posted
Problem for you and rasolowitz is that in the process of debunking them, Keita is debunking you also!!! LOL
Does not agree with Sforza's trees
quote:"Many investigators still use dendrograms to represent the philogenetic history of human “races”. These representations imply bifurcations or splitting of ancestral populations. They suggest an absolute distinctness or discreetness that is not a flaw of ordinate methods. This problematic. Dendrograms cannot accurately depict evolutionary gradients of differentiation or distinguish similarity due to gene flow. They can also be unreliable in their depictions of population relationships when demographic factors such as population size are not constant or equal between populations ... In a word, dendrograms are ambiguous in their apparent depiction of certainty."
quote:"The persistence of the racial paradigm (and not just names) is further illustrated by investigators who use dendrograms (trees) to assess to group similarities or dissimilarities, usually in quest of intraspecific phylogenies. The groups utilized usually conform to the old racial schema. Dendrograms are also used to illustrate the divergence of entities called human races or of populations used as their surrogates. This is problematic since few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches. The degree of drift has not been necessarily equal across space and time. The ubiquity and complexity of human migration patterns guarantee that branching points in trees will always be suspect. (Jorde 1985) Also, strictly speaking, studies can only inform about the groups used in the analysis. Therefore a study using Mbuti, a clan of Saame speakers, a Swedish village, and Vedda can only tell us about each of them. These groups should not be reified into other entities."
Does not argue for Europeans as a secondary type or race due to its hybrid origins.
quote:"Races are types, defined by complexes of anatomical traits; clear boundaries exist by definition, and definitions are tautologies. (Breed-ing populations are mating systems.) The boundaries implied by the specificity of type definitions are shattered when other data are considered.
quote:"The strict racial approach constructs human diversity as being reducible to a fixed number of foundational, natural, and indivisible units (types), which consist of near uniform individuals. Variation from these units in this model is primarily explained by admixture. Thus there were primary and secondary races."
Does not agree with Bowcock analysis
quote:"Nuclear DNA studies suggest to some that Blumenbach’s “Caucasian” entity (or some of it) is at foundation an “inter-mixed” group composed of earlier differentiated non-European (specifically Asian and central African) elements (e.g. Bowcock etal. 1991)—this may be a problem given that the contributing groups seem to conform to received raciotypological schema- but should be acceptable to those who believe in the existence of races."..."
posted
akoben tries to console himself with his feeble lies...
quote: Keita is debunking you also
I agree with Keita. The only one who disagreed with him was you, as you advocated race, which Keita debunks, and in doing so debunks you.
alas, you are a coward, and reduced to denying that you ever believed in race, and pretending there is some debate between Keita and me.
your evidence of this debate is fake citations which are actually from *you*, and not Keita or me.
rotfl.
You're pathetic....
quote:Originally posted by rasol: At issue....
quote:ANSWERS FROM KEITA: race is based on the hypothesis of *fundamental* divisions.
one of the racial "units" [caucasian], is not fundamental, as its genesis is qualitatively different from the other "units" and even connects them - SOY Keita.
Answers from Bowcock:
quote:ANNE M. BOWCOCK*t
One can show that a branch to a population resulting from admixture tends to be shorter than other branches.
^ akoben has now admited that Europeans are not a race, but he his unhappy about "why" they aren't.
So lets state it directly and challenge him -or anyone else- to prove the above is wrong.
- Europeans are not a fundamental division or sub-species, and therefore not a race.
They are a non-fundamental, recently admixed group with qualitatively less genetic distinction than the Africans and non Africans from which they derive.
And this fact in turn undermines the entire schematic of race.
And akoben is a perfect example of why?
He begin his argument trying to defend 'race'.
When made to confront admixture in Europeans, he then changed his mind:
In his twisted mind, it's even *worse* for Europeans to be admixed, than to not be a race at all.
But the painful bitter truth for racists like akoben is that Europeans are admixed, and are not a race.
And the manner in which they are admixed is *why* they are not a race.
It's the worst of all worlds for people like akboen.
Eurocentrists, feel free to disagree, and rescue jackass akoben from his 'racial dispair'.
quote:akoben writes:Does not agree with Bowcock analysis
^ it's Keita's analysis, not anyone elses....
Keep running from it......
quote:Keita writes:Nuclear DNA studies suggest to some that Blumenbach’s “Caucasian” entity (or some of it) is at foundation an “inter-mixed” group composed of earlier differentiated non-European (specifically Asian and central African) elements (e.g. Bowcock etal. 1991)—this may be a problem given that the contributing groups seem to conform to received raciotypological schema- but should be acceptable to those who believe in the existence of races."..."
^ Again your illiteracy betrays you.
Keita is saying that the notion that *Blumenbach’s “Caucasian” entity (or some of it) is at foundation is flawed.
And here is why, per Keita.....
In this case……then one of the units [Caucasian] is *not fundamental*, because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.
Therefore, Caucasian would be a secondary type, or race due to it’s *hybrid origin* and *not* a primary race.
This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between it’s units.
Nowhere does the above say anything about 'disagreeing' with 'Ann Bowcock', on Europeans being and admixture of African and Non African elements.
^ The part you hate.
Of course, they are, and this is precisely why Keita [not bowcock] calls caucasian *non fundamental* and concludes that causasian fails to model as a race.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Therefore, Caucasian would be a secondary type, or race due to it’s *hybrid origin* and *not* a primary race.
In this case……then one of the units [Caucasian] is *not fundamental*, because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.
This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between it’s units.
^ Akoben, beyound denial, and pretending that DR Kieta didn't say this, or didn't mean it. [lol, what a loser thing to do]
Do you have any evidence to cite that can refute the above?
No?
I thought not.
Then, I guess your strategy of running-away from the truth is probably best.
quote:rasol: Why would we be required to produce evidence for *your* incoherent prattle?
quote:wakoako writes: Because,this is what your whole straw edifice is built on
^ The only case built upon your incoherent prattle is the case for your being a jackass.
quote:akojackass writes: my alleged claims of a fundamental caucasian race
^ Your alleged claims? Fundamental race? As opposed to what? Non fundamental race? It's funny watching a beaten jackasss like you backpeddle.
