able to distinguish by limb ratios people who have lived for a long time near to the equator and North Western Europeans
limb ratio differences is the new "race"
one problem however it is hard to find limb proportion for many populations, only select data is available the biological theory-Allen's Rule
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Tell us what makes you think the Khoisan are not tropically adapted?? I'll wait on that.
They don't have tropical brachial/crural indices. They fall in-between European Caucasoids and Negroids, and actually overlap with West Asian/Circum-Mediterranean Caucasoids -who are "warm" adapted.
Limb Length isn't the only variable which measures tropical adaptation. When you posted that wack ass Raxter conclusion about Ancient Egyptians ''quickly'' changing their limb lengths to their temperate environment (LMAO), I already told your dumbass that tropical adaptation includes femoral head diameter, Femoral bicondylar length, Bi-iliac breadth, Skeletal trunk height, body mass etc. All have a say in the matter:
At the same time, there is a genetic component. Low stature persists even under apparently favourable health conditions. The small body size and lean physique of living Khoisan peoples are often cited in human population biology texts as exemplary of adaptation to a hot, sometimes specifically desert, climate. Their low body-mass index is portrayed as support for Bergmann's and Allen's rules (cf. Molnar 1998, Relethford 1997). --Sealy and Pfeiffer (2000)
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: What you omitted was the fact where in each case Coon explained the wide indices through race admixture.
False. In all our back and forths on this issue, you've utterly failed to produce a citation where Coon does this. If, on the other hand, we take a look at Coon's pre and post-pleistocene maps, it becomes obvious that he thought of the Levantine area as exclusively populated by Caucasoids. Nowhere does Coon depict Sub-Saharan Africans or Australoids in the Levant pior or after 10.000bc, therefore, there couldn't have been actual ''race admixture'' implied in his description of the Shuqbah Natufians.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: If crania has admixture or affinities with another racial type, how does it belong to a single race category?
Don't ask me those retarded questions, I never said Coonian anthropology was consistent or rational. Coon clearly disagrees with your reasoning. Coon said that Cushitic Ethiopians whom he classified as Mediterranean, can have up to 25% Negroid ancestry. He described ''various related Mediterranean types'' in Ethiopia, whom he describes as ''mixed in varying degrees with negroes''. Later on he describes an Agau Ethiopian man as phenotypically purely Mediterranean, but that, genetically, negroid admixture must be present in him. Nowhere does Coon note that minor exotic ancestry compromises a Mediterranean classification. We can pile that fabricated claim right on top of the many others fabricated claims I've compiled in my previous post.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: [QUOTE]This has already been answered:
"If the analysis of mitochondrial DNA has produced a theory that jars with the fossil record, has the testimony of mitochondria been misinterpreted? Proponents of the Eve theory argue that the mitochondrial DNA of non-African people shows no signs of local ancestry, only the telltale signs of Eve and her descendants. They interpret this as the result of replacement of those ancient populations by Eve’s descendants. But we believe this evidence could also reflect the very first expansions of humankind (archaic rather than modern) from Africa, over a million years ago. It all depends on the date calculated for Eve, and for this we must rely on DNA, whose reliability as a molecular clock has yet to be proven." (Wolpoff, 1991, 2000)[/qb]
Dumbass, does mtDNA lineage loss explain why Eurasian nuclear DNA is derived as well?
The shorter genetic distance between the African populations (Afr-Am and YRI) and the hypothetical ancestral population is consistent with previous analyses of Alu insertions suggesting that the ancestral state is more common in African populations (Watkins et al., 2001; Watkins et al., 2003). Our analysis showing the preservation of human ancestral alleles in an African population, however, is based on a much larger number of polymorphisms. It is consistent with the Out-of- Africa hypothesis since demographic effects like bottlenecks and adaptations to new environments likely drove genetic differentiation in Eurasians. --Magalhaes & Matsuda 2011
Always running away from posts that whoop your ass, yet, you always keep coming back to comment on trivial matters, or opening up a new can of worms. Aren't you ashamed to rear your ugly head time after time again, for no apparent reason, other than to tacitly admit--with your inability to respond in a timely and pro-active manner--that all your claims are fabricated, and cannot even withstand cursory scrutiny?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^^^ grow up with the Darth Vader ten times in this thread, where's the creativity ??
Mitt Romney's more tropical than an Inuit, come on
two down, one to go
The whole "cold vs. tropical" = "whites vs. blacks" the Afronuts set up is a false dichotomy so they can claim anything even medium in index range is "tropical" or "black" by setting up the fallacy "whites are extreme cold adapted" (just look at Troll Patrol's post to see this fallacy).
No Europeans, not even Lapps, are cold adapted in limb proportion. Take a look at true cold adapted indices in European Neanderthals, which modern Europeans (Caucasoids) are nowhere near as low.
Can you explain how people who've lived in a arctic environment, and somewhat milder climate during the Holocene, for thousand upon thousands of years could and or can developed tropical limb portions. P.s. Neanderthals lived in a arctic environment for about 300 thousand years. When Homo Sapiens entered the artic zone they were more like Africans, tropical adapted. They gradually became cold adapted and retained cold adaption despite of this drop down in arctic cold, until the Modern man. So of course the indices aren't as low as Neanderthals, but still low.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Tell us what makes you think the Khoisan are not tropically adapted?? I'll wait on that.
They don't have tropical brachial/crural indices. They fall in-between European Caucasoids and Negroids, and actually overlap with West Asian/Circum-Mediterranean Caucasoids -who are "warm" adapted.
Limb Length isn't the only variable which measures tropical adaptation. When you posted that wack ass Raxter conclusion about Ancient Egyptians ''quickly'' changing their limb lengths to their temperate environment (LMAO), I already told your dumbass that tropical adaptation includes femoral head diameter, Femoral bicondylar length, Bi-iliac breadth, Skeletal trunk height, body mass etc. All have a say in the matter:
At the same time, there is a genetic component. Low stature persists even under apparently favourable health conditions. The small body size and lean physique of living Khoisan peoples are often cited in human population biology texts as exemplary of adaptation to a hot, sometimes specifically desert, climate. Their low body-mass index is portrayed as support for Bergmann's and Allen's rules (cf. Molnar 1998, Relethford 1997). --Sealy and Pfeiffer (2000)
And funny part about that Raxter fallacy is that Egypt itself is not "all that tropical". So this notion was just made up by thumb guessing. Based on a racist and Eurocentric dichotomy. However, at the same time it does give a way the fact, that Europeans and Arabs were and are cold adapted in limb portion. See, every bad has its good. And Raxter admitted to this. Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Can you explain how people who've lived in a arctic environment, and somewhat milder climate during the Holocene, for thousand upon thousands of years could and or can developed tropical limb portions. P.s. Neanderthals lived in a arctic environment for about 300 thousand years. When Homo Sapiens entered the artic zone they were more like Africans, tropical adapted. They became cold adapted and retained cold adaption despite of this drop down in arctic cold, until the Modern man. So of course they aren't as low as Neanderthals, but still low.
They never did.
Circum-Mediterranean/West Asian Caucasoids have indices in-between cold and hot extremes.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Can you explain how people who've lived in a arctic environment, and somewhat milder climate during the Holocene, for thousand upon thousands of years could and or can developed tropical limb portions. P.s. Neanderthals lived in a arctic environment for about 300 thousand years. When Homo Sapiens entered the artic zone they were more like Africans, tropical adapted. They became cold adapted and retained cold adaption despite of this drop down in arctic cold, until the Modern man. So of course they aren't as low as Neanderthals, but still low.
They never did.
Circum-Mediterranean/West Asian Caucasoids have indices in-between cold and tropical extremes.
I am asking for you explain, how it is possible for people who lived in a cold to extreme cold region for thousand upon thousands of years to develop tropical adapted limb portions.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Tell us what makes you think the Khoisan are not tropically adapted?? I'll wait on that.
They don't have tropical brachial/crural indices. They fall in-between European Caucasoids and Negroids, and actually overlap with West Asian/Circum-Mediterranean Caucasoids -who are "warm" adapted.
Limb Length isn't the only variable which measures tropical adaptation. When you posted that wack ass Raxter conclusion about Ancient Egyptians ''quickly'' changing their limb lengths to their temperate environment (LMAO), I already told your dumbass that tropical adaptation includes femoral head diameter, Femoral bicondylar length, Bi-iliac breadth, Skeletal trunk height, body mass etc. All have a say in the matter:
At the same time, there is a genetic component. Low stature persists even under apparently favourable health conditions. The small body size and lean physique of living Khoisan peoples are often cited in human population biology texts as exemplary of adaptation to a hot, sometimes specifically desert, climate. Their low body-mass index is portrayed as support for Bergmann's and Allen's rules (cf. Molnar 1998, Relethford 1997). --Sealy and Pfeiffer (2000)
The term (tropical) I was using was putitive to the Afocentric definition of "tropical", which as I have shown is actually false and not climatic. Those of the tropical climatic region in Sub-Sahara Africa, such as Pygmies and Forest Negroids ('true Blacks') do not in fact show high brachial or crural indices -- they are adapted instead to humid heat environments.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Can you explain how people who've lived in a arctic environment, and somewhat milder climate during the Holocene, for thousand upon thousands of years could and or can developed tropical limb portions. P.s. Neanderthals lived in a arctic environment for about 300 thousand years. When Homo Sapiens entered the artic zone they were more like Africans, tropical adapted. They became cold adapted and retained cold adaption despite of this drop down in arctic cold, until the Modern man. So of course they aren't as low as Neanderthals, but still low.
They never did.
Circum-Mediterranean/West Asian Caucasoids have indices in-between cold and tropical extremes.
I am asking for you explain, how it is possible for people who lived in a cold to extreme cold region for thousand upon thousands of years to develop tropical adapted limb portions.
Who is saying they did?
Secondly, as I have shown West Asia was always much warmer. Hence West Asian Neanderthals in their indices are not cold adapted, but warm -- just like today's Caucasoid West Asians.
Caucasoids don't need a mythical invasion of "wandering Negroids" to give them higher indices when they already posessed them. The Afrocentric fallacy is entirely based on the lie Caucasoids are cold adapted, because anything that deviates from that range they then claim was introduced by "African migrants" which is sheer fantasy.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Can you explain how people who've lived in a arctic environment, and somewhat milder climate during the Holocene, for thousand upon thousands of years could and or can developed tropical limb portions. P.s. Neanderthals lived in a arctic environment for about 300 thousand years. When Homo Sapiens entered the artic zone they were more like Africans, tropical adapted. They became cold adapted and retained cold adaption despite of this drop down in arctic cold, until the Modern man. So of course they aren't as low as Neanderthals, but still low.
They never did.
Circum-Mediterranean/West Asian Caucasoids have indices in-between cold and tropical extremes.
I am asking for you explain, how it is possible for people who lived in a cold to extreme cold region for thousand upon thousands of years to develop tropical adapted limb portions.
Who is saying they did?
Secondly, as I have shown West Asia was always much warmer. Hence West Asian Neanderthals in their indices are not cold adapted, but warm -- just like today's Caucasoid West Asians.
Caucasoids don't need a mythical invasion of "wandering Negroids" to give them higher indices when they already posessed them. The Afrocentric fallacy is entirely based on the lie Caucasoids are cold adapted, because anything that deviates from that range they then claim was introduced by "African migrants" which is sheer fantasy.
What I am asking, is for you to explain how people who have lived in a extreme cold climate to gradually cold environment, could gain(-ed) tropical limb portions. The subliminal in Raxter's study shows that Europeans and Arabs are and were cold adapted in body plan.
So..., can you explain what I have asked repeatedly now?
quote:Tell us what makes you think the Khoisan are not tropically adapted?? I'll wait on that.
They don't have tropical brachial/crural indices. They fall in-between European Caucasoids and Negroids, and actually overlap with West Asian/Circum-Mediterranean Caucasoids -who are "warm" adapted.
Limb Length isn't the only variable which measures tropical adaptation. When you posted that wack ass Raxter conclusion about Ancient Egyptians ''quickly'' changing their limb lengths to their temperate environment (LMAO), I already told your dumbass that tropical adaptation includes femoral head diameter, Femoral bicondylar length, Bi-iliac breadth, Skeletal trunk height, body mass etc. All have a say in the matter:
At the same time, there is a genetic component. Low stature persists even under apparently favourable health conditions. The small body size and lean physique of living Khoisan peoples are often cited in human population biology texts as exemplary of adaptation to a hot, sometimes specifically desert, climate. Their low body-mass index is portrayed as support for Bergmann's and Allen's rules (cf. Molnar 1998, Relethford 1997). --Sealy and Pfeiffer (2000)
The term (tropical) I was using was putitive to the Afocentric definition of "tropical", which as I have shown is actually false and not climatic. Those of the tropical climatic region in Sub-Sahara Africa, such as Pygmies and Forest Negroids ('true Blacks') do not in fact show high brachial or crural indices -- they are adapted instead to humid heat environments.
Both tropical climate and tropical body portion are coherent, as I have shown. You do remember that study you've posted on Amerindians.
quote: Body proportions covary with climate, apparently as the result of climatic selection.
J Hum Evol. 1997 May;32(5):423-48. Holliday TW.
I understand how you want to steal ancient Egypt...so badly. However, it's not your people. Get over it.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The term (tropical) I was using was putitive to the Afocentric definition of "tropical", which as I have shown is actually false and not climatic.
Blablabla. As usual, your post doesn't even make sense in relation to what I just said. What do Pygmies and West Africans have to do with the fact that I've just obliterated your fabricated claim that Khoisan are not tropically adapted?
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Those of the tropical climatic region in Sub-Sahara Africa, such as Pygmies and Forest Negroids ('true Blacks') do not in fact show high brachial or crural indices -- they are adapted instead to humid heat environments.
^As usual, your mental retardation prevents you from seeing that you're undermining your own claims. A few posts ago you said that, limb proportion wise, Khoisan are intermediate between blacks and whites, and now blacks are all of a sudden at the low end of the spectrum. LMAO.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Tell us what makes you think the Khoisan are not tropically adapted?? I'll wait on that.
They don't have tropical brachial/crural indices. They fall in-between European Caucasoids and Negroids, and actually overlap with West Asian/Circum-Mediterranean Caucasoids -who are "warm" adapted.
Limb Length isn't the only variable which measures tropical adaptation. When you posted that wack ass Raxter conclusion about Ancient Egyptians ''quickly'' changing their limb lengths to their temperate environment (LMAO), I already told your dumbass that tropical adaptation includes femoral head diameter, Femoral bicondylar length, Bi-iliac breadth, Skeletal trunk height, body mass etc. All have a say in the matter:
At the same time, there is a genetic component. Low stature persists even under apparently favourable health conditions. The small body size and lean physique of living Khoisan peoples are often cited in human population biology texts as exemplary of adaptation to a hot, sometimes specifically desert, climate. Their low body-mass index is portrayed as support for Bergmann's and Allen's rules (cf. Molnar 1998, Relethford 1997). --Sealy and Pfeiffer (2000)
And funny part about that Raxter fallacy is that Egypt itself is not "all that tropical".
Indeed, the Egyptian Delta lies at roughly the same latitude as Southern Syrio-Palestine, yet Smith 2002 found predynastic Maadi tibia (tibia length determines crural index height, not femora length) to be a whopping 6.9 cm longer than contemporary folks at Byblos, a bit up North. This is not due to taller Maadi folks, because the femora of both populations were roughly the same (indicating similar height). Maadi folks were adjacent to the Near East; right around the corner. Circum-Mediterranean settlers of Maadi or elsewhere in the Delta, would NOT have experienced any notable limb index shifts, since, as you correctly note, the Delta mean annual temperature is roughly no different from the mean annual temperature slightly up North. Both temp. means are moderate.
Additionally, Holiday's examination of European Mesolithic folks show they still have tropical limb indices, even though they were cold adapted overall. Jomon foragers were also cold adapted overall, with relatively high limb lengths. Circum-arctic people have limb proportions that are roughly no different from Europeans, but body breadth that is much more specific to them and their extreme cold environments. All this data shows that limb indices are CLEARLY lagging behind when it comes to adaptation to regions with different climates. Note Holiday examination of a European Mesolithic man, who is now known to carry a European mtDNA lineage (U5):
while the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans have significantly higher (i.e., tropically-adapted) brachial and crural indices than do recent Europeans, they also have shorter (i.e., cold-adapted) limbs. The somewhat paradoxical retention of “tropical” indices in the context of more “cold-adapted” limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe. --Holiday, 1999
Like I said, limb proportions can't change ''quickly'', contrary to Raxter's baseless speculations. All over the world we see that cold adapted early holocenic descendants of Upper Palaeolithic OOA populations often still have tropical limb proportions (but not necessarily longer absolute arm and leg length), mixed with clear evidence of cold adaptation in other post-cranial markers and indices (body breadth, body mass, trunk height, etc).
Yet, in the face of all the data that the torso is much more plastic than limb proportions, it is maintained that Ancient Egyptians were somehow a special case, and that they are supposed to have magically defied this universal pattern, where the torso adapts first to the new environment, and the limbs proportions much later. To add insult to injury, Delta temperatures are roughly no different from temperatures in the Circum-Mediterranean.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The term (tropical) I was using was putitive to the Afocentric definition of "tropical", which as I have shown is actually false and not climatic.
Blablabla. As usual, your post doesn't even make sense in relation to what I just said. What do Pygmies and West Africans have to do with the fact that I've just obliterated your fabricated claim that Khoisan are not tropically adapted?
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Those of the tropical climatic region in Sub-Sahara Africa, such as Pygmies and Forest Negroids ('true Blacks') do not in fact show high brachial or crural indices -- they are adapted instead to humid heat environments.
^As usual, your mental retardation prevents you from seeing that you're undermining your own claims. A few posts ago you said that, limb proportion wise, Khoisan are intermediate between blacks and whites, and now blacks are all of a sudden at the low end of the spectrum. LMAO.
Your use of the word "tropical" is not climatic. Like Zaharan and other Afronuts you use the bogus astronomical definition -- which has no link to climate or race.
Khoisans are adapated to the desert heat, but they are not tropical.
Tropical adaptation is adaptation to humid heat, not arid climatic conditions.
As long as you continue to apply a bogus definition to "tropical" you will not grasp the basics of adaptation. Khoisans are not tropically adapted.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:now blacks are all of a sudden at the low end of the spectrum. LMAO.
I said Forest Negroes, meaning palaeo-Negroids.
Those ancestral Negroids that moved out of the tropical belt into peripheral zones, moved into desert environments and became "elongnated" (wrongly called tropical by the Afronuts).
Hiernaux (1975) even distinguishes "elongnated" Negroids (e.g. Nilotids) to Forest Negroes, as does Baker (1974). And there are intermediate types, such as Kafrids.
As I said above, as long as you continue to use an astronomical definition for tropical, you won't understand climatic adaptation. The only reason Afronuts use the astronomical definition is because - it covers a wider geographical area and so you can claim all non-tropical adapated peoples are "Black", when numerous aren't such as the Khoisans, Aethiopids and North African Caucasoids.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Dumbass, does mtDNA lineage loss explain why Eurasian nuclear DNA is derived as well?
Read the quote. Excluding stochastic loss of mitochondrial lineages (which is known to occur) haplogroups and the "Eve" theory are in fact perfectly compatible with Multiregionalism simply if the dates are pushed back -- which they are by numerous geneticists who question the idea of a constant mutation rate.
Masatoshi Nei of Pennsylvania State University dated Eve over a million years old (Wolpoff, 1991). Other estimates are pushed back further.
With this framework, the ancestral or early haplogroups are not AMH, but Erectus or even Australopithecus (some estimates of "Eve" are contemporary of the Australopithecines).
As far as we know australopithecus originated in Africa. Wolpoff's model merely asserts "Eve" was an Erectus, while Coon (1982) took back three racial divergences to australopithecus. Either one could be correct in light of modern age estimates for "Eve", of which many geneticists have dated well over a million years old.
In no way has genetics debunked Wolpoff's or Coon's model on origins.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The term (tropical) I was using was putitive to the Afocentric definition of "tropical", which as I have shown is actually false and not climatic.
Blablabla. As usual, your post doesn't even make sense in relation to what I just said. What do Pygmies and West Africans have to do with the fact that I've just obliterated your fabricated claim that Khoisan are not tropically adapted?
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Those of the tropical climatic region in Sub-Sahara Africa, such as Pygmies and Forest Negroids ('true Blacks') do not in fact show high brachial or crural indices -- they are adapted instead to humid heat environments.
^As usual, your mental retardation prevents you from seeing that you're undermining your own claims. A few posts ago you said that, limb proportion wise, Khoisan are intermediate between blacks and whites, and now blacks are all of a sudden at the low end of the spectrum. LMAO.
Your use of the word "tropical" is not climatic. Like Zaharan and other Afronuts you use the bogus astronomical definition -- which has no link to climate or race.
Khoisans are adapated to the desert heat, but they are not tropical.
Tropical adaptation is adaptation to humid heat, not arid climatic conditions.
As long as you continue to apply a bogus definition to "tropical" you will not grasp the basics of adaptation. Khoisans are not tropically adapted.
The Khoisan don't live in a tropical zone, or "desert" as you implied. They live in a totally different terrain. A steppe zone, and are adapted to such.
As long as you don't grasp the differences in climatology within Africa, I.e. deserts. You will not understand what we are talking about. Since deserts have different climatic models.
quote:Both Tropical and Dry climates are found within the Nile basin. Climate within the Nile basin has been classified into three Köppen subclasses: tropical wet and dry climates (savanna), steppe, and desert climates. Highland climates are also found in the Nile basin, but are strongly influenced by the more general climatic region in which they lie.
Tropical Wet and Dry
quote: Tropical wet and dry climates (savanna) lie between about 5º and 20º latitude; that is, between equatorial tropical rainforest climates and tropical deserts. These climates are characterized by seasonal rainfall and warm temperatures (all months have a mean temperature greater than 18ºC), and significant variation in precipitation may occur within a year and between years. Tropical wet and dry climates are found in portions of the Lake Victoria basin, the Sudan, and Ethiopia."
Hydrology of the Nile Basin, Volume 2 By M M Shahin
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Your use of the word "tropical" is not climatic. Like Zaharan and other Afronuts you use the bogus astronomical definition -- which has no link to climate or race.
Which is, of course, totally irrelevant. Tropical when used in reference to osteological adaptations refers to temperature, not to climate, as in a 'tropical rainforest' climate. Hence, why 'tropically adapted' is the mirror opposite of 'cold adapted'. Read a book, dumb phuckin' moron.
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Khoisans are adapated to the desert heat, but they are not tropical. Tropical adaptation is adaptation to humid heat, not arid climatic conditions.
You're talking out your ass. Tropical is clearly used in relation to high temperatures, regardless of humidity. Does Bronze age Egypt strike your dumbass as a non-arid, rainforest? If not, it must mean Egypto-Nubians come from a humid-hot environment, according to your own retarded claim that tropically-adapted can only refer to being adapted to hot-humid climates.
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I said Forest Negroes, meaning palaeo-Negroids.
LMAO. If not West and Central Africans, who are the Negroids whom you described earlier as tropically adapted, with Khoisan in between, and whites below?
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Those ancestral Negroids that moved out of the tropical belt into peripheral zones, moved into desert environments and became "elongnated" (wrongly called tropical by the Afronuts).
LMAO. You're talking out of your ass. as usual. Again, you're undermining your own claims, which you fail to pick up on due to your mental retardation. Without the slightest measure of inner conflict, you've claimed on the one hand that only hot-humid climates feature tropically adapted humans, and on the other hand you cite Raxter saying that Circum-Mediterraneans aquired tropically adapted limbs in Egypt, which, BTW, has a DESERT climate.
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The only reason Afronuts use the astronomical definition is because - it covers a wider geographical area and so you can claim all non-tropical adapated peoples are "Black", when numerous aren't such as the Khoisans, Aethiopids and North African Caucasoids.
Explain this data, lying ass pig. If 'Afronuts' are unjustly claiming that 'Ethiopids' are tropically adapted, explain why your 'Ethiopids' are even more tropically adapted than Ancient Egypto-Nubians, according to your girl Raxter:
Sudanese and Ethiopians (the modern groups geographically closest to ancient Egyptians and Nubians) assessed in the present study generally plot closer to other tropical groups, possessing narrower body breadths, greater SA/BM, less mass relative to stature, and narrower body breadths relative to stature (Figures 23-26), translating into more linear body plans for Sudanese and Ethiopians compared to early Northeast African groups.
Data fabricating, lying ass pig.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Faheem dumba said: The term (tropical) I was using was putitive to the Afocentric definition of "tropical", which as I have shown is actually false and not climatic. Those of the tropical climatic region in Sub-Sahara Africa, such as Pygmies and Forest Negroids ('true Blacks') do not in fact show high brachial or crural indices -- they are adapted instead to humid heat environments.
Khoisans are adapated to the desert heat, but they are not tropical.
Tropical adaptation is adaptation to humid heat, not arid climatic conditions
^^The only thing you have shown Wanker boy is that you are an idiot. You can't even keep your arguments straight. If Pygmies and "forest negroids" live in the tropical forest then they DO live in a as you say "humid, heat environment." Think dumbass, think and exercise some logic... lmao...
And deserts do form part of the tropics you hapless buffoon. You are so incompetent that even your fellow racists are embarassed by your pathetic carcass.
Different authors use different terminology to denote a classification by rainfall, season, mean temperature etc.. but it makes no difference. Wetness, coolness, dryness, rainfall, temp, season, mix and match- makes no difference. They are all variants WITHIN the tropics as the Koppen climate map below shows.
And dummy, the labels "tropical wet" and tropical wet/dry" on your map all identify areas WITHIN the larger tropical zone. Your own Koppen map shows this- you keep debunking your own argument fool... DUH....
Btw Zaharan, not even Keita uses your stupid terminology based on who can see the sun in the sky. He uses the term "Saharo-Tropical African Variant" (1981).
Hapless dullard! Must we yet again instruct you? Keita uses "tropical" yes- to identify those in the SAHARAN area that were tropical. Got it? He STILL identifies them as tropical. DUH.. And you are even more incompetent in your citation. Keita did not use the terminology in "1981" as you claim. Learn to cite accurately. End of today's lesson. Quote:
”The Tropic of Cancer and The Tropic of Capricorn The Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn each lie at 23.5 degrees latitude. The Tropic of Cancer is located at 23.5° North of the equator and runs through Mexico, the Bahamas, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, and southern China. The Tropic of Capricorn lies at 23.5° South of the equator and runs through Australia, Chile, southern Brazil (Brazil is the only country that passes through both the equator and a tropic), and northern South Africa. The tropics are the two lines where the sun is directly overhead at noon on the two solstices - near June and December 21. The sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Cancer on June 21 (the beginning of summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of winter in the Southern Hemisphere) and the sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Capricorn on December 21 (the beginning of winter in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of summer in the Southern Hemisphere). The reason for the location of the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn at 23.5° north and south respectively is due to the axial tilt of the Earth. The Earth is titled 23.5 degrees from the plane of the Earth's revolution around the sun each year. The area bounded by the Tropic of Cancer on the north and Tropic of Capricorn on the south is known as the "tropics." --From worldAtlas.com and Geographic Information - Page 33 Jenny Marie Johnson - 2003
Why do you think they are called the TROPIC of Cancer and the TROPIC of Capricorn? You big dummy…
You're using the definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year --- a completely bogus definition in regards to population biology, and physical anthropology.
No stupid mothafuck. The definition, which I posted long ago is shown below. You are so stupid it went over your head. ANd do you realize that you continually debunk yourself with your "refutations"? The lines mark out the tropics which is defined by thermal requirements and, as the standard definition shows below, include jungle, deserts and mountainous highlands, at temperatures that can be quite cool...
.. QUOTE:
"The thermal requirement for a tropical climate is considered to be an average mean temperature above 18 degrees C for the coldest month. Within this average, tropics are also marked by receiving a large amount of solar radiation throughout the year with no true or distinct winter season. Tropics not only include jungle, but deserts and mountainous highlands as well. The cooler local temperatures of these highlands are still within the overall averages, and are still part of the tropic zone, receiving high levels of solar radiation and not having a thermally depressed winter season. (Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995)." --Kumar et al. 1999. Biodeterioration of Stone in Tropical Environments and Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995. HUmid Tropical Environments. WIley PUb.
"The tropics are astronomically clearly defined latitudes.. the sun reaches its zenith at these two positions once a year, and within the area of the tropics twice a year. That is the main reason that, within the tropics, the annual variation of air temperature is smaller than its diurnal variation. Compared with other thermal delimitations this is also true for high altitude mountains without any limitations." --Tropical Glaciers: Glaciers and Glaciations of the Rwenzori Mountains, Uganda. 2002. Kaser and Osmaston -----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBUNKING ON KEITA he 1981 paper in a UNESCO report is first where "tropical-african" is first traced. The 1993 paper I said is where Keita claims North African coastals are not tropical-africans but southern europeans:
"[...]coastal northern africans are viewed here as perhaps being biologically more, but not only, related to southern Europeans, primarily by gene flow." (Keita, 1993)
^^No fool. The term "tropical African" occurs is not "traced" to 1981. It can be found in books going back to the 1800s.
Keita explicity excludes north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping.
And Keita does not "exclude" "north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping."
The very quote you proffer debunks your own claim. And diversionary smokescreens abut AC/DC wont save you, nor will trying to hide your debunking above re Diop and Vansertima.Let me quote your own proof:
"[...]coastal northern africans are viewed here as perhaps being biologically more, but not only, related to southern Europeans, primarily by gene flow." (Keita, 1993)
^^Dumbass, Keita says more "but not only". How therefore has he "excluded" "north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping"? It is clear that southern Europeans are not the only relation to the coastals, and the Sahara itself makes up a large chunk of North Africa, that even in places extends close to the Medit coast. SO how could "north Africans" be "excluded" from the Saharan zone stupid muthafucka? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KHOISAN
"Several other long-range migration events have shaped the genetic l andscape of Africa. Analyses of mtDNA and the Y chromosome supports studies of classical polymorphisms as well as archaeological data indicating that Khoisian-speaking populations (those whose languages contain clicks, which includes the !Kung San) may have originated in Eastern Africa and migrated into southern Africa >20 - 10kya (Cavalli-Sforza, 1997, Scozzari, et al. 1999). Analyses of Y-Chromosome haplotype variation have identified that the most ancestral Y-chromosome haplotype is present at moderate to high frequency in East African Sudanese and Ethiopians, as well as in southern African !Kung San .." -- Michael Crawford 2006. Anthropological Genetics: Theory, Methods and Applications. p. 363-364
"The shallower slope, that of the INuit, has a value of 0.77 versus 0.86 for the Khoisan, indicating thjat the tibiae of the cold-adapted Inuit grow less per increment of femral growth theoughout their entire ontogenetic sequence tha do those of the Khoisan. The Neanderthal data points can be seen to follow the Inuit trajectory." --Nancy Minugh-Purvis, Kenneth J. McNamara. Human Evolution through Developmental Change 2001
"Variation in limb proportions between prehistoric Jomon and Yayoi people of Japan are explored by this study. Jomon people were the descendents of Pleistocene nomads who migrated to the Japanese Islands around 30,000 yBP. Phenotypic and genotypic evidence indicates that Yayoi people were recent migrants to Japan from continental Northeast Asia who likely interbred with Jomon foragers. Limb proportions of Jomon and Yayoi people were compared using RMA regression and "Quick-Test" calculations to investigate relative variability between these two groups. Cluster and principal components analyses were performed on size-standardized limb lengths and used to compare Jomon and Yayoi people with other groups from various climatic zones. Elongated distal relative to proximal limb lengths were observed among Jomon compared to Yayoi people. Jomon limb proportions were similar to human groups from temperate/tropical climates at lower latitudes, while Yayoi limb proportions more closely resemble groups from colder climates at higher latitudes. Limb proportional similarities with groups from warmer environments among Jomon foragers likely reflect morphological changes following Pleistocene colonization of the Japanese Islands. Cold-derived limb proportions among the Yayoi people likely indicate retention of these traits following comparatively recent migrations to the Japanese Islands. Changes in limb proportions experienced by Jomon foragers and retention of cold-derived limb proportions among Yayoi people conform to previous findings that report changes in these proportions following long-standing evolution in a specific environment." --Tempe et al. 2008. Variation in limb proportions between Jomon foragers and Yayoi agriculturalists from prehistoric Japan. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008 Oct;137(2):164-74.
Previous studies report that Jomon foragers had higher brachial and crural indices than Yayoi people and were similar in limb proportions to low latitude, tropical groups such as the African San (Yamaguchi, 1989). --Temple et al, 2008
quote: "At the same time, there is a genetic component. Low stature persists even under apparently favourable health conditions. The small body size and lean physique of living Khoisan peoples are often cited in human population biology texts as exemplary of adaptation to a hot, sometimes specifically desert, climate. Their low body-mass index is portrayed as support for Bergmann's and Allen's rules (cf. Molnar 1998, Relethford 1997)." --Sealy and Pfeiffer (2000) ------------------------------
AND YOU ARE STILL RUNNING AWAY FROM SWENET'S EXPOSURE OF YOUR FABRICATIONS AND IDIOCY
Running away as usual, like the faggot that you've demonstrated yourself to be, time after time again. None of your ideas have withstood the test of scrutiny, and that's why you've repeatedly backed away from them:
1.You've fabricated your claim that Bar Yosef said that the Mushabian was excavated in Upper and Lower Egypt
2.You've fabricated your claim that Indians never cluster with certain Africans, whether metrically or non-metrically
3.You've fabricated your claim that Mesolithic Nubians and Natufians had wavy hair
4.You've fabricated your claim that the Mediterranean 'race' is free of negroid traits per Coon
5.You've fabricated your claim that Wadi Halfans can't be negroid because of their browridges, since the remains you classify as undoubtedly negroid, (Asselar man and Iwo Eleru) have brow ridges
6.You've fabricated your claim that your fake Australoid phenotypical cluster (Palaeo-americans, Wadi Halfans, Jebel Sahabans, Natufians, European Eurafricans, Mesopotamian Eurafricans, Arabian Veddoids, Indian Veddoids etc) is a cluster of related people
7.You've failed to explain why modern descendants of those ancient populations have zero Australian aboriginal ancestry, but African ancestry with Mesolithic time depths instead.
8.You've fabricated your claim that sub species or races are identifiable by morphological clusters
9.You've fabricated your claim that there have never been studies that detected African affinities with Iranian/Iraqi prehistorical skeletal remains
10.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual had brow ridges, since it consists out of a mandible
11.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual was described as having prognathism
12.You've fabricated your claim that Homo 3 was the only Natufian individual with prognathism
13.You've fabricated your claim that Keith's analysis of the Shukbah remains were somehow refuted or inaccurate
14.You've fabricated your claim that Coon retracted his view of minor Negroid affinities in the Shuqbah Natufians series
15.You've fabricated your claim that Tigray Ethiopians are the only Ethiopians with leptorrhine averages
16.You've fabricated your claim that all Tigray Ethiopians are leptorrhine
17.You've fabricated your claim that non-leptorrhiny in Cushitic speaking groups is necessarily due to admixture with negroid groups.
17.You've fabricated your claim that Wolpoff's list of Erectus to Australoid continuation traits denote a special relationship indicative of continuation.
18.There is no evidence of lineage loss in Upper Palaeolithic Australian, European, West Asian and Amerindian fossils; all fossil mtDNA lineages are attested in contemporaries, and none are pre-M or pre-N. No form of lineage loss can account for the lack of pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians, and no explanations have been offered as to why Sub Saharan Africans have managed to maintain their pre-M and pre-N mtDNA. Additionally, the derived state of Eurasian DNA is also confirmed in genome-wide analysis, which is not subject to Wolpoff's silly caveat that pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians may have died out due to lineage loss. -----------------------------------------------------
Swenet said:
"Sudanese and Ethiopians (the modern groups geographically closest to ancient Egyptians and Nubians) assessed in the present study generally plot closer to other tropical groups, possessing narrower body breadths, greater SA/BM, less mass relative to stature, and narrower body breadths relative to stature (Figures 23-26), translating into more linear body plans for Sudanese and Ethiopians compared to early Northeast African groups." --Raxter
LMAO. You're talking out of your ass. as usual. Again, you're undermining your own claims, which you fail to pick up on due to your mental retardation. Without the slightest measure of inner conflict, you've claimed on the one hand that only hot-humid climates feature tropically adapted humans, and on the other hand you cite Raxter saying that Circum-Mediterraneans aquired tropically adapted limbs in Egypt, which, BTW, has a DESERT climate.
^^LOL.. Indeed. Neither truth or logic is not this dumb bulb's strong point.. Its great the racists have him on their side.. lol
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The term (tropical) I was using was putitive to the Afocentric definition of "tropical", which as I have shown is actually false and not climatic.
Blablabla. As usual, your post doesn't even make sense in relation to what I just said. What do Pygmies and West Africans have to do with the fact that I've just obliterated your fabricated claim that Khoisan are not tropically adapted?
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Those of the tropical climatic region in Sub-Sahara Africa, such as Pygmies and Forest Negroids ('true Blacks') do not in fact show high brachial or crural indices -- they are adapted instead to humid heat environments.
^As usual, your mental retardation prevents you from seeing that you're undermining your own claims. A few posts ago you said that, limb proportion wise, Khoisan are intermediate between blacks and whites, and now blacks are all of a sudden at the low end of the spectrum. LMAO.
Your use of the word "tropical" is not climatic. Like Zaharan and other Afronuts you use the bogus astronomical definition -- which has no link to climate or race.
Khoisans are adapated to the desert heat, but they are not tropical.
Tropical adaptation is adaptation to humid heat, not arid climatic conditions.
As long as you continue to apply a bogus definition to "tropical" you will not grasp the basics of adaptation. Khoisans are not tropically adapted.
The Khoisan don't live in a tropical zone, or "desert" as you implied. They live in a totally different terrain. A steppe zone, and are adapted to such.
As long as you don't grasp the differences in climatology within Africa, I.e. deserts. You will not understand what we are talking about. Since deserts have different climatic models.
quote:Both Tropical and Dry climates are found within the Nile basin. Climate within the Nile basin has been classified into three Köppen subclasses: tropical wet and dry climates (savanna), steppe, and desert climates. Highland climates are also found in the Nile basin, but are strongly influenced by the more general climatic region in which they lie.
Tropical Wet and Dry
quote: Tropical wet and dry climates (savanna) lie between about 5º and 20º latitude; that is, between equatorial tropical rainforest climates and tropical deserts. These climates are characterized by seasonal rainfall and warm temperatures (all months have a mean temperature greater than 18ºC), and significant variation in precipitation may occur within a year and between years. Tropical wet and dry climates are found in portions of the Lake Victoria basin, the Sudan, and Ethiopia."
Hydrology of the Nile Basin, Volume 2 By M M Shahin
That's wrong. That is merely the position where they were pushed into by Caucasoids and Negroids. They formerly inhabited the dry heat environment of the Sahara Desert - of which they show adaption to, such as yellowish-brown skin (the shade of the sand) and their body fat distribution. However Khoisans are less elongnated in limb size than other desert adapted Africans, such as Nilotids. This is explainable through (a) calcium deficieny or (b) Caucasoid admixture (Coon, 1982). Alternitively there is the more prevalent view Capoids share a recent common ancestor with African Pygmies.
Tropical adapted races as opposed to those in desert areas are small; although they have similar body ratios (which loose more body heat per unit of mass) because of the hot climate. However in the tropics the heat is humid, in the desert it is dry. This is why there are two entirely different ranges of limb indices and statures for the inhabitants of these climates.
Desert adaptation includes sweating, hence desrt adapted peoples such as the Nilotids are lanky. In the tropics, sweating is ineffective. The only exception to these adaptation rules in Africa is the Khoisans -- as they are much less elongnated than desert adapted peoples.
The answer Coon (1982) offers seems rational. The Khoisans bury their water, and then go back to drink it. The soils will take the calcium and other nutrition out of it -- hence explaining their shorter stature.
End point: Most Africans are not tropically adapted. Those that are are the paleo-Negroids and Pygmies confined to Western/Central Africa. The Afronuts use of the term "tropical" is completely bogus.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Tropical adapted races as opposed to those in desert areas are small; although they have similar body ratios (which loose more body heat per unit of mass) because of the hot climate. However in the tropics the heat is humid, in the desert it is dry. This is why there are two entirely different ranges of limb indices and statures for the inhabitants of these climates.
how can you say "similar body ratios" and in the same paragraph " two entirely different ranges of limb indices" ??
make up your mind
__________________________________
Nilotes are pretty similar in phenotype to Bantus
Nilotes Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:how can you say "similar body ratios" and in the same paragraph " two entirely different ranges of limb indices" ??
make up your mind
Their body breadth remains almost constant regardless of brachial/crural index.
The tallest living African Negroids, average 48 cm taller, but less than 3 cm wider in body breadth than Pygmies.
I've already explained why. These are two different "hot" climates: humid (tropical) and dry (desert).
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^ The afronut trick is to cluster dry heat as "Tropical" when it is desert. Their usage of "tropical" is not climatic. They employ a false definition so they can claim non-tropical races are "Black". That's all Zaharan is doing, he's not content with his own racial grouping but wants to extend it, out of self-hatred more than anything else.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Nilotes are pretty similar in phenotype to Bantus
All Negroids look the same in terms of cranio-facial features. Repeated tests have proven this since the 1960's - even when Blacks were surveyed they claimed white europeans have the most variation in facial features.
Where Negroids subraces differ is in post-cranial indices. Nilotids for example are desert adapted. Forest Negroes are tropical (Humid)adapted, and Kafrids are inbetween (Baker, 1974).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ The afronut trick is to cluster dry heat as "Tropical" when it is desert. Their usage of "tropical" is not climatic. They employ a false definition so they can claim non-tropical races are "Black". That's all Zaharan is doing, he's not content with his own racial grouping but wants to extend it, out of self-hatred more than anything else.
You are in no postion to accuse a "tropical Afrtican" of self hatred when you yourself hate tropical Africans because some beat you up once. Stature and limb ratio are two different things. As Coon tells us the tropical African is a mixture of Pygmies and Caucasians. That's how the pygmy got taller and became Bantu.
The common conditions between tropic Africans and arid climate Africans are high heat and UV exposure. So because of this many traits of the phenotypes are similar between them. Similarly differences between Scandinavians and Southern Europeans.
It is argued by some that no people living in North Africa, such as the ancient Egyptians have been living there long enough to be fully desert adapted. Add to this a wetter Sahara climate in certain prehistoric periods
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Clearly outside of Africa is was cold and not suited for tropical body plan development.
quote: It has been proposed that heat adapted, relatively long-legged Homo sapiens from Africa replaced the cold adapted, relatively short-legged Homo neandertalensis of the Levant and Europe
J Hum Evol 32 (1997a) 423] Bogin B, Rios L. et al.
quote: In modern humans, this elongation is a pattern characteristic of warm-adapted populations, and this physique may be an early Cro-Magnon retention from African ancestors. Similar retentions may be observed in certain indices of facial shape ...
Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory: Second Edition by Eric Delson
quote:
Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans
The cause, timing and location of bottleneck releases
If population release was due to the natural increase (logistic population growth) of disease-resistant populations following epidemics, then growth could have been relatively rapid, a function of the intrinsic rate of increase of disease-resistant popula-tions, and the duration of the bottleneck relatively brief. Its date could have been at any time, but would presumably have been relatively soon after the bottleneck. Release could have occurred wherever disease-resistant individuals survived.
-If release was due to natural increase in founder population size after dispersing across land bridges or narrow straits (Lahr, 1996; Lahr & Foley, 1994) then release dates would vary from 70–50 ka for the early Australasian dispersal, to 45 ka for the second Levantine dispersal. In the epidemic and dispersal scenarios the dura-tion of the bottleneck would have been brief.
-If bottlenecks were caused by the cold, arid climate of isotope stage 4 then their duration was approximately 10 ka and release could have been as late as 60 ka.
The failure of early modern humans to survive in the Levant during the early last glacial implies they were not yet physiologically and/or behaviorally well-adapted to cold climates and Palearctic environments, or at least not as well-adapted as neanderthals.
The Multiple Dispersals model (Figure 3) proposes that a population bottleneck occurred during oxygen isotope stage 6, when cold, dry climates caused isolation and differentiation of populations within Africa.
-if bottlenecks were caused by the cold, arid climate of isotope stage 4 then their duration was approximately 10 ka and release could have been as late as 60 ka.
-Global climate change could have reduced populations during the early last ice age, oxygen isotope stage 4
-As noted above, the replacement of modern humans by neander- thals in the Levant, suggests African modern humans were rather poorly-adapted to cold climates.
Stanley H. Ambrose Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Journal of Human Evolution (1998) 34, 623–651
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The term (tropical) I was using was putitive to the Afocentric definition of "tropical", which as I have shown is actually false and not climatic.
Blablabla. As usual, your post doesn't even make sense in relation to what I just said. What do Pygmies and West Africans have to do with the fact that I've just obliterated your fabricated claim that Khoisan are not tropically adapted?
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Those of the tropical climatic region in Sub-Sahara Africa, such as Pygmies and Forest [b]Negroids ('true Blacks') do not in fact show high brachial or crural indices -- they are adapted instead to humid heat environments.
^As usual, your mental retardation prevents you from seeing that you're undermining your own claims. A few posts ago you said that, limb proportion wise, Khoisan are intermediate between blacks and whites, and now blacks are all of a sudden at the low end of the spectrum. LMAO.
Your use of the word "tropical" is not climatic. Like Zaharan and other Afronuts you use the bogus astronomical definition -- which has no link to climate or race.
Khoisans are adapated to the desert heat, but they are not tropical.
Tropical adaptation is adaptation to humid heat, not arid climatic conditions.
As long as you continue to apply a bogus definition to "tropical" you will not grasp the basics of adaptation. Khoisans are not tropically adapted.
The Khoisan don't live in a tropical zone, or "desert" as you implied. They live in a totally different terrain. A steppe zone, and are adapted to such.
As long as you don't grasp the differences in climatology within Africa, I.e. deserts. You will not understand what we are talking about. Since deserts have different climatic models.
quote:Both Tropical and Dry climates are found within the Nile basin. Climate within the Nile basin has been classified into three Köppen subclasses: tropical wet and dry climates (savanna), steppe, and desert climates. Highland climates are also found in the Nile basin, but are strongly influenced by the more general climatic region in which they lie.
Tropical Wet and Dry
quote: Tropical wet and dry climates (savanna) lie between about 5º and 20º latitude; that is, between equatorial tropical rainforest climates and tropical deserts. These climates are characterized by seasonal rainfall and warm temperatures (all months have a mean temperature greater than 18ºC), and significant variation in precipitation may occur within a year and between years. Tropical wet and dry climates are found in portions of the Lake Victoria basin, the Sudan, and Ethiopia."
Hydrology of the Nile Basin, Volume 2 By M M Shahin
That's wrong. That is merely the position where they were pushed into by Caucasoids and Negroids. They formerly inhabited the dry heat environment of the Sahara Desert - of which they show adaption to, such as yellowish-brown skin (the shade of the sand) and their body fat distribution. However Khoisans are less elongnated in limb size than other desert adapted Africans, such as Nilotids. This is explainable through (a) calcium deficieny or (b) Caucasoid admixture (Coon, 1982). Alternitively there is the more prevalent view Capoids share a recent common ancestor with African Pygmies.
Tropical adapted races as opposed to those in desert areas are small; although they have similar body ratios (which loose more body heat per unit of mass) because of the hot climate. However in the tropics the heat is humid, in the desert it is dry. This is why there are two entirely different ranges of limb indices and statures for the inhabitants of these climates.
Desert adaptation includes sweating, hence desrt adapted peoples such as the Nilotids are lanky. In the tropics, sweating is ineffective. The only exception to these adaptation rules in Africa is the Khoisans -- as they are much less elongnated than desert adapted peoples.
The answer Coon (1982) offers seems rational. The Khoisans bury their water, and then go back to drink it. The soils will take the calcium and other nutrition out of it -- hence explaining their shorter stature.
End point: Most Africans are not tropically adapted. Those that are are the paleo-Negroids and Pygmies confined to Western/Central Africa. The Afronuts use of the term "tropical" is completely bogus.
The San have been living in the Southern tip of South Africa for at least 25 to 40 Kya. But, rock art has been found showing much older. Oh, and the Khoi and San have been nomadic as well.
The region in which they live is a steppe zone. The most Southern tip of South Africa has a " mediterranean climate", it has winters in which it even snows. Another point to be made is, it is close to the South Pole.
Lastly, the Sahara had its times when and where it was fertile. And not as in a desertification stage as it is now. We are speaking of a group of people who are older than anyone else, even in Africa.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:As Coon tells us the tropical African is a mixture of Pygmies and Caucasians. That's how the pygmy got taller and became Bantu.
Not true. That wouldn't explain why Nilotids are tropically adapted -- as neither Caucasoids nor Pygmies are. Coon's (1965) theory is that hybridization between Pygmies and Hamites resulted in the Forest Negro in West Africa. Only after these palaeo-Negroids expanded into the desert regions during the Bantu expansion did some become tropically adapted. *Note: I'm using the bogus afrocentric definition of tropical here. In reality its the reverse.
The Taureg as well became more tropically adapted in a short time frame, "The Tauregs have only been living on the desert for 1300 years [...] Their ancestors were Berbers from the Morrocan Middle Atlas, and facially they still look like Berbers." (Coon et al, 1950). Yet within that 1000 or so years, they adapted well to the dry desert heat climate (not really tropical, but i'm using the Afronut definition).
Afrocentrics love to spam photos of admixed Tauregs to pass them off as "Black". However actual Taureg who have retained Caucasoid features (esp. cranial) close to their Berber ancestors look like this:
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:As Coon tells us the tropical African is a mixture of Pygmies and Caucasians. That's how the pygmy got taller and became Bantu.
Not true. That wouldn't explain why Nilotids are tropically adapted -- as neither Caucasoids nor Pygmies are. Coon's (1965) theory is that hybridization between Pygmies and Hamites resulted in the Forest Negro in West Africa. Only after these palaeo-Negroids expanded into the desert regions during the Bantu expansion did some become tropically adapted.
The Taureg as well became more tropically adapted in a short time frame, "The Tauregs have only been living on the desert for 1300 years [...] Their ancestors were Berbers from the Morrocan Middle Atlas, and facially they still look like Berbers." (Coon et al, 1950). Yet within that 1000 or so years, they adapted well to the dry desert heat climate.
Afrocentrics love to spam photos of admixed Tauregs to pass them off as "Black". However actual Taureg who have retained Caucasoid features (esp. cranial) close to their Berber ancestors look like this:
LOL, The Tuaregs have been living in the same region for at least 10.000 years. Tuaregs relate to ancient Bejas.
The Sahara wasn't always decertified as it is now. Your selective picture spamming you can stop. Nor are your "fiction Berbers" caucasians. Of which Berbers do you speak anyway? lol
Those who are admixed are those with mostly maternal eurasian and european mt-DNA. Not the other way around. Tuaregs are predominantly African genetically, from the paternal as well as maternal side. It's only regional and isolated were there is an abundance of admixture.
Ps, Tuaregs are BLACK!!!!
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Nilotes are pretty similar in phenotype to Bantus
All Negroids look the same in terms of cranio-facial features. Repeated tests have proven this since the 1960's - even when Blacks were surveyed they claimed white europeans have the most variation in facial features.
Where Negroids subraces differ is in post-cranial indices. Nilotids for example are desert adapted. Forest Negroes are tropical (Humid)adapted, and Kafrids are inbetween (Baker, 1974).
What the hell is a Kafrids? I have never heard of that ethnic background.
Question is, who has done those tests you boast with? lol
Africans are so similar your hideous Catholic church had to divided groups because the retained so called cacasoid facial traits. Traits you have inherited from Africans who left the coast of Africa, to populate the world.
Africans are more diverse than the small diverse set of Europeans, who basically all have the same facial shape.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Clearly outside of Africa is was cold and not suited for tropical body plan development.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It has been proposed that heat adapted, relatively long-legged Homo sapiens from Africa replaced the cold adapted, relatively short-legged Homo neandertalensis of the Levant and Europe --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J Hum Evol 32 (1997a) 423] Bogin B, Rios L. et al.
That's completely wrong. While European Neanderthals were cold adapted, those from West Asia show much higher indices and were warm adapted. "Tropical" doesn't come into it. That's just Afrocentric trickology again. You should just use the term "hot", but then again as I have shown those in tropical (Humid) areas have much lower indices than desert adapted. This is precisely why Allen's rule is not universal -- its contradicted by the lower indices found in tropical regions because of the humidity. Populations in those zones are not elongnated, as sweating is not effective.
So once again we have two things:
(a) The climatic definition of tropical in relation to adaptation and biology.
(b) The bogus afronut definition.
If you want to use (a) then the only Africans who are tropically adapted are those Pygmies and palaeo-Negrids. If we use (b) the answer is reversed.
--- West Asian Neanderthals were warm adapted like modern circum-mediterranean populations. There was no mythical "wandering Africans" giving them those post-cranial indices...
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Clearly outside of Africa is was cold and not suited for tropical body plan development.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It has been proposed that heat adapted, relatively long-legged Homo sapiens from Africa replaced the cold adapted, relatively short-legged Homo neandertalensis of the Levant and Europe --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J Hum Evol 32 (1997a) 423] Bogin B, Rios L. et al.
That's completely wrong. While European Neanderthals were cold adapted, those from West Asia show much higher indices and were warm adapted. "Tropical" doesn't come into it. That's just Afrocentric trickology again. You should just use the term "hot", but then again as I have shown those in tropical (Humid) areas have much lower indices than desert adapted. This is precisely why Allen's rule is not universal -- its contradicted by the lower indices found in tropical regions because of the humidity. Populations in those zones are not elongnated, as sweating is not effective.
So once again we have two things:
(a) The climatic definition of tropical in relation to adaptation and biology.
(b) The bogus afronut definition.
If you want to use (a) then the only Africans who are tropically adapted are those Pygmies and palaeo-Negrids. If we use (b) the answer is reversed.
--- West Asian Neanderthals were warm adapted like modern circum-mediterranean populations. There was no mythical "wandering Africans" giving them those post-cranial indices...
Yeah yeah it's "all completely wrong."
Now can you explain how people who have lived in a arctic cold environment could and or can develop tropical body plan, even when the temperature dropped it was still extremely cold.
quote: The Sahara is located in a climatic divide. The Intercontinental Convergence Zone moves up from the south, but stops before the center of the Sahara, and consequently hardly carries any rain. Similarly, the winter rainfall of North Africa does not reach far south enough to regularly bring rain to the central Sahara. Consequently, the rainfall, albeit extremely rare, can fall in any season. The annual rainfall is below 25 millimetres (mm), and in the eastern part of the desert it is less than five mm per annum. The scarcity of rainfall in this ecoregion is aggravated by its irregularity, as no rain may fall for many years in some areas, followed by a single intense thunderstorm.
The Sahara is one of the hottest regions in the world, with mean annual temperatures exceeding 30°C. In the hottest months, temperatures can rise over 50°C, and temperatures can fall below freezing in the winter. A single daily variation of -0.5°C to 37.5°C has been recorded. The Sahara is also extremely windy. Hot, dust-filled winds create dust devils which can make the temperatures seem even hotter.
quote:Tropical Dry. This climate is found roughly along the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn. The tropical dry climate is both very hot and very dry. The Sahara Desert, located on the Tropic of Cancer, is the largest and hottest desert on earth; the Kalahari Desert is located along the Tropic of Capricorn in southern Africa. Areas within the tropical dry region receive less than 20 inches (51 centimeters) of rain per year, but there is wide variation in the actual amount an area receives from year to year. Temperatures during the day are high, but often nighttime temperatures are much lower.
quote: Tropical Wet and Dry. Between the tropical dry and tropical wet climates is found the tropical wet and dry climate, which has some characteristics of each. Temperatures are warm and stable throughout the year, but seasonal changes in wind patterns result in distinct wet and dry seasons. There is a wide range in the total seasonal rainfall, but the minimum is at least 20 inches (51 centimeters) per year.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: What the hell is a Kafrids? I have never heard of that ethnic background.
The term is found in Baker (1974). It's a Negroid subtype, inbetween palaeo-Negroid and Nilotid in post-cranial indices.
Palaeo-Negroids are tropically adapted like Pygmies and are found in West Africa:
The Kafrid takes an intermediate position between the palaeo-Negroid and elongnated desert adapted Nilotid form:
Nilotids are in contrast more slender.
If you look though all look obviously Negroid in cranial features and hair texture. This is why they are just subraces or clinal 'end types'. Even Hiernaux (1975) who criticized race typology, ended up agreeing with most of this.
quote:Africans are more diverse than the small diverse set of Europeans, who basically all have the same facial shape.
Caucasoids, have much more physical diversity than Negroids. "Africans" is not a race.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Clearly outside of Africa is was cold and not suited for tropical body plan development.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It has been proposed that heat adapted, relatively long-legged Homo sapiens from Africa replaced the cold adapted, relatively short-legged Homo neandertalensis of the Levant and Europe --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J Hum Evol 32 (1997a) 423] Bogin B, Rios L. et al.
That's completely wrong. While European Neanderthals were cold adapted, those from West Asia show much higher indices and were warm adapted. "Tropical" doesn't come into it. That's just Afrocentric trickology again. You should just use the term "hot", but then again as I have shown those in tropical (Humid) areas have much lower indices than desert adapted. This is precisely why Allen's rule is not universal -- its contradicted by the lower indices found in tropical regions because of the humidity. Populations in those zones are not elongnated, as sweating is not effective.
So once again we have two things:
(a) The climatic definition of tropical in relation to adaptation and biology.
(b) The bogus afronut definition.
If you want to use (a) then the only Africans who are tropically adapted are those Pygmies and palaeo-Negrids. If we use (b) the answer is reversed.
--- West Asian Neanderthals were warm adapted like modern circum-mediterranean populations. There was no mythical "wandering Africans" giving them those post-cranial indices...
J Hum Evol. 1997 May;32(5):423-48.
Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins.
Holliday TW.
Source
Department of Anthropology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8795, USA.
Abstract
quote: Body proportions covary with climate, apparently as the result of climatic selection. Ontogenic research and migrant studies have demonstrated that body proportions are largely genetically controlled and are under low selective rates; thus studies of body form can provide evidence for evolutionarily short-term dispersals and/or gene flow. Following these observations, competing models of modern human origins yield different predictions concerning body proportion shifts in Late Pleistocene Europe. Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess "tropical" body proportions (assuming Africa is the center of origin), while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering. This study tests these predictions via analyses of osteometric data reflective of trunk height and breadth, limb proportions and relative body mass for samples of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) and Mesolithic (MES) humans and 13 recent African and European populations. Results reveal a clear tendency for the EUP sample to cluster with recent Africans, while LUP and MES samples cluster with recent Europeans.These results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions.These data do not, however, preclude the possibility of some (albeit small) contribution of genes from Neandertals to succeeding populations, as is postulated in Bräuer's "Afro-European Sapiens" model.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: What the hell is a Kafrids? I have never heard of that ethnic background.
The term is found in Baker (1974). It's a Negroid subtype, inbetween palaeo-Negroid and Nilotid in post-cranial indices.
Palaeo-Negroids are tropically adapted like Pygmies and are found in West Africa:
The Kafrid takes an intermediate position between the palaeo-Negroid and elongnated desert adapted Nilotid form:
Nilotids are in contrast more slender.
If you look though all look obviously Negroid in cranial features and hair texture. This is why they are just subraces or clinal 'end types'. Even Hiernaux (1975) who criticized race typology, ended up agreeing with most of this.
quote:Africans are more diverse than the small diverse set of Europeans, who basically all have the same facial shape.
Caucasoids, have much more physical diversity than Negroids. "Africans" is not a race.
It depends on what you pick and choose. I think you at least have this small bit of intelligence. What you've posted is just a small portion. And I am not really sure what kind of ethnic West African background those men are. Perhaps you can elaborate, "Africana expert"? lol
quote:Originally posted by Myra Wysinger:
Stone Age tools uncovered in Yemen point to humans leaving Africa and inhabiting Arabia perhaps as far back as 63,000 years ago, archaeologists report. "The expansion of modern humans out of Africa and into Eurasia via the Arabian Peninsula is currently one of the most debated questions in prehistory," begins a report led by Anne Delagnes of France's Université Bordeaux. The archaeologists report from the site of Shi'bat Dihya located in a wadi, or gully, that connects Yemen's highlands to the coastal plains of the Red Sea.
