posted
Quick to KW. Sigh. Do you know what population structure is? Whether with introgression by archaics or not, it existed in pre-OOA Africa. I wonder what SAT reading comprehension scores by Negroes here? Don't have to wonder really.
Posts: 55 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: The concept of “Race” is a lie created to conceal the fact that the Black people were the first people and that the White Man
Look stop reacting emotionally and read what I actually say. Race as a group of separate biological units is dead, however at its essence it involves categorizing and distinguishing humans into groups based on physical traits, based in part by genetics, which is exactly what you are doing even as you claim it is a lie! On what basis do you distinguish between tha' "Y-man" and "black people"?
quote:Not according to geneticists - Race has no meaning biologically, certainly not genetically Then Risch states: I'm not even sure what race means..
If you're going to keep using ambiguity as an argument against the concept please remember according to some geneticists, like your favorite Africanist Keita, "black" too is problematic. In fact he goes further, doubts it doesn't even exists! Sorry its not powerful to him...
Not surprised though that youre taken up with your latest diversion mathilda so as to avoid explaining any of the rest your BS. They always seem to come at the "right" time. LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder what SAT reading comprehension scores by Negroes here? Don't have to wonder really.
We're not all your "Negroes" here. In fact, I bet I have less Saharo-tropical African ancestry than you, mathilda, and certainly Debunker.
quote:One last to Rasol:
I love to be fucked by black men! I love big cock! But I mean black MEN, Rasol. That leaves you out.
There's a lot of porno movie studios looking for women just like you. Have fun and leave the genetic discussions to the grownups.
Posts: 7071 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by phenelzine: Quick to KW. Sigh. Do you know what population structure is? Whether with introgression by archaics or not, it existed in pre-OOA Africa. I wonder what SAT reading comprehension scores by Negroes here? Don't have to wonder really.
Of course I understand what population structure and introgression means. Both are simply irrelevant, and the real question should be do YOU understand what they are and what they impose?
---------
Reply to Garrigan and Hammer: Ancient lineages and assimilation
We must repeat that our results do not exclude the occurrence of some admixture events between modern and archaic humans, but they strongly support the view that these events have been extremely rare. Had this not been the case, modern human populations expanding out of Africa should have had their genome massively introgressed by archaic genes, due to repeated admixture events having occurred at the expansion wave front (6).
----------
Europeans are closest genetically to Africans whereas the original OOA populations. I.e Oceanians appear furthest away genetically from Africa, if Oceanians and Europeans are part of the same non-African OOA population structure , then Europeans should be as distant genetically from Africans, as Oceanians are. If this is not due to post OOA Neolithic migrations into Europe from Africa, then what is it?
"Europe shows a shorter genetic distance from Africa than do all the other continents......The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining. " - L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Negroid - Anthropology. a racial classification, no longer in technical use. – rasolowitz
Yet he still finds the term useful to bring across his points in his posts...
These terms are all distinct – rasolowitz
quote:Black: a person belonging to any of various population groups having dark pigmentation
Negro: member of a race of humankind native to Africa and classified according to physical features (as dark skin pigmentation)[both from his own source Merriam-Webster]
Black is a powerful concept – rasolowitz
His favorite Africanist Keita is not sure it even exists...
charlie brown's world is thrown in further turmoil, "how can someone be so sure that something exists when they don't how to define what that something is or what *IS* that something?"
Race has no meaning biologically, certainly not genetically – rasolowitz
Yet he posts studies in here every day on observable differences based on distinct characteristic traits, "African" gene contributions to Europe, and Angel's "negroid" skulls etc etc
"Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race" - American Anthropologist
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ From Syphilis, the eurocentric whore who loves to get balled,
......to akoben/aka/Eva Bruan, the eurocentric she/male who loves to 'bawl'
quote:Black=dark skin, sorry Khoisan etc
^ translating akoben's babby-talk: akoben is incoherent when upset.
quote: "Europeans, the defining "caucasians" would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race" - American Anthropologist
^ Yes, hence.....
"Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities." - American Anthropologist
^ Therefore....
"Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work." -Keita
^ But then you're and idiot and cannot understand even a single sentence written by any intelligent person, with your babby-brain, so how can you hope to actually connect ideas together and so formulate a coherent thesis?
lol. Keep trying. Babby akoben is so cute. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The bawling she/male writes.... Don't try to divert from another one of your obvious f**k ups by telling me s**t I already know re Keita and Angel.
^ As you already know, you're stupid. [and vulgar too]
Don't try to understand what Keita and Angel are saying.
They're way over you head, and you'll just hurt yourself, and then cry even more.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Drift, admixture, and selection in human evolution: A study with DNA polymorphisms
(population genetics/simulation/neutral theory) ANNE M. BOWCOCK*t
One can show that a branch to a population resulting from admixture tends to be shorter than other branches.
^ As explained earlier, this is *why* the European branch in graph b) is so short.
Europeans do not model as and ancient divergent race, but rather as a recent/admixed population, which by definition has no ancient genotype or phenotype history.
short internal genetic distance does not prove that europeans are a homogeneous race.
it only proves that they are the product of 'recent' admixture and bottleneck events.
morever this fact debunks -any attempt- to model non european populations as if they were 'admixtures' of a non-existent "european" race, as europeans are not the source origin for various 'loci' to begin with.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
"Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race".
From maximum likelihood estimates the European admixture consisted of 65% Asian and 35% African.
Graph a) shows the pattern and order of African origin, and sub-sequent outmigration, with population splits at each vertex.
Graph b) shows the genetic relatedness and distinctiveness of each population, denoted with each vector.
Note the relative *length* of the vectors.
Not only are Europeans intermidiates between Asia and Africa at the roughly 2/3 and 1/3 ratios denoted by Sforza, but Europeans also show as a decidely *short* vector. This means they are a recent population without and ancient history, and therefore non of the other, more ancient populations shown, can be conceived in terms of admixtures -with- Europeans.
hybrid - the entity described cannot be understood in terms of it's own originating characteristics as well as by reference to 2 or more descrete elements from which it is *derived.*
Europeans are hybrid.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Poor you. Yes, even after the deconstruction of received racial entities they still couldn't help falling back on said terminology, as it concludes Europeans are a secondary type of race because of their evolutionary history.
So despite what we know genetically/biologically humans still understand phenomena based on categorizing, grouping peoples based on phenotypes - what's on the outside. With all your studies showing hybridism and genetic commonality, you constantly talk of "whites" versus "blacks" in here; who are you refering to and on what basis you reach these conclusions?
You're a south African peasant, live on Boer farm am I right? Does your European boer employer look anything like you despite his ancient (even recent) European evolutionary history?
Like I said despite what we know of early evolutionary process we can still make distinctions between whites and blacks, despite them having those said "growing African genes".
"dividing humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of characteristics" [Wiki, "Race (classification of human beings)"] you can't escape it. Much like your Keita/Angel quote that challenges Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools yet even he still has to find a term ("black", Angel -negro) to describe the "group"/"race"/"people" with a set of common distinguishing characteristics to bring across his point re genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations.
BTW black is a powerful concept, I just don't see it as simply "dark skin" (stereotypical true negro) as you claim. LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
.....even after the deconstruction of received racial entities they still couldn't help falling back on said terminology, as it concludes Europeans are a secondary type of race.
^ Hey dumb dumb.
Who do you think 'they' is? American anthropologist?
You have *no idea* of whom it is you are quoting do you?
[it's not *from* the magazine, but from Keita's article within it]
^ And it's not a fall back, but a subtle point that the notion of race is not valid.
Keita's deconstruction of race goes right over your head, because understanding requires and adult mind, when all you have is your little babby brain.
Here's how the quote continues idiot..... "..this compromises the racial schema, and invalidates its underpinnings".
That is Keita's *conclusion*, not, as you mistate that Euros are literally a "secondary race."
But then, you don't ever read or learn anything, you just shoot off at the mouth and the less you know, the more inclined you are to make a complete fool of yourself, isn't that so?
So actually go read the article you're talking about, and come back and accidentally quote Keita some more, you self defeating imbicile.....so we can *force you* to read him.
Normal persons will learn... retarded akoben will come back with she/male baby brain smoking from -overload.
Then we can smack you around and otherwise *use you* some more. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ the good news for akoben is that in the contest between him and debunked as to which eurocentrist is the most daft....akoben has now taken the lead.
it's a bit like the handicapped olympics, without the 'feel good' elements. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"European" is being applied in the question as a geographic ethnonym, as precisely stated in the statement preceding the question.