Won't save you though....
What KEITA says about the inherent relationship between 'race', and 'fundamentalism'.
1) - the concept of race is biology is built on fundamental differences - ie, no fundamental difference = no race
2) but cacuasians are are derivitive and not fundamental. - ie - because caucasian is not fundamental, then caucasian is not a race.
^ Feel free, to agree with Keita [and us] regarding the above.
You can even pretend you always agreed if that makes you feel better.
Either way you are defeated.
- And advocator of race, who can no longer openly advocate it, but can only sit in the corner and squirm, mumbling against alleged denials, of alleged beliefs, which you were allegedly accused of advancing.
Meanwhile - caucaZoids are as dead as a doornail, and it's clear that you can't revive them.
That's the bottom line.
akboben: let us know when caucasoid race isn't dead anymore, and then you will actually have something to argue for. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:akojack writes: You did advance the above positions
still waiting for the non existent citations. it's been a week. what's taking so long?
quote:rasol wrote in genetics, a type, or geno-type, is a marker or markers, that distinguishes one population from another."
^ that is the definition of genotype from the dictionary jackass.
it is not a claim from me regarding 'secondary genotype' or 'secondary haplotype' which are non-existent terms and non-existent FAKE quotes which you pull out of the wrong end of your jackass.
we are still waiting for the claimed citation lying jackass.
posted
Right on cue as expected! The Bowcock/Sforza spam fills the air once more! LOL
quote: my alleged claims of a fundamental caucasian race
quote:Your alleged claims? I guess...
Yes my alleged claims I didn't s-t-t-t-u-t-t-er boy! LOL
Where are they?
No guesses [even though now youve edited the words "I guess" LOLOLOLOLOLOL], but still can't show where I claimed that Europeans ARE a pure fundamental Caucasian race. What's taking so long?
Stop f**king editting you slimey loser, show where I say they are a pure fundamental race!
quote:your evidence of this debate is fake citations which are actually from *you*, and not Keita or me.
How about this one? "in genetics, a type, or geno-type, is a marker or markers, that distinguishes one population from another." [posted 28 September, 2008 01:17 AM]
quote: ^ that is the definition of genotype from the dictionary jackass.
Yes, and it was in response to a specific question, regarding a specific quote. This you cant escape liar!
"what is the meaning of "type" here?" to which rasolowitz replies: "in genetics, a type, or geno-type, is a marker or markers, that distinguishes one population from another."[/i]
quote:Statement reads that many investigators use dendrograms to represent races.
Or of populations used as their surrogates:
quote:These representations imply bifurcations or splitting of ancestral populations..unreliable in their depictions of population relationships when demographic factors such as population size are not constant or equal between populations...Dendrograms are also used to illustrate the divergence of entities called human races or of populations used as their surrogates
It reads as I have said Keita does not support your/Sforza's human geographical population dendrograms. Nowhere can you show he does! The dendrograms in the Badrian article (where you LIED it said "types") you thought would help you are NOT the same as Sforza's trees.
quote:Keita is saying that the notion that *Blumenbach’s “Caucasian” entity (or some of it) is at foundation is flawed.
LOL No, dufus, you obviously cant read (which means this is like debating a child! LOL) he's saying the notion that a population or group (in this case Europeans) can be, at its foundation, an "intermixed" group composed of two earlier differentiated populations (Asian and African) is flawed.
quote:Nuclear DNA studies suggest to some that ”Blumenbach’s “Caucasian” entity (or some of it) is at foundation an “inter-mixed” group composed of earlier differentiated non-European (specifically Asian and central African) elements...this may be a problem given that the contributing groups seem to conform to received raciotypological schema- but should be acceptable to those who believe in the existence of races...."
According to him this is what is flawed/problematic as he does not believe in population distinctiveness and branching on trees, in short, he does not agree with your/Bowcock/Sforza analysis and interpretations.
quote:Nowhere does the above say anything about 'disagreeing' with 'Ann Bowcock', on Europeans being and admixture of African and Non African elements.
Sillyboy, he is analyzing her work within the context of the persistence of racial thinking among the works of his contemporaries hence he is NOT saying Europeans ARE a secondary type or race composed of two earlier differentiated populations. How many times must the context of the quote be explained to your childlike brain?!?!?
No primary or secondary types or races since,
quote:"Races are types, defined by complexes of anatomical traits; clear boundaries exist by definition, and definitions are tautologies”... "The strict racial approach constructs human diversity as being reducible to a fixed number of foundational, natural, and indivisible units (types), which consist of near uniform individuals. Variation from these units in this model is primarily explained by admixture. Thus there were primary and secondary races."
quote:"Therefore, Caucasian would be a secondary type, or race due to it’s *hybrid origin* and *not* a primary race.
^ Akoben, beyound denial, and pretending that DR Kieta didn't say this, or didn't mean it
Again, he is NOT saying they ARE a secondary type or race. How many times must this be explained to your childlike brain?!?!?
You were even forced to admit that he is not saying this, "Keita never claimed that Europeans are a secondary type"[posted 08 October, 2008 07:02 PM]
Forced to understand the difference between someone saying would be and are:
quote:Aliveboy posts: apparently [rasolowitz] does not understand the difference between would be and are ..."Europeans, the defining Caucasians...would therefore be a secondary type or race due to its hybrid origins". – SOY Keita
The context of the quote was explained:
quote:He qualifies his statement with a "would in that scenario", as in, under the general racial assumption held by many in the past and by some of his contemporaries, that (and I'm quoting) "Caucasian would be a secondary type or race due to its hybrid origin", IF race were relevant. He and Kittles demonstrates through out their paper that it is not.
Why in gods name then are you still going BACK in time to your previous position: that he MEANT to say that Europeans ARE a secondary type? Especially AFTER you admitted "Keita never claimed that Europeans are a secondary type"[posted 08 October, 2008 07:02 PM]
It is because you have been caught red handed in your f**k ups; entangled in your web of BS; reduced to double, triple and fipple flip flopping and lies.
- Keita does not say Europeans are a secondary type (genotype) as you thought/and still think
- Keita does not agree with your dendrograms
- Keita does not classify human populations into "units" or types, whether fundamental/primary or secondary
^ Tell me when you numskulls can refute the above
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not finished editing your lies it seems? LOL OK I'll just wait until you make up your mind which denial, dishonest claim or straw man arguments you decide to reply with this time. LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ well, if you are 'bored' with waiting, why not scroll up the thread and answer the questions from Dr. Keita's work, which you keep hiding from??? lol.
Here I'll cut and paste them again, so you can stick your head back in the sand and hide from them......
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Therefore, Caucasian would be a secondary type, or race due to it’s *hybrid origin* and *not* a primary race.
In this case……then one of the units [Caucasian] is *not fundamental*, because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.
This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between it’s units.
^ Akoben, beyound denial, and pretending that DR Kieta didn't say this, or didn't mean it. [lol, what a loser thing to do]
Do you have any evidence to cite that can refute the above?
No?
I thought not.
Then, I guess your strategy of running-away from the truth is probably best.
quote:SOY Keita "Therefore, Caucasian would be a secondary type, or race due to it’s *hybrid origin* and *not* a primary race.
^
quote:akoben: Again, he is NOT saying they ARE a secondary type or race.
You should know this by now, since i'm the one who explained it to you:
"Keita never claimed that Europeans are a secondary type or race" - rasol
^ apparently your idea of debating is to repeat what i told you, in hopes that i will argue with, myself (??) lol.
quote:akoben writes: How many times must this be explained??
^ Well jackass, i've explained it to you dozens of times.
You even cut and paste my writings and then copy my explanation word for word, yet you still refuse to understand, apparently because Keita's commments so infuriates you.
So again, here is another citation from me, for you to repeat, deny and not understand... all at the same time, as only a jackass like you can do.
Kieta is not saying that Europeans are a secondary race, he is saying *they are not a race at all*. -
^ Pray tell: How long will it take your jackass brain to process this one?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
desparate jackassoben miscites Alive What box....
quote: Alive What box: apparently [rasolowitz] does not understand the difference between would be and are ..."Europeans, the defining Caucasians...would therefore be a secondary type or race due to its hybrid origins". – SOY Keita
^ tsk, tsk, another fake quote from jackass akoben.
akoben: your constant lying neither fools anyone else, nor angers me.
It simply *makes a fool* of you, and leaves you more frustrated than ever.
of course Alive-(What Box) was referring *to you* and your holocaust denial and general illiteracy.
I understand that you're desparate for someone to agree with you, and need to make stuff up, at this point.
But you'd be well advised to find *someone* who doesn't regard you as a total jackass.
If possible...
The actual post from Alive......
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ A normal intellect can distinguish between different words and ideas. But Akoben cannot.
akoben's subnormal intelligence also explains why he thinks the holocaust never happened.
And who apparently does not understand the difference between would be and are ...
quote:
"Europeans, the defining Caucasians...would therefore be a secondary...race due to its hybrid origins". – SOY Keita
^ that's ok, akoben, just pretend that what-box remarks weren't directed at you, and your stupidity.
you're good at pretending. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:- Keita does not say Europeans are a secondary type (genotype)
yes, we know, as we [whatbox and i] explained this to you. feel free to parrot this explanation back to us, and pretend that you are 'debating'.
quote: as you thought/and still think
no but we do still think you can't read...
quote:- Keita does not agree with your dendrograms
non sequitur - i don't have any dendrograms. Keita has his own dendrograms and assessments, based upon which he concludes that Europeans are not a race., which i agree with.
as for you, you are trapped and can neither agree nor disagree, you just hide.
i don't mind. as and easily punked, cornered cowering neo nazi is and amusing site.
quote:- Keita does not classify human populations into "units" or types
False. Keita classifies into types such as 'tropical african', which he further distinguishes from 'european type', and he measures said skeletypes in metric units, so you aren't making any sense.
Bottom line....
Keita states that Europeans are not a race, and that they are a genetically admixed population with recent African ancestry.
He draws this conclusion based on genotypes and phenotypes, and metric units, from his own dendrograms and those of others.
You don't like this but can't refute it, so you try to run away.
But we won't let you.
You can hide, but you can't run.
quote: One can show that a branch to a population resulting from admixture tends to be shorter than other branches.
^ Europeans are short vector hybrids, and not a race.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:[before you know it was from Keita] was to claim that it -supported- the notion of race…
Race in the context of a social construct is still valid. Show where I said otherwise.
And the Bowcock/Sforza analysis does support the notion of race. That's why under the racial schema they would be secondary type or race, intermediates between two earlier differentiated population groups African and Asian. That's why he says it would be acceptable to those who believe in races. (Keita, 2001)
quote: ^ Can you provide a citation where anyone stated you claimed "pure fundamental caucasian race"(?) Then explain to us what this nonsense phrase you made up, and want -us- to argue about is supposed to mean?
Your whole straw argument has been that I claim purity for Europeans/Caucasians. A pure, fundamental, Caucasian race.
quote:"Europeans are not a fundamental division or sub-species", "since defense of k-zoid race myth is your only interest", "CaucaZoid race does not exist", "In his twisted mind, it's even *worse* for Europeans to be admixed, than to not be a race at all", "But the painful bitter truth for racists like akoben is that Europeans are admixed, and are not a race", "one of the units [Caucasian] is not fundamental"
Those accusations in your posts must be based on something. What's taking so long? Where did I ever advance the notion that Europeans are a pure race?
quote:^ Illiterate jackass, this quote is the exact -opposite- of your claim, which is therefore a misquote, and a lie. rotfl!
You poor confused soul, first you say Keita is not agreeing or disagreeing with the analysis of Europeans as a secondary type etc etc [posted 12 October, 2008 02:12 PM]
Now you say he is not agreeing with the analysis of Europeans as a secondary type etc etc. "Keita never claimed that Europeans are a secondary type"
^ This is because you have to try and reconcile your initial misinterpretation of Keita's position on types, dendrograms and units, with what you know now.
Why post a quote that's actually saying under the racial schema Europeans would be a secondary type, intermediates between two earlier differentiated population groups African and Asian if you are in fact debunking the said racial schema? It wouldn't be relevant in a debate about the irrelevance of the racial schema!