The age of the site puts it squarely at a time when early modern humans were thought to be first emigrating from Eastern Africa to the rest of the world. "The Arabian Peninsula is routinely considered as the corridor where migrating East African populations would have passed during a single or multiple dispersal events," says the study. "It has also been suggested that the groups who colonized South Asia rapidly expanded from South and East Africa along the Arabian coastlines around 60 ka BP (60,000 years ago), bringing with them a modern behavioral package including microlithic (stone) backed tools, ostrich-eggshell beads or engraved fragments.
One new site is the study's subject, Shi'bat Dihya, located along the Wadi Sudud. Excavating down to a level dating to perhaps 63,000 years ago, when the region was quite arid, the team found some '5,488 artifacts' - Stone Age blades, pointed blades and pointed flakes, nearly an inch long or longer, as well as the bones of 97 animals, mostly cows, horses, pigs and porcupines. Finding tool-makers so far inland, nearly 75 miles from the coast, surprised the study team, as most models of human expansion picture our ancestors migrating along the coasts on their way to Europe and Asia. (Source: USAToday (July 6, 2012))
***********
Verónica Fernandes et al, The Arabia Cradle: Mitochondrial Relicts of the First Steps along the Southern Route out of Africa, The American Journal of Human Genetics 90 (2012): 1-9.
“European researchers say genetic studies suggest the first humans leaving the Horn of Africa to the rest of the world first settled in Arabia.” “Arabia saw first humans out of Africa,” Science News, UPI.com, 1/26/2012 (Source)
Archaeogenetics indicate that the progenitor African group that gave birth to today’s human population migrated out of Africa into Arabia about 70,000 years ago. Richard Gray, writing for the Telegraph [UK] announced May 09, 2009:
“The entire human race outside Africa owes its existence to the survival of a single tribe of around 200 people who crossed the Red Sea 70,000 years ago, scientists have discovered… Research by geneticists and archaeologists has allowed them to trace the origins of modern homo sapiens back to a single group of people who managed to cross from the Horn of Africa and into Arabia. From there they went on to colonize the rest of the world.” (Source)
This is the face of the earliest known modern European — a man or woman, with startling African-like features. This sculpture was created by Richard Neave, one of Britain's leading forensic scientists, using fossilized fragments of skull and jawbone found in a cave several years ago. The face shows the close links between the first European settlers and their immediate African ancestors. This head is based on remains of one of the earliest known anatomically modern Europeans. The lower jawbone was discovered by potholers in the Carpathian mountains in Romania in 2002. The rest of the fragments were found the following year. The bones were carbon-dated to between 34,000 and 36,000 years ago when Europe was occupied by two species of human. They were the Neanderthals, who had arrived from Africa tens of thousands of years earlier, and the more recent modern human, also known as Cro-Magnons. (Source)
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: What the hell is a Kafrids? I have never heard of that ethnic background.
The term is found in Baker (1974). It's a Negroid subtype, inbetween palaeo-Negroid and Nilotid in post-cranial indices.
Oh okay, I was under the assumption it meant disbeliever in Arabic. Thanks for the explanation btw.(sarc)
A name given to the Hottentots, who reject the Moslem faith. Kafiristan, in Central Asia, means “the country of the infidels.” “The affinity of the Kafir tribes … including the Kafirs proper and the people of Congo, is based upon the various idioms spoken by them, the direct representatives of a common, but now extinct, mother tongue. This aggregate of languages is now conveniently known as … . the Bantu linguistic system.”—K. Johnston: Africa, p. 447.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Clearly outside of Africa is was cold and not suited for tropical body plan development.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It has been proposed that heat adapted, relatively long-legged Homo sapiens from Africa replaced the cold adapted, relatively short-legged Homo neandertalensis of the Levant and Europe --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J Hum Evol 32 (1997a) 423] Bogin B, Rios L. et al.
That's completely wrong. While European Neanderthals were cold adapted, those from West Asia show much higher indices and were warm adapted. "Tropical" doesn't come into it. That's just Afrocentric trickology again. You should just use the term "hot", but then again as I have shown those in tropical (Humid) areas have much lower indices than desert adapted. This is precisely why Allen's rule is not universal -- its contradicted by the lower indices found in tropical regions because of the humidity. Populations in those zones are not elongnated, as sweating is not effective.
So once again we have two things:
(a) The climatic definition of tropical in relation to adaptation and biology.
(b) The bogus afronut definition.
If you want to use (a) then the only Africans who are tropically adapted are those Pygmies and palaeo-Negrids. If we use (b) the answer is reversed.
--- West Asian Neanderthals were warm adapted like modern circum-mediterranean populations. There was no mythical "wandering Africans" giving them those post-cranial indices...
J Hum Evol. 1999 May;36(5):549-66. Brachial and crural indices of European late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans.
Holliday TW.
Source
Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118, USA. thollid@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
Abstract
quote: Among recent humans brachial and crural indices are positively correlated with mean annual temperature, such that high indices are found in tropical groups.
However, despite inhabiting glacial Europe, the Upper Paleolithic Europeans possessed high indices, prompting Trinkaus (1981) to argue for gene flow from warmer regions associated with modern human emergence in Europe. In contrast, Frayer et al. (1993) point out that Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans should not exhibit tropically-adapted limb proportions, since, even assuming replacement, their ancestors had experienced cold stress in glacial Europe for at least 12 millennia.
This study investigates three questions tied to the brachial and crural indices among Late Pleistocene and recent humans. First, which limb segments (either proximal or distal) are primarily responsible for variation in brachial and crural indices? Second, are these indices reflective of overall limb elongation? And finally, do the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans retain relatively and/or absolutely long limbs? Results indicate that in the lower limb, the distal limb segment contributes most of the variability to intralimb proportions, while in the upper limb the proximal and distal limb segments appear to be equally variable.
Additionally, brachial and crural indices do not appear to be a good measure of overall limb length, and thus, while the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans have significantly higher (i.e., tropically-adapted) brachial and crural indices than do recent Europeans, they also have shorter (i.e., cold-adapted) limbs.
The somewhat paradoxical retention of "tropical" indices in the context of more "cold-adapted" limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe.
You are losing it, I mean you lost it.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^ Troll that's a waste those pictures at the end. There's no caption so people will not know what it is and just ignore it. I know what it is. I put up a caption earlier. But you already posted it like 4 times already. Why are you so redundant? Swenet and Djeshiti don't post the same pictures over and over again, it's lame. ( I know I'm not going to stop you, so keep spamming, I'm just talking to myself here as therapy)
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^^ Troll that's a waste those pictures at the end. There's no caption so people will not know what it is and just ignore it. I know what it is. I put up a caption earlier. But you already posted it like 4 times already. Why are you so redundant? Swenet and Djeshiti don't post the same pictures over and over again, it's lame. ( I know I'm not going to stop you, so keep spamming, I'm just talking to myself here as therapy)
All you need to know, is that both crania show similarities. And yes, I know you're talking to yourself. lol
Now, begone...
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Your use of the word "tropical" is not climatic. Like Zaharan and other Afronuts you use the bogus astronomical definition -- which has no link to climate or race.
Which is, of course, totally irrelevant. Tropical when used in reference to osteological adaptations refers to temperature, not to climate, as in a 'tropical rainforest' climate. Hence, why 'tropically adapted' is the mirror opposite of 'cold adapted'. Read a book, dumb phuckin' moron.
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Khoisans are adapated to the desert heat, but they are not tropical. Tropical adaptation is adaptation to humid heat, not arid climatic conditions.
You're talking out your ass. Tropical is clearly used in relation to high temperatures, regardless of humidity. Does Bronze age Egypt strike your dumbass as a non-arid, rainforest? If not, it must mean Egypto-Nubians come from a humid-hot environment, according to your own retarded claim that tropically-adapted can only refer to being adapted to hot-humid climates.
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I said Forest Negroes, meaning palaeo-Negroids.
LMAO. If not West and Central Africans, who are the Negroids whom you described earlier as tropically adapted, with Khoisan in between, and whites below?
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Those ancestral Negroids that moved out of the tropical belt into peripheral zones, moved into desert environments and became "elongnated" (wrongly called tropical by the Afronuts).
LMAO. You're talking out of your ass. as usual. Again, you're undermining your own claims, which you fail to pick up on due to your mental retardation. Without the slightest measure of inner conflict, you've claimed on the one hand that only hot-humid climates feature tropically adapted humans, and on the other hand you cite Raxter saying that Circum-Mediterraneans aquired tropically adapted limbs in Egypt, which, BTW, has a DESERT climate.
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The only reason Afronuts use the astronomical definition is because - it covers a wider geographical area and so you can claim all non-tropical adapated peoples are "Black", when numerous aren't such as the Khoisans, Aethiopids and North African Caucasoids.
Explain this data, lying ass pig. If 'Afronuts' are unjustly claiming that 'Ethiopids' are tropically adapted, explain why your 'Ethiopids' are even more tropically adapted than Ancient Egypto-Nubians, according to your girl Raxter:
Sudanese and Ethiopians (the modern groups geographically closest to ancient Egyptians and Nubians) assessed in the present study generally plot closer to other tropical groups, possessing narrower body breadths, greater SA/BM, less mass relative to stature, and narrower body breadths relative to stature (Figures 23-26), translating into more linear body plans for Sudanese and Ethiopians compared to early Northeast African groups.
Data fabricating, lying ass pig.
Bitch boy is running away again
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Tropical when used in reference to osteological adaptations refers to temperature, not to climate, as in a 'tropical rainforest' climate. Hence, why 'tropically adapted' is the mirror opposite of 'cold adapted'. Read a book, dumb phuckin' moron.
In biological literature, "tropical" only refers to humid heat environments. Those inhabitants of deserts are not tropically adapted - they are the opposite and elongnated to increase sweating which in humid climate is non-effective.
Where I have sometimes used "tropical" I have employed the putative Afrocentric definition while debating Afronuts. It was only since this thread started a debate on the real definition, I provided it.
quote:LMAO. If not West and Central Africans, who are the Negroids whom you described earlier as tropically adapted, with Khoisan in between, and whites below?
Kafrids, Nilotids (e.g. Hiernaux's "elongnated Africans"). Yet they aren't tropically adapted, they are adapted to dry heat.
quote:LMAO. You're talking out of your ass. as usual. Again, you're undermining your own claims, which you fail to pick up on due to your mental retardation. Without the slightest measure of inner conflict, you've claimed on the one hand that only hot-humid climates feature tropically adapted humans, and on the other hand you cite Raxter saying that Circum-Mediterraneans aquired tropically adapted limbs in Egypt, which, BTW, has a DESERT climate.
Only in this thread has the climatic definition of tropical been raised where I have exposed how the Afrocentric definition is false. Elsewhere I just went along with the Afronut definition as this question of its proper use in biological literature was never raised, since it now was - I have provided the real definition.
quote:Explain this data, lying ass pig. If 'Afronuts' are unjustly claiming that 'Ethiopids' are tropically adapted, explain why your 'Ethiopids' are even more tropically adapted than Ancient Egypto-Nubians, according to your girl Raxter:
Sudanese and Ethiopians (the modern groups geographically closest to ancient Egyptians and Nubians) assessed in the present study generally plot closer to other tropical groups, possessing narrower body breadths, greater SA/BM, less mass relative to stature, and narrower body breadths relative to stature (Figures 23-26), translating into more linear body plans for Sudanese and Ethiopians compared to early Northeast African groups.
I've never read that paper. I merely quoted from Hamiticforums, and another forum thread which is entitled "refuting Zaharan's tropical africans" or something similar. These papers don't interest me.
quote:Data fabricating, lying ass pig.
That would be you idiot. (a) You've been exposed disorting the literature of Coon (b) and now how you use a false definition of "tropical".
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
UPDATED LIST OF FAHEEM DUNKER'S LIES AND FABRICATIONS:
1.You've fabricated your claim that Bar Yosef said that the Mushabian was excavated in Upper and Lower Egypt
2.You've fabricated your claim that Indians never cluster with certain Africans, whether metrically or non-metrically
3.You've fabricated your claim that Mesolithic Nubians and Natufians had wavy hair
4.You've fabricated your claim that the Mediterranean 'race' is free of negroid traits per Coon
5.You've fabricated your claim that Wadi Halfans can't be negroid because of their browridges, since the remains you classify as undoubtedly negroid, (Asselar man and Iwo Eleru) have brow ridges
6.You've fabricated your claim that your fake Australoid phenotypical cluster (Palaeo-americans, Wadi Halfans, Jebel Sahabans, Natufians, European Eurafricans, Mesopotamian Eurafricans, Arabian Veddoids, Indian Veddoids etc) is a cluster of related people
7.You've failed to explain why modern descendants of those ancient populations have zero Australian aboriginal ancestry, but African ancestry with Mesolithic time depths instead.
8.You've fabricated your claim that sub species or races are identifiable by morphological clusters
9.You've fabricated your claim that there have never been studies that detected African affinities with Iranian/Iraqi prehistorical skeletal remains
10.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual had brow ridges, since it consists of a mandible
11.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual was described as having prognathism
12.You've fabricated your claim that Homo 3 was the only Natufian individual with prognathism
13.You've fabricated your claim that Keith's analysis of the Shukbah remains were somehow refuted or inaccurate
14.You've fabricated your claim that Coon retracted his view of minor Negroid affinities in the Shuqbah Natufians series
15.You've fabricated your claim that Tigray Ethiopians are the only Ethiopians with leptorrhine averages
16.You've fabricated your claim that all Tigray Ethiopians are leptorrhine
17.You've fabricated your claim that non-leptorrhiny in Cushitic speaking groups is necessarily due to admixture with negroid groups.
18.You've fabricated your claim that Wolpoff's list of Erectus to Australoid continuation traits denote a special relationship indicative of continuation.
19.You've fabricated your claim that only groups that inhabit tropical rainforests are considered tropical populations in Anthropology.
20.You've fabricated your accusation that the tropics don't include non-humid zones, and that claims to the contrary are 'bogus', 'astronomical' and 'afronut', not realizing that such facts have been tested and accepted as valid for decades now, and are known as Bergman's and Allen's rule.
21.You've fabricated your claim that Central and West Africans don't have high crural and brachial indices, which you then undermined by saying that Negroids are at the top end of the distal limb spectrum, and by saying that only hot-humid climates produce tropically adapted populations
22.You've fabricated your claim that Bantu speakers have moved into the desert and 'turned elongated'. I dare your dumbass to cite one example where desert inhabiting Bantu speakers turned into 'elongated' Africans.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Really??! I mean must we really regress to the old racial 'mugshots'?? It's bad enough the Castrated Anglo cite debunked Coonian literature, now he has to bring up the Coonian mugshots as well.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: What the hell is a Kafrids? I have never heard of that ethnic background.
The term is found in Baker (1974). It's a Negroid subtype, inbetween palaeo-Negroid and Nilotid in post-cranial indices.
Oh okay, I was under the assumption it meant disbeliever in Arabic. Thanks for the explanation btw.(sarc)
A name given to the Hottentots, who reject the Moslem faith. Kafiristan, in Central Asia, means “the country of the infidels.” “The affinity of the Kafir tribes … including the Kafirs proper and the people of Congo, is based upon the various idioms spoken by them, the direct representatives of a common, but now extinct, mother tongue. This aggregate of languages is now conveniently known as … . the Bantu linguistic system.”—K. Johnston: Africa, p. 447.
LMAO That's the thing about this Anglo nut is that he loves throwing out all these ridiculous refuted terminologies that no anthropologist uses anymore if only one or two ever did! "Kafrid" a subtype of Negroid?? And then we have "palaeo-Negroid" and "Nilotid". And here I thought the Negroid race has no diversity as the castrated fool has repeated incessantly. LOL Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:20.You've fabricated your accusation that the tropics don't include non-humid zones, and that claims to the contrary are 'bogus', 'astronomical' and 'afronut', not realizing that such facts have been tested and accepted as valid for decades now, and are known as Bergman's and Allen's rule.
They are rules, not laws. There are exceptions. The two exceptions to Allen's rule in Africa are:
(a) Khoisans, who are desert adapted but are not elongnated. Look at their brachial/crural indices and you will see they are closer to West Asians and even some Europeans than other desert adapted peoples.
(b) Pygmies, who despite living in a hot environment, live in non-dry but humid heat. Their brachial/crural indices are lower for adaptive reasons.
--- (a) Coon (1982) explains through calcium defiency. (b) is explained through the fact populations in humid environments do not sweat so they are not elongnated.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
-- Khoisans cluster closer with West Asians/Europeans in limb metrics/indices (excluding body breadth) before Negroids -- yet according to the Afronuts the Khoisands are "tropical africans". lol. Their "Tropical" definition is just employed so they can steal as many different morphological variations as possible under a single bogus label.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: In biological literature, "tropical" only refers to humid heat environments.
Then explain why South African San and Australian aboriginals are described as living in a tropical climate by templeton et al, despite the high lattitudes Templeton assigns to them, indicating they lived outside the hot-humid areas to their North:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Those inhabitants of deserts are not tropically adapted
Totally fabricated, as usual.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Kafrids, Nilotids (e.g. Hiernaux's "elongnated Africans")
False. I have never come across one instance where Hiernaux describes Southern African Bantu's or the stereotypical extemely tall and slender Nilotes as an 'elongated African'.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I've never read that paper. I merely quoted from Hamiticforums, and another forum thread which is entitled "refuting Zaharan's tropical africans" or something similar. These papers don't interest me.
I give three sh!ts about whether those papers interest you. You said that Ethiopians were cold adapted, and in your typical, all too familiar deceptive, face-saving ways, you talk about everything other than the fact that that citation made the observation that Ethiopians cluster with Africans, in just about any post-cranial way imaginable.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: That would be you idiot. (a) You've been exposed disorting the literature of Coon
Is that why you've yet to refute what I said when I paraphrased him? What's taking you so long to refute what I'm saying then, fag? Where did Coon say that exotic ancestry get in the way of a Mediterranean classification, and what exotic influences were in the Levant per Coon, 10ky ago, other than Caucasoid?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: (b) and now how you use a false definition of "tropical".
See above fag. And try not to let that screen shot from Templeton et al coward you into running away again, only to come back and open new can of worms, like you've done five times in a row now.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
here is an interesting 2009 anthroscape thread where the black woman above, listing her politics as "right" makes a thread called "second round of classify me" white supremacist moderator Crimson Guard steps in with the same obsolete terms and pics used in this thread to "help" her:
Crimson Guard: "Also see here for instance on a site that specializes more in the German authors writings where most of the terms you want to use come from:"
the greenhorn, pyramidoligist was probably taking notes
Crimson Guard then stumbles: "See, thats the problem with the terms and authors that used them. Your better off sticking to Coon who just used Congoids and Capoids. Judging from the pictures I showed above, you do resemble the Paleo-Negroid type more than the Sudanid. But even to them authors, the Paleo-Negroid was primarily Bantu peoples mixed with other types like the Sudanid(standard Negrid)."
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Really??! I mean must we really regress to the old racial 'mugshots'?? It's bad enough the Castrated Anglo cite debunked Coonian literature, now he has to bring up the Coonian mugshots as well.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: What the hell is a Kafrids? I have never heard of that ethnic background.
The term is found in Baker (1974). It's a Negroid subtype, inbetween palaeo-Negroid and Nilotid in post-cranial indices.
Oh okay, I was under the assumption it meant disbeliever in Arabic. Thanks for the explanation btw.(sarc)
A name given to the Hottentots, who reject the Moslem faith. Kafiristan, in Central Asia, means “the country of the infidels.” “The affinity of the Kafir tribes … including the Kafirs proper and the people of Congo, is based upon the various idioms spoken by them, the direct representatives of a common, but now extinct, mother tongue. This aggregate of languages is now conveniently known as … . the Bantu linguistic system.”—K. Johnston: Africa, p. 447.
LMAO That's the thing about this Anglo nut is that he loves throwing out all these ridiculous refuted terminologies that no anthropologist uses anymore if only one or two ever did! "Kafrid" a subtype of Negroid?? And then we have "palaeo-Negroid" and "Nilotid". And here I thought the Negroid race has no diversity as the castrated fool has repeated incessantly. LOL
The anthropologists I know use them. The Serbian goverment funded a recent anthropological report on the racial types in Serbia, still using terms like "Dinaric" "Atlanto-Mediterranean", "Alpine", "Nordid", "Baltid" etc. Additionally some modern forensic anthropologists still recognise the tripartite Caucasoid division of Nordids, Meds, and Alpines.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Crimson Guard then stumbles: "See, thats the problem with the terms and authors that used them. Your better off sticking to Coon who just used Congoids and Capoids. Judging from the pictures I showed above, you do resemble the Paleo-Negroid type more than the Sudanid. But even to them authors, the Paleo-Negroid was primarily Bantu peoples mixed with other types like the Sudanid(standard Negrid)."
Another revealing comment from CG who exposes himself again as a fake account, you can go through his comments for years and years and see the errors. Palaeo-Negrids are not associated with Bantus. The palaeo-Negrids are Forest Negroes. The subtype associated with Bantu is largely Kafrid. CG pretends to "book collect Coon" yet distorts his views, misquotes his literature (remember the whole Fulani affair) and just gets about everything else wrong.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Just a coincidence CG wants us to believe. The same he wants us to believe he made a typing error because he owned a different book edition. This is despite the fact the book only went through one edition. LOL.
Also it can't be a typing error:
Horrid misquote which led to afrocentics creating straw man out of Coon's views:
""In northern Nigeria are the Hausa, a numerous and widespread people who are skilled craftsmen and clever traders. Beyond them and among them are the Fula or Peul, and the related Fulani, called people who invaded the agricultural regions of the western Sudan, founded dynasties, and have been overthrown from time to time. All of them are Caucasoids in a sense, and somewhat like the Somalis, but are lighter skin color, being usually a light reddish brown."
The real quote:
""In northern Nigeria are the Hausa, a numerous and widespread people who are skilled craftsmen and clever traders. Beyond them and among them are the Fula or Peul, and the related Fulani, cattle people who have invaded the agricultural regions of the western Sudan, founded dynasties, and been overthrown from time to time. All of them are Caucasoids in a sense, and somewhat Negroid. The Fula are noted for their lean build and narrow faces, like the Somalis, but they are lighter in slighter skin color, being usually a light reddish brown."
See how the bold was omissed on purpose. A typing error can not accidently leave out text... furthermore the sentence he ommissed led to countless afrocentric straw man threads. So it wasn't an accident.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
quote:Crimson Guard then stumbles: "See, thats the problem with the terms and authors that used them. Your better off sticking to Coon who just used Congoids and Capoids. Judging from the pictures I showed above, you do resemble the Paleo-Negroid type more than the Sudanid. But even to them authors, the Paleo-Negroid was primarily Bantu peoples mixed with other types like the Sudanid(standard Negrid)."
Another revealing comment from CG who exposes himself again as a fake account, you can go through his comments for years and years and see the errors. Palaeo-Negrids are not associated with Bantus. The palaeo-Negrids are Forest Negroes. The subtype associated with Bantu is largely Kafrid. CG pretends to "book collect Coon" yet distorts his views, misquotes his literature (remember the whole Fulani affair) and just gets about everything else wrong.
You are in a time warp and are not aware what the current standard anthropological terms are "kafrid" is obsolete and pejorative, and seldom used at all
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
Body proportions of circumpolar peoples as evidenced from skeletal data: Ipiutak and Tigara (Point Hope) versus Kodiak Island Inuit.
Holliday TW, Hilton CE.
Source
Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA. thollid@tulane.edu
Abstract
quote:
Given the well-documented fact that human body proportions covary with climate (presumably due to the action of selection), one would expect that the Ipiutak and Tigara Inuit samples from Point Hope, Alaska, would be characterized by an extremely cold-adapted body shape.
Comparison of the Point Hope Inuit samples to a large (n > 900) sample of European and European-derived, African and African-derived, and Native American skeletons (including Koniag Inuit from Kodiak Island, Alaska) confirms that the Point Hope Inuit evince a cold-adapted body form, but analyses also reveal some unexpected results. For example, one might suspect that the Point Hope samples would show a more cold-adapted body form than the Koniag, given their more extreme environment, but this is not the case.
Additionally, univariate analyses seldom show the Inuit samples to be more cold-adapted in body shape than Europeans, and multivariate cluster analyses that include a myriad of body shape variables such as femoral head diameter, bi-iliac breadth, and limb segment lengths fail to effectively separate the Inuit samples from Europeans. In fact, in terms of body shape, the European and the Inuit samples tend to be cold-adapted and tend to be separated in multivariate space from the more tropically adapted Africans, especially those groups from south of the Sahara.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Then explain why South African San and Australian aboriginals are described as living in a tropical climate by templeton et al, despite the high lattitudes Templeton assigns to them, indicating they lived outside the hot-humid areas to their North.
Take a look at a climatic map:
Only a small portion of Australia has a tropical environment. Within this zone (north-east) you find the Barrineans (quasi-Negritids), who are a very different morphological type to Australoids.
quote:Totally fabricated, as usual.
Deserts are dry heat environments, not humid. They are not tropical. Even look at the above Australia map, or any climatic chart.
quote:False. I have never come across one instance where Hiernaux describes Southern African Bantu's or the stereotypical extemely tall and slender Nilotes as an 'elongated African'.
"The Negroid type is not homogeneous: the classification by Hiernaux (1975) distinguished five groups (Bushmen, Pygmies and Pygmoids, elongated Africans, West African and Bantu". (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 167)
These are all just interchangable with Baker's (1974) ids (West African = palaeo-Negrid, Bantu = Kafrid, elongnated African = Nilotid), with the exception that Bushmen are a seperate major taxon (Khoisanids or Coon's Capoids).
quote:You said that Ethiopians were cold adapted, and in your typical, all too familiar deceptive, face-saving ways, you talk about everything other than the fact that that citation made the observation that Ethiopians cluster with Africans, in just about any post-cranial way imaginable.
Aethiopids and Caucasoid Horners are not elongnated like Nilotids. As Coon remarks, Horners match near-easteners in their post-cranial indices.
quote:Is that why you've yet to refute what I said when I paraphrased him? What's taking you so long to refute what I'm saying then, fag? Where did Coon say that exotic ancestry get in the way of a Mediterranean classification, and what exotic influences were in the Levant per Coon, 10ky ago, other than Caucasoid?
Crania with high NI's Coon asserts show other racial "tendencies", nowhere does he label such crania homogenous Mediterranean.
Unless you can show where Coon doesn't say other "tendencies" and labels them Med taxonomically with wide nasal indices - you continue to make a complete prat out of yourself. You are too ignorant to admit you made a mistake (you never quoted first the proper passage in full, and therefore omissed the "tendencies" part out)... Anyone who reads this thread can go back and see how you made that error.
quote:See above fag. And try not to let that screen shot from Templeton et al coward you into running away again, only to come back and open new can of worms, like you've done five times in a row now.
See the maps. As usual you have been refuted. The only tropical climate in Australia is a small region to the north-east.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Khoisan man
Morrocan man people as dark as this Moroccan man probably don't have ancestry going back in the above tropic of cancer part of North Africa. He's probably more recent to the area. Much of North Africa is above the Tropic of Cancer, Most of Alergia, Morocco, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia.
The Khoisans have lived for thousands of years at a similar distance from the equator. As expected they have a lighter skin tone than Africans closer to the equator.
Below another Moroccan. He is lighter like the Khosian man. as far as skin tone goes it would be easier to believe he could have an older ancestry in this above the Tropic of Cancer North African region than the darker skinned man who might be more similar in skin tone to someone from the Sahel.
As per Khoisans, as a topic unto themsleves everybody should go back to my thread "The genetic prehistory of southern Africa : Khoisan"
I posted some more information from a good book on Human Adpatation with a chapter on Khoisans, aka San Bushmen. Also see the link to that book for other chapters on human adaptation in various parts of the word. You will also see aboriginees are mentioned briefly in the Bushmen chapter as well.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Trutheccentric Dunkers Debunk:
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies By Jared M. Diamond
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
Low-latitude (sub-tropical) deserts resulting from global air circulation pattern.
quote: The warm tropics form a belt around the equator where the tropical heat generates rising, unstable air. As it climbs, the air condenses the moisture evaporated from the warm tropical seas and forests, and produces the heavy downpours that characterize the wet tropics. As it moves away from the equator at high altitudes, the air cools again and eventually starts descending towards the midlatitudes, some 3000 km away from the equator both north and south. The air masses heat in their descent and, having lost their moisture during their tropical ascent, they become extremely dry.
trop·ic (trpk) n. 1. a. Either of two parallels of latitude on the earth, one 23°27 north of the equator and the other 23°27 south of the equator, representing the points farthest north and south at which the sun can shine directly overhead and constituting the boundaries of the Torrid Zone. b. Tropics or tropics The region of the earth's surface lying between these latitudes. 2. Astronomy Either of two corresponding parallels of celestial latitude that are the limits of the apparent northern and southern passages of the sun. adj. Of or relating to the Tropics; tropical. [Middle English tropik, from Old French tropique, from Late Latin tropicus, from Latin, of a turn, from Greek tropikos, from trop, a turning; see trep- in Indo-European roots.]
1 : either of the two parallels of terrestrial latitude at a distance of about 231⁄2 degrees north or south of the equator where the sun is directly overhead when it reaches its most northerly or southerly point in the sky — compare tropic of cancer, tropic of capricorn 2 plural often capitalized : the region lying between the tropics
Definition of tropic noun the parallel of latitude 23°26ʹ north (tropic of Cancer) or south (tropic of Capricorn) of the equator. Astronomy each of two corresponding circles on the celestial sphere where the sun appears to turn after reaching its greatest declination, marking the northern and southern limits of the ecliptic. (the tropics) the region between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.
adjective 1of, typical of, or peculiar to the tropics: tropical countries a tropical rainforest very hot and humid: some plants thrived in last year’s tropical summer heat 2 archaic of or involving a trope; figurative. Derivatives
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
“Results indicate that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have African-like, or tropically adapted, proportions, while those from Amud, Kebara, Tabun, and Shanidar (Iraq) have more European-like, or cold-adapted, proportions. This suggests that there were in fact two distinct Western Asian populations and that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids were likely African in origin - a result consistent with the "Replacement" model of modern human origins.. What we can say, however, is that in the Holocene, humans from southwest Asia do not exhibit tropically adapted body shape..”
--Holliday, T. 2000. Evolution at the Crossroads. Amr Anthr, 102. 54-68
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Take a look at a climatic map:
No dumb phuck. You didn't answer my question, and your silly climatic map doesn't help your dumb ass. Why did Templeton et al label the dry Khoisan climate tropical, if, as you say, only hot-humid climates qualify as such among biologists? Why does Brace label hot-dry regions in Africa 'tropics'?
It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. --Brace (1993)
You have yet to cite one modern anthropologist who considers the tropical adaptations to refer exclusively to tropical rainforests.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: "The Negroid type is not homogeneous: the classification by Hiernaux (1975) distinguished five groups (Bushmen, Pygmies and Pygmoids, elongated Africans, West African and Bantu". (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 167)
Dumb fag, I'm going to ask you again: where did Hiernaux label South African Bantu speakers and stereotypical Nilotes 'elongated Africans'? You have yet to cite one anthropologist who considers the tropical adaptations to refer exclusive to tropical rainforests.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: elongnated African = Nilotid
Totally fabricated, and you're exposed by the fact that you have yet to cite where Hiernaux said this. The only Nilotes that were considered to have elongated features by Hiernaux are Maasai-like Nilotes, and Hiernaux attributed this to genetic differences compared to Sudani Nilotes.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Aethiopids and Caucasoid Horners are not elongnated like Nilotids.
LMAO. Another fabricated claim that needs to be listed among the claims you've fabricated. It'll be a cold day in hell before you'll find a Hiernaux quoted as saying that 'elongated africans' refers more to Nilotes than to Cushitic and Semitic speaking Horners.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: As Coon remarks, Horners match near-easteners in their post-cranial indices.
Prove it, because we all know what a lying data fabricating fag you are by now. In the meantime, I take it Coon never strayed from this postion:
These modern Hamites have long spindly legs, thin hands, and narrow wrists, while their bodies are correspondingly thin and attenuated. --Coon
^I dare your dumbass to cite a single Middle Eastern population that qualifies for the above. These characteristics are generally shared with negroids populations, as was noted by Raxter in her comment that Ethiopians and modern Nubians have narrow bi-illiac widths, low body mass and resulting linear bodies.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Crania with high NI's Coon asserts show other racial "tendencies", nowhere does he label such crania homogenous Mediterranean.
He does. As a matter of fact, in his description of the 'Mediterranean proper' he says that negroid tendencies are normal for certain Mediterranean remains:
Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency. --Coon
^You can ignore this sentence all you want, but as promised, I'm going to keep slamming it in your face, until you stop willfully ignoring it, and acknowledge its existence.
quote:Unless you can show where Coon doesn't say other "tendencies" and labels them Med taxonomically with wide nasal indices
Of course he is going to note ''other tendencies'', becuase, and this has yet to penetrade your thick skull, Coon sees those ''other tendencies'' as normal for his sexually undifferentiated Mediteranean subtype:
Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency. --Coon
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You are too ignorant to admit you made a mistake (you never quoted first the proper passage in full, and therefore omissed the "tendencies" part out)...
Already addressed this a thousands times, but your mental retardation is getting in the way of your reading comprehension. There is no need to be talking about other tendencies when Coon already classed those remains as 'Mediteranean' numerous times by referring to them as such. If your reply is that those remains couldn't have been Mediteranean because of their other tendencies, YOU'RE in disagreement with Coon, Chamla et al, not me, faggot. As a matter of fact, you're also in disagreement with your self, since you've said a few posts ago that Austaloids can have all sorts of other tendencies due to admixture. All your sources have classified broad nosed remains as 'Mediteranean', from Coon's Naqadans and Badarians, to Chamla's broad nosed Khanguet el Muhaad 5 specimen.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: See the maps. As usual you have been refuted. The only tropical climate in Australia
Only a brain dead phuck face such as yourself would forward a climate map as proof when what's required, according to your own goal post (you said ''in biological literature''), is corroboration from modern Anthropological literature that tropical adaptations only arise in tropical rainforests.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
If you could read properly I said tropical climate in regards to race. Templeton doesn't believe races exist. He's garbage.
Coon, Garn and Birdsell in their study "Races" (1950) which was the first detailed study of race and adaptation -- show that tropical adaptation is to humid heat only. Deserts or arid environments are dry heat. Those in humid tropical areas do not sweat, hence they are not elongated, but are shorter statured with lower brachial and crural indices. So in no way are African Pygmies or palaeo-Negroids "tropical".
Nowhere did I claim Bantu's are elongated -- I claimed they are Kafrids, intermediate between elongated (dry heat) and tropical (humid), only for sake of convenience are they sometimes lumped in with the Nilotids:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
The Kafrid takes an intermediate position between the palaeo-Negroid and elongnated desert adapted Nilotid form.
All of this is explained in Baker (1974).
Hiernaux's terms are interchangable with the ids. Kafrid = Bantu, Nilotid = elongated African, West African = palaeo-Negrid.
Hiernaux (1975) clusters Nilotes (Nilotids) as a "Nilotic variety" within the elongated african. The only main difference is the NI.
Hiernaux only distinguishes 5 groups:
"The Negroid type is not homogeneous: the classification by Hiernaux (1975) distinguished five groups (Bushmen, Pygmies and Pygmoids, elongated Africans, West African and Bantu". (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 167)
Nilotids fall in this scheme under elongated Africans. So as usual you are wrong.
"Hiernaux (1975) distinguished five main groups" (Cavalli-Sforza, 1986; Bender, 1996).
Hiernaux' elongated taxon however is not homogenous. Somalis and so forth are Caucasoid admixed, but this was a theory Hiernaux attempted to disprove (but failed).
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
^Odd, I have never heard any African group call themselves any of those names, as per above. I wonder why this is?
Bantu is not a ethnic group, but a linguistic group.
Ps. Elijah Muhammad called the white men the devil. I however, am not sure if he meant it as homogenous.
Isis. 2004 Sep;95(3):394-419.
Racial science in social context: John R. Baker on eugenics, race, and the public role of the scientist.
Kenny MG.
Source
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada.
Abstract
quote: In 1974 a British biologist, John Randal Baker (1900-1984), published a large and controversial book simply entitled Race that reiterated persistent eugenicist themes concerning the relation between race, intelligence, and progress. The history of Baker's book is a case study in the politics of scientific publishing, and his ideas influenced scholars associated with later works such as The Bell Curve. Baker, a student of Julian Huxley, was a longtime participant in the British eugenics movement and opponent of what he took to be a facile belief in human equality. In 1942, together with Michael Polanyi, he founded the Society for Freedom in Science to oppose those who advocated the central planning of scientific research. Baker's eugenics, political activities, and views on race express an elitist individualism, associated with the conservative wing of the eugenics movement, that this paper explores in the context of his career as a whole.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: "The Negroid type is not homogeneous: the classification by Hiernaux (1975)
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Hiernaux' elongated taxon however is not homogenous. Somalis and so forth are Caucasoid admixed, but this was a theory Hiernaux attempted to disprove (but failed).
Somalis are by far African, with very less admixture from the Caucasus, let alone the overall Somali population. You've failed.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: If you could read properly I said tropical climate in regards to race. Templeton doesn't believe races exist. He's garbage.
LMAO. You're not even making sense right now. You're talking incoherent brabble. What the phuck is ''tropical climate in regards to race'' supposed to mean? What does Templeton's beliefs in regards to race have to do with his recognition that the tropics include hot-dry areas, and that this recognition is ubiquitous in modern anthropological literature? You're one irrational, brain-dead and barely functioning son of a b!tch, aren't you?
If you're going to respond, at least respond to my posts, instead your own posts. You've lost on all counts. You've been reduced to replying selectively or not at all. You're a coward, and a lying, data fabricating one, at that. All you do is lie and making up data. When you and me or some other member of the forum disagreed, you've never been correct/supported by factual data; not even one phucking time. To make up for this, you've created fake accounts--that have now mysteriously disappeared--to come to your aid and defend your lies that the Pyramidologists accounts all over the net weren't yours.
Your own sources disagree with you, every single one of them. Even your butt-buddies over at the Hamitic Union have destroyed your retarded ideas about the Iberomaurusian/Capsian remains when you ran to them for help when I was obliterating your claims regarding those cultures. Low life piece of sh!t.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Take a look at a climatic map:
No dumb phuck. You didn't answer my question, and your silly climatic map doesn't help your dumb ass. Why did Templeton et al label the dry Khoisan climate tropical, if, as you say, only hot-humid climates qualify as such among biologists? Why does Brace label hot-dry regions in Africa 'tropics'?
It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. --Brace (1993)
You have yet to cite one modern anthropologist who considers the tropical adaptations to refer exclusively to tropical rainforests.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: "The Negroid type is not homogeneous: the classification by Hiernaux (1975) distinguished five groups (Bushmen, Pygmies and Pygmoids, elongated Africans, West African and Bantu". (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 167)
Dumb fag, I'm going to ask you again: where did Hiernaux label South African Bantu speakers and stereotypical Nilotes 'elongated Africans'? You have yet to cite one anthropologist who considers the tropical adaptations to refer exclusive to tropical rainforests.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: elongnated African = Nilotid
Totally fabricated, and you're exposed by the fact that you have yet to cite where Hiernaux said this. The only Nilotes that were considered to have elongated features by Hiernaux are Maasai-like Nilotes, and Hiernaux attributed this to genetic differences compared to Sudani Nilotes.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Aethiopids and Caucasoid Horners are not elongnated like Nilotids.
LMAO. Another fabricated claim that needs to be listed among the claims you've fabricated. It'll be a cold day in hell before you'll find a Hiernaux quoted as saying that 'elongated africans' refers more to Nilotes than to Cushitic and Semitic speaking Horners.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: As Coon remarks, Horners match near-easteners in their post-cranial indices.
Prove it, because we all know what a lying data fabricating fag you are by now. In the meantime, I take it Coon never strayed from this postion:
These modern Hamites have long spindly legs, thin hands, and narrow wrists, while their bodies are correspondingly thin and attenuated. --Coon
^I dare your dumbass to cite a single Middle Eastern population that qualifies for the above. These characteristics are generally shared with negroids populations, as was noted by Raxter in her comment that Ethiopians and modern Nubians have narrow bi-illiac widths, low body mass and resulting linear bodies.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Crania with high NI's Coon asserts show other racial "tendencies", nowhere does he label such crania homogenous Mediterranean.
He does. As a matter of fact, in his description of the 'Mediterranean proper' he says that negroid tendencies are normal for certain Mediterranean remains:
Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency. --Coon
^You can ignore this sentence all you want, but as promised, I'm going to keep slamming it in your face, until you stop willfully ignoring it, and acknowledge its existence.
quote:Unless you can show where Coon doesn't say other "tendencies" and labels them Med taxonomically with wide nasal indices
Of course he is going to note ''other tendencies'', becuase, and this has yet to penetrade your thick skull, Coon sees those ''other tendencies'' as normal for his sexually undifferentiated Mediteranean subtype:
Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency. --Coon
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You are too ignorant to admit you made a mistake (you never quoted first the proper passage in full, and therefore omissed the "tendencies" part out)...
Already addressed this a thousands times, but your mental retardation is getting in the way of your reading comprehension. There is no need to be talking about other tendencies when Coon already classed those remains as 'Mediteranean' numerous times by referring to them as such. If your reply is that those remains couldn't have been Mediteranean because of their other tendencies, YOU'RE in disagreement with Coon, Chamla et al, not me, faggot. As a matter of fact, you're also in disagreement with your self, since you've said a few posts ago that Austaloids can have all sorts of other tendencies due to admixture. All your sources have classified broad nosed remains as 'Mediteranean', from Coon's Naqadans and Badarians, to Chamla's broad nosed Khanguet el Muhaad 5 specimen.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: See the maps. As usual you have been refuted. The only tropical climate in Australia
Only a brain dead phuck face such as yourself would forward a climate map as proof when what's required, according to your own goal post (you said ''in biological literature''), is corroboration from modern Anthropological literature that tropical adaptations only arise in tropical rainforests.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Distribution Patterns of Ants within Australia
Major habitat types in Australia
quote: Australia is a large and diverse continent with habitats ranging from dry, sandy deserts to lush tropical rainforests (see map at right and Habitats).
These different habitats form distinct patterns across the Australian landscape, patterns which have a strong impact on the distribution of ants.
What sort of climate do Australia’s tropical savannas have?
quote:
The tropical savannas of northern Australia have two starkly different seasons: the 'wet' and the 'dry'. The intensity and length of these seasons will vary depending on the latitude, topography and distance from the coast. These are European classifications – Aboriginal people will divide the year more finely with often six or more distinct seasons recognised.
The wet months, December to March, are hot and humid interspersed with torrential downpours and contrast with the dry months of May to August which have low humidity, little to no rain and cooler, wider-ranging temperatures. These two major seasons are separated by brief periods of variable conditions.
By Mary S. Brady, MD1, Aradhana Kaushal, MD2, Christine Ko, MD2, Keith Flaherty, MD3 | 14 oktober 2011 1 Division of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center 2 Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute 3 Division of Hematology/Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital
Geography The rates of melanoma and other skin cancers are highest where fair-skinned Caucasians migrated to lower latitudes, with annual sun exposure that is substantially higher than their historically native climates. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Israel bear a disproportionate burden of skin cancer. In Australia, melanoma is the third most common cancer. In the United States, Hawaii and the desert Southwest have the highest rates of skin cancer of all kinds and melanoma.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: LMAO. You're not even making sense right now. You're talking incoherent brabble.What the phuck is ''tropical climate in regards to race'' supposed to mean? What does Templeton's beliefs in regards to race have to do with his recognition that the tropics include hot-dry areas, and that this recognition is ubiquitous in modern anthropological literature?
I asserted scientific authorities on race, who have studied climatic adaptation support the definition I have outlined. Tropical climate is only humid heat environments. I'm not interested in your non-climatic definition.
Like a true retard you then responded quoting a bogus authority. Templeton is not an authority on race, he's a loon who denies they exist.
Find me a race realist who disagrees with what I posted. Quoting people who deny races exist really just proves my point, not yours.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:What sort of climate do Australia’s tropical savannas have?
Mostly tropical, but they are not humid all year. Tropical climate is characterised by season-long precipitation. Savannas have a mixed humid-dry climate, but for convenience are classified under tropical in the Köppen climate classification.* Click here. They are six or more months tropical (humid) every year, hence they can be considered as having tropical climate.
Tropical climate is A only.
Tropical: anual precipitations are higher than evaporations. The climate is therefore humid.
- Zaharan and Swenet are both idiots who don't grasp the basics. The funny thing is that their Afrocentric model actually stresses adaptation, yet they don't know the slightest thing about climate and adaptation. They continue to use a bogus definition of "tropical" that has nothing to do with climate.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
And Zaharan had the ignorance to claim Köppen's climate classification supported his definition, not mine. But look at the above map. Note how he never responded before when this was shown. I wonder why? Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Already addressed this a thousands times, but your mental retardation is getting in the way of your reading comprehension. There is no need to be talking about other tendencies when Coon already classed those remains as 'Mediteranean' numerous times by referring to them as such. If your reply is that those remains couldn't have been Mediteranean because of their other tendencies, YOU'RE in disagreement with Coon, Chamla et al, not me, faggot. As a matter of fact, you're also in disagreement with your self, since you've said a few posts ago that Austaloids can have all sorts of other tendencies due to admixture. All your sources have classified broad nosed remains as 'Mediteranean', from Coon's Naqadans and Badarians, to Chamla's broad nosed Khanguet el Muhaad 5 specimen.
Nowhere does Coon label any of those specimens Mediterranean. Once again all you are doing is cutting off passages to distort them.
What you cut off from:
"Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
Is this: "Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic".
Now go read his chapter on the Natufians.
As already noted, Coon discusses the appearance of another race (Negroid) in some of the Natufian crania (a view though he later retracted by 1962).
"The wide, low-vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face [...] These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities."
Hence the 'Med Proper' morphological type (Deniker's Ibero-Insulars) do not carry Negroid tendencies -- Coon only regarded the Natufians to.
Again to expose how you distort quotes:
The full quote:
"Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
Your lame cut:
"Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
People can see through your lies and distortions. They only have to go to Coon's chapter on Natufian's to see the context.
You are the "brain dead phuck face suffering from mental retardation". I'm not the one distorting quotes idiot. Unlike you I own these texts and have spent years studying them.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Find me a race realist who disagrees with what I posted.
Your request follows the same low IQ, bizarre reasoning pattern as the rest of your posts. There is no need for me to find race realists who disagree with what you say, because you haven't established first that there is disagreement along those lines in the first place. You've never demonstrated that multi-race/mono-race proponents in anthropology disagree in their identification of what tropical adaptations are, and where they arise.
As a matter of fact, you haven't even established what the concept of race has to do with tropical adaptations. Yet you expect me to go on a wild goose chase to find you multi-race proponents who disagree with you. According to you that is a logical proposition to make. This fits nicely with your record of erratic behavior because everything you've said in this thread and elsewhere is flat-out bizarre and fabricated.
quote:As already noted, Coon discusses the appearance of another race (Negroid) in some of the Natufian crania
Another flat out lie. Nowhere does he say they were only a few Negroid crania among the Shuqbah series, who arrived there through admixture. He says the negroid traits are prevalent through the series (''and a prevalence of prognathism'') but that the Mediterranean overall impression weighed heavier than the minor negroid traits (which he says elsewhere are normal for this strain of Mediterraneans):
The skulls which Keith describes are of a peculiarly Mediterranean type, with a cephalic index ranging from 72 to 78, thus rivalling the sub- dolichocephalic head form of short statured Mediterraneans living today. The brain cases are of medium size, and the faces absolutely small. The lower jaws are also small and weakly developed, with little chin promi- nence and a prevalence of alveolar prognathism. The wide, low- vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face. The browridges are smooth, and the whole system of muscular- ity in the male but slightly developed. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. 13 There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian. These small Mediter- raneans must have brought their microliths from some point farther south or east, impelled by changes of climate.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Nowhere does Coon label any of those specimens Mediterranean.
Again, flat out lie. You're obviously seriously mentally ill, as evinced by your repeated attempts to deny the reality that Coon was classifying the remains as 'Mediterranean' in this sentence (regardless of any other minor affinities):
"Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency." Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:What sort of climate do Australia’s tropical savannas have?
Mostly tropical, but they are not humid all year. Tropical climate is characterised by season-long precipitation. Savannas have a mixed humid-dry climate, but for convenience are classified under tropical in the Köppen climate classification.* Click here. They are six or more months tropical (humid) every year, hence they can be considered as having tropical climate.
Tropical climate is A only.
Tropical: anual precipitations are higher than evaporations. The climate is therefore humid.
- Zaharan and Swenet are both idiots who don't grasp the basics. The funny thing is that their Afrocentric model actually stresses adaptation, yet they don't know the slightest thing about climate and adaptation. They continue to use a bogus definition of "tropical" that has nothing to do with climate.
Semi-arid Hot Climate (BSh) or Low-latitude Steppe This climate is found surrounding the low-latitude deserts. You cannot distinguish between Bsh and BWh climates by temperature only, but consider precipitation also. Although the precipitation in the BSh climate is not very much, it is greater than the deserts. The typical steppe has 10" precipitation per year and always less than 30". Seasonal distribution varies. BSh climates on the equator side receive 80% of rainfall during the high-sun period when the ITCZ migrates to the region. The steppes on the poleward side of the low-latitude deserts experience maximum precipitation during the low-sun period. Precipitation is mainly from cyclonic fronts that occasionally swing far south. The water balance shows a deficit throughout the year.
Low-Latitude Deserts (BWh)
These deserts lie approximately between 18-28 in both hemispheres. They coincide with the equatorward edge of the subtropical high pressure belt and trade winds. Includes the world's great deserts: Sahara, Sonoran, Thar, Kalahari, Great Australian. Environmental conditions are harsh; searing heat is present most of the year. Air flows generally downward so air masses that cause rain rarely penetrate the area. There is a general lack of precipitation with no pattern developed.
quote:
Köppen climate classification, widely used, vegetation-based empirical climate classification system developed by German botanist-climatologist Wladimir Köppen.
His aim was to devise formulas that would define climatic boundaries in such a way as to correspond to those of the vegetation zones (biomes) that were being mapped for the first time during his lifetime. Köppen published his first scheme in 1900 and a revised version in 1918. He continued to revise his system of classification until his death in 1940. Other climatologists have modified portions of Köppen’s procedure on the basis of their experience in various parts of the world.
The Köppen classification has been criticized on many grounds. It has been argued that extreme events, such as a periodic drought or an unusual cold spell, are just as significant in controlling vegetation distributions as the mean conditions upon which Köppen’s scheme is based. It also has been pointed out that factors other than those used in the classification, such as sunshine and wind, are important to vegetation. Moreover, it has been contended that natural vegetation can respond only slowly to environmental change, so that the vegetation zones observable today are in part adjusted to past climates. Many critics have drawn attention to the rather poor correspondence between the Köppen zones and the observed vegetation distribution in many areas of the world. In spite of these and other limitations, the Köppen system remains the most popular climatic classification in use today.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: And Zaharan had the ignorance to claim Köppen's climate classification supported his definition, not mine. But look at the above map. Note how he never responded before when this was shown. I wonder why?
^^I have already responded in detail you stupid piece of shiit. You are not fooling anyone with your bogus diversions. Your moronic denials only expose you for the idiot you are. BUt if you want more, go ahead, be my guest. You ain't causing me any extra work.
LET'S RECAP:
Faheem dumba said: The term (tropical) I was using was putitive to the Afocentric definition of "tropical", which as I have shown is actually false and not climatic. Those of the tropical climatic region in Sub-Sahara Africa, such as Pygmies and Forest Negroids ('true Blacks') do not in fact show high brachial or crural indices -- they are adapted instead to humid heat environments.
Khoisans are adapated to the desert heat, but they are not tropical.
Tropical adaptation is adaptation to humid heat, not arid climatic conditions
The only thing you have shown Wanker boy is that you are an idiot. You can't even keep your arguments straight. If Pygmies and "forest negroids" live in the tropical forest then they DO live in a as you say "humid, heat environment." Think dumbass, think and exercise some logic... lmao...
And deserts do form part of the tropics you hapless buffoon. You are so incompetent that even your fellow racists are embarassed by your pathetic carcass.
"..Different authors use different terminology to denote a classification by rainfall, season, mean temperature etc.. but it makes no difference. Wetness, coolness, dryness, rainfall, temp, season, mix and match- makes no difference. They are all variants WITHIN the tropics as the Koppen climate map below shows.
And dummy, the labels "tropical wet" and tropical wet/dry" on your map all identify areas WITHIN the larger tropical zone. Your own Koppen map shows this- you keep debunking your own argument fool... DUH....
Btw Zaharan, not even Keita uses your stupid terminology based on who can see the sun in the sky. He uses the term "Saharo-Tropical African Variant" (1981).
Hapless dullard! Must we yet again instruct you? Keita uses "tropical" yes- to identify those in the SAHARAN area that were tropical. Got it? He STILL identifies them as tropical. DUH.. And you are even more incompetent in your citation. Keita did not use the terminology in "1981" as you claim. Learn to cite accurately. End of today's lesson. Quote:
”The Tropic of Cancer and The Tropic of Capricorn The Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn each lie at 23.5 degrees latitude. The Tropic of Cancer is located at 23.5° North of the equator and runs through Mexico, the Bahamas, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, and southern China. The Tropic of Capricorn lies at 23.5° South of the equator and runs through Australia, Chile, southern Brazil (Brazil is the only country that passes through both the equator and a tropic), and northern South Africa. The tropics are the two lines where the sun is directly overhead at noon on the two solstices - near June and December 21. The sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Cancer on June 21 (the beginning of summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of winter in the Southern Hemisphere) and the sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Capricorn on December 21 (the beginning of winter in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of summer in the Southern Hemisphere). The reason for the location of the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn at 23.5° north and south respectively is due to the axial tilt of the Earth. The Earth is titled 23.5 degrees from the plane of the Earth's revolution around the sun each year. The area bounded by the Tropic of Cancer on the north and Tropic of Capricorn on the south is known as the "tropics." --From worldAtlas.com and Geographic Information - Page 33 Jenny Marie Johnson - 2003
Why do you think they are called the TROPIC of Cancer and the TROPIC of Capricorn? You big dummy…
You're using the definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year --- a completely bogus definition in regards to population biology, and physical anthropology.
No stupid mothafuck. The definition, which I posted long ago is shown below. You are so stupid it went over your head. ANd do you realize that you continually debunk yourself with your "refutations"? The lines mark out the tropics which is defined by thermal requirements and, as the standard definition shows below, include jungle, deserts and mountainous highlands, at temperatures that can be quite cool...
.. QUOTE:
"The thermal requirement for a tropical climate is considered to be an average mean temperature above 18 degrees C for the coldest month. Within this average, tropics are also marked by receiving a large amount of solar radiation throughout the year with no true or distinct winter season. Tropics not only include jungle, but deserts and mountainous highlands as well. The cooler local temperatures of these highlands are still within the overall averages, and are still part of the tropic zone, receiving high levels of solar radiation and not having a thermally depressed winter season. (Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995)." --Kumar et al. 1999. Biodeterioration of Stone in Tropical Environments and Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995. HUmid Tropical Environments. WIley PUb.
The tropics are astronomically clearly defined latitudes.. the sun reaches its zenith at these two positions once a year, and within the area of the tropics twice a year. That is the main reason that, within the tropics, the annual variation of air temperature is smaller than its diurnal variation. Compared with other thermal delimitations this is also true for high altitude mountains without any limitations." --Tropical Glaciers: Glaciers and Glaciations of the Rwenzori Mountains, Uganda. 2002. Kaser and Osmaston -----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBUNKING ON KEITA he 1981 paper in a UNESCO report is first where "tropical-african" is first traced. The 1993 paper I said is where Keita claims North African coastals are not tropical-africans but southern europeans:
"[...]coastal northern africans are viewed here as perhaps being biologically more, but not only, related to southern Europeans, primarily by gene flow." (Keita, 1993)
^^No fool. The term "tropical African" occurs is not "traced" to 1981. It can be found in books going back to the 1800s.
Keita explicity excludes north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping.
And Keita does not "exclude" "north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping."
The very quote you proffer debunks your own claim. And diversionary smokescreens abut AC/DC wont save you, nor will trying to hide your debunking above re Diop and Vansertima.Let me quote your own proof:
"[...]coastal northern africans are viewed here as perhaps being biologically more, but not only, related to southern Europeans, primarily by gene flow." (Keita, 1993)
^^Dumbass, Keita says more "but not only". How therefore has he "excluded" "north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping"? It is clear that southern Europeans are not the only relation to the coastals, and the Sahara itself makes up a large chunk of North Africa, that even in places extends close to the Medit coast. SO how could "north Africans" be "excluded" from the Saharan zone stupid muthafucka? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KHOISAN
"Several other long-range migration events have shaped the genetic l andscape of Africa. Analyses of mtDNA and the Y chromosome supports studies of classical polymorphisms as well as archaeological data indicating that Khoisian-speaking populations (those whose languages contain clicks, which includes the !Kung San) may have originated in Eastern Africa and migrated into southern Africa >20 - 10kya (Cavalli-Sforza, 1997, Scozzari, et al. 1999). Analyses of Y-Chromosome haplotype variation have identified that the most ancestral Y-chromosome haplotype is present at moderate to high frequency in East African Sudanese and Ethiopians, as well as in southern African !Kung San .." -- Michael Crawford 2006. Anthropological Genetics: Theory, Methods and Applications. p. 363-364
"The shallower slope, that of the INuit, has a value of 0.77 versus 0.86 for the Khoisan, indicating thjat the tibiae of the cold-adapted Inuit grow less per increment of femral growth theoughout their entire ontogenetic sequence tha do those of the Khoisan. The Neanderthal data points can be seen to follow the Inuit trajectory." --Nancy Minugh-Purvis, Kenneth J. McNamara. Human Evolution through Developmental Change 2001
"Variation in limb proportions between prehistoric Jomon and Yayoi people of Japan are explored by this study. Jomon people were the descendents of Pleistocene nomads who migrated to the Japanese Islands around 30,000 yBP. Phenotypic and genotypic evidence indicates that Yayoi people were recent migrants to Japan from continental Northeast Asia who likely interbred with Jomon foragers. Limb proportions of Jomon and Yayoi people were compared using RMA regression and "Quick-Test" calculations to investigate relative variability between these two groups. Cluster and principal components analyses were performed on size-standardized limb lengths and used to compare Jomon and Yayoi people with other groups from various climatic zones. Elongated distal relative to proximal limb lengths were observed among Jomon compared to Yayoi people. Jomon limb proportions were similar to human groups from temperate/tropical climates at lower latitudes, while Yayoi limb proportions more closely resemble groups from colder climates at higher latitudes. Limb proportional similarities with groups from warmer environments among Jomon foragers likely reflect morphological changes following Pleistocene colonization of the Japanese Islands. Cold-derived limb proportions among the Yayoi people likely indicate retention of these traits following comparatively recent migrations to the Japanese Islands. Changes in limb proportions experienced by Jomon foragers and retention of cold-derived limb proportions among Yayoi people conform to previous findings that report changes in these proportions following long-standing evolution in a specific environment." --Tempe et al. 2008. Variation in limb proportions between Jomon foragers and Yayoi agriculturalists from prehistoric Japan. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008 Oct;137(2):164-74.
Previous studies report that Jomon foragers had higher brachial and crural indices than Yayoi people and were similar in limb proportions to low latitude, tropical groups such as the African San (Yamaguchi, 1989). --Temple et al, 2008
quote: "At the same time, there is a genetic component. Low stature persists even under apparently favourable health conditions. The small body size and lean physique of living Khoisan peoples are often cited in human population biology texts as exemplary of adaptation to a hot, sometimes specifically desert, climate. Their low body-mass index is portrayed as support for Bergmann's and Allen's rules (cf. Molnar 1998, Relethford 1997)." --Sealy and Pfeiffer (2000) ------------------------------
AND YOU ARE STILL RUNNING AWAY FROM SWENET'S EXPOSURE OF YOUR FABRICATIONS AND IDIOCY
Running away as usual, like the faggot that you've demonstrated yourself to be, time after time again. None of your ideas have withstood the test of scrutiny, and that's why you've repeatedly backed away from them:
1.You've fabricated your claim that Bar Yosef said that the Mushabian was excavated in Upper and Lower Egypt
2.You've fabricated your claim that Indians never cluster with certain Africans, whether metrically or non-metrically
3.You've fabricated your claim that Mesolithic Nubians and Natufians had wavy hair
4.You've fabricated your claim that the Mediterranean 'race' is free of negroid traits per Coon
5.You've fabricated your claim that Wadi Halfans can't be negroid because of their browridges, since the remains you classify as undoubtedly negroid, (Asselar man and Iwo Eleru) have brow ridges
6.You've fabricated your claim that your fake Australoid phenotypical cluster (Palaeo-americans, Wadi Halfans, Jebel Sahabans, Natufians, European Eurafricans, Mesopotamian Eurafricans, Arabian Veddoids, Indian Veddoids etc) is a cluster of related people
7.You've failed to explain why modern descendants of those ancient populations have zero Australian aboriginal ancestry, but African ancestry with Mesolithic time depths instead.
8.You've fabricated your claim that sub species or races are identifiable by morphological clusters
9.You've fabricated your claim that there have never been studies that detected African affinities with Iranian/Iraqi prehistorical skeletal remains
10.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual had brow ridges, since it consists out of a mandible
11.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual was described as having prognathism
12.You've fabricated your claim that Homo 3 was the only Natufian individual with prognathism
13.You've fabricated your claim that Keith's analysis of the Shukbah remains were somehow refuted or inaccurate
14.You've fabricated your claim that Coon retracted his view of minor Negroid affinities in the Shuqbah Natufians series
15.You've fabricated your claim that Tigray Ethiopians are the only Ethiopians with leptorrhine averages
16.You've fabricated your claim that all Tigray Ethiopians are leptorrhine
17.You've fabricated your claim that non-leptorrhiny in Cushitic speaking groups is necessarily due to admixture with negroid groups.
17.You've fabricated your claim that Wolpoff's list of Erectus to Australoid continuation traits denote a special relationship indicative of continuation.
18.There is no evidence of lineage loss in Upper Palaeolithic Australian, European, West Asian and Amerindian fossils; all fossil mtDNA lineages are attested in contemporaries, and none are pre-M or pre-N. No form of lineage loss can account for the lack of pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians, and no explanations have been offered as to why Sub Saharan Africans have managed to maintain their pre-M and pre-N mtDNA. Additionally, the derived state of Eurasian DNA is also confirmed in genome-wide analysis, which is not subject to Wolpoff's silly caveat that pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians may have died out due to lineage loss.
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-IDIOT EXPOSED PART 20: He tries ot make out that only rainforest areas define the tropics and says: ----------------------------------------------------------------- quote
The climatic tropical zone is limited to mostly western and central sub-sahara africa. Posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist osted 17 November, 2012 04:53 PM ____________________________________
When in fact any credible geography book denotes the tropics within the zone marked out by the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a denotation itself based on climate.
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-IDIOT EXPOSED- PART 19: He says there is no OOA but the very "supporting reference" he proffers directy contradicts his claim. ------------------------- [b]Posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on 07 May, 2012 08:45 AM:
OOA never happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans ----------------------------- The idiot gives a Wikipedia "reference" to back up his claim but the very same "supporting reference" he gives states that multi-regionalists acknowledge that hominid species came from Africa in the first place. Their argument is for continuity and distinct development in separate locations AFTER the initial OOA exit putting hominins in different places. This approach STILL recognizes and acknowledges hominin OOA.
Quote from FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Idiot's "supporting" reference: This species arose in Africa two million years ago as H. erectus and then spread out over the world, developing adaptations to regional conditions. Some populations became isolated for periods of time, developing in different directions, but through continuous interbreeding, replacement, genetic drift and selection, adaptations that were an advantage anywhere on earth would spread, keeping the development of the species in the same overall direction while maintaining adaptations to regional factors. By these mechanisms, surviving local varieties of the species evolved into modern humans, retaining some regional adaptations but with many features common to all regions.[10]
^^Note they say that their founding population Homo Erectus came from Africa. In short, the FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-idiot's own "supporting" reference contradicts his claim. What a pathetic fool.
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi- IDIOT EXPOSED - PART 18. The faker says Negroids are defined as having Caucasoid admixture. But when he sees bla-ck models with admixture he suddenly claims they aint black at all. Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist: posted 12 June, 2012 05:34 PM http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008168 Topic: Carleton Coon: Negoids are hybrids of Pygmies and Caucasians [QB] Yes. A fact well known today.
''The Negroid type is not homogeneous.'' - Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994.
Hiernaux (1975) distinguishes the Pygmies to Negroids on the grounds the latter are a product of the former (a recent mutation) but that there was probable geneflow with Caucasoids as Coon (1967, 1982) maintains.
Also note that on page 123 of 'Living Races of Man', Coon also states that ''To this combination may have been added remnant Capoid genes''. So Negroids are basically a recent mutation from the Pygmies, but with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture.
^^Bitch please. Your own words contradict your punk ass. Up above you say that "NEgroids" are a recent mutation with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture. Look bich, look. You say blacks are defined as having that admixture, and quote your favorite racist, Carleton Coon to that effect. But when your hypocrisy is exposed, you all of a sudden deny that the black models posted are "really" black. IN one thread "admixed" Negroes like the black models are black, but when your idiocy is exposed, they suddenly ain't black. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-IDIOT EXPOSED PART 17: - He says there is no sexual diomorphism in Africans or skeletal differences between men and women, when the very anthropologists he quotes say the opposite.
---------]Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi- Buffoon: FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist member # 18853 posted 03 June, 2012 05:47 PM
FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Buffoon 17a- "Frost and other anthropologists have noted that sexual dimorphism in Negroids is completely lacking. Check Frost's online blog."
FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Buffoon 17b- "Black females are not lighter or different to black males in craniofacial terms."
^^Stupid muthafucka. The very Frost quote you paste says this:
Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys).." FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103u
------- Can't you read imbecile? ALL females differ from males and are lighter. ALL human humans have sexual dimorphism to one degree or another. SO how can blacks "completely lack" said dimorphism according to you, when your own boy Peter Frost says all human have it?
------- ANd in studies of crania men and women do show differences, and these differences can be detected with a battery of modern measurements, as already shown in previous threads where your idiocy was destroyed- example (zakrewski2004-Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania)
your own peter frost debunks you: ---------------------------------------
"If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman’s skin correlates with the thickness of her subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men (Aoki, 2002; Feinman Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost, 2005; Van den Berghe & Frost, 1986)."
FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103
and:
"A different perspective on sexual dimorphism in skin pigmentation comes from the recognition that human females require significantly higher amounts of calcium during pregnancy and lactation and, thus, must have lighter skin than males in the same environment in order to maximize their cutaneous vitamin D3 production (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000)... Thus strong clinical evidence continues to support the hypothesis that lighter skin pigmentation in females evolved primarily as a means to enhance the the potential for cutaneous vitamin D production and maintain healthy long-term calcium status and skeletal health." -- Human Evolutionary Biology. 2010. By Michael P. Muehlenbein Damm you are one of the most pathetic idiots in existence.
Tell us -- were you born such a retarded shithead, or were you originally a slug who managed to rise to such prominence?
quote:Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist: [QB] E1b1b is not Negroid.
Read it an weep -
''Sub-Saharan Africans belong to subclades of E other than E1b1b, while most non-Africans who belong to haplogroup E belong to its E1b1b subclade.” - Fulvio Cruciani et al, Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa, Am. J. Hum. Genet, p. 74)
The foul faker doctored the quote not knowing the article has been much discussed at ES. Testifying even more to his incompetence, Cruciani actually does show E3b or E1b1b occuring in numerous places within "sub-Saharan" Africa. The three main subclades of haplogroup E3b (E-M78, E-M81, and E-M34) and the paragroup E-M35* are not homogeneously distributed on the African continent: E-M78 has been observed in both northern and eastern Africa, E-M81 is restricted t o northern Africa, E-M34 is common only in eastern Africa, and E-M35* is shared by eastern and southern Africans (Cruciani et al. 2002)" --Cruciani
And there is no "page 74" in the Cruciani article. THE FAKER AND BUFFOON IS AGAIN BUSTED IN A LIE!
THE FAKER'S BOGUS CLAIM PART- 15 - QUOTE: [QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 14 January, 2012 11:41 AM If you are a white heterosexual male in Britain you have virtually zero chance of getting a job. All the jobs go to blacks or other immigrants.
^^LOL - Idiotic nonsense. As of 2001, 92.1% of the UK population identified themselves as White, leaving 7.9%[270] of the UK population identifying themselves as mixed race or of an ethnic minority. The population of the United Kingdom in the 2001 census was 58,789,194, UK Office for National Statistics- 2001.
That leaves approx 54 million white people. About 33% of that population were adult men. Let's take away 8% or so for minorities. So you are saying then that 25% of the approx 54 million white people in the UK are all unemployed? Damn you are dumb, but you only expose the bankruptcy of your racism. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fake C-Ass -Hole exposed PART 14 - BOGUS "NORDIC BLONDS FLITTING AROUND EGYPT
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 29 December, 2011 06:05 AM
Hetepheres II was a blonde
^^Hapless dullard, you are exposed in another lie. Your own reference was checked. It yielded detailed citations which revealed a quite different story. Scholars say in the mainstream Cambridge Ancient History:
"We must give up the idea that she was of Libyan origin, an attractive theory which was based on blond hair of Hetepheres II, who was then thought to be her daughter. It is now evident that the yellow wig is part of a costume worn b other great ladies." --I. Edwards, C. Gadd, N. Hammond. 1971. The Cambridge Ancient History. 3ed Volume 1, Part 2, Early History of the Middle East
Yet another history says: "The walls of this interior room are decorated with hunting and fishing scenes, including a charming image of Meresankh and her mother, Hetepheres II picking lotus flowers from the river.. The pillars have images of Meresankh wearing a blond wig." --P. Lacovara. 2004. The pyramids and the SPhinx: tombs and temples of GIza
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 13- HIS BOGUS CLAIM OF "NORDIC" EGYPTIAN ROYALTY
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 28 December, 2011 05:40 PM Early dynastic & old kingdom royalty was Nordic (blonde and fair skinned)
^^^Ha hahahahah you stupid mass of camel vomit! Up above you reference scholar Frank Yurco, but here is what Yurco said about the 12th Dynasty, debunking your claim of "Nordic" Egyptian royalty. You dumbass.... You are again debunked, with your own "supporting" references... lmao...
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989)
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 12 HE says Egyptologists like Frank Yurco says the Egyptians were "Caucasoid" --- "Virtually every egyptologist believes the egyptians were Caucasoid" --
BUt Yurco says nothing of the sort.. Here for example, is what he says about the 12the Dynasty rulers aho were Nubian descent: They seem really "Caucasoid"... yeah, right.. - quote-
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989) -
Another dodge is to twist an old chat/forum discussion statement by conservative Egyptologist Frank Yurco out of context. Yurco rejected those who "a priori" claimed the Egyptians were "black", that is, a dogmatic claim without presenting empirical evidence. He never rejected reasonable argument with data showing the Egyptians were an indigenous African population -QUOTE: .. basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times.. (Yurco 1996- An Egyptological Review, in Black Athena Revisited)
The Faker exposed- part 11
quote: Originally posted by cassiterides: ^You claim Vanessa Williams is a black woman when her heritage is white welsh and native american
According to the Faker, anyone with any white ancestry is not "really" black. SO since a majority of African Americans have white ancestry ranging from 5 to 30% then most Black Americans are not "truly" black you see...
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 10
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Eurafrican is Caucasoid.
^^You are once again exposed. You said EurAfrican is Caucasoid, and cited Serti in support. But using your own citation any reader can see that Sergi considers EurAfricans to be an amalgamation or mixture of many types, directly contradicting your claim.
SErgi says: QUOTE: "This human species, with cranial and facial characters thus well determined, I call Eurafrican; and this because, having had its origin in Africa, where it is still represented by many peoples, it has been diffused from prehistoric times in Europe... The Eurafrican species thus falls into three races: the African, with red-brown and black pigmentation.. Thus the Mediterranean stock is a race or variety of the Eurafrican species." --G. Sergi
You have again failed and are once again exposed. ------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED PART 9- HE CLAIMS ALL THESE HIGGINS "DISTORTIONS" BUT WHEN ASKED TO NAME THE SPECIFIC WEBSITES OF THIS ALLEGED "AFROCENTRIC' HORROR, HE RUNS AWAY. WHY IS THAT FAKER?
In fact, Godfrey Higgins ALSO says this about "negroes"
quote: "I believe all the Blavk bambinos of Italy are negroes- not merely blacks; this admitted, it would prove they very early date of their entrance into Italy." pg 286 pg 434 "the ancient Eturians had the countenances of Negroes, the same as the images of Buddah in INdia." pg 166 pg 474- "They aere in fact, all one nation, with one religion, that of Buddah, and they were originally NEgroes" pg 59: "nor can it be reasonably doubted, that a race of Negroes formerly had power and pre-eminence in India" pg 59- AS TO ETHIOPIA: And it is probable that an Ethiopian, a negro, correctly speaking, may have been meant, not merely a black person; and it seems probable that the following may have ben the real fact, viz, that a race of NEgroes or Blacks, but probably of the former, came to India to the west."
cASSIRETEDES own source debunks him. Note the footnote by his own author- QUOTE: "may not have been Negroes, though Blacks, though it is probably they were so."
His own source says they may not have been Negroes then adds: THOUGH IT IS PROBABLY THEY WERE SO."
^The Faker once again, debunks himself. And he seems not to realize that Ethiopia is in "sub-Saharan" Africa.. lol.. pathetic incompetent..
And he never shows these massive number of websites "all over the internet". Like what? How many? If they are "all over" then he should at least be able to give direct links to 6 showing pages where the "Afrocentrics: are "distorting" Higgins work. LEt's say what the faker has besides hot air. Post DIRECT LINKS to 6 of the huge number of alleged "Afrocentric" websites where the Afrocentrics are "distorting" Higgins. SHow how they are distorting Higgins with specific quotes and specific context.
Watch the Faker duck and run when he is again called on a claim, or make up yet another lie to cover his exposure... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- part 8:
quote:
Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
But then, in your own thread, by your own hand, you present a picture of an African albino that has pale skin, light brown or hazel eyes and fair hair. You said it was impossible, but then debunk yourself with your own posted picture.. This is like the 8-9th time you keep tripping over yourself with lies, contradictions, and bogus claims.
RECAP The Faker exposed- part 7 Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
^^Your claim is is completely bogus. Native diversity or albinism causes some tropical Africans to have light eyes and light hair. You fail againn..
bbvv
================================================
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 1-- ^^Faker! In your initial posts you claimed that it was Cavalli-Sforza talking 'bout negroes "mutating" from Pygmies. Now in your "corrected" post, YOU STILL APPEAR A FAKE. You now remove Cavalli- Sforza's name on the "mutant" claim, admitting that you were lying all along! Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah..
2-- Second point- Peter Frost is debunked by Cavalli-Sforza who says as to his so-called "mutation" theory: QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
Frost mentions Cavalli-Sforza in connection with sexual selection, and movement of some groups from Nigeria-Cameroon to other parts of Africa. He never says Cavalli Sforza talks bout any "negro mutation" and in fact any mutation claim is directly contradicted by Sforza. Sucka, you not only lied bout Cavalli-Sforza, you lied about your own white writer- Peter Frost, and misrepresented him.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/CassiREDES says: ''There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty''
^^LMAO! Totally fake! Credible up to date sources note that blondism is prevalent in early life BUT, contrary to your claim that: "There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty", the shade of color varies. In maturity the hair usually turns a darker brown color, but sometimes remains blond. See: "Gene Expression: Blonde Australian Aboriginals". Gnxp.com. http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/blonde-australian-aboriginals.php.
^^Here is one of your Australians over 20 years old who does have blonde hair. YOu are caught out spinning bogus claims AGAIN!. Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah.. -
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 5a [b]So where are these tropical african peoples with pale white or fair skin? blonde red hair?
^^You fail again. African populations can readily produce blond or reddish blond hair as noted by hair study author Hrdy 1978 himself, and he references Nubia as an example. Albinism is another source of red or blond hair in Africa, and albinism is much more prevalent in African populations than among Europeans. Even African Americans produce more albinos than white Americans. (The pigmentary system: physiology and pathophysiology- By James J. Nordlund 2006: 603) (E. Roach and V. Miller 2004. Neurocutaneous disorders.) QUOTE: "In general, the prevalence of albinism in Africa is much higher, in the range of 1 in 1 100 to 1 in 3900."
So Africa can and does routinely produce red and blond hair. All non-Africans are MORE LIMITED subsets of ORIGINAL African diversity. THe originals have more built-in diversity than the limited sub-set populations. This is straight science as noted by the quote from TIshkoff 2000.
Nor are Africans the only tropical peoples who can produce reddish hair or blond hair. Among Australian Aborigines, some tropical groups produce 100% of individuals with blond hair. Melanesians can also produce blond or reddish hair, and do so routinely.
White people have no monopoly at all on that hair color. They merely show more of it, but even among whites, red hair for example is minor- occurring in less than 5% of the overall European populations, mostly in northern Europe.
So the claim that there are no tropical Africans with such variation is once again, proved fake. You made the claim.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 4 ime and time again, you stand debunked and exposed for falsifying claims and references. Let's recap:
Originally posted by CASSIFAKedes::
quote: The source is Cavalli-Sforza's book on the Pygmies entitled 'African pygmies' (Academic Press, 1986).
This work shows that Negroids mutated from an ancestral pygmy population around 9,000 BC in West Africa. So the 'true' Black African today is a recent mutation. Caucasoids and Mongoloids predate them. [Wink] Negroids only migrated into other parts of Africa during the Bantu expansion or slightly earlier. Prior to them, Caucasoids inhabited North Africa and Bushmen (Capoids) to the south who were displaced by the Caucasoids from the Mediterranean around 12,000 BC.
^^A bogus reference. Why should anyone take your word for it given past bogus references? Quote where Cavalli-Sforza says these so-called "negroids" "mutated" from Pygmies. The burden of proof is on you, since you made the claim.
While you scurry to cover your tracks with yet more bogus claims, Cavali Sforza, in his well known The History and Geography of Human Genes, 1994 Cavalli-Sforza summarizes his 1986 work on Pygmies and specifically debunks the "Pygmy as ancestor" theory held by other older writings. QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
SO much for your lying claims of "mutations" from "Pygymy" ancestors. In short, you lied about Cavalli-Sforza, creating a falsified claim and a bogus "supporting" reference to a claim that is nowhere supported in his work. You are once again exposed as yet another racist faker You are not fooling anyone.
------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED-PART 3- YOu then tried to cover up your lie with even more bogus nformation and STILL fail
You "modified" your Cavalli Sforza claim by including page numbers, and then changing some wording to "adaptive radiation" hoping to divert attention from your exposure.. lmao..
However pages 361-362 of Cavalli Sforza's 1986 book says absolutely nothing about any Negroes "mutating" from pygmies, nor any "adaptive radiation." It merely discusses Pygmy history and geography. You picked out a page at random, not knowing it can be verified via Google Books. You were asked to provide a direct quote but are still running. Now why is that?
""It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
--------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 2 And Your pathetic "modification" STILL turned out to be bogus. You then said:
"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996).
^^But in fact, Watson 1996 has nothing to do with osteological data and does not even mention it. It has to do with mtDNA.
----------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 1C YOU THEN PROFFERED ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM BELOW: He says:
quote: "Note that in the Old Testament the Danites are the only Hebrew people described as being maritime and associated with ships.."
^^Complete Nonsense. In the Old Testament, the tribe of Zebulun is mentioned as specifically associated with ships and maritime elements. QUOTE:
Genesis 49:13 "Zebulun will dwell at the shore of the seas; Yea, he will be at the shore of the ships, And his side toucheth upon Sidon. "
FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/Cassi-Fakdes: MULTIPLE TIMES AT BAT, MULTIPLE EXPOSURES AS A FAKE...
--fake claim that no Australian Abo over 20 is blonde
-- fake claim that NO tropical Africans have any diversity in hair, skin or eye color
-- fake Cavalli-Sforza citation
-- 2nd fake Cavalli-Sforza reference
-- Faked Watson reference
-- Faked Biblical reference
-- FAke representation of Peter Frost's work
-- Fake claim that "studies" say "egyptians were dark are not like 'light-skinned Europeans". COnveniently, the alleged study is missing..
--Fake Higgins claims
--Fake claim that Guiseppe Sergi's EurAfrican race concept is negro-free
--Fake claim that Vanessa Williams has no black ancestry but is "white and Indian"
--Fake claim that Egyptologists like Yurco consider the Egyptians "Caucasoid"
--Fake claim of white Nordic Egyptian royalty
--Fake claim of "blond" Hetepheres
--Fake claim of white males in BRitain "unable to get jobs"
--fAKE Crucuiani "quote" with "citation"
--fake claim that blacks have no sexual diomorphism and no male-female cranial differences
--Fake CDC claim of AUgust 2006
--Hypocritical double standards- bashing African Americans as black when they can be demonized as criminals but when exposed for hypocritical double standards calling them non-black
--Bogus claim that OOA never happened backed by "supporting" references that say nothingof the sort and directly contradict him.
--Fake claim that the tropics is mostly rainforest area
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Find me a race realist who disagrees with what I posted.
Your request follows the same low IQ, bizarre reasoning pattern as the rest of your posts. There is no need for me to find race realists who disagree with what you say, because you haven't established first that there is disagreement along those lines in the first place. You've never demonstrated that multi-race/mono-race proponents in anthropology disagree in their identification of what tropical adaptations are.
As a matter of fact, you haven't even established what the concept of race has to do with tropical adaptations. Yet you expect me to go on a wild goose chase to find you multi-race proponents who disagree with you. According to you that is a logical proposition to make. This fits nicely with your record of behaving because everything you've said in this thread and elsewhere is flat-out bizarre and fabricated.
quote:As already noted, Coon discusses the appearance of another race (Negroid) in some of the Natufian crania
Another flat out lie. Nowhere does he say they are Negroid as a classification; he says that they are Mediterranean with only minor Negroid affinities (which he says elsewhere are normal for this strain of Mediterraneans):
The skulls which Keith describes are of a peculiarly Mediterranean type, with a cephalic index ranging from 72 to 78, thus rivalling the sub- dolichocephalic head form of short statured Mediterraneans living today. The brain cases are of medium size, and the faces absolutely small. The lower jaws are also small and weakly developed, with little chin promi- nence and a prevalence of alveolar prognathism. The wide, low- vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face. The browridges are smooth, and the whole system of muscular- ity in the male but slightly developed. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. 13 There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian. These small Mediter- raneans must have brought their microliths from some point farther south or east, impelled by changes of climate.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Nowhere does Coon label any of those specimens Mediterranean.
Again, flat out lie. You're obviously seriously mentally ill, as evinced by your repeated attempts to deny the reality that Coon was classifying the remains as 'Mediterranean' in this sentence (regardless of any other minor affinities):
"Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
Same cutting, as expected from a continuous liar.
"Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
- Bold you cut off or obvious reasons. And then Coon clarifies in his chapter on the Natufians:
"The wide, low-vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face [...] These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities."
- Only the Natufians Coon asserts show Negroid affinities. A view he retracted in 1962. Nowhere though does his assert they are Mediterranean, hence he mentions "negroid affinities"/other racial "tendencies".
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
It's actually important to understand the history, methodology and reasoning behind the Köppen climate classification.
quote:
Köppen climate classification, widely used, vegetation-based empirical climate classification system developed by German botanist-climatologist Wladimir Köppen.
His aim was to devise formulas that would define climatic boundaries in such a way as to correspond to those of the vegetation zones (biomes) that were being mapped for the first time during his lifetime. Köppen published his first scheme in 1900 and a revised version in 1918. He continued to revise his system of classification until his death in 1940. Other climatologists have modified portions of Köppen’s procedure on the basis of their experience in various parts of the world.
The Köppen classification has been criticized on many grounds. It has been argued that extreme events, such as a periodic drought or an unusual cold spell, are just as significant in controlling vegetation distributions as the mean conditions upon which Köppen’s scheme is based. It also has been pointed out that factors other than those used in the classification, such as sunshine and wind, are important to vegetation. Moreover, it has been contended that natural vegetation can respond only slowly to environmental change, so that the vegetation zones observable today are in part adjusted to past climates. Many critics have drawn attention to the rather poor correspondence between the Köppen zones and the observed vegetation distribution in many areas of the world. In spite of these and other limitations, the Köppen system remains the most popular climatic classification in use today.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Find me a race realist who disagrees with what I posted.
Your request follows the same low IQ, bizarre reasoning pattern as the rest of your posts. There is no need for me to find race realists who disagree with what you say, because you haven't established first that there is disagreement along those lines in the first place. You've never demonstrated that multi-race/mono-race proponents in anthropology disagree in their identification of what tropical adaptations are.
As a matter of fact, you haven't even established what the concept of race has to do with tropical adaptations. Yet you expect me to go on a wild goose chase to find you multi-race proponents who disagree with you. According to you that is a logical proposition to make. This fits nicely with your record of behaving because everything you've said in this thread and elsewhere is flat-out bizarre and fabricated.
quote:As already noted, Coon discusses the appearance of another race (Negroid) in some of the Natufian crania
Another flat out lie. Nowhere does he say they are Negroid as a classification; he says that they are Mediterranean with only minor Negroid affinities (which he says elsewhere are normal for this strain of Mediterraneans):
The skulls which Keith describes are of a peculiarly Mediterranean type, with a cephalic index ranging from 72 to 78, thus rivalling the sub- dolichocephalic head form of short statured Mediterraneans living today. The brain cases are of medium size, and the faces absolutely small. The lower jaws are also small and weakly developed, with little chin promi- nence and a prevalence of alveolar prognathism. The wide, low- vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face. The browridges are smooth, and the whole system of muscular- ity in the male but slightly developed. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. 13 There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian. These small Mediter- raneans must have brought their microliths from some point farther south or east, impelled by changes of climate.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Nowhere does Coon label any of those specimens Mediterranean.
Again, flat out lie. You're obviously seriously mentally ill, as evinced by your repeated attempts to deny the reality that Coon was classifying the remains as 'Mediterranean' in this sentence (regardless of any other minor affinities):
"Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
Same cutting, as expected from a continuous liar.
"Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
- Bold you cut off or obvious reasons. And then Coon clarifies in his chapter on the Natufians:
"The wide, low-vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face [...] These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities."
- Only the Natufians Coon asserts show Negroid affinities. A view he retracted in 1962. Nowhere though does his assert they are Mediterranean, hence he mentions "negroid affinities"/other racial "tendencies".
That would be something like this.
1932 (upon their discovery) Sir Arthur Keith: They were clearly a Negroid people with wide faces, flat noses, and long large heads.. Several features stand out quite definitely. First the Natufians were a long-headed people - they had cap-shaped occiputs (the lower back part of the head). Secondly, the dimensions or their heads were greater than in the pre-dynastic Egyptians. Thirdly, their faces were short and wide. Fourthly, they were prognathous (with projecting jaws). Fifthly, their nasal bones were not narrow and high, but formed a wide, low arch. Sixthly, their chins were not prominent, but were masked by the fullness of the teeth-bearing parts of the jaw.
Larry Angel (1972): one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.(McCown, 1939)...
C.L. Brace (2005): If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
Braces 2005 map Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Zaharan liar no. 2 writes:
quote:Your own Koppen map shows this- you keep debunking your own argument fool.
Idiot, take a look at Koppen's map:
Egypt and most of North Africa is non-tropical.
According to your own map (you quoted koppen first) Egyptians are not tropically adapted. You really are a cancer. You debunk yourself but then won't admit it but troll this site with the same spams and abuse.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Find me a race realist who disagrees with what I posted.
Your request follows the same low IQ, bizarre reasoning pattern as the rest of your posts. There is no need for me to find race realists who disagree with what you say, because you haven't established first that there is disagreement along those lines in the first place. You've never demonstrated that multi-race/mono-race proponents in anthropology disagree in their identification of what tropical adaptations are.
As a matter of fact, you haven't even established what the concept of race has to do with tropical adaptations. Yet you expect me to go on a wild goose chase to find you multi-race proponents who disagree with you. According to you that is a logical proposition to make. This fits nicely with your record of behaving because everything you've said in this thread and elsewhere is flat-out bizarre and fabricated.
quote:As already noted, Coon discusses the appearance of another race (Negroid) in some of the Natufian crania
Another flat out lie. Nowhere does he say they are Negroid as a classification; he says that they are Mediterranean with only minor Negroid affinities (which he says elsewhere are normal for this strain of Mediterraneans):
The skulls which Keith describes are of a peculiarly Mediterranean type, with a cephalic index ranging from 72 to 78, thus rivalling the sub- dolichocephalic head form of short statured Mediterraneans living today. The brain cases are of medium size, and the faces absolutely small. The lower jaws are also small and weakly developed, with little chin promi- nence and a prevalence of alveolar prognathism. The wide, low- vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face. The browridges are smooth, and the whole system of muscular- ity in the male but slightly developed. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. 13 There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian. These small Mediter- raneans must have brought their microliths from some point farther south or east, impelled by changes of climate.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Nowhere does Coon label any of those specimens Mediterranean.
Again, flat out lie. You're obviously seriously mentally ill, as evinced by your repeated attempts to deny the reality that Coon was classifying the remains as 'Mediterranean' in this sentence (regardless of any other minor affinities):
"Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
Same cutting, as expected from a continuous liar.
"Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
- Bold you cut off or obvious reasons. And then Coon clarifies in his chapter on the Natufians:
"The wide, low-vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face [...] These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities."
- Only the Natufians Coon asserts show Negroid affinities. A view he retracted in 1962. Nowhere though does his assert they are Mediterranean, hence he mentions "negroid affinities"/other racial "tendencies".
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Nowhere does Coon label any of those specimens Mediterranean.
Again, flat out lie. You're obviously seriously mentally ill, as evinced by your repeated attempts to deny the reality that Coon was classifying the remains as 'Mediterranean' in this sentence (regardless of any other minor affinities):
"Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
All North Eastern African remains classified by Coon as 'Mediterraneans' have Negroid affinities. Coon never said that minor Negroid affinities get in the way of a Mediterranean classification:
Although his skin is dark, his hair is nearly straight, and his measurements as well as his cranial and facial fea- tures are purely or almost purely Mediterranean. He shows no visible signs of negroid admixture, although from a purely genetic standpoint some must be present. --Coon
In the deserts and highlands of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Somalilands is found a con* centration of several related Mediterranean types, mixed in varying degrees with ne- groes. --Coon
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Zaharan liar no. 2 writes:
quote:Your own Koppen map shows this- you keep debunking your own argument fool.
Idiot, take a look at Koppen's map:
Egypt and most of North Africa is non-tropical.
According to your own map (you quoted koppen first) Egyptians are not tropically adapted. You really are a cancer. You debunk yourself but then won't admit it but troll this site with the same spams and abuse.
Köppen climate classification:
vegetation-based empirical climate classification system
vegetation-based empirical climate classification system
vegetation-based empirical climate classification system
quote:
Köppen climate classification, widely used, vegetation-based empirical climate classification system developed by German botanist-climatologist Wladimir Köppen.
His aim was to devise formulas that would define climatic boundaries in such a way as to correspond to those of the vegetation zones (biomes) that were being mapped for the first time during his lifetime. Köppen published his first scheme in 1900 and a revised version in 1918. He continued to revise his system of classification until his death in 1940. Other climatologists have modified portions of Köppen’s procedure on the basis of their experience in various parts of the world.
The Köppen classification has been criticized on many grounds. It has been argued that extreme events, such as a periodic drought or an unusual cold spell, are just as significant in controlling vegetation distributions as the mean conditions upon which Köppen’s scheme is based. It also has been pointed out that factors other than those used in the classification, such as sunshine and wind, are important to vegetation. Moreover, it has been contended that natural vegetation can respond only slowly to environmental change, so that the vegetation zones observable today are in part adjusted to past climates. Many critics have drawn attention to the rather poor correspondence between the Köppen zones and the observed vegetation distribution in many areas of the world. In spite of these and other limitations, the Köppen system remains the most popular climatic classification in use today.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Find me a race realist who disagrees with what I posted.
Your request follows the same low IQ, bizarre reasoning pattern as the rest of your posts. There is no need for me to find race realists who disagree with what you say, because you haven't established first that there is disagreement along those lines in the first place. You've never demonstrated that multi-race/mono-race proponents in anthropology disagree in their identification of what tropical adaptations are.
As a matter of fact, you haven't even established what the concept of race has to do with tropical adaptations. Yet you expect me to go on a wild goose chase to find you multi-race proponents who disagree with you. According to you that is a logical proposition to make. This fits nicely with your record of behaving because everything you've said in this thread and elsewhere is flat-out bizarre and fabricated.
quote:As already noted, Coon discusses the appearance of another race (Negroid) in some of the Natufian crania
Another flat out lie. Nowhere does he say they are Negroid as a classification; he says that they are Mediterranean with only minor Negroid affinities (which he says elsewhere are normal for this strain of Mediterraneans):
The skulls which Keith describes are of a peculiarly Mediterranean type, with a cephalic index ranging from 72 to 78, thus rivalling the sub- dolichocephalic head form of short statured Mediterraneans living today. The brain cases are of medium size, and the faces absolutely small. The lower jaws are also small and weakly developed, with little chin promi- nence and a prevalence of alveolar prognathism. The wide, low- vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face. The browridges are smooth, and the whole system of muscular- ity in the male but slightly developed. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. 13 There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian. These small Mediter- raneans must have brought their microliths from some point farther south or east, impelled by changes of climate.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Nowhere does Coon label any of those specimens Mediterranean.
Again, flat out lie. You're obviously seriously mentally ill, as evinced by your repeated attempts to deny the reality that Coon was classifying the remains as 'Mediterranean' in this sentence (regardless of any other minor affinities):
"Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
Same cutting, as expected from a continuous liar.
"Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
- Bold you cut off or obvious reasons. And then Coon clarifies in his chapter on the Natufians:
"The wide, low-vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face [...] These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities."
- Only the Natufians Coon asserts show Negroid affinities. A view he retracted in 1962. Nowhere though does his assert they are Mediterranean, hence he mentions "negroid affinities"/other racial "tendencies".
That would be something like this.
1932 (upon their discovery) Sir Arthur Keith: They were clearly a Negroid people with wide faces, flat noses, and long large heads.. Several features stand out quite definitely. First the Natufians were a long-headed people - they had cap-shaped occiputs (the lower back part of the head). Secondly, the dimensions or their heads were greater than in the pre-dynastic Egyptians. Thirdly, their faces were short and wide. Fourthly, they were prognathous (with projecting jaws). Fifthly, their nasal bones were not narrow and high, but formed a wide, low arch. Sixthly, their chins were not prominent, but were masked by the fullness of the teeth-bearing parts of the jaw.
Larry Angel (1972): one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.(McCown, 1939)...
C.L. Brace (2005): If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
Braces 2005 map
Keith retracted his initial claims, as did Coon.
"What little we have from Palestine, mostly scraps of bone and a few teeth, is also Caucasoid." (Coon, 1962)
Those few specimens with higher NI's and prognathism are far closer to Australoids, than Negroids once non-metrics are taken into account (Negroids lack browridges and nasal depressions).
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Zaharan liar no. 2 writes:
quote:Your own Koppen map shows this- you keep debunking your own argument fool.
Idiot, take a look at Koppen's map:
Egypt and most of North Africa is non-tropical.
According to your own map (you quoted koppen first) Egyptians are not tropically adapted. You really are a cancer. You debunk yourself but then won't admit it but troll this site with the same spams and abuse.
Köppen climate classification:
vegetation-based empirical climate classification system
vegetation-based empirical climate classification system
vegetation-based empirical climate classification system
quote:
Köppen climate classification, widely used, vegetation-based empirical climate classification system developed by German botanist-climatologist Wladimir Köppen.
His aim was to devise formulas that would define climatic boundaries in such a way as to correspond to those of the vegetation zones (biomes) that were being mapped for the first time during his lifetime. Köppen published his first scheme in 1900 and a revised version in 1918. He continued to revise his system of classification until his death in 1940. Other climatologists have modified portions of Köppen’s procedure on the basis of their experience in various parts of the world.
The Köppen classification has been criticized on many grounds. It has been argued that extreme events, such as a periodic drought or an unusual cold spell, are just as significant in controlling vegetation distributions as the mean conditions upon which Köppen’s scheme is based. It also has been pointed out that factors other than those used in the classification, such as sunshine and wind, are important to vegetation. Moreover, it has been contended that natural vegetation can respond only slowly to environmental change, so that the vegetation zones observable today are in part adjusted to past climates. Many critics have drawn attention to the rather poor correspondence between the Köppen zones and the observed vegetation distribution in many areas of the world. In spite of these and other limitations, the Köppen system remains the most popular climatic classification in use today.
Yes, precisely. And vegetables include biological species/races the same as Homo sapiens. The same zoological rules apply. A botanist will distinguish between a tropically adapted plant and a desert (dry heat) adapted. Yet according to the bogus Afrocentric definition of "tropical" - both desert and humid environment plants are the same taxonomically. Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Zaharan liar no. 2 writes:
quote:Your own Koppen map shows this- you keep debunking your own argument fool.
Idiot, take a look at Koppen's map:
Egypt and most of North Africa is non-tropical.
According to your own map (you quoted koppen first) Egyptians are not tropically adapted. You really are a cancer. You debunk yourself but then won't admit it but troll this site with the same spams and abuse.
Köppen climate classification:
vegetation-based empirical climate classification system
vegetation-based empirical climate classification system
vegetation-based empirical climate classification system
quote:
Köppen climate classification, widely used, vegetation-based empirical climate classification system developed by German botanist-climatologist Wladimir Köppen.
His aim was to devise formulas that would define climatic boundaries in such a way as to correspond to those of the vegetation zones (biomes) that were being mapped for the first time during his lifetime. Köppen published his first scheme in 1900 and a revised version in 1918. He continued to revise his system of classification until his death in 1940. Other climatologists have modified portions of Köppen’s procedure on the basis of their experience in various parts of the world.
The Köppen classification has been criticized on many grounds. It has been argued that extreme events, such as a periodic drought or an unusual cold spell, are just as significant in controlling vegetation distributions as the mean conditions upon which Köppen’s scheme is based. It also has been pointed out that factors other than those used in the classification, such as sunshine and wind, are important to vegetation. Moreover, it has been contended that natural vegetation can respond only slowly to environmental change, so that the vegetation zones observable today are in part adjusted to past climates. Many critics have drawn attention to the rather poor correspondence between the Köppen zones and the observed vegetation distribution in many areas of the world. In spite of these and other limitations, the Köppen system remains the most popular climatic classification in use today.
Yes, precisely. And vegetables include biological species/races the same as Homo sapiens. The same zoological rules apply. A botanist will distinguish between a tropically adapted plant and a desert (dry heat) adapted. Yet according to the bogus Afrocentric definition of "tropical" - both desert and humid environment plants are the same taxonomically.
I think, it's you who don't really understand what it means.
Because its your koeppen-geiger theory that has nothing to do with the anthropological arguments of tropic adapted body portions vs the cold adapted body portions, Köppen climate classification deals a vegetation-based empirical climate classification system . Meaning there where food grows easily, and of course food doesn't grow easily with the desert, thou it was fertile once. However, there are still Oasis in the Sahara, were the people have resided for thousand upon thousands of years so it doesn't matter how you play it.
Your problem is, you have no clue what you speak of. You haven't seen the desert or experienced it. You talk out of your neck, as always.
Anyway,
Stratigraphy and sedimentology at BirSahara, Egypt: Environments, climate change and the Middle Paleolithic
quote: The most thorough studies on the prehistory of North Africa come from the land included within the present borders of Egypt and northern Sudan. The Nile river and the Sahara desert have alternatively affected each other on both cultural and environmental levels and Eastern Saharan populations have acted as intermediaries between central Saharans and Nilotic peoples in both east–west and west–east directions. The Eastern Sahara is often referred to as the Western Desert, as it is located west of the Nile river. However, the Eastern Sahara proper extends east of the Nile river, as well. This article regards the most relevant events of past human populations in the area. Main topics include: the spread of early anatomically modern humans (e.g., at Kurkur Oasis, Bir Tarfawi, BirSahara); the reoccupation of the Sahara after 10 000 years ago; the earliest herders (e.g., at Bir Kiseiba and Nabta Playa); the earliest production and the spread of pottery (e.g., at Nabta Playa, Bir Kiseiba, Gilf Kebir, Great Sand Sea); caprine herding (e.g., at Sodmein Cave, Dakhleh Oasis, Nabta Playa); the origins of farming (e.g., at Farafra Oasis); and the development of sedentism (e.g., at Dakhleh Oasis, Nabta Playa).
AFRICA, NORTH Sahara, Eastern, Elena A.A. Garcea et al.
Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Find me a race realist who disagrees with what I posted.
Your request follows the same low IQ, bizarre reasoning pattern as the rest of your posts. There is no need for me to find race realists who disagree with what you say, because you haven't established first that there is disagreement along those lines in the first place. You've never demonstrated that multi-race/mono-race proponents in anthropology disagree in their identification of what tropical adaptations are.
As a matter of fact, you haven't even established what the concept of race has to do with tropical adaptations. Yet you expect me to go on a wild goose chase to find you multi-race proponents who disagree with you. According to you that is a logical proposition to make. This fits nicely with your record of behaving because everything you've said in this thread and elsewhere is flat-out bizarre and fabricated.
quote:As already noted, Coon discusses the appearance of another race (Negroid) in some of the Natufian crania
Another flat out lie. Nowhere does he say they are Negroid as a classification; he says that they are Mediterranean with only minor Negroid affinities (which he says elsewhere are normal for this strain of Mediterraneans):
The skulls which Keith describes are of a peculiarly Mediterranean type, with a cephalic index ranging from 72 to 78, thus rivalling the sub- dolichocephalic head form of short statured Mediterraneans living today. The brain cases are of medium size, and the faces absolutely small. The lower jaws are also small and weakly developed, with little chin promi- nence and a prevalence of alveolar prognathism. The wide, low- vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face. The browridges are smooth, and the whole system of muscular- ity in the male but slightly developed. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. 13 There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian. These small Mediter- raneans must have brought their microliths from some point farther south or east, impelled by changes of climate.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Nowhere does Coon label any of those specimens Mediterranean.
Again, flat out lie. You're obviously seriously mentally ill, as evinced by your repeated attempts to deny the reality that Coon was classifying the remains as 'Mediterranean' in this sentence (regardless of any other minor affinities):
"Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
Same cutting, as expected from a continuous liar.
"Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
- Bold you cut off or obvious reasons. And then Coon clarifies in his chapter on the Natufians:
"The wide, low-vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face [...] These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities."
- Only the Natufians Coon asserts show Negroid affinities. A view he retracted in 1962. Nowhere though does his assert they are Mediterranean, hence he mentions "negroid affinities"/other racial "tendencies".
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Nowhere does Coon label any of those specimens Mediterranean.
Again, flat out lie. You're obviously seriously mentally ill, as evinced by your repeated attempts to deny the reality that Coon was classifying the remains as 'Mediterranean' in this sentence (regardless of any other minor affinities):
"Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
All North Eastern African remains classified by Coon as 'Mediterraneans' have Negroid affinities. Coon never said that minor Negroid affinities get in the way of a Mediterranean classification:
Although his skin is dark, his hair is nearly straight, and his measurements as well as his cranial and facial fea- tures are purely or almost purely Mediterranean. He shows no visible signs of negroid admixture, although from a purely genetic standpoint some must be present. --Coon
In the deserts and highlands of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Somalilands is found a con* centration of several related Mediterranean types, mixed in varying degrees with ne- groes. --Coon
Same cutting, as expected from a continuous liar.
"Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
In your above post, despite being told twice, you still cut this off:
"Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic"
You are a fraud.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Find me a race realist who disagrees with what I posted.
Your request follows the same low IQ, bizarre reasoning pattern as the rest of your posts. There is no need for me to find race realists who disagree with what you say, because you haven't established first that there is disagreement along those lines in the first place. You've never demonstrated that multi-race/mono-race proponents in anthropology disagree in their identification of what tropical adaptations are.
As a matter of fact, you haven't even established what the concept of race has to do with tropical adaptations. Yet you expect me to go on a wild goose chase to find you multi-race proponents who disagree with you. According to you that is a logical proposition to make. This fits nicely with your record of behaving because everything you've said in this thread and elsewhere is flat-out bizarre and fabricated.
quote:As already noted, Coon discusses the appearance of another race (Negroid) in some of the Natufian crania
Another flat out lie. Nowhere does he say they are Negroid as a classification; he says that they are Mediterranean with only minor Negroid affinities (which he says elsewhere are normal for this strain of Mediterraneans):
The skulls which Keith describes are of a peculiarly Mediterranean type, with a cephalic index ranging from 72 to 78, thus rivalling the sub- dolichocephalic head form of short statured Mediterraneans living today. The brain cases are of medium size, and the faces absolutely small. The lower jaws are also small and weakly developed, with little chin promi- nence and a prevalence of alveolar prognathism. The wide, low- vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face. The browridges are smooth, and the whole system of muscular- ity in the male but slightly developed. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. 13 There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian. These small Mediter- raneans must have brought their microliths from some point farther south or east, impelled by changes of climate.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Nowhere does Coon label any of those specimens Mediterranean.
Again, flat out lie. You're obviously seriously mentally ill, as evinced by your repeated attempts to deny the reality that Coon was classifying the remains as 'Mediterranean' in this sentence (regardless of any other minor affinities):
"Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
Same cutting, as expected from a continuous liar.
"Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
- Bold you cut off or obvious reasons. And then Coon clarifies in his chapter on the Natufians:
"The wide, low-vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face [...] These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities."
- Only the Natufians Coon asserts show Negroid affinities. A view he retracted in 1962. Nowhere though does his assert they are Mediterranean, hence he mentions "negroid affinities"/other racial "tendencies".
That would be something like this.
1932 (upon their discovery) Sir Arthur Keith: They were clearly a Negroid people with wide faces, flat noses, and long large heads.. Several features stand out quite definitely. First the Natufians were a long-headed people - they had cap-shaped occiputs (the lower back part of the head). Secondly, the dimensions or their heads were greater than in the pre-dynastic Egyptians. Thirdly, their faces were short and wide. Fourthly, they were prognathous (with projecting jaws). Fifthly, their nasal bones were not narrow and high, but formed a wide, low arch. Sixthly, their chins were not prominent, but were masked by the fullness of the teeth-bearing parts of the jaw.
Larry Angel (1972): one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.(McCown, 1939)...
C.L. Brace (2005): If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.
Braces 2005 map
Keith retracted his initial claims, as did Coon.
"What little we have from Palestine, mostly scraps of bone and a few teeth, is also Caucasoid." (Coon, 1962)
Those few specimens with higher NI's and prognathism are far closer to Australoids, than Negroids once non-metrics are taken into account (Negroids lack browridges and nasal depressions).
If can read the chart, you'll see that Brace et al. corrected this. See Natufians cluster closest with? lol
The Verna remains show what?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Coon never said that minor Negroid affinities get in the way of a Mediterranean classification:
Although his skin is dark, his hair is nearly straight, and his measurements as well as his cranial and facial fea- tures are purely or almost purely Mediterranean. He shows no visible signs of negroid admixture, although from a purely genetic standpoint some must be present. --Coon
In the deserts and highlands of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Somalilands is found a con* centration of several related Mediterranean types, mixed in varying degrees with ne- groes. --Coon
lol, you liar. You really are desperate. Those two quotes have nothing to do with the "negroid tendencies" quote which are morphological.
The fact a Caucasoid can have "negro genes" but looks 100% Caucasoid through distant admixture, does not make them have Negroid "affinity". They only have Negroid affinity if they show physical admixture. The usual threshold level of passing as another subspecies is 15/16 or 7/8. Someone for example who is only 1/16 Mongoloid but 15/16 Caucasoid, can pass as the latter.
What you are saying though is that Coon asserts crania that looks Negroid (to some extent) is Mediterranean - which is a lie and distortion.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Coon never said that minor Negroid affinities get in the way of a Mediterranean classification:
Although his skin is dark, his hair is nearly straight, and his measurements as well as his cranial and facial fea- tures are purely or almost purely Mediterranean. He shows no visible signs of negroid admixture, although from a purely genetic standpoint some must be present. --Coon
In the deserts and highlands of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Somalilands is found a con* centration of several related Mediterranean types, mixed in varying degrees with ne- groes. --Coon
lol, you liar. You really are desperate. Those two quotes have nothing to do with the "negroid tendencies" quote which are morphological.
The fact a Caucasoid can have "negro genes" but looks 100% Caucasoid through distant admixture, does not make them have Negroid "affinity". They only have Negroid affinity if they show physical admixture. The usual threshold level of passing as another subspecies is 15/16 or 7/8. Someone for example who is only 1/16 Mongoloid but 15/16 Caucasoid, can pass as the latter.
What you are saying though is that Coon asserts crania that looks Negroid (to some extent) is Mediterranean - which is a lie and distortion.
So, what are those "negroid" affinities?
Described them, one by one.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Zaharan liar no. 2 writes:
quote:Your own Koppen map shows this- you keep debunking your own argument fool.
Idiot, take a look at Koppen's map:
Egypt and most of North Africa is non-tropical.
Stupid mothafucka- Egyptians are tropically adapted having come into the Nile Valley from the tropic zone. And almost 20% of Egypt lies within that zone. And below is a Koppen map. The tropics covers all between the cancer and capricorn lines. How stupid can you be Aspberger boy?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: And Zaharan had the ignorance to claim Köppen's climate classification supported his definition, not mine. But look at the above map. Note how he never responded before when this was shown. I wonder why?
^^I have already responded in detail you stupid piece of shiit. You are not fooling anyone with your bogus diversions. Your moronic denials only expose you for the idiot you are. BUt if you want more, go ahead, be my guest. You ain't causing me any extra work.
LET'S RECAP:
Faheem dumba said: The term (tropical) I was using was putitive to the Afocentric definition of "tropical", which as I have shown is actually false and not climatic. Those of the tropical climatic region in Sub-Sahara Africa, such as Pygmies and Forest Negroids ('true Blacks') do not in fact show high brachial or crural indices -- they are adapted instead to humid heat environments.
Khoisans are adapated to the desert heat, but they are not tropical.
Tropical adaptation is adaptation to humid heat, not arid climatic conditions
The only thing you have shown Wanker boy is that you are an idiot. You can't even keep your arguments straight. If Pygmies and "forest negroids" live in the tropical forest then they DO live in a as you say "humid, heat environment." Think dumbass, think and exercise some logic... lmao...
And deserts do form part of the tropics you hapless buffoon. You are so incompetent that even your fellow racists are embarassed by your pathetic carcass.
"..Different authors use different terminology to denote a classification by rainfall, season, mean temperature etc.. but it makes no difference. Wetness, coolness, dryness, rainfall, temp, season, mix and match- makes no difference. They are all variants WITHIN the tropics as the Koppen climate map below shows.
And dummy, the labels "tropical wet" and tropical wet/dry" on your map all identify areas WITHIN the larger tropical zone. Your own Koppen map shows this- you keep debunking your own argument fool... DUH....
Koppen climate system map
Btw Zaharan, not even Keita uses your stupid terminology based on who can see the sun in the sky. He uses the term "Saharo-Tropical African Variant" (1981).
Hapless dullard! Must we yet again instruct you? Keita uses "tropical" yes- to identify those in the SAHARAN area that were tropical. Got it? He STILL identifies them as tropical. DUH.. And you are even more incompetent in your citation. Keita did not use the terminology in "1981" as you claim. Learn to cite accurately. End of today's lesson. Quote:
”The Tropic of Cancer and The Tropic of Capricorn The Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn each lie at 23.5 degrees latitude. The Tropic of Cancer is located at 23.5° North of the equator and runs through Mexico, the Bahamas, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, and southern China. The Tropic of Capricorn lies at 23.5° South of the equator and runs through Australia, Chile, southern Brazil (Brazil is the only country that passes through both the equator and a tropic), and northern South Africa. The tropics are the two lines where the sun is directly overhead at noon on the two solstices - near June and December 21. The sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Cancer on June 21 (the beginning of summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of winter in the Southern Hemisphere) and the sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Capricorn on December 21 (the beginning of winter in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of summer in the Southern Hemisphere). The reason for the location of the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn at 23.5° north and south respectively is due to the axial tilt of the Earth. The Earth is titled 23.5 degrees from the plane of the Earth's revolution around the sun each year. The area bounded by the Tropic of Cancer on the north and Tropic of Capricorn on the south is known as the "tropics." --From worldAtlas.com and Geographic Information - Page 33 Jenny Marie Johnson - 2003
Why do you think they are called the TROPIC of Cancer and the TROPIC of Capricorn? You big dummy…
You're using the definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year --- a completely bogus definition in regards to population biology, and physical anthropology.
No stupid mothafuck. The definition, which I posted long ago is shown below. You are so stupid it went over your head. ANd do you realize that you continually debunk yourself with your "refutations"? The lines mark out the tropics which is defined by thermal requirements and, as the standard definition shows below, include jungle, deserts and mountainous highlands, at temperatures that can be quite cool...
.. QUOTE:
"The thermal requirement for a tropical climate is considered to be an average mean temperature above 18 degrees C for the coldest month. Within this average, tropics are also marked by receiving a large amount of solar radiation throughout the year with no true or distinct winter season. Tropics not only include jungle, but deserts and mountainous highlands as well. The cooler local temperatures of these highlands are still within the overall averages, and are still part of the tropic zone, receiving high levels of solar radiation and not having a thermally depressed winter season. (Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995)." --Kumar et al. 1999. Biodeterioration of Stone in Tropical Environments and Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995. HUmid Tropical Environments. WIley PUb.
The tropics are astronomically clearly defined latitudes.. the sun reaches its zenith at these two positions once a year, and within the area of the tropics twice a year. That is the main reason that, within the tropics, the annual variation of air temperature is smaller than its diurnal variation. Compared with other thermal delimitations this is also true for high altitude mountains without any limitations." --Tropical Glaciers: Glaciers and Glaciations of the Rwenzori Mountains, Uganda. 2002. Kaser and Osmaston -----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBUNKING ON KEITA he 1981 paper in a UNESCO report is first where "tropical-african" is first traced. The 1993 paper I said is where Keita claims North African coastals are not tropical-africans but southern europeans:
"[...]coastal northern africans are viewed here as perhaps being biologically more, but not only, related to southern Europeans, primarily by gene flow." (Keita, 1993)
^^No fool. The term "tropical African" occurs is not "traced" to 1981. It can be found in books going back to the 1800s.
Keita explicity excludes north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping.
And Keita does not "exclude" "north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping."
The very quote you proffer debunks your own claim. And diversionary smokescreens abut AC/DC wont save you, nor will trying to hide your debunking above re Diop and Vansertima.Let me quote your own proof:
"[...]coastal northern africans are viewed here as perhaps being biologically more, but not only, related to southern Europeans, primarily by gene flow." (Keita, 1993)
^^Dumbass, Keita says more "but not only". How therefore has he "excluded" "north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping"? It is clear that southern Europeans are not the only relation to the coastals, and the Sahara itself makes up a large chunk of North Africa, that even in places extends close to the Medit coast. SO how could "north Africans" be "excluded" from the Saharan zone stupid muthafucka? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KHOISAN
"Several other long-range migration events have shaped the genetic l andscape of Africa. Analyses of mtDNA and the Y chromosome supports studies of classical polymorphisms as well as archaeological data indicating that Khoisian-speaking populations (those whose languages contain clicks, which includes the !Kung San) may have originated in Eastern Africa and migrated into southern Africa >20 - 10kya (Cavalli-Sforza, 1997, Scozzari, et al. 1999). Analyses of Y-Chromosome haplotype variation have identified that the most ancestral Y-chromosome haplotype is present at moderate to high frequency in East African Sudanese and Ethiopians, as well as in southern African !Kung San .." -- Michael Crawford 2006. Anthropological Genetics: Theory, Methods and Applications. p. 363-364
"The shallower slope, that of the INuit, has a value of 0.77 versus 0.86 for the Khoisan, indicating thjat the tibiae of the cold-adapted Inuit grow less per increment of femral growth theoughout their entire ontogenetic sequence tha do those of the Khoisan. The Neanderthal data points can be seen to follow the Inuit trajectory." --Nancy Minugh-Purvis, Kenneth J. McNamara. Human Evolution through Developmental Change 2001
"Variation in limb proportions between prehistoric Jomon and Yayoi people of Japan are explored by this study. Jomon people were the descendents of Pleistocene nomads who migrated to the Japanese Islands around 30,000 yBP. Phenotypic and genotypic evidence indicates that Yayoi people were recent migrants to Japan from continental Northeast Asia who likely interbred with Jomon foragers. Limb proportions of Jomon and Yayoi people were compared using RMA regression and "Quick-Test" calculations to investigate relative variability between these two groups. Cluster and principal components analyses were performed on size-standardized limb lengths and used to compare Jomon and Yayoi people with other groups from various climatic zones. Elongated distal relative to proximal limb lengths were observed among Jomon compared to Yayoi people. Jomon limb proportions were similar to human groups from temperate/tropical climates at lower latitudes, while Yayoi limb proportions more closely resemble groups from colder climates at higher latitudes. Limb proportional similarities with groups from warmer environments among Jomon foragers likely reflect morphological changes following Pleistocene colonization of the Japanese Islands. Cold-derived limb proportions among the Yayoi people likely indicate retention of these traits following comparatively recent migrations to the Japanese Islands. Changes in limb proportions experienced by Jomon foragers and retention of cold-derived limb proportions among Yayoi people conform to previous findings that report changes in these proportions following long-standing evolution in a specific environment." --Tempe et al. 2008. Variation in limb proportions between Jomon foragers and Yayoi agriculturalists from prehistoric Japan. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008 Oct;137(2):164-74.
Previous studies report that Jomon foragers had higher brachial and crural indices than Yayoi people and were similar in limb proportions to low latitude, tropical groups such as the African San (Yamaguchi, 1989). --Temple et al, 2008
quote: "At the same time, there is a genetic component. Low stature persists even under apparently favourable health conditions. The small body size and lean physique of living Khoisan peoples are often cited in human population biology texts as exemplary of adaptation to a hot, sometimes specifically desert, climate. Their low body-mass index is portrayed as support for Bergmann's and Allen's rules (cf. Molnar 1998, Relethford 1997)." --Sealy and Pfeiffer (2000) ------------------------------
AND YOU ARE STILL RUNNING AWAY FROM SWENET'S EXPOSURE OF YOUR FABRICATIONS AND IDIOCY
Running away as usual, like the faggot that you've demonstrated yourself to be, time after time again. None of your ideas have withstood the test of scrutiny, and that's why you've repeatedly backed away from them:
1.You've fabricated your claim that Bar Yosef said that the Mushabian was excavated in Upper and Lower Egypt
2.You've fabricated your claim that Indians never cluster with certain Africans, whether metrically or non-metrically
3.You've fabricated your claim that Mesolithic Nubians and Natufians had wavy hair
4.You've fabricated your claim that the Mediterranean 'race' is free of negroid traits per Coon
5.You've fabricated your claim that Wadi Halfans can't be negroid because of their browridges, since the remains you classify as undoubtedly negroid, (Asselar man and Iwo Eleru) have brow ridges
6.You've fabricated your claim that your fake Australoid phenotypical cluster (Palaeo-americans, Wadi Halfans, Jebel Sahabans, Natufians, European Eurafricans, Mesopotamian Eurafricans, Arabian Veddoids, Indian Veddoids etc) is a cluster of related people
7.You've failed to explain why modern descendants of those ancient populations have zero Australian aboriginal ancestry, but African ancestry with Mesolithic time depths instead.
8.You've fabricated your claim that sub species or races are identifiable by morphological clusters
9.You've fabricated your claim that there have never been studies that detected African affinities with Iranian/Iraqi prehistorical skeletal remains
10.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual had brow ridges, since it consists out of a mandible
11.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual was described as having prognathism
12.You've fabricated your claim that Homo 3 was the only Natufian individual with prognathism
13.You've fabricated your claim that Keith's analysis of the Shukbah remains were somehow refuted or inaccurate
14.You've fabricated your claim that Coon retracted his view of minor Negroid affinities in the Shuqbah Natufians series
15.You've fabricated your claim that Tigray Ethiopians are the only Ethiopians with leptorrhine averages
16.You've fabricated your claim that all Tigray Ethiopians are leptorrhine
17.You've fabricated your claim that non-leptorrhiny in Cushitic speaking groups is necessarily due to admixture with negroid groups.
17.You've fabricated your claim that Wolpoff's list of Erectus to Australoid continuation traits denote a special relationship indicative of continuation.
18.There is no evidence of lineage loss in Upper Palaeolithic Australian, European, West Asian and Amerindian fossils; all fossil mtDNA lineages are attested in contemporaries, and none are pre-M or pre-N. No form of lineage loss can account for the lack of pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians, and no explanations have been offered as to why Sub Saharan Africans have managed to maintain their pre-M and pre-N mtDNA. Additionally, the derived state of Eurasian DNA is also confirmed in genome-wide analysis, which is not subject to Wolpoff's silly caveat that pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians may have died out due to lineage loss.
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-IDIOT EXPOSED PART 20: He tries ot make out that only rainforest areas define the tropics and says: ----------------------------------------------------------------- quote
The climatic tropical zone is limited to mostly western and central sub-sahara africa. Posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist osted 17 November, 2012 04:53 PM ____________________________________
When in fact any credible geography book denotes the tropics within the zone marked out by the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a denotation itself based on climate.
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-IDIOT EXPOSED- PART 19: He says there is no OOA but the very "supporting reference" he proffers directy contradicts his claim. ------------------------- [b]Posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on 07 May, 2012 08:45 AM:
OOA never happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans ----------------------------- The idiot gives a Wikipedia "reference" to back up his claim but the very same "supporting reference" he gives states that multi-regionalists acknowledge that hominid species came from Africa in the first place. Their argument is for continuity and distinct development in separate locations AFTER the initial OOA exit putting hominins in different places. This approach STILL recognizes and acknowledges hominin OOA.
Quote from FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Idiot's "supporting" reference: This species arose in Africa two million years ago as H. erectus and then spread out over the world, developing adaptations to regional conditions. Some populations became isolated for periods of time, developing in different directions, but through continuous interbreeding, replacement, genetic drift and selection, adaptations that were an advantage anywhere on earth would spread, keeping the development of the species in the same overall direction while maintaining adaptations to regional factors. By these mechanisms, surviving local varieties of the species evolved into modern humans, retaining some regional adaptations but with many features common to all regions.[10]
^^Note they say that their founding population Homo Erectus came from Africa. In short, the FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-idiot's own "supporting" reference contradicts his claim. What a pathetic fool.
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi- IDIOT EXPOSED - PART 18. The faker says Negroids are defined as having Caucasoid admixture. But when he sees bla-ck models with admixture he suddenly claims they aint black at all. Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist: posted 12 June, 2012 05:34 PM http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008168 Topic: Carleton Coon: Negoids are hybrids of Pygmies and Caucasians [QB] Yes. A fact well known today.
''The Negroid type is not homogeneous.'' - Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994.
Hiernaux (1975) distinguishes the Pygmies to Negroids on the grounds the latter are a product of the former (a recent mutation) but that there was probable geneflow with Caucasoids as Coon (1967, 1982) maintains.
Also note that on page 123 of 'Living Races of Man', Coon also states that ''To this combination may have been added remnant Capoid genes''. So Negroids are basically a recent mutation from the Pygmies, but with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture.
^^Bitch please. Your own words contradict your punk ass. Up above you say that "NEgroids" are a recent mutation with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture. Look bich, look. You say blacks are defined as having that admixture, and quote your favorite racist, Carleton Coon to that effect. But when your hypocrisy is exposed, you all of a sudden deny that the black models posted are "really" black. IN one thread "admixed" Negroes like the black models are black, but when your idiocy is exposed, they suddenly ain't black. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-IDIOT EXPOSED PART 17: - He says there is no sexual diomorphism in Africans or skeletal differences between men and women, when the very anthropologists he quotes say the opposite.
---------]Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi- Buffoon: FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist member # 18853 posted 03 June, 2012 05:47 PM
FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Buffoon 17a- "Frost and other anthropologists have noted that sexual dimorphism in Negroids is completely lacking. Check Frost's online blog."
FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Buffoon 17b- "Black females are not lighter or different to black males in craniofacial terms."
^^Stupid muthafucka. The very Frost quote you paste says this:
Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys).." FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103u
------- Can't you read imbecile? ALL females differ from males and are lighter. ALL human humans have sexual dimorphism to one degree or another. SO how can blacks "completely lack" said dimorphism according to you, when your own boy Peter Frost says all human have it?
------- ANd in studies of crania men and women do show differences, and these differences can be detected with a battery of modern measurements, as already shown in previous threads where your idiocy was destroyed- example (zakrewski2004-Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania)
your own peter frost debunks you: ---------------------------------------
"If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman’s skin correlates with the thickness of her subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men (Aoki, 2002; Feinman Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost, 2005; Van den Berghe & Frost, 1986)."
FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103
and:
"A different perspective on sexual dimorphism in skin pigmentation comes from the recognition that human females require significantly higher amounts of calcium during pregnancy and lactation and, thus, must have lighter skin than males in the same environment in order to maximize their cutaneous vitamin D3 production (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000)... Thus strong clinical evidence continues to support the hypothesis that lighter skin pigmentation in females evolved primarily as a means to enhance the the potential for cutaneous vitamin D production and maintain healthy long-term calcium status and skeletal health." -- Human Evolutionary Biology. 2010. By Michael P. Muehlenbein Damm you are one of the most pathetic idiots in existence.
Tell us -- were you born such a retarded shithead, or were you originally a slug who managed to rise to such prominence?
quote:Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist: [QB] E1b1b is not Negroid.
Read it an weep -
''Sub-Saharan Africans belong to subclades of E other than E1b1b, while most non-Africans who belong to haplogroup E belong to its E1b1b subclade.” - Fulvio Cruciani et al, Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa, Am. J. Hum. Genet, p. 74)
The foul faker doctored the quote not knowing the article has been much discussed at ES. Testifying even more to his incompetence, Cruciani actually does show E3b or E1b1b occuring in numerous places within "sub-Saharan" Africa. The three main subclades of haplogroup E3b (E-M78, E-M81, and E-M34) and the paragroup E-M35* are not homogeneously distributed on the African continent: E-M78 has been observed in both northern and eastern Africa, E-M81 is restricted t o northern Africa, E-M34 is common only in eastern Africa, and E-M35* is shared by eastern and southern Africans (Cruciani et al. 2002)" --Cruciani
And there is no "page 74" in the Cruciani article. THE FAKER AND BUFFOON IS AGAIN BUSTED IN A LIE!
THE FAKER'S BOGUS CLAIM PART- 15 - QUOTE: [QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 14 January, 2012 11:41 AM If you are a white heterosexual male in Britain you have virtually zero chance of getting a job. All the jobs go to blacks or other immigrants.
^^LOL - Idiotic nonsense. As of 2001, 92.1% of the UK population identified themselves as White, leaving 7.9%[270] of the UK population identifying themselves as mixed race or of an ethnic minority. The population of the United Kingdom in the 2001 census was 58,789,194, UK Office for National Statistics- 2001.
That leaves approx 54 million white people. About 33% of that population were adult men. Let's take away 8% or so for minorities. So you are saying then that 25% of the approx 54 million white people in the UK are all unemployed? Damn you are dumb, but you only expose the bankruptcy of your racism. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fake C-Ass -Hole exposed PART 14 - BOGUS "NORDIC BLONDS FLITTING AROUND EGYPT
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 29 December, 2011 06:05 AM
Hetepheres II was a blonde
^^Hapless dullard, you are exposed in another lie. Your own reference was checked. It yielded detailed citations which revealed a quite different story. Scholars say in the mainstream Cambridge Ancient History:
"We must give up the idea that she was of Libyan origin, an attractive theory which was based on blond hair of Hetepheres II, who was then thought to be her daughter. It is now evident that the yellow wig is part of a costume worn b other great ladies." --I. Edwards, C. Gadd, N. Hammond. 1971. The Cambridge Ancient History. 3ed Volume 1, Part 2, Early History of the Middle East
Yet another history says: "The walls of this interior room are decorated with hunting and fishing scenes, including a charming image of Meresankh and her mother, Hetepheres II picking lotus flowers from the river.. The pillars have images of Meresankh wearing a blond wig." --P. Lacovara. 2004. The pyramids and the SPhinx: tombs and temples of GIza
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 13- HIS BOGUS CLAIM OF "NORDIC" EGYPTIAN ROYALTY
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 28 December, 2011 05:40 PM Early dynastic & old kingdom royalty was Nordic (blonde and fair skinned)
^^^Ha hahahahah you stupid mass of camel vomit! Up above you reference scholar Frank Yurco, but here is what Yurco said about the 12th Dynasty, debunking your claim of "Nordic" Egyptian royalty. You dumbass.... You are again debunked, with your own "supporting" references... lmao...
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989)
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 12 HE says Egyptologists like Frank Yurco says the Egyptians were "Caucasoid" --- "Virtually every egyptologist believes the egyptians were Caucasoid" --
BUt Yurco says nothing of the sort.. Here for example, is what he says about the 12the Dynasty rulers aho were Nubian descent: They seem really "Caucasoid"... yeah, right.. - quote-
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989) -
Another dodge is to twist an old chat/forum discussion statement by conservative Egyptologist Frank Yurco out of context. Yurco rejected those who "a priori" claimed the Egyptians were "black", that is, a dogmatic claim without presenting empirical evidence. He never rejected reasonable argument with data showing the Egyptians were an indigenous African population -QUOTE: .. basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times.. (Yurco 1996- An Egyptological Review, in Black Athena Revisited)
The Faker exposed- part 11
quote: Originally posted by cassiterides: ^You claim Vanessa Williams is a black woman when her heritage is white welsh and native american
According to the Faker, anyone with any white ancestry is not "really" black. SO since a majority of African Americans have white ancestry ranging from 5 to 30% then most Black Americans are not "truly" black you see...
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 10
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Eurafrican is Caucasoid.
^^You are once again exposed. You said EurAfrican is Caucasoid, and cited Serti in support. But using your own citation any reader can see that Sergi considers EurAfricans to be an amalgamation or mixture of many types, directly contradicting your claim.
SErgi says: QUOTE: "This human species, with cranial and facial characters thus well determined, I call Eurafrican; and this because, having had its origin in Africa, where it is still represented by many peoples, it has been diffused from prehistoric times in Europe... The Eurafrican species thus falls into three races: the African, with red-brown and black pigmentation.. Thus the Mediterranean stock is a race or variety of the Eurafrican species." --G. Sergi
You have again failed and are once again exposed. ------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED PART 9- HE CLAIMS ALL THESE HIGGINS "DISTORTIONS" BUT WHEN ASKED TO NAME THE SPECIFIC WEBSITES OF THIS ALLEGED "AFROCENTRIC' HORROR, HE RUNS AWAY. WHY IS THAT FAKER?
In fact, Godfrey Higgins ALSO says this about "negroes"
quote: "I believe all the Blavk bambinos of Italy are negroes- not merely blacks; this admitted, it would prove they very early date of their entrance into Italy." pg 286 pg 434 "the ancient Eturians had the countenances of Negroes, the same as the images of Buddah in INdia." pg 166 pg 474- "They aere in fact, all one nation, with one religion, that of Buddah, and they were originally NEgroes" pg 59: "nor can it be reasonably doubted, that a race of Negroes formerly had power and pre-eminence in India" pg 59- AS TO ETHIOPIA: And it is probable that an Ethiopian, a negro, correctly speaking, may have been meant, not merely a black person; and it seems probable that the following may have ben the real fact, viz, that a race of NEgroes or Blacks, but probably of the former, came to India to the west."
cASSIRETEDES own source debunks him. Note the footnote by his own author- QUOTE: "may not have been Negroes, though Blacks, though it is probably they were so."
His own source says they may not have been Negroes then adds: THOUGH IT IS PROBABLY THEY WERE SO."
^The Faker once again, debunks himself. And he seems not to realize that Ethiopia is in "sub-Saharan" Africa.. lol.. pathetic incompetent..
And he never shows these massive number of websites "all over the internet". Like what? How many? If they are "all over" then he should at least be able to give direct links to 6 showing pages where the "Afrocentrics: are "distorting" Higgins work. LEt's say what the faker has besides hot air. Post DIRECT LINKS to 6 of the huge number of alleged "Afrocentric" websites where the Afrocentrics are "distorting" Higgins. SHow how they are distorting Higgins with specific quotes and specific context.
Watch the Faker duck and run when he is again called on a claim, or make up yet another lie to cover his exposure... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- part 8:
quote:
Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
But then, in your own thread, by your own hand, you present a picture of an African albino that has pale skin, light brown or hazel eyes and fair hair. You said it was impossible, but then debunk yourself with your own posted picture.. This is like the 8-9th time you keep tripping over yourself with lies, contradictions, and bogus claims.
RECAP The Faker exposed- part 7 Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
^^Your claim is is completely bogus. Native diversity or albinism causes some tropical Africans to have light eyes and light hair. You fail againn..
================================================
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 1-- ^^Faker! In your initial posts you claimed that it was Cavalli-Sforza talking 'bout negroes "mutating" from Pygmies. Now in your "corrected" post, YOU STILL APPEAR A FAKE. You now remove Cavalli- Sforza's name on the "mutant" claim, admitting that you were lying all along! Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah..
2-- Second point- Peter Frost is debunked by Cavalli-Sforza who says as to his so-called "mutation" theory: QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
Frost mentions Cavalli-Sforza in connection with sexual selection, and movement of some groups from Nigeria-Cameroon to other parts of Africa. He never says Cavalli Sforza talks bout any "negro mutation" and in fact any mutation claim is directly contradicted by Sforza. Sucka, you not only lied bout Cavalli-Sforza, you lied about your own white writer- Peter Frost, and misrepresented him.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/CassiREDES says: ''There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty''
^^LMAO! Totally fake! Credible up to date sources note that blondism is prevalent in early life BUT, contrary to your claim that: "There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty", the shade of color varies. In maturity the hair usually turns a darker brown color, but sometimes remains blond. See: "Gene Expression: Blonde Australian Aboriginals". Gnxp.com. http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/blonde-australian-aboriginals.php.
^^Here is one of your Australians over 20 years old who does have blonde hair. YOu are caught out spinning bogus claims AGAIN!. Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah.. -
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 5a [b]So where are these tropical african peoples with pale white or fair skin? blonde red hair?
^^You fail again. African populations can readily produce blond or reddish blond hair as noted by hair study author Hrdy 1978 himself, and he references Nubia as an example. Albinism is another source of red or blond hair in Africa, and albinism is much more prevalent in African populations than among Europeans. Even African Americans produce more albinos than white Americans. (The pigmentary system: physiology and pathophysiology- By James J. Nordlund 2006: 603) (E. Roach and V. Miller 2004. Neurocutaneous disorders.) QUOTE: "In general, the prevalence of albinism in Africa is much higher, in the range of 1 in 1 100 to 1 in 3900."
So Africa can and does routinely produce red and blond hair. All non-Africans are MORE LIMITED subsets of ORIGINAL African diversity. THe originals have more built-in diversity than the limited sub-set populations. This is straight science as noted by the quote from TIshkoff 2000.
Nor are Africans the only tropical peoples who can produce reddish hair or blond hair. Among Australian Aborigines, some tropical groups produce 100% of individuals with blond hair. Melanesians can also produce blond or reddish hair, and do so routinely.
White people have no monopoly at all on that hair color. They merely show more of it, but even among whites, red hair for example is minor- occurring in less than 5% of the overall European populations, mostly in northern Europe.
So the claim that there are no tropical Africans with such variation is once again, proved fake. You made the claim.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 4 ime and time again, you stand debunked and exposed for falsifying claims and references. Let's recap:
Originally posted by CASSIFAKedes::
quote: The source is Cavalli-Sforza's book on the Pygmies entitled 'African pygmies' (Academic Press, 1986).
This work shows that Negroids mutated from an ancestral pygmy population around 9,000 BC in West Africa. So the 'true' Black African today is a recent mutation. Caucasoids and Mongoloids predate them. [Wink] Negroids only migrated into other parts of Africa during the Bantu expansion or slightly earlier. Prior to them, Caucasoids inhabited North Africa and Bushmen (Capoids) to the south who were displaced by the Caucasoids from the Mediterranean around 12,000 BC.
^^A bogus reference. Why should anyone take your word for it given past bogus references? Quote where Cavalli-Sforza says these so-called "negroids" "mutated" from Pygmies. The burden of proof is on you, since you made the claim.
While you scurry to cover your tracks with yet more bogus claims, Cavali Sforza, in his well known The History and Geography of Human Genes, 1994 Cavalli-Sforza summarizes his 1986 work on Pygmies and specifically debunks the "Pygmy as ancestor" theory held by other older writings. QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
SO much for your lying claims of "mutations" from "Pygymy" ancestors. In short, you lied about Cavalli-Sforza, creating a falsified claim and a bogus "supporting" reference to a claim that is nowhere supported in his work. You are once again exposed as yet another racist faker You are not fooling anyone.
------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED-PART 3- YOu then tried to cover up your lie with even more bogus nformation and STILL fail
You "modified" your Cavalli Sforza claim by including page numbers, and then changing some wording to "adaptive radiation" hoping to divert attention from your exposure.. lmao..
However pages 361-362 of Cavalli Sforza's 1986 book says absolutely nothing about any Negroes "mutating" from pygmies, nor any "adaptive radiation." It merely discusses Pygmy history and geography. You picked out a page at random, not knowing it can be verified via Google Books. You were asked to provide a direct quote but are still running. Now why is that?
""It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
--------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 2 And Your pathetic "modification" STILL turned out to be bogus. You then said:
"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996).
^^But in fact, Watson 1996 has nothing to do with osteological data and does not even mention it. It has to do with mtDNA.
----------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 1C YOU THEN PROFFERED ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM BELOW: He says:
quote: "Note that in the Old Testament the Danites are the only Hebrew people described as being maritime and associated with ships.."
^^Complete Nonsense. In the Old Testament, the tribe of Zebulun is mentioned as specifically associated with ships and maritime elements. QUOTE:
Genesis 49:13 "Zebulun will dwell at the shore of the seas; Yea, he will be at the shore of the ships, And his side toucheth upon Sidon. "
FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/Cassi-Fakdes: MULTIPLE TIMES AT BAT, MULTIPLE EXPOSURES AS A FAKE...
--fake claim that no Australian Abo over 20 is blonde
-- fake claim that NO tropical Africans have any diversity in hair, skin or eye color
-- fake Cavalli-Sforza citation
-- 2nd fake Cavalli-Sforza reference
-- Faked Watson reference
-- Faked Biblical reference
-- FAke representation of Peter Frost's work
-- Fake claim that "studies" say "egyptians were dark are not like 'light-skinned Europeans". COnveniently, the alleged study is missing..
--Fake Higgins claims
--Fake claim that Guiseppe Sergi's EurAfrican race concept is negro-free
--Fake claim that Vanessa Williams has no black ancestry but is "white and Indian"
--Fake claim that Egyptologists like Yurco consider the Egyptians "Caucasoid"
--Fake claim of white Nordic Egyptian royalty
--Fake claim of "blond" Hetepheres
--Fake claim of white males in BRitain "unable to get jobs"
--fAKE Crucuiani "quote" with "citation"
--fake claim that blacks have no sexual diomorphism and no male-female cranial differences
--Fake CDC claim of AUgust 2006
--Hypocritical double standards- bashing African Americans as black when they can be demonized as criminals but when exposed for hypocritical double standards calling them non-black
--Bogus claim that OOA never happened backed by "supporting" references that say nothingof the sort and directly contradict him.
--Fake claim that the tropics is mostly rainforest area
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
Described them, one by one.
Ulotrichous (wooly) hair. Lip eversion. Alveolar prognathism. Horizontal cheek bones. Wide nose. Nasal gutter. Large (megadont) teeth. Dark skin.
There are many more in specialist anthropological literature, but they won't be noticed by the casual observer.
I do see striking similarities. Between your "cartoon" and these real crania remains. Good "cartoon".
1) He is Sudanese. Of unknown ethnic backgroud.
2) I remember how you stated the "negroids" are solely restricted to West Africa.
A better fit would be the representation by paragroup E-M78 of haplogroup E*, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations ( 74.5% ).
E3b originated in East Africa and expanded into the Near East and northern Africa at the end of the Pleistocene (Underhill et al. 2001).
E3b lineages would have then been introduced from the Near East into southern Europe by farmers, during the Neolithic expansion (Hammer et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2001).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^ LMAOH Fartheadbonkers is being annihilated yet he is too stupid to know it!
A couple of points.
1. 'Tropical' denotes a latitudinal zone whose center at 0 degrees is the equator.
It has NOTHING to do with humidity, since there are tropical deserts as well. What denotes 'tropical' is the intense sunshine or UV light within the above range.
2. 'Mediterranean' as defined by Coon DID include 'negroid' features, yet he keeps denying this! Troll Patrol cited Sir Arthur Keith describing the Natufians as 'Negroid' or rather "Negro-like" upon their discovery. Castrated says he retracted his claims, which of course he did! Keith like many Euronuts in his day wouldn't dare entertain the notion that "Negroids" would be indigenous to any other region outside of Sub-Sahara let alone the 'Holy Land'! This is why he like Coon would rather place them under the category of 'Mediterranean Caca-soid'. He doesn't get it that any 'Negroid' looking humans found in North Africa and in neighboring Southwest Asia would automatically be classed as such due to the mentioned bias. Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Zaharan liar no. 2 writes:
quote:Your own Koppen map shows this- you keep debunking your own argument fool.
Idiot, take a look at Koppen's map:
Egypt and most of North Africa is non-tropical.
According to your own map (you quoted koppen first) Egyptians are not tropically adapted. You really are a cancer. You debunk yourself but then won't admit it but troll this site with the same spams and abuse.
Köppen climate classification:
vegetation-based empirical climate classification system
vegetation-based empirical climate classification system
vegetation-based empirical climate classification system
quote:
Köppen climate classification, widely used, vegetation-based empirical climate classification system developed by German botanist-climatologist Wladimir Köppen.
His aim was to devise formulas that would define climatic boundaries in such a way as to correspond to those of the vegetation zones (biomes) that were being mapped for the first time during his lifetime. Köppen published his first scheme in 1900 and a revised version in 1918. He continued to revise his system of classification until his death in 1940. Other climatologists have modified portions of Köppen’s procedure on the basis of their experience in various parts of the world.
The Köppen classification has been criticized on many grounds. It has been argued that extreme events, such as a periodic drought or an unusual cold spell, are just as significant in controlling vegetation distributions as the mean conditions upon which Köppen’s scheme is based. It also has been pointed out that factors other than those used in the classification, such as sunshine and wind, are important to vegetation. Moreover, it has been contended that natural vegetation can respond only slowly to environmental change, so that the vegetation zones observable today are in part adjusted to past climates. Many critics have drawn attention to the rather poor correspondence between the Köppen zones and the observed vegetation distribution in many areas of the world. In spite of these and other limitations, the Köppen system remains the most popular climatic classification in use today.
Yes, precisely. And vegetables include biological species/races the same as Homo sapiens. The same zoological rules apply. A botanist will distinguish between a tropically adapted plant and a desert (dry heat) adapted. Yet according to the bogus Afrocentric definition of "tropical" - both desert and humid environment plants are the same taxonomically.
Basically the koeppen-geiger classification is what I have shown all this time, for over a year, now. When based on vegetation. This makes the cold body plan vs tropical/ warm body plan even more interesting. Considering the fact that during the arctic zone food production was scares, even during the holocene and mesolithic, if we had to go by such "theory". So again, why is it studies show us:
quote:
Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans should not exhibit tropically-adapted limb proportions, since, even assuming replacement, their ancestors had experienced cold stress in glacial Europe for at least 12 millennia.
the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans have significantly higher (i.e., tropically-adapted) brachial and crural indices than do recent Europeans, they also have shorter (i.e., cold-adapted) limbs.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^ LMAOH Fartheadbonkers is being annihilated yet he is too stupid to know it!
A couple of points.
1. 'Tropical' denotes a latitudinal zone whose center at 0 degrees is the equator.
It has NOTHING to do with humidity, since there are tropical deserts as well. What denotes 'tropical' is the intense sunshine or UV light within the above range.
2. 'Mediterranean' as defined by Coon DID include 'negroid' features, yet he keeps denying this! Troll Patrol cited Sir Arthur Keith describing the Natufians as 'Negroid' or rather "Negro-like" upon their discovery. Castrated says he retracted his claims, which of course he did! Keith like many Euronuts in his day wouldn't dare entertain the notion that "Negroids" would be indigenous to any other region outside of Sub-Sahara let alone the 'Holy Land'! This is why he like Coon would rather place them under the category of 'Mediterranean Caca-soid'. He doesn't get it that any 'Negroid' looking humans found in North Africa and in neighboring Southwest Asia would automatically be classed as such due to the mentioned bias.
The whole theory by the boy is diluted nonsense. The Koppen classification is based on flora and fauna.
Excellent work Patrol, Swenet, Djehuti. The idiot does not realize that the data we post is being picked up by other students of African history, expanding the database and laying the basis for debunking his ilk across the web. And good point- that there are tropical deserts. QUOtE:
Tropical desert: The part of a SUBTROPICAL desert that lies within the TROPICS, in a latitude lower than 23.5 N or S. Tropical desert climates fall within type BWh of the KOPPEN CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION, and type EA'd of the THORNTHWAITE CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION.
Tropical desert and steppe climate: In the STRAHLER CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION a climate in his group 1, which comprises climates controlled by equatorial and tropical AIR MASSES. This climate affects l and areas in latitudes 15-30 [degrees] in both hemispheres and is associated wit continental tropical air masses that develop in high-pressure cells in the upper TROPOSPHERE above land areas lying on TROPICS of Cancer and Capricorn. The climate is hot, with a moderate range of temperature over the year, and is arid or some-arid. This climate is designated BWb (desert) and BSb (steppe) in the KOPPEN CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION."
--Michael Allaby. 2002. Encyclopedia of weather and climate. Vol. 1: A-L
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ No doubt laypeople can see what a total fraud Fartheadbonkers is. His claims have no substantial basis, and virtually ALL of the sources he cites is outdated nonsense from the 50s at most recent the 70s. These back-and-forth arguments with the troll has its ONLY purpose of exposing the public to this kind of 'race' idiocy.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
this is all semantics
what all can agree on is that Tropical Wet climates are different from Tropical Dry and the animals in each climate are different. They both have high temerpature in common although Tropical Dry climates can get cold at night.
There is no point in arguing about the meanng of "Tropical" endlessly.
Now if you look at human adpatation as per Tropical Wet and Tropical dry climates it's a complex issue.
readable links
Human Adaptation edited by G. A. Harrison, Howard Morphy
_________________________
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Brain dead troll #2, there is NOTHING "semantic" about it!
Tropical simply pertains to the point of the sun and has to do with the areas in and around the equator!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=tropic tropic (n.) Look up tropic at Dictionary.com late 14c., "either of the two circles in the celestial sphere which describe the northernmost and southernmost points of the ecliptic," from L.L. tropicus "of or pertaining to the solstice" (as a noun, "one of the tropics"), from L. tropicus "pertaining to a turn," from Gk. tropikos "of or pertaining to a turn or change, or to the solstice" (as a noun, "the solstice"), from trope "a turning" (see trope). The notion is of the point at which the sun "turns back" after reaching its northernmost or southernmost point in the sky. Extended 1520s to the corresponding latitudes on the earth's surface (23 degrees 28 minutes north and south); meaning "region between these parallels" is from 1837. Tropical "hot and lush like the climate of the tropics" is first attested 1834.
Humidity or dryness has nothing to do with it, twit!
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Tropical desert: The part of a SUBTROPICAL desert that lies within the TROPICS, in a latitude lower than 23.5 N or S. Tropical desert climates fall within type BWh of the KOPPEN CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION, and type EA'd of the THORNTHWAITE CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION.
Tropical desert and steppe climate: In the STRAHLER CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION a climate in his group 1, which comprises climates controlled by equatorial and tropical AIR MASSES. This climate affects l and areas in latitudes 15-30 [degrees] in both hemispheres and is associated wit continental tropical air masses that develop in high-pressure cells in the upper TROPOSPHERE above land areas lying on TROPICS of Cancer and Capricorn. The climate is hot, with a moderate range of temperature over the year, and is arid or some-arid. This climate is designated BWb (desert) and BSb (steppe) in the KOPPEN CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION."
--Michael Allaby. 2002. Encyclopedia of weather and climate. Vol. 1: A-L
Another quote where you debunk your own argument. Bwh is not tropical climate.
bwh = dry heat (arid).
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Brain dead troll #2, there is NOTHING "semantic" about it!
Tropical simply pertains to the point of the sun and has to do with the areas in and around the equator!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=tropic tropic (n.) Look up tropic at Dictionary.com late 14c., "either of the two circles in the celestial sphere which describe the northernmost and southernmost points of the ecliptic," from L.L. tropicus "of or pertaining to the solstice" (as a noun, "one of the tropics"), from L. tropicus "pertaining to a turn," from Gk. tropikos "of or pertaining to a turn or change, or to the solstice" (as a noun, "the solstice"), from trope "a turning" (see trope). The notion is of the point at which the sun "turns back" after reaching its northernmost or southernmost point in the sky. Extended 1520s to the corresponding latitudes on the earth's surface (23 degrees 28 minutes north and south); meaning "region between these parallels" is from 1837. Tropical "hot and lush like the climate of the tropics" is first attested 1834.
Humidity or dryness has nothing to do with it, twit!
Plank. That definition is astronomical, not climatic. The only reason you use the non-climatic definition is because it covers a wider area and so you can cluster more people as "tropical". That's the underlying goal of Afrocentrism - to steal other races.
Tropical climate only pertains to humid heat environments.
This whole discussion concerns adaptation. Your astronomical term has no place with racial adaptation. lol.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Now if you look at human adpatation as per Tropical Wet and Tropical dry climates it's a complex issue.
There is no tropical "dry". Tropical environments are humid with precipitation. Semi-tropical are the savannas that surround the true tropical environments and are 6 or more months humid (under Koppen they are therefore still counted as tropical).
- As soon as you move out of the humid heat zones nothing is tropically adapted and most africans are not tropical.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
Here is the Koppen map:
Tropical = only green shades.
The map you posted lists Tropical Wet and Tropical Dry Climates
/close thread
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Now if you look at human adpatation as per Tropical Wet and Tropical dry climates it's a complex issue.
There is no tropical "dry". Tropical environments are humid with precipitation. Semi-tropical are the savannas that surround the true tropical environments and are 6 or more months humid (under Koppen they are therefore still counted as tropical).
- As soon as you move out of the humid heat zones nothing is tropically adapted and most africans are not tropical.
Yet most have Africans, tropical and non tropical have afro kinky hair, full lips, dark skin and prognosis. The Khoisans are a relatively small population and even their peppercorn hair is much closer to afro kinky hair, if not a type of it.
The different types of Africans, despite their differences, can still unite as Africans against outside exploitation, bottom line
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
The tropical "dry" (savanna) isn't dry. It has at least 6 months of humid climate.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers
Semi-tropical are the savannas that surround the true tropical environments and are 6 or more months humid (under Koppen they are therefore still counted as tropical).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Then what the hell do you call tropical deserts, dumb-phuck?? Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
Not to mention that when we are talking about skin color variation, we are talking about adaptations to differing UV radiation levels, which does correlate to latitude. Therefore, someone adapted to a tropical latitude would have dark skin even if the climate wasn't what Faheemdummy would call "tropical".
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Yet most have Africans, tropical and non tropical have afro kinky hair, full lips, dark skin and prognosis. The Khoisans are a relatively small population and even their peppercorn hair is much closer to afro kinky hair, if not a type of it.
The different types of Africans, despite their differences, can still unite as Africans against outside exploitation, bottom line
Take a look at the climatic map and you will see the only micro-pockets of temperate climatic zones in Africa are at the lowest extreme (Cwa, Cwb).
Straight-wavy hair is a much colder northern adaptation. Straight fibers better facilitate the passage of UV light into the body relative to wooly hair. Iyengar's study (1998) found that UV light can pass through straight human hair roots in a manner similar to the way that light passes through fiber optic tubes. Hence in not hot environments (away from the equator), straight hair is found effective in adaptation.
Straight hair completely defies any adaptation in a hot equatorial environment.
However the Afronuts want to claim both nappy hair and straight hair arose in Sub-Sahara Africa. Its simply bonkers. It only stems from the fact as we know AA's (who are most Afronuts)have a self-hatred complex over their nappy hair and crave straighter Caucasoid hair.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Then what the hell do you call tropical deserts, dumb-phuck??
Stop purposely confusing the astronomical definition with climatic.
- Astronomy: Where you can see the sun at its zenith (between cancer/tropic of capricorn).
- Climatic: Humid heat zones.
Within the astronomical belt, there are non-tropical climates (arid/dry heat etc). So using that definition for tropical (climate) is false.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Faheem idiotic bellowed:
. Tropical environments are humid with precipitation. Semi-tropical are the savannas that surround the true tropical environments and are 6 or more months humid (under Koppen they are therefore still counted as tropical).
- As soon as you move out of the humid heat zones nothing is tropically adapted and most africans are not tropical.
^^lol... you dumb muthafucka.. Tropical zones in Africa DO include savannah as any basic geographic textbook shows. Were you always this stupid or did the doctor puncture your head with the abortion forceps when you came out? He must have punctured it because your head is still dribbling shiit for brains. Here is yet ANOTHER example of your idiocy exposed re your alleged "non existent" savannas in the tropics.. QUOTE:
"Located well within the tropics (usually between latitudes 5° and 20° on either side of the equator), the tropical savanna climate has much in common with the tropical rainforest and monsoon.The sun's vertical rays at noon are never far from overhead, the receipt of solar energy is nearly at a maximum and temperatures remain constantly high. Days and nights are of nearly equal length throughout the year, as they are in other tropical regions.." --Gabler et al 2006. Essentials of Physical Geography
Moron, earlier on you said deserts could not be in the tropics. That was debunked. Running back and forth like a retarded chicken with its head cut off you change your story to say savannahs are not in the tropics, but credible science debunks you again. How much more idiotic can you be? lmao..
"non existent" tropical deserts Tropical desert: The part of a SUBTROPICAL desert that lies within the TROPICS, in a latitude lower than 23.5 N or S. Tropical desert climates fall within type BWh of the KOPPEN CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION, and type EA'd of the THORNTHWAITE CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION.
Tropical desert and steppe climate: In the STRAHLER CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION a climate in his group 1, which comprises climates controlled by equatorial and tropical AIR MASSES. This climate affects l and areas in latitudes 15-30 [degrees] in both hemispheres and is associated wit continental tropical air masses that develop in high-pressure cells in the upper TROPOSPHERE above land areas lying on TROPICS of Cancer and Capricorn. The climate is hot, with a moderate range of temperature over the year, and is arid or some-arid. This climate is designated BWb (desert) and BSb (steppe) in the KOPPEN CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION."
--Michael Allaby. 2002. Encyclopedia of weather and climate. Vol. 1: A-L
"The thermal requirement for a tropical climate is considered to be an average mean temperature above 18 degrees C for the coldest month. Within this average, tropics are also marked by receiving a large amount of solar radiation throughout the year with no true or distinct winter season. Tropics not only include jungle, but deserts and mountainous highlands as well. The cooler local temperatures of these highlands are still within the overall averages, and are still part of the tropic zone, receiving high levels of solar radiation and not having a thermally depressed winter season. (Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995)." --Kumar et al. 1999. Biodeterioration of Stone in Tropical Environments and Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995. HUmid Tropical Environments. WIley PUb.
Faheem dumba said: The term (tropical) I was using was putitive to the Afocentric definition of "tropical", which as I have shown is actually false and not climatic. Those of the tropical climatic region in Sub-Sahara Africa, such as Pygmies and Forest Negroids ('true Blacks') do not in fact show high brachial or crural indices -- they are adapted instead to humid heat environments.
Khoisans are adapated to the desert heat, but they are not tropical.
Tropical adaptation is adaptation to humid heat, not arid climatic conditions
The only thing you have shown Wanker boy is that you are an idiot. You can't even keep your arguments straight. If Pygmies and "forest negroids" live in the tropical forest then they DO live in a as you say "humid, heat environment." Think dumbass, think and exercise some logic... lmao...
And deserts do form part of the tropics you hapless buffoon. You are so incompetent that even your fellow racists are embarassed by your pathetic carcass.
"..Different authors use different terminology to denote a classification by rainfall, season, mean temperature etc.. but it makes no difference. Wetness, coolness, dryness, rainfall, temp, season, mix and match- makes no difference. They are all variants WITHIN the tropics as the Koppen climate map below shows.
And dummy, the labels "tropical wet" and tropical wet/dry" on your map all identify areas WITHIN the larger tropical zone. Your own Koppen map shows this- you keep debunking your own argument fool... DUH....
Btw Zaharan, not even Keita uses your stupid terminology based on who can see the sun in the sky. He uses the term "Saharo-Tropical African Variant" (1981).
Hapless dullard! Must we yet again instruct you? Keita uses "tropical" yes- to identify those in the SAHARAN area that were tropical. Got it? He STILL identifies them as tropical. DUH.. And you are even more incompetent in your citation. Keita did not use the terminology in "1981" as you claim. Learn to cite accurately. End of today's lesson. Quote:
”The Tropic of Cancer and The Tropic of Capricorn The Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn each lie at 23.5 degrees latitude. The Tropic of Cancer is located at 23.5° North of the equator and runs through Mexico, the Bahamas, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, and southern China. The Tropic of Capricorn lies at 23.5° South of the equator and runs through Australia, Chile, southern Brazil (Brazil is the only country that passes through both the equator and a tropic), and northern South Africa. The tropics are the two lines where the sun is directly overhead at noon on the two solstices - near June and December 21. The sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Cancer on June 21 (the beginning of summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of winter in the Southern Hemisphere) and the sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Capricorn on December 21 (the beginning of winter in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of summer in the Southern Hemisphere). The reason for the location of the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn at 23.5° north and south respectively is due to the axial tilt of the Earth. The Earth is titled 23.5 degrees from the plane of the Earth's revolution around the sun each year. The area bounded by the Tropic of Cancer on the north and Tropic of Capricorn on the south is known as the "tropics." --From worldAtlas.com and Geographic Information - Page 33 Jenny Marie Johnson - 2003
Why do you think they are called the TROPIC of Cancer and the TROPIC of Capricorn? You big dummy…
You're using the definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year --- a completely bogus definition in regards to population biology, and physical anthropology.
No stupid mothafuck. The definition, which I posted long ago is shown below. You are so stupid it went over your head. ANd do you realize that you continually debunk yourself with your "refutations"? The lines mark out the tropics which is defined by thermal requirements and, as the standard definition shows below, include jungle, deserts and mountainous highlands, at temperatures that can be quite cool...
.. QUOTE:
"The thermal requirement for a tropical climate is considered to be an average mean temperature above 18 degrees C for the coldest month. Within this average, tropics are also marked by receiving a large amount of solar radiation throughout the year with no true or distinct winter season. Tropics not only include jungle, but deserts and mountainous highlands as well. The cooler local temperatures of these highlands are still within the overall averages, and are still part of the tropic zone, receiving high levels of solar radiation and not having a thermally depressed winter season. (Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995)." --Kumar et al. 1999. Biodeterioration of Stone in Tropical Environments and Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995. HUmid Tropical Environments. WIley PUb.
The tropics are astronomically clearly defined latitudes.. the sun reaches its zenith at these two positions once a year, and within the area of the tropics twice a year. That is the main reason that, within the tropics, the annual variation of air temperature is smaller than its diurnal variation. Compared with other thermal delimitations this is also true for high altitude mountains without any limitations." --Tropical Glaciers: Glaciers and Glaciations of the Rwenzori Mountains, Uganda. 2002. Kaser and Osmaston -----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBUNKING ON KEITA he 1981 paper in a UNESCO report is first where "tropical-african" is first traced. The 1993 paper I said is where Keita claims North African coastals are not tropical-africans but southern europeans:
"[...]coastal northern africans are viewed here as perhaps being biologically more, but not only, related to southern Europeans, primarily by gene flow." (Keita, 1993)
^^No fool. The term "tropical African" occurs is not "traced" to 1981. It can be found in books going back to the 1800s.
Keita explicity excludes north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping.
And Keita does not "exclude" "north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping."
The very quote you proffer debunks your own claim. And diversionary smokescreens abut AC/DC wont save you, nor will trying to hide your debunking above re Diop and Vansertima.Let me quote your own proof:
"[...]coastal northern africans are viewed here as perhaps being biologically more, but not only, related to southern Europeans, primarily by gene flow." (Keita, 1993)
^^Dumbass, Keita says more "but not only". How therefore has he "excluded" "north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping"? It is clear that southern Europeans are not the only relation to the coastals, and the Sahara itself makes up a large chunk of North Africa, that even in places extends close to the Medit coast. SO how could "north Africans" be "excluded" from the Saharan zone stupid muthafucka? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KHOISAN
"Several other long-range migration events have shaped the genetic l andscape of Africa. Analyses of mtDNA and the Y chromosome supports studies of classical polymorphisms as well as archaeological data indicating that Khoisian-speaking populations (those whose languages contain clicks, which includes the !Kung San) may have originated in Eastern Africa and migrated into southern Africa >20 - 10kya (Cavalli-Sforza, 1997, Scozzari, et al. 1999). Analyses of Y-Chromosome haplotype variation have identified that the most ancestral Y-chromosome haplotype is present at moderate to high frequency in East African Sudanese and Ethiopians, as well as in southern African !Kung San .." -- Michael Crawford 2006. Anthropological Genetics: Theory, Methods and Applications. p. 363-364
"The shallower slope, that of the INuit, has a value of 0.77 versus 0.86 for the Khoisan, indicating thjat the tibiae of the cold-adapted Inuit grow less per increment of femral growth theoughout their entire ontogenetic sequence tha do those of the Khoisan. The Neanderthal data points can be seen to follow the Inuit trajectory." --Nancy Minugh-Purvis, Kenneth J. McNamara. Human Evolution through Developmental Change 2001
"Variation in limb proportions between prehistoric Jomon and Yayoi people of Japan are explored by this study. Jomon people were the descendents of Pleistocene nomads who migrated to the Japanese Islands around 30,000 yBP. Phenotypic and genotypic evidence indicates that Yayoi people were recent migrants to Japan from continental Northeast Asia who likely interbred with Jomon foragers. Limb proportions of Jomon and Yayoi people were compared using RMA regression and "Quick-Test" calculations to investigate relative variability between these two groups. Cluster and principal components analyses were performed on size-standardized limb lengths and used to compare Jomon and Yayoi people with other groups from various climatic zones. Elongated distal relative to proximal limb lengths were observed among Jomon compared to Yayoi people. Jomon limb proportions were similar to human groups from temperate/tropical climates at lower latitudes, while Yayoi limb proportions more closely resemble groups from colder climates at higher latitudes. Limb proportional similarities with groups from warmer environments among Jomon foragers likely reflect morphological changes following Pleistocene colonization of the Japanese Islands. Cold-derived limb proportions among the Yayoi people likely indicate retention of these traits following comparatively recent migrations to the Japanese Islands. Changes in limb proportions experienced by Jomon foragers and retention of cold-derived limb proportions among Yayoi people conform to previous findings that report changes in these proportions following long-standing evolution in a specific environment." --Tempe et al. 2008. Variation in limb proportions between Jomon foragers and Yayoi agriculturalists from prehistoric Japan. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008 Oct;137(2):164-74.
Previous studies report that Jomon foragers had higher brachial and crural indices than Yayoi people and were similar in limb proportions to low latitude, tropical groups such as the African San (Yamaguchi, 1989). --Temple et al, 2008
quote: "At the same time, there is a genetic component. Low stature persists even under apparently favourable health conditions. The small body size and lean physique of living Khoisan peoples are often cited in human population biology texts as exemplary of adaptation to a hot, sometimes specifically desert, climate. Their low body-mass index is portrayed as support for Bergmann's and Allen's rules (cf. Molnar 1998, Relethford 1997)." --Sealy and Pfeiffer (2000) ------------------------------
AND YOU ARE STILL RUNNING AWAY FROM SWENET'S EXPOSURE OF YOUR FABRICATIONS AND IDIOCY
Running away as usual, like the faggot that you've demonstrated yourself to be, time after time again. None of your ideas have withstood the test of scrutiny, and that's why you've repeatedly backed away from them:
1.You've fabricated your claim that Bar Yosef said that the Mushabian was excavated in Upper and Lower Egypt
2.You've fabricated your claim that Indians never cluster with certain Africans, whether metrically or non-metrically
3.You've fabricated your claim that Mesolithic Nubians and Natufians had wavy hair
4.You've fabricated your claim that the Mediterranean 'race' is free of negroid traits per Coon
5.You've fabricated your claim that Wadi Halfans can't be negroid because of their browridges, since the remains you classify as undoubtedly negroid, (Asselar man and Iwo Eleru) have brow ridges
6.You've fabricated your claim that your fake Australoid phenotypical cluster (Palaeo-americans, Wadi Halfans, Jebel Sahabans, Natufians, European Eurafricans, Mesopotamian Eurafricans, Arabian Veddoids, Indian Veddoids etc) is a cluster of related people
7.You've failed to explain why modern descendants of those ancient populations have zero Australian aboriginal ancestry, but African ancestry with Mesolithic time depths instead.
8.You've fabricated your claim that sub species or races are identifiable by morphological clusters
9.You've fabricated your claim that there have never been studies that detected African affinities with Iranian/Iraqi prehistorical skeletal remains
10.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual had brow ridges, since it consists out of a mandible
11.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual was described as having prognathism
12.You've fabricated your claim that Homo 3 was the only Natufian individual with prognathism
13.You've fabricated your claim that Keith's analysis of the Shukbah remains were somehow refuted or inaccurate
14.You've fabricated your claim that Coon retracted his view of minor Negroid affinities in the Shuqbah Natufians series
15.You've fabricated your claim that Tigray Ethiopians are the only Ethiopians with leptorrhine averages
16.You've fabricated your claim that all Tigray Ethiopians are leptorrhine
17.You've fabricated your claim that non-leptorrhiny in Cushitic speaking groups is necessarily due to admixture with negroid groups.
17.You've fabricated your claim that Wolpoff's list of Erectus to Australoid continuation traits denote a special relationship indicative of continuation.
18.There is no evidence of lineage loss in Upper Palaeolithic Australian, European, West Asian and Amerindian fossils; all fossil mtDNA lineages are attested in contemporaries, and none are pre-M or pre-N. No form of lineage loss can account for the lack of pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians, and no explanations have been offered as to why Sub Saharan Africans have managed to maintain their pre-M and pre-N mtDNA. Additionally, the derived state of Eurasian DNA is also confirmed in genome-wide analysis, which is not subject to Wolpoff's silly caveat that pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians may have died out due to lineage loss.
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-IDIOT EXPOSED PART 20: He tries ot make out that only rainforest areas define the tropics and says: ----------------------------------------------------------------- quote
The climatic tropical zone is limited to mostly western and central sub-sahara africa. Posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist osted 17 November, 2012 04:53 PM ____________________________________
When in fact any credible geography book denotes the tropics within the zone marked out by the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a denotation itself based on climate.
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-IDIOT EXPOSED- PART 19: He says there is no OOA but the very "supporting reference" he proffers directy contradicts his claim. ------------------------- [b]Posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on 07 May, 2012 08:45 AM:
OOA never happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans ----------------------------- The idiot gives a Wikipedia "reference" to back up his claim but the very same "supporting reference" he gives states that multi-regionalists acknowledge that hominid species came from Africa in the first place. Their argument is for continuity and distinct development in separate locations AFTER the initial OOA exit putting hominins in different places. This approach STILL recognizes and acknowledges hominin OOA.
Quote from FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Idiot's "supporting" reference: This species arose in Africa two million years ago as H. erectus and then spread out over the world, developing adaptations to regional conditions. Some populations became isolated for periods of time, developing in different directions, but through continuous interbreeding, replacement, genetic drift and selection, adaptations that were an advantage anywhere on earth would spread, keeping the development of the species in the same overall direction while maintaining adaptations to regional factors. By these mechanisms, surviving local varieties of the species evolved into modern humans, retaining some regional adaptations but with many features common to all regions.[10]
^^Note they say that their founding population Homo Erectus came from Africa. In short, the FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-idiot's own "supporting" reference contradicts his claim. What a pathetic fool.
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi- IDIOT EXPOSED - PART 18. The faker says Negroids are defined as having Caucasoid admixture. But when he sees bla-ck models with admixture he suddenly claims they aint black at all. Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist: posted 12 June, 2012 05:34 PM http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008168 Topic: Carleton Coon: Negoids are hybrids of Pygmies and Caucasians [QB] Yes. A fact well known today.
''The Negroid type is not homogeneous.'' - Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994.
Hiernaux (1975) distinguishes the Pygmies to Negroids on the grounds the latter are a product of the former (a recent mutation) but that there was probable geneflow with Caucasoids as Coon (1967, 1982) maintains.
Also note that on page 123 of 'Living Races of Man', Coon also states that ''To this combination may have been added remnant Capoid genes''. So Negroids are basically a recent mutation from the Pygmies, but with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture.
^^Bitch please. Your own words contradict your punk ass. Up above you say that "NEgroids" are a recent mutation with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture. Look bich, look. You say blacks are defined as having that admixture, and quote your favorite racist, Carleton Coon to that effect. But when your hypocrisy is exposed, you all of a sudden deny that the black models posted are "really" black. IN one thread "admixed" Negroes like the black models are black, but when your idiocy is exposed, they suddenly ain't black. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-IDIOT EXPOSED PART 17: - He says there is no sexual diomorphism in Africans or skeletal differences between men and women, when the very anthropologists he quotes say the opposite.
---------]Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi- Buffoon: FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist member # 18853 posted 03 June, 2012 05:47 PM
FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Buffoon 17a- "Frost and other anthropologists have noted that sexual dimorphism in Negroids is completely lacking. Check Frost's online blog."
FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Buffoon 17b- "Black females are not lighter or different to black males in craniofacial terms."
^^Stupid muthafucka. The very Frost quote you paste says this:
Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys).." FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103u
------- Can't you read imbecile? ALL females differ from males and are lighter. ALL human humans have sexual dimorphism to one degree or another. SO how can blacks "completely lack" said dimorphism according to you, when your own boy Peter Frost says all human have it?
------- ANd in studies of crania men and women do show differences, and these differences can be detected with a battery of modern measurements, as already shown in previous threads where your idiocy was destroyed- example (zakrewski2004-Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania)
your own peter frost debunks you: ---------------------------------------
"If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman’s skin correlates with the thickness of her subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men (Aoki, 2002; Feinman Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost, 2005; Van den Berghe & Frost, 1986)."
FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103
and:
"A different perspective on sexual dimorphism in skin pigmentation comes from the recognition that human females require significantly higher amounts of calcium during pregnancy and lactation and, thus, must have lighter skin than males in the same environment in order to maximize their cutaneous vitamin D3 production (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000)... Thus strong clinical evidence continues to support the hypothesis that lighter skin pigmentation in females evolved primarily as a means to enhance the the potential for cutaneous vitamin D production and maintain healthy long-term calcium status and skeletal health." -- Human Evolutionary Biology. 2010. By Michael P. Muehlenbein Damm you are one of the most pathetic idiots in existence.
Tell us -- were you born such a retarded shithead, or were you originally a slug who managed to rise to such prominence?
quote:Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist: [QB] E1b1b is not Negroid.
Read it an weep -
''Sub-Saharan Africans belong to subclades of E other than E1b1b, while most non-Africans who belong to haplogroup E belong to its E1b1b subclade.” - Fulvio Cruciani et al, Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa, Am. J. Hum. Genet, p. 74)
The foul faker doctored the quote not knowing the article has been much discussed at ES. Testifying even more to his incompetence, Cruciani actually does show E3b or E1b1b occuring in numerous places within "sub-Saharan" Africa. The three main subclades of haplogroup E3b (E-M78, E-M81, and E-M34) and the paragroup E-M35* are not homogeneously distributed on the African continent: E-M78 has been observed in both northern and eastern Africa, E-M81 is restricted t o northern Africa, E-M34 is common only in eastern Africa, and E-M35* is shared by eastern and southern Africans (Cruciani et al. 2002)" --Cruciani
And there is no "page 74" in the Cruciani article. THE FAKER AND BUFFOON IS AGAIN BUSTED IN A LIE!
THE FAKER'S BOGUS CLAIM PART- 15 - QUOTE: [QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 14 January, 2012 11:41 AM If you are a white heterosexual male in Britain you have virtually zero chance of getting a job. All the jobs go to blacks or other immigrants.
^^LOL - Idiotic nonsense. As of 2001, 92.1% of the UK population identified themselves as White, leaving 7.9%[270] of the UK population identifying themselves as mixed race or of an ethnic minority. The population of the United Kingdom in the 2001 census was 58,789,194, UK Office for National Statistics- 2001.
That leaves approx 54 million white people. About 33% of that population were adult men. Let's take away 8% or so for minorities. So you are saying then that 25% of the approx 54 million white people in the UK are all unemployed? Damn you are dumb, but you only expose the bankruptcy of your racism. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fake C-Ass -Hole exposed PART 14 - BOGUS "NORDIC BLONDS FLITTING AROUND EGYPT
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 29 December, 2011 06:05 AM
Hetepheres II was a blonde
^^Hapless dullard, you are exposed in another lie. Your own reference was checked. It yielded detailed citations which revealed a quite different story. Scholars say in the mainstream Cambridge Ancient History:
"We must give up the idea that she was of Libyan origin, an attractive theory which was based on blond hair of Hetepheres II, who was then thought to be her daughter. It is now evident that the yellow wig is part of a costume worn b other great ladies." --I. Edwards, C. Gadd, N. Hammond. 1971. The Cambridge Ancient History. 3ed Volume 1, Part 2, Early History of the Middle East
Yet another history says: "The walls of this interior room are decorated with hunting and fishing scenes, including a charming image of Meresankh and her mother, Hetepheres II picking lotus flowers from the river.. The pillars have images of Meresankh wearing a blond wig." --P. Lacovara. 2004. The pyramids and the SPhinx: tombs and temples of GIza
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 13- HIS BOGUS CLAIM OF "NORDIC" EGYPTIAN ROYALTY
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 28 December, 2011 05:40 PM Early dynastic & old kingdom royalty was Nordic (blonde and fair skinned)
^^^Ha hahahahah you stupid mass of camel vomit! Up above you reference scholar Frank Yurco, but here is what Yurco said about the 12th Dynasty, debunking your claim of "Nordic" Egyptian royalty. You dumbass.... You are again debunked, with your own "supporting" references... lmao...
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989)
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 12 HE says Egyptologists like Frank Yurco says the Egyptians were "Caucasoid" --- "Virtually every egyptologist believes the egyptians were Caucasoid" --
BUt Yurco says nothing of the sort.. Here for example, is what he says about the 12the Dynasty rulers aho were Nubian descent: They seem really "Caucasoid"... yeah, right.. - quote-
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989) -
Another dodge is to twist an old chat/forum discussion statement by conservative Egyptologist Frank Yurco out of context. Yurco rejected those who "a priori" claimed the Egyptians were "black", that is, a dogmatic claim without presenting empirical evidence. He never rejected reasonable argument with data showing the Egyptians were an indigenous African population -QUOTE: .. basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times.. (Yurco 1996- An Egyptological Review, in Black Athena Revisited)
The Faker exposed- part 11
quote: Originally posted by cassiterides: ^You claim Vanessa Williams is a black woman when her heritage is white welsh and native american
According to the Faker, anyone with any white ancestry is not "really" black. SO since a majority of African Americans have white ancestry ranging from 5 to 30% then most Black Americans are not "truly" black you see...
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 10
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Eurafrican is Caucasoid.
^^You are once again exposed. You said EurAfrican is Caucasoid, and cited Serti in support. But using your own citation any reader can see that Sergi considers EurAfricans to be an amalgamation or mixture of many types, directly contradicting your claim.
SErgi says: QUOTE: "This human species, with cranial and facial characters thus well determined, I call Eurafrican; and this because, having had its origin in Africa, where it is still represented by many peoples, it has been diffused from prehistoric times in Europe... The Eurafrican species thus falls into three races: the African, with red-brown and black pigmentation.. Thus the Mediterranean stock is a race or variety of the Eurafrican species." --G. Sergi
You have again failed and are once again exposed. ------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED PART 9- HE CLAIMS ALL THESE HIGGINS "DISTORTIONS" BUT WHEN ASKED TO NAME THE SPECIFIC WEBSITES OF THIS ALLEGED "AFROCENTRIC' HORROR, HE RUNS AWAY. WHY IS THAT FAKER?
In fact, Godfrey Higgins ALSO says this about "negroes"
quote: "I believe all the Blavk bambinos of Italy are negroes- not merely blacks; this admitted, it would prove they very early date of their entrance into Italy." pg 286 pg 434 "the ancient Eturians had the countenances of Negroes, the same as the images of Buddah in INdia." pg 166 pg 474- "They aere in fact, all one nation, with one religion, that of Buddah, and they were originally NEgroes" pg 59: "nor can it be reasonably doubted, that a race of Negroes formerly had power and pre-eminence in India" pg 59- AS TO ETHIOPIA: And it is probable that an Ethiopian, a negro, correctly speaking, may have been meant, not merely a black person; and it seems probable that the following may have ben the real fact, viz, that a race of NEgroes or Blacks, but probably of the former, came to India to the west."
cASSIRETEDES own source debunks him. Note the footnote by his own author- QUOTE: "may not have been Negroes, though Blacks, though it is probably they were so."
His own source says they may not have been Negroes then adds: THOUGH IT IS PROBABLY THEY WERE SO."
^The Faker once again, debunks himself. And he seems not to realize that Ethiopia is in "sub-Saharan" Africa.. lol.. pathetic incompetent..
And he never shows these massive number of websites "all over the internet". Like what? How many? If they are "all over" then he should at least be able to give direct links to 6 showing pages where the "Afrocentrics: are "distorting" Higgins work. LEt's say what the faker has besides hot air. Post DIRECT LINKS to 6 of the huge number of alleged "Afrocentric" websites where the Afrocentrics are "distorting" Higgins. SHow how they are distorting Higgins with specific quotes and specific context.
Watch the Faker duck and run when he is again called on a claim, or make up yet another lie to cover his exposure... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- part 8:
quote:
Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
But then, in your own thread, by your own hand, you present a picture of an African albino that has pale skin, light brown or hazel eyes and fair hair. You said it was impossible, but then debunk yourself with your own posted picture.. This is like the 8-9th time you keep tripping over yourself with lies, contradictions, and bogus claims.
RECAP The Faker exposed- part 7 Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
^^Your claim is is completely bogus. Native diversity or albinism causes some tropical Africans to have light eyes and light hair. You fail againn..
bbvv
================================================
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 1-- ^^Faker! In your initial posts you claimed that it was Cavalli-Sforza talking 'bout negroes "mutating" from Pygmies. Now in your "corrected" post, YOU STILL APPEAR A FAKE. You now remove Cavalli- Sforza's name on the "mutant" claim, admitting that you were lying all along! Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah..
2-- Second point- Peter Frost is debunked by Cavalli-Sforza who says as to his so-called "mutation" theory: QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
Frost mentions Cavalli-Sforza in connection with sexual selection, and movement of some groups from Nigeria-Cameroon to other parts of Africa. He never says Cavalli Sforza talks bout any "negro mutation" and in fact any mutation claim is directly contradicted by Sforza. Sucka, you not only lied bout Cavalli-Sforza, you lied about your own white writer- Peter Frost, and misrepresented him.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/CassiREDES says: ''There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty''
^^LMAO! Totally fake! Credible up to date sources note that blondism is prevalent in early life BUT, contrary to your claim that: "There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty", the shade of color varies. In maturity the hair usually turns a darker brown color, but sometimes remains blond. See: "Gene Expression: Blonde Australian Aboriginals". Gnxp.com. http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/blonde-australian-aboriginals.php.
^^Here is one of your Australians over 20 years old who does have blonde hair. YOu are caught out spinning bogus claims AGAIN!. Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah.. -
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 5a [b]So where are these tropical african peoples with pale white or fair skin? blonde red hair?
^^You fail again. African populations can readily produce blond or reddish blond hair as noted by hair study author Hrdy 1978 himself, and he references Nubia as an example. Albinism is another source of red or blond hair in Africa, and albinism is much more prevalent in African populations than among Europeans. Even African Americans produce more albinos than white Americans. (The pigmentary system: physiology and pathophysiology- By James J. Nordlund 2006: 603) (E. Roach and V. Miller 2004. Neurocutaneous disorders.) QUOTE: "In general, the prevalence of albinism in Africa is much higher, in the range of 1 in 1 100 to 1 in 3900."
So Africa can and does routinely produce red and blond hair. All non-Africans are MORE LIMITED subsets of ORIGINAL African diversity. THe originals have more built-in diversity than the limited sub-set populations. This is straight science as noted by the quote from TIshkoff 2000.
Nor are Africans the only tropical peoples who can produce reddish hair or blond hair. Among Australian Aborigines, some tropical groups produce 100% of individuals with blond hair. Melanesians can also produce blond or reddish hair, and do so routinely.
White people have no monopoly at all on that hair color. They merely show more of it, but even among whites, red hair for example is minor- occurring in less than 5% of the overall European populations, mostly in northern Europe.
So the claim that there are no tropical Africans with such variation is once again, proved fake. You made the claim.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 4 ime and time again, you stand debunked and exposed for falsifying claims and references. Let's recap:
Originally posted by CASSIFAKedes::
quote: The source is Cavalli-Sforza's book on the Pygmies entitled 'African pygmies' (Academic Press, 1986).
This work shows that Negroids mutated from an ancestral pygmy population around 9,000 BC in West Africa. So the 'true' Black African today is a recent mutation. Caucasoids and Mongoloids predate them. [Wink] Negroids only migrated into other parts of Africa during the Bantu expansion or slightly earlier. Prior to them, Caucasoids inhabited North Africa and Bushmen (Capoids) to the south who were displaced by the Caucasoids from the Mediterranean around 12,000 BC.
^^A bogus reference. Why should anyone take your word for it given past bogus references? Quote where Cavalli-Sforza says these so-called "negroids" "mutated" from Pygmies. The burden of proof is on you, since you made the claim.
While you scurry to cover your tracks with yet more bogus claims, Cavali Sforza, in his well known The History and Geography of Human Genes, 1994 Cavalli-Sforza summarizes his 1986 work on Pygmies and specifically debunks the "Pygmy as ancestor" theory held by other older writings. QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
SO much for your lying claims of "mutations" from "Pygymy" ancestors. In short, you lied about Cavalli-Sforza, creating a falsified claim and a bogus "supporting" reference to a claim that is nowhere supported in his work. You are once again exposed as yet another racist faker You are not fooling anyone.
------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED-PART 3- YOu then tried to cover up your lie with even more bogus nformation and STILL fail
You "modified" your Cavalli Sforza claim by including page numbers, and then changing some wording to "adaptive radiation" hoping to divert attention from your exposure.. lmao..
However pages 361-362 of Cavalli Sforza's 1986 book says absolutely nothing about any Negroes "mutating" from pygmies, nor any "adaptive radiation." It merely discusses Pygmy history and geography. You picked out a page at random, not knowing it can be verified via Google Books. You were asked to provide a direct quote but are still running. Now why is that?
""It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
--------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 2 And Your pathetic "modification" STILL turned out to be bogus. You then said:
"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996).
^^But in fact, Watson 1996 has nothing to do with osteological data and does not even mention it. It has to do with mtDNA.
----------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 1C YOU THEN PROFFERED ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM BELOW: He says:
quote: "Note that in the Old Testament the Danites are the only Hebrew people described as being maritime and associated with ships.."
^^Complete Nonsense. In the Old Testament, the tribe of Zebulun is mentioned as specifically associated with ships and maritime elements. QUOTE:
Genesis 49:13 "Zebulun will dwell at the shore of the seas; Yea, he will be at the shore of the ships, And his side toucheth upon Sidon. "
FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/Cassi-Fakdes: MULTIPLE TIMES AT BAT, MULTIPLE EXPOSURES AS A FAKE...
--fake claim that no Australian Abo over 20 is blonde
-- fake claim that NO tropical Africans have any diversity in hair, skin or eye color
-- fake Cavalli-Sforza citation
-- 2nd fake Cavalli-Sforza reference
-- Faked Watson reference
-- Faked Biblical reference
-- FAke representation of Peter Frost's work
-- Fake claim that "studies" say "egyptians were dark are not like 'light-skinned Europeans". COnveniently, the alleged study is missing..
--Fake Higgins claims
--Fake claim that Guiseppe Sergi's EurAfrican race concept is negro-free
--Fake claim that Vanessa Williams has no black ancestry but is "white and Indian"
--Fake claim that Egyptologists like Yurco consider the Egyptians "Caucasoid"
--Fake claim of white Nordic Egyptian royalty
--Fake claim of "blond" Hetepheres
--Fake claim of white males in BRitain "unable to get jobs"
--fAKE Crucuiani "quote" with "citation"
--fake claim that blacks have no sexual diomorphism and no male-female cranial differences
--Fake CDC claim of AUgust 2006
--Hypocritical double standards- bashing African Americans as black when they can be demonized as criminals but when exposed for hypocritical double standards calling them non-black
--Bogus claim that OOA never happened backed by "supporting" references that say nothingof the sort and directly contradict him.
--Fake claim that the tropics is mostly rainforest area
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Not to mention that when we are talking about skin color variation, we are talking about adaptations to differing UV radiation levels, which does correlate to latitude. Therefore, someone adapted to a tropical latitude would have dark skin even if the climate wasn't what Faheemdummy would call "tropical".
Mostly true, but not always. Those that are tropically adapted can actually show stranger shades through predator selection. Hence Pygmies actually have more skin colour variation as they adapted to blend into vegetation and shadows of the humid rainforests (they range from reddish, through to all brown shades to black).
quote:^^lol... you dumb muthafucka.. Tropical zones in Africa DO include savannah as any basic geographic textbook shows. Were you always this stupid or did the doctor puncture your head with the abortion forceps when you came out?
Once again proving that low AA IQ.
I stated savannas are tropical, under Koppen, as they have more than 6 months of humid climate.
quote:Tropical environments are humid with precipitation. Semi-tropical are the savannas that surround the true tropical environments and are 6 or more months humid (under Koppen they are therefore still counted as tropical).
And since you've been exposed as a complete retard and liar you resort to your usual spams.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:If Pygmies and "forest negroids" live in the tropical forest then they DO live in a as you say "humid, heat environment."
Yes, obviously. But they aren't elongated. What you call "tropical adapted" or "super negroid" is in fact dry heat adaption and not tropical (tropical are not elongated and have lower brachial/crural indices). That's the whole point I was making. But you Afrocentrics are too dumb to understand and i've wasted enough time here.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Moron, you earlier referred to semi-tropical savannas :
Tropical environments are humid with precipitation. Semi-tropical are the savannas that surround the true tropical environments and are 6 or more months humid ([b]under Koppen they are therefore still counted as tropical
If they are in your own words, "still counted as tropical" how then can they not be tropical at the same time? You are attempting to claim and disclaim the same point at the same time. WHat an ignorant fool you are. ANd as noted below in credible textbooks- said savanna climate is quite similar to rainforest. And in any event it is all tropical- being located in the tropic zone between Cancer and Capricorn.
LEt's recap again to expose your dumb ass.
^^lol... you dumb muthafucka.. Tropical zones in Africa DO include savannah as any basic geographic textbook shows. Were you always this stupid or did the doctor puncture your head with the abortion forceps when you came out? He must have punctured it because your head is still dribbling shiit for brains. Here is yet ANOTHER example of your idiocy exposed re your alleged "non existent" savannas in the tropics.. QUOTE:
"Located well within the tropics (usually between latitudes 5° and 20° on either side of the equator), the tropical savanna climate has much in common with the tropical rainforest and monsoon.The sun's vertical rays at noon are never far from overhead, the receipt of solar energy is nearly at a maximum and temperatures remain constantly high. Days and nights are of nearly equal length throughout the year, as they are in other tropical regions.." --Gabler et al 2006. Essentials of Physical Geography
Moron, earlier on you said deserts could not be in the tropics. That was debunked. Running back and forth like a retarded chicken with its head cut off you change your story to say savannahs are not in the tropics, but credible science debunks you again. How much more idiotic can you be? lmao..
"non existent" tropical deserts Tropical desert: The part of a SUBTROPICAL desert that lies within the TROPICS, in a latitude lower than 23.5 N or S. Tropical desert climates fall within type BWh of the KOPPEN CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION, and type EA'd of the THORNTHWAITE CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION.
Tropical desert and steppe climate: In the STRAHLER CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION a climate in his group 1, which comprises climates controlled by equatorial and tropical AIR MASSES. This climate affects l and areas in latitudes 15-30 [degrees] in both hemispheres and is associated wit continental tropical air masses that develop in high-pressure cells in the upper TROPOSPHERE above land areas lying on TROPICS of Cancer and Capricorn. The climate is hot, with a moderate range of temperature over the year, and is arid or some-arid. This climate is designated BWb (desert) and BSb (steppe) in the KOPPEN CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION."
--Michael Allaby. 2002. Encyclopedia of weather and climate. Vol. 1: A-L
"The thermal requirement for a tropical climate is considered to be an average mean temperature above 18 degrees C for the coldest month. Within this average, tropics are also marked by receiving a large amount of solar radiation throughout the year with no true or distinct winter season. Tropics not only include jungle, but deserts and mountainous highlands as well. The cooler local temperatures of these highlands are still within the overall averages, and are still part of the tropic zone, receiving high levels of solar radiation and not having a thermally depressed winter season. (Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995)." --Kumar et al. 1999. Biodeterioration of Stone in Tropical Environments and Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995. HUmid Tropical Environments. WIley PUb.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Zaharan liar no. 2 writes:
quote:Your own Koppen map shows this- you keep debunking your own argument fool.
Idiot, take a look at Koppen's map:
Egypt and most of North Africa is non-tropical.
Stupid mothafucka- Egyptians are tropically adapted having come into the Nile Valley from the tropic zone. And almost 20% of Egypt lies within that zone. And below is a Koppen map. How stupid can you be Aspberger boy?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: And Zaharan had the ignorance to claim Köppen's climate classification supported his definition, not mine. But look at the above map. Note how he never responded before when this was shown. I wonder why?
^^I have already responded in detail you stupid piece of shiit. You are not fooling anyone with your bogus diversions. Your moronic denials only expose you for the idiot you are. BUt if you want more, go ahead, be my guest. You ain't causing me any extra work.
LET'S RECAP:
Faheem dumba said: The term (tropical) I was using was putitive to the Afocentric definition of "tropical", which as I have shown is actually false and not climatic. Those of the tropical climatic region in Sub-Sahara Africa, such as Pygmies and Forest Negroids ('true Blacks') do not in fact show high brachial or crural indices -- they are adapted instead to humid heat environments.
Khoisans are adapated to the desert heat, but they are not tropical.
Tropical adaptation is adaptation to humid heat, not arid climatic conditions
The only thing you have shown Wanker boy is that you are an idiot. You can't even keep your arguments straight. If Pygmies and "forest negroids" live in the tropical forest then they DO live in a as you say "humid, heat environment." Think dumbass, think and exercise some logic... lmao...
And deserts do form part of the tropics you hapless buffoon. You are so incompetent that even your fellow racists are embarassed by your pathetic carcass.
"..Different authors use different terminology to denote a classification by rainfall, season, mean temperature etc.. but it makes no difference. Wetness, coolness, dryness, rainfall, temp, season, mix and match- makes no difference. They are all variants WITHIN the tropics as the Koppen climate map below shows.
And dummy, the labels "tropical wet" and tropical wet/dry" on your map all identify areas WITHIN the larger tropical zone. Your own Koppen map shows this- you keep debunking your own argument fool... DUH....
Koppen climate system map
Btw Zaharan, not even Keita uses your stupid terminology based on who can see the sun in the sky. He uses the term "Saharo-Tropical African Variant" (1981).
Hapless dullard! Must we yet again instruct you? Keita uses "tropical" yes- to identify those in the SAHARAN area that were tropical. Got it? He STILL identifies them as tropical. DUH.. And you are even more incompetent in your citation. Keita did not use the terminology in "1981" as you claim. Learn to cite accurately. End of today's lesson. Quote:
”The Tropic of Cancer and The Tropic of Capricorn The Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn each lie at 23.5 degrees latitude. The Tropic of Cancer is located at 23.5° North of the equator and runs through Mexico, the Bahamas, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, and southern China. The Tropic of Capricorn lies at 23.5° South of the equator and runs through Australia, Chile, southern Brazil (Brazil is the only country that passes through both the equator and a tropic), and northern South Africa. The tropics are the two lines where the sun is directly overhead at noon on the two solstices - near June and December 21. The sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Cancer on June 21 (the beginning of summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of winter in the Southern Hemisphere) and the sun is directly overhead at noon on the Tropic of Capricorn on December 21 (the beginning of winter in the Northern Hemisphere and the beginning of summer in the Southern Hemisphere). The reason for the location of the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn at 23.5° north and south respectively is due to the axial tilt of the Earth. The Earth is titled 23.5 degrees from the plane of the Earth's revolution around the sun each year. The area bounded by the Tropic of Cancer on the north and Tropic of Capricorn on the south is known as the "tropics." --From worldAtlas.com and Geographic Information - Page 33 Jenny Marie Johnson - 2003
Why do you think they are called the TROPIC of Cancer and the TROPIC of Capricorn? You big dummy…
You're using the definition of where the Sun reaches a point directly overhead at least once during the solar year --- a completely bogus definition in regards to population biology, and physical anthropology.
No stupid mothafuck. The definition, which I posted long ago is shown below. You are so stupid it went over your head. ANd do you realize that you continually debunk yourself with your "refutations"? The lines mark out the tropics which is defined by thermal requirements and, as the standard definition shows below, include jungle, deserts and mountainous highlands, at temperatures that can be quite cool...
.. QUOTE:
"The thermal requirement for a tropical climate is considered to be an average mean temperature above 18 degrees C for the coldest month. Within this average, tropics are also marked by receiving a large amount of solar radiation throughout the year with no true or distinct winter season. Tropics not only include jungle, but deserts and mountainous highlands as well. The cooler local temperatures of these highlands are still within the overall averages, and are still part of the tropic zone, receiving high levels of solar radiation and not having a thermally depressed winter season. (Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995)." --Kumar et al. 1999. Biodeterioration of Stone in Tropical Environments and Reading, Thompson and Millington 1995. HUmid Tropical Environments. WIley PUb.
The tropics are astronomically clearly defined latitudes.. the sun reaches its zenith at these two positions once a year, and within the area of the tropics twice a year. That is the main reason that, within the tropics, the annual variation of air temperature is smaller than its diurnal variation. Compared with other thermal delimitations this is also true for high altitude mountains without any limitations." --Tropical Glaciers: Glaciers and Glaciations of the Rwenzori Mountains, Uganda. 2002. Kaser and Osmaston -----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBUNKING ON KEITA he 1981 paper in a UNESCO report is first where "tropical-african" is first traced. The 1993 paper I said is where Keita claims North African coastals are not tropical-africans but southern europeans:
"[...]coastal northern africans are viewed here as perhaps being biologically more, but not only, related to southern Europeans, primarily by gene flow." (Keita, 1993)
^^No fool. The term "tropical African" occurs is not "traced" to 1981. It can be found in books going back to the 1800s.
Keita explicity excludes north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping.
And Keita does not "exclude" "north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping."
The very quote you proffer debunks your own claim. And diversionary smokescreens abut AC/DC wont save you, nor will trying to hide your debunking above re Diop and Vansertima.Let me quote your own proof:
"[...]coastal northern africans are viewed here as perhaps being biologically more, but not only, related to southern Europeans, primarily by gene flow." (Keita, 1993)
^^Dumbass, Keita says more "but not only". How therefore has he "excluded" "north african coastals and other north africans from his "saharo-tropical-african" grouping"? It is clear that southern Europeans are not the only relation to the coastals, and the Sahara itself makes up a large chunk of North Africa, that even in places extends close to the Medit coast. SO how could "north Africans" be "excluded" from the Saharan zone stupid muthafucka? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KHOISAN
"Several other long-range migration events have shaped the genetic l andscape of Africa. Analyses of mtDNA and the Y chromosome supports studies of classical polymorphisms as well as archaeological data indicating that Khoisian-speaking populations (those whose languages contain clicks, which includes the !Kung San) may have originated in Eastern Africa and migrated into southern Africa >20 - 10kya (Cavalli-Sforza, 1997, Scozzari, et al. 1999). Analyses of Y-Chromosome haplotype variation have identified that the most ancestral Y-chromosome haplotype is present at moderate to high frequency in East African Sudanese and Ethiopians, as well as in southern African !Kung San .." -- Michael Crawford 2006. Anthropological Genetics: Theory, Methods and Applications. p. 363-364
"The shallower slope, that of the INuit, has a value of 0.77 versus 0.86 for the Khoisan, indicating thjat the tibiae of the cold-adapted Inuit grow less per increment of femral growth theoughout their entire ontogenetic sequence tha do those of the Khoisan. The Neanderthal data points can be seen to follow the Inuit trajectory." --Nancy Minugh-Purvis, Kenneth J. McNamara. Human Evolution through Developmental Change 2001
"Variation in limb proportions between prehistoric Jomon and Yayoi people of Japan are explored by this study. Jomon people were the descendents of Pleistocene nomads who migrated to the Japanese Islands around 30,000 yBP. Phenotypic and genotypic evidence indicates that Yayoi people were recent migrants to Japan from continental Northeast Asia who likely interbred with Jomon foragers. Limb proportions of Jomon and Yayoi people were compared using RMA regression and "Quick-Test" calculations to investigate relative variability between these two groups. Cluster and principal components analyses were performed on size-standardized limb lengths and used to compare Jomon and Yayoi people with other groups from various climatic zones. Elongated distal relative to proximal limb lengths were observed among Jomon compared to Yayoi people. Jomon limb proportions were similar to human groups from temperate/tropical climates at lower latitudes, while Yayoi limb proportions more closely resemble groups from colder climates at higher latitudes. Limb proportional similarities with groups from warmer environments among Jomon foragers likely reflect morphological changes following Pleistocene colonization of the Japanese Islands. Cold-derived limb proportions among the Yayoi people likely indicate retention of these traits following comparatively recent migrations to the Japanese Islands. Changes in limb proportions experienced by Jomon foragers and retention of cold-derived limb proportions among Yayoi people conform to previous findings that report changes in these proportions following long-standing evolution in a specific environment." --Tempe et al. 2008. Variation in limb proportions between Jomon foragers and Yayoi agriculturalists from prehistoric Japan. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008 Oct;137(2):164-74.
Previous studies report that Jomon foragers had higher brachial and crural indices than Yayoi people and were similar in limb proportions to low latitude, tropical groups such as the African San (Yamaguchi, 1989). --Temple et al, 2008
quote: "At the same time, there is a genetic component. Low stature persists even under apparently favourable health conditions. The small body size and lean physique of living Khoisan peoples are often cited in human population biology texts as exemplary of adaptation to a hot, sometimes specifically desert, climate. Their low body-mass index is portrayed as support for Bergmann's and Allen's rules (cf. Molnar 1998, Relethford 1997)." --Sealy and Pfeiffer (2000) ------------------------------
AND YOU ARE STILL RUNNING AWAY FROM SWENET'S EXPOSURE OF YOUR FABRICATIONS AND IDIOCY
Running away as usual, like the faggot that you've demonstrated yourself to be, time after time again. None of your ideas have withstood the test of scrutiny, and that's why you've repeatedly backed away from them:
1.You've fabricated your claim that Bar Yosef said that the Mushabian was excavated in Upper and Lower Egypt
2.You've fabricated your claim that Indians never cluster with certain Africans, whether metrically or non-metrically
3.You've fabricated your claim that Mesolithic Nubians and Natufians had wavy hair
4.You've fabricated your claim that the Mediterranean 'race' is free of negroid traits per Coon
5.You've fabricated your claim that Wadi Halfans can't be negroid because of their browridges, since the remains you classify as undoubtedly negroid, (Asselar man and Iwo Eleru) have brow ridges
6.You've fabricated your claim that your fake Australoid phenotypical cluster (Palaeo-americans, Wadi Halfans, Jebel Sahabans, Natufians, European Eurafricans, Mesopotamian Eurafricans, Arabian Veddoids, Indian Veddoids etc) is a cluster of related people
7.You've failed to explain why modern descendants of those ancient populations have zero Australian aboriginal ancestry, but African ancestry with Mesolithic time depths instead.
8.You've fabricated your claim that sub species or races are identifiable by morphological clusters
9.You've fabricated your claim that there have never been studies that detected African affinities with Iranian/Iraqi prehistorical skeletal remains
10.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual had brow ridges, since it consists out of a mandible
11.You've fabricated your claim that the Natufian Homo 3 individual was described as having prognathism
12.You've fabricated your claim that Homo 3 was the only Natufian individual with prognathism
13.You've fabricated your claim that Keith's analysis of the Shukbah remains were somehow refuted or inaccurate
14.You've fabricated your claim that Coon retracted his view of minor Negroid affinities in the Shuqbah Natufians series
15.You've fabricated your claim that Tigray Ethiopians are the only Ethiopians with leptorrhine averages
16.You've fabricated your claim that all Tigray Ethiopians are leptorrhine
17.You've fabricated your claim that non-leptorrhiny in Cushitic speaking groups is necessarily due to admixture with negroid groups.
17.You've fabricated your claim that Wolpoff's list of Erectus to Australoid continuation traits denote a special relationship indicative of continuation.
18.There is no evidence of lineage loss in Upper Palaeolithic Australian, European, West Asian and Amerindian fossils; all fossil mtDNA lineages are attested in contemporaries, and none are pre-M or pre-N. No form of lineage loss can account for the lack of pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians, and no explanations have been offered as to why Sub Saharan Africans have managed to maintain their pre-M and pre-N mtDNA. Additionally, the derived state of Eurasian DNA is also confirmed in genome-wide analysis, which is not subject to Wolpoff's silly caveat that pre-M and pre-N lineages in Eurasians may have died out due to lineage loss.
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-IDIOT EXPOSED PART 20: He tries ot make out that only rainforest areas define the tropics and says: ----------------------------------------------------------------- quote
The climatic tropical zone is limited to mostly western and central sub-sahara africa. Posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist osted 17 November, 2012 04:53 PM ____________________________________
When in fact any credible geography book denotes the tropics within the zone marked out by the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a denotation itself based on climate.
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-IDIOT EXPOSED- PART 19: He says there is no OOA but the very "supporting reference" he proffers directy contradicts his claim. ------------------------- [b]Posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on 07 May, 2012 08:45 AM:
OOA never happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans ----------------------------- The idiot gives a Wikipedia "reference" to back up his claim but the very same "supporting reference" he gives states that multi-regionalists acknowledge that hominid species came from Africa in the first place. Their argument is for continuity and distinct development in separate locations AFTER the initial OOA exit putting hominins in different places. This approach STILL recognizes and acknowledges hominin OOA.
Quote from FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Idiot's "supporting" reference: This species arose in Africa two million years ago as H. erectus and then spread out over the world, developing adaptations to regional conditions. Some populations became isolated for periods of time, developing in different directions, but through continuous interbreeding, replacement, genetic drift and selection, adaptations that were an advantage anywhere on earth would spread, keeping the development of the species in the same overall direction while maintaining adaptations to regional factors. By these mechanisms, surviving local varieties of the species evolved into modern humans, retaining some regional adaptations but with many features common to all regions.[10]
^^Note they say that their founding population Homo Erectus came from Africa. In short, the FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-idiot's own "supporting" reference contradicts his claim. What a pathetic fool.
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi- IDIOT EXPOSED - PART 18. The faker says Negroids are defined as having Caucasoid admixture. But when he sees bla-ck models with admixture he suddenly claims they aint black at all. Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist: posted 12 June, 2012 05:34 PM http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008168 Topic: Carleton Coon: Negoids are hybrids of Pygmies and Caucasians [QB] Yes. A fact well known today.
''The Negroid type is not homogeneous.'' - Cavalli-Sforza et al 1994.
Hiernaux (1975) distinguishes the Pygmies to Negroids on the grounds the latter are a product of the former (a recent mutation) but that there was probable geneflow with Caucasoids as Coon (1967, 1982) maintains.
Also note that on page 123 of 'Living Races of Man', Coon also states that ''To this combination may have been added remnant Capoid genes''. So Negroids are basically a recent mutation from the Pygmies, but with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture.
^^Bitch please. Your own words contradict your punk ass. Up above you say that "NEgroids" are a recent mutation with Caucasoid/Capoid admixture. Look bich, look. You say blacks are defined as having that admixture, and quote your favorite racist, Carleton Coon to that effect. But when your hypocrisy is exposed, you all of a sudden deny that the black models posted are "really" black. IN one thread "admixed" Negroes like the black models are black, but when your idiocy is exposed, they suddenly ain't black. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-IDIOT EXPOSED PART 17: - He says there is no sexual diomorphism in Africans or skeletal differences between men and women, when the very anthropologists he quotes say the opposite.
---------]Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi- Buffoon: FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist member # 18853 posted 03 June, 2012 05:47 PM
FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Buffoon 17a- "Frost and other anthropologists have noted that sexual dimorphism in Negroids is completely lacking. Check Frost's online blog."
FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Buffoon 17b- "Black females are not lighter or different to black males in craniofacial terms."
^^Stupid muthafucka. The very Frost quote you paste says this:
Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys).." FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103u
------- Can't you read imbecile? ALL females differ from males and are lighter. ALL human humans have sexual dimorphism to one degree or another. SO how can blacks "completely lack" said dimorphism according to you, when your own boy Peter Frost says all human have it?
------- ANd in studies of crania men and women do show differences, and these differences can be detected with a battery of modern measurements, as already shown in previous threads where your idiocy was destroyed- example (zakrewski2004-Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania)
your own peter frost debunks you: ---------------------------------------
"If this common selective force were sexual selection, it could have lightened European skin color by acting on an existing sexual dimorphism. Men and women differ in complexion because of differing amounts of melanin and cutaneous blood flow; in short, women are fairer, men browner and ruddier (Edwards & Duntley, 1939; Frost, 1988; Frost, 2005; Hulse, 1967; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000). The size of this sex difference is still debated, largely because most studies are poorly controlled for age (girls lighten only after puberty and immediately before are actually darker than boys). Investigators also try to exclude tanning by measuring under the arm, where there is less subcutaneous fat and probably less dimorphism in skin color, given that the lightness of a woman’s skin correlates with the thickness of her subcutaneous fat (Mazess, 1967). In any event, sexual selection may have targeted this sex difference, as suggested by a cross-cultural male preference for lighter complexioned women and, conversely, by some evidence of a female preference for darker complexioned men (Aoki, 2002; Feinman Feinman & Gill, 1978; Frost, 1988; Frost, 1994b; Frost, 2005; Van den Berghe & Frost, 1986)."
FROM: Frost Peter, 2006. European hair and eye color, evidence of sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103
and:
"A different perspective on sexual dimorphism in skin pigmentation comes from the recognition that human females require significantly higher amounts of calcium during pregnancy and lactation and, thus, must have lighter skin than males in the same environment in order to maximize their cutaneous vitamin D3 production (Jablonski and Chaplin 2000)... Thus strong clinical evidence continues to support the hypothesis that lighter skin pigmentation in females evolved primarily as a means to enhance the the potential for cutaneous vitamin D production and maintain healthy long-term calcium status and skeletal health." -- Human Evolutionary Biology. 2010. By Michael P. Muehlenbein Damm you are one of the most pathetic idiots in existence.
Tell us -- were you born such a retarded shithead, or were you originally a slug who managed to rise to such prominence?
quote:Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi_Pyramidologist: [QB] E1b1b is not Negroid.
Read it an weep -
''Sub-Saharan Africans belong to subclades of E other than E1b1b, while most non-Africans who belong to haplogroup E belong to its E1b1b subclade.” - Fulvio Cruciani et al, Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E1b1b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa, Am. J. Hum. Genet, p. 74)
The foul faker doctored the quote not knowing the article has been much discussed at ES. Testifying even more to his incompetence, Cruciani actually does show E3b or E1b1b occuring in numerous places within "sub-Saharan" Africa. The three main subclades of haplogroup E3b (E-M78, E-M81, and E-M34) and the paragroup E-M35* are not homogeneously distributed on the African continent: E-M78 has been observed in both northern and eastern Africa, E-M81 is restricted t o northern Africa, E-M34 is common only in eastern Africa, and E-M35* is shared by eastern and southern Africans (Cruciani et al. 2002)" --Cruciani
And there is no "page 74" in the Cruciani article. THE FAKER AND BUFFOON IS AGAIN BUSTED IN A LIE!
THE FAKER'S BOGUS CLAIM PART- 15 - QUOTE: [QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 14 January, 2012 11:41 AM If you are a white heterosexual male in Britain you have virtually zero chance of getting a job. All the jobs go to blacks or other immigrants.
^^LOL - Idiotic nonsense. As of 2001, 92.1% of the UK population identified themselves as White, leaving 7.9%[270] of the UK population identifying themselves as mixed race or of an ethnic minority. The population of the United Kingdom in the 2001 census was 58,789,194, UK Office for National Statistics- 2001.
That leaves approx 54 million white people. About 33% of that population were adult men. Let's take away 8% or so for minorities. So you are saying then that 25% of the approx 54 million white people in the UK are all unemployed? Damn you are dumb, but you only expose the bankruptcy of your racism. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fake C-Ass -Hole exposed PART 14 - BOGUS "NORDIC BLONDS FLITTING AROUND EGYPT
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 29 December, 2011 06:05 AM
Hetepheres II was a blonde
^^Hapless dullard, you are exposed in another lie. Your own reference was checked. It yielded detailed citations which revealed a quite different story. Scholars say in the mainstream Cambridge Ancient History:
"We must give up the idea that she was of Libyan origin, an attractive theory which was based on blond hair of Hetepheres II, who was then thought to be her daughter. It is now evident that the yellow wig is part of a costume worn b other great ladies." --I. Edwards, C. Gadd, N. Hammond. 1971. The Cambridge Ancient History. 3ed Volume 1, Part 2, Early History of the Middle East
Yet another history says: "The walls of this interior room are decorated with hunting and fishing scenes, including a charming image of Meresankh and her mother, Hetepheres II picking lotus flowers from the river.. The pillars have images of Meresankh wearing a blond wig." --P. Lacovara. 2004. The pyramids and the SPhinx: tombs and temples of GIza
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 13- HIS BOGUS CLAIM OF "NORDIC" EGYPTIAN ROYALTY
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 28 December, 2011 05:40 PM Early dynastic & old kingdom royalty was Nordic (blonde and fair skinned)
^^^Ha hahahahah you stupid mass of camel vomit! Up above you reference scholar Frank Yurco, but here is what Yurco said about the 12th Dynasty, debunking your claim of "Nordic" Egyptian royalty. You dumbass.... You are again debunked, with your own "supporting" references... lmao...
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989)
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 12 HE says Egyptologists like Frank Yurco says the Egyptians were "Caucasoid" --- "Virtually every egyptologist believes the egyptians were Caucasoid" --
BUt Yurco says nothing of the sort.. Here for example, is what he says about the 12the Dynasty rulers aho were Nubian descent: They seem really "Caucasoid"... yeah, right.. - quote-
"the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne... Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989) -
Another dodge is to twist an old chat/forum discussion statement by conservative Egyptologist Frank Yurco out of context. Yurco rejected those who "a priori" claimed the Egyptians were "black", that is, a dogmatic claim without presenting empirical evidence. He never rejected reasonable argument with data showing the Egyptians were an indigenous African population -QUOTE: .. basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times.. (Yurco 1996- An Egyptological Review, in Black Athena Revisited)
The Faker exposed- part 11
quote: Originally posted by cassiterides: ^You claim Vanessa Williams is a black woman when her heritage is white welsh and native american
According to the Faker, anyone with any white ancestry is not "really" black. SO since a majority of African Americans have white ancestry ranging from 5 to 30% then most Black Americans are not "truly" black you see...
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 10
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Eurafrican is Caucasoid.
^^You are once again exposed. You said EurAfrican is Caucasoid, and cited Serti in support. But using your own citation any reader can see that Sergi considers EurAfricans to be an amalgamation or mixture of many types, directly contradicting your claim.
SErgi says: QUOTE: "This human species, with cranial and facial characters thus well determined, I call Eurafrican; and this because, having had its origin in Africa, where it is still represented by many peoples, it has been diffused from prehistoric times in Europe... The Eurafrican species thus falls into three races: the African, with red-brown and black pigmentation.. Thus the Mediterranean stock is a race or variety of the Eurafrican species." --G. Sergi
You have again failed and are once again exposed. ------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED PART 9- HE CLAIMS ALL THESE HIGGINS "DISTORTIONS" BUT WHEN ASKED TO NAME THE SPECIFIC WEBSITES OF THIS ALLEGED "AFROCENTRIC' HORROR, HE RUNS AWAY. WHY IS THAT FAKER?
In fact, Godfrey Higgins ALSO says this about "negroes"
quote: "I believe all the Blavk bambinos of Italy are negroes- not merely blacks; this admitted, it would prove they very early date of their entrance into Italy." pg 286 pg 434 "the ancient Eturians had the countenances of Negroes, the same as the images of Buddah in INdia." pg 166 pg 474- "They aere in fact, all one nation, with one religion, that of Buddah, and they were originally NEgroes" pg 59: "nor can it be reasonably doubted, that a race of Negroes formerly had power and pre-eminence in India" pg 59- AS TO ETHIOPIA: And it is probable that an Ethiopian, a negro, correctly speaking, may have been meant, not merely a black person; and it seems probable that the following may have ben the real fact, viz, that a race of NEgroes or Blacks, but probably of the former, came to India to the west."
cASSIRETEDES own source debunks him. Note the footnote by his own author- QUOTE: "may not have been Negroes, though Blacks, though it is probably they were so."
His own source says they may not have been Negroes then adds: THOUGH IT IS PROBABLY THEY WERE SO."
^The Faker once again, debunks himself. And he seems not to realize that Ethiopia is in "sub-Saharan" Africa.. lol.. pathetic incompetent..
And he never shows these massive number of websites "all over the internet". Like what? How many? If they are "all over" then he should at least be able to give direct links to 6 showing pages where the "Afrocentrics: are "distorting" Higgins work. LEt's say what the faker has besides hot air. Post DIRECT LINKS to 6 of the huge number of alleged "Afrocentric" websites where the Afrocentrics are "distorting" Higgins. SHow how they are distorting Higgins with specific quotes and specific context.
Watch the Faker duck and run when he is again called on a claim, or make up yet another lie to cover his exposure... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- part 8:
quote:
Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
But then, in your own thread, by your own hand, you present a picture of an African albino that has pale skin, light brown or hazel eyes and fair hair. You said it was impossible, but then debunk yourself with your own posted picture.. This is like the 8-9th time you keep tripping over yourself with lies, contradictions, and bogus claims.
RECAP The Faker exposed- part 7 Originally posted by FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/Cassiredes: "Fair hair and light eyes colours are only found among Caucasoids, esp of Europe."
^^Your claim is is completely bogus. Native diversity or albinism causes some tropical Africans to have light eyes and light hair. You fail againn..
================================================
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 1-- ^^Faker! In your initial posts you claimed that it was Cavalli-Sforza talking 'bout negroes "mutating" from Pygmies. Now in your "corrected" post, YOU STILL APPEAR A FAKE. You now remove Cavalli- Sforza's name on the "mutant" claim, admitting that you were lying all along! Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah..
2-- Second point- Peter Frost is debunked by Cavalli-Sforza who says as to his so-called "mutation" theory: QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
Frost mentions Cavalli-Sforza in connection with sexual selection, and movement of some groups from Nigeria-Cameroon to other parts of Africa. He never says Cavalli Sforza talks bout any "negro mutation" and in fact any mutation claim is directly contradicted by Sforza. Sucka, you not only lied bout Cavalli-Sforza, you lied about your own white writer- Peter Frost, and misrepresented him.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 6 FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/CassiREDES says: ''There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty''
^^LMAO! Totally fake! Credible up to date sources note that blondism is prevalent in early life BUT, contrary to your claim that: "There are then no Australoids with blonde hair past the age of about twenty", the shade of color varies. In maturity the hair usually turns a darker brown color, but sometimes remains blond. See: "Gene Expression: Blonde Australian Aboriginals". Gnxp.com. http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/08/blonde-australian-aboriginals.php.
^^Here is one of your Australians over 20 years old who does have blonde hair. YOu are caught out spinning bogus claims AGAIN!. Bwa ha aha a hah a ha ahahaha aha ahah.. -
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 5a [b]So where are these tropical african peoples with pale white or fair skin? blonde red hair?
^^You fail again. African populations can readily produce blond or reddish blond hair as noted by hair study author Hrdy 1978 himself, and he references Nubia as an example. Albinism is another source of red or blond hair in Africa, and albinism is much more prevalent in African populations than among Europeans. Even African Americans produce more albinos than white Americans. (The pigmentary system: physiology and pathophysiology- By James J. Nordlund 2006: 603) (E. Roach and V. Miller 2004. Neurocutaneous disorders.) QUOTE: "In general, the prevalence of albinism in Africa is much higher, in the range of 1 in 1 100 to 1 in 3900."
So Africa can and does routinely produce red and blond hair. All non-Africans are MORE LIMITED subsets of ORIGINAL African diversity. THe originals have more built-in diversity than the limited sub-set populations. This is straight science as noted by the quote from TIshkoff 2000.
Nor are Africans the only tropical peoples who can produce reddish hair or blond hair. Among Australian Aborigines, some tropical groups produce 100% of individuals with blond hair. Melanesians can also produce blond or reddish hair, and do so routinely.
White people have no monopoly at all on that hair color. They merely show more of it, but even among whites, red hair for example is minor- occurring in less than 5% of the overall European populations, mostly in northern Europe.
So the claim that there are no tropical Africans with such variation is once again, proved fake. You made the claim.
THE FAKER EXPOSED: PART 4 ime and time again, you stand debunked and exposed for falsifying claims and references. Let's recap:
Originally posted by CASSIFAKedes::
quote: The source is Cavalli-Sforza's book on the Pygmies entitled 'African pygmies' (Academic Press, 1986).
This work shows that Negroids mutated from an ancestral pygmy population around 9,000 BC in West Africa. So the 'true' Black African today is a recent mutation. Caucasoids and Mongoloids predate them. [Wink] Negroids only migrated into other parts of Africa during the Bantu expansion or slightly earlier. Prior to them, Caucasoids inhabited North Africa and Bushmen (Capoids) to the south who were displaced by the Caucasoids from the Mediterranean around 12,000 BC.
^^A bogus reference. Why should anyone take your word for it given past bogus references? Quote where Cavalli-Sforza says these so-called "negroids" "mutated" from Pygmies. The burden of proof is on you, since you made the claim.
While you scurry to cover your tracks with yet more bogus claims, Cavali Sforza, in his well known The History and Geography of Human Genes, 1994 Cavalli-Sforza summarizes his 1986 work on Pygmies and specifically debunks the "Pygmy as ancestor" theory held by other older writings. QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
SO much for your lying claims of "mutations" from "Pygymy" ancestors. In short, you lied about Cavalli-Sforza, creating a falsified claim and a bogus "supporting" reference to a claim that is nowhere supported in his work. You are once again exposed as yet another racist faker You are not fooling anyone.
------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED-PART 3- YOu then tried to cover up your lie with even more bogus nformation and STILL fail
You "modified" your Cavalli Sforza claim by including page numbers, and then changing some wording to "adaptive radiation" hoping to divert attention from your exposure.. lmao..
However pages 361-362 of Cavalli Sforza's 1986 book says absolutely nothing about any Negroes "mutating" from pygmies, nor any "adaptive radiation." It merely discusses Pygmy history and geography. You picked out a page at random, not knowing it can be verified via Google Books. You were asked to provide a direct quote but are still running. Now why is that?
""It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 194
--------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 2 And Your pathetic "modification" STILL turned out to be bogus. You then said:
"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996).
^^But in fact, Watson 1996 has nothing to do with osteological data and does not even mention it. It has to do with mtDNA.
----------------------------------------
THE FAKER EXPOSED- PART 1C YOU THEN PROFFERED ANOTHER FAKE CLAIM BELOW: He says:
quote: "Note that in the Old Testament the Danites are the only Hebrew people described as being maritime and associated with ships.."
^^Complete Nonsense. In the Old Testament, the tribe of Zebulun is mentioned as specifically associated with ships and maritime elements. QUOTE:
Genesis 49:13 "Zebulun will dwell at the shore of the seas; Yea, he will be at the shore of the ships, And his side toucheth upon Sidon. "
FaheemDumbers_Anglo_Cassi-Pyr/Cassi-Fakdes: MULTIPLE TIMES AT BAT, MULTIPLE EXPOSURES AS A FAKE...
--fake claim that no Australian Abo over 20 is blonde
-- fake claim that NO tropical Africans have any diversity in hair, skin or eye color
-- fake Cavalli-Sforza citation
-- 2nd fake Cavalli-Sforza reference
-- Faked Watson reference
-- Faked Biblical reference
-- FAke representation of Peter Frost's work
-- Fake claim that "studies" say "egyptians were dark are not like 'light-skinned Europeans". COnveniently, the alleged study is missing..
--Fake Higgins claims
--Fake claim that Guiseppe Sergi's EurAfrican race concept is negro-free
--Fake claim that Vanessa Williams has no black ancestry but is "white and Indian"
--Fake claim that Egyptologists like Yurco consider the Egyptians "Caucasoid"
--Fake claim of white Nordic Egyptian royalty
--Fake claim of "blond" Hetepheres
--Fake claim of white males in BRitain "unable to get jobs"
--fAKE Crucuiani "quote" with "citation"
--fake claim that blacks have no sexual diomorphism and no male-female cranial differences
--Fake CDC claim of AUgust 2006
--Hypocritical double standards- bashing African Americans as black when they can be demonized as criminals but when exposed for hypocritical double standards calling them non-black
--Bogus claim that OOA never happened backed by "supporting" references that say nothingof the sort and directly contradict him.
--Fake claim that the tropics is mostly rainforest area
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Excellent work Patrol, Swenet, Djehuti. The idiot does not realize that the data we post is being picked up by other students of African history, expanding the database and laying the basis for debunking his ilk across the web. And good point- that there are tropical deserts. QUOtE:
Tropical desert: The part of a SUBTROPICAL desert that lies within the TROPICS, in a latitude lower than 23.5 N or S. Tropical desert climates fall within type BWh of the KOPPEN CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION, and type EA'd of the THORNTHWAITE CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION.
Tropical desert and steppe climate: In the STRAHLER CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION a climate in his group 1, which comprises climates controlled by equatorial and tropical AIR MASSES. This climate affects l and areas in latitudes 15-30 [degrees] in both hemispheres and is associated wit continental tropical air masses that develop in high-pressure cells in the upper TROPOSPHERE above land areas lying on TROPICS of Cancer and Capricorn. The climate is hot, with a moderate range of temperature over the year, and is arid or some-arid. This climate is designated BWb (desert) and BSb (steppe) in the KOPPEN CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION."
--Michael Allaby. 2002. Encyclopedia of weather and climate. Vol. 1: A-L
quote:
The tropics are regions of the Earth that lie roughly in the middle of the globe. The tropics between the latitude lines of the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. The tropics include the Equator and parts of North America, South America, Africa, Asia, and Australia. The tropics account for 36 percent of the Earth's landmass and are home to about a third of the world's people.
The tropics are warm all year, averaging 25 to 28 degrees Celsius (77 to 82 degrees Fahrenheit). This is because the tropics get more exposure to the sun. Because of all that sun, the tropics don't experience the kind of seasons the rest of the Earth does. The tropical seasons are broken up into just two: the wet season and the dry season.
The amount of rain can vary greatly from one area of the tropics to another. Some areas, like parts of the Amazon Basin in South America, get almost 3 meters (9 feet) of rain per year. Other areas in the tropics have a drier climate. The Sahara Desert in northern Africa only gets 2-10 centimeters (.793.9 inches) of rain per year.
The amount of rain a region gets in the tropics directly affects which plant and animal species live there. The baobab tree thrives in the arid tropics of Africa, for instance. The baobab stores water in its huge trunk. On the other extreme is the rainy island of Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean. Sri Lanka gets enough precipitation to support 250 species of frogs.
quote:Both Tropical and Dry climates are found within the Nile basin. Climate within the Nile basin has been classified into three Köppen subclasses: tropical wet and dry climates (savanna), steppe, and desert climates. Highland climates are also found in the Nile basin, but are strongly influenced by the more general climatic region in which they lie.
Tropical Wet and Dry
quote: Tropical wet and dry climates (savanna) lie between about 5º and 20º latitude; that is, between equatorial tropical rainforest climates and tropical deserts. These climates are characterized by seasonal rainfall and warm temperatures (all months have a mean temperature greater than 18ºC), and significant variation in precipitation may occur within a year and between years. Tropical wet and dry climates are found in portions of the Lake Victoria basin, the Sudan, and Ethiopia."
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Then what the hell do you call tropical deserts, dumb-phuck??
Stop purposely confusing the astronomical definition with climatic.
- Astronomy: Where you can see the sun at its zenith (between cancer/tropic of capricorn).
- Climatic: Humid heat zones.
Within the astronomical belt, there are non-tropical climates (arid/dry heat etc). So using that definition for tropical (climate) is false.
ROTFLMAO
You stupid-phuck!! The definition I gave is not "astronomical" but geological as it is based on the earth's curvature and areas of that curvature that receive the most sunlight! The sun is the source of all energy and heat on the surface of the earth and is what drives all weather systems i.e. climate!!
Humidity or aridity is another factor of climate based on the movement of water bearing clouds or precipitation but it has no bearing the amount of sunlight a region gets! That's why there are tropical areas with high humidity and tropical areas with low humidity i.e. high aridity.
This is why the very etymology of the word tropic has to do with the sun!! late 14c., "either of the two circles in the celestial sphere which describe the northernmost and southernmost points of the ecliptic," from L.L. tropicus "of or pertaining to the solstice" (as a noun, "one of the tropics"), from L. tropicus "pertaining to a turn," from Gk. tropikos "of or pertaining to a turn or change, or to the solstice" (as a noun, "the solstice"), from trope "a turning" (see trope). The notion is of the point at which the sun "turns back" after reaching its northernmost or southernmost point in the sky. Extended 1520s to the corresponding latitudes on the earth's surface (23 degrees 28 minutes north and south); meaning "region between these parallels" is from 1837. Tropical "hot and lush like the climate of the tropics" is first attested 1834.
LOL @ "astronomical". You stupid sh|t, we are not talking about stars or other planets. We are talking about EARTH and its weather patterns due to ONE star-- the sun-- which is the greatest factor of all in climate!! Unless of course you can tell us what energy source drives the atmospheric phenomena we call "weather" other than the sun (?) Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:If Pygmies and "forest negroids" live in the tropical forest then they DO live in a as you say "humid, heat environment."
Yes, obviously. But they aren't elongated. What you call "tropical adapted" or "super negroid" is in fact dry heat adaption and not tropical (tropical are not elongated and have lower brachial/crural indices). That's the whole point I was making. But you Afrocentrics are too dumb to understand and i've wasted enough time here.
Citation: deMenocal, P. B. & Tierney, J. E. (2012) Green Sahara: African Humid Periods Paced by Earth's Orbital Changes. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):12
Paleoclimate and archaeological evidence tells us that, 11,000-5,000 years ago, the Earth's slow orbital 'wobble' transformed today's Sahara desert to a land covered with vegetation and lakes.
quote: The most thorough studies on the prehistory of North Africa come from the land included within the present borders of Egypt and northern Sudan. The Nile river and the Sahara desert have alternatively affected each other on both cultural and environmental levels and Eastern Saharan populations have acted as intermediaries between central Saharans and Nilotic peoples in both east–west and west–east directions. The Eastern Sahara is often referred to as the Western Desert, as it is located west of the Nile river. However, the Eastern Sahara proper extends east of the Nile river, as well. This article regards the most relevant events of past human populations in the area. Main topics include: the spread of early anatomically modern humans (e.g., at Kurkur Oasis, Bir Tarfawi, BirSahara); the reoccupation of the Sahara after 10 000 years ago; the earliest herders (e.g., at Bir Kiseiba and Nabta Playa); the earliest production and the spread of pottery (e.g., at Nabta Playa, Bir Kiseiba, Gilf Kebir, Great Sand Sea); caprine herding (e.g., at Sodmein Cave, Dakhleh Oasis, Nabta Playa); the origins of farming (e.g., at Farafra Oasis); and the development of sedentism (e.g., at Dakhleh Oasis, Nabta Playa).
AFRICA, NORTH Sahara, Eastern, Elena A.A. Garcea et al.
Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
quote:Coon never said that minor Negroid affinities get in the way of a Mediterranean classification:
Although his skin is dark, his hair is nearly straight, and his measurements as well as his cranial and facial fea- tures are purely or almost purely Mediterranean. He shows no visible signs of negroid admixture, although from a purely genetic standpoint some must be present. --Coon
In the deserts and highlands of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Somalilands is found a con* centration of several related Mediterranean types, mixed in varying degrees with ne- groes. --Coon
lol, you liar. You really are desperate. Those two quotes have nothing to do with the "negroid tendencies" quote which are morphological.
Moving the goalpost, just like with your bizarre requirement to all of a sudden only quote academic multi-race proponents on whether tropical adaptations occur outside hot-humid regions, while your earlier requirements--before I exposed your fabrications via Templeton and Brace--were to quote from the anthropological literature in general.
Now you're doing the same thing here. Earlier, you said that folks who are classified as Mediterranean can have neither admixture nor phenotypical affinities with other 'races':
''If crania has admixture or affinities with another racial type, how does it belong to a single race category?'' --Faheemdunkers
And now, when I expose your fabricated claim that folks classified by Coon as Mediterranean cannot have Negroid admixture according to him, all of a sudden the requirements tighten up again, and only morphological evidence qualifies as evidence:
The fact a Caucasoid can have "negro genes" but looks 100% Caucasoid through distant admixture, does not make them have Negroid "affinity". They only have Negroid affinity if they show physical admixture --Faheemdunkers
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: What you are saying though is that Coon asserts crania that looks Negroid (to some extent) is Mediterranean - which is a lie and distortion.
Stop lying, fag. The prognathism and other visibly 'Negroid' traits in these men never got in the way of Coon's classification of these North African hybrids as 'Mediterranean', and they would utter fail your retarded pencil test:
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
that coon monkey sure was a brilliant man! You can tell how brilliant he was by how respected he is today and the caliber of monkey that uses him as a source in 2012 LOL
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Moving the goalpost, just like with your bizarre requirement to all of a sudden only quote academic multi-race proponents on whether tropical adaptations occur outside hot-humid regions, while your earlier requirements--before I exposed your fabrications via Templeton and Brace--were to quote from the anthropological literature in general.
You are the one moving the goalpost. The discussion was morphology but you moved it to those that have distant "negro genes" but look 100% Caucasoid morphologically. In the process you are setting up another straw man - the retarded one drop rule, which is political not scientific, and i've never held that position (neither did Coon). So you set up another fake position to knock down.
quote:Now you're doing the same thing here. Earlier, you said that folks who are classified as Mediterranean can have neither admixture nor phenotypical affinities with other 'races':
''If crania has admixture or affinities with another racial type, how does it belong to a single race category?'' --Faheemdunkers
"If crania." Can you read?. Crania is morphology. You then moved the discussion since you were completely refuted to people who look 100% Caucasoid but have distant admixture, without showing any sign of it morphologically. What does your political one drop rule have to do with Coon, or my views? Stop projecting.
quote:And now, when I expose your fabricated claim that folks classified by Coon as Mediterranean cannot have Negroid admixture according to him, all of a sudden the requirements tighten up again, and only morphological evidence qualifies as evidence:
The fact a Caucasoid can have "negro genes" but looks 100% Caucasoid through distant admixture, does not make them have Negroid "affinity". They only have Negroid affinity if they show physical admixture --Faheemdunkers
Crania is morphological. You completely failed and couldn't defend your earlier position hence you now out of desperation try to use the one drop rule, which has nothing to do with Coon.
quote:Stop lying, fag. The prognathism and other visibly 'Negroid' traits in these men never got in the way of Coon's classification of these North African hybrids as 'Mediterranean', and they would utter fail your retarded pencil test:
[/QB]
[/quote]
This is the southern periphery where Medish types settled (akin to Lundmen's Saharids). If you read his chapters on these, you will see he discusses both admixture levels and localized adaptation. The top photo, Coon does not label as true Mediterranean: "This type, while well-characterized today, cannot be identified with any hitherto studied skeletal Mediterranean sub-race". These are clinal types which are hard to fit into any racial taxon. However they approach the Mediterranean, more than any other racial/subracial type. Niether of those men have wooly hair, the top photo (an oasis Libyan) has cropped hair, but its wavy. They wouldn't fail the pencil test.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
genetics is much better than physical morphology to determine a person's geographic ancestry But you prefer an older system wher you just look at somebody and make assumptions and then make up categories. Nature doesn't know these categories everything fades in stages into the other
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Don't think you can ignore this, Anglo-imbecile!
quote:Originally posted by Fartheadbonkers:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Then what the hell do you call tropical deserts, dumb-phuck??
Stop purposely confusing the astronomical definition with climatic.
- Astronomy: Where you can see the sun at its zenith (between cancer/tropic of capricorn).
- Climatic: Humid heat zones.
Within the astronomical belt, there are non-tropical climates (arid/dry heat etc). So using that definition for tropical (climate) is false.
ROTFLMAO
You stupid-phuck!! The definition I gave is not "astronomical" but geological as it is based on the earth's curvature and areas of that curvature that receive the most sunlight! The sun is the source of all energy and heat on the surface of the earth and is what drives all weather systems i.e. climate!!
Humidity or aridity is another factor of climate based on the movement of water bearing clouds or precipitation but it has no bearing on the amount of sunlight a region gets! That's why there are tropical areas with high humidity and tropical areas with low humidity i.e. high aridity.
This is why the very etymology of the word tropic has to do with the sun!! late 14c., "either of the two circles in the celestial sphere which describe the northernmost and southernmost points of the ecliptic," from L.L. tropicus "of or pertaining to the solstice" (as a noun, "one of the tropics"), from L. tropicus "pertaining to a turn," from Gk. tropikos "of or pertaining to a turn or change, or to the solstice" (as a noun, "the solstice"), from trope "a turning" (see trope). The notion is of the point at which the sun "turns back" after reaching its northernmost or southernmost point in the sky. Extended 1520s to the corresponding latitudes on the earth's surface (23 degrees 28 minutes north and south); meaning "region between these parallels" is from 1837. Tropical "hot and lush like the climate of the tropics" is first attested 1834.
LOL @ "astronomical". You stupid sh|t, we are not talking about stars or other planets. We are talking about EARTH and its weather patterns due to ONE star-- the sun-- which is the greatest factor of all in climate!! Unless of course you can tell us what energy source drives the atmospheric phenomena we call "weather" other than the sun (?) Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
That Charlatan Coon monkey sure was a brilliant man! You can tell how brilliant he was by how respected he is today by the caliber of monkey that uses him as a source in 2012 LOL
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Moving the goalpost, just like with your bizarre requirement to all of a sudden only quote academic multi-race proponents on whether tropical adaptations occur outside hot-humid regions, while your earlier requirements--before I exposed your fabrications via Templeton and Brace--were to quote from the anthropological literature in general.
You are the one moving the goalpost. The discussion was morphology but you moved it to those that have distant "negro genes" but look 100% Caucasoid morphologically. In the process you are setting up another straw man - the retarded one drop rule, which is political not scientific, and i've never held that position (neither did Coon). So you set up another fake position to knock down.
quote:Now you're doing the same thing here. Earlier, you said that folks who are classified as Mediterranean can have neither admixture nor phenotypical affinities with other 'races':
''If crania has admixture or affinities with another racial type, how does it belong to a single race category?'' --Faheemdunkers
"If crania." Can you read?. Crania is morphology. You then moved the discussion since you were completely refuted to people who look 100% Caucasoid but have distant admixture, without showing any sign of it morphologically. What does your political one drop rule have to do with Coon, or my views? Stop projecting.
quote:And now, when I expose your fabricated claim that folks classified by Coon as Mediterranean cannot have Negroid admixture according to him, all of a sudden the requirements tighten up again, and only morphological evidence qualifies as evidence:
The fact a Caucasoid can have "negro genes" but looks 100% Caucasoid through distant admixture, does not make them have Negroid "affinity". They only have Negroid affinity if they show physical admixture --Faheemdunkers
Crania is morphological. You completely failed and couldn't defend your earlier position hence you now out of desperation try to use the one drop rule, which has nothing to do with Coon.
quote:Stop lying, fag. The prognathism and other visibly 'Negroid' traits in these men never got in the way of Coon's classification of these North African hybrids as 'Mediterranean', and they would utter fail your retarded pencil test:
This is the southern periphery where Medish types settled (akin to Lundmen's Saharids). If you read his chapters on these, you will see he discusses both admixture levels and localized adaptation. The top photo, Coon does not label as true Mediterranean: "This type, while well-characterized today, cannot be identified with any hitherto studied skeletal Mediterranean sub-race". These are clinal types which are hard to fit into any racial taxon. However they approach the Mediterranean, more than any other racial/subracial type. Niether of those men have wooly hair, the top photo (an oasis Libyan) has cropped hair, but its wavy. They wouldn't fail the pencil test. [/QB][/QUOTE]
There are literally millions upon millions like these,
And just because you see me write about the Oasis, it doesn't give you any expertise "all of a sudden".
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
An Ivy league professor to boot! Is it any wonder why the cracker is such a low IQ Charlaton? Anyone reviewing Charlatan Coon's evidence based on superficial physical characteristics and outright distortion and lies has to agree That Charlatan Coon monkey sure was a brilliant man! You can tell how brilliant he was by how respected he is today by the caliber of monkey that uses him as a source in 2012 LOL
Coon was clearly a fool, a liar and a white supremacist racist, but he was right about ONE THING folks! The obvious biological differences between the cracker and true human beings! little did the fool know, that the sub species is the cracker! bwahahahaha!!!!!
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You are the one moving the goalpost. The discussion was morphology but you moved it to those that have distant "negro genes" but look 100% Caucasoid morphologically.
After having done nothing other than fabricating claims, you've now stooped to unashamedly fabricating false meaning that isn't even associated with the phrase ''moving the goalpost''. Picking an angle from which to dissect someone's retarded claim, while leaving other angles for later, is not moving the goalpost. You're so retarded, the next step up the ladder is being in a brain-dead vegetative state.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: "If crania." Can you read?
Your flip flopping and face saving tactics aren't going to help you. You're only digging yourself in deeper. You yourself have claimed repeatedly that Coon always ascribed negroid traits in Mediterranean skeletons to negroid admixture. Now you're debunking yourself by stating that the two (negroid genes, and negroid traits) can be mutually exclusive in Mediterraneans. Well, retarded jackass, if the former isn't true (that negroid geneflow makes Mediterraneans more negroid), your false interpretation of Coon (that he always excused negroid traits by attributing it to geneflow from exotic areas) can't be true either.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: the retarded one drop rule, which is political not scientific, and i've never held that position
Of course you hold the position of the one drop rule. You've repeatedly admitted that Somali's, Cushitic speaking Ethiopians and Beja, in your view, are only 40% Caucasoid, yet you insist on labeling them according to this minority ancestral component (i.e., ''Caucasoid''). Fulani, Masai and Tutsi have even less than the supposed 40% Caucasoid component you ascribe to the aforementioned populations, yet you've called them Caucasoid too, rather than describing them by their predominantly African genetic component. Clearly, if anyone is subscribing to the one drop rule (arbitrarily giving more weight to a minor(ity) ancestral component), its you.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The top photo, Coon does not label as true Mediterranean: "This type, while well-characterized today, cannot be identified with any hitherto studied skeletal Mediterranean sub-race".
You're talking sh!t right now. Many of his Mediterranean types have no duplicate elsewhere in the world. He clearly identifies them as Mediterranean, and nowhere does he say they are hard to classify. He compares them with broad nosed Mediterraneans in prehistoric Europe, of which he says elsewhere that they resemble predynastic Egyptians. The obvious conclusion then, is that Khargans have simply inherited these traits from Ancient Egyptians (whom Coon considers Mediterranean). LMAO. For a while now all you've been doing is tapdancing, trying to duck the fire I'm holding to your ass. LMAO. That's a good one: ''they are hard to fit into any racial taxon''.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
An Ivy league professor to boot! Is it any wonder why the cracker is such a low IQ Charlaton? Anyone reviewing Charlatan Coon's evidence based on superficial physical characteristics and outright distortion and lies has to agree That Charlatan Coon monkey sure was a brilliant man! You can tell how brilliant he was by how respected he is today by the caliber of monkey that uses him as a source in 2012 LOL
Coon was clearly a fool, a liar and a white supremacist racist, but he was right about ONE THING folks! The obvious biological differences between the cracker and true human beings! little did the fool know, that the sub species is the cracker! bwahahahaha!!!!!
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
quote:Coon never said that minor Negroid affinities get in the way of a Mediterranean classification:
Although his skin is dark, his hair is nearly straight, and his measurements as well as his cranial and facial fea- tures are purely or almost purely Mediterranean. He shows no visible signs of negroid admixture, although from a purely genetic standpoint some must be present. --Coon
In the deserts and highlands of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Somalilands is found a con* centration of several related Mediterranean types, mixed in varying degrees with ne- groes. --Coon
lol, you liar. You really are desperate. Those two quotes have nothing to do with the "negroid tendencies" quote which are morphological.
Moving the goalpost, just like with your bizarre requirement to all of a sudden only quote academic multi-race proponents on whether tropical adaptations occur outside hot-humid regions, while your earlier requirements--before I exposed your fabrications via Templeton and Brace--were to quote from the anthropological literature in general.
Now you're doing the same thing here. Earlier, you said that folks who are classified as Mediterranean can have neither admixture nor phenotypical affinities with other 'races':
''If crania has admixture or affinities with another racial type, how does it belong to a single race category?'' --Faheemdunkers
And now, when I expose your fabricated claim that folks classified by Coon as Mediterranean cannot have Negroid admixture according to him, all of a sudden the requirements tighten up again, and only morphological evidence qualifies as evidence:
The fact a Caucasoid can have "negro genes" but looks 100% Caucasoid through distant admixture, does not make them have Negroid "affinity". They only have Negroid affinity if they show physical admixture --Faheemdunkers
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: What you are saying though is that Coon asserts crania that looks Negroid (to some extent) is Mediterranean - which is a lie and distortion.
Stop lying, fag. The prognathism and other visibly 'Negroid' traits in these men never got in the way of Coon's classification of these North African hybrids as 'Mediterranean', and they would utter fail your retarded pencil test:
In profile these two men, below, look very similar,
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
An Ivy league professor to boot! Is it any wonder why the cracker is such a low IQ Charlaton? Anyone reviewing Charlatan Coon's evidence based on superficial physical characteristics and outright distortion and lies has to agree That Charlatan Coon monkey sure was a brilliant man! You can tell how brilliant he was by how respected he is today by the caliber of monkey that uses him as a source in 2012 LOL
Coon was clearly a fool, a liar and a white supremacist racist, but he was right about ONE THING folks! The obvious biological differences between the cracker and true human beings! little did the fool know, that the sub species is the cracker! bwahahahaha!!!!!
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
quote:Coon never said that minor Negroid affinities get in the way of a Mediterranean classification:
Although his skin is dark, his hair is nearly straight, and his measurements as well as his cranial and facial fea- tures are purely or almost purely Mediterranean. He shows no visible signs of negroid admixture, although from a purely genetic standpoint some must be present. --Coon
In the deserts and highlands of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Somalilands is found a con* centration of several related Mediterranean types, mixed in varying degrees with ne- groes. --Coon
lol, you liar. You really are desperate. Those two quotes have nothing to do with the "negroid tendencies" quote which are morphological.
Moving the goalpost, just like with your bizarre requirement to all of a sudden only quote academic multi-race proponents on whether tropical adaptations occur outside hot-humid regions, while your earlier requirements--before I exposed your fabrications via Templeton and Brace--were to quote from the anthropological literature in general.
Now you're doing the same thing here. Earlier, you said that folks who are classified as Mediterranean can have neither admixture nor phenotypical affinities with other 'races':
''If crania has admixture or affinities with another racial type, how does it belong to a single race category?'' --Faheemdunkers
And now, when I expose your fabricated claim that folks classified by Coon as Mediterranean cannot have Negroid admixture according to him, all of a sudden the requirements tighten up again, and only morphological evidence qualifies as evidence:
The fact a Caucasoid can have "negro genes" but looks 100% Caucasoid through distant admixture, does not make them have Negroid "affinity". They only have Negroid affinity if they show physical admixture --Faheemdunkers
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: What you are saying though is that Coon asserts crania that looks Negroid (to some extent) is Mediterranean - which is a lie and distortion.
Stop lying, fag. The prognathism and other visibly 'Negroid' traits in these men never got in the way of Coon's classification of these North African hybrids as 'Mediterranean', and they would utter fail your retarded pencil test:
In profile these two men, below, look very similar,
Of course. Similarities can also be seen in this man's profile:
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: genetics is much better than physical morphology to determine a person's geographic ancestry But you prefer an older system wher you just look at somebody and make assumptions and then make up categories. Nature doesn't know these categories everything fades in stages into the other
web page Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An Ivy league professor to boot! Is it any wonder why the cracker is such a low IQ Charlaton? Anyone reviewing Charlatan Coon's evidence based on superficial physical characteristics and outright distortion and lies has to agree That Charlatan Coon monkey sure was a brilliant man! You can tell how brilliant he was by how respected he is today by the caliber of monkey that uses him as a source in 2012 LOL
Coon was clearly a fool, a liar and a white supremacist racist, but he was right about ONE THING folks! The obvious biological differences between the cracker and true human beings! little did the fool know, that the sub species is the cracker! bwahahahaha!!!!!
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: After having done nothing other than fabricating claims, you've now stooped to unashamedly fabricating false meaning that isn't even associated with the phrase ''moving the goalpost''. Picking an angle from which to dissect someone's retarded claim, while leaving other angles for later, is not moving the goalpost. You're so retarded, the next step up the ladder is being in a brain-dead vegetative state.
"Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded."
- Precisely how you have shifted from morphology to a genetic definition. Once you realised the former debunked your position you've changed the evidence of criteria to now genetics.
quote:Your flip flopping and face saving tactics aren't going to help you. You're only digging yourself in deeper. You yourself have claimed repeatedly that Coon always ascribed negroid traits in Mediterranean skeletons to negroid admixture. Now you're debunking yourself by stating that the two are always separated (you said that negroid genes in Mediterraneans don't imply negroid affinity, and that only negroid traits on Mediterraneans imply negroid affinity). Well, retarded jackass, if the former isn't true (that negroid geneflow makes Mediterranean skeletal remains more negroid), your false interpretation of Coon (that he always excused negroid traits by attributing it to foreign sources) can't be true either.
Your one drop rule again. Neither Coon, nor myself hold those views. You completely lost this debate and have shifted to the one drop rule and genetics. Coon's position, like mine, is that if crania shows morphological admixture, it is not homogenous. This is very different to the one drop rule you are setting up - that someone with distant Negroid ancestry but looks 100% Caucasoid is somehow not Caucasoid.
The one drop rule plays into the Afrocentrics' hands. You only have to look on this forum to see it employed. Certain females who by all standards look "white", the Afrocentric posters here claim are "mixed" such as Angelina Jolie.
quote:Of course you hold the position of the one drop rule.
No I don't.
quote:You've repeatedly admitted that Somali's, Cushitic speaking Ethiopians and Beja, in your view, are only 40% Caucasoid, yet you insist on labeling them according to their minority ancestral component (i.e., ''Caucasoid'').
No that's not true. I claimed most Ethiopians fall intermediate between Caucasoids/Negroids and are Aethiopid. This is backed up by anthropometrics and other physical studies. If they look mixed, then clearly they are - they are an interracial clinal population. This is different to your stupid one drop rule which ends up labelling people like Angelina Jolie or Chuck Norris "mixed" race.
quote:Fulani, Masai and Tutsi have even less than the supposed 40% Caucasoid component you ascribe to the aforementioned populations, yet you've called them Caucasoid too, rather than describing them by their predominant ancestral component.
I've never claimed those are Caucasoids. They are Nilo-Hamites, with a degree of Caucasoid admixture. Again an interracial cline.
The fallacy you are setting up is an old one which has led to silly threads by Doug and others where they claim "Pygmies are Caucasoids" and other nonsense.
quote:Clearly, if anyone is subscribing to the one drop rule (arbitrarily giving more weight to a minor(ity) ancestral component), its you.
Find a post I made where I claimed any of those populations are Caucasoid. You won't be able to.
quote:You're talking sh!t right now. Many of his Mediterranean types have no duplicate elsewhere in the world. He clearly identifies them as Mediterranean, and nowhere does he say they are hard to classify. He compares them with broad nosed Mediterraneans in prehistoric Europe, of which he says elsewhere that they resemble predynastic Egyptians. The obvious conclusion then, is that Khargans are not any different in these traits than Ancient Egyptians. LMAO. For a while now all you've been doing is tapdancing, trying to duck the fire I'm holding to your ass. LMAO. That's a good one: ''they are hard to fit into any racial taxon''.
You claimed those people are Meds, but Coon explicitly states they are not. Yet instead of admitting you are wrong, you post nothing but crap again. Everytime you claim Coon says something, I prove with a quote otherwise. You've been exposed as a repeated liar. It boils down to the fact you have never read the entire work, and are just pulling whatever you can from the text online. That's all Afrocentrics do. Can you imagine a "black" person actually sitting down and reading a book? Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Coon never said that minor Negroid affinities get in the way of a Mediterranean classification:
Although his skin is dark, his hair is nearly straight, and his measurements as well as his cranial and facial fea- tures are purely or almost purely Mediterranean. He shows no visible signs of negroid admixture, although from a purely genetic standpoint some must be present. --Coon
In the deserts and highlands of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Somalilands is found a con* centration of several related Mediterranean types, mixed in varying degrees with ne- groes. --Coon
lol, you liar. You really are desperate. Those two quotes have nothing to do with the "negroid tendencies" quote which are morphological.
Moving the goalpost, just like with your bizarre requirement to all of a sudden only quote academic multi-race proponents on whether tropical adaptations occur outside hot-humid regions, while your earlier requirements--before I exposed your fabrications via Templeton and Brace--were to quote from the anthropological literature in general.
Now you're doing the same thing here. Earlier, you said that folks who are classified as Mediterranean can have neither admixture nor phenotypical affinities with other 'races':
''If crania has admixture or affinities with another racial type, how does it belong to a single race category?'' --Faheemdunkers
And now, when I expose your fabricated claim that folks classified by Coon as Mediterranean cannot have Negroid admixture according to him, all of a sudden the requirements tighten up again, and only morphological evidence qualifies as evidence:
The fact a Caucasoid can have "negro genes" but looks 100% Caucasoid through distant admixture, does not make them have Negroid "affinity". They only have Negroid affinity if they show physical admixture --Faheemdunkers
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: What you are saying though is that Coon asserts crania that looks Negroid (to some extent) is Mediterranean - which is a lie and distortion.
Stop lying, fag. The prognathism and other visibly 'Negroid' traits in these men never got in the way of Coon's classification of these North African hybrids as 'Mediterranean', and they would utter fail your retarded pencil test:
In profile these two men, below, look very similar,
Of course. Similarities can also be seen in this man's profile:
I am sorry to disappoint you, but those are too negroid.
Here I have a "super cacasoid type"
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
An Ivy league professor to boot! Is it any wonder why the cracker is such a low IQ Charlaton? Anyone reviewing Charlatan Coon's evidence based on superficial physical characteristics and outright distortion and lies has to agree That Charlatan Coon monkey sure was a brilliant man! You can tell how brilliant he was by how respected he is today by the caliber of monkey that uses him as a source in 2012 LOL
Coon was clearly a fool, a liar and a white supremacist racist, but he was right about ONE THING folks! The obvious biological differences between the cracker and true human beings! little did the fool know, that the sub species is the cracker! bwahahahaha!!!!!
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
quote:am sorry to disappoint you, but those are too negroid.
They are clinal types. No one is saying they are Caucasoids/Medish, however they aren't Negroid either. This is why Coon was trying to devise other taxons and subtaxons for such populations that don't fall into race category x or y. Hence terms like Aethiopid and Nilo-Hamitic are used to cluster composite (mixed) races.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Fartheadbonkers:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Then what the hell do you call tropical deserts, dumb-phuck??
Stop purposely confusing the astronomical definition with climatic.
- Astronomy: Where you can see the sun at its zenith (between cancer/tropic of capricorn).
- Climatic: Humid heat zones.
Within the astronomical belt, there are non-tropical climates (arid/dry heat etc). So using that definition for tropical (climate) is false.
ROTFLMAO
You stupid-phuck!! The definition I gave is not "astronomical" but geological as it is based on the earth's curvature and areas of that curvature that receive the most sunlight! The sun is the source of all energy and heat on the surface of the earth and is what drives all weather systems i.e. climate!!
Humidity or aridity is another factor of climate based on the movement of water bearing clouds or precipitation but it has no bearing the amount of sunlight a region gets! That's why there are tropical areas with high humidity and tropical areas with low humidity i.e. high aridity.
This is why the very etymology of the word tropic has to do with the sun!! late 14c., "either of the two circles in the celestial sphere which describe the northernmost and southernmost points of the ecliptic," from L.L. tropicus "of or pertaining to the solstice" (as a noun, "one of the tropics"), from L. tropicus "pertaining to a turn," from Gk. tropikos "of or pertaining to a turn or change, or to the solstice" (as a noun, "the solstice"), from trope "a turning" (see trope). The notion is of the point at which the sun "turns back" after reaching its northernmost or southernmost point in the sky. Extended 1520s to the corresponding latitudes on the earth's surface (23 degrees 28 minutes north and south); meaning "region between these parallels" is from 1837. Tropical "hot and lush like the climate of the tropics" is first attested 1834.
LOL @ "astronomical". You stupid sh|t, we are not talking about stars or other planets. We are talking about EARTH and its weather patterns due to ONE star-- the sun-- which is the greatest factor of all in climate!! Unless of course you can tell us what energy source drives the atmospheric phenomena we call "weather" other than the sun (?)
quote:am sorry to disappoint you, but those are too negroid.
They are clinal types. No one is saying they are Caucasoids/Medish, however they aren't Negroid either. This is why Coon was trying to devise other taxons and subtaxons for such populations that don't fall into race category x or y. Hence terms like Aethiopid and Nilo-Hamitic are used to cluster composite (mixed) races.
I have never heard anyone in Africa use any of those awkward terms, let alone call themselves cacasoids, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about? I can tell you, if you use those terms there, you will be laughed at.
However, you got your traits from Africans who migrated from the African coast, abroad, to populate the word. REMEMBER THAT! See, you yourself have claimed that "the real negroe" is only because of recent adaption. So by that logic, the facial traits we speak of here are indigenous to Africa and are therefore ancient.
quote:Evolutionary history of mtDNA haplogroup structure in African populations inferred from mtDNA d-loop and RFLP analysis.
(A) Relationships among different mtDNA haplogroup lineages inferred from mtDNA d-loop sequences and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies (Kivisild, Metspalu, et al. 2006). Dashed lines indicate previously unresolved relationships.(
B) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, L5, L2, L3, M, and N in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies.
(C) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, and L5 subhaplogroups (excluding L2 and L3) in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies. Haplogroup frequencies from previously published studies include East Africans (Ethiopia [Rosa et al. 2004], Kenya and Sudan [Watson et al. 1997; Rosa et al. 2004]), Mozambique (Pereira et al. 2001; Salas et al. 2002), Hadza (Vigilant et al. 1991), and Sukuma (Knight et al. 2003); South Africans (Botswana !Kung [Vigilant et al. 1991]); Central Africans (Mbenzele Pygmies [Destro-Bisol et al. 2004], Biaka Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991], and Mbuti Pygmies [Vigilant et al. 1991]); West Africans (Niger, Nigeria [Vigilant et al. 1991; Watson et al. 1997]; and Guinea [Rosa et al. 2004]). L1*, L2*, and L3* from previous studies indicate samples that were not further subdivided into subhaplogroups.
Whole-mtDNA Genome Sequence Analysis of Ancient African Lineages
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
An Ivy league professor to boot! Is it any wonder why the cracker is such a low IQ Charlaton? Anyone reviewing Charlatan Coon's evidence based on superficial physical characteristics and outright distortion and lies has to agree That Charlatan Coon monkey sure was a brilliant man! You can tell how brilliant he was by how respected he is today by the caliber of monkey that uses him as a source in 2012 LOL
Coon was clearly a fool, a liar and a white supremacist racist, but he was right about ONE THING folks! The obvious biological differences between the cracker and true human beings! little did the fool know, that the sub species is the cracker! bwahahahaha!!!!!
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
Look at the top of the chart, Neanderthals and Humans stem from a common ancestor you big dummy
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
An Ivy league professor to boot! Is it any wonder why the cracker is such a low IQ Charlaton? Anyone reviewing Charlatan Coon's evidence based on superficial physical characteristics and outright distortion and lies has to agree That Charlatan Coon monkey sure was a brilliant man! You can tell how brilliant he was by how respected he is today by the caliber of monkey that uses him as a source in 2012 LOL
Coon was clearly a fool, a liar and a white supremacist racist, but he was right about ONE THING folks! The obvious biological differences between the cracker and true human beings! little did the fool know, that the sub species is the cracker! bwahahahaha!!!!!
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Then what the hell do you call tropical deserts, dumb-phuck??
Stop purposely confusing the astronomical definition with climatic.
- Astronomy: Where you can see the sun at its zenith (between cancer/tropic of capricorn).
- Climatic: Humid heat zones.
Within the astronomical belt, there are non-tropical climates (arid/dry heat etc). So using that definition for tropical (climate) is false.
ROTFLMAO
You stupid-phuck!! The definition I gave is not "astronomical" but geological as it is based on the earth's curvature and areas of that curvature that receive the most sunlight! The sun is the source of all energy and heat on the surface of the earth and is what drives all weather systems i.e. climate!!
Humidity or aridity is another factor of climate based on the movement of water bearing clouds or precipitation but it has no bearing the amount of sunlight a region gets! That's why there are tropical areas with high humidity and tropical areas with low humidity i.e. high aridity.
This is why the very etymology of the word tropic has to do with the sun!! late 14c., "either of the two circles in the celestial sphere which describe the northernmost and southernmost points of the ecliptic," from L.L. tropicus "of or pertaining to the solstice" (as a noun, "one of the tropics"), from L. tropicus "pertaining to a turn," from Gk. tropikos "of or pertaining to a turn or change, or to the solstice" (as a noun, "the solstice"), from trope "a turning" (see trope). The notion is of the point at which the sun "turns back" after reaching its northernmost or southernmost point in the sky. Extended 1520s to the corresponding latitudes on the earth's surface (23 degrees 28 minutes north and south); meaning "region between these parallels" is from 1837. Tropical "hot and lush like the climate of the tropics" is first attested 1834.
LOL @ "astronomical". You stupid sh|t, we are not talking about stars or other planets. We are talking about EARTH and its weather patterns due to ONE star-- the sun-- which is the greatest factor of all in climate!! Unless of course you can tell us what energy source drives the atmospheric phenomena we call "weather" other than the sun (?)
^ Yes I've read that study years ago when it first came out as well as others similar to it. The point is, the geological phenomenon of weather or weather cycle i.e. climate is tied to the sun because the sun is the source of all meteorological energy. It is the sun's heat that propels air currents which move clouds as well as heat the oceans which also create currents that feed clouds with water. My original point is that latitude is just as much a factor in climate as is elevation and humidity. The tropics is a latitudinal zone that receives the most sunlight due to the curvature of the earth. Because it gets the most direct rays, the zone is the hottest area of the earth. Whether there is high humidity or low humidity, that is irrelevant to to the tropics.
But of course the Farthead just ignored my posts. He ignores facts that destroy him as if pretending they aren't there will not hinder him. LOL Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: I am sorry to disappoint you, but those are too negroid.
Here I have a "super cacasoid type"
LOL The Natufians are also too 'negroid' but it doesn't matter because they are classified as 'Meterranean Cacasoid' based merely on the whims of desperate Euronuts.
By the way, the man in the above photo reminds me a lot of the Samburu man below except lighter in hue.
I guess Samburu people are super cacasoid.
Ancient Egyptian pharaoh with similar nose.
By the way, Saharan Berbers like the Tuareg and Sanhaja as well as Nilotes show close cranial affinities with Egyptians as well.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
An Ivy league professor to boot! Is it any wonder why the cracker is such a low IQ Charlaton? Anyone reviewing Charlatan Coon's evidence based on superficial physical characteristics and outright distortion and lies has to agree That Charlatan Coon monkey sure was a brilliant man! You can tell how brilliant he was by how respected he is today by the caliber of monkey that uses him as a source in 2012 LOL
Coon was clearly a fool, a liar and a white supremacist racist, but he was right about ONE THING folks! The obvious biological differences between the cracker and true human beings! little did the fool know, that the sub species is the cracker! bwahahahaha!!!!!
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
Look at the top of the chart, Neanderthals and Humans stem from a common ancestor you big dummy
All species are related at some point.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:However, you got your traits from Africans who migrated from the African coast, abroad
Cro-Magnons populated Europe from West Asia, not Africa. Furthermore all the evidence shows the Cro-Magnons were Caucasoid: thin nosed, orthognathic, medium brow ridged and palaeolithic artwork depicts wavy hair. None of those traits are Negroid.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:However, you got your traits from Africans who migrated from the African coast, abroad
Cro-Magnons populated Europe from West Asia, not Africa. Furthermore all the evidence shows the Cro-Magnons were Caucasoid: thin nosed, orthognathic, medium brow ridged and palaeolithic artwork depicts wavy hair. None of those traits are Negroid.
I beg to differ. So how do you think, WEST ASIA GOT POPULATED? LOL
quote:"Molecular biology has traced the ancestry of the Cro-Magnons deep into tropical Africa, into the territory of the hypothetical African Eve"...
--Cro-Magnon:How the Ice Age Gave Birth to the First Modern Humans, By Brian Fagan,pg 89 (2010).
--B. Lewis et al. 2008. Understanding Humans: Introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. p 297
quote:Evolutionary history of mtDNA haplogroup structure in African populations inferred from mtDNA d-loop and RFLP analysis.
(B) Relative frequencies of haplogroups L0, L1, L5, L2, L3, M, and N in different regions of Africa from mtDNA d-loop and mtDNA coding region SNPs from previous studies.
--Norman A. Johnson (2007) Darwinian Detectives: Revealing the Natural History of Genes and Genomes pg100
quote:Genetic evidence of an early exit of Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa through eastern Africa
The mitochondrial haplogroup M, first regarded as an ancient marker of East-Asian origin4, 5, has been found at high frequency in India6 and Ethiopia7, raising the question of its origin.(A haplogroup is a group of haplotypes that share some sequence variations.) Its variation and geographical distribution suggest that Asian haplogroup M separated from eastern-African haplogroup M more than 50,000 years ago.
Two other variants (489C and 10873C) also support a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa.
These findings, together with the virtual absence of haplogroup M in the Levant and its high frequency in the South-Arabian peninsula, render M the first genetic indicator for the hypothesized exit route from Africa through eastern Africa/western India. This was possibly the only successful early dispersal event of modern humans out of Africa.
quote:In modern humans, this elongation is a pattern characteristic of warm-adapted populations, and this physique may be an early Cro-Magnon retention from African ancestors. Similar retentions may be observed in certain indices of facial shape ...
--Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory: Second Edition by Eric Delson
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Excellent work as usual Patrol. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECAP:
1-- Detailed modern cranial studies show Cro-magnon crania clustering AWAY from today’s Europeans. Brace 2005 testedthe “Cro-magnid” claim and found it “folklore.” QUOTE: "When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. .. If this analysis shows nothing else, it demonstrates that the oft-repeated European feeling that the Cro-Magnons are “us” (46) is more a product of anthropological folklore than the result of the metric data available from the skeletal remains..." --CL. Brace 2005. The Questionable contribution of the Neolithic to European craniofacial form
----------------------------- Limb proportions confirm Brace's cranial analysis "Upper Palaeolithic humans not only were taller and had more robust bones in comparison with the Linear Band Pottery Culture Neolithic people; they also had longer limbs, a shorter trunk and, similar to modern African people, very long forearms and crural segments. ---Michael Hermanussen (2003) Stature of early Europeans. HORMONES 2003, 2(3):175-178
2–Africans possessing the highest phenotypical diversity on earth, producing variants covering most features. Several Cro-Magnon specimens are described as ‘negroid.’ QUOTE:
“Both methods for estimating regional diversity show sub-Saharan Africato have the highest levels of phenotypic variation consistent with many genetic studies.“ [-- Relethford, John "Global Analysis of Regional Differences in Craniometric Diversity .” Hum Bio v73, n5, -629-636])
---------------------- Three scholars (Arthur Keith, M Boule and HV Valloid found ‘negroid’Cro-Magnon features: QUOTE: "The ancient Grimaldi woman and boy are of the mixed or negroid type." --(Arthur Keith. Ancient Types of Man. p. 60)
3- Several Upper Paleolithic European specimens show high cural indices in limb proportions- more akin to dark-skinned tropical Africans than today’s Europeans, who show lower cural indices. QUOTE: "As with all the other limb/trunk indices, the recent Europeans evince lower indices, reflective of shorter tibiae, and the recent sub-Saharan Africans have higher indices, reflective of their long tibiae... The Dolno Vestonice and Pavlov humans.. have body proportions similar to those of other Gravettian specimens. Specifically, they are characterized by high bracial and cural indices, indicative of distal limb segment elongation.." --Trinkaus and Svoboda. 2005. Early Modern Human Evolution in Central Europe]
– AND--
-Body proportions of early European H. sapiens fossils suggest a tropical adaptation and support an African origin (Holliday & Trinkaus, 1991; Ruff, 1994; Pearson, 1997, 2000; Holliday, 1997, 1998, 2000).” -–McBrearty and Brooks 2000. The Revolution that Wasn’t. Jrn Hu Evo 39, 453-563
AND --
Upper Paleolithic Europeans resembled modern Africans -2003 data
"Upper Palaeolithic humans not only were taller and had more robust bones in comparison with the Linear Band Pottery Culture Neolithic people; they also had longer limbs, a shorter trunk and, similar to modern African people, very long forearms and crural segments. ---Michael Hermanussen (2003) Stature of early Europeans. HORMONES 2003, 2(3):175-178 -----------------
4-- Traits like narrow noses occur naturally in African environments: ".. low mean nasal indices (high, narrow noses) tend to [also] be found in arid regions, such as the desert areas of east Africa.. -- Mays. S. (2010). The Archaeology of Human Bones. Pg 100-101
5-- Several Upper Paleolithic European types- Predmost (Czech), Combo Capelle (France) Grimaldi (Italy) and Teviec (France) show a variant of “African” affinities like prognathism. Some scholars hold this to be an ‘Eastern Cro-Magnon’ variant: QUOTE:
------ "others like Predomost and to a lesser degree Grimaldi and Teviec, are more prognathic like Skhul 5." --Marta Mirazón Lahr. 2005. The Evolution of Modern Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Variation
and
---------- ".. on whose basis, many specialists define the eastern Cro-Magnon variant in the Upper Paleolithic population of western Europe." --S. De Laet (1994). History of Humanity, UNESCO
6– DNA provides clear evidence of tropical African types migrating to Paleolithic era Europe, contradicting claims of “Caucasoid” evolution in situ. Tropical limb evidence confirms DNA. The African tropical types may have interbred with local Neanderthals, but in any event would have adapted to the colder conditions of Europe over time. QUOTE:
"Early modern Europeans reflect both their predominant African early modern human ancestry and a substantial degree of admixture between those early modern humans and the indigenous Neandertals. Given the tens of millennia since then and the limitations inherent in ancient DNA, this process is largely invisible in the molecular record. It is readily apparent in the paleontological record.“ --E. Trinkhaus (2004) European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals. PNAS 2007 vol. 104 no. 18 7367-7372
and
"The so-called Old Man [Cro-Magnon 1] became the original model for what was once termed the Cro-Magnon or Upper Paleolithic "race" of Europe.. there's no such valid biological category, and Cro-Magnon 1 is not typical of Upper Paleolithic western Europeans- and not even all that similar to the other two make skulls found at the site. Most of the genetic evidence, as well as the newest fossil evidence from Africa argue against continuous local evolution producing modern groups directly from any Eurasian pre-modern population.. there's no longer much debate that a large genetic contribution from migrating early modern Africans infuenced other groups throughout the Old World.“ --B. Lewis et al. 2008. Understanding Humans: Introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. p 297
Credible mainstream scholars dismiss attempts at any "Caucasoid race" labeling for the ancient remains of East Africa. Africans the most diverse, making such labels inaccurate and irrelevant
“In other parts of Africa there is much more variation, disclosing a mosaic of forms, some unrelated to recent groups (Lukenya Hill - Gramly and Rightmire, 1973), others with possible Khoi-San affinities (Neolithic crania associated with the Wilton tradition of Kenya), others with clear Negro traits (Ishango, Congo - Ferembach, 1986c; Howells, 1959; Rightmire, 1975b; Chad, Tamaya Mellet in Niger, and El Guettara in Mali - Chamla, 1968; Asselar, Ibalaghen, Tin Lalou sites - Chamla, 1968), and yet still others suggesting trans-Saharan movements (Wadi Halfa, Jebel Sahaba - Anderson, 1968; Greene and Armelagos, 1972)..”
..These findings are very important, for they suggest that not only late Pleistocene to early Holocene remains like Gamble's Cave and Elmenteita should not be interpreted as Caucasoid immigrants, but that the great levels of cranial variation observed today in sub-Saharan Africa were probably even greater in the late Pleistocene. “ ----Marta Lahr 1996. The Evolution of Modern Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Variation. pg 283
Scientists reveal face of the first European The face of the first European has been recreated from bone fragments by scientists.
By Urmee Khan, Digital and Media Correspondent
8:22PM BST 04 May 2009
The head was rebuilt in clay based on an incomplete skull and jawbone discovered in a cave in the south west of the Carpathian Mountains in Romania by potholers. The first modern European Forensic artist Richard Neave reconstructed the face based on skull fragments from 35000 years ago.
Using radiocarbon analysis scientists say the man or woman, it is still not possible to determine the sex, lived between 34,000 and 36,000 years ago.
Europe was then occupied by both Neanderthal man, who had been in the region for thousands of years, and anatomically-modern humans – Homo sapiens.
Modern humans first arrived in Europe from Africa.
Research by geneticists and archaeologists has allowed them to trace the origins of modern homo sapiens back to a single group of people who managed to cross from the Horn of Africa and into Arabia. From there they went on to colonise the rest of the world.
Genetic analysis of modern day human populations in Europe, Asia, Australia, North America and South America have revealed that they are all descended from these common ancestors.
It is thought that changes in the climate between 90,000 and 70,000 years ago caused sea levels to drop dramatically and allowed the crossing of the Red Sea to take place.
The findings are to be revealed in a new BBC Two documentary series, The Incredible Human Journey, that traces the prehistoric origins of the human species.
Dr Peter Forster, a senior lecturer in archaeogenetics at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge who carried out some of the genetic work, said: "The founder populations cannot have been very big. We are talking about just a few hundred individuals." Homo sapiens, known casually as "modern humans", are thought to have first evolved around 195,000 years ago in east Africa – the earliest remains from that time were uncovered near the Omo River in Ethiopia. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parents of "Eurasian Adam" and "Eurasian Eve" came from Africa modern DNA analysis shows
"The vast majority, perhaps all, men with European and Asian genetic backgrounds can trace their Y-chromosome lineage back to a particular male (named M168, after the marker that defines these chromosomes). M168 thus can be considered the Eurasian Adam. Although the Y-chromosome Adam and mitrochondrial Eve did not meet, it is quite possible that the Eurasian "Adam" M168 could have met his equivalent, the Eurasian Eve (known as L3). The estimates of their dates overlap (around five thousand years ago) and they both probably lived in northeast Africa. Africa? Yes, Africa. Although nearly all Eurasian mtDNA and Y chromosomes currently existing can be traced back to L3 and M168 respectively, M168 and L3 also had African descendants." ---Norman Johnson (2007) Darwinian Detectives: Revealing the Natural History of Genes and Genomes. p. 100. [Norman A. Johnson, an evolutionary geneticist, is the author of numerous research publications, mainly in the genetics and evolution of reproductive isolation between nascent species. Johnson has taught at the University of Chicago, University of Texas at Arlington, and the University of Massachusetts].
Advanced cognitive, technological and behavioral patterns derive from Africa. Dubbed the "Human Revolution" by some researchers, they lead up to the expansion of humans from Africa to other parts of the world, circa 60-40kya. Other scholars argue for a more gradual continuum of advances deeply rooted in Africa that spread worldwide. In either scenario, whether relatively rapid advance or gradual accumulation, the cognitive, technological and behavioral advances took place within Africa.
QUOTE: "Recent research has provided increasing support for the origins of anatomically and genetically "modern" human populations in Africa between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago, followed by a major dispersal of these populations to both Asia and Europe sometime after ca. 65,000 before present (B.P.). However, the central question of why it took these populations {approx}100,000 years to disperse from Africa to other regions of the world has never been clearly resolved. It is suggested here that the answer may lie partly in the results of recent DNA studies of present-day African populations, combined with a spate of new archaeological discoveries in Africa. Studies of both the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mismatch patterns in modern African populations and related mtDNA lineage-analysis patterns point to a major demographic expansion centered broadly within the time range from 80,000 to 60,000 B.P., probably deriving from a small geographical region of Africa.
Recent archaeological discoveries in southern and eastern Africa suggest that, at approximately the same time, there was a major increase in the complexity of the technological, economic, social, and cognitive behavior of certain African groups, which could have led to a major demographic expansion of these groups in competition with other, adjacent groups. It is suggested that this complex of behavioral changes (possibly triggered by the rapid environmental changes around the transition from oxygen isotope stage 5 to stage 4) could have led not only to the expansion of the L2 and L3 mitochondrial lineages over the whole of Africa but also to the ensuing dispersal of these modern populations over most regions of Asia, Australasia, and Europe, and their replacement (with or without interbreeding) of the preceding "archaic" populations in these regions." ---Mellars, Paul (2006) Why did modern human populations disperse from Africa ca. 60,000 years ago? A new model. PNAS, 2006, 103(25), pp. 9381-9386
Advanced cognitive, artistic and behavioral patterns and technology like more refined tools are found in Africa long before similar patterns arose in Europe. The migration of tropical African types to Europe in the Cro-Magnon era brought these cognitive, cultural and behavioral advances to Neanderthal Europe.
"A more gradual "revolution" position is now held [by Paul Mellars].. a period of accelerated change in Africa between about 60,000 and 80,000 years ago, as shown by the following developments recorded in South African cave sites: new and better- techniques for producing long thin flakes of stone blades; specialized tools called end scrapers and burins, which were probably used for working skins and bones, the [production of tiny stone segments that must have mounted on handles of wood or bone to make composite tools, complexly shaped stone tools such as 'leaf points', relatively complex bone tools; marine shells perforated to make necklaces or bracelets, red ochre (natural iron oxide) engraved with geometric designs suggesting early artwork,; greater permanence and differentiated occupation areas in caves; new subsistence practices such as the exploitation of marine fish as well as shellfish; and perhaps intentional burning of undergrowth to encourage the growth of underground plant resources such as tubers. Mellars suggests that a neurological switch to modernity in the brain alongside rapid Climatic fluctuations, could have been the driving forces behind this period of heightened cultural innovations.."
"The most impressive site for early evidence of symbolism however, is Blombos Cave in South Africa, with a record stretching well beyond 70,000 years ago.. The stone tools in these levels include Still Bay points, beautifully shaped thin lanceolate spear points, flaked on both sides. They also show the earliest application of a refined stone tool-making technique known as pressure flaking, some 55,000 years before its best-known manifestation in the Soultrean industry of EUrope. Slabs of red ochre were excavated from various levels, including the deepest ones, with wavy, fan or mesh-shaped patterns carefully engraved on them.. Hundreds [beads made from seashells] have now been excavated from Blombos, and most show signs of piercing, with many holes also displaying signs of wear.. The shells have a natural shiny luster, but the color seems to have been modified by rubbing with hematite in some cases and by heating to darken the shells in other cases, so they may have been strung in different-colored patterns.. " --Chris Stringer (2012) Lone Survivors: How we came to be the only human on earth 150-155
]
Some archaeologists criticize notions of a "human revolution" suddenly occurring after humans exited Africa for Asia and Europe. Instead they argue, the supposed "revolutionary" changes in cognition, symbol manipulation, advanced technology, trade etc were ALREADY occurring WITHIN Africa, long before any migration out. There is no need for a 'eureka moment' of 'progress' upon leaving Africa. 'Progress' was already well underway and long in place within Africa, without the need for 'eureka' moments. QUOTE:
"This is because by focusing on changes that occurred at the Middle Paleolithic/Upper Paleolithic or Middle Stone Age/Later Stone Age transitions (in Europe and Africa, respectively), there is a failure to appreciate the depth and breadth of the African Middle Stone Age record that preceded the time of the supposed revolution by at least 100,000 years. In their view, [McBrearty and Brooks 2000] 'modern' features such as advanced technologies, increased geographic range, specialized hunting, fishing and shell-fishing, long distance trade, and the symbolic use of pigments had already developed in a broad range of Middle Stone Age industries right across Africa, between 100,000 and 250,000 years ago. This suggested to them that an early assembly of the package of modern human behaviors occurred in Africa, followed by much later export to the rest of the world. Thus the origin of our species, both behaviorally and morphologically, was linked to early developments in Middle Stone Age technology, and not to changes that occurred much later.. 'this quest for this 'eureka moment' reveals a great deal about the needs, desired and aspirations of archaeologists, but obscures rather than illuminates events in the past.." --Chris Stringer (2012) Lone Survivors: How we came to be the only human on earth 128-29
The bogus "generalized Caucasoids" model. This involves defining away Africoid affinities or features as "generalized" but at the same time ot treating "European" features the same way. The double standard only runs one way- if a feature has African affinities- airbrush it away as "generalized" but otherwise call it "Caucasoid" or equivalent. This double-standard howevert is contradicted by Africa's diversity, and clear tropical body/limb proportion affinities of its migrating peoples
For example, Jantz and Ousley 2003 assert that: "Upper Paleolithic crania are, for the most part, larger and more generalized versions of recent Europeans." (AJPA 121(2))
But their wording gives the game away. They achieve a "match" with "recent Europeans" because features deemed to have African affinities are defined away as "generalized." The African irritant thus eliminated, they can then go on to cluster all else with Europe. Two central points undermine this method:
-----------CRANIA Africa has the most diversity in crania in the world. It has almost any skull variation on earth. This diversity DECREASES the farther one goes from Africa. As one of the world's foremost palentologists Chris Stringer notes:
[i]"Africa today has the greatest internal genetic variation of any inhabited continent and its skull shapes show the highest variation. This is usually attributed to its greater size, larger ancient populations and deepest timelines for humanity." ----Chris Stringer (2012) Lone Survivors: How we came to be the only human on earth p260
-----------TROPICAL LIMB/BODY ADAPTATIONS "Erik Trinkhaus noted that the Cro-Magnons who livd in much the same environments as Neanderthals were more like recent African populations in body shape than Neanderthals. And the same thing now seems to apply to the earliest modern skeleton we have from the north of Ice Age China." ----Chris Stringer (2012) Lone Survivors: How we came to be the only human on earth p105
Qafzeh/Skhul remains cluster more with tropical Africans and show similarities to Cro-Magnons. They are not identical, nor are they direct parents, but they show certain affinities- Cro-Magnons themselves also showing tropical affinities.
i]"The Qafzeh/Skhul sample is fundamentally modern, and in fact very similar to Cro-Magons.." --Geoffrey A. Clark, Catherine M. Willermet. 1997. Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research. p111
"Results indicate that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have African-like, or tropically adapted, proportions, while those from Amud, Kebara, Tabun, and Shanidar (Iraq) have more European-like, or cold-adapted, proportions. This suggests that there were in fact two distinct Western Asian populations and that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids were likely African in origin - a result consistent with the "Replacement" model of modern human origins.
.. Thus, the discovery of tropically adapted hominids in the region would therefore likely indicate population dispersal from the TROPICS, and the most logical geographic source for such an influx is Africa. In this regard, Trinkaus (1981, 1984, 1995) and Ruff (1994) have argued that the high brachial and crural indices, narrow biiliac breadths, and small relative femoral head sizes of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids suggest an influx of African genes associated with the emergence of modern humans in the region." ---Trenton Holliday (2000) Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia. American Anthropologist. New Series, Vol. 102, No. 1, 54-68
In summary, Cro-Magnons were tropically adapted migrants to Europe that resembled tropical Africans. They were never IDENTICAL to tropical Africans for they adapted over time to colder European environments. However several specimens still show evidence of African links. Africa in addition has the highest phenotypic diversity in the world. For example, skull shapes on African fossils for example are the most diverse. They cover most known variants in skull shape on earth- thru the ages. Everything else is a more limited subset of this diversity. Its worth repeating:
"Africa today has the greatest internal genetic variation of any inhabited continent and its skull shapes show the highest variation. This is usually attributed to its greater size, larger ancient populations and deepest timelines for humanity." ----Chris Stringer (2012) Lone Survivors: How we came to be the only human on earth p260
When in comes to Cro-Magnons's Eurocentric writers play a hypocritical double game, defining away African features as "generalized" but not doing the same when it comes to their favorite "European" fossils. Thus a dark-skinned, broad nosed, prognathous fossil with tropical limb proportions becomes "generalized[/img] features" but a narrow nose (common in Africa by the way) conveniently becomes "European". Can we all say hypocrisy?
Blombos- Africa: oldest pigment production operation on earth. Advanced cognitive, behavioral, technological and social features were already in place and ongoing before any migration out of Africa.
Assorted Multi-regionalists like Michael Wolpoff deny such diversity, but that denial is hollow in the face of substantial evidence of the Out OF Africa model. Four prominent multi-regionalists along with Wolpoff claimed in 1994 for example- QUOTE:
"The evolutionary patterns of three different regions show that the earliest "modern" humans are not Africans and do not have the complex of features that characterize the Africans of that time or any other... There is no evidence of specific admixture with Africans at any time, let alone replacement by them.. " END WOLPOFF et all quote.
But, Wolpoff et al are comprehensively refuted by fossil and DNA evidence of the Out OF Africa model: Respected paleontologist Chris Stringer notes: (continued)
"This model gave Africa no special place in our evolution and claimed specific connections in individual features between Homo erectus fossils more than a million years old in each region and humans in the same regions today.. these particular views have been pretty comprehensively shown to be false." ----Chris Stringer (2012) Lone Survivors: How we came to be the only human on earth p267
Other scholars attest to African affinities of Cro-Magnon via DNA quote: "Molecular biology has traced the ancestry of the Cro-Magnons deep into tropical Africa, into the territory of the hypothetical African Eve"... --Cro-Magnon:How the Ice Age Gave Birth to the First Modern Humans, By Brian Fagan,pg 89 (2010).
quote: "In modern humans, this elongation is a pattern characteristic of warm-adapted populations, and this physique may be an early Cro-Magnon retention from African ancestors. Similar retentions may be observed in certain indices of facial shape ..." --Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory. by Eric Delson
Full development of certain haplotypes would in time, come into being outside Africa, but core "root-types" were already in place within Africa, with variable indigenous expansion and differentiation within Africa, before any migration.
"These indicate that the root of L3 gives rise to a multifurcation from a single haplotype producing a number of distinct subclades... The simplest explanation for this geographical distribution [haplogroups M and N], however, is an expansion of the root type within East Africa, where several independent L3 branches thrive, including a sister group to L3, christened L4 (Kivisild et al. 2004; Chap. 7), followed by divergence into haplogroups M and N somewhere between the Horn of Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Since neither the L3 root type nor any other descendants survive outside Africa, the root type itself must have become extinct during a period of genetic drift in the founder population as it diversified into haplogroups M and N, if the diversification was outside Africa. If on the other hand the diversification was indeed within East Africa, then Haplogroups M and N must have either been carried out of Africa in their entirety or subsequently have become extinct within Africa, with the singular exception of the derived M1." - Hans-Jürgen Bandelt et. 2006. EDS. Human Mitochondrial DNA and the Evolution of Homo sapiens.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
An Ivy league professor to boot! Is it any wonder why the cracker is such a low IQ Charlaton? Anyone reviewing Charlatan Coon's evidence based on superficial physical characteristics and outright distortion and lies has to agree That Charlatan Coon monkey sure was a brilliant man! You can tell how brilliant he was by how respected he is today by the caliber of monkey that uses him as a source in 2012 LOL
Coon was clearly a fool, a liar and a white supremacist racist, but he was right about ONE THING folks! The obvious biological differences between the cracker and true human beings! little did the fool know, that the sub species is the cracker! bwahahahaha!!!!!
The filthy, thin lipped, flat assed, stringy haired monkey now insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers (Khoisan peoples)
You can shut the filthy wicked, low IQ monkey down quite easily by informing the reprobate that the Khoisan peoples possess ZERO% neanderthal admixture. This devil insists on talking about OUR ancestral fathers while neglecting its own zoo animals fathers, which happen to be 48 chromosome sprs (Neanderthal, Denosovan) I guess if my father was a 48 chromosome ape, Id lie and try to assume the identity of human being too! The crackers daddy is a 48 chromosome ape with some monley added in the ungodly mix too! (RH factor)
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk about cats! bwahahahaha!!!!! The filthy sub species reprobate does not even understand why I utilize the liger and Tigon in my dissection of the ape Hybrid, sub species cracker! LOL
ALL cats with the exception of some found in South Americas possess 38 chromosomes! that goes from a house cat to a Lion to a tiger. They ALL possess 38 chromosomes!
Lions and tigers share the same # of chromosomes but are two different species
Then same applies to dogs, which is another animal that these filthy monkeys love to utilize. ALL dogs from the poodle to the wolf share 78 chromsomes
Which brings us to the degenerate, filthy cracker! While it is true that these evil abominations possess 46 chromosomes... when you peep back the onion on these monmsters, you find RECENT common ancesters for these reprobates!
For example there is 48 chromosome ape Neanderthal, Denisovan)
Then you have 42 chromosome monkey (Rh factor)
and of course they also possess human DNA as well!
This MIX all happened within the last 100,000 years folks! There is absoluetl,y no question that the white man is not a true human! it is an ape hybrid and a sub species with THREE SEPERATE species of DNA running through this abominations veins
I guess if I were a low IQ pink assed monkey, Id be talking about cats too!
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: "Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded." - Precisely how you have shifted from morphology to a genetic definition.
No, brain-dead vegitable, your excerpt clearly mentions two roles (demanding vs presenting evidence). When I'm doing the latter (posting Coon excerpts that disagree with what you're saying), its impossible for me to be in a position of demanding evidence and arbitrarily shooting it down (i.e., moving the goalpoint). At that point in time, YOU're reviewing the Coon citation I bring to the table. LMAO. You're so low IQ, its not even funny anymore. You went out of your way to search the definition, and you still fail to not see that your bizarre interpretation of the phrase is totally off.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Coon's position, like mine, is that if crania shows morphological admixture, it is not homogenous.
No one in his right mind says that admixed populations are homogenous. Where you and the whole world (including Coon) differ, however, is in your retarded claim that minor negroid admixture nullifies a Mediterranean classification for the population as a whole. Coon says that Somali's are Mediterraneans, and that 20% of them display strong Negroid traits. Nowhere does he say that that makes Somali not Mediterranean as a population.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: This is very different to the one drop rule you are setting up - that someone with distant Negroid ancestry but looks 100% Caucasoid is somehow not Caucasoid.
You're talking out of your ass, I'm not setting up anything. The purely Mediterranean Agua man belongs to a population with more than 20% strong negro admixture, according to Coon. According to you (but not Coon), this means that the population as a whole cannot be Mediterranean. Unless you're claiming that the Agau are negroes because of this minor supposedly 20% contribution, none of this has anything to do with the one drop rule, which refers to action of arbitrarily inflating a minor component of someone's ancestry, and ignoring the larger genetic component when classifying that person. Again, you're too dumb to understand the terms you're throwing around, from the one drop rule, to moving the goal post. You're just too low IQ.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: No that's not true.
Of course it's true. Your post-Pleistocene Coonian maps, which you've posted non-stop, all show the Caucasoid coloration extending well into the Horn. Somali's as a populational average, fall into the Caucasoid range for all of the 'litmus tests' you've paraded around as the holy grail (leptorrhiny, orthochnathy, leptoprosopy) during your stay here. Additionally, you subscribe to Baker, Seligman and Sergi--none of them say that most Ethiopians are hybrids. They flat-out call them Caucasoid.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I claimed most Ethiopians fall intermediate between Caucasoids/Negroids
Thanks for confirming you're in total disagreement with Coon, Sergi and Baker who radically disagree with you.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You claimed those people are Meds, but Coon explicitly states they are not.
An oasis dweller from Kharga. This extremely dolichocephalic, low-vaulted, and relatively low-nosed Mediterranean sub-type --Coon
^Watch the fag Angho psychopathically deny that the except above states that the Kharga man is a 'Mediterranean subtype'.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No, brain-dead vegitable, your excerpt clearly mentions two roles (demanding vs presenting evidence). When I'm doing the latter (posting Coon excerpts that disagree with what you're saying), its impossible for me to be in a position of demanding evidence and arbitrarily shooting it down (i.e., moving the goalpoint). At that point in time, YOU're reviewing the Coon citation I bring to the table. LMAO. You're so low IQ, its not even funny anymore. You went out of your way to search the definition, and you still fail to not see that your bizarre interpretation of the phrase is totally off.
You changed the criteria of race from morphology to genetics once you realised the former destroyed your position. This is moving the goalpost - radically shifting definitions and criteria of race after you were debunked (the former criteria of evidence according to you now isn't good enough - hence you've 'raised the bar'). Now that you have been exposed as a total fraud once again you've been been forced to the laughable position to claim I don't understand the fallacy. Yet anyone objective reading your posts isn't fooled. I'm not the idiot who shifts definitions and criteria once loosing.
Recap: You've gone from claiming crania with high NI's and prognathism are Mediterranean. To then retracting that morphological claim, to now employing the one drop rule (suddenly now people who look 100% Caucasoid with thin noses, orthognathism etc are hybrids).
quote:No one in his right mind says that admixed populations are homogenous.
You have. Suffering from amnesia? Or are you ashamed of your earlier posts? You're the one who has claimed throughout this thread crania showing Negroid morphological "tendencies" are Mediterranean. However recently you've now moved away from this (embarrassed?) and started using a bogus genetic definition of race (despite the fact Coon's 1939 study never used genetics).
quote:Coon says that Somali's are Mediterraneans, and that 20% of them display strong Negroid traits. Nowhere does he say that that makes Somali not Mediterranean as a population.
Nowhere does Coon claim modern Somali's are Mediterranean. God you are thick. The different ethnic castes in Somali like Ethiopia show different ranges of Hamiticization. Coon (1939) and later (1965) outlines the different ethnic groups and castes in Somaliland-Eritrea and their levels of Negroid/Caucasoid ancestry. Those that show Negroid physical admixture he does not label Mediterranean.
quote:You're talking out of your ass, I'm not setting up anything. The purely Mediterranean Agua man belongs to a population with more than 20% strong negro admixture, according to Coon. According to you (but not Coon), this means that the population as a whole cannot be Mediterranean.
Another lie (how many is that now? 50?). Coon doesn't claim that man is Mediterranean, "This type, while well-characterized today, cannot be identified with any hitherto studied skeletal Mediterranean sub-race".
What part of "cannot" don't you understand?
quote:Unless you're claiming that the Agau are negroes because of this minor supposedly 20% contribution, none of this has anything to do with the one drop rule, which refers to action of arbitrarily inflating a minor component of someone's ancestry, and ignoring the larger genetic component when classifying that person.
They are not Negroids or Caucasoids. They are a clinal population as Coon notes.
You've used the one drop rule elsewhere, specifically where you quoted Coon who asserted African x looks 100% Caucasoid, but had distant Negroid ancestry (not physically detectable) -- which is where you attempted to shift the criteria of race to genetics. That's the one drop rule by your standard not Coon - who accepted them as Caucasoids.
quote:Of course it's true. Your post-Pleistocene Coonian maps, which you've posted non-stop, all show the Caucasoid coloration extending well into the Horn.
Of course. But that map was made for 15,000 - 10,000 BC idiot. That was before Negroids arrived in the area.
quote:Somali's as a populational average, fall into the Caucasoid range for all of the 'litmus tests' you've paraded around as the holy grail (leptorrhiny, orthochnathy, leptoprosopy) during your stay here. Additionally, you subscribe to Baker, Seligman and Sergi--none of them say that most Ethiopians are hybrids. They flat-out call them Caucasoid.
Yet another lie. Baker (1974) popularised the term Aethiopid for them. Nowhere do any of those authors label them Caucasoids, excluding the high castes/certain ethnic groups.
The all Somalis/Ethiopians = Caucasoid claim is an Afrocentric fallacy you, doug and other retards set up. Its a straw man, where you try and portray race typology as stupid as possible, hence the silly thread claiming "a Caucasoid Pygmy"...
quote:Thanks for confirming you're in total agreement with Coon, Sergi and Baker who radically agree with you, but me, doug and other Afroquacks set up false views of those authors to knock down.
Edited.
quote: ^Watch the fag Angho psychopathically deny that the except above states that the Kharga man is a 'Mediterranean subtype'.
Indeed.
"This type, while well-characterized today, cannot be identified with any hitherto studied skeletal Mediterranean sub-race."
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No, brain-dead vegitable, your excerpt clearly mentions two roles (demanding vs presenting evidence). When I'm doing the latter (posting Coon excerpts that disagree with what you're saying), its impossible for me to be in a position of demanding evidence and arbitrarily shooting it down (i.e., moving the goalpoint). At that point in time, YOU're reviewing the Coon citation I bring to the table. LMAO. You're so low IQ, its not even funny anymore. You went out of your way to search the definition, and you still fail to not see that your bizarre interpretation of the phrase is totally off.
You changed the criteria of race from morphology to genetics once you realised the former destroyed your position. This is moving the goalpost - radically shifting definitions and criteria of race after you were debunked (the former criteria of evidence according to you now isn't good enough - hence you've 'raised the bar'). Now that you have been exposed as a total fraud once again you've been been forced to the laughable position to claim I don't understand the fallacy. Yet anyone objective reading your posts isn't fooled. I'm not the idiot who shifts definitions and criteria once loosing.
Recap: You've gone from claiming crania with high NI's and prognathism are Mediterranean. To then retracting that morphological claim, to now employing the one drop rule (suddenly now people who look 100% Caucasoid with thin noses, orthognathism etc are hybrids).
quote:No one in his right mind says that admixed populations are homogenous.
You have. Suffering from amnesia? Or are you ashamed of your earlier posts? You're the one who has claimed throughout this thread crania showing Negroid morphological "tendencies" are Mediterranean. However recently you've now moved away from this (embarrassed?) and started using a bogus genetic definition of race (despite the fact Coon's 1939 study never used genetics).
quote:Coon says that Somali's are Mediterraneans, and that 20% of them display strong Negroid traits. Nowhere does he say that that makes Somali not Mediterranean as a population.
Nowhere does Coon claim modern Somali's are Mediterranean. God you are thick. The different ethnic castes in Somali like Ethiopia show different ranges of Hamiticization. Coon (1939) and later (1965) outlines the different ethnic groups and castes in Somaliland-Eritrea and their levels of Negroid/Caucasoid ancestry. Those that show Negroid physical admixture he does not label Mediterranean.
quote:You're talking out of your ass, I'm not setting up anything. The purely Mediterranean Agua man belongs to a population with more than 20% strong negro admixture, according to Coon. According to you (but not Coon), this means that the population as a whole cannot be Mediterranean.
Another lie (how many is that now? 50?). Coon doesn't claim that man is Mediterranean, "This type, while well-characterized today, cannot be identified with any hitherto studied skeletal Mediterranean sub-race".
What part of "cannot" don't you understand?
quote:Unless you're claiming that the Agau are negroes because of this minor supposedly 20% contribution, none of this has anything to do with the one drop rule, which refers to action of arbitrarily inflating a minor component of someone's ancestry, and ignoring the larger genetic component when classifying that person.
They are not Negroids or Caucasoids. They are a clinal population as Coon notes.
You've used the one drop rule elsewhere, specifically where you quoted Coon who asserted African x looks 100% Caucasoid, but had distant Negroid ancestry (not physically detectable) -- which is where you attempted to shift the criteria of race to genetics. That's the one drop rule by your standard not Coon - who accepted them as Caucasoids.
quote:Of course it's true. Your post-Pleistocene Coonian maps, which you've posted non-stop, all show the Caucasoid coloration extending well into the Horn.
Of course. But that map was made for 15,000 - 10,000 BC idiot. That was before Negroids arrived in the area.
quote:Somali's as a populational average, fall into the Caucasoid range for all of the 'litmus tests' you've paraded around as the holy grail (leptorrhiny, orthochnathy, leptoprosopy) during your stay here. Additionally, you subscribe to Baker, Seligman and Sergi--none of them say that most Ethiopians are hybrids. They flat-out call them Caucasoid.
Yet another lie. Baker (1974) popularised the term Aethiopid for them. Nowhere do any of those authors label them Caucasoids, excluding the high castes/certain ethnic groups.
The all Somalis/Ethiopians = Caucasoid claim is an Afrocentric fallacy you, doug and other retards set up. Its a straw man, where you try and portray race typology as stupid as possible, hence the silly thread claiming "a Caucasoid Pygmy"...
quote:Thanks for confirming you're in total agreement with Coon, Sergi and Baker who radically agree with you, but me, doug and other Afroquacks set up false views of those authors to knock down.
Edited.
quote: ^Watch the fag Angho psychopathically deny that the except above states that the Kharga man is a 'Mediterranean subtype'.
Indeed.
"This type, while well-characterized today, cannot be identified with any hitherto studied skeletal Mediterranean sub-race."
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You changed the criteria of race from morphology to genetics once you realised the former destroyed your position.
Even if I did this (and I didn't), it STILL doesn't mean moving the goalpost. You can keep repeating that it does, but as long as you can't show where I unfairly and suddenly changed my demands for evidence because you posted evidence that met my earlier demands, you're just talking out of your ass.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Recap: You've gone from claiming crania with high NI's and prognathism are Mediterranean. To then retracting that morphological claim, to now employing the one drop rule.
Talking out of your ass again. I never stopped claiming that Chamla's proto-mediterraneans included broad nosed Muhaad 5, or that Naqadans, for example, were Mediterraneans, and broad nosed, according to Coon. As usual, you're seeing things that aren't there. You're totally out of touch with reality. You don't even know the difference between temporarily refuting something using a different set of evidence (genetics) vs having abandoned a position. Your low IQ is showing.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You have. Suffering from amnesia? Or are you ashamed of your earlier posts?
Show me where I even used the word 'homogenous' in this thread. Phucking liar.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You're the one who has claimed throughout this thread crania showing Negroid morphological "tendencies" are Mediterranean
Another point where Coon totally disagrees with you:
Actually, there is no evidence to show among them a greater negroid tendency than is commonly found among many living Europeans of Mediterranean extraction --Coon
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Coon (1939) and later (1965) outlines the different ethnic groups and castes in Somaliland-Eritrea and their levels of Negroid/Caucasoid ancestry.
Coon and all the other authors you cite are still in disagreement with you. Nowhere do they say that most Ethiopians are intermediate between Negroids and Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Coon doesn't claim that man is Mediterranean, "This type, while well-characterized today, cannot be identified with any hitherto studied skeletal Mediterranean sub-race".
You're too dumb to understand that this excerpt is to be understood as that they were their own subtype within the wider Mediterranean group. Especially since he calls them a Mediterranean sub type elsewhere. Notice also that Coon said 'hitherto', indicating that he knew that later Mediterranean series might show closer links with them. Hence, his statement isn't even definitive, which precludes interpreting it the way you do, dumbass.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: which is where you attempted to shift the criteria of race to genetics. That's the one drop rule by your standard
So, let me make sure the above is really as retarded as I think it is. According to you, shifting the criteria of race to genetics is the same as using the one drop rule?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: That's the one drop rule by your standard not Coon - who accepted them as Caucasoids.
LMAO. You're just going to keep digging your own grave, aren't you? First you say that they're a clinal population according the Coon. You've also said that most Ethiopians aren't Caucasoid, but hybrids. This is in clear violation with Coon who says that only a minority of ~20% fit this description.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Of course. But that map was made for 15,000 - 10,000 BC idiot. That was before Negroids arrived in the area.
Again, you're lying out of your ass. Only one of the two maps show Caucasoids in the Horn, and that map is not the 15.000-10.000 map. In fact, you've totally made up those dates. The pleistocene map is not depicting conditions from 15.000-10.000bc.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Baker (1974) popularised the term Aethiopid for them. Nowhere do any of those authors label them Caucasoids, excluding the high castes/certain ethnic groups.
Semantics. According to Baker, Ethiopids were part of the larger Europid group. Baker is clearly in disagreement with you, as are Coon, Sergi, Seligman and all the other authors you cite.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The all Somalis/Ethiopians = Caucasoid claim is an Afrocentric fallacy you
The fact that you're telling that to the person who posted Coon's view that 20% of Somali's are strongly Negroid shows how retarded you are.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Of course. But that map was made for 15,000 - 10,000 BC idiot. That was before Negroids arrived in the area.
LMAO. See what I wrote above regarding Coon's maps. You've totally fabricated those dates, and Coon only places Caucasoids in the Horn in the Holocene, not in the pleistocene.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Coon's Pleistocene map, the original 2 "races" of Africa Congoid (yellow) Khoisan ( Capoid) ( purple)
Coon, after the Pleistocene, add Caucasoid (green) Mongoloid (blue) Austrailoid (red) Redrawing of a map from en:Carleton S. Coon, The Origin of Races (1962), p. 108-109. (unverified). Distribution of Coon's "five races" after the end of the Pleistocene. This is the second half of the combination of two maps numbered "Map 13", labelled "Pleistocene" and "Early Post-Pleistocene". Original caption:
"This schematic map shows the distribution of the five subspecies of Homo during most of the Pleistocene, from 500,000 to 10,000 years ago. This distribution matches that on the diagram in Chapter 1. Of the five subspecies, the Congoid was the most isolated; it was in contact with only one other, the Capoid, then resident in North Africa. The second map shows what happened at the end of the Pleistocene, when the Mongoloids and Caucasoids expanded and burst out of their territories. The Mongoloids entered and inhabited America, and extended their domain southward into Southeast Asia and Indonesia, while the Australoids crossed Wallace's Line and occupied Australia and New Guinea. The Caucasoids thrust northward. More significantly, they drove the Capoids out of North Africa and occupied the White Highlands of Kenya and Tanganyika. The Congoids were reduced to a small part of their earlier domain, including the Congo forests and the lands to the north, where they later evolved rapidly and spread, as Negroes, over much of Africa."
The term White Highlands describes an area in the central uplands of Kenya, so-called because, during the period of British Colonialism, European or white immigrants settled there in considerable numbers. They were attracted to the good soils and growing conditions, as well as the cool climate.
_______________________________________________
you know what's also weird about this map? If you look at the Khosians supposedly originally in North Africa, they get pushed out by Caucasians. But who is south of the Khosians? The "Congoids" So they pass clear through the whole Congoid part of Africa and only decided to push out the Congoid when the reach South Africa all the way on the other side of the continent and settle there, Coon's a loon. Also he's got marked in pruple here, after the Pleiostine, Khoisans lumped together with Nilotes or others all the way up to Tanzania, Kenya
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote: Vansertimavindicated:
You really have to love watching this low IQ, degenerate pink assed monkley talk
This enitire site except for myself is comprised of one person who has created fake names where he holds conversations with itself! There are too many of these fake names to list, because the fake names are EVERYone THAT posts here, and that includes EVERYONE except for myself of course! Some of the more prominent the fake names are 1) Mike111 2) The Lioness 3) clyde winters 4) Amun-Ra The Ultimate 5) Swenet 6) alTakruri 7) Charlie Bass 8) Doug M 9) Oshun 10) Egmond Codfried 11) Djehuti 12) Zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova 13) DHDoxies
YOU CAN LOOK AT A FEW OF THE MONKEYS FAKE WEBSITES HERE! THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF MANY THAT THIS PINK ASSED MONKEY USES TO TRY AND FOOL YOU
^^^ Intereting, Anglopyramidologist/Faheemdunkers/Cassiterides/White Nubian didn't make the list
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Even if I did this (and I didn't), it STILL doesn't mean moving the goalpost. You can keep repeating that it does, but as long as you can't show where I unfairly and suddenly changed my demands for evidence because you posted evidence that met my earlier demands, you're just talking out of your ass.
You shifted the evidence from morphology to genetics. One only has to look a few posts back to see this. You made the shift because you couldn't find anywhere where Coon labels crania with high NI's Mediterraneans taxonomically. Instead he always asserted such are admixed or show other racial "tendencies". Once you realised you couldn't get round this, you changed the criteria of race to genetics.
quote:Show me where I even used the word 'homogenous' in this thread. Phucking liar.
I stated you asserted crania with broad traits are Mediterranean. Are you now denying this? That position wasn't Coon's, who was predominantly a race typologist. He never lumped Negroid admixed crania in with Caucasoids. No one does. Composite races, he went through great pains to label as seperate taxons, hence he didn't consider African Americans to be Negroid. That's why you are completely wrong, and so stupid to try and twist his views to infer he considered crania that looks Negroid, or Negroid admixed to be Caucasoid. You simply have no idea about Coon or his views. Like Doug and the other Afroloons all you can do is straw man or distort race realist literature.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You're the one who has claimed throughout this thread crania showing Negroid morphological "tendencies" are MediterraneanAnother point where Coon totally disagrees with you:
Actually, there is no evidence to show among them a greater negroid tendency than is commonly found among many living Europeans of Mediterranean extraction --Coon
Wrong. Page 62, the preceeding page, Coon clarifies these are the Natufians. This is the only population Coon (1939) discusses with Negroid "tendencies"/admixture in Europeans (elsewhere he discusses admixed Africans), not the entire Mediterranean (Proper) taxon:
"Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency."
The bold you always cut off to distort Coon's position. As he clarifies on page 62, only the Natufians show "Negroid tendencies". This was a view he retracted in 1962. So not only are you distorting Coon's views, you're distorting views that was retracted 50 years ago.
quote:Coon and all the other authors you cite are still in disagreement with you. Nowhere do they say that most Ethiopians are intermediate between Negroids and Europeans.
No they aren't:
"Similarly, the Ethiopids of Ethiopia and elsewhere (Galla and other tribes) are almost certainly hybrids between Europids with some Negrid admixture" (Baker, 1974).
"Aethiopids [...] It is not possible to state with confidence which Europid subrace was chiefly reponsible for the non-Negrid contributions to this hybrid taxon" (Baker, 1974)
"Today the indigenous population of Africa is mostly clinal. In the Sudan and East Africa, Caucasoids shade into Negroes" (Coon, 1965)
"The peoples of Africa as a whole, may be divided into the North African Caucasoids, the mixed peoples of Ethiopia and the East African highlands and the Pygmies, Negroes, the Bushmen, and the Hottentots." (Coon, 1965)
Note the latter quote, he's generalizing as a whole. Most Ethiopians and Somalis are Aethiopid, meaning Caucasoid-Negroid interracial clinal (excluding the few higher caste Caucasoids). Precisely what I have stated.
- All you can do is distort the literature, because you don't own their works and like an idiot are just picking out quotes online to twist. You have been exposed again and again as a liar. Despite all the quotes above showing how wrong you are, out of ignorance and denial you will come back *somehow* asserting I am wrong.
quote: You've totally fabricated those dates, and Coon only places Caucasoids in the Horn in the Holocene, not in the pleistocene.
Those dates are found throughout his literature: 12,200 BC for the first Caucasoid arrival (Coon, 1965), "before the Pleistocene was over, north-west Africa was invaded by Caucasoids" (Coon, 1962) but "not long before 10,000 BC" (Ibid.). Association with the proto-Caspians - who were thin nosed, orthognathic and narrow faced.
Coon dates the Caucasoid arrival into Africa from 15,000 - 10,000 BC. Figures between those dates are found throughout his works. His earlier dating of up to 20k (1939) was retracted. The Mouillian who he once regarded as Caucasoids, by 1965 he claimed were not. Precisely my position. The Mouillian remains are wide nosed, with alveolar prognathism. They aren't Caucasoid. Although some like to claim they are "robust Caucasoids", but they are working from the OOA hypothesis.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
it's just guessing, that's all it is
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote: "Despite the numerous studies proposing early human population expansions from Africa into Arabia during the Late Pleistocene, no archaeological sites have yet been discovered in Arabia that resemble a specific African industry, which would indicate demographic exchange across the Red Sea. Here we report the discovery of a buried site and more than 100 new surface scatters in the Dhofar region of Oman belonging to a regionally-specific African lithic industry - the late Nubian Complex - known previously only from the northeast and Horn of Africa during Marine Isotope Stage 5,~1128,000 to 74,000 years ago. Two optically stimulated luminescence age estimates from the open-air site of Aybut Al Auwal in Oman place the Arabian Nubian Complex at ~106,000 years ago, providing archaeological evidence for the presence of a distinct northeast African Middle Stone Age technocomplex in southern Arabia sometime in the first half of Marine Isotope Stage 5."
--Jeffrey I. Rose et al
quote:"The method of manufacture of the Jubbah industries differs from the more distinctive techniques described in the extreme southern zones of Arabia, including the Nubian technocomplex in Oman [20] and the production of flakes and blades from flat debitage surfaces at SD-1 in Yemen [22]. Rose et al.[20] have argued that the presence of Nubian core methods in Oman are directly tied to the presence of Homo sapiens in Arabia in MIS 5, whereas Delagnes et al.[22] have argued that the MIS 3 blade and point dominated assemblages in Yemen are broadly reminiscent of techniques that Neanderthals were using in the Levant. The unidirectional convergent technique practiced at JKF-1 and the presence of Levallois points shares some similarities with assemblages in the Levant. Yet, the recovery of a retouched point at JQ-1 and two bifacial pieces at JSM-1 tentatively suggest an affinity with the African Middle Stone Age as opposed to the Levant, where such tool types are absent. Distinctive foliate bifaces, which are present in Africa and southern Arabia, are so far unknown at Jubbah and in northern Arabia."
--Michael D. Petraglia et al.
quote:"Particularly, Yemen has the largest contribution of L lineages (30). So, most probably, this area was the entrance gate of a portion of these lineages in prehistoric times, which participated in the building of the primitive Arabian population."
--Khaled K Abu-Amero et al.
quote:"Systematic survey by the Abydos Survey for Paleolithic Sites project has recorded Nubian Complex artifact density, distribution, typology, and technology across the high desert landscape west of the Nile Valley in Middle Egypt. Our work contrasts with previous investigations of Nubian Complex settlement systems in Egypt, which focused on a small number of sites in the terraces of the Nile Valley, the desert oases, and the Red Sea Mountains. Earlier research interpreted the Nubian Complex, in particular, as a radiating settlement system that incorporated a specialized point production. Our high desert data, however, indicate that the Nubian Complex associated with early modern humans in this region of the high desert reflects a circulating, rather than a radiating, settlement system, and that point production has been over-emphasized. Data available from our work, as well as sites investigated by others, do not conclusively identify Nubian Complex behavioral strategies as modern."
"These data, however, do contribute to the understanding of landscape use by early modern human populations living along the Nile Valley Corridor route out of Africa."
--Deborah I. Olszewskia et al.
quote:Migrations into India “did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations.” There are low frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’— that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.
- U.S. biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You shifted the evidence from morphology to genetics. One only has to look a few posts back to see this
Thanks for silently admitting that you fabricated your claim that I was 'moving the goalpost'. This is, of couse, just one fabrication in a long line of blunders on your part.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You made the shift because you couldn't find anywhere where Coon labels crania with high NI's Mediterraneans taxonomically.
Again, totally fabricated. I introduced the Agau genetic argument on thread page 15, on november the 30th, and I was still talking about negroid tendencies in Mediterranean remains on December the 2nd and December the 3rd, only to have you fabricate, on November the 3rd, that I abandoned the morphological argument in favor of a genetic one. You're clearly mentally ill to be misconstruing reality like that.
quote:Wrong. Page 62, the preceeding page, Coon clarifies these are the Natufians.
You're such a pathethic lying ass faggot. Your fabrications have reached an unprecedented new low. How exactly do Natufians qualify for this description: ''many living Europeans of Mediterranean extraction''? Do they qualify for the 'living' expect? Do they qualify for the 'European' aspect? Fill me in, psycho.
quote:This is the only population Coon (1939) discusses with Negroid "tendencies"/admixture in Europeans
And then, in a manner that is typical of your long record of telling outright lies, you attempt to prove your claim that only Natufian Meds had minor negroid affinities, by posting an excerpt which says that Natufians were, in fact, NOT the only ones with the described minor Negroid tendency. Aside from being a pathological liar, you clearly also have a reading comprehension problem.
quote:not the entire Mediterranean (Proper) taxon
Totally fabricated strawman argument. The Coonian citation, and I myself, have always claimed that such Negroid traits were considered normal for Mediterraneans, according to Coon.
quote:The bold you always cut off to distort Coon's position. As he clarifies on page 62, only the Natufians show "Negroid tendencies".
Prove that Coon says this on p62. **Note how the faggot Faheemdunkers will act like I never asked him this, and how he will skip the request**.
quote:This was a view he retracted in 1962. So not only are you distorting Coon's views, you're distorting views that was retracted 50 years ago.
Coon didn't retract anything. The Shuqbah Natufians are in an area which is depicted by him as Caucasoid in 1939, and he repeats in 1962 that they're Caucasoid. That you think this represents a retraction, is further evidence of your mental retardation, and your habit of fabricating data.
quote:No they aren't:
Again, your sources all conflict with your claims. For instance, Baker says that Ethiopids are hybrids, with ''some'' negrid admixture. Nowhere even close to what your claiming, namely, that most Ethiopians have Negroid admixture, and placed in between Caucasoids and Negroids. Your Coon quotes don't go against the ones I cited earlier where he says only 20% are strongly Negroid. Your silence on Seligman and Sergi on this issue speaks parts. You can't find a citation where they claim that most Cushitic speaking horners are morpholigically in between Negroids and Caucasoids, and you know it.
quote:Those dates are found throughout his literature
Translation, I totally phucked up in fabricating claims in regards to the 1939 maps.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
EDIT
quote:not the entire Mediterranean (Proper) taxon
Totally fabricated strawman argument. The Coonian citation, and I myself, have always claimed that such Negroid traits were considered normal for **some** Mediterranean groups, according to Coon.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Your finished. You can only now respond with mostly one liners.
You claimed Coon and Baker asserted Ethiopians were Caucasoid or a Europid subrace. These claims are false:
"Similarly, the Ethiopids of Ethiopia and elsewhere (Galla and other tribes) are almost certainly hybrids between Europids with some Negrid admixture" (Baker, 1974).
"Aethiopids [...] It is not possible to state with confidence which Europid subrace was chiefly reponsible for the non-Negrid contributions to this hybrid taxon" (Baker, 1974)
"Today the indigenous population of Africa is mostly clinal. In the Sudan and East Africa, Caucasoids shade into Negroes" (Coon, 1965)
"The peoples of Africa as a whole, may be divided into the North African Caucasoids, the mixed peoples of Ethiopia and the East African highlands and the Pygmies, Negroes, the Bushmen, and the Hottentots." (Coon, 1965)
Aethiopids are a hybrid taxon.
Coon and Baker's position was precisely what I have posted. Once you lost this argument you've now shifted to try and assert they didn't consider them "intermediates" - a desperate attempt to save yourself through semantics. As a whole though they did (as the above quotes show), but as i've noted different castes and ethnic groups show different degrees of Hamiticization. In fact Coon notes this in his 1939 study. Seligman's position was that most Ethiopians are also "mixed with Negroes" (Seligman, 1957). All these authors regarded the Ethiopians as a whole to be a hybrid taxon or interracial cline, falling in-between Caucasoids and Negroids as a whole. The same is found in Hooton (1946) who Coon studied under: "The most of the Horn of Africa is occuped by mixed Negroid peoples sometimes signified by the name of the "Ethiopian race". All of these quotes refute your earlier position that these were Caucasoid, when they are hybrids.
You first claimed these authors lumped all these populations under Caucasoids/Europids. Now you've retracted that, and are now arguing they are mixed, just not "intermediate". A sudden 180 degrees turn in views. You will continue to change your position once you know your former views can not be defended - that's all you've done through this thread from shifting to morphology to genetics to now changing your stance on what these anthropologists believed.
quote:Translation, I totally phucked up in fabricating claims in regards to the 1939 maps.
Those maps weren't in Coon's Races of Europe. You don't know the slightest thing about these works, or what they are saying. All you are doing is using google searches to try and distort them. Hence you're in the same boat as Crimson Guard who also distorts them and doesn't even know their publication history. I've also shown how the Afrocentrics on this forum have used the misquotes and distortion from CG. So don't try to pretend in your spare time you read up on Coon. You've used a false source and are continuing to spread lies about Coon across the internet.
quote:Prove that Coon says this on p62.
I've already provided the quote three times. On page 62, and only on that page -- does Coon discuss the origin of Negroid "tendencies". While elsewhere he discusses this, he is only meaning this page - in regards to the Natufians (as clarified in the definition of Med Propers - the sentence you always cut off). On that page he discusses the origin of these traits in Mediterraneans. A view he retracted by 1962. Coon maintained Natufians were ancestral to most European Meds, that's why he used the term "living europeans". Again you show you haven't read the chapter and don't have a clue what you are posting.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Carleton Coon, Races of Europe: Racial distribution map
have fun
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Your finished.
Not at all. YOU are finished. I've never had to concede to any of my views in this thread. This debate, or rather, all your debates with me, inevitable lead up to you walking away from more and more of your originally held claims, until there is nothing left for you to reply selectively to. This is the point at which you, without exception, either stop replying to the person you're debating, or where you typically open a new can of worms, totally unrelated to the topic at hand, to hide the fact that you got your ass handed to you.
quote:You claimed Coon and Baker asserted Ethiopians were Caucasoid or a Europid subrace. These claims are false
"Similarly, the Ethiopids of Ethiopia and elsewhere (Galla and other tribes) are almost certainly hybrids between Europids with some Negrid admixture" (Baker, 1974).
Pathological liar, any specific reason why your OBVIOUSLY MANIPULATED Baker quote not only has zero hits on the internet, but also falsely states ''are almost certainly hybrids'', at the exact location where its supposed to say ''essentially Europid''?
The Aethiopids ('Eastern Hamites' or 'Erythriotes') of Ethiopia and Somaliland are an essentially Europid subrace with some Negrid admixture. --Baker
A phuckin fraud is what you are. Willfully denying reality and mentally giving your own spin on straight-forward information is something you should be slapped for in the teeth, but giving your own spin and manipulating sources by replacing certain words that you don't like and pretending the author wrote your replacements, puts you among the lowest scum (academic) fora have ever seen.
quote:Aethiopids are a hybrid taxon.
The hybrid part obviously refers to the different Europid strains (Arab, Mediterranean, Armenian) Baker saw as participating in the make up of Cushitic speaking Horners. Again, you're too phucking low IQ to understand that ''some Negrid admixture'' can't turn a population into a ''hybrid taxon''.
quote:You first claimed these authors lumped all these populations under Caucasoids/Europids.
Another fabrication. You're lying out of your ass as usual. I clearly restricted that comment to Seligman, Baker and Sergi, and I still stand by that comment. You're so desperate to catch me slipping. From the 'moving the goalpost' fiasco, to the imaginary 'shift from morphology to genetics' blunder. Your low IQ has you seeing things.
quote:Now you've retracted that, and are now arguing they are mixed, just not "intermediate".
Me saying they have a minority foreign component is not inconsistent with me saying they're still considered Caucasoid, as a populational whole. I've already told you this a thousand times, but your low IQ ass always responds by telling me that minor foreign features by definition nullify a certain classification. It is clear that almost all the authors you cite disagree with this, as can be seen by the fact that the distribution of blond hair (a trait that traces back to a single mutation, meaning, it gained its current distribution by admixture) has no implications for the Caucasoid sub-types who aren't supposed to have light hair and eyes (e.g., Mediterraneans). Baker explicitly states that Ethiopid admixture in Bantu speakers has no implications for their 'Negrid' classification. Coon also explicitly states that miscegenation with freed African slaves ''had no appreciable effect on the racial position of the country''. Like I said, not one, not two, literally ALL your sources disagree with you.
quote:On page 62, and only on that page -- does Coon discuss the origin of Negroid "tendencies".
False. All he does on p62 is describing the two types of Natufian. So again, where on p62 does Coon inform us that the tendency of certain Meds to have 'minor negroid affinity', traces back to Natufians?
quote:A view he retracted by 1962.
Aside from the fact that this is yet another example of the fact that you don't comprehend what you read (''Natufians are Caucasoid'' is not a retraction), your fabricated claim is also predicated on your fabricated assumption that Coon didn't consider them Caucasoid in the first place, hence, your low IQ reasoning that any Coon statement down the road that they are, must represent a retraction.
quote:Coon maintained Natufians were ancestral to most European Meds
Prove that Coon 1939 stated that Natufians were ancestral to most European Meds.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
The quote appears on page 12. The quote you have put up is a seperate quotation, found on page 225. On page 12, Baker remarks:
"Similarly, the Aethiopids of Ethiopia and elsewhere (Galla and other tribes) are almost certainly hybrids between Europids with some Negrid admixture, but certain authorities regard them as Negrids with Europid admixture."
I've manipulated nothing. I merely ommissed the single "A" from Ethiopid (however both terms refer to the same taxon). Baker (1974) regarded Aethiopids to be an interracial clinal population (like Coon and Seligman) between Caucasoids and Negrids (Negroids).
quote:According to Baker, Ethiopids were part of the larger Europid group. Baker is clearly in disagreement with you, as are Coon, Sergi, Seligman.
Yet, nowhere does Baker cluster the composite/hybrid Aethiopids as Europids/a Europid subrace. In fact the quote you cite (page 225) covers Aethiopids under "hybrid populations" (alongside the Turanids). Don't embarrass yourself further.
You don't own these texts and all you are doing is twisting passages you find off google searches. Since you don't have all the text available all you can do is distort passages without grasping the context. As shown above you try to claim Baker (1974) lumps Aethiopids with Europids, despite the fact in his work he dedicates his time claiming they are a hybrid taxon, and stresses their Negrid admixture.
What you don't also seem to understand is that clinal or hybrid populations are lumped by these authors with other taxons - for convenience, but not taxonomically (Baker throughout his work notes that Aethiopids are a hybrid and seperate taxon). If a population is created through two subspecies interbreeding, the result belongs to neither taxon. Yet given enough generations more traits of either subspecies will manifest. This is the old lumper vs splitter debate. AA's are Negroid-Caucasoid admixed, but more of the former. Should they be labeled as Negroes? No one has ever resolved this problem with race crossing. And it was in fact for this reason that Baker in an objective article (1977) called to halt interracialism, purely on the grounds from a scientific perspective it causes taxonomic problems.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: AA's are Negroid-Caucasoid admixed, but more of the former. Should they be labeled as Negroes? No one has ever resolved this problem with race crossing. And it was in fact for this reason that Baker in an objective article (1977) called to halt interracialism, purely on the grounds from a scientific perspective it causes taxonomic problems. [/QB]
technically Caucanegroes
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Me saying they have a minority foreign component is not inconsistent with me saying they're still considered Caucasoid, as a populational whole. I've already told you this a thousand times, but your low IQ ass always responds by telling me that minor foreign features by definition nullify a certain classification. It is clear that almost all the authors you cite disagree with this.
You couldn't be more wrong. Both Coon and Baker were stronger typologists than populationists. Typologists do not look at population wholes, but individuals. These individuals are then identified as races ("types") based on their phenotypical traits. Ironically, Badumtish whose race denial stresses individualism - is the most opposed to race typology.
"For the typologist, the type (eidos) is real and the variation an illusion, while for the populationist the type (average) is an abstraction and only the variation is real." (Mayr, 1997)
Coon and Baker were not populationists.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^ Face it.
Swenet is probably right that you are some low-IQ loser. Either that, or you're simply deranged and in need of psychiatric help. Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Me saying they have a minority foreign component is not inconsistent with me saying they're still considered Caucasoid, as a populational whole. I've already told you this a thousand times, but your low IQ ass always responds by telling me that minor foreign features by definition nullify a certain classification. It is clear that almost all the authors you cite disagree with this.
You couldn't be more wrong. Both Coon and Baker were stronger typologists than populationists. Typologists do not look at population wholes, but individuals. These individuals are then identified as races ("types") based on their phenotypical traits. Ironically, Badumtish whose race denial stresses individualism - is the most opposed to race typology.
"For the typologist, the type (eidos) is real and the variation an illusion, while for the populationist the type (average) is an abstraction and only the variation is real." (Mayr, 1997)
Coon and Baker were not populationists.
LOL
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Crimson Guard then stumbles: "See, thats the problem with the terms and authors that used them. Your better off sticking to Coon who just used Congoids and Capoids. Judging from the pictures I showed above, you do resemble the Paleo-Negroid type more than the Sudanid. But even to them authors, the Paleo-Negroid was primarily Bantu peoples mixed with other types like the Sudanid(standard Negrid)."
Another revealing comment from CG who exposes himself again as a fake account, you can go through his comments for years and years and see the errors. Palaeo-Negrids are not associated with Bantus. The palaeo-Negrids are Forest Negroes. The subtype associated with Bantu is largely Kafrid. CG pretends to "book collect Coon" yet distorts his views, misquotes his literature (remember the whole Fulani affair) and just gets about everything else wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The quote appears on page 12. The quote you have put up is a seperate quotation, found on page 225. On page 12, Baker remarks:
Fair's fair. You're right, after getting my hands on a copy and looking it up, it does appear to be on p12, so I take it back. Now, let's get back to the nitty gritty, now that the playing field is leveled and I too, have a copy of Baker (1974).
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Yet, nowhere does Baker cluster the composite/hybrid Aethiopids as Europids/a Europid subrace.
^That's what Faheemdunkers says. What Baker actually says:
Hybrid populations may originate not only by intersubracial, but also by interracial miscegenation. An interracial hybrid population may give rise to a recognizable new ethnic taxon by intermarriage within itself, generation after generation. Such taxa generally (but not always) originate where the natural habitats of two races abut on one another, and therefore only two ancestral races are concerned. One of these has usually provided the majority of the hybrids. As a result the latter are commonly regarded by anthropologists as belonging to the predominant race, and as constituting a somewhat aberrant subrace of it.] --Baker (1974:p225)
and
Europids have participated in the production of several interracial hybrid taxa to which their contribution has been predominant, so that the hybrids are grouped within the Europid race --Baker (1974:p225)
quote:What you don't also seem to understand is that clinal or hybrid populations are lumped by these authors with other taxons - for convenience, but not taxonomically
When Coon says that broad nosed Natufians are a bit Negroid, but still Mediterranean, you say that Coon never said they were Mediterranean. When Coon says Badarians look a bit Negroid, but still Mediterranean, you again, repeat like a chicken without a head, that Coon didn't say that they were Mediterranean. All on the strength of your own fabricated assumption that the transfer of exotic traits by definition nullify a racial type, according to your sources. Now you do a flip flop, and instead of going against Coon's and Baker's teachings by denying the existence of passages where the above groups are classified as Mediterraneans/Europids, you admit that you were lying all those times when you said those populations were never classified as Mediterraneans. Your new position is that such classifications are out of convenience. Let's see below what implications this flip flopping concession will have on your other ideas.
quote:If a population is created through two subspecies interbreeding, the result belongs to neither taxon.
This is what happenes when you apply your reasoning to Europe:
^It means there is no such thing as a European Mediterranean, and that real Mediterraneans are to be found in large portions of the Middle East and North Africa. It means that European Mediterraneans are only classified as such for convenience. Now what?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:On page 62, and only on that page -- does Coon discuss the origin of Negroid "tendencies".
False. All he does on p62 is describing the two types of Natufian. So again, where on p62 does Coon inform us that the tendency of certain Meds to have 'minor negroid affinity', traces back to Natufians?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Coon maintained Natufians were ancestral to most European Meds
Prove that Coon 1939 stated that Natufians were ancestral to most European Meds.
^Stop running away from these two questions.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Swenet the white man has captured your time
you think you're doing a good deed, following around a white supremacist in high detail for 18 pages in a coversation that by design has no end?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ But on the contrary, instead of Swenet being led by the nose by white supremacist retards, he merely allows them to expose their stupidity to the world, while he exposes his intelligence which refutes them. Fartheadbonkers is a puny puppet that dances for our whims with his pants down his ankles. That is all.
Although I for one would rather discuss more pertinent issues of ancient Egyptian and African history. Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet the white man has captured your time
you think you're doing a good deed, following around a white supremacist in high detail for 18 pages in a coversation that by design has no end?
In a way you're right, faheem stole Swenet's precious time.
But at the same time Swenet has enlightened others on the crap faheem promotes.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
But at the same time Swenet has enlightened others on the crap faheem promotes. [/QB]
assumption
18 pages is necessary?
it's carrot and stick
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Ever since that swine got here, all he did was come into our threads and spout his pseudo-science. He keeps on doing it because no one has held his ass to the fire to the point of embarrassing him, and drilling it down his skull. Sure, refutations have taken place here and there, but rarely anything that has made him backtrack and fall back as much as he has here. It's either this or I'm going to have to hear his fabrications and contradictions for the rest of my stay here.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
But at the same time Swenet has enlightened others on the crap faheem promotes.
assumption
18 pages is necessary?
it's carrot and stick [/QB]
You sound surprisingly self-rightious after having led Mindovermatter on to debate you on something as simple to understand as (tropical) limb proportions in a discussion that had a similar length. There are many other threads which you dragged on just as long. You're just mad you're not the center of attention. BTW, if you subtract the asswhoopings Angho' was subjected to at the hands of Badumtish, it's not that long. I wouldn't be surprised if they exchanged more posts than Faheem and I did.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^That's what Faheemdunkers says. What Baker actually says:
Hybrid populations may originate not only by intersubracial, but also by interracial miscegenation. An interracial hybrid population may give rise to a recognizable new ethnic taxon by intermarriage within itself, generation after generation. Such taxa generally (but not always) originate where the natural habitats of two races abut on one another, and therefore only two ancestral races are concerned. One of these has usually provided the majority of the hybrids. As a result the latter are commonly regarded by anthropologists as belonging to the predominant race, and as constituting a somewhat aberrant subrace of it.] --Baker (1974:p225)
and
Europids have participated in the production of several interracial hybrid taxa to which their contribution has been predominant, so that the hybrids are grouped within the Europid race --Baker (1974:p225)
Those quotes support what I stated, that they are lumped with Europids (Caucasoids) for convenience, not taxonomically. This is shown in the appendix "Tables of Races and Subraces" (pp. 624-625). Look who is also lumped with Europids: Turanids. Yet throughout the work Baker (1974) labels the Turanid race a hybrid taxon. They are an interracial clinal population of two crossed subspecies: Caucasoids with Mongoloids. You will also see the Hottentots (Khoids) are lumped by Baker (p. 625) for convenience under Khoisanids, yet they are a seperate hybrid taxon as he clarifies: "They are almost certainly themselves a hybrid taxon of Sanid and Negrid (Kafrid) ancestry". (p. 306)
As mostly a typologist, Baker agrees with my position that the kontaktrasse/hybrid taxons do not cluster taxonomically with any primary race or subspecies, but are lumped sometimes with them for mere convenience:
"In the way what is sometimes called a Kontaktrasse or ‘hybrid race’ may originate. In such cases, the physical characters of one of the races usually predominate in the hybrid. If so, the hybrids are best regarded as forming a hybrid subrace of the race they more closely resemble. Thus the Aethiopids of Ethiopia are probably best regarded as a hybrid subrace of the Europid race." (Baker, 1977)
Note how Baker labels the Aethiopid a hybrid Europid subrace. He's not clustering it as a Europid taxonomically, but lumping it with the Europids for convenience - hence its still considered "hybrid". If Baker (1974, 1977) had considered Aethiopids as an actual taxonomic subrace of the Europid he wouldn't call it a hybrid taxon. The above quotation from his 1977 article (found here) supports my early claim that:
quote:What you don't also seem to understand is that clinal or hybrid populations are lumped by these authors with other taxons - for convenience, but not taxonomically (Baker throughout his work notes that Aethiopids are a hybrid and seperate taxon). If a population is created through two subspecies interbreeding, the result belongs to neither taxon. Yet given enough generations more traits of either subspecies will manifest. This is the old lumper vs splitter debate. AA's are Negroid-Caucasoid admixed, but more of the former. Should they be labeled as Negroes? No one has ever resolved this problem with race crossing. And it was in fact for this reason that Baker in an objective article (1977) called to halt interracialism, purely on the grounds from a scientific perspective it causes taxonomic problems.
Racial nomenclature and taxonomy at one stage much lump together taxons for convenience - otherwise there would be too many races to count. If a hybrid population shows more manifested traits of a single type (race), as Baker notes for convenience it is lumped with a subspecies taxon (however it is still regarded as hybrid and not a true member of that taxon). Precisely the same is found in Hooton (1946) who clustered for convenience "composite races" (mixed) under primary racial stocks, but throughout his work like Baker (1974) clarified taxonomically they are not members of that major taxon. One of the major works to mostly avoid subspecies classifications, but focus on regional types is Coon, Garn and Birdsell's study (1950). This study identifies 30 different racial types. The Aethiopid, falls under Hamite and is described as a clinal population with Negrid pigmentation and tendency towards spiral hair, but "skeletally Mediterranean" (Caucasoid). So Coon certainly like Baker didn't consider lumping Aethiopids with Caucasoids.
Race typology completely contradicts your position and misrepresentation of these authors views. If you were quoting race populationists - it would be a whole different matter.
quote:When Coon says that broad nosed Natufians are a bit Negroid, but still Mediterranean, you say that Coon never said they were Mediterranean. When Coon says Badarians look a bit Negroid, but still Mediterranean, you again, repeat like a chicken without a head, that Coon didn't say that they were Mediterranean. All on the strength of your own fabricated assumption that the transfer of exotic traits by definition nullify a racial type, according to your sources.
See above. This was precisely Coon's position.
quote:Now you do a flip flop, and instead of going against Coon's and Baker's teachings by denying the existence of passages where the above groups are classified as Mediterraneans/Europids, you admit that you were lying all those times when you said those populations were never classified as Mediterraneans. Your new position is that such classifications are out of convenience.
I never denied they can be labeled or clustered through convenience. However those clusterings are not taxonomic, as I have proven above. You don't understand race typology.
quote:This is what happenes when you apply your reasoning to Europe:
^It means there is no such thing as a European Mediterranean, and that real Mediterraneans are to be found in large portions of the Middle East and North Africa. It means that European Mediterraneans are only classified as such for convenience. Now what?
They are not subspecies, but subraces. Hence the clines are not interracial. Secondly, migration has mixed many of the subraces up (only some concentrated or peak areas are now found). This means you could be a single family - but have brothers or sisters of different subraces. This is apparent in most families. In no way though does this contradict race typology.
quote:Prove that Coon 1939 stated that Natufians were ancestral to most European Meds.
Common knowledge. Coon throughout his work regarded ancestral Meds to have originated in West Asia and like Cole (1963) regarded them as ancestral Mediterraneans, "The Mediterranean race, then, is indigenous to, and the principal element in, the Middle East" (Coon, 1958). His 1939 study deals with some pages on how Europe was populated from this region.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
either you will embarass him out of here
or you are giving him attention and attracting him
I have realized that no matter what one does you can't force somebody or embarass them out of this unmoderated uncared about site. They simply ignore what they like and proceed.
Egyptsearch reloaded is the perfect solution.
yet it seems people need white supremacists to bounce off of
I can understand that
-but within limits
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: either you will embarass him out of here
or you are giving him attention and attracting him
I have realized that no matter what one does you can't force somebody or embarass them out of this unmoderated uncared about site. They simply ignore what they like and proceed.
Egyptsearch reloaded is the perfect solution.
yet it seems people need white supremacists to bounce off of
I can understand that
-but within limits
I've only posted here to defend Baker, Coon and other authors from being distorted, or misquoted by Afrocentrics or others with an agenda across the internet. This led me to find the horrid Fulani misquote by Crimson Guard (who is a fake account), which since I exposed have managed to get deleted from six different forums.
If it wasn't for me, Afronuts would be running wild across the net with their misquotes. Go back a year or more ago and I was also the only person to correct the misrepresentation of David MacRitchie's views.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Those quotes support what I stated, that they are lumped with Europids (Caucasoids) for convenience, not taxonomically.
They don't support what you stated (and you only started stating this 3 posts or so after you realised you phucked up trying to claim that Baker didn't call them Caucasoid, when he in fact did). Here, above, you're admitting it (''lumped with Caucasoids''), just like you've been forced to admit or abandon all your other fabrications.
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: As mostly a typologist, Baker agrees with my position that the kontaktrasse/hybrid taxons do not cluster taxonomically with any primary race or subspecies, but are lumped sometimes with them for mere convenience:
Again, you're lying. According to Baker, hybrids such as Aethiopids are not classified as Europids because of mere convenience, but because of the preponderance of their Europid ancestry. This (preponderance of Europid ancestry) in and of itself makes it taxonomic.
Europids have participated in the production of several interracial hybrid taxa to which their contribution has been predominant, so that the hybrids are grouped within the Europid race --Baker (1974:p225)
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: "In the way what is sometimes called a Kontaktrasse or ‘hybrid race’ may originate. In such cases, the physical characters of one of the races usually predominate in the hybrid. If so, the hybrids are best regarded as forming a hybrid subrace of the race they more closely resemble. Thus the Aethiopids of Ethiopia are probably best regarded as a hybrid subrace of the Europid race." (Baker, 1977)
You can stop throwing around the word 'hybrid', because in your own excerpt Baker clearly means something different than you. He used 'hybrid' even for people who have experienced very little admixture. Its clear that he means 'not unmixed'. This quote is no different from him saying ''As a result the latter are commonly regarded by anthropologists as belonging to the predominant race, and as constituting a somewhat aberrant subrace of it''; its just worded different. Epic fail.
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: If Baker (1974, 1977) had considered Aethiopids as an actual taxonomic subrace of the Europid he wouldn't call it a hybrid taxon.
False, he CLEARLY considers hybrids to belong to what you consider to be exclusively unmixed taxons all the time, for reasons you've shown by now to be totally dumbfounded by (I've stated a thousand times that he uses his rule of preponderant ancestry). In the case of Europid subraces, Baker states that most Europids are hybrid since they're almost all mixed amongst eachother, but that it doesn't matter because ''the preponderance of one subrace in the ancestry is obvious enough, and it is this fact that justifies the recognition of subraces''. You're totally fabricating the notion that hybrid taxons (whether interracial, or sub-racial) can't still be classified as the taxon to which they belonged pre-mixture.
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: They are not subspecies, but subraces. Hence the clines are not interracial.
Irrelevant. No one makes this retarded distinction. Both, within race admixture as well as interracial admixture are capable of forming hybrids, and capable of making populations diverge away from their taxon. As stated above, Baker goes as far as saying that almost all Europids are hybrids, after having absorbed other sub races within their Europid race. Since you have the habit of changing your claims upon pending defeat (i.e., after long denying that the earlier mentioned sources classified Ethiopians as Caucasoid, you now say ''yes they are lumped with Europids but just out of convenience), its inevitable for them to backfire. Now you have to admit that, since Europid sub-races are almost all hybrids (see Baker and the light hair map), they're almost all in their current sub Europid taxon out of convenience, according to your own reasoning.
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Secondly, migration has mixed many of the subraces up (only some concentrated or peak areas are now found).
I love it when people say something so boldly, without realizing how much they're entangling themselves. See the text above where I explain what this means for you.
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Common knowledge. Coon throughout his work regarded ancestral Meds to have originated in West Asia
In other words, you were lying out of your ass as usual. Coon never specifically pointed out Natufians (let alone Shuqbah Natufians) as being the ancestors of most European Mediterraneans. He did, however, point out that Fayumians or related folks migrated to Europe bring Neolithic features with them. Where does this leave your retarded interpretation that the following has anything to do with Natufians, according to Coon? And where does this leave your concept of a negroid-free Mediterranean type? LMAO.
Actually, there is no evidence to show among them a greater negroid tendency than is commonly found among many living Europeans of Mediterranean extraction --Coon
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:On page 62, and only on that page -- does Coon discuss the origin of Negroid "tendencies".
False. All he does on p62 is describing the two types of Natufian. So again, where on p62 does Coon inform us that the tendency of certain Meds to have 'minor negroid affinity', traces back to Natufians?
Still running from this one, I see?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Incredible Human Journey, Episode 1, Arabia Sequence (Eden)
High atop a dusty plateau on the Arabian Peninsula, archaeologist Jeffrey Rose picked up a rock, saw something surprising, and started asking questions that could change history. His unusual discoveries in southern Oman help shape new theories about when early humans may have exited Africa, who those pioneers were, and what route they took on the first stage of their journey to every corner of the Earth.
In the late 1990s geneticists identified mitochondrial DNA signatures suggesting that the first humans to leave Africa may have traveled through Ethiopia to Yemen and Oman. Scientists theorized they were beachcombers who followed the coastline. Rose arrived in the area, eager to test the theory that Arabia was the gateway out of Africa by searching for archaeological evidence. "We surveyed for years," he recalls. "Stone Age artifacts littered the landscape; virtually any place I stopped the car, I found a Paleolithic site. But none of it showed a connection to Africa; and along the coast we found no evidence of humans at all."
He and his international team of scientists returned to Oman in 2010, and on the final day of their surveying season, at the last site on their list, "we hit the jackpot." The find was a very specific stone tool technology used by the "Nubian Complex," nomadic hunters from Africa's Nile Valley. Nubian technology is a unique method of making spear points that was previously only known from North Africa. Rose's team ultimately discovered over a hundred workshop sites where these artifacts were manufactured en masse. "It was scientific euphoria," he describes.
The Nubian origin and inland location of the discovery were equally unexpected. "We had never considered the link to Africa would come from the Nile Valley, and that their route would be through the middle of the Arabian Peninsula rather than along the coast," Rose notes. "But that's what the scientific process is all about. If you haven't proven yourself wrong, you haven't made any progress. In hindsight, the Nubian connection makes perfect sense. The Nile Valley and Oman's Dhofar region are both limestone plateaus, heavily affected by perennial rivers. It's logical that people moved from an environment they knew to another one that mirrored it. At the time when I'm suggesting they expanded out of Africa, southern Arabia was fertile grassland. The Indian Ocean monsoon system activated rivers, and as sand dunes trapped water, it became a land of a thousand lakes. It was a paradise for early humans, whose livelihood depended upon hunting on the open savanna."
Accurately dating Rose's Nubian discovery was made possible by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) technology, which can determine the last time a single buried grain of sand was exposed to light by measuring the amount of energy trapped inside of it. The technique revealed the tools to be 106,000 years old, exactly the same time the Nubian Complex flourished in Africa. This also means Rose's theory places the first exit from Africa much earlier than previously believed. "Geneticists have shown that the modern human family tree began to branch out 60,000 years ago. I'm not questioning when it happened, but where. I suggest the great modern human expansion to the rest of the world was launched from Arabia rather than Africa."
Rose's passion for the past extends beyond fieldwork to how science can be shared with the public. "A few years ago, I was going through an incredibly dramatic wadi (valley) in Oman, hours off the beaten track, and I thought, wouldn't it be great if we could share this place with other people, I bet they'd love to see this." He began shooting short videos every few days and chronicling his work via Twitter updates and website posts. "You can't put into words how unique the landscape here is. Arabia feels like this romantic lost world filled with mysterious ruins; it's a living museum of artifacts. Everyone on Earth had ancestors who passed through this place; why wouldn't you want to show it to people?"
"I'm like a kid in a candy store, there's so much to learn; and now we have so many ways to disseminate information—the Internet, blogs, myriad TV channels, documentaries—it's all making science more interesting, digestible, and relevant to the public," he says. "There's no reason for archaeology and history to be stuffy. How could you not want to know how you got here? It's been said that there's more diversity within a group of 55 chimpanzees than in the entire human population. I think if we help people conceptualize how tiny the genetic distance is between them, it might even help bridge some of the tensions in our world today."
Trying to explain what keeps him based in a desert truck stop, digging through sand, and lugging 100-pound loads of rocks in 100-degree heat, Rose says, "It's like an itch you absolutely have to scratch. An answer you have to find. Who lived here? What were they doing? Are these the people who went on to colonize the entire world? Now that we know it was the Nubians who spread from Africa, I want to know why them in particular? What was it about their technology and culture that enabled them to expand so successfully? And what happened next? That's one of the defining characteristics of our species—we've always looked to the beginning and wanted to understand how we got here. That's what it means to be human."
He and his international team of scientists returned to Oman in 2010, and on the final day of their surveying season, at the last site on their list, "we hit the jackpot." The find was a very specific stone tool technology used by the "Nubian Complex," nomadic hunters from Africa's Nile Valley. Nubian technology is a unique method of making spear points that was previously only known from North Africa. Rose's team ultimately discovered over a hundred workshop sites where these artifacts were manufactured en masse. "It was scientific euphoria," he describes.
The Nubian origin and inland location of the discovery were equally unexpected. "We had never considered the link to Africa would come from the Nile Valley, and that their route would be through the middle of the Arabian Peninsula rather than along the coast," Rose notes. "But that's what the scientific process is all about. If you haven't proven yourself wrong, you haven't made any progress. In hindsight, the Nubian connection makes perfect sense. The Nile Valley and Oman's Dhofar region are both limestone plateaus, heavily affected by perennial rivers. It's logical that people moved from an environment they knew to another one that mirrored it. At the time when I'm suggesting they expanded out of Africa, southern Arabia was fertile grassland. The Indian Ocean monsoon system activated rivers, and as sand dunes trapped water, it became a land of a thousand lakes. It was a paradise for early humans, whose livelihood depended upon hunting on the open savanna."
Accurately dating Rose's Nubian discovery was made possible by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) technology, which can determine the last time a single buried grain of sand was exposed to light by measuring the amount of energy trapped inside of it. The technique revealed the tools to be 106,000 years old, exactly the same time the Nubian Complex flourished in Africa. This also means Rose's theory places the first exit from Africa much earlier than previously believed. "Geneticists have shown that the modern human family tree began to branch out 60,000 years ago. I'm not questioning when it happened, but where. I suggest the great modern human expansion to the rest of the world was launched from Arabia rather than Africa."
Rose's passion for the past extends beyond fieldwork to how science can be shared with the public. "A few years ago, I was going through an incredibly dramatic wadi (valley) in Oman, hours off the beaten track, and I thought, wouldn't it be great if we could share this place with other people, I bet they'd love to see this." He began shooting short videos every few days and chronicling his work via Twitter updates and website posts. "You can't put into words how unique the landscape here is. Arabia feels like this romantic lost world filled with mysterious ruins; it's a living museum of artifacts. Everyone on Earth had ancestors who passed through this place; why wouldn't you want to show it to people?"
"I'm like a kid in a candy store, there's so much to learn; and now we have so many ways to disseminate information—the Internet, blogs, myriad TV channels, documentaries—it's all making science more interesting, digestible, and relevant to the public," he says. "There's no reason for archaeology and history to be stuffy. How could you not want to know how you got here? It's been said that there's more diversity within a group of 55 chimpanzees than in the entire human population. I think if we help people conceptualize how tiny the genetic distance is between them, it might even help bridge some of the tensions in our world today."
Trying to explain what keeps him based in a desert truck stop, digging through sand, and lugging 100-pound loads of rocks in 100-degree heat, Rose says, "It's like an itch you absolutely have to scratch. An answer you have to find. Who lived here? What were they doing? Are these the people who went on to colonize the entire world? Now that we know it was the Nubians who spread from Africa, I want to know why them in particular? What was it about their technology and culture that enabled them to expand so successfully? And what happened next? That's one of the defining characteristics of our species—we've always looked to the beginning and wanted to understand how we got here. That's what it means to be human."
MA’AD SON OF ADNAN - The mother of Ma’ad is said to be Lahm or Liham who is a descendant of Jokshan brother of Zimran, Madan and Madi’an or (ancestor of the Midianites) the children of Ibrahim. Ma’addi or Me’eddi are called Madani by Greeks and are probably the Mydi’an mentioned by Arab writers such as of Andalusia. According to Sa’id of Andalusia after the destruction of Marib, the Shamran (Zimran), Al-Hujr (Hagar), Daws, Myda’an Midi’an, Yashkur, Bariq moved into the went into al-Surat (the Sara’at mountain range). (See Science in the Medieval World, Alok Kumar and Sema’an Salem, p. 43, 1996 .)
quote:Migrations into India “did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations.” There are low frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’— that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.
-- U.S. biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: They don't support what you stated (and you only started stating this 3 posts or so after you realised you phucked up trying to claim that Baker didn't call them Caucasoid, when he in fact did). Here, above, you're admitting it (''lumped with Caucasoids''), just like you've been forced to admit or abandon all your other fabrications.
You can stop throwing around the word 'hybrid', because in your own excerpt Baker clearly means something different than you. He used 'hybrid' even for people who have experienced very little admixture. Its clear that he means 'not unmixed'. This quote is no different from him saying ''As a result the latter are commonly regarded by anthropologists as belonging to the predominant race, and as constituting a somewhat aberrant subrace of it''; its just worded different. Epic fail.
Nowhere does Baker taxonomically cluster them with Europids. If he did, he wouldn't claim they are a seperate "hybrid taxon" (p. 226). And as usual you've completely failed to take into account the Turanids or Hottentots I mentioned, as they debunk your position as well. Baker (1974) in the Appendix lumps both under subspecies for convenience, but throughout his work notes they are hybrid taxons.
Hybrid taxons do not cluster with subspecies. Baker's reasoning for lumping them for sake of convenience is explained throughout his book. Any review and Baker's (1977) article clarifies my position. Gayre in his review notes: "Dr Baker makes the Cushites peoples of Ethiopia (which he calls Aethiopids) a hybrid between Europids and Negrids". Your position is an Afrocentric distortion, the same nonsense we see from Doug and others. It means you can set up straw man threads claiming Coon asserts Pygmies are Caucasoid, if they show "Caucasoid traits". In truth, they would be a hybrid taxon.
Also your position is refuted by the description and criteria of belonging to Europids, by Baker, Coon and others. Aethiopids fall clearly outside the Caucasoid range of metrics and non-metrics (including hair texture). No one labels someone with chocalate skin and an afro a Europid - yet this is the fallacy you and Doug love to set up. Placing Aethiopids inside the Caucasoid division completely makes the Caucasoid taxon invalid. You only have to check Baker's or Coon's description of Caucasoids/Europids, to see Aethiopids fall outside hence they are a "hybrid taxon". Caucasoids are cymotrichous, Aethiopids have "frequencies of spiralled hair" (Coon et al, 1950), other differences obviously exist.
quote:Again, you're lying. According to Baker, hybrids such as Aethiopids are not classified as Europids because of mere convenience, but because of the preponderance of their Europid ancestry. This (preponderance of Europid ancestry) in and of itself makes it taxonomic.
Wrong.
(a) If that were true, they would not be labeled a hybrid taxon - which they are. (b) If that were true, it would contradict Baker and Coon's criteria and definition of Caucasoid. In fact as shown above it would make the whole taxon invalid. It is only your goal to do that.
Can you also explain why Aethiopids would be Caucasoids, when the latter are cymotrichous?
quote:False, he CLEARLY considers hybrids to belong to what you consider to be exclusively unmixed taxons all the time, for reasons you've shown by now to be totally dumbfounded by (I've stated a thousand times that he uses his rule of preponderant ancestry). In the case of Europid subraces, Baker states that most Europids are hybrid since they're almost all mixed amongst eachother, but that it doesn't matter because ''the preponderance of one subrace in the ancestry is obvious enough, and it is this fact that justifies the recognition of subraces''. You're totally fabricating the notion that hybrid taxons (whether interracial, or sub-racial) can't still be classified as the taxon to which they belonged pre-mixture.
Subspecies are not subraces. Subspecies are seperate divisions, subraces fall inside them. There's no problem with composite subraces falling inside the Caucasoid, plenty exist.
Once again your shifting, once you realise your original position cannot be defended.
quote:Irrelevant. No one makes this retarded distinction. Both, within race admixture as well as interracial.
Subspecies are not subraces. A subrace will always fall under a subspecies as a taxon if crossed with another subrace. Two subspecies crossed though do not fall under a subspecies.
quote:As stated above, Baker goes as far as saying that almost all Europids are hybrids, after having absorbed other sub races within their Europid race.
Obviously false. Subraces clearly exist. If they were almost all subracial crosses, there wouldn't be the prevalent subracial phenotypes.
Also note, two subracial crosses = another taxon. For example we have type labels for virtually every subracial cross or intermediate. A Nordid and Atlanto-Mediterranean is an Atlantid, which is my own type. Note that i'm neither Nordid or Med. I belong to a specific smaller taxon, despite being subracial composite.
The same rules are applied to the subspecies, but crossed subspecies cannot fall under a single subspecies since its not intrasubspecific (unlike subraces). Two major racial crosses, do not belong to either race. They're just hybrids.
quote:I love it when people say something so boldly, without realizing how much they're entangling themselves. See the text above where I explain what this means for you.
See above. This backfires on you. Two subracial crossings = new intrataxon. But two subspecies does not equal this. Subspecies are seperate divisions, while subraces fall inside subspecies. To better understand its best to use the term microsubspecies for subraces.
quote:In other words, you were lying out of your ass as usual. Coon never specifically pointed out Natufians (let alone Shuqbah Natufians) as being the ancestors of most European Mediterraneans. He did, however, point out that Fayumians or related folks migrated to Europe bring Neolithic features with them. Where does this leave your retarded interpretation that the following has anything to do with Natufians, according to Coon? And where does this leave your concept of a negroid-free Mediterranean type? LMAO.
Coon outlines the Natufians as the earliest Mesolithic representatives of Caucasoids in West Asia - the ancestral source of Mediterraneans.
quote:that the tendency of certain Meds to have 'minor negroid affinity', traces back to Natufians?
Page 62, Coon traces that to the Natufians: "These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities". When Coon (1939) discusses Negroid admixture, he is only referring to the Natufians.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Nowhere does Baker taxonomically cluster them with Europids. If he did, he wouldn't claim they are a seperate "hybrid taxon" (p. 226).
Already destroyed this. Baker considers Aethiopids to be in the same boat as almost all other Europids when it comes to being hybrids, the only difference being, that he considers Aethiopids to have some interracial admixture, while almost all Europids have intraracial admixture according to him. Despite this, Baker classifies all his Europids according to his rule of prevalent ancestry, just like he classifies Turanids and Aethiopids as Europids using this rule. If Aethopids and Turanids aren't taxonomically Europids, other Europids sub-races are just as much classified out of ''convenience'' as you accuse Aethiopids of being classified out of ''convenience'' on the Europid level. They're ALL classed using this rule.
quote:"Dr Baker makes the Cushites peoples of Ethiopia (which he calls Aethiopids) a hybrid between Europids and Negrids"
You're reduced to repeatedly posting quotes that say the same thing as my quotes, thinking that the word ''hybrid'' is somehow is going to throw me off. As soon as you look up what the Negrid proportion is, you'll find Baker narrows it down to only ''some''.
quote:Placing Aethiopids inside the Caucasoid division completely makes the Caucasoid taxon invalid.
Its already invalid due to the fact that Caucasoids are just a branch on an African nuclear DNA tree, instead of on a tree of themself.
quote:Can you also explain why Aethiopids would be Caucasoids, when the latter are cymotrichous?
You must have mistaken my use of your own sources to debunk you as somehow indicating that I have to defend the inevitable mess racial typology causes. I made you admit that Baker lumped them in with Europids, that's all I was in for.
quote:Subspecies are not subraces. Subspecies are seperate divisions, subraces fall inside them. There's no problem with composite subraces falling inside the Caucasoid, plenty exist.
Your retardation is again showing by your explanation of what those words mean when nothing in my post indicated a misunderstanding of those terms. Lets try again:
In the case of Europid subraces, Baker states that most Europids are hybrid since they're almost all mixed amongst eachother, but that it doesn't matter because [i]''the preponderance of one subrace in the ancestry is obvious enough, and it is this fact that justifies the recognition of subraces''.
You're totally fabricating the notion that hybrid taxons (whether interracial, or sub-racial) can't still be classified as the taxon to which they belonged pre-mixture. In other words, Aethiopids and other Europid sub races are in the same boat; they're both in taxons that they don't wholly conform to. The only difference is that Aethiopids have interracial admixture, while Europid sub types have intraracial admixture. If Aetiopids are classified on a race level simply out of convenience, then Orientalids and Nordids are classified on a sub race level out of convenience as well.
quote:Subspecies are not subraces. A subrace will always fall under a subspecies as a taxon if crossed with another subrace. Two subspecies crossed though do not fall under a subspecies.
Stop bitching. Light hair and light eyes are a smoking gun in that their distribution shows that almost all European sub races are hybrids
quote:Obviously false. Subraces clearly exist. If they were almost all subracial crosses, there wouldn't be the prevalent subracial phenotypes.
Look at the light hair/light eyes map, filthy swine. Just admit it. Subraces are only grouped at the subrace level out of convenience (your own reasoning firing back at you). No Europid subrace is a unmixed descendent of its earliest manifestation:
It is perhaps doubtful whether any Europids of the present day, apart from the Todas and a few other isolated peoples, are descended exclusively from the ancestors who belonged to a single subrace --Baker
They're all hybrid mutts, causing terms like 'Mediterranean' and 'Nordic' to no longer be applicable to them (your own reasoning gone wrong, when applied to your precious Europeans).
quote:Also note, two subracial crosses = another taxon. For example we have type labels for virtually every subracial cross or intermediate. A Nordid and Atlanto-Mediterranean is an Atlantid, which is my own type. Note that i'm neither Nordid or Med. I belong to a specific smaller taxon, despite being subracial composite.
Which, outside of the fact that its pseudo-science (two atlantids can easily produce offspring that fits the Mediterranean or Nordic description better than the atlantid one), has nothing to do with Baker. Stop bringing non-Baker garbage to support a Baker argument.
quote:The same rules are applied to the subspecies, but crossed subspecies cannot fall under a single subspecies since its not intrasubspecific (unlike subraces). Two major racial crosses, do not belong to either race. They're just hybrids.
Retarded pseudo-scientific reasoning: sub-racial hybrids automatically become a new taxon, interracial hybrids are just hybrids.
quote:Two subracial crossings = new intrataxon. But two subspecies does not equal this.
Says who b!tch? You're making up sh!t as you go along. There is no rule that says that two subracial crossings automatically make a new taxon, and you can turn anything into a taxon, since its just a subjective label.
quote:Coon outlines the Natufians as the earliest Mesolithic representatives of Caucasoids in West Asia - the ancestral source of Mediterraneans.
You can keep putting the words in a different syntax, you can switch up the sentence structure all you want. Too bad for you that isn't going to magically produce an excerpt where Coon says that Natufians, let alone the Shukbah Natufians, who had those traits, are the ancestors of most European Mediterraneans. You were lying when you said that, and even IF he indeed said that, that still isn't going to make this go away:
Actually, there is no evidence to show among them a greater negroid tendency than is commonly found among many living Europeans of Mediterranean extraction --Coon
LMAO.
quote:Page 62, Coon traces that to the Natufians: "These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities". When Coon (1939) discusses Negroid admixture, he is only referring to the Natufians.
Translation, I lied; nowhere on p62 does Coon trace back the slight negroid tendency of many living European Mediterraneans to Shuqbah Natufians.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
Subracial crosses are new intraracial taxons that fall under the same subspecies. Take a look at Czekanowski.
The mixed racial types are designated new names. Under a more detailed system, there are names for every single possible cross.
This is completely different to subspecies.
Subspecies: Caucasoid
Aethiopid: Hybrid
Subspecies: Congoid
The Aethiopid cannot fall in either subspecies, as it falls outside to begin with. Its not an intrasubspecies division like subraces, but an interracial hybrid or mixed racial clinal population.
I never denied interracial crosses are a new taxon (they do need a label), they don't though fall under a subspecies. This is an impossibility (see above).
And all of this explains why Baker (1977) opposed interracialism on purely scientific grounds but not intersubracialism. The latter doesn't confuse the taxonomy (because they all fall within a subspecies). What messes up race taxonomy is when two subspecies mate.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Isn't Jan Czekanowski associated with the Nazis?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
^ No. He saved certain Jewish sects from persecution by the Nazis by arguing they were converts and a non-Semitic racial type.
Most of the scientists who studied race during the inter-war period were apolitical, including many of the Nazis race scientists themselves. They had no involvement in the holocaust.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Isn't Jan Czekanowski associated with the Nazis?
I wouldn't be surprised if he was. You know these racialist/racist types usually are affiliated with Nazis or Nazi ideology.
To Swenet, you are wasting your time arguing with the Anglo-Idiot in regards to "subraces" especially since genetics has disproven such a notion. You say that the notion of subraces is argued for convenience which makes sense because the concept is rooted in the notion of 'race' which doesn't exist and has no genetic basis and is entirely arbitrary and specious. Though not all Mediterranean Euros are descended from African/West Asian ancestors, many are and such ancestry is also found in central Europe and even northern Europe among folks that look completely 'Nordic'. Thus 'race' let alone 'subrace' does not exist.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Incredible Human Journey, Episode 1, Arabia Sequence (Eden)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIJeFL6uOqU High atop a dusty plateau on the Arabian Peninsula, archaeologist Jeffrey Rose picked up a rock, saw something surprising, and started asking questions that could change history. His unusual discoveries in southern Oman help shape new theories about when early humans may have exited Africa, who those pioneers were, and what route they took on the first stage of their journey to every corner of the Earth.
In the late 1990s geneticists identified mitochondrial DNA signatures suggesting that the first humans to leave Africa may have traveled through Ethiopia to Yemen and Oman. Scientists theorized they were beachcombers who followed the coastline. Rose arrived in the area, eager to test the theory that Arabia was the gateway out of Africa by searching for archaeological evidence. "We surveyed for years," he recalls. "Stone Age artifacts littered the landscape; virtually any place I stopped the car, I found a Paleolithic site. But none of it showed a connection to Africa; and along the coast we found no evidence of humans at all."
He and his international team of scientists returned to Oman in 2010, and on the final day of their surveying season, at the last site on their list, "we hit the jackpot." The find was a very specific stone tool technology used by the "Nubian Complex," nomadic hunters from Africa's Nile Valley. Nubian technology is a unique method of making spear points that was previously only known from North Africa. Rose's team ultimately discovered over a hundred workshop sites where these artifacts were manufactured en masse. "It was scientific euphoria," he describes.
The Nubian origin and inland location of the discovery were equally unexpected. "We had never considered the link to Africa would come from the Nile Valley, and that their route would be through the middle of the Arabian Peninsula rather than along the coast," Rose notes. "But that's what the scientific process is all about. If you haven't proven yourself wrong, you haven't made any progress. In hindsight, the Nubian connection makes perfect sense. The Nile Valley and Oman's Dhofar region are both limestone plateaus, heavily affected by perennial rivers. It's logical that people moved from an environment they knew to another one that mirrored it. At the time when I'm suggesting they expanded out of Africa, southern Arabia was fertile grassland. The Indian Ocean monsoon system activated rivers, and as sand dunes trapped water, it became a land of a thousand lakes. It was a paradise for early humans, whose livelihood depended upon hunting on the open savanna."
Accurately dating Rose's Nubian discovery was made possible by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) technology, which can determine the last time a single buried grain of sand was exposed to light by measuring the amount of energy trapped inside of it. The technique revealed the tools to be 106,000 years old, exactly the same time the Nubian Complex flourished in Africa. This also means Rose's theory places the first exit from Africa much earlier than previously believed. "Geneticists have shown that the modern human family tree began to branch out 60,000 years ago. I'm not questioning when it happened, but where. I suggest the great modern human expansion to the rest of the world was launched from Arabia rather than Africa."
Rose's passion for the past extends beyond fieldwork to how science can be shared with the public. "A few years ago, I was going through an incredibly dramatic wadi (valley) in Oman, hours off the beaten track, and I thought, wouldn't it be great if we could share this place with other people, I bet they'd love to see this." He began shooting short videos every few days and chronicling his work via Twitter updates and website posts. "You can't put into words how unique the landscape here is. Arabia feels like this romantic lost world filled with mysterious ruins; it's a living museum of artifacts. Everyone on Earth had ancestors who passed through this place; why wouldn't you want to show it to people?"
"I'm like a kid in a candy store, there's so much to learn; and now we have so many ways to disseminate information—the Internet, blogs, myriad TV channels, documentaries—it's all making science more interesting, digestible, and relevant to the public," he says. "There's no reason for archaeology and history to be stuffy. How could you not want to know how you got here? It's been said that there's more diversity within a group of 55 chimpanzees than in the entire human population. I think if we help people conceptualize how tiny the genetic distance is between them, it might even help bridge some of the tensions in our world today."
Trying to explain what keeps him based in a desert truck stop, digging through sand, and lugging 100-pound loads of rocks in 100-degree heat, Rose says, "It's like an itch you absolutely have to scratch. An answer you have to find. Who lived here? What were they doing? Are these the people who went on to colonize the entire world? Now that we know it was the Nubians who spread from Africa, I want to know why them in particular? What was it about their technology and culture that enabled them to expand so successfully? And what happened next? That's one of the defining characteristics of our species—we've always looked to the beginning and wanted to understand how we got here. That's what it means to be human."
Wow! This is all news to me! These findings make so much sense especially from a genetic standpoint with the haplogroup distribution. It confirms all along that Arabia is not only Africa's gateway to Eurasia but that it is also very much an extension of Africa both geologically and biologically that it can be viewed as an appendage of the African continent as al-Takruri and Dana have been saying all this time. And it also confirms Keita's hypothesis that populations have been continuously moving back-and-forth between Africa and Arabia from time immemorial which again explains the hg distribution and how the labeling of many of these clades as 'Eurasian' is very much questionable since either they arose in Africa OR they arose among Africans right next door in Arabia! What's more is that there is evidence for multiple waves of expansion from Africa into Arabia. I have had discussions with Dana about neolithic cultures of southern Arabia such as the Ubaidian in the Gulf Coast and its descendant Umm An-Nar in the UAE and Oman having affinities with the Mesolithic culture of Nile Valley Sudan. Many of these Sudanese affinities can be seen in remains in the Rub al-Khali desert as well as the Dhofar area this Dr. Rose guy is excavating. There can be no denying that Arabia is essentially an extension of Africa.
By the way, how much you wanna bet that this finding will not only exacerbate the Euronuts' loony quest to white-wash Nubians but to do so at an even earlier period?! LOL
quote:MA’AD SON OF ADNAN - The mother of Ma’ad is said to be Lahm or Liham who is a descendant of Jokshan brother of Zimran, Madan and Madi’an or (ancestor of the Midianites) the children of Ibrahim. Ma’addi or Me’eddi are called Madani by Greeks and are probably the Mydi’an mentioned by Arab writers such as of Andalusia. According to Sa’id of Andalusia after the destruction of Marib, the Shamran (Zimran), Al-Hujr (Hagar), Daws, Myda’an Midi’an, Yashkur, Bariq moved into the went into al-Surat (the Sara’at mountain range). (See Science in the Medieval World, Alok Kumar and Sema’an Salem, p. 43, 1996 .)
Yes, one of the many black Arab tribes most the general public is unaware of. Many people still identify 'Arab' or Arabian with an off-white hairy type and don't know about the ancient indigenous types as Arabia is right next to Africa.
quote:Migrations into India “did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations.” There are low frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’— that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.-- U.S. biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell.
Which again proves the invalid and bankrupt notion of racial categories like "Caucasoid" in the first place! Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: ^ No. He saved certain Jewish sects from persecution by the Nazis by arguing they were converts and a non-Semitic racial type.
Most of the scientists who studied race during the inter-war period were apolitical, including many of the Nazis race scientists themselves. They had no involvement in the holocaust.
So you're telling me that he saved people who weren't Semitic, i.e. "actual Jews".
That's an interesting story. Because that would mean that he saved non-Jews from being persecuted, as Jews (would / have been).
From where did he got the information about certain groups to be come persecuted?
How I understand it, he made a clear cut distinction on "phenotype", and came to the conclusion that people with certain facial traits had no right on life. While others had right the on life, by trying to convince the nazis they were of the "Aryan stock". This sounds and looks fascist to me. (When I use logic)
Conclusion is thus, he was associated with the nazis, and even had a "special" role to play in the "hand pick selection".
This means (in)direct involvement.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Incredible Human Journey, Episode 1, Arabia Sequence (Eden)
MA’AD SON OF ADNAN - The mother of Ma’ad is said to be Lahm or Liham who is a descendant of Jokshan brother of Zimran, Madan and Madi’an or (ancestor of the Midianites) the children of Ibrahim. Ma’addi or Me’eddi are called Madani by Greeks and are probably the Mydi’an mentioned by Arab writers such as of Andalusia. According to Sa’id of Andalusia after the destruction of Marib, the Shamran (Zimran), Al-Hujr (Hagar), Daws, Myda’an Midi’an, Yashkur, Bariq moved into the went into al-Surat (the Sara’at mountain range). (See Science in the Medieval World, Alok Kumar and Sema’an Salem, p. 43, 1996 .)
Yes, one of the many black Arab tribes most the general public is unaware of. Many people still identify 'Arab' or Arabian with an off-white hairy type and don't know about the ancient indigenous types as Arabia is right next to Africa.
quote:Migrations into India “did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations.” There are low frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’— that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.-- U.S. biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell.
Which again proves the invalid and bankrupt notion of racial categories like "Caucasoid" in the first place!
^ the name "ADNAN" especially becomes interesting. Since the ancient location of the Nubian complex had a similar name.
quote: "Despite the numerous studies proposing early human population expansions from Africa into Arabia during the Late Pleistocene, no archaeological sites have yet been discovered in Arabia that resemble a specific African industry, which would indicate demographic exchange across the Red Sea. Here we report the discovery of a buried site and more than 100 new surface scatters in the Dhofar region of Oman belonging to a regionally-specific African lithic industry - the late Nubian Complex - known previously only from the northeast and Horn of Africa during Marine Isotope Stage 5,~1128,000 to 74,000 years ago. Two optically stimulated luminescence age estimates from the open-air site of Aybut Al Auwal in Oman place the Arabian Nubian Complex at ~106,000 years ago, providing archaeological evidence for the presence of a distinct northeast African Middle Stone Age technocomplex in southern Arabia sometime in the first half of Marine Isotope Stage 5."
quote:"The method of manufacture of the Jubbah industries differs from the more distinctive techniques described in the extreme southern zones of Arabia, including the Nubian technocomplex in Oman [20] and the production of flakes and blades from flat debitage surfaces at SD-1 in Yemen [22]. Rose et al.[20] have argued that the presence of Nubian core methods in Oman are directly tied to the presence of Homo sapiens in Arabia in MIS 5, whereas Delagnes et al.[22] have argued that the MIS 3 blade and point dominated assemblages in Yemen are broadly reminiscent of techniques that Neanderthals were using in the Levant. The unidirectional convergent technique practiced at JKF-1 and the presence of Levallois points shares some similarities with assemblages in the Levant. Yet, the recovery of a retouched point at JQ-1 and two bifacial pieces at JSM-1 tentatively suggest an affinity with the African Middle Stone Age as opposed to the Levant, where such tool types are absent. Distinctive foliate bifaces, which are present in Africa and southern Arabia, are so far unknown at Jubbah and in northern Arabia."
quote:"Particularly, Yemen has the largest contribution of L lineages (30). So, most probably, this area was the entrance gate of a portion of these lineages in prehistoric times, which participated in the building of the primitive Arabian population."
--Khaled K Abu-Amero et al.
quote:"Systematic survey by the Abydos Survey for Paleolithic Sites project has recorded Nubian Complex artifact density, distribution, typology, and technology across the high desert landscape west of the Nile Valley in Middle Egypt. Our work contrasts with previous investigations of Nubian Complex settlement systems in Egypt, which focused on a small number of sites in the terraces of the Nile Valley, the desert oases, and the Red Sea Mountains. Earlier research interpreted the Nubian Complex, in particular, as a radiating settlement system that incorporated a specialized point production. Our high desert data, however, indicate that the Nubian Complex associated with early modern humans in this region of the high desert reflects a circulating, rather than a radiating, settlement system, and that point production has been over-emphasized. Data available from our work, as well as sites investigated by others, do not conclusively identify Nubian Complex behavioral strategies as modern."
"These data, however, do contribute to the understanding of landscape use by early modern human populations living along the Nile Valley Corridor route out of Africa."
--Deborah I. Olszewskia et al.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I think that's just coincidence. The Nubian complex was probably given that name in modern Islamic times. Adnan, by the way is said to be the ancestor of the northern Arabs while the southern Arabs claim descent from Qahtan.
quote:Originally posted by Fartheadbonkers: ^ No. He saved certain Jewish sects from persecution by the Nazis by arguing they were converts and a non-Semitic racial type.
Most of the scientists who studied race during the inter-war period were apolitical, including many of the Nazis race scientists themselves. They had no involvement in the holocaust.
This claim makes no sense. The Nazi's whole extermination agenda was based on racial eugenics which was based on racial science itself! So how the hell can one say racial scientists of Nazi Germany weren't involved in the Holocaust?? I take it that means they weren't involved directly in that they were the ones doing the killing but they were still involved indirectly in that the very extermination programs were based on their work!! As for Czekanowski, you're saying he only saved those Jews who didn't conform to the 'Semitic type' and thus weren't actual Semites but converts to the Jewish religion. So that makes him innocent in your twisted mind?!
Speaking of which, let's not forget that it was mandatory for Jews to wear ID badges i.e. the star of David as a way of distinguishing themselves as Jews. Why? Because despite the stereotype image of a 'Semitic type' i.e. long hooked nose, dark hair, etc. The vast majority of Jews in Europe looked no different from their non-Jewish neighbors. Thus many south Germans and south Austrian Gentiles had features that approximated the 'Semitic type' while many north German, Austrian, and Polish Jews were 'Alpine' and 'Nordic' in appearance. So in the end, all the racial typology didn't matter. Many Jews who didn't conform to the physical stereotype were still murdered and some Jews regardless of phenotype managed to escape by 'passing' as Gentiles. The same insanity was seen recently in Rwanda and in Sudan. Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I think that's just coincidence. The Nubian complex was probably given that name in modern Islamic times. Adnan, by the way is said to be the ancestor of the northern Arabs while the southern Arabs claim descent from Qahtan.
quote:Originally posted by Fartheadbonkers: ^ No. He saved certain Jewish sects from persecution by the Nazis by arguing they were converts and a non-Semitic racial type.
Most of the scientists who studied race during the inter-war period were apolitical, including many of the Nazis race scientists themselves. They had no involvement in the holocaust.
This claim makes no sense. The Nazi's whole extermination agenda was based on racial eugenics which was based on racial science itself! So how the hell can one say racial scientists of Nazi Germany weren't involved in the Holocaust?? I take it that means they weren't involved directly in that they were the ones doing the killing but they were still involved indirectly in that the very extermination programs were based on their work!! As for Czekanowski, you're saying he only saved those Jews who didn't conform to the 'Semitic type' and thus weren't actual Semites but converts to the Jewish religion. So that makes him innocent in your twisted mind?!
When you look at this from a constitutional point of view it makes him actually an instigator, meaning he was guilty of war crimes.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:The Nazi's whole extermination agenda was based on racial eugenics which was based on racial science itself!
So? The science had nothing itself to do with social policy. Science has nothing to do with politics - people can take the science and make whatever policy out of it. Race denialism however is rooted in politics, not science. Your race denial is rooted in political correctness, and you think it is "dangerous" socially to believe in race hence you deny them.
There is no such thing as an objective race denier. Race denialism is 100% rooted in politics, not science. This is why it is modern and is traceable to the defeat of National Socialist Germany because people started to think if you believed in race it equates to a holocaust.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:I take it that means they weren't involved directly in that they were the ones doing the killing but they were still involved indirectly in that the very extermination programs were based on their work!!
Science and social policy/politics are two different things. The scientists in Nazi Germany were just objectively researching racial differences. They had nothing to with rounding up people and killing them.
As long as your politics and emotions drives your scientific views, you will never be objective. Race realism is apolitical, race denialism is political.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:The Nazi's whole extermination agenda was based on racial eugenics which was based on racial science itself!
So? The science had nothing itself to do with social policy. Science has nothing to do with politics - people can take the science and make whatever policy out of it. Race denialism however is rooted in politics, not science. Your race denial is rooted in political correctness, and you think it is "dangerous" socially to believe in race hence you deny them.
There is no such thing as an objective race denier. Race denialism is 100% rooted in politics, not science. This is why it is modern and is traceable to the defeat of National Socialist Germany because people started to think if you believed in race it equates to a holocaust.
So, what was nazi Germany's ideology?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:I take it that means they weren't involved directly in that they were the ones doing the killing but they were still involved indirectly in that the very extermination programs were based on their work!!
Science and social policy/politics are two different things. The scientists in Nazi Germany were just objectively researching racial differences. They had nothing to with rounding up people and killing them.
As long as your politics and emotions drives your scientific views, you will never be objective. Race realism is apolitical, race denialism is political.
In order to look at this objectively, we need to go to the root of the word eugenics and those associated with it. And how nazi Germany used such ideology.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I think that's just coincidence. The Nubian complex was probably given that name in modern Islamic times. Adnan, by the way is said to be the ancestor of the northern Arabs while the southern Arabs claim descent from Qahtan.
quote:Originally posted by Fartheadbonkers: ^ No. He saved certain Jewish sects from persecution by the Nazis by arguing they were converts and a non-Semitic racial type.
Most of the scientists who studied race during the inter-war period were apolitical, including many of the Nazis race scientists themselves. They had no involvement in the holocaust.
This claim makes no sense. The Nazi's whole extermination agenda was based on racial eugenics which was based on racial science itself! So how the hell can one say racial scientists of Nazi Germany weren't involved in the Holocaust?? I take it that means they weren't involved directly in that they were the ones doing the killing but they were still involved indirectly in that the very extermination programs were based on their work!! As for Czekanowski, you're saying he only saved those Jews who didn't conform to the 'Semitic type' and thus weren't actual Semites but converts to the Jewish religion. So that makes him innocent in your twisted mind?!
Speaking of which, let's not forget that it was mandatory for Jews to wear ID badges i.e. the star of David as a way of distinguishing themselves as Jews. Why? Because despite the stereotype image of a 'Semitic type' i.e. long hooked nose, dark hair, etc. The vast majority of Jews in Europe looked no different from their non-Jewish neighbors. Thus many south Germans and south Austrian Gentiles had features that approximated the 'Semitic type' while many north German, Austrian, and Polish Jews were 'Alpine' and 'Nordic' in appearance. So in the end, all the racial typology didn't matter. Many Jews who didn't conform to the physical stereotype were still murdered and some Jews regardless of phenotype managed to escape by 'passing' as Gentiles. The same insanity was seen recently in Rwanda and in Sudan.
The problem I have with him citing this man, is that Czekanowski was a supporter of the nazi ideology. And clearly had involvement, in one way or another. Now for this dude here to cite him, to propose his "racial ideology" is a bit absurd. Logically it's not objective.
By the logic of this boy, faheem. Hitler, Himmler etc... weren't guilty because they weren't doing the killing themselves, directly. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fartheadbonkers: Science and social policy/politics are two different things. The scientists in Nazi Germany were just objectively researching racial differences. They had nothing to with rounding up people and killing them.
As long as your politics and emotions drives your scientific views, you will never be objective. Race realism is apolitical, race denialism is political.
LMAO
Yes science is suppose to be objective and apolitical but unfortunately this is not always the case since many human endeavors including science is often affected by political and emotional bias. Race science itself is debunked and proven to be a pseudoscience precisely because most of its premise is based on political and emotional bias centered on proving the supremacy of the European 'race'. This very thread exposing the flaws of Coon and Baker should be enough proof of this!
There is no such thing as 'race denial' because one cannot deny something that truly does not exist. As this thread has proven 'race' is nothing more than specious and arbitrary groupings of phenotypes that have no genetic basis and even the phenotypes themselves subjective. Thus it is those who continue to cling to the debunked notion of race who are the ones consumed with political and emotional bias. You yourself are a white supremacist who admits on many occasions the superiority of the white race and the inferiority of blacks and how ugly or unintelligent they are based on nothing but your own opinions yet you accuse others of being biased! LOL It's like the pitch pot calling the porcelain plate 'black'. Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: So, what was nazi Germany's ideology? [/QB]
National Socialism.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Yes science is suppose to be objective and apolitical but unfortunately this is not always the case since many human endeavors including science is often affected by political and emotional bias.
It shouldn't though be.
quote:Race science itself is debunked and proven to be a pseudoscience precisely because most of its premise is based on political and emotional bias centered on proving the supremacy of the European 'race'.
Races are not specifically Human, they occur in all polytypic species. So denying them is simply absurd. Badumtish who denies them, does so because he's someone who argues a classification of anything is arbitrary. As this thread shows, he doesn't believe species, star types or even colours exist with some element of truth. Is this also what you believe?
quote: There is no such thing as 'race denial' because one cannot deny something that truly does not exist. As this thread has proven 'race' is nothing more than specious and arbitrary groupings of phenotypes that have no genetic basis and even the phenotypes themselves subjective.
Why must they be genetic related? That's a false criteria the race denialists add. Show me a definition of race, where genetics is involved. Badumtish set up this same fallacy.
quote:Thus it is those who continue to cling to the debunked notion of race who are the ones consumed with political and emotional bias. You yourself are a white supremacist who admits on many occasions the superiority of the white race and the inferiority of blacks and how ugly or unintelligent they are based on nothing but your own opinions yet you accuse others of being biased! LOL It's like the pitch pot calling the porcelain plate 'black'.
So lame. I've posted nothing of that nature. Remember claus-the-chicken and his threats? That all backfired after he couldn't find a single "racist" post I made, and he's since left after he realised he couldn't provoke me more.
I posted an IQ chart from Lynn. If you look at it you will see certain Mongoloids have higher IQ's than European Caucasoids. So how is that "white supremacism". Secondly I never claimed "Blacks" are ugly. What I claimed is that ulotrichous hair is, alongside broad facial features. If you were objective you would agree. If you go looking for porn or simply a model, nobody would be looking for a women with nappy hair and a wide nose. I objectively analyse the attractiveness of certain traits, I don't demonise entire races. Wooly hair and broad traits such as wide noses, Negroids do posess, but not all their traits are unattractive. The fact they have those traits combined though puts them at the bottom of any 'attractive list' which objective researchers have pointed out. There was recently an Asian scientist who hit the headlines after his research on women placed black women at the bottom.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: [qb]The mixed racial types are designated new names. Under a more detailed system, there are names for every single possible cross.
You've totally departed from Baker. The new taxa (sub-sub-sub-species) you and your sources are making up aren't even bi-subracial hybrids. They were already bi-subracial hybrids at the sub-racial level. What do you get when you mix two mutt bastard dog (mixed Mediterranean & mixed Nordic)? Do you think you get a clean hybrid with only two components? LOL. Europeans are all mutts and hybrids, you can't even be classified into sub-racial categories anymore. Any attempt at classification at the sub-racial level is just out of convenience, not taxonomic. Let alone when you go a step deeper (Atlantid and that other bullsh!t).
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Badumtish who denies them, does so because he's someone who argues a classification of anything is arbitrary. As this thread shows, he doesn't believe species, star types or even colours exist with some element of truth. Is this also what you believe?
Have you managed to respond to my post about the arbitrary nature of fuzzy sets and the one with the list of quotes demonstrating taxonomy is arbitrary/subjective?
Have you managed to explain why there are so many conflicting definitions of 'species' if there is an apparently natural existence of this category amongst nature?
Have you managed to tell me why the distinction between stellar classification types resembles what it does? 0-10 <-- divide that in an objective manner. You can't. The same applies to stellar classification. There are hundreds of billions of stars in the Universe; the notion that they all fit into discrete, non-arbitrary categories is very clearly bullshit.
Have you managed to respond to my post demonstrating how different languages divide the visible colour spectrum in different ways? Are you really telling me that you believe the seven colours recognised in English (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet) are universally recognised? I eagerly await evidence for this apparently objective and universally acknowledged division of a continuum.
The construction of a category is what is political/social; these categories do not exist unless there are people to group them. They are absent by default.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Badumtish who denies them, does so because he's someone who argues a classification of anything is arbitrary. As this thread shows, he doesn't believe species, star types or even colours exist with some element of truth. Is this also what you believe?
Have you managed to respond to my post about the arbitrary nature of fuzzy sets and the one with the list of quotes demonstrating taxonomy is arbitrary/subjective?
Have you managed to explain why there are so many conflicting definitions of 'species' if there is an apparently natural existence of this category amongst nature?
Have you managed to tell me why the distinction between stellar classification types resembles what it does? 0-10 <-- divide that in an objective manner. You can't. The same applies to stellar classification. There are hundreds of billions of stars in the Universe; the notion that they all fit into discrete, non-arbitrary categories is very clearly bullshit.
Have you managed to respond to my post demonstrating how different languages divide the visible colour spectrum in different ways? Are you really telling me that you believe the seven colours recognised in English (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet) are universally recognised? I eagerly await evidence for this apparently objective and universally acknowledged division of a continuum.
The construction of a category is what is political/social; these categories do not exist unless there are people to group them. They are absent by default.
See the Hulse (1975) citation. Here is a modern source which explains the same:
"Sets are characterized as more fuzzy if the membership values lie near the middle of the distribution between 0 and 1, and less fuzzy (crisper) if the values lie close to 0 or 1 (Smithson 1987). Crisp sets are, then, a special case of fuzzy sets, and are easily accommodated. The crossover point between sets (0.5) is the point of maximum ambiguity of group membership." (Willermet, 2012)
Fuzzy sets are a subset of crisp or classic sets, the latter are merely the absolute values (0, 1) in the fuzzy set. Only the crossover point is maximum ambiguity. As you fall closer to the crisp values, the values are crisper. Getting back to that earlier example of the clock and time, 9: 59 am is objectively "nearly 10" as a category. You know this yourself, it doesn't have to be crisp.
Categorization with an element of objective truth does not require x, y or z to be discrete/crisp/absolute.
A fuzzy logic conclusion is not stated as either true or false, but as being possibly true to a certain degree. The degree of truth is backed up predictability: 9: 59 is nearly 10, but 9: 31 isn't. The latter approaches maximum ambiguity. All this has been explained countless times, yet you don't bother to read the quotes.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Badumtish who denies them, does so because he's someone who argues a classification of anything is arbitrary. As this thread shows, he doesn't believe species, star types or even colours exist with some element of truth. Is this also what you believe?
Have you managed to respond to my post about the arbitrary nature of fuzzy sets and the one with the list of quotes demonstrating taxonomy is arbitrary/subjective?
Have you managed to explain why there are so many conflicting definitions of 'species' if there is an apparently natural existence of this category amongst nature?
Have you managed to tell me why the distinction between stellar classification types resembles what it does? 0-10 <-- divide that in an objective manner. You can't. The same applies to stellar classification. There are hundreds of billions of stars in the Universe; the notion that they all fit into discrete, non-arbitrary categories is very clearly bullshit.
Have you managed to respond to my post demonstrating how different languages divide the visible colour spectrum in different ways? Are you really telling me that you believe the seven colours recognised in English (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet) are universally recognised? I eagerly await evidence for this apparently objective and universally acknowledged division of a continuum.
The construction of a category is what is political/social; these categories do not exist unless there are people to group them. They are absent by default.
See the Hulse (1975) citation. Here is a modern source which explains the same:
"Sets are characterized as more fuzzy if the membership values lie near the middle of the distribution between 0 and 1, and less fuzzy (crisper) if the values lie close to 0 or 1 (Smithson 1987). Crisp sets are, then, a special case of fuzzy sets, and are easily accommodated. The crossover point between sets (0.5) is the point of maximum ambiguity of group membership." (Willermet, 2012)
Fuzzy sets are a subset of crisp or classic sets, the latter are merely the absolute values (0, 1) in the fuzzy set. Only the crossover point is maximum ambiguity. As you fall closer to the crisp values, the values are crisper. Getting back to that earlier example of the clock and time, 9: 59 am is objectively "nearly 10" as a category. You know this yourself, it doesn't have to be crisp.
Categorization with an element of objective truth does not require x, y or z to be discrete/crisp/absolute.
A fuzzy logic conclusion is not stated as either true or false, but as being possibly true to a certain degree. The degree of truth is backed up predictability: 9: 59 is nearly 10, but 9: 31 isn't. The latter approaches maximum ambiguity. All this has been explained countless times, yet you don't bother to read the quotes.
Why am I 'wrong' for saying 9:31 is nearly 10? Why am I 'wrong' for saying 2 degrees C is hot? Who determines where a set starts and ends and why? You have run away from these questions multiple times and I'd like you to answer them.
As I have explained at the top of page 4, the categories themselves are arbitrary. If you arbitrarily determine 9:30 is the terminus of 'nearly', then yeah, that is the maximum point of ambiguity for this arbitrary system. If I arbitrarily determine 8:00 is the terminus of 'nearly', then that is the maximum point of ambiguity for this arbitrary system.
'Nearly' is defined as: "with close approximation". Of course, on a linear scale, 9:59 is closer to 10:00 than 9:31. However, "with close approximation" provides absolutely no objective definition for when "close approximation" no longer becomes such or shifts into a new category. It is always 'close'/'near', depending on how you subjectively define the term. It gradually (i.e., a continuum) becomes closer to 10 but there is no objective point at which you can say "it is not nearly 10": it is always 'nearly', as 'nearly' is not quantified and can mean anything the observer arbitrarily wants.
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Have you managed to explain why there are so many conflicting definitions of 'species' if there is an apparently natural existence of this category amongst nature?
quote:Have you managed to respond to my post demonstrating how different languages divide the visible colour spectrum in different ways? Are you really telling me that you believe the seven colours recognised in English (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet) are universally recognised?
While different definitions of species exist, this has not led to any harmful contradictory classifications. If you think i'm wrong, why aren't people claiming dogs are cats? Or grouping rats with flies? Clearly one can easily distinguish these in agreement.
The second point is purely semantics. Different people around the world will label colours different names, but those names will reflect the same spectrum shade of colour. In fact this is shown in Sarich & Miele (2004). The colour example is actually something that supports categorization.
If you actually look, you will see there is universal agreement on categories that are rooted in something with a degree of objectivity. Hence Mayr in New Guinea discovered and categorized the same amount of bird species as a native tribe that dwelled there. yea... some Joe Bloggs could though come along and invent a whole new classification, but like you his views would not be based on reality.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Have you managed to explain why there are so many conflicting definitions of 'species' if there is an apparently natural existence of this category amongst nature?
quote:Have you managed to respond to my post demonstrating how different languages divide the visible colour spectrum in different ways? Are you really telling me that you believe the seven colours recognised in English (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet) are universally recognised?
While different definitions of species exist, this has not led to any harmful contradictory classifications. If you think i'm wrong, why aren't people claiming dogs are cats? Or grouping rats with flies? Clearly one can easily distinguish these in agreement.
How the **** can it be non-contradictory? ROFL! Let's take the Zagefka (2009) example as an analogy:
--If you use the <1000kg criterion, a stereotypical lawnmower and plum will be grouped together. If you use the organic material criterion, a stereotypical lawnmower and plum will not be grouped together; hence, they are contradictory. In one system they belong in one category and in another system they don't. Both systems cannot coexist objectively because they are contradictory. Understand?
--If you use the interbreeding concept, asexual organisms will each be a 'species' of their own, as they cannot breed amongst anybody but themselves. If you use another concept (e.g., arbitrary measures of genetic similarity), certain asexual organisms will collectively be a species. In one system they belong in one category and in another system they don't. Both systems cannot coexist objectively because they are contradictory. Understand?
Tell me how bacteria can be classified under the biological/interbreeding species concept. If you are unable to do this, it is very clear that whatever system you choose CONTRADICTS whatever classifications the biological species concept would produce.
quote:The second point is purely semantics. Different people around the world will label colours different names, but those names will reflect the same spectrum shade of colour. In fact this is shown in Sarich & Miele (2004). The colour example is actually something that supports categorization.
No, it isn't semantic. It isn't calling what we know as 'red', 'wasllako', for example; it's calling what we know as 'red', 'orange', 'yellow' and 'green' a single colour/category. The continuum is divided in different places and a different number of times around the world. Colour classification is a social construct.
Google "mili and mola" without the quote marks for a basic example of how colour classification systems wildly differ from ours.
quote:If you actually look, you will see there is universal agreement on categories that are rooted in something with a degree of objectivity. Hence Mayr in New Guinea discovered and categorized the same amount of bird species as a native tribe that dwelled there. yea... some Joe Bloggs could though come along and invent a whole new classification, but like you his views would not be based on reality.
There is no evidence or supporting peer-reviewed paper for this. Mayr merely claimed he did this but did not publish it, document his methodology, etc. Why should I treat his oral statement as evidence?
Let's reverse the situation so you can get it into your thick skull: If I quoted the spoken word of an academic claiming he conducted a survey in some undefined location with some undefined people and discovered that they did not divide skulls into the 'racial' trichotomy that you believe exists, would you accept this?
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
-
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Badumtish who denies them, does so because he's someone who argues a classification of anything is arbitrary. As this thread shows, he doesn't believe species, star types or even colours exist with some element of truth. Is this also what you believe?
Have you managed to respond to my post about the arbitrary nature of fuzzy sets and the one with the list of quotes demonstrating taxonomy is arbitrary/subjective?
Have you managed to explain why there are so many conflicting definitions of 'species' if there is an apparently natural existence of this category amongst nature?
Have you managed to tell me why the distinction between stellar classification types resembles what it does? 0-10 <-- divide that in an objective manner. You can't. The same applies to stellar classification. There are hundreds of billions of stars in the Universe; the notion that they all fit into discrete, non-arbitrary categories is very clearly bullshit.
Have you managed to respond to my post demonstrating how different languages divide the visible colour spectrum in different ways? Are you really telling me that you believe the seven colours recognised in English (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet) are universally recognised? I eagerly await evidence for this apparently objective and universally acknowledged division of a continuum.
The construction of a category is what is political/social; these categories do not exist unless there are people to group them. They are absent by default.
See the Hulse (1975) citation. Here is a modern source which explains the same:
"Sets are characterized as more fuzzy if the membership values lie near the middle of the distribution between 0 and 1, and less fuzzy (crisper) if the values lie close to 0 or 1 (Smithson 1987). Crisp sets are, then, a special case of fuzzy sets, and are easily accommodated. The crossover point between sets (0.5) is the point of maximum ambiguity of group membership." (Willermet, 2012)
Fuzzy sets are a subset of crisp or classic sets, the latter are merely the absolute values (0, 1) in the fuzzy set. Only the crossover point is maximum ambiguity. As you fall closer to the crisp values, the values are crisper. Getting back to that earlier example of the clock and time, 9: 59 am is objectively "nearly 10" as a category. You know this yourself, it doesn't have to be crisp.
Categorization with an element of objective truth does not require x, y or z to be discrete/crisp/absolute.
A fuzzy logic conclusion is not stated as either true or false, but as being possibly true to a certain degree. The degree of truth is backed up predictability: 9: 59 is nearly 10, but 9: 31 isn't. The latter approaches maximum ambiguity. All this has been explained countless times, yet you don't bother to read the quotes.
Why am I 'wrong' for saying 9:31 is nearly 10? Why am I 'wrong' for saying 2 degrees C is hot? Who determines where a set starts and ends and why? You have run away from these questions multiple times and I'd like you to answer them.
As I have explained at the top of page 4, the categories themselves are arbitrary. If you arbitrarily determine 9:30 is the terminus of 'nearly', then yeah, that is the maximum point of ambiguity for this arbitrary system. If I arbitrarily determine 8:00 is the terminus of 'nearly', then that is the maximum point of ambiguity for this arbitrary system.
'Nearly' is defined as: "with close approximation". Of course, on a linear scale, 9:59 is closer to 10:00 than 9:31. However, "with close approximation" provides absolutely no objective definition for when "close approximation" no longer becomes such or shifts into a new category. It is always 'close'/'near', depending on how you subjectively define the term. It gradually (i.e., a continuum) becomes closer to 10 but there is no objective point at which you can say "it is not nearly 10": it is always 'nearly', as 'nearly' is not quantified and can mean anything the observer arbitrarily wants.
You do realise no taxonomist has ever even adressed these philosophical objections at great length. This is because they are considered to have no place in the real biological world, or even science. As Mayr remarks:
"Our world is characterized by an almost chaotic diversity of things and processes [...] Ordering systems, including classifications, are needed to reduce this chaotic diversity into understandable, manageable arrangements before scientific explanations are possible." (Mayr, 2002)
To clarify:
(1) Crisp set theory clearly has no place in the natural world, which is a multidimensional contiuum (which has continuous ecological parameters). See what Mayr says just above. We clearly do have to group things based on their similarities for the sake of any scientific application. Your view categorization must be abandoned but you are pro-science is bizarre.
(2) The assignment of the membership function of a fuzzy set is subjective, but it cannot be assigned arbitrarily - which means it can contain a degree of truth/objectivity. Its not arbitrary as its values are rooted in observed similarities, which refutes your arbitary "anyone can choose anything claim".
(3) You are wrong for using the term arbitrary. Fuzzy sets are subjective (not arbitrary) but contain degrees of objective truths. Earlier where I said they were objective, I was only half-true (I should have worded better).
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Badumtish who denies them, does so because he's someone who argues a classification of anything is arbitrary. As this thread shows, he doesn't believe species, star types or even colours exist with some element of truth. Is this also what you believe?
Have you managed to respond to my post about the arbitrary nature of fuzzy sets and the one with the list of quotes demonstrating taxonomy is arbitrary/subjective?
Have you managed to explain why there are so many conflicting definitions of 'species' if there is an apparently natural existence of this category amongst nature?
Have you managed to tell me why the distinction between stellar classification types resembles what it does? 0-10 <-- divide that in an objective manner. You can't. The same applies to stellar classification. There are hundreds of billions of stars in the Universe; the notion that they all fit into discrete, non-arbitrary categories is very clearly bullshit.
Have you managed to respond to my post demonstrating how different languages divide the visible colour spectrum in different ways? Are you really telling me that you believe the seven colours recognised in English (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet) are universally recognised? I eagerly await evidence for this apparently objective and universally acknowledged division of a continuum.
The construction of a category is what is political/social; these categories do not exist unless there are people to group them. They are absent by default.
See the Hulse (1975) citation. Here is a modern source which explains the same:
"Sets are characterized as more fuzzy if the membership values lie near the middle of the distribution between 0 and 1, and less fuzzy (crisper) if the values lie close to 0 or 1 (Smithson 1987). Crisp sets are, then, a special case of fuzzy sets, and are easily accommodated. The crossover point between sets (0.5) is the point of maximum ambiguity of group membership." (Willermet, 2012)
Fuzzy sets are a subset of crisp or classic sets, the latter are merely the absolute values (0, 1) in the fuzzy set. Only the crossover point is maximum ambiguity. As you fall closer to the crisp values, the values are crisper. Getting back to that earlier example of the clock and time, 9: 59 am is objectively "nearly 10" as a category. You know this yourself, it doesn't have to be crisp.
Categorization with an element of objective truth does not require x, y or z to be discrete/crisp/absolute.
A fuzzy logic conclusion is not stated as either true or false, but as being possibly true to a certain degree. The degree of truth is backed up predictability: 9: 59 is nearly 10, but 9: 31 isn't. The latter approaches maximum ambiguity. All this has been explained countless times, yet you don't bother to read the quotes.
Why am I 'wrong' for saying 9:31 is nearly 10? Why am I 'wrong' for saying 2 degrees C is hot? Who determines where a set starts and ends and why? You have run away from these questions multiple times and I'd like you to answer them.
As I have explained at the top of page 4, the categories themselves are arbitrary. If you arbitrarily determine 9:30 is the terminus of 'nearly', then yeah, that is the maximum point of ambiguity for this arbitrary system. If I arbitrarily determine 8:00 is the terminus of 'nearly', then that is the maximum point of ambiguity for this arbitrary system.
'Nearly' is defined as: "with close approximation". Of course, on a linear scale, 9:59 is closer to 10:00 than 9:31. However, "with close approximation" provides absolutely no objective definition for when "close approximation" no longer becomes such or shifts into a new category. It is always 'close'/'near', depending on how you subjectively define the term. It gradually (i.e., a continuum) becomes closer to 10 but there is no objective point at which you can say "it is not nearly 10": it is always 'nearly', as 'nearly' is not quantified and can mean anything the observer arbitrarily wants.
You do realise no taxonomist has ever even adressed these philosophical objections at great length. This is because they are considered to have no place in the real biological world, or even science. As Mayr remarks:
"Our world is characterized by an almost chaotic diversity of things and processes [...] Ordering systems, including classifications, are needed to reduce this chaotic diversity into understandable, manageable arrangements before scientific explanations are possible." (Mayr, 2002)
To clarify:
(1) Crisp set theory clearly has no place in the natural world, which is a multidimensional contiuum (which has continuous ecological parameters). See what Mayr says just above. We clearly do have to group things based on their similarities for the sake of any scientific application. Your view categorization must be abandoned but you are pro-science is bizarre.
(2) The assignment of the membership function of a fuzzy set is subjective, but it cannot be assigned arbitrarily - which means it can contain a degree of truth/objectivity. Its not arbitrary as its values are rooted in observed similarities, which refutes your arbitary "anyone can choose anything claim".
(3) You are wrong for using the term arbitrary. Fuzzy sets are subjective (not arbitrary) but contain degrees of objective truths. Earlier where I said they were objective, I was only half-true (I should have worded better).
Let me reiterate: I'm using 'arbitrary' to mean "Derived from mere opinion or preference" and "To be decided by one's liking". In this case, it can be seen as synonymous with 'subjective' but I want to make the definition clear.
What is science? I see it as being the objective truth. If the world is characterised by a "chaotic diversity" then the objective truth is that the world is chaotically diverse and any attempt to apply "order" to it in the form of arbitrary classification systems is inherently unscientific. Order is not the truth; chaos, overlap and disorder is. If the world is objectively and naturally chaotic, how is it possible for neat, ordered systems to also be objective and natural? This is a paradox. Either chaos is the natural order or neatness is the natural order: applying neatness to chaos and calling the former 'scientific' or accurate is nonsense. It may be used as a proxy for understanding knowledge about the chaos, but the proxy in itself is not objective and should be abandoned once its utility is exhausted. Various things exist, but none are more significant than any other and the multidimensional overlap and continuity makes any claim to objective distinction/clustering false.
1) What? My entire argument is that the world is a multidimensional continuum: you have actually stolen that phrase from me LMAO. Consequently, any division of this multidimensional continuum is inherently arbitrary and clearly violates the natural state of multidimensional continuity.
2) How can a subjective and, therefore, contradictory (in that my subjective division will not match yours) system also be objective? You cannot have subjective objectivity, as this is an oxymoron. Why are there four temperature sets in between absolute zero and Planck temperature? Demonstrate why the division into four sets is non-arbitrary. You're confusing things:
a) What you're saying (e.g.): because I am referring to an objective range 4-6 = medium, my claim that 5 (being the peak of medium) is in the medium range is objective.
b) What I'm saying: 4-6 equalling 'medium' is an arbitrary social construct, which means 5 cannot be objectively 'medium' because 'medium' as a category does not exist objectively.
c) What is true: 2 is objectively further away from 5 than 4 is.
d) What you are doing: As 4-6 is medium, 2 is objectively "not medium".
e) Why this is wrong: You're confusing the objective closeness of 2 and 4 to 5 with the notion that 2 is also objectively more distant from medium than 4 is. 4-6 is an arbitrary category, so any claim that 2 is 'not medium' and 4 is 'medium' is also arbitrary. The continuum exists in a raw state with no divisions; any divisions and classification of various points into those divisions will always be arbitrary/socially constructed. (c) is true; (d) is false: you've said it yourself. Since the range of the set is arbitrary/subjective, whether or not 2 is or isn't within a set is also arbitrary/subjective, as the parameters of the set can be allocated at any point. As this continuum has no inherent divisions (hence, being a continuum), then contrary to what you said to Djehuti, the creation of divisions is political, not the destruction of the ones that have been established by society.
Get it? This has all been explained in the Zagefka quote I presented on the first page...
"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).
See? Just because (c) is true, it does not mean (d) is also true. This is just a variant of "ZOMG YOU DON'T BELIEVE RACES EXIST SO ARE YOU SAYING EVERYONE IS THE SAME!!????!!111" Saying that 'red', 'yellow', 'blue' etc. do not exist objectively does not mean that the things to which they are referring do not exist objectively. Indeed, it is possible to say that what we know (meaning any given wavelength within these concepts) as orange is objectively closer to what we know as red than it is to what we know as blue, and I agree. However, saying that what we know as orange is objectively 'not within the range of blue' is subjective/arbitrary because as you have admitted, the range of 'blue' is in itself subjective/arbitrary. 'Blue' can very well encompass what we know as orange because the set is itself an arbitrary construct. Yes, it may not be within the range of somebody's arbitrarily defined range of 'blue', but that doesn't change the fact that the range has no natural existence and is arbitrary in itself. Thus, 'race' can apply to anybody over any possible division or scale without violating Sarich and Miele's definition. As these systems are inherently contradictory, they cannot be objective and 'race' is, therefore, a subjective/arbitrary social construct.
3) The sets themselves are arbitrarily determined; although things may be objectively closer to/further away from these arbitrarily determined sets, the sets themselves are arbitrary, which means the whole system is arbitrary. There's no point in saying "9:30 is the minimum bound of 'nearly 10:00', which means 9:29 is objectively 'not nearly 10:00'". Sure, it is objectively further away from 10:00 than 9:30 is, but it is not objectively "not nearly" because the range of "not nearly" has been arbitrarily constructed.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Repost to substantiate points 2 and 3. Due to the subjective/arbitrary range of 'medium', any claim that an objective number (e.g., 2) is or is not medium is also subjective/arbitrary:
There are other possible systems:
0 = small 0<X<10 = quite large/small 10 = large
Or
<5 = small 5 = medium >5 = large
Or
0 = small 5 = medium 10 = large 0<X<5 = quite small 5<X<10 = quite large
Or
0 = small 0<X<=1 = very close to small 1<X<=2 = quite close to small 2<X<=3 = small/medium 3<X<=4 = close to medium on the small side 4<X<5 = very close to medium on the small side 5 = medium 5<X<=6 = very close to medium on the large side 6<X<=7 = quite close to medium on the large side 7<X<=8 = medium/large 8<X<=9 = close to large 9<X<10 = very close to large 10 = large
Or
<3.333... = small 3.333...<=X<=6.666... = medium >6.666... = large
Or we could make different classifications for 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, etc. or 0.0001, 0.0002, 0.0003, etc.
Your choice of classification system is arbitrary. There is absolutely no objective reason your system is any more 'right' than the other possible divisions. I've explained this in the top post on page 4. The only objective categories are small = 0 and large = 10, as these are the minimum and maximum points, respectively. Any divisions within these two points (a continuum) is intrinsically arbitrary.
How exactly does this differ from multi-valued logic then Boolean logic when each statement is assessed separately? On your scale, 'quite big' is still between a set data range. Represented as Boolean logic:
X is 7.8. Quite large is 7.5<X<10. X is quite large. This statement is true.
X is 4. Quite large is 7.5<X<10. X is quite large. This statement is false.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: So, what was nazi Germany's ideology?
National Socialism. [/QB]
So what has "National Socialism" to do with killing off people?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Let me reiterate: I'm using 'arbitrary' to mean "Derived from mere opinion or preference" and "To be decided by one's liking". In this case, it can be seen as synonymous with 'subjective' but I want to make the definition clear.
That is a poor definition. That's closer to subjective. Arbitrary means:
"Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Yet the subjective basis of fuzzy sets are not random - they are based on observed similarities (thus there is a system rooted in a degree of objectivity, the subjective value inductions contain a degree of truth). While fuzzy membership function and values are subjective, they are not assigned arbitrarily. This means they can be to some extent objective (see below).
quote: What is science? I see it as being the objective truth. If the world is characterised by a "chaotic diversity" then the objective truth is that the world is chaotically diverse and any attempt to apply "order" to it in the form of arbitrary classification systems is inherently unscientific. Order is not the truth; chaos, overlap and disorder is. If the world is objectively and naturally chaotic, how is it possible for neat, ordered systems to also be objective and natural? This is a paradox. Either chaos is the natural order or neatness is the natural order: applying neatness to chaos and calling the former 'scientific' or accurate is nonsense. It may be used as a proxy for understanding knowledge about the chaos, but the proxy in itself is not objective and should be abandoned once its utility is exhausted. Various things exist, but none are more significant than any other and the multidimensional overlap and continuity makes any claim to objective distinction/clustering false.
What is science according to you? You answered this months back and could not even complete a single paragraph because your definition is limited to Boolean algebra (two valued logic).
In fact the whole reason these debates go round in circles is because your key assumption is that only crisp set (0, 1) is valid as an objective value or truth. However all the examples I gave you show that logic has more values than bivalence. Aristotle's analogy of the battle you completely avoided, as it refutes your position. There are numerous examples of truth-value indeterminacy and multi valued logic, hence a third+ value - neither entirely objective or subjective. A fuzzy set merely extends this. Why can't you deal with partial truths? You never explained why.
quote:1) What? My entire argument is that the world is a multidimensional continuum: you have actually stolen that phrase from me LMAO. Consequently, any division of this multidimensional continuum is inherently arbitrary and clearly violates the natural state of multidimensional continuity.
I found that term somewhere, probably in Dobzhansky. And no, divisions are not arbitrary as I have shown above. You are deliberately confusing subjective with arbitrary.
quote:
2) How can a subjective and, therefore, contradictory (in that my subjective division will not match yours) system also be objective? You cannot have subjective objectivity, as this is an oxymoron.
We aren't dealing with two valued logic. As long as you don't believe in partial values, you won't understand. That covers the rest of your post. See the criticisms on this article.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Why are you selectively responding?
That is a poor definition. That's closer to subjective. Arbitrary means:
"Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
It's from the Oxford English Dictionary, which is the most respected and comprehensive English dictionary in the world. I'm using their definition. None of their definitions use the word 'random'.
Yet the subjective basis of fuzzy sets are not random - they are based on observed similarities (thus there is a system rooted in a degree of objectivity, the subjective value inductions contain a degree of truth). While fuzzy membership function and values are subjective, they are not assigned arbitrarily. This means they can be to some extent objective (see below).
I've already established the definition of 'arbitrary'; if I meant 'random' I would have said 'random'.
I have also explained why (c) being true does not imply (d) is true. Reread my post.
What is science according to you? You answered this months back and could not even complete a single paragraph because your definition is limited to Boolean algebra (two valued logic).
In fact the whole reason these debates go round in circles is because your key assumption is that only crisp set (0, 1) is valid as an objective value or truth. However all the examples I gave you show that logic has more values than bivalence. Aristotle's analogy of the battle you completely avoided, as it refutes your position. There are numerous examples of truth-value indeterminacy and multi valued logic, hence a third+ value - neither entirely objective or subjective. A fuzzy set merely extends this. Why can't you deal with partial truths? You never explained why.
I provided a full response but you never replied: you ended this line of argument, not me. I have also explained in that post that the notion of a 'half-truth' makes no sense with that particular question. In the example you provided, I explained that there are three positions: 'true', 'false' and 'unable to be answered'.
These debates go around in circles because you stop replying, call philosophy 'garbage' and then reignite the debate from square one. I have responded to every single one of your posts here and have not omitted anything you've said from my quotes. Why can't you do the same?
A continuum cannot have any natural/objective divisions or it wouldn't be a continuum. Clearly, any attempt to divide it is inherently arbitrary.
I found that term somewhere, probably in Dobzhansky. And no, divisions are not arbitrary as I have shown above. You are deliberately confusing subjective with arbitrary.
And I have shown in my previous post that they are arbitrary by my/the OED definition. Whether you choose to call it subjective is inconsequential: I have defined 'arbitrary' for you and have established that I'm not using it to necessarily mean 'random'.
We aren't dealing with two valued logic. As long as you don't believe in partial values, you won't understand. That covers the rest of your post. See the criticisms on this article.
I understand perfectly. The problem is your persistent failure to defend your position or answer my questions. How do you expect to convince me of anything when you ignore my questions and only quote a few sentences out of my post? How was my post relying on Boolean logic?
Try refuting the points I've made and this debate might actually get somewhere.
I've explained that the 'degrees of truth' argument does not invalidate the fact that there are still two states of true and false. Taking your argument that 9:30 is the point of maximum ambiguity, it is apparent that anything from 9:30 up to 9:59:59 (etc.) can be called 'nearly 10':
9:28 is 'nearly 10'. This statement is false. 9:35 is 'nearly 10'. This statement is true.
You have still defined parameters and there is still a cut-off point at which a point is outside of the parameters that you have established; hence, the true/false or inside your parameters/outside your parameters logic still applies. Going by your argument, the fact remains that 9:28 is not nearly 10 and 9:35 is.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
Stop conflating single-statement multi-valued logic with the discussion about the division of a continuum: they are not the same.
If you believe there is a point at which you can no longer call a time 'nearly 10', then you rely on Boolean logic. In this situation, there is a range that is 'nearly 10' and there is a range that is not 'nearly 10'. In other words, there will be a point at which the statement "this time is nearly 10" is no longer true.
If you don't believe in a point at which the statement "this time is nearly 10" is no longer true, then you accept my argument that the continuum cannot be divided at all. I'll provide another example based on your division:
Is 9:35 nearly 10? Yes. Is 9:34 nearly 10? Yes. Is 9:33 nearly 10? Yes. Is 9:32 nearly 10? Yes. Is 9:31 nearly 10? Yes. Is 9:30 nearly 10? Yes. Is 9:29 nearly 10? No. Is 9:28 nearly 10? No. Is 9:27 nearly 10? No. Is 9:26 nearly 10? No.
9:30 is the cut-off point, as this is the terminus of the arbitrarily defined range of 'nearly 10'. The yes/no, true/false dichotomy still applies. Another example using your temperature graph:
Is 14 degrees C warm? Yes. Is 13 degrees C warm? Yes. Is 12 degrees C warm? Yes. Is 11 degrees C warm? Yes. Is 10 degrees C warm? Yes. Is 9 degrees C warm? No. Is 8 degrees C warm? No. Is 7 degrees C warm? No. Is 6 degrees C warm? No.
I'm not denying that 13 degrees is hotter than 11 degrees and 9:42 is closer to 10 than 9:31*, but that the notion that 'warm' terminates at 10 and 'nearly' terminates at 9:30 is a matter of arbitrary choice. The fact remains that under these arbitrary parameters, there still exists a fixed point at which something can be considered warm, and outside of this point, the statement 'is X warm' is false.
*You're conflating proximity and truthfulness. You're saying that because 9:42 is closer to 10 than 9:31, it is "more true" to say it is "nearly 10". No. Both statements are true because both times fit within the arbitrarily defined range of 'nearly'. It is always true/a member of the set as long as it falls within 9:30 and 9:59:59 etc.
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
I'm still waiting for you to explain why I am apparently objectively 'wrong' for saying 2 degrees C is hot (according to that graph and your argument). On what non-arbitrary basis am I 'wrong' for making this claim? Who decides where the range of 'hot' terminates?
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
I've answered this before, fuzzy categories have predictive value - this is why we know there is a degree of objectivity to them.
If they were purely arbitrary they wouldn't have predictive value, "One of the greatest assets of a sound classification is its predictive value." (Mayr, 1969)
This is what seperates your philosophy from the real world.
"Taxonomy has long strived to construct predictive classifications (Vavilov, 1922; Gilmour, 1951; Michener, 1963; Rollins, 1965; Warburton, 1967; Mayr, 1969; Sokal, 1985; Stuessy, 1990; Daly et al., 2001). Warburton (1967) stated this goal clearly as, “[Prediction] means that one can describe a trait as characteristic of all members of a taxon before it has been verified for all. It also means that if organisms have been classified together as a taxon because they have all been found to share certain traits, they will later be found to share other traits as well.” For example, plant breeders use taxonomy to make their initial choice (or avoidance) of related (or unrelated) germplasm based on such statements as Species X is resistant to a particular disease, by choosing other accessions of this or related species." (Jansky, 2006)
Posted by Faheemdunkers (Member # 20844) on :
I'll answer your questions in full once i've purchased and read Simpson's Animal Taxonomy (1961) which I plan to read over Christmas.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
While you guys argue over the definition of species, the issue gets lost that there is ONE human species with zero subspecies or 'races' as genetics has shown. But you farthead can keep ignoring the facts. Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I'll answer your questions in full once i've purchased and read Simpson's Animal Taxonomy (1961) which I plan to read over Christmas.
So in the meantime you have plenty of time to explain, what "National Socialism" has to do with killing off people?
Posted by Badumtish (Member # 20669) on :
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I've answered this before, fuzzy categories have predictive value - this is why we know there is a degree of objectivity to them.
If they were purely arbitrary they wouldn't have predictive value, "One of the greatest assets of a sound classification is its predictive value." (Mayr, 1969)
This is what seperates your philosophy from the real world.
"Taxonomy has long strived to construct predictive classifications (Vavilov, 1922; Gilmour, 1951; Michener, 1963; Rollins, 1965; Warburton, 1967; Mayr, 1969; Sokal, 1985; Stuessy, 1990; Daly et al., 2001). Warburton (1967) stated this goal clearly as, “[Prediction] means that one can describe a trait as characteristic of all members of a taxon before it has been verified for all. It also means that if organisms have been classified together as a taxon because they have all been found to share certain traits, they will later be found to share other traits as well.” For example, plant breeders use taxonomy to make their initial choice (or avoidance) of related (or unrelated) germplasm based on such statements as Species X is resistant to a particular disease, by choosing other accessions of this or related species." (Jansky, 2006)
Don't avoid the question.
Why I am apparently objectively 'wrong' for saying 2 degrees C is hot (according to that graph and your argument)? On what non-arbitrary basis am I 'wrong' for making this claim? Who decides where the range of 'hot' terminates?
The defence of fuzzy sets as objective is contingent on your ability to demonstrate why I am 'wrong' for saying 2 degrees C is hot. It was you who presented that temperature graph in the first place and now I'd like you to defend what it is depicting.
The taxonomy argument is tautological. The possession of a trait places something into a new taxon; we know that all or most members of this taxon have this trait. It seems obvious that if the taxon is formed on the basis of a shared trait then every member of the taxon will have the shared trait, else they wouldn't actually be part of that taxon. For example, if we arbitrarily define a group by its inability to interbreed with others, then we know that all the members of the group cannot interbreed with others, obviously. If we arbitrarily define 'warm' as 10-30 degrees C, then we know that 10-30 degrees C is 'warm'.
![[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)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Try continuing from where we left off instead of asking a question that I've already answered and we've already discussed.
