...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Shedding light on skin color
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grumman f6f: [QB] Rasol asked: [b]''So a gene pool can be indigenous and mixed with respect to the same entity? In this case Africa?''[/b] I said this: [i]''Yes. Since there is a wide amount of diversity on the continent and the evidence shows that phenotypes aren't the same on that continent then yes, as it regards the total entity of Africa.''[/i] ...then Rasol rebutted with: [b]If you define entity X, and claim that X is mixed - ''The you must either define a separate entity Y, or you must divide X into more than one entity, X sub 1, X sub 2, X sub 3. ''Certainly it might be possible to do so - for example Africa is the home of the 3 basicl mtdna lineages L1, L2, and L3. ''But that's *not* what you've done. ''You simply talk in circles about "indigenous mixture" - which is and oxymoron when applied to a singular entity.''[/b] I'll jump immediatey to that last paragraph, because that's where the bone of contention arises. What, exactly, is oxymoronic about [i]differences[/i] in phenotype in Africa even while being indigenous... and singular? It doesn't matter whether the indigenous aspect is today or thousands of years ago, the phenotype in Africa [i]is[/i] different though indigenous. That difference can [i]only[/i] have arisen by mixing the gene pool and you should know that. On the other hand if you're still clinging to this mythical view that holds this difference radiates outward from ''known'' type environments which have nothing but speculation to prop up the argument, which also indicates to those so inclined to believe that humans somehow miraculously changed into something else, then I don't know what to say to you. Returning to your ''no such thing'' as an outside entity as it regards your saying there is no mixture indigenously except the outside aspect, then maybe you can explain how it is the differences in phenotype arose on the continent; keeping in mind I'm not talking about white people and Chinese here. You and others say the environment produced the tremendous variation in phenotype, I say phenotype can only come from gametogenesis. And I'm sure most evolutionary biologists and surely geneticists will tell you the same thing... even while accepting the environment explanation, which is a whole other story from my position. With that in mind my attitude is to stick with what we know works; not that the search shouldn't be ongoing of course. You seem to be afraid whites are going to pop up on the continent in remote times—even though ''all'' humans originated there. Expresed another way at what point will two very dark Sudanese, male and female, reproduce, [i]generationally[/i], and come up with chinese? Right, that is an extreme, or is it? Well according to some views here then it is quite possible for Sudanese to have Chinese offspring with no intermingling of the genes from the Chinese; even while not admitting it. Now this would be Rasol's outside variety of course but this still doesn't solve how two Sudanese procreating generationally and not coming up with anything other than a very strong resemblance to the Sudanese parents. Simply stated this means that two humans, say from inner Africa, with an empirical look will not reproduce any offspring that will look totally foreign to them. This is where Rasol's mixture [i]doesn't[/i] come into play. By now it should be obvious to all reading this what mixing of the gene pool will show. If this explanation falls short to some here then the burden of proof is on those to show how phenotypes came into being. [b]''I do know what my question is, and regarding this, you seem to be admitting that the 'mixed race' model of anthropology cannot be rendered intelligible.''[/b] Dam brother clean that up for me. Honestly I had trouble comprehending it. Perchance you mean: If the anthropological explanation follows suit with the evolutionary environment scenario without a full reasoned argument sans the snake oil then no it cannot be rendered intelligible. [b]''Science is about doubt and skepticism and cautious proof. ''Only faith can claim to have -no doubt-. ''To ask for proof beyound scientific doubt is to commit a burdan of proof fallacy.'' Then some scientists are beyond the fallacy? You indicate there are none, or at least you seemingly do, yet some scientists are just as dogmatic as the creationists. The latter appeal to nearly blind faith, the former couch their faith in consensus which is by no stretch empiricism in all corners of investigation. Rasol writes: [b]''Depigmented Europeans and some North East Asians have very recent [12 thousand years at most] and non African, distinct mutations which disable melanin production.'' ''Without these mutations - there are no white people. ''Before these mutations - there were no white people.''[/b] I retorted with: [i]What kind of circular stuff is this Rasol! You mean those depigmentation mutations had a choice....[/i] Why did you see need to eliminate the rest of the sentence? Is it you may not have seen what was intended but instead mangled it to your satisfaction to say this: [b]''Reading comprehension error. Reread until you comprehend that nowhere is -intent/choice- ascribed to mutations, but rather only cause and effect.'' ''Now, if you don't know the difference between cause and effect - and intent, then just say so, and I will explain futher.'' Anything else?''[/b] Sure there is brother, now that you ask. Why are you separating cause and effect from intent in a biological sense. In case you've forgotten mutations are accidents; evolutionarily speaking, some are negative, some positive, some neutral. A car colliding with another is cause and effect; yet there can be intent on one of the driver's part. So yes, definitely, you have those three intertwined. It depends on how you quantify it. So mutations, benefical or neutral, it still implies intent via the cause and effect route. C'mon back wid it dawg. By the way, no need to expect better from me, because given some dogmatic fixation to a couple of areas of contention on how humans came to be then nothimg I will say in the near future will be better. ;) [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3