But you gleefully posted it over and over precisely because at first you did not know the context of the Keita quote. You thought he was validating Bowcock's work and Cavalli-Sforza's trees and the accompanying arguments: "Europeans, show as intermediates" between two earlier differentiated population groups African and Asian "contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third".
In fact it was Sundiata who introduced the now infamous Keita quote presenting it as a sort of "validation" of the (your) Cavalli-Sforza trees and accompanying arguments, "^Such [the Keita quote] explains why according to Sforza, Europeans are intermediate between African and Asian populations." [posted 20 September, 2008 06:36 PM]
The truth is, "such" [the Keita quote] in fact does not "explain" or validate Sforza or Bowcock! Keita was actually critiquing such analysis as evidence of the persistence of racial thinking! He wasn't supporting any analysis of Europeans being a secondary type due to admixture, an intermediate between two earlier differentiated population groups African and Asian contributions from Asia and Africa estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third.
Keita point was that such analysis is problematic, as evidence of the persistence of racial thinking, "this may be a problem given that the contributing groups seem to conform to received raciotypological schema but should be acceptable to those who believe in the existence of races."
You in turn, clueless as to the context of the quote, merely coat tailed this misrepresentation of Keita's position from then on, (even with the misquote! "secondary type of race" LOL) and tagged it, in your subsequent posts to make it appear as if Keita was in agreement with it all: "On this [the human population trees and accompanying analysis and percentages] particular Sforza is correct, and he is cited by Keita"[posted 20 September, 2008 08:28 PM]
So before Sundita admitted that Keita was in fact not supporting such an analysis - which of course makes posting that particular quote irrelevant in this context, unless you idnt know the context – you DID advance such an interpretation.
This is why too Mary thinks your position IS that Europeans ARE a secondary type due to hybrid origins - because YOU WERE saying this!!!
which is why you highlighted thus:
Europeans, the defining caucasians arose as a consequence of admixtures of already differentiated populations, and would therefore be a secondary type, or race due to its hybrid origins and not a primary race.[ posted 27 September, 2008 07:29 PM]
And thought "secondary type" in the Keita quote was a reference to genotyp:
What is the difference, in the Keita quote, between "secondary type" and "secondary race"?
"^ It means[/b] that Europeans can be shown to be the result of admixtures between non-africans and africans, and thefore cannot be posited as primary race." - rasolowitz
"what is the meaning of "type" here?",
"in genetics, a type, or geno-type, is a marker or markers, that distinguishes one population from another." - rasolowitz
Hence you thought secondary type was a reference to genotype.
And you STILL argue that Europeans are a secondary type:
quote:Therefore, Caucasian would be a secondary type, or race due to it’s *hybrid origin* and *not* a primary race...Do you have any evidence to cite that can refute the above?
Prey tell, rasolowitz, why would I need to "refute" the above when Keita is not actually saying this and to top it off you admit this, "Keita never claimed that Europeans are a secondary type" – rasolowitz
Rasol's premise IS what Keita argues that Europeans as a population ARE a secondary type due to admixture – Mary
Then when the context was explained:
"Keita never claimed that Europeans are a secondary type" – rasolwitz
Before:
Rasol's premise IS what Keita argues that Europeans as a population ARE a secondary type due to admixture – Mary
After: "Keita never claimed that Europeans are a secondary type" – rasolwitz
quote: non sequitur - i don't have any dendrograms.
LOLOL The whole point of your lies and tricks was to show that Keita was in agreement with you and your white scientists on this particular issue! Now that you cannot show this you sequel "non sequitur". LOLOLOL
quote:Keita has his own dendrograms and assessments, based upon which he concludes that Europeans are not a race..
^^ That is a non sequitur! Your task/predicament is to show where he agrees with your/Sforza type human population trees (dendrograms) showing "population distinctiveness" to conclude that Europeans are a secondary type due to admixture from two earlier differentiated populations, as you keep posting!
quote:Keita classifies into types such as 'tropical african', which he further distinguishes from 'european type', and he measures said skeletypes in metric units, so you aren't making any sense.
Show where he classifies, then groups, your 'european type' and 'tropical african' type into human geographical populations and puts them on trees showing "distinctiveness of each population", branching and what not.
Plus, 'tropical african' type cannot even define a geographical region or "branch" akin to say "Europe" or "Asia" since it is but ONE variant out of the many African variants it does not constitute a broad geographical population type.
- Keita does not say Europeans are a secondary type (genotype) as you thought/and still think
- Keita does not agree with your dendrograms
- Keita does not classify human populations into "units" or types, whether fundamental/primary or secondary
^ Tell me when you numskulls can refute the above
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol wrote: [before you knew the quote was from Keita] you claimed that it -supported- the notion of race…
quote:akoben: Race in the context of a social construct is still valid.
^ ROTFL! That is a total strawmen as Keita is discussing biology. And it is and illiterate remark, as Kieta's quote was not about social constructs.
Keita's study the MYTH OF RACIAL DIVERGENCE, is bioanthropolical, not a social commentary, so you attempt to paint your replay as pertaining to socio-politics is bogus.
Truth is, you tried to distort Keita's conclusions as being in favor of race.
Then you changed your position when you realised this was hopeless.
But you still lack the intelligence needed to understand what Keita is saying, so reversing your posture can't save you.
What a jackass loser you are.
You can never address anything or understand anything.
That's why Nazi's pick low self esteem, uneducated idiots like you, and molest their minds leaving them with shattered intellects.
You're just sad akoben.
The socially retarded racial views of a wannabe neo-nazi Jackass is completely irrelevant, and best taken up with your Jewish Psychiatrist.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:akoben: first you say Keita is not agreeing or disagreeing with the analysis of Europeans as a secondary type etc etc [posted 12 October, 2008 02:12 PM]
^ More evidence of:
1) you can't read. 2) you are reduced to arguing by miscitation and lies. 3) you are so -utterly defeated-.
It's clear that you've been completely reduced to arguing via illiterate miscitation and bald faced lie.
This is why you're a failure.
And it is clear that you are intentionally lying.
If you really wanted to quote others, you would cut and paste what they actually stated.