Ill equipped to handle the reality that race still exist. Your underhand reply coward jewboy is irrelevant to the point I was making: whites today in the geographical location called Europe are still an identifiable group
"Ezie-Cunt" or whatever other alias you go by; of course the reply is relevant, because you make an exceedingly dumb claim, pertaining to whether "European" is supposed be a racial designator in my wording, when the preceding statement just informed you of it being a "geographic" ethnonym; never heard of a geographic ethnonym before? Is an "American" a distinct "race" or sub-species? Fool. Every group that anyone can see with their eyes is "identifiable", dummy.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Thus far, 156 transcription units, *78 protein-coding genes* and 27 distinct proteins of the Y chromosome have been identified.
True that Y DNA has more than 27 genes, but hypothetically, even if that were not the case [which would be false], how does that in any way invalidate its signature usefulness as a monophyletic unit of ancestry, spanning thousands and thousands of years? The markers that experts rely on are largely non-recombinant "Junk" ("silent") DNA, which has nothing to do with those identified as "coding DNA". Loci can be as many as experts want to make them; there doesn't necessarily have to be a fix set, which may or may not contain an entire gene.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Well yeah, it is supposed to be obvious; but as this thread shows, people are known to get what's generally obvious 'wrong'. Debunker is case in point of that, aside from the person you mentioned.
E.g. "European" is *obviously* not a designator of a "sub-species" of human, and it is *obviously* a geographic contruct that can be *obviously* applied as geographic ethnonym; yet, somebody managed to get that mangled up.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another example of what may be obvious to you, me and others, about 'genetic clusters" not being equal to "biological races", but apparently to Debunker...
"Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry - namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American."
[...]
"...the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level."
[...]
"...numerous studies over past decades have documented biological differences among the races. In this context, it is difficult to imagine that such differences are not meaningful. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a definition of 'biological' that does not lead to racial differentiation...." -- Risch et al. 2002
It is *obviously* a relative issue, but does this mean that, per Debunker, that Europeans [*obviously* as in persons "native to Europe"] who carry Hg R form the **same** cluster with Europeans carrying Hg I; do Europeans carrying Hg E form the same cluster as those carrying Hg J, or Hg G, and do either of those lineages form the same cluster with those carrying Hg R? If so, then please demonstrate how the said groups form single clusters with respect to the other. If not, does this not then mean that these Europeans are of distinct races?
Not sure the answer to these questions are *obvious* to Debunker. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:nazi-bitch wrotes: Race as [biologically seperate units of homo sapiens sapiens] is dead,
Right.
quote: however at its essence it involves categorizing and distinguishing humans into groups based on physical traits .. based in .. genetics
correct.
quote:which is exactly what you are doing even as you claim it is a lie!
So you take it that the only way in which one could "distinguish humans into groups" based in [anything] is to do so in a racial fashion?
The idiocy in this statement is that one could "distinguish" between nearly *anything*.
One could "distinguish" between one's self and one's brother who are of the same paternal and maternal lineage -- how would this mean they are advocating 'race'? Would this then mean that they by default imply they and their bro are different 'races'?
arrgh write:
quote:based on physical traits .. based in .. genetics
^First off, human groups can be distinguished by many things, which include language, geography, lineage, and physical appearance. Customs, diets, politics, identity and religion.
We admit there are tall and short, black and white, people and groups, (though these traits like many even very in single families lol),
but unlike others, we haven't claimed or espoused belief in tall and short, black and white, European or other, 'races'.
*Belief* in races "based on physical traits" entails that one believes that "phenotype isolate faithfully relates lineages" or even ancestry.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the Risch interview that the Negroes try to distort:
GITSCHIER: I have heard you say, "Don't politicize the human genome."
RISCH: I have a strong problem with the way politicians use this information. [Former President] Clinton, for example, when the first draft of the human genome sequence came out, made a statement about how all people in the world, in terms of their genetic makeup, are 99.9% the same. His intent—to reduce conflict among peoples—is noble. People on the left, anthropologists and sociologists, do the same thing. They use the 99.9% figure as an argument for social equality. But the truth is that people do differ by that remaining 0.1% and that people do cluster according to their ancestry. The problem is that others could use that information to create division.
Which brings us right back to...
"The one population in [Wilson's] analysis that was seemingly not clearly classified on continental grounds was the Ethiopians, who clustered more into the Caucasian group." -- Risch et al. 2002
"Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a 'Black' cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure." -- Wilson et al. 2001
"In line with previous studies, there is low apparent diversity in Europe, with the entire continentwide sample only more marginally dispersed than single population samples from elsewhere in the world." -- Bauchet et al. 2007
posted
^Good try, but I'm afraid it's back to the dunce chair for you, and for this one
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:"Use of the Y chromosome to investigate.... [...] Conclusions about populations on the basis of this single locus must therefore be made with caution."
Again, Y chromosome is *not* a single locus...it is dozens of genes and loci.
Remember your previous stupid assertions about Y chromosome carrying women, and Australian "Somali" ?
Well....you're doing it again.
Making a fool of yourself, that is.
Y chromosome - The Y chromosome spans about 58 million base pairs (the building blocks of DNA), with as many as 200 genes.
Locus - the chromosomal position of a gene as determined by its linear order relative to the other genes on that chromosome.
^ Chromsome's contain many genes....loci are relative positions on a single gene.
Y chromsome marker's identify the entire chromosome and with it all it's locations and all of it's genes which are passed on in entiriety from father to son.
This is exactly why it is and will continue to be the focus of so many gene studies.[/QB]
quote:Originally posted by phenelzine: Why- "thousands of loci"?
Because silly, I actually understand what a loci is, clearly you do not.
Tandem arrays of moderately repetitive (5-50 repeats) short (10-60 bases) DNA sequences found dispersed throughout the genome and clustered near telomeres. Their degree of repetition is two to several hundred at each locus. Loci number in the thousands
posted
And before Evan Braun returns to ask: "Then WHY do you advocate BLACK?"
or something similar, I'll say:
Actually, admittedly, every human alive got their melanin genes from the same source population.
So this does not make two black populations related (with respect to the white ones), nor the vice-versa.
None of this revokes black as a descriptive term.
However, I NOW know why 'black' is so powerful, and I now 'SEE' why black, makes so many opponents out of individuals like-minded as you.
These anti 'black' people are often the same who are opposed to African American unity, African unity, black unity (Indians identifying with AAs as a number of individual Indians have), and other. Yet Caucasian, Mediterranean, and Nordic unity usually evades their radar (for obvious reasons).
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet you don't understand that 'loci' is the plural
Apparently you don't understand that the sentense "there are thousands of loci on a chromosome", is *plural*. And that this is exactly the reality you relate when you discuss multi-locus data of x-linked loci.
You falsely suggest that this is quantatively different from discussion of a single SNP on the Y chromosome, such as E3b.
It is not, since you inherit *all the loci* and *all the genes* on the Y, and not just a single locus.
Thus the importance of the Y chromosome as related by Underhill.
Now, you and Phenolzine have both tried desparately to obscure this reality, and failed.
quote:GITSCHIER: I have heard you say, "Don't politicize the human genome."
quote:RISCH: I have a strong problem with the way politicians use this information.
^ Actually I laughed when I 1st read this, but didn't bother to note Risch transparent hypocrisy, since by insisting that the science of genetics is a racial issue, politicising is precisely what he does.
He also uses controversial politics to gain attention for his otherwise stunted career.
Many racists have caught on to this game, and most people see thru it.
Anyway, he states he doesn't know what race is, and that can't help you.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
....the topic of the thread, which is that K-zoids are a myth.
Europeans are a recently admixed population, who show as 2/3 Asian and 1/3 African.
They have little current genetic distinction.
They have no ancient genetic or phenetic identity.
This explains why you can't answer critical questions -> What are the specific European originating morphologies in ancient African remains?
What are the European originating genes in African peoples?
You don't know.
You can't answer.
Therefore you are debunked.
Fact: Europeans cannot constitute a race, nor be posited as a primary 'source' of admixture in other populations.
Rather Europeans are the 'hybrid' recipients of admixtures.
You have no answer, so try to run to run, or change the subject, but you can't......
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Drift, admixture, and selection in human evolution: A study with DNA polymorphisms
(population genetics/simulation/neutral theory) ANNE M. BOWCOCK*t
One can show that a branch to a population resulting from admixture tends to be shorter than other branches.
^ As explained earlier, this is *why* the European branch in graph b) is so short.
Europeans do not model as and ancient divergent race, but rather as a recent/admixed population, which by definition has no ancient genotype or phenotype history.
short internal genetic distance does not prove that europeans are a homogeneous race.
it only proves that they are the product of 'recent' admixture and bottleneck events.
morever this fact debunks -any attempt- to model non european populations as if they were 'admixtures' of a non-existent "european" race, as europeans are not the source origin for various 'loci' to begin with.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
"Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race".
From maximum likelihood estimates the European admixture consisted of 65% Asian and 35% African.
Graph a) shows the pattern and order of African origin, and sub-sequent outmigration, with population splits at each vertex.
Graph b) shows the genetic relatedness and distinctiveness of each population, denoted with each vector.
Note the relative *length* of the vectors.
Not only are Europeans intermidiates between Asia and Africa at the roughly 2/3 and 1/3 ratios denoted by Sforza, but Europeans also show as a decidely *short* vector. This means they are a recent population without and ancient history, and therefore non of the other, more ancient populations shown, can be conceived in terms of admixtures -with- Europeans.
hybrid - the entity described cannot be understood in terms of it's own originating characteristics as well as by reference to 2 or more descrete elements from which it is *derived.*
posted
And you are a brotha???!! I am white and I know this. . .just kidding. . .about being white. Hoping you are playing. And you are from the Bronx. This is a dead give away.
BTW - Help a white guy out. What is Apre-Scee?
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: LOL! This place is a st8 up mess!
Lol, and you're a ?????. What is "a st8 up mess"? What does this mean?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I use to despise Eurocentric distorters (and to an extent still do) but now moreso and in all honesty am starting to feel pretty sorry for them. Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are you ON now Alive. Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): So the lentgh of each vector denotes the distinctfulness of the group/population?!
If so: arguement done.
^ Yes. The position of Europeans on this graph, and admixture with Africans as the cause of their short vector is exactly what is being denoted by Bowcock....
Drift, admixture, and selection in human evolution: A study with DNA polymorphisms
(population genetics/simulation/neutral theory) ANNE M. BOWCOCK*t
One can show that a branch to a population resulting from admixture tends to be shorter than other branches.
^ This is also what Keita is relating in terms of why Europeans cannot be modeled as a primary race, and source of admixture, when they lack genetic distinction to begin with, being 'hybridized' and admixed as they are.
We can have as many rounds of angry denial as Eurocentrists would care to engage.
We are more than happy to break this down into bites small enough for even the most -toothless- of Eurocentrists to be able to digest.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: From the Risch interview that the Negroes try to distort:
GITSCHIER: I have heard you say, "Don't politicize the human genome."
RISCH: I have a strong problem with the way politicians use this information. [Former President] Clinton, for example, when the first draft of the human genome sequence came out, made a statement about how all people in the world, in terms of their genetic makeup, are 99.9% the same. His intent—to reduce conflict among peoples—is noble. People on the left, anthropologists and sociologists, do the same thing. They use the 99.9% figure as an argument for social equality. But the truth is that people do differ by that remaining 0.1% and that people do cluster according to their ancestry. The problem is that others could use that information to create division.
Which brings us right back to...
"The one population in [Wilson's] analysis that was seemingly not clearly classified on continental grounds was the Ethiopians, who clustered more into the Caucasian group." -- Risch et al. 2002
"Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a 'Black' cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure." -- Wilson et al. 2001
"In line with previous studies, there is low apparent diversity in Europe, with the entire continentwide sample only more marginally dispersed than single population samples from elsewhere in the world." -- Bauchet et al. 2007
LOL! Yeah, I'm really a white guy. LOL!!!
What a joke. Genetics used for evil rather than good. What a joke.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never read that particular Keita article, or claim to read everything he ever wrote, so what? It says nothing different from what I know to be his position and it contradicts nothing I have been saying. Learn boy to reply to what others argue not what you want them to say. Never said the quote was a "fall back" on the classical definition of race as separate sub species etc.
"Racial thinking rests on the belief that visible human variation connotes fundamental deep differences within the species, which can be packed into units of near uniform individuals", how is that different from what I've been saying over and over, "Race as [biologically seperate units of homo sapiens sapiens] is dead", my god even loverboy was honest enough to see that! LOL
Your problem stems from your need of straw men arguments and not being able to deal with what I actually argue. Also, your need to obfuscate the fact that that the construct "race" is equally as subjective as the construct "black", "population" or your "social ethnenes"[sic].
Let me go over again.
My point was that human beings need terms to adequately group/categorise things. "Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type of race due to its hybrid origin" Wether you say "race" or "a type of race" it's still grouping people with common traits - in this case hybridism, geographical location. And as I said, whether you substitute "Black race" for "Black populations", "white race" for "white populations" or "Modern Europeans" it's simply updating the concept without the word. It still entails "group designations", to borrow Keita's term, hence the persistence of racial thinking (albeit without the old assumptions associated with "race").
To further underscore the need for appropriate terminologies even Keita laments that the "no-race" school (like you idiots) have failed to adequately come up with suitable substitutes. And of course, your heart break, he doesn't accept your "black" or "social ethnenes"[sic] as adequate substitutes either. LMAO! So to pretend as if your terms are any more "scientific" or adequate or it is backed up by your favorite Africanist scholar, exposes YOU as the fraud.
In the final analysis, it's how you define the terms. E.g. is Obama "black" or "white", and at what point does a person stop being "black" and start being "white"? Same with "race": should it be based on geography, phenotype or genotype/clustering, or a mixture of all; such would be the case in this forum, as who is identified as a memember of the "black" race...oops "population"...LOL...is based on certain phenotypes backed up by genetic studies e.g. on the ancient Egyptians etc.
quote:you make an exceedingly dumb claim, pertaining to whether "European" is supposed be a racial designator in my wording, when the preceding statement just informed you of it being a "geographic" ethnonym; never heard of a geographic ethnonym before? Is an "American" a distinct "race" or sub-species?
Of course the exceedingly dumb claim would be for you say that my definition of "race" is sub-species. LOL my word you have not changed jewboy. And of course "American" in this context is irrelevant since it is a nation today of many peoples.
However, when we speak of a "European" (persons "native to Europe") and an "African" in these forums are we speaking of mere geographic ethnonym? Are speaking of the same people phenotypically? If so, what would be the point of posting studies identifying "admixture" and African lineages in said "European", wether Sicilian or Brit, if both looked alike? Pictorially jewboy, what did you mean by a "European" with Hg I? A black person with said linage? LOL
quote:So you take it that the only way in which one could "distinguish humans into groups" based in [anything] is to do so in a racial fashion?
Never said or implies this.
quote:The idiocy in this statement is that one could "distinguish" between nearly *anything*. One could "distinguish" between one's self and one's brother who are of the same paternal and maternal lineage -- how would this mean they are advocating 'race'? Would this then mean that they by default imply they and their bro are different 'races'?
The idiocy is to assume that making distinctions between siblings is the same as making distinctions based on phenotypes.
quote:*Belief* in races "based on physical traits" entails that one believes that "phenotype isolate faithfully relates lineages" or even ancestry.
Amazing twist, first you correctly identify my rejection of the classical definition of race yet you fall back on it to "refute" what you think I am arguing. They call this straw man arguing.
quote: However, I NOW know why 'black' is so powerful, and I now 'SEE' why black, makes so many opponents out of individuals like-minded as you. These anti 'black' people are often the same who are opposed to African American unity, African unity, black unity (Indians identifying with AAs as a number of individual Indians have), and other. Yet Caucasian, Mediterranean, and Nordic unity usually evades their radar (for obvious reasons).
Don't you think it quite a stretch, even for an idiot such as yourself, to conclude that I am anti-black unity based on my rejection of Rasolowitz's Webster definition of "black" as simply "dark skin"? come on boy, try again. LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I gotta say after reading these last posts from the last page is...
ROTFLMBAO
What we have here are trolls who share one single neurosis in common and that is DENIAL
We know Debunked is in denial of not only the non-existence of 'race' but that Europeans are mixed.
Phenelzine is also in denial that race doesn't exist as well as her obvious racist bias as evidenced by some of her comments. And she is obviously in denial of her own scientific ignorance which I assume is the source of her biases. (by the way Rasol, that what you said about her is so WRONG, yet hilarious as hell! )
Ako-Wako a.k.a. Eva Braun is in denial of his own bigotry as an anti-Jew as well as his anti-black bias which he tries to hide behind his absurd accusations of others. And perhaps he is likely in denial of his sexual identity as well.
Last but not least AmericanPatriot (Hore) is obviously in denial of his Eurocentric, white-supremacist, anti-black bias. But what's new?? Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
^ They sure seem quite dark to me, especially in comparison to the whites who were the ones who coined the term of 'black' as a description of such indigenous populations, you nitwit!
Tell me how you can be so stupid, and let's please not blame it on the Jews again! LOLPosts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Knowledge, You are using faulty logic.
"Why or how did Europeans get these African lineages if not from Africa"
You seem to be saying that since we do not know where they came from it must be from Africa.
Actually professor, we KNOW they came from Africa as cited by many peer-reviewed geneticists! Rasol and others have been pointing that fact here on this forum for years now, but apparently you haven't been paying attention or rather you didn't understand it.
quote:In a college logic class that would be a faulty argument.
Example, one study out of the U of Toronto wants to say that non humans left Africa and returned as humans during the evolutionary process. The point is we have much to discover looking at these issues.
Please cite this study. Last time I checked nothing has supported the multi-regionalist hypothesis yet everything supports the single African origin theory per physical anthropological remains, paleo-archaeological remains, and backed up by genetics.
quote:Even so, you do understand that regardless of the sequence of events they have little if any application to the historical era.
Hardly. We are talking about Europeans, specifically southern Europeans having mixed African ancestry due to an influx of African immigrants during the Neolithic period. As I recall professor, every world history class attributes the beginnings of civilization and thus history with the 'Neolithic revolution', also the Semitic languages and cultures of Southwest Asia to which you attribute the Judeo-Christian "pillar" of 'Western' Civilization is also the result of Africans expansions of the Mesolithic.
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Phenelzine, what an interesting screen-name you have. Is that the anti-depressant you take in real life? Perhaps your irrational behavior in this forum is a result of the side-effects. Maybe you'll have better luck with prozac (?)
Anyway, how many genes did you say the Y-chromosome had? Rasol is correct when he said it had dozens.
The male-specific region of the Y chromosome, the MSY, differentiates the sexes and comprises 95% of the chromosome's length. Here, we report that the MSY is a mosaic of heterochromatic sequences and three classes of euchromatic sequences: X-transposed, X-degenerate and ampliconic. These classes contain all 156 known transcription units, which include 78 protein-coding genes that collectively encode 27 distinct proteins. The X-transposed sequences exhibit 99% identity to the X chromosome. The X-degenerate sequences are remnants of ancient autosomes from which the modern X and Y chromosomes evolved. The ampliconic class includes large regions (about 30% of the MSY euchromatin) where sequence pairs show greater than 99.9% identity, which is maintained by frequent gene conversion (non-reciprocal transfer). The most prominent features here are eight massive palindromes, at least six of which contain testis genes.
It's obvious you confused the number of genes for the number of proteins it encodes. LOL Perhaps we can attribute your mistake to the side-effects of your medication, yes?
Maybe you can go back to Mathilda's site and start another thread. Perhaps you can title it: "So I went by Egyptsearch again, and those mean negroes sexually assaulted me!" LOL
We know that you are a lackey of Mathilda the same way Debunked is a lackey of Dienekes! You two obviously share alot in common! Maybe you guys should get together or something.
Then again...
quote:phenelzine wrote: I love to be fucked by black men! I love big cock! But I mean black MEN,...
Perhaps not. Oh well. Maybe you should stick to what you love doing as indicated above and leave science to the rational (and unmedicated) people.
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never denied I am anti-white Jew/people...
And how does a disguised Eurocentric philipoo get off calling me anti-black?! LOL
quote:So Khoisan don't have dark skin?? They sure seem quite dark to me, especially in comparison to whites who were the ones who coined the term 'black' in description of indigenous tropical peoples!
Compared to some other Africans some of them are lighter yes. And really, are you kidding me Mary? LMAO! I mean, based on your BS Eurocentric stereotyping of Kushits you're in no position to lecture me on African phenotypic variations. Also, it was not whites who first coined the term "black". You can add this to your denial of a stolen legacy and the rest of your Eurocentric f**k ups. LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Compared to some other Africans some of them are lighter yes...
And in the definition of 'black' that Rasol gave you, where does it state any comparison to "other Africans", idiot??! LMAO
Here is a more concise definition:
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.
That's your problem-- you seem to see or percieve things that aren't there. Thus all you do is make false accusations based on lies and false assumption which is why I won't even bother with the other B.S. you wrote in response.
Hitler is dead, but apparently he still has a strangle-hold on your pathetic mind, Eva or is that a dick-choke. Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:you make an exceedingly dumb claim, pertaining to whether "European" is supposed be a racial designator in my wording, when the preceding statement just informed you of it being a "geographic" ethnonym; never heard of a geographic ethnonym before? Is an "American" a distinct "race" or sub-species?
Of course the exceedingly dumb claim would be for you say that my definition of "race" is sub-species.
Not only are you exceedingly dumb, you are handicapped further by your inability to read.
What you are citing says nothing of "your supposed definition of the term"; it is asking you a question, which no doubt you don't have the intellectual power to simply answer...when you can't read your simple ABCs from left to right, this is what happens. Naturally, you don't know what a sub-species is, and the question was trying to relate to folks like you, whom things are never as *obvious* as they ought to be, that "race" in biological lexicon is the equivalent of sub-species.
quote: And of course "American" in this context is irrelevant since it is a nation today of many peoples.
And so, it goes to say that you naturally assumed that Europe, a continent -- which in your usual profusely simple-minded way, translates as a "racialist" term, instead of its *obvious* meaning as a "native to Europe" via its "-an" suffix, is a geography today of only "one" people. Your stupidity is well beyond laughter; it should be seen as a medical emergency!
quote: However, when we speak of a "European" (persons "native to Europe") and an "African" in these forums are we speaking of mere geographic ethnonym?
Your "we" is irrelevant to what I've said; how *you* and some other "faceless/nameless" persons might contort the *obvious* meanings of the terms is something that you and those "faceless/nameless" persons have to answer to.
quote: Are speaking of the same people phenotypically?
Dumb "jamaican"; what part of "geographic", do you find exceedingly difficult to understand?
quote: If so, what would be the point of posting studies identifying "admixture" and African lineages in said "European", wether Sicilian or Brit, if both looked alike?
This would be a question that the intellectually dead can answer; that is, your kin. Since, your "if so" premise is your own imagination, do the honours of providing the answer.
quote: Pictorially jewboy, what did you mean by a "European" with Hg I? A black person with said linage? LOL
"Pictorially", what does a genetic marker mean to you, terrorist-fucking chick?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought you read the threads? Didn't you see the context in which it was raised? And why are you posting the very same standard literal defintion of "black"? LOL Jesus have mercy!!! Do I need to remind your dumba** also that it' is no different from "negro"?
BTW "false assumptions"? did you not deny a stolen legacy, wether Greek or Hebrew? Do you deny type casting Kushites as not having Will's compelxion?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:that "race" in biological lexicon is the equivalent of sub-species
Yes but the only problem is, dufus, I wasn't taking about race in that now refuted biological sense, but as a social construct based on phenotypes just as "black" is. I'm talking phenotypes. I ask pictorially, what was meant by your "European" with Hg I? A personal resembling what we would call "white" or a person resembling what we would call "black"? And if it was the latter why would that be necessary to show African "admixture" in an African?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:that "race" in biological lexicon is the equivalent of sub-species
Yes but the only problem is, dufus, I wasn't taking about race in that now refuted biological sense, but as a social construct based on phenotypes just as "black" is.
Well, jamaican dufus, you were wrongly reading what you cited to begin with. What you were saying has *no connection* to what you were citing.
quote: I'm talking phenotypes.
Who gives a shyt what *you* are talking about; it has nothing to do with what I was talking about, which is the soul purpose of even replying to your ignorant unread "jamaican" ass.
quote: I ask pictorially, what was meant by your "European" with Hg I? A personal resembling what we would call "white" or a person resembling what we would call "black"? And if it was the latter why would that be necessary to show African "admixture" in an African?
I redirect you to unanswered question put to you: Pictorially", what does a genetic marker mean to you, terrorist-fucking chick?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Is that your brown ass or black ass? How do I know, how do I know.
On the black and white picture: Just like I said at another time, a black guy slapping himself.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Black=dark skin, sorry Khoisan etc
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
it's back to the dunce chair for you, and for this one![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic