it's interesting that you would ask: Which is...'' then further on down the post (addressing Winters) proceed to use genetic mutation as a way to prove your argument, or disprove mine, when it is a known fact that many scientists disagree with the mutation explanation simply because it confers no advantage. The vast majority of mutations are harmful to the organism, yet evolutionists say it is the driving force in evolution. Since the explanation 'random' is the key force, which amounts to ''according to'' then how to explain where it comes from, already packed with all the information it needs to operate. To get to this point wouldn't this also entail millions of mutations in groups of people, and not just a few here and there. How many generations would this entail. It would have to be ''really quick'' considering the length of time humans have been on this planet. At this point we can insert Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium to satisfy some I suppose. But if we do that then one still has to explain the suddenness of change; yet, according to, evolution works very slowly. If it is random why shouldn't those who accept it in its totality offer proof with an explanation how it is that way without leaving the random dangling out there on its own with nothing to support it, except to those who accept it. That hardly constitutes the kind of proof required that scientists ask of themselves. If I was asked, as a scientist, which I am not, to prove the randomness in light of the damaging deleterious nature of mutations how would I go about it other than 'a consensus' which is still not proof, since no scientist, according to what I've read can definitely say how mutations are beneficial?
Speaking of the aforementioned Stephen Gould:
The iconography of persuasion strikes even closer than words to the core of our being. Every demagogue, every humanist, every advertising executive, has known and exploited the evocative power of a well-chosen picture....But many of our pictures are incarnations masquerading as neutral descriptions of nature. These are the potent sources of conformity, since ideas passing as descriptions lead us to equate the tentative with the unambiguously factual.
---Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life (New York: W.W. Norton, 1989, p.28)
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grumman you have to understand, these are children so they are looking for absolutes, a new relgion. In time, hopefully, they will learn. Although I'm not so sure about mindless. lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them
- Keita
^Yuh here that, Jackedass??
Here, Keita is saying one of the units (Euros) are not really a unit in the same way Africans and Asians are [units] and even connects them [African and Asian units] -- if their interpretation of the data is correct (Bowcock et al's).
Hmm....
Probably I reckon, it's that Afro-Jewish genetic admixture in addition to the Northern Asian aboriginal population base. So not only does "Europe" really belong to Asia, but Europeans are really Afrasian mulattoe-mestizo half-bread mutt-mixes. European ancestry is then really just a mark of mongrelization.
Seems the only thing original about them is their mutation for Leucodermia.
Hell, even "caucasian" hair texture is rangy:
quote:Mixed types
Over many thousands of years these three groups of people have intermingled. Their descendants now show every imaginable blend of hair type and color, as illustrated on pages 43-4, 51 and 53.
Straight or curly?
Of the three racial groups, the Caucasoids are by far the most varied in the appearance of their hair. It may fall completely straight, it may be crinkly or wavy, or it may form large curls, or pretty well anything in between.
^ I wonder why that is? Really. Why are all types of Caucasian hair then still "caucasian", if they overlap with another group's range of hair form? Why is African hair that even slightly ventures off from some artificial quantity "Caucasian" mixed and why is India hair "caucasian" when East Indians have straighter hair than Caucasians and Euros in general?
I think these Caucasians have things backwards. Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them
- Keita
^Ya here that, Jackedass??
Here, Keita is saying one of the units (Euros) are not so much a unit in the same way Africans and Asians are valid units and even connect Africans and Asians.
Correct, according to the persisting racial construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between it's units. Europeans would therefore not be fundamental, and also connecting two of these units.
Note: This is only deconstructed if Bowcock et al Nuclear DNA study is correct....
quote: This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.--- S.O.Y. Keita [/i]
Note: If Bowcock implied race as gaykoben so desperately tries to imply, then she would've been be incorrect, and hence Keita saying Nuclear DNA studies deconstructing race is false, since it relies in Bowcocks Nuclear DNA study to be correct in the first place.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Here, Keita is saying one of the units (Euros) are not really a unit in the same way Africans and Asians are valid units and even connects the African and Asian units.
^ And here comes Jeeves with his obligations to his friends and not reason and logic. Yeh I "here" it alright; it's your stupidity again. As always you put what's left of your credibility on the line all for your retarded friends.
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. ["Race": Confusion About Zoological and Social Taxonomies, and Their Places in Science]
Now Jeeves as explained before he is not saying in the Bowcock quote that they are units, types or races; only that they would be this under the racial schema, under the assumptions still held by his contemporaries – in this case Bowcock (1991). Now go and fetch us some more of that flip flam sauce you forum clown. lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
He doesn't advocate races or types, but the in the Bowcock study they grouped people into geographically based types: European, Asian, African. Not surprisingly the Euro-type appeared to be the result of ASIAN and AFRICANADMIXTURE.
It's not the end of the world, Gringo.
And no, it doesn't mean Keita adhere's to races and nowhere was this implied.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive: and once again there was evidence Euro are the result of Asians and Africans.
This is what undermines the persisting racial construct. The persisting racial construct which implies deep and fundamental differences between it's units.
Therefore due to this fact that Europeans are Asian and African derived, Europeans would therefore not be fundamental, and also connecting two of these units.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^So hte European unit is really a secondary unit if anything and not a primary one?
What ever are NAZIs to do over the fate of alledged mythical "Caucasian traits" in other groups allegedly do to admixture? Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive: ^So hte European unit is really a secondary unit if anything and not a primary one?
Yes, under the persisting race construct, that Bowcocks Nuclear DNA study undermines, Europeans would therefore not be fundamental, and also connecting two of these units. Since Europeans are Asian, and African derived genetically. Note, this is only true if Bowcock is correct, according to Keita.
So, if she promoted race, (as gaykoben wishes) then she would automatically be false, and so would Keita...
Again emphasized key note:In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct --Keita
quote: This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.--- S.O.Y. Keita [/i]
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:He doesn't advocate races or types, but the in the Bowcock study they grouped people into geographically based types: European, Asian, African. Not surprisingly the Euro-type appeared to be the result of ASIAN and AFRICAN ADMIXTURE.
Thank you Jeeves. In your enthusiasm to kiss ass you, unknowingly, admit this much.
Yes, he does not advocate race, types or units but they did have three types/units/races that conform to the conceptual ontological universe of race and its terms which imply a fixed persisting diachronic relationship between geography, external anatomic phenotype ("racial type"), and a molecular "profile."
Hence in their study: Africans (stereotypically defined) Asian (stereotypically defined) and Europeans (stereotypically defined). Three racial types which is why Keita says their contributing groups conforms to the schema but should be acceptable to those who believe in the existence of races. And products of races are hybrids/admixed groups. Hence the use of the word hybrid.
Thank you again Jeeves. Now wheres that flim flam sauce?!
quote:^So hte European unit is really a secondary unit if anything and not a primary one?
Yes, under the racial schema and assumptions held by Bowcock (1991).
quote:And no, it doesn't mean Keita adhere's to races and nowhere was this implied.
Then why did you say keita is saying that the African and Asian are valid units? Are you that stupid you didn't even know what you were saying here.
quote:Yes, under the persisting race construct, that Bowcocks Nuclear DNA study undermines
If she "undermined" it why did he say they "seem to conform to received raciotypological schema"
but
"should be acceptable to those who believe in the existence of races" Why?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive: What ever are NAZIs to do over the fate of alledged mythical "Caucasian traits" in other groups allegedly do to admixture?
...ask jackassoben, he knows. Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:He doesn't advocate races or types, but the in the Bowcock study they grouped people into geographically based types: European, Asian, African. Not surprisingly the Euro-type appeared to be the result of ASIAN and AFRICAN ADMIXTURE.
Thank you Jeeves.
Don't thank me, thank you're African ancestors.
quote:Ako: Yes, he does not advocate race, types or units but they did have three types/units/races that conform to the conceptual ontological universe of race and its terms which imply a fixed persisting diachronic relationship between geography, external anatomic phenotype ("racial type"), and a molecular "profile."
^Yes, this was done in order to test and see if these "races" hold true to being biologically valid entities. You should note that the Bowcock study contradicts the racial schema it "conforms to". One of the racial entities, as it turns out, in genisis is only the result of the combination of branches of the "African" and "Asian" groups.
They know that Keita and other scientists who say there is no race are not God, and therefor they are free to test THE RACIAL SCHEMA out. Their findings undermine one of the main and most notorious and arrogantly flaunted supposed primary races ["caucasians"].
quote:Hence in their study: Africans (stereotypically defined) Asian (stereotypically defined) and Europeans (stereotypically defined).
Gaykoben, can you tell anyone HOW any of these groups were "stereotypically" defined? So that we can tell this is based on an observation of yours and not some slanderous remark pulled out of your ass because you dislike the results of the study. Thanks.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gaykoben, can you tell anyone HOW any of these groups were "stereotypically" defined? So that we can tell this is based on an observation of yours and not some slanderous remark pulled out of your ass because you dislike the results of the study. Thanks.
This just sums up everything with you Jeeeves. You are one ignorant ass kisser. lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alive, don't let the jackass confuse you, or stray you from this fact, because it will never address your questions and desperately try to distort.
This interpretation by Keita
quote:....one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.
--- S.O.Y. Keita
^^Would be false if Bowcock were false.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ so again, does he believe in units, types and races? They are all the same under the schema, can't say he is saying one and not the other. And maybe you can tell us why they are NOT stereotypically defined...
quote:European ancestry is then really just a mark of mongrelization.
Why are you using Evil Euros logic Jeeeves? Rasolowitz will be very upset with you too! "Using Disney's logic you could then call the whole white "race" mongrel-hybrid, etc.." - .[Genetic distances in Africa]
quote:^Yes, this was done in order to test and see if these "races" hold true
So you do admit it conforms to the schema in that they are racial groups...
Gringo will be very upset as you're not suppose to admit this!!!! HAHHAHA
Speaking of unanswered questions...
If she "undermined" it why did he say they "seem to conform to received raciotypological schema"
but
"should be acceptable to those who believe in the existence of races" Why?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Full question should be, how are the groups stereotypically defined and what impact does this have on the results of the study?
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Gaykoben, can you tell anyone HOW any of these groups were "stereotypically" defined? So that we can tell this is based on an observation of yours and not some slanderous remark pulled out of your ass because you dislike the results of the study. Thanks.
This just sums up everything with you Jeeeves. You are one ignorant ass kisser. lol
I don't think you see one flaw -- you're just complaining about "stereotyping" pointlessly because in your twisted view that's "how you play your cards right" at the black forum Egyptsearch (white NAZIs usually bitch about the fact that blacks confront stereotypes).
Since you refuse to substantiate your slanderous claims, I'll just infer what you meant from a previous post.
You claimed they used Chinese people and pygmies.
So ... are we to take it that this somehow negates that Europeans are the result of Africans and Asians? Would appearing as a Chinese-pygmy hybrid make them any less Asian?
You're not making sense Jamaicon bacon.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You should note that the Bowcock study contradicts the racial schema it "conforms to".
This is because you don't understand Jeeeves; the schema has more than one aspect, Bowcock only "compromised" one aspect (primary Caucasoid race) while conforming to others, "Another aspect of the racio-typological approach is that the units and their defining traits have 'home lands.'" (Keita, 2001)
and
"These [racial] categories also cannot be separated from stereotyped notions of which set of traits most authentically represents each continent." (Keita, 1997)
^ compare with Bowcock's quote in reference to the samples as "fairly representative of the world's aboriginal populations"
^ racial schema.
And must I go over the conceptual ontological universe of race and its terms which imply a fixed persisting diachronic relationship between geography, external anatomic phenotype ("racial type"), and a molecular profile again?
You see Jeeves, this is why its called the persistence of racial thinking because as Keita said Coonian "descriptions and models still persists. "The old races (morphophenotypic units) are simply described with new data." This would be obvious to anyone who's not retard though...
quote: you're just complaining about "stereotyping"...you refuse to substantiate your slanderous claims
Stereotyping is what makes it conform to the schema you clown. This is why no one takes you seriously kid, you show your ignorance in every thread. You're just showing the forum how unread you are.
quote:was he not even referring to Bowcock et al. in the first place?
Go away Jeeeves, you're the stupidest of the lot.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
The thing that invalidates race is Bowcocks Nuclear DNA study, which implies Europeans are Asian and African derived
..hence the race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units, is compromised, since Bowcock confirms Europeans, are Asian and African derived genetically.
This means the race construct which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units, is deconstructed since one of the units (Europeans) is not fundamental, because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them..
So again, if Bowcocks analysis is incorrect (because it implies race as gaykoben distractingly wishes) then the fact that Keita states Nuclear DNA studies deconstruct race (which actually relies on Bowcocks Nuclear DNA analysis to be correct), would be false.
Note this following emphasized statement is what deconstructs race, remember, this is only correct, if Bowcock is correct.
emphasized key notes:
Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities...... This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct, then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them. --Keita
as explained by Keita as follows...
quote: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 or race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.--- S.O.Y. Keita
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:if Bowcocks analysis is incorrect (because it implies race as gaykoben distractingly wishes
Gringo I can't believe you are still going to over look all the Keita quotes above and say Bowcock doesn't imply race! I guess I will have to school you again. Oh well.
Keita is not saying what invalidates race is Bowcock's Nuclear DNA study or that early human development consisted of two fundamental units (populations) coming together to create a secondary one, one that is not fundamental. Gringo you're simply misrepresenting him again with your signature child like comprehension skills.
He does not say it "undermines" he said it "compromised" the schema and Nuclear studies contributes to its deconstruction; these are important distinctions to note as he does not speak in absolutes because some studies (like Bowcock et al. 1991) don't totally do away with it, let me explain. Like I said before it compromised the schema because they showed the Caucasian as not a primary race/unit which they were thought to be once; in fact Coonian races where thought to have unique and distinct origins. Classical race concept therefore saw races as "distinct entities that are viewed as fundamental units." (Keita, 1997)
However, Bowcock's defining Caucasoid is now a secondary type, not a fundamental unit. In this scenario then the schema is compromised and the metaphysical underpinnings which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units is invalidated. Keep in mind the quote before on what was the classical race concept: "distinct entities that are viewed as fundamental units." (Keita, 1997)
But this is not the totality of the schema. Like I said there are many aspects to it and he goes on to show that they still conform to it (hence the title persistence of racial thinking) by imagining early human development as a racial divergence (hence the myth of racial divergence), with their Coonian samples that conform to "the old "great divisions of mankind," in what can only be construed as the typological tradition" and hence essentially echoing the "conceptual ontological universe of race and its terms which imply a fixed persisting diachronic relationship between geography, external anatomic phenotype ("racial type"), and a molecular "profile." This is why he refers to their samples as "units" and the product of the two fundamental ones as "hybrids" because it still conforms to the schema.
So again, he is not saying that populations are in fact "units" and that because one is not fundamental the whole schema is therefore undermined. This is a rubbish misinterpretation of what he is saying. And like I keep telling you, his account of human development and population expansion is radically different from Bowcock's racial divergence theory. You have to read him in context, not nit pick quotes like silly rasolowitz and friends.
Have I spoon fed you enough now gringo?
Appendix
"Another aspect of the racio-typological approach is that the units and their defining traits have 'home lands.'" (Keita, 2001)
and
"These [racial] categories also cannot be separated from stereotyped notions of which set of traits most authentically represents each continent." (Keita, 1997)
^ compare with Bowcock's quote in reference to the samples as "fairly representative of the world's aboriginal populations"
^ racial schema.
And must I go over the conceptual ontological universe of race and its terms which imply a fixed persisting diachronic relationship between geography, external anatomic phenotype ("racial type"), and a molecular profile again?
Coonian "descriptions and models still persists. "The old races (morphophenotypic units) are simply described with new data."
quote:The on going legacy of this is the persistence of ideas about what traits are found to be in a "real" Asian, European, or African, which reflects the old polygenism. While few working biologists seem to hold a classical racio-typological view as a theoretical position, the influence of this mode of thought has not disappeared...the contributing groups [of Bowcock et al.] seem to conform to received raciotypological schema — but should be acceptable to those who believe in the existence of races. The coalescence times of various genetic systems sampled broadly from across the world, when considered with fossil data (and their geography) suggest that the initial molecular microdiffer-entiation of Homo sapiens sapiens (by no-menclature a proper race) took place in Africa (see Keita and Kittles 1997); this problematizes the conceptual ontological universe of race and its terms which imply a fixed persisting diachronic relationship between geography, external anatomic phenotype ("racial type"), and a molecular "profile."" ["Race": Confusion About Zoological and Social Taxonomies]
Actually the intended message is hint: the persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence. Racial schema: Mixed=hybrid=racial hybrid. Variation from the primary units are explained by this.
So, as per your understanding, you didn't glean the following from Keita?...
It is because Europeans are of mixed origins, that race is undermined, as proven by genetics, as stated by Keita.
If so, how could such an easy message have escaped you?
quote:
quote:"Shifting between" what "populations" which are "morphologically differentiated into recognizable racial entities"?
Read the article Jew boy.
I've read the study, and now, I want *your* clarifications for *your* claims; unless of course, you are not sure of what you mean by what you say.
quote:
quote:Do "black populations" all look alike; do "whites, and so on", all look alike? If so, could the pairing within these groups produce a "hybrid", as pairing between them supposedly ought to, if we are to go by what you are relating?
LOL Nice try. No one is denying African genetic diversity and variation.
Well, you seem to be, when you imply that "blacks", "whites" et al. cannot be deemed as producing "hybrids" *within* respective entities, but that such can only be possible when speaking of "cross-breeding" *between* said entities, supposedly because "morphological differentiation" exists *between* them, rather than supposedly *within* those entities?
quote: Point is, unlike Jamie and you dumbos, Keita does not use the word in any other context other than between "distinct races" or "social races" if you will. Try again.
Jackass, in what context do I use the word, as cited where? And what context does Keita use it, and as cited where; explain.
quote:
quote:Who is "they" who "show shifts between morphological differentiation groups, recognizable entities now labeled "races""?
Read the article Jew boy.
I read *your* claim, and now, I'm asking you to clarify yourself. Are you capable of it?
quote:
quote:What is the morphological differentiation between "European and Asian populations"?
Morphological phenotypes said to define the races, or social races.
"Morphological differentiation" which is...
quote: So Bowcock's "Caucasoid" Yale residents (Europeans) and their Bay Area Chinese (Asian), both are differentiated, don't look alike.
Don't know if true or not, what you attribute to Bowcock, but what does this have to do with Keita's reference to Luigi Sforza's 1988 study?
quote:
quote:Were all these undertaken in the same study that you're citing from [about "intermediateness"], immediately above your comment?
Not the same study; same subject; both from Keita, 1997 and 1999.
So, jackass, why didn't you relate that; instead, why did you make it seem that he was saying these things in a single study, which happens to be the one you quoted from?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
it's interesting that you would ask: Which is...'' then further on down the post (addressing Winters) proceed to use genetic mutation as a way to prove your argument, or disprove mine
It is interesting that you find a reply to someone else's post as a reply to you as well. The question is, why? Or put it this way: Is there a reason you feel that the reply addressing Clyde's post, was not the natural one?
quote: , when it is a known fact that many scientists disagree with the mutation explanation simply because it confers no advantage.
And I ought to care that there are people who disagree with scientific facts, because...
quote: The vast majority of mutations are harmful to the organism, yet evolutionists say it is the driving force in evolution.
If the vast majority of mutations are harmful to organisms, then why haven't they all been extinct by now? Does the fact that there are good and bad genetic mutations change the fact that "genetic mutation" does in fact exist? If not, then what's your point; likewise if so, explain.
quote: Since the explanation 'random' is the key force, which amounts to ''according to'' then how to explain where it comes from, already packed with all the information it needs to operate.
Not sure what you're saying; some alleles are under more selective pressure than others, and so, evolutionary or mutational rate need not be steady across the board in the genome. Are you denying that "random genetic mutations" do in fact occur?
quote: To get to this point wouldn't this also entail millions of mutations in groups of people, and not just a few here and there. How many generations would this entail. It would have to be ''really quick'' considering the length of time humans have been on this planet. At this point we can insert Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium to satisfy some I suppose. But if we do that then one still has to explain the suddenness of change; yet, according to, evolution works very slowly. If it is random why shouldn't those who accept it in its totality offer proof with an explanation how it is that way without leaving the random dangling out there on its own with nothing to support it, except to those who accept it.
For all that talk, the onus is on you to show that "genetic mutations" don't occur. Period. Can you?
You have made a lot of noise, but you have not actually progressed from where you last left off, i.e. when you were asked to elaborate "which is..." Perhaps, you'll do a lot better in your next effort to reply.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Grumman you have to understand, these are children so they are looking for absolutes, a new relgion. In time, hopefully, they will learn. Although I'm not so sure about mindless. lol
Figures; how we get all these non-stop confused ramblings on Keita implied 'this or that' from a nut who thinks evolution does not exist.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, as per your understanding, you didn't glean the following from Keita?... It is because Europeans are of mixed origins, that race is undermined
^ You mean from gringo. lol
quote:I've read the study, and now, I want *your* clarifications for *your* claims; unless of course, you are not sure of what you mean by what you say.
I made my claims, if you have a problem with them then let's hear or shut the **** up Jew boy.
quote: Well, you seem to be
^ LOL dumbo.
quote:Jackass, in what context do I use the word, as cited where? And what context does Keita use it, and as cited where; explain.
As cited in your mother one day. Of course I may have been mistaken. Maybe it was your Torah reading father. And Keita uses it in the context of "races". Anything else?
quote:I read *your* claim, and now, I'm asking you to clarify yourself. Are you capable of it?
If you read my "claim", Jew boy, then tell me what is wrong with it if it is wrong. If not, then go **** yourself.
quote:"Morphological differentiation" which is...
Differentiation into the entities known as "races".
quote:Don't know if true or not, what you attribute to Bowcock
Yep, I know. You don't know ****. lol
quote:So, jackass, why didn't you relate that; instead, why did you make it seem that he was saying these things in a single study, which happens to be the one you quoted from?
Are you going to say that he is giving one explanation for their "intermediateness" in one study and another in the other? Please say this, so I can laugh in your ******* face as I do gringo everyday!
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, as per your understanding, you didn't glean the following from Keita?... It is because Europeans are of mixed origins, that race is undermined
^ You mean from gringo. lol
You don't need to sweat over it; the simple question requires a simple answer: yes or no!
quote:
quote:I've read the study, and now, I want *your* clarifications for *your* claims; unless of course, you are not sure of what you mean by what you say.
I made my claims, if you have a problem with them then let's hear or shut the **** up Jew boy.
Okay then; we are in the same boat, in that even *you* are clueless about what you mean by what you say.
quote:
quote: Well, you seem to be
^ LOL dumbo.
"dumbo" is nonsense; it is just some unintelligent jackass roar to a question framed in human speak. How should I re-frame the question in jackass speak for you?
quote:
quote:Jackass, in what context do I use the word, as cited where? And what context does Keita use it, and as cited where; explain.
As cited in your mother one day. Of course I may have been mistaken.
Well aright then, in other words, jackass, you confess that you are merely a common amateur liar. You totally make up positions for other's that don't exist.
quote: Mabe it was your Torah reading father. And Keita uses it in the context of "races". Anything else?
Yes -- How do you say in jackass speak, "damn that bitch's dirty vagina that assopen came from?"
quote:
quote:I read *your* claim, and now, I'm asking you to clarify yourself. Are you capable of it?
If you read my "claim", Jew boy, then tell me what is wrong with it if it is wrong. If not, then go **** yourself.
Jackass, how do I put this...okay, how is someone else supposed to know what you are saying, when even you don't know what you are saying?
quote:
quote:"Morphological differentiation" which is...
Differentiation into the entities known as "races".
Alright then; you don't know what "morphological differentiation" between Europeans and Asians is.
quote:
quote:So, jackass, why didn't you relate that; instead, why did you make it seem that he was saying these things in a single study, which happens to be the one you quoted from?
Are you going to say that he is giving one explanation for their "intermediateness" in one study and another in the other? Please say this, so I can laugh in your ******* face as I do gringo everyday!
Actually, I'm going to ask you why else you attempted to make it seem as though Keita was doing presumably what *you* proclaim he was, when in fact he wasn't doing so in the study you actually quoted from, if not for deception? Simply put: why did you feel the need to lie about a single study?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: master, I can't believe you are still going to over look all the Keita quotes above and say Bowcock doesn't imply race!
I don't over look Keita quotes, but you definitely do, and you must think everyone else does what you do as well (ignore Keita quotes).
Anyway, correct, Bowcock doesn't imply race, because it's according to Keita in the first place, who actually says Bowcock has to be correct in her analysis in order for his (Keita) interpretation of the deconstruction of racial construct to be correct. Which means, if she did imply race, then this following quote from Keita would be in vain, and immediately falsified.
quote: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 or race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.--- S.O.Y. Keita
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
The thing that invalidates race is Bowcocks Nuclear DNA study, which confirms Europeans are Asian and African derived
..hence the race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units, is compromised, since Bowcock confirms Europeans, are Asian and African derived genetically.
This means the race construct is deconstructed by this Nuclear DNA study since one of the units (Europeans) is not fundamental, because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them..
So again, if Bowcocks analysis is incorrect (because it implies race as gaykoben distractingly wishes) then the fact that Keita states Nuclear DNA studies deconstruct race (which actually relies on Bowcocks Nuclear DNA analysis to be correct), would be false.
Note this following emphasized statement is what actually deconstructs race, remember, this is only correct, if and only if Bowcock is correct.
emphasized key notes:
Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities...... This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct, then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them. -- S.O.Y. Keita
as explained by Keita as follows...
quote: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 or race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.--- S.O.Y. Keita
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't know if true or not, what you attribute to Bowcock
Yep, I know...
But don't know the answer to...
Don't know if true or not, what you attribute to Bowcock, but what does this have to do with Keita's reference to Luigi Sforza's 1988 study?
I hereby bestow upon you an "Emmy" award for having no peers, when it comes to being a dumb braying jackass overloaded with PMS-enhancers and underloaded with answers. Lol.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities...... This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct, then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them. --Keita
Yes, Bowcock et al.'s findings tear down the dogma of human races. Don't let the jackass's educational-impenetrability to this confuse you about the rest of us.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by gaykoben: This is because you don't understand Jeeeves; the schema has more than one aspect, Bowcock only "compromised" one aspect (primary Caucasoid race) while conforming to others, "Another aspect of the racio-typological approach is that the units and their defining traits have 'home lands.'" (Keita, 2001)
Too bad for you that Bowcock et al's study was genetic, and not an anthropological study huh?
...meaning too bad your straw about studies giving certain traits to specific lands is redundant since this was a genetic study and not a cranio-facial....
Poor you, and your desperate attempts to make Bowcock conform to the racial schema, that her results actually deconstruct.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Keita is not saying what invalidates race is Bowcock's Nuclear DNA study
You must think everyone is stupid like you...
emphasized key notes:
Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities...... This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct, then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them. -- S.O.Y. KeitaPosts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:the simple question requires a simple answer: yes or no!
Ahmmmm...no, I don't agree with gringos interpretation.
quote:you don't know what "morphological differentiation" between Europeans and Asians is.
...how old are you Jew boy? Oh yeh, twelve. lol
quote:Actually, I'm going to ask you why else you attempted to make it seem as though Keita was doing presumably what *you* proclaim he was,
Which is?
quote:But don't know the answer to... Don't know if true or not, what you attribute to Bowcock, but what does this have to do with Keita's reference to Luigi Sforza's 1988 study?
Yes I heard you the first time, you dont know ****. And the connection to Sforza is explained. Read the threads. If you think I'm going to chase your dumb Jew ass with your red herrings you have another thing coming Jew boy. As I said, I made my claims challenge them or go **** yourself. And how the **** did you get to be making demands on others anyway when you have yet to deliver Jew boy? Black skin defined.
quote: Yes, Bowcock et al.'s findings tear down the dogma of human races.
Oh yeh with their Coonian descriptions and models that Keita says conforms to the schema and should be acceptable to those who believe in the existence of races. Go figure.
quote: Too bad for you that Bowcock et al's study was genetic, and not an anthropological study huh?
Too bad due to your retardation you didn't see the connection with Bowcock. Oh well...
quote:Originally posted by MindlessMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Keita is not saying what invalidates race is Bowcock's Nuclear DNA study
You must think everyone is stupid like you...
emphasized key notes:
Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities...... This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct, then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them. -- S.O.Y. Keita
^
Please reread [posted 24 January, 2009 09:43 PM]. Slow learners always take more time than normal people.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:the simple question requires a simple answer: yes or no!
Ahmmmm...no, I don't agree with gringos interpretation.
Even after directing the jackass to the water, in this case -- exemplified by a simple 'yes' or 'no', the braying jackass still does not know how to drink the water by itself, and wants me to help it swallow the water.
quote:
quote:you don't know what "morphological differentiation" between Europeans and Asians is.
...how old are you Jew boy?
Old enough to see that your brain is not mature enough to answer what any kindergartener can answer, like the question above.
quote:
quote:Actually, I'm going to ask you why else you attempted to make it seem as though Keita was doing presumably what *you* proclaim he was,
Which is?
This, as highlighted at the very bottom [about Tishkoff]:
quote: "genetic profiles of supra-Saharan populations are indeed in a relative sense "intermediate" to those of various sub-Saharan groups (stereotypically defined) and "Eurasians""
then brings up the issue of hybridisation which is used by some as a reason
"But is this genetic "intermediateness" due primarily to supra-Saharan populations being foundationally an admixed group (the result of gene flow between two distinct "races")?"
but in his explanation you see why this is not an option, period.
He goes on to explain why in the study you have not read. He shows how Tishkoff provides evidence for an African (specifically, Eastern African) origin for Eurasians.
You are such a predictable wretched PMS-laden jackass, short on answers.
quote:
quote:But don't know the answer to... Don't know if true or not, what you attribute to Bowcock, but what does this have to do with Keita's reference to Luigi Sforza's 1988 study?
Yes I heard you the first time,
Apparently not, because you failed to answer the first time around. What's worse, is that you are still too def and dumb a jackass to have heard me the second time around, which is why you continue to fail to answer:
what you attribute to Bowcock, but what does this have to do with Keita's reference to Luigi Sforza's 1988 study?
quote:
quote: Yes, Bowcock et al.'s findings tear down the dogma of human races.
Oh yeh with their Coonian descriptions and models that Keita says conforms to the schema and should be acceptable to those who believe in the existence of races.
Hey, whenever it is Keita's words against a mindless braying jackass, I have sense enough to trust Keita makes sense, and not the jackAssOpen. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Poor you. You still haven't showed how I misrepresented Keita on supra Saharans and you still refuse to read the threads. Still fiening around the place like the little deranged Jew boy I know all too well.
And yeh, whenever it is Keita's words against a mindless braying jackass such as yourself I'll go with Keita. I totally agree! lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Poor you. You still haven't showed how I misrepresented Keita on supra Saharans and you still refuse to read the threads.
Of course, I've more than demonstrated this, which is why like the dumb little braying jackass that you are, you've all but dodged *every* single question that hold your dirty little hooves to the fire. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The vast majority of mutations are harmful to the organism, yet evolutionists say it is the driving force in evolution. Since the explanation 'random' is the key force, which amounts to ''according to'' then how to explain where it comes from, already packed with all the information it needs to operate
^ This *objection* to evolution is intellectually unsound.
It implies that an effect from a cause be the typical or majority result of that cause.
For example the theory of matter and energy states that they are essentially the same, and that one can be converted to the other.
For example, hydrogen [mass] powers nuclear fusion which creates solar radiation [energy], but the ratio is no more than 1 percent.
Obversly solar radition 'beams' down upon earth and technically this energy is converted to mass via photosynthesis for example. [plants]
However here the relationship is extremely low only a fraction of 1 percent of solar energy is converted to mass.
The famous equation E=MC squared is really about energy [E] equaling mass or matter [M].
The transformation of one into the other is both fundamental to physics, and at the same time, the exception to the rule.
The same is true of mutation and evolution.
You can demonstrate that the functional phenetic features of oranisms are due to mutation.
White skin is the same genetically as black skin, but with debilitating mutations.
Bats wings are 5 fingers, which have mutated with the addition of an extended elastic membrane, which allows bats to use their "fingers" [wings] to fly.
^ The above is not *debatable*, it's just a fact you can choose, as with any fact, to deny if you don't like it.
And as with the conversation of energy to matter, you *cannot* demonstrate that mutation has a supernatural cause.
The very fact that most such mutations are irrelevant or harmfull suggests that there is no supernatural element orchestrating them.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Keita is not saying what invalidates race is Bowcock's Nuclear DNA study
quote:MindOverMatter718: You must think everyone is stupid like you...
emphasized key notes:
Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities...... This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct, then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them. -- S.O.Y. Keita
^ correct. this is precisely Keita's thesis as to how DNA deconstructs race, which is *his* thesis, not Bowcocks or anyone elses..
this was pointed out the jackass months ago, and subsequently by several posters.
because it is both clear and incontrovertible, his method of response is to ignore this, and attempt to distract [such as by posting silly pictures], and keep arguing until hopefully the subject is changed.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by JackAssOpen:
Poor you. You still haven't showed how I misrepresented Keita on supra Saharans and you still refuse to read the threads.
Of course, I've more than demonstrated this, which is why like the dumb little braying jackass that you are, you've all but dodged *every* single question that put your dirty little hooves to the fire.
^ yes, akoben, he's shown that you're jackass with no answers.
you get reduced to mindless jackass braying by everyone you attempt to argue with.
Poor you. You still haven't showed how I misrepresented Keita on supra Saharans and you still refuse to read the threads.
Of course, I've more than demonstrated this,
So again I ask Jew boy, are you saying he is giving one explanation for their "intermediateness" in the 1997 article and another explanation in the 1999 one? simple question requires a simple answer: yes or no. Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, I'm saying this -- there is no 'yes' or 'no' relevant to this, because you are the one who needs to be answering, jackassopen:
quote:Originally posted by JackAssOpen:
quote:The Explorer:
Actually, I'm going to ask you why else you attempted to make it seem as though Keita was doing presumably what *you* proclaim he was,
Which is?
This [that you lied about], as highlighted at the very bottom [about Tishkoff]:
quote: "genetic profiles of supra-Saharan populations are indeed in a relative sense "intermediate" to those of various sub-Saharan groups (stereotypically defined) and "Eurasians""
then brings up the issue of hybridisation which is used by some as a reason
"But is this genetic "intermediateness" due primarily to supra-Saharan populations being foundationally an admixed group (the result of gene flow between two distinct "races")?"
but in his explanation you see why this is not an option, period.
He goes on to explain why in the study you have not read. He shows how Tishkoff provides evidence for an African (specifically, Eastern African) origin for Eurasians.
Actually, I'm going to ask you why else you attempted to make it seem as though Keita was doing presumably what *you* proclaim he was, when in fact he wasn't doing so in the study you actually quoted from, if not for deception? Simply put: why did you feel the need to lie about a single study? Why?
You are such a predictable wretched PMS-laden jackass, short on answers.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: So again I ask Jew boy, are you saying he is giving one explanation for their "intermediateness" in the 1997 article and another explanation in the 1999 one?
quote:Nope
...dumb Jew boy always ***** himself in the ass in every debate. lol Black skin defined.Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is entertaining because it shows the desparation of a jackass bent on distraction from the irrefutable facts [of Europes mixed origins] which defines them as hybrid, and so infuriates him:
He does not say it "undermines" he said it "compromised" the schema and Nuclear studies contributes to its deconstruction; these are important distinctions - sayth the jackass.
^ Important distinctions? How so jackass?
* undermine. * compromise. * deconstruct.
Isn't the case that the all 3 terms relate the same reality of compromising, undermining and deconstructing your racial ideology?
And isn't this really what gets the bug up your jackass??
^ show us how any 1 or 2 of the above terms would apply, but not the other, based upon dictionary definitions of the terms as opposed to empty jackass breyings.
thanks for 'failing' to show your claimed important distinction between the above terms.....
in advance.
quote:
"Europeans appear as a mixture - 2/3 Asian, 1/3 African".
"It can be shown that populations *resulting from admixture* are shorter than other branches".
"The existence of intermediate groups, tends to negate the validity of the concept of race."
"Europeans, are *not* a race"
^ 4 quotes, same frustrating [for you] reality.
same jackass breyings and from you in lieu of answers.....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:[of Europes mixed origins] which infuriate him:
Again I ask, are they not "hybrids" anymore?
Let me know when you jokers will actually start addressing [posted 24 January, 2009 09:43 PM].
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ i did actually quote from your [typically stupid] post;
invite you to substantiate your jackass babblement, and then laughed in your face in advance at your forthcoming FAILURE.
which you just provided, on cue, being the predictable, empty headed jackass that you are.
thx.
As for....
quote:jackass akoben writes: So again I ask Jew boy, are you saying he is giving one explanation for their "intermediateness" in the 1997 article and another explanation in the 1999 one
^ there is only one explanation given by geneticists. Europeans are mixed.
please provide a source for a different explanation.
oh, wait, you don't have one, do you?
and this is why you always lose.
keep breying jackass. breying is all you have, and all you can do.
...dumb Jew boy always ***** himself in the ass in every debate. lol
Hey jackAssOpen, you want to see an ass getting fvcked, look at the jackass who has not answered This [that you lied about], as highlighted at the very bottom [about Tishkoff]:
quote: "genetic profiles of supra-Saharan populations are indeed in a relative sense "intermediate" to those of various sub-Saharan groups (stereotypically defined) and "Eurasians""
then brings up the issue of hybridisation which is used by some as a reason
"But is this genetic "intermediateness" due primarily to supra-Saharan populations being foundationally an admixed group (the result of gene flow between two distinct "races")?"
but in his explanation you see why this is not an option, period.
He goes on to explain why in the study you have not read. He shows how Tishkoff provides evidence for an African (specifically, Eastern African) origin for Eurasians.
Actually, I'm going to ask you why else you attempted to make it seem as though Keita was doing presumably what *you* proclaim he was, when in fact he wasn't doing so in the study you actually quoted from, if not for deception? Simply put: why did you feel the need to lie about a single study? Why?
You are such a predictable wretched PMS-laden jackass, short on answers.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Really. Why are all types of Caucasian hair then still "caucasian", if they overlap with another group's range of hair form? Why is African hair that even slightly ventures off from some artificial quantity "Caucasian" mixed and why is India hair "caucasian" when East Indians have straighter hair than Caucasians and Euros in general?![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
from you in lieu of answers.....
lol
Printer-friendly view of this topic