But you never do. You just make stuff up and attribute it to others.
And, because you are such a dumb-jackass, you often don't understand the difference between your faked miscitations, and the original source you are distorting.
^ You deny this?
Prove us wrong, actually address by -quoting only what is written- no comments by you, attributed falsely to others.
I don't expect you to comply.
Low esteem losers are helpless, when *not allowed* to lie....
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ jackass akoben can hide from the answers.... but he can't run from them.
Below are the answers, he doesn't have.
Question, why is race not relevant?
quote:ANSWERS FROM KEITA: race is based on the hypothesis of *fundamental* divisions.
one of the racial "units" [caucasian], is not fundamental, as its genesis is qualitatively different from the other "units" and even connects them - SOY Keita.
Question, why is the genesis of 'caucasian' qualitatively different?
Answers from Bowcock:
quote:ANNE M. BOWCOCK*t
One can show that a branch to a population resulting from admixture tends to be shorter than other branches.
^ What can we conclude from this?
ANSWERS FROM DR. KEITA:
"Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities.
Question "How so"?
Keita answers:
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".
^ The above is Dr. Keita's specific assessment, and not a general agreement or disagreement with or about anyone or anything else.
OPEN CHALLENGE to those who don't like the answers:
* Please produce evidence of ancient European phenotype.
* Please produce evidence of ancient European genotype.
quote:non sequitur - i don't have any dendrograms.
quote:baby akoben whines: The whole point of your lies and tricks
^ the only 'trick' we play on you is to present facts which you can't refute.
"your [cheap] 'trick' is to blatantly misquote, and hope someone will chase your misquotes, and lose sight of what was actually stated.
the difference is that your trick is corny and stupid. that's why it doesn't work, and never will no matter that you repeat your one and only trick with each reply.
in stark constrast, our -->trick<....., ie the old *truth trick*, is quite devastating to an intellectually challenged neo nazi jackass like you.
your trick bombs out with crash and reboot. you then repeat it like a retard.
with the truth trick, we don't reboot....
WE RELOAD
quote:whiny baby ako, continued: ...that keita agrees with your white scientists.
^ you're quite desparate.
Keita was educated by a white scientist, Professor Larry Angel, and in fact *they do agree*, that Europeans are and admixed population, and are so not a race.
Keita: SOY Keita Arethusa 26 (1993) pg 329
"I was a student of Larry Angel and am in some postion to comment on his views, which I know from conversation, the literature and personal correspondnce."
"Angel also found evidence for a "black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations.
Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."
^ Bitter jackass repeate after Keita...
- Europeans admixed. [black genetic influence]
- Europeans *not a race. [racial models, clearly negated]
^ Now, please do, argue against Keita and his 'white professor's' pertaining this fact.
Try to distort it.
Claim Keita is only 'disagreeing' with Angel.
Try claiming that "if such exists", means Keita is doubting his own claims of admixture in Neolithic Greece, when he is really only qualifying 'black' as a genetic singularity [which is it of course not].
Or just ignore it and change the subject, since none of the above dissemblings can save you.
It's fun tormenting nazi losers like you with the truth and so destroying their racial myths. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Picture spamming once more! All in a desparate effort to drown out the fact that Keita does not agree with Bowcock's analysis or Sforza type human population trees (dendrograms) and accompanying arguments.
quote: Race in the context of a social construct is still valid.
quote:That is a total strawmen as Keita is discussing biology.
That had nothing to do with Keita or his article but my own opinion on the validity, as I see it, of race as a social construct.
This was in reference to Keita:
the Bowcock/Sforza analysis does support the notion of race. That's why under the racial schema they would be secondary type or race, intermediates between two earlier differentiated population groups African and Asian. That's why he says it would be acceptable to those who believe in races. (Keita, 2001)
^ Which is why you avoided it.
quote:akoben: first you say Keita is not agreeing or disagreeing with the analysis of Europeans as a secondary type etc etc [posted 12 October, 2008 02:12 PM]
quote:rasolowitz squeals: illiterate miscitation and bald faced lie... intentionally lying... If you really wanted to quote others, you would cut and paste what they actually stated.
LOOLOLL Just as your other claims of alleged miscitation, after all your hysteria you end up showing that you in fact did say what I posted: that he neither agreed nor disagreed with Bowcock's analyses, ^ The above is Dr. Keita's specific assessment, and not a general agreement or disagreement with or about anyone or anything else.
^Of course this is BS. He was analyzing her work within the context of the persistence of racial thinking. He does not support the view that Europeans are a secondary type etc etc, the context of the quote was explained: that under the racial schema Europeans would be secondary type etc etc and you agreed with it!
If Keita does not believe in the racial schema how can he agree with the analysis that he sees as within said schema?! That you STILL harbor desires for Keita to see Europeans as a secondary type etc (because you initially thought he did) is evidenced by the fact that you want me to "refute" it, as according to you Keita meant it! [posted 13 October, 2008 09:20 PM]
But I ask again, oh confused one, how can I "refute" the notion of Europeans as a secondary type when they ARE NOT, only IF race were relevant and it is NOT. And how could Keita "mean it" when you admit he advanced no such theory?!?!
You poor confused self defeating imbecile, you obviously cannot make up your mind:
Rasol's premise IS what Keita argues that Europeans as a population ARE a secondary type due to admixture – Mary
"Keita never claimed that Europeans are a secondary type" – rasolwitz
Rasol's premise IS what Keita argues that Europeans as a population ARE a secondary type due to admixture – Mary
LOLOLOLOLOL
quote:Keita was educated by a white scientist, Professor Larry Angel, and in fact *they do agree*, that Europeans are and admixed population, and are so not a race.
LOL So f**king what? Who denied he was educated by whites, and again for umpteenth time, show where I advance the notion of a pure Caucasian race?
This is nothing more than you latest straw to hide the real issue:
Keita not agreeing with Bowcock's analysis and Cavalli-Sforza's trees and the accompanying arguments: "Europeans, show as intermediates" between two earlier differentiated population groups African and Asian "contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third".
You tried to make it seem as if Keita was in agreement, "On this [the human population trees and accompanying analysis and percentages] particular Sforza is correct, and he is cited by Keita"[posted 20 September, 2008 08:28 PM]
The truth is Keita does not agree with it and you have yet to prove this!
Re Bowcock's analysis:
quote:"this may be a problem given that the contributing groups seem to conform to received raciotypological schema but should be acceptable to those who believe in the existence of races."
Why should it be acceptable to those who believe in races rasolowitz?
Re human geographical population trees:
quote: "The persistence of the racial paradigm (and not just names) is further illustrated by investigators who use dendrograms (trees) to assess to group similarities or dissimilarities, usually in quest of intraspecific phylogenies. The groups utilized usually conform to the old racial schema. Dendrograms are also used to illustrate the divergence of entities called human races or of populations used as their surrogates. This is problematic since few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches. The degree of drift has not been necessarily equal across space and time. The ubiquity and complexity of human migration patterns guarantee that branching points in trees will always be suspect. (Jorde 1985) Also, strictly speaking, studies can only inform about the groups used in the analysis. Therefore a study using Mbuti, a clan of Saame speakers, a Swedish village, and Vedda can only tell us about each of them. These groups should not be reified into other entities."
If as he says few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches how can he agree with an analysis that says a population arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations or you trees that purport to show "population distinctiveness"?
He does not agree, and you STILL failed to show this.
quote:Try claiming that "if such exists", means Keita is doubting his own claims of admixture in Neolithic Greece
Digging up old straws from the past won't help you as you will still be required to show where I denied African admixture in Greece.
What I said was that he doesn't seem to agree with your childish grandstanding: "black as a powerful concept" and my definition from Webster is THE definition.(symptomatic of individuals suffering from low self esteem). Keita doubts the term's usefulness in biology.
Can't escape and still standing after all your obfuscations:
- Keita does not say Europeans are a secondary type (genotype) as you thought/and still think, and now want me to "refute"
- Keita does not agree with your dendrograms
- Keita does not classify human populations into "units" or types, whether fundamental/primary or secondary and puts them on trees
Now run along for another round of your Cavalli-Sforza and Bowcock picture spammg, that you have yet to show Keita is in agreement with.
the Bowcock/Sforza analysis does support the notion of race.
Of course it doesn't, because it actually debunks race, which is what we've been saying all along Jackass, heehawwwwww
quote:That's why under the racial schema they would be secondary type or race, intermediates between two earlier differentiated population groups African and Asian.
Why Jackassoben? I must have asked you this questions more than 10 times.
Why would Europeans be a secondary type or race if race actually existed biologically?
Is it because of their intermediate genetic position due to being populated by Asian and African population/lineages?
quote: That's why he says it would be acceptable to those who believe in races. (Keita, 2001)
Why? If Sforza and Bowcock both debunk racial existence in their work? Both analysis's from Bowcock and Sforza debunk race. This is what you fail to understand, this is also what you hate to admit.
If not, then how does Sforzas or Bowcocks dendrograms promote race, as you're saying?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^Tell me how Sforzas or Bowcocks dendrograms promote race, as you're saying?
Why would Europeans be a secondary type or race if race actually existed biologically?
Is it because of their intermediate genetic position due to being populated by Asian and African population/lineages?
^^Questions that will be left unanswered by Jackassoben, since he knows what happens if he does answer, which is the end of his idiotic argument.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: ^^^^Tell me how Sforzas or Bowcocks dendrograms promote race, as you're saying?
Why would Europeans be a secondary type or race if race actually existed biologically?
Is it because of their intermediate genetic position due to being populated by Asian and African population/lineages?
^^Questions that will be left unanswered by Jackassoben, since he knows what happens if he does answer, which is the end of his idiotic argument.
You poor child. Go read what Keita says about dendrograms, units, types and population "distinctions" on tree branches. And while you're at it, show where he endorses the interpretation of Europeans being "intermediate" between two earlier differentiated populations: Asian and African, two-thirds and one-third respectively?
And prey tell, what is my "argument". Be careful how you answer this one coz it will really expose you. LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
the Bowcock/Sforza analysis does support the notion of race. That's why under the racial schema they would be secondary type or race, intermediates between two earlier differentiated population groups African and Asian. That's why he says it would be acceptable to those who believe in races. (Keita, 2001)
^^^This is what I was/am referring towards. As I said, of course Jackassoben will purposely not answer the questions as it will simply force him to debunk his own idiocy..
I am waiting......
Tell me how Sforzas or Bowcocks dendrograms promote race?
Why would Europeans be a secondary type or race if race actually existed biologically?
Is it because of their intermediate genetic position due to being populated by Asian and African population/lineages?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: the Bowcock/Sforza analysis does support the notion of race. That's why under the racial schema they would be secondary type or race, intermediates between two earlier differentiated population groups African and Asian. That's why he says it would be acceptable to those who believe in races. (Keita, 2001)
quote:^^^This is what I was/am referring towards.
You fail to mention the punch line: races don't exist hence Europeans cannot be "intermediate" between two earlier differentiated populations: Asian and African, two-thirds and one-third respectively. That's the point he was making, you imbecile! He is not supporting that interpretation but highlighting it as evidence of the persistence of racial thinking!
I asked you to show where he supports Bowcock/Sforza analysis and you cant; only show how he sees it as being under the racial schema! Yes, that's right! Under the racial schema. But race doesn't exist so your analysis is flawed. End of story.
Not only do you have no credible academic support for your pathetic coat tailing of rasolowitz, who in turn is merely coat tailing the two white racialists in question, but you flipped on me, admitting that "Bowcock/Sforza analysis does support the notion of race", after saying the opposite "Of course it doesn't [support the notion of race], because it actually debunks race" Oh my...
Your confusion steams from your refusal to actually read Keita and the context of the essay where the quote was glibly lifted out of context to support a position that he himself does not support. It was misleading to say the least.
quote:Go read what Keita says about dendrograms, units, types and population "distinctions" on tree branches.
quote:Tell me how Sforzas or Bowcocks dendrograms promote race?
Go read what Keita says about dendrograms.
quote: As I said, of course Jackassoben will purposely not answer the questions as it will simply force him to debunk his own idiocy..
I asked you to lay out in detail what my supposed "arguments" are, my "own idiocy", and still you cant do it? Whats taking so long? If you are "refuting" an argument then surely you can identify said argument? But you cant!
This is of course due to the fact that my alleged "arguments" are really your straws, which is why you cannot quote me saying Europeans/Caucasians are a pure or primary race or type.Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: only show how he sees it as being under the racial schema! Yes, that's right! Under the racial schema. But race doesn't exist so your analysis is flawed. End of story.
This is exactly what you're eluding, jackass, for the hundredth time...... Yes Keita sees it under a racial schema blah blah, but why Ako?
Why would Europeans be a hybrid under a racial schema?
Why doesn't race exist?
Or simply since someone says it doesn't you just believe whatever you'd like without knowing why?
Other than this your posts are redundant. Also, stop your lies about rasol or I, proposing that race exists, because we actually debunked race ourselves as well, with the genetic data which you see as promoting race, which it doesn't.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes Keita sees it under a racial schema blah blah, but why Ako? Why would Europeans be a hybrid under a racial schema? Why doesn't race exist?
Good that you admit that he sees Bowcock et al. analysis as being under the racial schema and we all know he does not agree with such schema. Rasolowitz thought he took no stance on the matter: "The above is Dr. Keita's specific assessment, and not a general agreement or disagreement with or about anyone or anything else."
But back to your confusion. Race does not exist because racial units and types, secondary or primary, do not exist. This is because 'few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other"
So dumbo, "type definitions", whether primary or secondary, population differentiation and tree branching are all evidence of the persistence of racial thinking.
Type definitions, whether hybrid or primary:
quote:"The strict racial approach constructs human diversity as being reducible to a fixed number of foundational, natural, and indivisible units (types), which consist of near uniform individuals. Variation from these units in this model is primarily explained by admixture. Thus there were primary and secondary races."
Hence Europeans are not a secondary type or race "intermediate" between two earlier differentiated populations: Asian and African, two-thirds and one-third respectively.
hence Bowcock/Sforza (and their followers, you fools): fall under the racial schema.
The Sforza Dendrograms:
quote:"The persistence of the racial paradigm (and not just names) is further illustrated by investigators who use dendrograms (trees) to assess to group similarities or dissimilarities, usually in quest of intraspecific phylogenies. The groups utilized usually conform to the old racial schema. Dendrograms are also used to illustrate the divergence of entities called human races or of populations used as their surrogates. This is problematic since few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated (and independent) from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches. The degree of drift has not been necessarily equal across space and time. The ubiquity and complexity of human migration patterns guarantee that branching points in trees will always be suspect. (Jorde 1985) Also, strictly speaking, studies can only inform about the groups used in the analysis. Therefore a study using Mbuti, a clan of Saame speakers, a Swedish village, and Vedda can only tell us about each of them. These groups should not be reified into other entities."
I ask you again what is my alleged idiotic argument you think you are refuting? why no answer? Dunce...
posted
Again you ignore my questions and post long winded redundant crackpot posts to make yourself seem intelligent, but the fact of the matter is until you directly answer these questions, you are, as always, debunked.......
Why would Europeans be a hybrid under a racial schema?
Tell me how Sforzas or Bowcocks dendrograms promote race?
This is what you're falsely attributing to myself and other posters, that we believe in race, when in fact, when using Cavallis dendrogram we're debunking race, so actually no one on here promotes racial classifications.
Sforzas dendrogram debunks the myth of a European "race" you illiterate jackass. If not, then like I said tell me how it does promote race????
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
^^Which confirms Cavalli's distance matrix...Now can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
Something you might plan on answering?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL You mean crackpot posts you cannot refute:
- Your human population dendrograms fall within the racial schema, Keita explains why
- Keita does not agree with Sforza and Bowcock's analysis
^ Deal with that!
The only redundant piece of contradictory crap is that fact that you admit that Bowcock and Sforza analysis falls under the racial schema YET you want me refute it! This is because like Bowcock et al. you do believe in the racial schema!
quote:Sforzas dendrogram debunks the myth of a European "race" you illiterate jackass.
"The persistence of the racial paradigm (and not just names) is further illustrated by investigators who use dendrograms (trees) to assess to group similarities or dissimilarities" - Keita
What Sforzas/Bowcocks debunks, silly boy, is the notion of Europeans as a pure race. But the methods and conclusions drawn (Europeans are a secondary type intermediate between blah blah blah) still falls with the said schema! This is over your head of course because you refuse to read Keita's essay and understand the context. Racialist thinking is no longer in its pure form but it still persist today, hence the persistence of racial thinking! The point being, if you use a method that is connected with the racial paradigm how can you debunk the said paradigm? Who is the illiterate one? LOLOL
See what you don't seem to realize, silly boy, is that even the notion of a population at its foundation being an "admixture" between two differentiated groups is itself apart of the racialist thinking, according to Keita. Go read Keita and stop making a fool out of yourself.
The fact that Sforza has to show his "fact" re Europeans by using a method from the racial paradigm is further proof that he falls within the said schema and his not really debunking race. That's the whole point Keita is making. dunce...
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why would Europeans be a hybrid under a racial schema?
Because Sforzas and Bowcocks show they are not pure race. According to them Europeans are an intermediate population, a secondary type between two earlier differentiated population groups blah blah blah. But as Keita says, this itself is another play on the racial schema. Hence race only appears to be debunked as that 'debunking" falls within the said schema.
quote:Tell me how Sforzas or Bowcocks dendrograms promote race?
I posted the Keita quote over and over. Go read him you lazy mut. LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only redundant piece of contradictory crap is that fact that you admit that Bowcock and Sforza analysis falls under the racial schema YET you want me refute it!
More redundancy and lies as usual.
Never did I say Sforza or Bowcocks analysis supported race you nitwit. I said they actually debunk race you imbecilic troll. Please show me where I said Sforza promotes race? You lying fool.
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
^^Which confirms Cavalli's distance matrix...Now can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
Something you might plan on answering?
Please show me where I support race?
Tell me how Sforzas or Bowcocks dendrograms promote race?
This is what you're falsely attributing to myself and other posters, that we believe in race, when in fact, when using Cavallis dendrogram we're debunking race, so actually no one on here promotes racial classifications.
Sforzas dendrogram debunks the myth of a European "race" you illiterate jackass. If not, then like I said tell me how it does promote race????
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why would Europeans be a secondary type or race if race actually existed biologically?
Is it because of their intermediate genetic position due to being populated by Asian and African population/lineages?
precisely. as short vector hybrids, Europeans fail to model as a race. because of this, the race model itself fails.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:desparate jackass akoben writes: Go read what Keita says about dendrograms
^ Save it for argoyle desparate jackass.
Any intelligent person knows that Keita creates dendrograms himself.
Yet you still try to pretend that Keita 'opposes' dendrograms, to evade the fact, that he uses them to debunk race.
Keep trying to delude yourself jackass, and let us know if you ever succeed....
An additional 20 dendrograms were generated using the minimum evolution algorithm. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series. - SOY Kieta.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Posted by rasol: An additional 20 dendrograms were generated using the minimum evolution algorithm. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series. - SOY Kieta.
I doubt Jackassoben will ever show up around here again, after this. The jackass madmans ongoing nonsensical remarks of Keita debunking dendrograms, while using them himself, is only one stab in the heart for him, hes been thoroughly tortured and beaten.
The kid will never understand Keita's actual usage of Bowcock, which was actually to debunk the persistence of race, simply because Bowcock points out that Europeans are genetically hybrids, populated/founded upon original OOA/Asian lineages and recent African lineages, which debunks Europeans notion of racial persistence of a "Caucasian race", separate from Africans and the rest of world.
I'm pretty sure this upsets your(Jackassoben) on the low Euro ego, but it is what it is and facts stand strong.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mary, come on, stop posting pics of yourself and try to back up your anti-African position here. Its been two months and still you run liek a bitch. Everyone is eagerly waiting to see how you are going to do it:
"Is it clear yet that there is a STOLEN LEGACY and it is perfectly valid" - great sage
"Greece *did not stop* getting cultural input from the Nile Valley into the classical period, and that was another tacit point which was to be gleaned from the example provided by the aforementioned BBC Science citation; it was not referring to archaic Greece, but as a matter of fact, it was referring to classical Greece." - ausarianstein
quote: An additional 20 dendrograms were generated using the minimum evolution algorithm. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series. - SOY Kieta.
Again, Keita does not agree with Bowcock analysis of Europeans being a "secondary type"(genotype as you thought), intermediate between already differentiated populations as,
quote:"few human populations, even authentic breeding ones, are so well differentiated and independent from each other as to support the distinctness implied by tree branches. "The ubiquity and complexity of human migration patterns guarantee that branching points in tree will always be suspect."
But Bowcock's supporters can take some comfort as her analysis "should be acceptable to those who believe in the existence of races"
LOLOLOL
Still standing:
- Keita does not say Europeans are a secondary type (genotype) as you thought/and still think, and now want me to "refute"
- Keita does not agree with your dendrograms
- Keita does not classify human populations into "units" or types, whether fundamental/primary or secondary and puts them on trees
Now run along for another round of your Cavalli-Sforza and Bowcock picture spammg, that you have yet to show Keita is in agreement with.
quote:you admit that Bowcock and Sforza analysis falls under the racial schema YET you want me refute it!
quote:Please show me where I said Sforza promotes race? You lying fool.
Didn't you say, "Yes Keita sees it [Bowcock and Sforza analysis] under a racial schema"
Or are you changing your position now like rasolowitz:
"Rasol's premise IS what Keita argues that Europeans as a population ARE a secondary type due to admixture" – Mary
"Keita never claimed that Europeans are a secondary type" – rasolwitz
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: The kid will never understand Keita's actual usage of Bowcock, which was actually to debunk the persistence of race simply because Bowcock points out that Europeans are genetically hybrids
LOL No silly, Keita's use of Bowcock was to highlight the persistence of racial thinking among his contemporaries. E.g.
1) The notion that populations can be at their foundation made up of earlier differentiated groups/populations.
2) The use of dendrograms that purport to show "population distinctness".
A simple reading of the article in question would reveal this to you dumbasses. He was not agreeing with her analysis or trying to debunk the old Caucasian race myth, a myth that no credible geneticists advances today. Only "Evil Euros" and "debunker" who provide easy targets for play "scholars" like you fools.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Of course Keita is debunking racial persistence but he doesn't debunk genetics. Which you fail to address.
quote:
quote:you admit that Bowcock and Sforza analysis falls under the racial schema YET you want me refute it!
quote:Please show me where I said Sforza promotes race? You lying fool.
Didn't you say, "Yes Keita sees it [Bowcock and Sforza analysis] under a racial schema"
Nope, quote me on it, show me were I said Sforza promotes race. What I said and have been saying is, if race exists then Europeans would be a genetically intermediate population between Oceanics and Africans.
Due to their recent post OOA Neolithic African admixture into their population.
^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.
^^Which confirms Cavalli's distance matrix...Now can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which confirms Cavalli's distance matrix...Now can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????
^ Not just Sforza, not just Bowcock. All genetics distance studies affirm the intermediacy of Europeans due to post OOA African admixture.
Which is why jackass akoben doesn't try to dispute this fact of genetics.
He does the only thing he can do, when confronted with indisputable fact.
Stall, delay, distract, misquote.
But, it doesn't help him....
quote:* Please produce evidence of ancient European phenotype.
* Please produce evidence of ancient European genotype.
posted
Why is it that we have all these threads in which the more intelligent members of the forum repeatedly try to school the same immature, self-deluding jackass over and over again? These people are like religious fundamentalists; nothing will persuade them, because they are not interested in the facts. They only want to cling to their delusions. Debating them is an exercise in futility.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex: Why is it that we have all these threads in which the more intelligent members of the forum repeatedly try to school the same immature, self-deluding jackass over and over again? These people are like religious fundamentalists; nothing will persuade them, because they are not interested in the facts. They only want to cling to their delusions. Debating them is an exercise in futility.
They're a bunch of Socialists!Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[lol, what a loser thing to do]![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The whole point of your lies and tricks
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic