quote:Posted by jackassoben: "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.
The above is where the jackass tried say Tishkoff was giving the explanation for the intermediate biological characteristics of supra Saharan's as mentioned here by Keita....
quote: "Modern Berber speakers' similarity to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that postdate the early differentiation, probably from supra-Saharan sources. The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization. -- S.O.Y. Keita
The following is the Tishkoff quote which the jackass tried to pass off in reference to the intermediate biological characteristics of supra Saharan's which are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.
quote:Comparative genetic studies on geographically diverse populations provide evidence of high levels of diversity in continental Africa. Sarah Tishkoff and her colleagues (1986) find an intermediate pattern of genetic variation at the CD4 locus in northeastern (actually Horn) African populations. They explain this by local evolution and not by admixture with Eurasians. In essence they are describing a gradient of differentiation. The Horn, largely at the latitude of Nigeria, contains a subset of the diversity seen in other African regions. Tishkoff and her colleagues suggest that the Horn's inhabitant's are the local descendants of those who left Africa to populate the world.-- S.O.Y. Keita
The jackass tried to reference the above study from Tishkoff which actually referenced East African (specifically horn)populations of an intermediate pattern of genetic variation which is due to LOCAL EVOLUTION.
Indeed; "intermediate" positioning of the populations in the African Horn on the CD4 locus is not being used as an explanation for the "genetic intermediateness" of the Berber sample in question. Rather the central point it was trying to buttress, is this: They explain this by local evolution and not by admixture with Eurasians. In essence they are describing a gradient of differentiation.
The jackass's citations above come from the "Interpreting African Genetic Diversity", which he tried to deceitfully use to address your citation from "The Persistence of Racial Thinking", as you've shown above.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your obligation to show otherwise - see above; my piece exists; where's your non-existent "copy"?
It was you, Jew boy, who made the claim that my interpretation was not balanced blah blah blah. Do I have to tell your dumbass that the onus is therefore on you to show this? Are you this dumb Jew boy? LOL
What was my interpretation?
quote: The jackass tried to reference the above study from Tishkoff which actually referenced East African (specifically horn)populations of an intermediate pattern of genetic variation which is due to LOCAL EVOLUTION.
LOL That Tishkoff quote was never in my post. Nice try defeated one.
quote:Indeed; "intermediate" positioning of the populations in the African Horn on the CD4 locus is not being used as an explanation for the "genetic intermediateness" of the Berber sample in question.
^ who said it was? Quote me and reference post please.
quote:The jackass's citations above come from the "Interpreting African Genetic Diversity", which he tried to deceitfully use to address your citation from "The Persistence of Racial Thinking", as you've shown above.
And again, for both of you dumbasses, is he giving one explanation for their intermediateness in one study and another explanation for it in the other?
You two clowns are so easy to knock over. lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: LOL That Tishkoff quote was never in my post.
That's because I posted the Tishkoff quote after you didn't understand what the Tiskoff quote was referencing and tried to pass it off for the intermediate biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans; you tried saying it was a result of local evolution as Tishkoff explained for Horn Africans.
quote:Posted by jackassoben: "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. So North African intermediary status, like supra Saharan, is explained by local evolution and not by admixture with Eurasians.
The above is where the jackass tried say Tishkoff was giving the explanation for the intermediate biological characteristics of supra Saharan's as mentioned here by Keita....
quote: "Modern Berber speakers' similarity to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that postdate the early differentiation, probably from supra-Saharan sources. The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization. -- S.O.Y. Keita
Note; this was my reply towards him after he tried to pass off Tishkoff's local evolution as an explanation for intermediate biological characteristics of supra Saharan's.....
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: [qb] Local evolution is in explanation for the intermediary status at the CD4 locus of East African(actually horn) populations which is because all non Africans possess a subset of East African diversity (because non Africans descend from East Africans) as well as East Africans possessing a subset of African diversity seen in other regions, hence East African horn populations are genetically intermediates due to local evolution, not Berbers, you dunce.
Are you still going to argue that Tishkoff is saying modern Berber speakers example shifting between two major racial groups as local evolution? Or will you admit yet another distortion?
[QUOTE] Comparative genetic studies on geographically diverse populations provide evidence of high levels of diversity in continental Africa. Sarah Tishkoff and her colleagues (1986) find an intermediate pattern of genetic variation at the CD4 locus in northeastern (actually Horn) African populations. They explain this by local evolution and not by admixture with Eurasians. In essence they are describing a gradient of differentiation. The Horn, largely at the latitude of Nigeria, contains a subset of the diversity seen in other African regions. Tishkoff and her colleagues suggest that the Horn's inhabitant's are the local descendants of those who left Africa to populate the world. Whether this is true or not, The Horn of Africa certainly contributed more recently to the near east because based on linguist reconstruction and principles of "least moves" and greatest diversity" it is the geographical home of the ancestor of Afro-Asiatic languages spoken primarily in Africa, with one member in the near east(Semetic) -- S.O.Y. Keita
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mindlessmatter: Oh yea, Oh yea, I can't show where you used that Tishkoff quote so I'm going to choke the page with more useless spam in the hope that nobody will notice I was lying again...you give up now jackassoben..huh?..huh? why you runnin...
quote:Originally posted by akoben: I have a whole arsenal of Keita quotes ready to humiliate you again on your "local evolution versus hybridization (admixture)" red herring.
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:posted by MindoverMatter718: Tell us why a Berber sample shifts between two alleged major racial groups?
Actually Tishkoff and Keita explained the shifts for supra-Saharan populations.
quote:Posted by jackassoben: "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.
So North African intermediary status, like supra Saharan, is explained by local evolution and not by admixture with Eurasians.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said, you tried to pass off Tishkoff explaining local evolution of horn Africans intermediate pattern of genetic variation on the CD4 locus, for the intermediate biological characteristics which are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.
Which is when I posted this...
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: [qb] Local evolution is in explanation for the intermediary status at the CD4 locus of East African(actually horn) populations which is because all non Africans possess a subset of East African diversity (because non Africans descend from East Africans) as well as East Africans possessing a subset of African diversity seen in other regions, hence East African horn populations are genetically intermediates due to local evolution, not Berbers, you dunce.
Are you still going to argue that Tishkoff is saying modern Berber speakers example shifting between two major racial groups as local evolution? Or will you admit yet another distortion?
[QUOTE] Comparative genetic studies on geographically diverse populations provide evidence of high levels of diversity in continental Africa. Sarah Tishkoff and her colleagues (1986) find an intermediate pattern of genetic variation at the CD4 locus in northeastern (actually Horn) African populations. They explain this by local evolution and not by admixture with Eurasians. In essence they are describing a gradient of differentiation. The Horn, largely at the latitude of Nigeria, contains a subset of the diversity seen in other African regions. Tishkoff and her colleagues suggest that the Horn's inhabitant's are the local descendants of those who left Africa to populate the world. Whether this is true or not, The Horn of Africa certainly contributed more recently to the near east because based on linguist reconstruction and principles of "least moves" and greatest diversity" it is the geographical home of the ancestor of Afro-Asiatic languages spoken primarily in Africa, with one member in the near east(Semetic) -- S.O.Y. Keita
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Posted by jackassoben: "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.
So North African intermediary status, like supra Saharan, is explained by local evolution and not by admixture with Eurasians.
This quote below from Keita is the one jackass was trying to pass off Tishkoffs local evolution for.
Note; the issue of hybridization being referenced in this quote, not the other.
quote: "Modern Berber speakers' similarity to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that postdate the early differentiation, probably from supra-Saharan sources. The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization. -- S.O.Y. Keita
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
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. [/QB]
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your obligation to show otherwise - see above; my piece exists; where's your non-existent "copy"?
It was you, Jew boy, who made the claim that my interpretation was not balanced blah blah blah.
...as mine is; Okay, and?
quote: Do I have to tell your dumbass that the onus is therefore on you to show this? Are you this dumb Jew boy? LOL
No you don't have to, because you're a misguided jackass. You said my post is a "copy" of your's; this insinuation is your's alone to prove, since the opposite is apparent.
quote:
quote: Indeed; "intermediate" positioning of the populations in the African Horn on the CD4 locus is not being used as an explanation for the "genetic intermediateness" of the Berber sample in question.
^ who said it was? Quote me and reference post please.
Who said I was replying you?
quote:
quote:The jackass's citations above come from the "Interpreting African Genetic Diversity", which he tried to deceitfully use to address your citation from "The Persistence of Racial Thinking", as you've shown above.
And again, for both of you dumbasses, is he giving one explanation for their intermediateness in one study and another explanation for it in the other?
And again, for the gofuckyourself jackass: you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study, as if the latter was discussing the said subjects. This is jackass dishonesty, pure and simple; the question is, why were you dumb enough to do it? The answer: You are a jackass.
quote: You two clowns are so easy to knock over. lol
If by "knock over", you mean cowering away from queries that confirm you're an intellectually-dead jackass, then yes, you've certainly done that. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Posted by jackassoben: "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.
So North African intermediary status, like supra Saharan, is explained by local evolution and not by admixture with Eurasians.
This quote below from Keita is the one jackass was trying to pass off Tishkoffs local evolution for.
Note; the issue of hybridization being referenced in this quote, not the other.
quote: "Modern Berber speakers' similarity to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that postdate the early differentiation, probably from supra-Saharan sources. The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization. -- S.O.Y. Keita
Absolutely! This is what I was alluding to above.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Like I said, you tried to pass off Tishkoff explaining local evolution of horn Africans intermediate pattern of genetic variation on the CD4 locus,
Lie. Again, reference the post where I used that quote. Or remain a liar.
quote:It was you, Jew boy, who made the claim that my interpretation was not balanced blah blah blah.
quote: ...as mine is
You have yet to prove this.
quote:you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study, as if the latter was discussing the said subjects.
And again, for both of you dumbasses, is he giving one explanation for their intermediateness in one study and another explanation for it in the other? Yes or no dumbos? You have yet to prove deceit.
Dumbasses outstanding obligations:
- Jew boy has yet to show how my interpretation differs from his "more balanced blah blah blah"
- Gringo has yet to show how Keita gives one explanation for supra Saharan intermediateness in one study and another explanation for it in the other?
Bowled over again... Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was you, Jew boy, who made the claim that my interpretation was not balanced blah blah blah.
quote: ...as mine is
You have yet to prove this.
Your obligation. The problem for you jackass, is that my post actually exists, and your's doesn't.
quote:
quote:you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study, as if the latter was discussing the said subjects.
And again, for both of you dumbasses, is he giving one explanation for their intermediateness in one study and another explanation for it in the other? Yes or no dumbos? You have yet to prove deceit.
And again, for the gofuckyourself jackass: you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study, as if the latter was discussing the said subjects. This is jackass dishonesty, pure and simple; the question is, why were you dumb enough to do it? The answer: You are a jackass.
quote: Dumbasses outstanding obligations:
- Jew boy has yet to show how my interpretation differs from his "more balanced blah blah blah"
It's not hard to see why you're reduced to misplacing your obligation onto others, instead of simply rehashing the said non-existent "copy" as you do your other troll-gibbering: it doesn't exist!
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
It's my obligation to prove your initial claim that my interpretation wasn't balanced as yours? Now isn't this Jew chutzpah! LOL
quote:you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study
I was not referring to a single study in my post. Read it again Jew boy. Then go **** yourself. LOL
Gringo/Jew boy, you have yet to show how I used one study in my posts, let alone that quote; in fact you conveniently edited where I said,
When will you shut the **** up and read the damn studies instead of relying on me to spoon feed you? [posted 22 January, 2009 10:12 AM]
Of course a retard would not know what I was referring to which is:
The data of Tishkoff et al. (1996, 1998) are best interpreted as suggesting that a model of in situ evolutionary differentiation explains the bulk of variation in Africa (which includes supra-Saharan, Saharan, and sub-Saharan regions).
And this: Keita (1997, 1999).
But then again, how could a retard be expected to know this when the retard said, It's [genetic "intermediateness" of supra-Saharans] due primarily to them being an admixed group, with Europeans and near Easterners
quote:Originally posted by MindlessMatter718: DEERRRRRRRRR..SUPRA SAHARANS ARE PRIMARILY AN ADMIXED GROUP....EUROPEANS ARE HYBRIDS... WHY YOU RUNNIN'...HUH...WHY..WHY
Dumbasses outstanding obligations:
- Jew boy has yet to show how my interpretation differs from his "more balanced blah blah blah"
- Gringo has yet to show how Keita gives one explanation for supra Saharan intermediateness in one study and another explanation for it in the other?
Bowled over yet again... Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Absolutely; where's your non-existent "duplicate" of my analysis.
quote:
quote:you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study
I was not referring to a single study in my post. Read it again Jew boy. Then go **** yourself. LOL
Jackass, I did, which is why I caught your jackass doing this:
For the gofuckyourself jackass: you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study, as if the latter was discussing the said subjects. This is jackass dishonesty, pure and simple; the question is, why were you dumb enough to do it? The answer: You are a jackass.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you are the open ass of ES that gets plugged and caught doing idiotic things like this:
For the gofuckyourself jackass: you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study, as if the latter was discussing the said subjects. This is jackass dishonesty, pure and simple; the question is, why were you dumb enough to do it? The answer: You are a jackass.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ lmao! Oh please Jew boy, the only thing you "caught" was your peasant Jew mother giving me a blow job.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
^ lmao! Oh please I'm a Jackass, the only thing you "caught" was me deceitfully misciting works and me munching off on my peasant Jew mother's big Jew cock.
You jackass creep. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
For the gofuckyourself jackass: you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study, as if the latter was discussing the said subjects. This is jackass dishonesty, pure and simple; the question is, why were you dumb enough to do it? The answer: You are a jackass.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
More humiliation for the Jew boy. Again, what is this "another study" that I supposedly used that isn't discussing the said subjects. Reference the post please. Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol I thought so Jew boy. You can't show where I used the Tishkoff quote gringo posted because it isn't there. You made the claim, you fail to prove it. Nothing new.
In fact all this is just a spam exercise on your part to hide the fact that gringo claimed boldly that, It's [genetic "intermediateness" of supra-Saharans] due primarily to them being an admixed group, with Europeans and near Easterners and that you have yet to show how my interpretation differs from "yours"!
And you thought right; you are one sick deceitful pussy. The fact, as it still stands:
For the gofuckyourself jackass: you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study, as if the latter was discussing the said subjects. This is jackass dishonesty, pure and simple; the question is, why were you dumb enough to do it? The answer: You are a jackass.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jew boy: DEERRRRRRRRR...deceitful pussy...deceitful pussy..that's all I can say really...as I can't show where you used that quote in your post, so....you deceitful pussy, deceitful pussy, deceitful pussy
posted
The fact, sick deceitful pussy, as it still stands:
For the gofuckyourself jackass: you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study, as if the latter was discussing the said subjects. This is jackass dishonesty, pure and simple; the question is, why were you dumb enough to do it? The answer: You are a jackass.
Nothing you do will change it. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jew boy: DEERRRRRRRRR...The fact is I STILL can't show where you used that quote in your post so I'll continue to rant in frustration....deceitful pussy...deceitful pussy, deceitful pussy
posted
The fact, sick deceitful pussy, as it still stands:
For the gofuckyourself jackass: you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study, as if the latter was discussing the said subjects. This is jackass dishonesty, pure and simple; the question is, why were you dumb enough to do it? The answer: You are a jackass.
Nothing you do will change it.
And...
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
For any takers:
What is the following saying. I want to know, because we have seen different interpretations of pieces of this one extract cut & pasted here...
The biohistory of this sample of Berber speakers is not elucidated, let alone that of all Berbers whose geographical range is great. Nor should admixture be invoked to explain the lack of resolution. Much of the genetic variation of Berber speakers no doubt goes back to the time of early genetic differentiation in Africa. Modern humans have been in northwestern supra-Saharan Africa for more than 60,000 years, perhaps in relative isolation due to Saharan hyperaridity (Clark 1989). Neanderthals were in Europe at this time. Modern Berber speakers’ similarity to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that postdate the early differentiation, probably from supra-Saharan sources. The “intermediate” biological characteristics of supra-Saharan Africans are not easily explained primarily as the result of hybridization. A Dravidian sample from southern India likewise shifts between European and Asian populations, not attaining significance by standard bootstrap criteria. This is to be regarded as a less serious error if this kind of work is accepted in a general sense. But both of these results are devastating to the race paradigm. The Berber and Dravidian examples show shifts between the major racial groups as traditionally and currently defined by some scholars. - Keita & Kittles, Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, 1997.
Alright then, since there were no takers amongst the debating parties, I'll be the taker myself.
Here, the piece is focused on a genetic study by Sforza et al. 1988 [Reconstruction of human evolution: Bringing together genetic, archaeological, and linguistic data], and Keita & Kittles were therefore alluding to *genetic similarity*, when their paper said this:
Modern Berber speakers’ similarity to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that postdate the early differentiation, probably from supra-Saharan sources. The “intermediate” biological characteristics of supra-Saharan Africans are not easily explained primarily as the result of hybridization. A Dravidian sample from southern India likewise shifts between European and Asian populations, not attaining significance by standard bootstrap criteria.
Which brings me to MindoverMatter's question, of what genetic markers would refer to the following then, that supposedly "are not easily explained primarily as the result of hybridization":
Modern Berber speakers’ similarity to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that postdate the early differentiation, probably from supra-Saharan sources. The “intermediate” biological characteristics of supra-Saharan Africans are not easily explained primarily as the result of hybridization.
These markers would be certain atDNA markers, including for example, those associated with human leukocyte antigens. Keita's point about these not easily being explained primarily as a result of hybridization, is aided by the observation of the shifts in the results of a "Berber" sample between supposedly two camps; Sforza et al.'s "African" group and his "Caucasoid" group, and the lack of statistical significance, necessary to show that there was more to Sforza et al.'s observations of said shifts than mere chance occurrence, and rooted in the idea that the similarity may well instead, reflect an earlier bifurcation event in Africa prior to an OOA migration which would have been responsible for spreading the said genetic traits into extra-African territories by the OOA migrants, and inherited by descendants of the OOA migrant ancestors who were the main recipients of newly acquired markers, which have become geographically-structured due to bottlenecks, resultant genetic drift, and founder effect as the said OOA migrants dispersed. Keita raises the likelihood that the said "Berber" shifting to "Caucasoid" group may well reflect a bifurcation even in *supra-Saharan* African populations who would later became fundamental to or contributed to the gene pool of the so-called "Caucasoid" group that they were presumably shifting towards, rather than simple interpretation of such observation as merely the result of some "hybridization" event(s), wherein a supra-Saharan sample like the "Berber" sample in question, supposedly attained said "similarity" due to colonization or gene flow from the so-called "Caucasoids" from Europe or the so-called "Near East". You see, Keita sees contemporary supra-Saharan Africans as having links to populations that have long been present in the region, which he estimates to be more than 60,000 years. Now of course, he's not totally ruling out a possible role played to some degree by bidirectional gene flow between sup-Saharan African populations and the other said populations, but just that he does not see it as necessarily being the decisive factor in the phenomenon observed -- i.e. the shifting between two "typified" [if not tacitly, by Sforza et al. 1988] populations, for the combination of reasons just mentioned. The same situation may well be at play in the shifting of a Dravidian sample between the European and Asian samples. There you have it! I hope this provides a more nuance, complete and balanced interpretation of the excerpt above, as compared to the sharply distinct interpretations we've seen here, in accommodation to the *partitioning* citations of the said except by either debating parties.
BTW, it does appear that Sforza et al. 1988 were under the impression that Afro-Asiatic was the sub-phylum of Nostratic super-phylum, which is why Keita interpreted it as,...
Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues (1988) do not accurately represent the Afro-Asiatic family because they exclude Chadic, Omotic, and Cushitic speakers, thereby giving the illusion that Ethiopians are an anomaly, being genetically Africans (but mixed) who also speak the language of Caucasions (Afro-Asiatic!?) (Armstrong 1990). An evolutionary model explains the geographical range of Afro-Asiatic speakers as one overlaying gradients of genetic differentiation, which a racial model breaks into discrete units that cannot be shown to have ever existed." - Keita & Kittles, Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, 1997.
Jackass, where's your non-existent "copy" of the above?
As a matter of fact, let's put you to further test:
Bootstrapping reveals that the sample of Berber speakers joins a cluster of European populations in 80 percent of the resamplings and joins the African cluster in the other 20 percent. This is noteworthy because the Berber sample is shifting between the major two clusters regarded as denoting the primary bifurcation of modern humans. A bootstrap value less than 95 percent is deemed insignificant if the goal is to show definitive primary relationship. The Berber sample in this example possibly illustrates the low resolution of dendrograms when data are not highly differentiated and the inappropriateness of representing human population differences with dendrograms.
What is the above saying? If you have any remote clue about anything I relayed in my cited piece above, which you wish you could steal, it might school you about this Keita-Kittles excerpt.
Btw, do you still stand by your claim that Keita rejects dendrograms?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jew boy: you sick deceitful pussy...extreme frustration is setting in....I will soon change into troll exterminator and go loony on you once again just you wait!!!....sick deceitful pussy....sick deceitful pussy...sick deceitful pussy...AHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Uh oh...the Jew boy is about to explode people! Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:There you have it! I hope this provides a more nuance, complete and balanced interpretation of the excerpt above, as compared to the sharply distinct interpretations we've seen...
Which is? What are you "comparing" it with Jew boy? You have yet to show how my interpretation differs from "yours"! You can't escape this, Mr. sickdeceitfulpussy...
I'm a very sick Mr. sickdeceitfulpussy... who has already exploded in the ass from getting plugged. I have no answers to those questions above. LOL
Indeed. The fact, deceitful pussy, stands as:
For the gofuckyourself jackass: you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study, as if the latter was discussing the said subjects. This is jackass dishonesty, pure and simple; the question is, why were you dumb enough to do it? The answer: You are a jackass.
Nothing you do will change it.
And...
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
For any takers:
What is the following saying. I want to know, because we have seen different interpretations of pieces of this one extract cut & pasted here...
The biohistory of this sample of Berber speakers is not elucidated, let alone that of all Berbers whose geographical range is great. Nor should admixture be invoked to explain the lack of resolution. Much of the genetic variation of Berber speakers no doubt goes back to the time of early genetic differentiation in Africa. Modern humans have been in northwestern supra-Saharan Africa for more than 60,000 years, perhaps in relative isolation due to Saharan hyperaridity (Clark 1989). Neanderthals were in Europe at this time. Modern Berber speakers’ similarity to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that postdate the early differentiation, probably from supra-Saharan sources. The “intermediate” biological characteristics of supra-Saharan Africans are not easily explained primarily as the result of hybridization. A Dravidian sample from southern India likewise shifts between European and Asian populations, not attaining significance by standard bootstrap criteria. This is to be regarded as a less serious error if this kind of work is accepted in a general sense. But both of these results are devastating to the race paradigm. The Berber and Dravidian examples show shifts between the major racial groups as traditionally and currently defined by some scholars. - Keita & Kittles, Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, 1997.
Alright then, since there were no takers amongst the debating parties, I'll be the taker myself.
Here, the piece is focused on a genetic study by Sforza et al. 1988 [Reconstruction of human evolution: Bringing together genetic, archaeological, and linguistic data], and Keita & Kittles were therefore alluding to *genetic similarity*, when their paper said this:
Modern Berber speakers’ similarity to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that postdate the early differentiation, probably from supra-Saharan sources. The “intermediate” biological characteristics of supra-Saharan Africans are not easily explained primarily as the result of hybridization. A Dravidian sample from southern India likewise shifts between European and Asian populations, not attaining significance by standard bootstrap criteria.
Which brings me to MindoverMatter's question, of what genetic markers would refer to the following then, that supposedly "are not easily explained primarily as the result of hybridization":
Modern Berber speakers’ similarity to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that postdate the early differentiation, probably from supra-Saharan sources. The “intermediate” biological characteristics of supra-Saharan Africans are not easily explained primarily as the result of hybridization.
These markers would be certain atDNA markers, including for example, those associated with human leukocyte antigens. Keita's point about these not easily being explained primarily as a result of hybridization, is aided by the observation of the shifts in the results of a "Berber" sample between supposedly two camps; Sforza et al.'s "African" group and his "Caucasoid" group, and the lack of statistical significance, necessary to show that there was more to Sforza et al.'s observations of said shifts than mere chance occurrence, and rooted in the idea that the similarity may well instead, reflect an earlier bifurcation event in Africa prior to an OOA migration which would have been responsible for spreading the said genetic traits into extra-African territories by the OOA migrants, and inherited by descendants of the OOA migrant ancestors who were the main recipients of newly acquired markers, which have become geographically-structured due to bottlenecks, resultant genetic drift, and founder effect as the said OOA migrants dispersed. Keita raises the likelihood that the said "Berber" shifting to "Caucasoid" group may well reflect a bifurcation even in *supra-Saharan* African populations who would later became fundamental to or contributed to the gene pool of the so-called "Caucasoid" group that they were presumably shifting towards, rather than simple interpretation of such observation as merely the result of some "hybridization" event(s), wherein a supra-Saharan sample like the "Berber" sample in question, supposedly attained said "similarity" due to colonization or gene flow from the so-called "Caucasoids" from Europe or the so-called "Near East". You see, Keita sees contemporary supra-Saharan Africans as having links to populations that have long been present in the region, which he estimates to be more than 60,000 years. Now of course, he's not totally ruling out a possible role played to some degree by bidirectional gene flow between sup-Saharan African populations and the other said populations, but just that he does not see it as necessarily being the decisive factor in the phenomenon observed -- i.e. the shifting between two "typified" [if not tacitly, by Sforza et al. 1988] populations, for the combination of reasons just mentioned. The same situation may well be at play in the shifting of a Dravidian sample between the European and Asian samples. There you have it! I hope this provides a more nuance, complete and balanced interpretation of the excerpt above, as compared to the sharply distinct interpretations we've seen here, in accommodation to the *partitioning* citations of the said except by either debating parties.
BTW, it does appear that Sforza et al. 1988 were under the impression that Afro-Asiatic was the sub-phylum of Nostratic super-phylum, which is why Keita interpreted it as,...
Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues (1988) do not accurately represent the Afro-Asiatic family because they exclude Chadic, Omotic, and Cushitic speakers, thereby giving the illusion that Ethiopians are an anomaly, being genetically Africans (but mixed) who also speak the language of Caucasions (Afro-Asiatic!?) (Armstrong 1990). An evolutionary model explains the geographical range of Afro-Asiatic speakers as one overlaying gradients of genetic differentiation, which a racial model breaks into discrete units that cannot be shown to have ever existed." - Keita & Kittles, Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, 1997.
Jackass, where's your non-existent "copy" of the above?
As a matter of fact, let's put you to further test:
Bootstrapping reveals that the sample of Berber speakers joins a cluster of European populations in 80 percent of the resamplings and joins the African cluster in the other 20 percent. This is noteworthy because the Berber sample is shifting between the major two clusters regarded as denoting the primary bifurcation of modern humans. A bootstrap value less than 95 percent is deemed insignificant if the goal is to show definitive primary relationship. The Berber sample in this example possibly illustrates the low resolution of dendrograms when data are not highly differentiated and the inappropriateness of representing human population differences with dendrograms.
What is the above saying? If you have any remote clue about anything I relayed in my cited piece above, which you wish you could steal, it might school you about this Keita-Kittles excerpt.
Btw, do you still stand by your claim that Keita rejects dendrograms?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^LOL, dumb jackass gone exploded. Exactly, this what a defeated sick deceitful pussy does, when outfoxed and relegated to his educationally-retardant jackass status.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:There you have it! I hope this provides a more nuance, complete and balanced interpretation of the excerpt above, as compared to the sharply distinct interpretations we've seen...
Which is? What are you "comparing" it with Jew boy? You have yet to show how my interpretation differs from "yours"! You can't escape this, Mr. sickdeceitfulpussy...
What is the following saying. I want to know, because we have seen different interpretations of pieces of this one extract cut & pasted here...
The biohistory of this sample of Berber speakers is not elucidated, let alone that of all Berbers whose geographical range is great. Nor should admixture be invoked to explain the lack of resolution. Much of the genetic variation of Berber speakers no doubt goes back to the time of early genetic differentiation in Africa. Modern humans have been in northwestern supra-Saharan Africa for more than 60,000 years, perhaps in relative isolation due to Saharan hyperaridity (Clark 1989). Neanderthals were in Europe at this time. Modern Berber speakers’ similarity to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that postdate the early differentiation, probably from supra-Saharan sources. The “intermediate” biological characteristics of supra-Saharan Africans are not easily explained primarily as the result of hybridization. A Dravidian sample from southern India likewise shifts between European and Asian populations, not attaining significance by standard bootstrap criteria. This is to be regarded as a less serious error if this kind of work is accepted in a general sense. But both of these results are devastating to the race paradigm. The Berber and Dravidian examples show shifts between the major racial groups as traditionally and currently defined by some scholars. - Keita & Kittles, Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, 1997.
Alright then, since there were no takers amongst the debating parties, I'll be the taker myself.
Here, the piece is focused on a genetic study by Sforza et al. 1988 [Reconstruction of human evolution: Bringing together genetic, archaeological, and linguistic data], and Keita & Kittles were therefore alluding to *genetic similarity*, when their paper said this:
Modern Berber speakers’ similarity to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that postdate the early differentiation, probably from supra-Saharan sources. The “intermediate” biological characteristics of supra-Saharan Africans are not easily explained primarily as the result of hybridization. A Dravidian sample from southern India likewise shifts between European and Asian populations, not attaining significance by standard bootstrap criteria.
Which brings me to MindoverMatter's question, of what genetic markers would refer to the following then, that supposedly "are not easily explained primarily as the result of hybridization":
Modern Berber speakers’ similarity to Europeans is not surprising; it does not reflect colonization by Europeans (or Near Easterners) but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that postdate the early differentiation, probably from supra-Saharan sources. The “intermediate” biological characteristics of supra-Saharan Africans are not easily explained primarily as the result of hybridization.
These markers would be certain atDNA markers, including for example, those associated with human leukocyte antigens. Keita's point about these not easily being explained primarily as a result of hybridization, is aided by the observation of the shifts in the results of a "Berber" sample between supposedly two camps; Sforza et al.'s "African" group and his "Caucasoid" group, and the lack of statistical significance, necessary to show that there was more to Sforza et al.'s observations of said shifts than mere chance occurrence, and rooted in the idea that the similarity may well instead, reflect an earlier bifurcation event in Africa prior to an OOA migration which would have been responsible for spreading the said genetic traits into extra-African territories by the OOA migrants, and inherited by descendants of the OOA migrant ancestors who were the main recipients of newly acquired markers, which have become geographically-structured due to bottlenecks, resultant genetic drift, and founder effect as the said OOA migrants dispersed. Keita raises the likelihood that the said "Berber" shifting to "Caucasoid" group may well reflect a bifurcation even in *supra-Saharan* African populations who would later became fundamental to or contributed to the gene pool of the so-called "Caucasoid" group that they were presumably shifting towards, rather than simple interpretation of such observation as merely the result of some "hybridization" event(s), wherein a supra-Saharan sample like the "Berber" sample in question, supposedly attained said "similarity" due to colonization or gene flow from the so-called "Caucasoids" from Europe or the so-called "Near East". You see, Keita sees contemporary supra-Saharan Africans as having links to populations that have long been present in the region, which he estimates to be more than 60,000 years. Now of course, he's not totally ruling out a possible role played to some degree by bidirectional gene flow between sup-Saharan African populations and the other said populations, but just that he does not see it as necessarily being the decisive factor in the phenomenon observed -- i.e. the shifting between two "typified" [if not tacitly, by Sforza et al. 1988] populations, for the combination of reasons just mentioned. The same situation may well be at play in the shifting of a Dravidian sample between the European and Asian samples. There you have it! I hope this provides a more nuance, complete and balanced interpretation of the excerpt above, as compared to the sharply distinct interpretations we've seen here, in accommodation to the *partitioning* citations of the said except by either debating parties.
BTW, it does appear that Sforza et al. 1988 were under the impression that Afro-Asiatic was the sub-phylum of Nostratic super-phylum, which is why Keita interpreted it as,...
Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues (1988) do not accurately represent the Afro-Asiatic family because they exclude Chadic, Omotic, and Cushitic speakers, thereby giving the illusion that Ethiopians are an anomaly, being genetically Africans (but mixed) who also speak the language of Caucasions (Afro-Asiatic!?) (Armstrong 1990). An evolutionary model explains the geographical range of Afro-Asiatic speakers as one overlaying gradients of genetic differentiation, which a racial model breaks into discrete units that cannot be shown to have ever existed." - Keita & Kittles, Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, 1997.
Jackass, where's your non-existent "copy" of the above?
As a matter of fact, let's put you to further test:
Bootstrapping reveals that the sample of Berber speakers joins a cluster of European populations in 80 percent of the resamplings and joins the African cluster in the other 20 percent. This is noteworthy because the Berber sample is shifting between the major two clusters regarded as denoting the primary bifurcation of modern humans. A bootstrap value less than 95 percent is deemed insignificant if the goal is to show definitive primary relationship. The Berber sample in this example possibly illustrates the low resolution of dendrograms when data are not highly differentiated and the inappropriateness of representing human population differences with dendrograms.
What is the above saying? If you have any remote clue about anything I relayed in my cited piece above, which you wish you could steal, it might school you about this Keita-Kittles excerpt.
Btw, do you still stand by your claim that Keita rejects dendrograms?
While being the cowardly-dodging jackass pussy he is, jackass calls questions that put his ass in the hot seat as 'spam'. Well, what the above definitely isn't is this:
For the gofuckyourself jackass: you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study, as if the latter was discussing the said subjects. This is jackass dishonesty, pure and simple; the question is, why were you dumb enough to do it? The answer: You are a jackass.
Unlike the jackass, my post actually cites the extracts about said subjects from the said study itself, for one. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jew boy: While being the cowardly-dodging jackass pussy, I will say "There you have it! I hope this provides a more nuance, complete and balanced interpretation of the excerpt above, as compared to the sharply distinct interpretations we've seen" without citing what I am "comparing" it with. I have yet to show how "my" interpretation differs from Akoben's. I can't escape this so I'll continue to spam like the sickdeceitfulpussy I am.
Yeh, we know Jew boy. We know. Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study, as if the latter was discussing the said subjects.
And again, for both of you dumbasses, is he giving one explanation for their intermediateness in one study and another explanation for it in the other? Yes or no dumbos? You have yet to prove deceit.
And again, for the gofuckyourself jackass: you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study, as if the latter was discussing the said subjects. This is jackass dishonesty, pure and simple; the question is, why were you dumb enough to do it? The answer: You are a jackass.
The premise of your jackass "excuse-seeking" question, which essentially amounts to a tacit admission of guilt of deceit, actually hurts your ass than you imagine. If the explanations given are exactly the same as you put forth, well then why didn't you simply cite directly from the study itself in question about the said Berber sample, as the provided explanation; instead, why did your jackass feel the need to deceitfully present extracts from a different study?
The answer is that you yourself had no clue what the said study was saying about the Berber sample, until my analysis made it "clear", and which is why you avoided answering the call, when I asked for volunteers for interpretation; on top of that, you also felt the need to do this -- I reiterate:
you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study, as if the latter was discussing the said subjects. This is jackass dishonesty, pure and simple; the question is, why were you dumb enough to do it? The answer: You are a jackass.
Nothing you do will change it, deceitful jackass pussy. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brought from other thread, since jackass doesn't know how to keep his beatdowns in one place.
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote: Yes I do remember the Keita quotes you tried to reference, and I remember you being debunked; question is why are you still promoting it?
You mean he didn't say they were stereotyping, he didn't say they used Pygmies as proto African and that it was fundamentally unsound to do so?
No Bowcock did not use Pygmy as a proto African, you dumbass.
This was a Nuclear DNA study, populations sampled were representative of aboriginal populations around the world not proto-anything.
If it was a cranio-facial study, and Bowcock used Pygmies as representative of African aborigines then yes you would be correct and she would have been conforming to the racial schema.
But sorry jackass, this was a genetic study and genetic lineages do have homelands; and pygmies carry the second oldest and most diverse Y haplogroup in Africa, next to A.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The answer is that you yourself had no clue what the said study was saying about the Berber sample, until my analysis made it "clear", and which is why you avoided answering the call, when I asked for volunteers for interpretation
Oh jesus Jew boy, if this is your way of avoiding your obligations to cite where my interpretation was different from "yours" then you are definitely proving one thing: that you are the lovable jackass we like to ridicule.
I ignored your dumbass post for the simple reason it was irrelevant to the drubbing gringo was experiencing.
In other words, I had already educated your equally retarded friend on the reason Keita gives for the genetic intermediateness of supra Saharans before you pleaded for attention you pitiful child. So again you fail Jew boy. Damn, life must be very frustrating for you. HAHAHHAHA
quote:No Bowcock did not use Pygmy as a proto African,
Nice try gringo. Keita said they did and it is Keita's views on their study we are debating. **** what face saving bullshit your defeated ass claim.
Keita said they were stereotyping; said they conform to the schema and should be acceptable to those who believe in the existence of races. Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
I ignored your dumbass post for the simple reason it was irrelevant to the drubbing gringo was experiencing.
Which is why also why you felt the need to do this:
The premise of your jackass "excuse-seeking" question, which essentially amounts to a tacit admission of guilt of deceit, actually hurts your ass than you imagine. If the explanations given are exactly the same as you put forth, well then why didn't you simply cite directly from the study itself in question about the said Berber sample, as the provided explanation; instead, why did your jackass feel the need to deceitfully present extracts from a different study?
The answer is that you yourself had no clue what the said study was saying about the Berber sample, until my analysis made it "clear", and which is why you avoided answering the call, when I asked for volunteers for interpretation; on top of that, you also felt the need to do this -- I reiterate:
you deceitfully replied MindoverMatter's citation from said study with citations from another study, as if the latter was discussing the said subjects. This is jackass dishonesty, pure and simple; the question is, why were you dumb enough to do it? The answer: You are a jackass.
Nothing you do will change it, deceitful jackass pussy.
The answer to your deceitfulness has been marked. Your face-saving mumblings will not rescue you. I'll return to give your jackass some more can of intellectual-ass whooping. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, how was citing Keita (1999) not discussing the "said subjects"? Can't run Jew boy.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Keita said they did and it is Keita's views on their study we are debating.
Wrong, Keita obviously was not talking about a Nuclear DNA study stereotyping cranio-facially you dumb jackass.
Keita is talking about using Pygmies as if their phenotypic traits are aboriginal, or are proto-African. This would be conforming to the racial schema. In the past; Pygmies have been used as archetypes phenotypically for a original or proto-African phenotype.
^^This is what Keita is talking about.
Are these not the Keita quotes you're ranting about?
quote:Originally posted by akoben: [QUOTE]let me know when you will actually start addressing [posted 24 January, 2009 09:43 PM].
"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.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Keita is talking about using Pygmies as if their phenotypic traits are aboriginal, or are proto-African. This would be conforming to the racial schema.
Correct! Give the retard a prize!!!
quote:In the past; Pygmies have been used as archetypes phenotypically for a original or proto-African phenotype.
If by "past" you mean 1991 as in Bowcock (1991) then you get another prize retard!!!! Huraaaahhh!!!!!
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Again, how was citing Keita (1999) not discussing the "said subjects"? Can't run Jew boy.
In fact, I'm chasing you freaked out, like the little frightened pussy you are. It's really simple: Cite the said piece about Sforza's Berber sample [from 1988 study] in the Keita-Kittles "Interpreting African Genetic Diversity" piece of 1999, right now!
The answer to your deceitfulness has been marked. Your face-saving mumblings will not rescue you. I'll return to give your jackass some more can of intellectual-ass whooping. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Keita is talking about using Pygmies as if their phenotypic traits are aboriginal, or are proto-African. This would be conforming to the racial schema.
Correct! Give the retard a prize!!!
Finally the jackass answers his fate.
Well, as I said before too bad for gaykoben, Pygmies were NOT used as representatives phenotypically for aboriginal or proto-African.
This was a Nuclear DNA study and no one was assigned specific traits to specific homelands.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Again, how was citing Keita (1999) not discussing the "said subjects"? Can't run Jew boy.
In fact, I'm chasing you freaked out, like the little frightened pussy you are. It's really simple: Cite the said piece about Sforza's Berber sample [from 1988 study] in the Keita-Kittles "Interpreting African Genetic Diversity" piece of 1999, right now!
The answer to your deceitfulness has been marked. Your face-saving mumblings will not rescue you. I'll return to give your jackass some more can of intellectual-ass whooping.
Humour this jackass once again making demands when he has outstanding ones. FFUCK you Jew boy and show how citing Keita (1999) is not discussing the "said subjects"? Fuuck yourself right now! HAHHAHAHA
quote:Pygmies were NOT used as representatives phenotypically for aboriginal or proto-African.
Nice try again, Keita said they were used as such... now be like Jew boy and play with yourself somemore. LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Again, how was citing Keita (1999) not discussing the "said subjects"? Can't run Jew boy.
In fact, I'm chasing you freaked out, like the little frightened pussy you are. It's really simple: Cite the said piece about Sforza's Berber sample [from 1988 study] in the Keita-Kittles "Interpreting African Genetic Diversity" piece of 1999, right now!
The answer to your deceitfulness has been marked. Your face-saving mumblings will not rescue you. I'll return to give your jackass some more can of intellectual-ass whooping. Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
DEERRRRRRRRR..SUPRA SAHARANS ARE PRIMARILY AN ADMIXED GROUP....EUROPEANS ARE HYBRIDS... WHY YOU RUNNIN'...HUH...WHY..WHY![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic