Wrong, as explained thoroughly, morphological differentiation amongst human populations is a result of environmental adaptation, not racial divergence.
Explained thoroughly? You mean your thought-up-at-the-moment-justification-of-Bowcock's-racial divergence-theory? You mean when you pulled out of your ass a population of not-black-anymore-but-not-white-as-yet Asians that are supposedly represented by Bay Area Chinese? Is that the "explanation" you are referring to? lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Wrong, as explained thoroughly, morphological differentiation amongst human populations is a result of environmental adaptation, not racial divergence.
You mean
No, I mean....
Fact remains unrefuted: Europeans are mixed between two morphologically and genetically differentiated groups, and hence are hybrids.
...and supra Saharan Africans are not admixed as Europeans are, hence are not hybrids, or atleast their intermediate biological characteristics can not be primarily explained as result of said hybridization, as the mixed Europeans(Asian and African) are.
As explained by Keita....
The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.---Keita Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
No one, save the racialist hog wash of Bowcock and Sforza, has "proven" that Europeans arose as a result of mixture between two morphologically differentiated populations, "two extremes", Asians (stereotypically defined) and Africans (stereotypically defined).
So as Grumann said, it's still racial divergence "according to".
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ stuck record. lol
The only stuck record is, and will always be you. Nothing new.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: No one, save the racialist hog wash of Bowcock and Sforza, has "proven" that Europeans arose as a result of mixture between two morphologically differentiated populations, "two extremes", Asians (stereotypically defined) and Africans (stereotypically defined).
So as Grumann said, it's still racial divergence "according to".
According to genetics.....
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Independent originating lineages are available for geneticists to detect(Asian, African etc..). I.e, E3b is post OOA African, J is Asian. Both present in Europeans as well. Feel free to disprove the fact that we are able to tell when a population is admixed or not through genes...??
E3b appears in southern Europe, but we know it's a post OOA African lineage and so does J, but we know this is an Asian lineage.
Now, take a bunch of these specific post OOA African lineages and these specific Asian lineages and put them together, you'll end up with the modern European gene pool.
Feel free to name the non Asian, and non African derived lineages in the European gene pool, that would refute the fact that Europeans are totally Asian and African derived as the two maps below confirm.. Feel free to name European specific underived lineages.....
Still waiting........
^^^If you can't do this, obviously there is no more to discuss..
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mindless do you know why you keep coming back to more humiliation, even as Super fly begs you not to remind him of his **** up too, it is because you have to save face. You know you misinterpreted what Keita, Bowcock and Sforza said so you have to keep spamming and annoying Super Fly. You cannot help yourself can you? Instead of admitting you misinterpreted the Keita quote you continue to save face. How sad.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Feel free to name the non Asian, and non African derived lineages in the European gene pool, that would refute the fact that Europeans are totally Asian and African derived as the two maps posted confirm.. Feel free to name European specific underived lineages. If you can't do this, obviously there is no more to discuss.. Your efforts are well noted , but are extremely worthless. Poor kid.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ you know this is your straw man. You know you misinterpreted what Keita, Bowcock and Sforza really argued. There is nothing to discuss, only to watch your face saving spams, its very entertaining.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ you know this is your straw man.
You consider my strawman is me telling you to disprove the genetic fact that Europeans are mixed between two morphologically and genetically differentiated groups, and hence are hybrids? You're definitely the strawman and Semantic queen.
Morphologically differentiated as time in Europe adapting to the cold weather had effects on the morphological structure of their skeletons, hence humans in Europe were considerably cold adapted, (whereas the early Europeans 45kya, who are ancestors of Europeans today, were tropically adapted) when incoming migrants from Africa (post OOA) admixed with these humans already in Europe.
Genetically differentiated , is confirmed through independently originating lineages which are available for geneticists to detect(Asian, African etc..). I.e, E3b is post OOA African, J is Asian. Both present in Europeans as well. Feel free to disprove the fact that we are able to tell when a population is admixed or not through genes...??
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ you know this is your straw man.
You consider my strawman is me telling you to disprove the genetic fact that Europeans are mixed between two morphologically and genetically differentiated groups, and hence are hybrids? You're definitely the strawman and Semantic queen.
Morphologically differentiated as time in Europe adapting to the cold weather had effects on the morphological structure of their skeletons, hence humans in Europe were considerably cold adapted, (whereas the early Europeans 45kya, who are ancestors of Europeans today, were tropically adapted) when incoming migrants from Africa (post OOA) admixed with these humans already in Europe.
Genetically differentiated, is confirmed through independently originating lineages which are available for geneticists to detect(Asian, African etc..). I.e, E3b is post OOA African, J is Asian. Both present in Europeans as well. Feel free to disprove the fact that we are able to tell when a population is admixed or not through genes...??
^ Do Bowcock and Sforza argue what you say above? That morphological differentiation does not equate racial divergence but merely environmental adaptations?
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Do Bowcock and Sforza argue what you say above? That morphological differentiation does not equate racial divergence but merely environmental adaptations?
^^Now this is a non sequitur, you clown. As I am asking you to disprove the fact that Europeans are hybrids. (note: only children answer questions with a question)
Therefore....
Fact remains unrefuted: Europeans are mixed between two morphologically and genetically differentiated groups, and hence are hybrids.
...and supra Saharan Africans are not admixed as Europeans are, hence are not hybrids, or atleast their intermediate biological characteristics can not be primarily explained as result of said hybridization, as the mixed Europeans(Asian and African) are.
As explained by Keita....
The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.---Keita Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: ^^Now this is a non sequitur, you clown. As I am asking you to disprove the fact that Europeans are hybrids.
No, what it does show is yet again how much you are face saving. You claimed Keita was in agreement with Bowcock (1991) that claims Europeans arose as a result of mixture between two morphologically differentiated populations, "two extremes", Asians (stereotypically defined) and Africans (stereotypically defined). Hence morphological differentiation, already differentiated populations, equals racial divergence; a product of two or more of the "races" is referred to as a "hybrid", hence the word "hybrid" according to their interpretation.
Your latest spin is merely an attempt by you to sanitise what Bowcock actually argues so as to set it up as a red herring. But the issue was never wether or not Europeans have specific lineages, and you know this. Hence it's just your straw. Hence you're humiliated again. Hence you start the year as ignorant as you left the last one.
Fact remains unrefuted: Europeans are mixed between two morphologically and genetically differentiated groups, and hence are hybrids.
...and supra Saharan Africans are not admixed as Europeans are, hence are not hybrids, or atleast their intermediate biological characteristics can not be primarily explained as result of said hybridization, as the mixed Europeans(Asian and African) are.
As explained by Keita....
The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.---Keita Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ just as I thought.
Yes of course you know I wont let you stray from your obligations, and of course I know, you will never address it.
Obligation for gaykoben: Disprove the genetic fact that Europeans are mixed between two morphologically and genetically differentiated groups(Asians and Africans), and hence are hybrids.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly which one should I address? The modern European "hybrid" - "African and Asian derived" or the ancient one that is not a hybrid- "totally Asian derived"?
posted
Obligation for gaykoben: Disprove the genetic fact that Europeans are mixed between two morphologically and genetically differentiated groups(Asians and Africans), and hence are hybrids.
The obligation is clear, it should be easy, if you're right. What's taking you so long?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you say "Europeans" I don't know which one you are referring to mindless, as you said there are two sets of them: one ancient and one modern. Which one are you referring to?
posted
^^Fairly obvious your running from your obligation, it's clear that I am asking about humans in Europe, after the result of admixture(hybridization)....
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Obligation for gaykoben: Disprove the genetic fact that Europeans are mixed between two morphologically and genetically differentiated groups(Asians and Africans), and hence are hybrids.
The obligation is clear, it should be easy, if you're right. What's taking you so long? [/QB]
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: it's clear that I am asking about after the result of admixture(hybridization).
Well, no. Not even your second set of Europeans (modern ones) can be called "hybrids", mixed between two morphologically and genetically differentiated groups
1) there was no racial divergence, morphological differentiation, between Asian and African.
2) no genetic "differentiation" between them either as the Asian genetic make up arises from an African background (Keita) and also "there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or "races" (link)
3) the incoming Africans mixed with Europeans anyway (rasolowitz)
1) there was no racial divergence, morphological differentiation, between Asian and African.
2) no genetic "differentiation" between them either as the Asian genetic make up arises from an African background (Keita) and also "there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or "races"
You're debunked as usual...
(1) Morphologically differentiated (no racial divergence, your last straw) as time in Europe adapting to the cold weather had effects on the morphological structure of their skeletons, hence humans in Europe were considerably cold adapted, (whereas the early Europeans 45kya, who are ancestors of Europeans today, were tropically adapted) when incoming migrants from Africa (post OOA) admixed with these humans already in Europe.
(2) Genetically differentiated , is confirmed through independently originating lineages which are available for geneticists to detect(Asian, African etc..). I.e, E3b is post OOA African, J is Asian. Both present in Europeans as well. Feel free to disprove the fact that we are able to tell when a population is admixed or not through genes...??
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kid why do you keep doing this to yourself? Bowcock does not advance your face saving crap; unless you are going to argue that their Bay Area Chinese sample was meant to be archetype for your "considerably cold adapted humans" (Europeans) that mixed with the incoming Africans. lol
And are you saying then that Asians are unconnected genetically with the African? They came about in a vacuum?
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Bowcock does not advance
This is what Bowcock advances....
Tree constructed by maximum likelihood, assuming a model of admixture between ancestral Africans and ancestral Asians, fitting the distances of the lower triangle of Table 1. According to this model two divergent populations contribute in specified proportions to form a new population. *Various* pairs of *ancestral populations* from which the European branch *may have* descended by *admixture were tested* for choosing ancestral types that contributed to the admixture. Data were found to be most consistent with this tree; ancestral Europeans are estimated to be an admixture of 65% ancestral Chinese and 35% ancestral Africans. -- Bowcock et al.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: And are you saying then that Asians are unconnected genetically with the African? They came about in a vacuum?
This is what I'm saying.....
(2) Genetically differentiated , is confirmed through independently originating lineages which are available for geneticists to detect(Asian, African etc..). I.e, E3b is post OOA African, J is Asian. Both present in Europeans as well. Feel free to disprove the fact that we are able to tell when a population is admixed or not through genes...??
Of course as always unaddressed, and unrefuted
Therefore....
Fact remains unrefuted: Europeans are mixed between two morphologically and genetically differentiated groups, and hence are hybrids.
...and supra Saharan Africans are not admixed as Europeans are, hence are not hybrids, or atleast their intermediate biological characteristics can not be primarily explained as result of said hybridization, as the mixed Europeans(Asian and African) are.
As explained by Keita....
The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.---Keita
Feel free to name the non Asian, and non African derived lineages in the European gene pool, that would refute the fact that Europeans are totally Asian and African derived as the two maps posted confirm.. Feel free to name European specific underived lineages?
If you can't do this, obviously there is no more to discuss, you're dismissed, and I am done with you..
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Sorry, human genetic diversity cannot be neatly packaged into continental clades that neatly match traditional racial categories, Bay Area Chinese (Asian) and Forest Negro (African).
quote:Early studies on human diversity showed that most genetic diversity was found between individuals rather than between populations or continents (e.g., Boyd 1950; Lewontin 1972) and that variation in human diversity is best described by geographic clines (Livingstone 1962; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).
In spite of this, many recent studies using DNA polymorphisms have suggested that human genetic diversity is organized in continental clades (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1988; Bowcock and Cavalli-Sforza 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994; Jorde et al. 1995; Nei and Takezaki 1996; Tishkoff et al. 1996; Mountain and Cavalli-Sforza 1997; Perez-Lezaun et al. 1997; Calafell et al. 1998; Stephens et al. 2001; Bamshad et al. 2003).
(Comment: which conveniently, neatly match traditional racial categories). (link)
quote:Europeans are totally Asian and African derived as the two maps posted confirm
Actually, your maps confirm what I have posted above, but you're to stupid to even realise this.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ Sorry, human genetic diversity cannot be neatly packaged into continental clades
Ok, so you're trying to argue against genetics being able to tell us when and if admixture between population took place through analysis of uni-parentals? I.e that Ancient Egyptians were indigenous African, and not Southwest Asian?
If so, Feel free to disprove the genetic fact that we are able to tell when a population is admixed or not through analysis of uni-parentals?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No stupid, I'm saying there is no reason to assume that major genetic discontinuities exist between different continents or "races" and your maps merey confirm this. Again, you fail to realise the meaning of this for Bowcock (1991). Hence you're humiliated again.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ Sorry, human genetic diversity cannot be neatly packaged into continental clades
Ok, so you're saying genetics can not tell us when and if admixture between population took place through analysis of uni-parentals? I.e that Ancient Egyptians were indigenous African and not Southwest Asian?
If so, Feel free to disprove the fact that we are able to tell when a population is admixed or not through genes..??
No
Then you're debunked as usual, no big deal. Your post has nothing to do with the fact that we are able to tell when a population is admixed or not through analysis of uni-parentals. Europeans are confirmed to be mixed(hybrids) between Asian and Africans, with a simple analysis of uni-parentals
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ again, too stupid to realise what it means for Bowcock eh? Poor kid, by dragging out your humiliation you're making Super Fly very upset with you.
Moreover, a specific evolutionary model tested, i.e., that Europe is formed by contributions from Asia and Africa, fits the distance matrix perfectly (6). In this simplified model, the migrations postulated to have populated Europe are estimated to have occurred at an early date (30,000 years ago), but it is impossible to distinguish, on the basis of these data, this model from that of several migrations at different times. The overall contributions from Asia and Africa were estimated to be around two-thirds and one-third, respectively. Simulations have shown (7) that this hypothesis explains quite well the discrepancy between trees obtained by maximum likelihood and neighbor joining.Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Strawman fallacy. The results of this study are confirmed and Europeans are mixed(hybrids) between Asian and Africans, with a simple analysis of uni-parentals (no study needed to tell us that)....
2+2 still equals 4
3+1 still equals 4
Feel free to name the non Asian, and non African derived lineages in the European gene pool, that would refute the fact that Europeans are totally Asian and African derived (hybrids) as the two maps below confirm.. Feel free to name European specific underived lineages.....
Still waiting........
^^^If you can't do this, obviously there is no more to discuss..Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Of course he knows this, but he doesn't want Europeans to be hybrids of any kind, so he distorts and says we're implying Europeans are hybrids due to racial divergence.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^Strawman fallacy. The results of this study are confirmed and Europeans are mixed(hybrids) between Asian and Africans, with a simple analysis of uni-parentals
How can samples be "straw man" you imbecile when Keita, who you insist agrees with them, sees them as important? You are really the clown of this forum.
The only thing your spam proves is
In spite of this, many recent studies using DNA polymorphisms have suggested that human genetic diversity is organized in continental clades (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1988; Bowcock and Cavalli-Sforza 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994; Jorde et al. 1995; Nei and Takezaki 1996; Tishkoff et al. 1996; Mountain and Cavalli-Sforza 1997)
A. Ruiz Linares and his colleagues (1996) believe that clear evidence exists for geographic (continental) clustering of Y-chromosome haplotypes. (Keita) ^ note, Sforza also believes in geographic (continental) clustering (Cavalli-Sforza 1997)
Yet we know his clusters are suspect,
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 languages of Caucasians (Afro-Asiatic!?)
How then can his fractions from his geographic (continental) clustering be "accurate"? You fail to address this.
quote:What MindoverMatter718 means by "hybrid" Akoben is that Europeans are a geographic hybrid of Asian and African derived genetic lineages. Not a hybrid of racially divergent groups.
This is his final straw which came after arguing, through Bowcock (1991), that they are hybrids between two racially differentiated groups, not "geography", which is not the context of the word to begin with. Follow the threads before you jump in.
quote:^Of course he knows this
Don't lie now kid, you look pathetic. And how can you now be arguing for "geographic" hybrids are you substituting continents with "races"?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^Strawman fallacy. The results of this study are confirmed and Europeans are mixed(hybrids) between Asian and Africans, with a simple analysis of uni-parentals
How can samples be "straw man"
You asking for samples is a strawman. As Europeans being mixed(hybrids) between Asian and Africans, is confirmed with a simple analysis of uni-parentals (no study needed to tell us that).... Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ well Mindless, are you substituting "racial groups" with geography (continents)? Don't pretend as if you didnt agree with morpheus and his "geographic hybrid" version of your theory.
It's really entertaining watching you squirm from one position to the next. From the racial divergence theories of Bowcock (1991) you so stridently defended not too long ago, to now argung what you think is a more sanitised version: "geographic hybrids". So now, "already differentiated" geographies came together to produce another. lol
Don't you realise this too will humiliate you? Didn't you see this thread "Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity Within and Among Continents"?
Do you know what that means for your new position? Don't you know that substituting Bowcock's "racial groups" for geographical continents only makes you look more stupid as Keita does not agree with even this:
Near worldwide research on lineage markers (mtDNA and Y-chromosome variants) shows that the (individual) bearers of specific haplotypes do not form into clusters of individuals with uniform morphologies and geographical origin (i.e. classical "races" as commonly accepted) (Keita, 1997)
Poor kid. No matter which straw or red herring he runs to hide behind, Keita does not agree with him.
quote:Originally posted by another dumb vulgar troll My last call on this subject for you lying pieces of shiit!!
Your posts are stupid. As indicated by your vulgar language and childish exclamation points.
quote:Keita did not say.....
^ this form of argument is a strawman fallacy. in order for it to be legit you must first document your claim as to what Keita was cited *as saying*, then show that he was cited falsely.
you have no claimed citation to begin with, and so, *no miscitation*, thus your argument is fallacious.
but apparently, you're quite stupid, and so likely don't follow the above.
quote:for you lying.
^ no citation means the one doing the lying is you.
quote:2. When asked when did people that looked like Mediterranean people enter Africa he said Mediterraneans are just different Africans(?
^ now *this* is and example of a miscitation, of Keita, by *you*.
evidently you know this, since you try to cover for it with a question mark.
a fake claim, punctuated by a question mark, is incoherent and unintelligent.
quote:Keita said light skinned people with straight hair lived in Africa 60kya
^ a second miscitation. you are provably and repeatedly guilty of exactly what you accuse others of. lol.
quote:Keita REFUSED to acknowledge the first Africans to be black or negro
^ this question is a non-sequitur, as Keita does not acknolwedge the concept of negro at all.
Keita considers 'black' a social ethnic construct, and does not generally use the term, preferring the term 'tropical african'.
dark skin is a form of tropical adaptation, although Keita himself does not study skin color.
Keita does sometimes use the term black, and tropical interchangeably.
Here is an actual quote from Keita, which is more than your stupid posts ever manage to provide:
Response to bernal and Snowden SOY Keita Arethusa 26 (1993) pg 329
"I was a student of Larry Angel and am in some postion to comment on his views, which I know from conversation, the literature and personal correspondnce."
"Angel also found evidence for a black (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."
^ Here Keita implies that there is a black influence in ancient Europe, that black is a non racial reference to tropically adapted peoples, in this case from Africa, and you will note, that while he speaks of a black influence - nowhere does he say anything about Europeans being 'white'.
If I were desparate to twist things, as you obvoiusly are, I would claim that Keita 'refused to acknowledge that Europeans are white'.
quote:Keita= Egyptians are humans
^ fake quote by dumb troll = desperate attempt to put your words in someone else's mouth.
I'm glad you've written your last posts on the subject.
Your posts, are dumb.
The supposed African that only speaks English says:
quote:Your posts are stupid. As indicated by your vulgar language and childish exclamation points.
This coming from someone that posts donkey pictures on every thread just because someone disagrees with them and never admits making mistakes because of an internet ego and persona? Look in the mirror friend.
quote:this form of argument is a strawman fallacy. in order for it to be legit you must first document your claim as to what Keita was cited *as saying*, then show that he was cited falsely.
you have no claimed citation to begin with, and so, *no miscitation*, thus your argument is fallacious.
but apparently, you're quite stupid, and so likely don't follow the above.
Wrong, considering I am address the RESPONSE from the posters on this board and this has nothing to do with citing him. Keep up rasol you can do better than this.
quote: no citation means the one doing the lying is you
Again the charge of lying is based on what you and posters are saying he has said and accomplished. How could I be calling KEITA a liar....very odd response by you I expect more from you son.
quote: now *this* is and example of a miscitation, of Keita, by *you*.
evidently you know this, since you try to cover for it with a question mark.
a fake claim, punctuated by a question mark, is incoherent and unintelligent.
Again you aren't very intuitive lol. The question mark is placed there because the answer when he DID say this was confusing to the person that asked it in the video and doesn't make ANY sense as evidenced by the response of the student that asked the question. And if anyone was MASKING anything it was Keita by deflecting the inquiry and making silly jokes about Elizabeth Taylor which again made no sense yet was apparent he understood the implication because Elizabeth Taylor playing the character of Cleopatra has NOTHING to do with ancient Egypt lol.
quote:this question is a non-sequitur, as Keita does not acknolwedge the concept of negro at all.
Keita considers 'black' a social ethnic construct, and does not generally use the term, preferring the term 'tropical african'.
dark skin is a form of tropical adaptation, although Keita himself does not study skin color.
Keita does sometimes use the term black, and tropical interchangeably.
Here is an actual quote from Keita, which is more than your stupid posts ever manage to provide:
Response to bernal and Snowden SOY Keita Arethusa 26 (1993) pg 329
"I was a student of Larry Angel and am in some postion to comment on his views, which I know from conversation, the literature and personal correspondnce."
"Angel also found evidence for a black (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work."
^ Here Keita implies that there is a black influence in ancient Europe, that black is a non racial reference to tropically adapted peoples, in this case from Africa, and you will note, that while he speaks of a black influence - nowhere does he say anything about Europeans being 'white'.
If I were desparate to twist things, as you obvoiusly are, I would claim that Keita 'refused to acknowledge that Europeans are white'.
As far as Keita not using the term "negro" I have no problem with that BUT he doesn't use the term "black". If black is a socio-ehtnic term and isn't scientific then why at 42:42 in the video he says "black ancestry" but when the student asked what the first people looked like he didn't acknowledge the terms negro or "BLACK". If you are trying to make a point tropical and black being interchangable with him; he did not do that in the video which is my whole point.
As far as your quote it is a non sequitor..why..because it has nothing to do with the thread nor the fu cking video idiot . But, since I am a nice guy I will address the quote and show that you have a problem in your comprehension. If you notice in parenthesis he says (if such exists) right after the term black lol. Showing that he doesn't acknowledge the term and also that the quote comes from LARRY ANGEL NOT KEITA *sigh*. And you lie and misquote him by saying he is using "black" as a surrogate for "tropical" *tisk* *tisk* rasol.
quote:fake quote by dumb troll = desperate attempt to put your words in someone else's mouth.
I'm glad you've written your last posts on the subject.
Your posts, are dumb.
Lol again the quote is not a citation, but the premise of what will be inferred from the lecture smh. Stop lying on me Rasol it is not a good look don't say I am citing when I am not.
Posts: 152 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Bottom line, Europeans are and always will be mixed(hybrids) between Asian and Africans, which can be confirmed with a simple analysis of uni-parentals (no study needed to tell us that)....
Or, this can be simply falsified by you naming the non Asian, and non African derived lineages in the European gene pool, that would refute the fact that Europeans are totally Asian and African derived (hybrids) as the two maps posted confirm...
Feel free to name European specific underived lineages?
^^^If you can't do this, obviously there is no more to discuss.. Let me know when you get the courage to address the specific genetic fact confirmed with a quick analysis of uni-parentals?
Until then you can keep posting your irrelevant nonsensePosts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ bottom line where ever you hide, Keita doesn't agree with you. Your latest hiding place, "geographic hybrid", only exposes you even more as classical "races" = geography according to Keita. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. No already differentiated populations, no two extremes, no foundational hybrids, no secondary types or races.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ well Mindless, are you substituting "racial groups" with geography (continents)? Don't pretend as if you didnt agree with morpheus and his "geographic hybrid" version of your theory.
It's really entertaining watching you squirm from one position to the next. From the racial divergence theories of Bowcock (1991) you so stridently defended not too long ago, to now argung what you think is a more sanitised version: "geographic hybrids". So now, "already differentiated" geographies came together to produce another. lol
Don't you realise this too will humiliate you? Didn't you see this thread "Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity Within and Among Continents"?
Do you know what that means for your new position? Don't you know that substituting Bowcock's "racial groups" for geographical continents only makes you look more stupid as Keita does not agree with even this:
Near worldwide research on lineage markers (mtDNA and Y-chromosome variants) shows that the (individual) bearers of specific haplotypes do not form into clusters of individuals with uniform morphologies and geographical origin (i.e. classical "races" as commonly accepted) (Keita, 1997)
Poor kid. No matter which straw or red herring he runs to hide behind, Keita does not agree with him.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ bottom line where ever you hide, Keita doesn't agree with you.
Of course Keita agrees Europeans are hybrids, he's the one who said it in the first place, you idiot.
Fact remains unrefuted: Europeans are mixed between two morphologically and genetically differentiated groups, and hence are hybrids.
...and supra Saharan Africans are not admixed as Europeans are, hence are not hybrids, or atleast as Keita explains their intermediate biological characteristics can not be primarily explained as result of said hybridization, as the mixed Europeans(Asian and African) are.
As explained by Keita....
The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.---Keita
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Your latest hiding place, "geographic hybrid",
Again, nice try troll, but you're wrong as usual. I agreed with Morpheus that Europeans are Asian and African derived genetic hybrids, not racially.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi: As far as Keita not using the term "negro" I have no problem with that BUT he doesn't use the term "black". If black is a socio-ehtnic term and isn't scientific then why at 42:42 in the video he says "black ancestry" but when the student asked what the first people looked like he didn't acknowledge the terms negro or "BLACK". If you are trying to make a point tropical and black being interchangable with him; he did not do that in the video which is my whole point.
By saying "Black ancestors" Keita was referring to the dark-skinned African ancestors of certain Brazilians. The point he was making was that skin color alone doesn't tell you where the majority of someone's ancestors come from.
The problem he had with the student who was asking him what the first people should be considered is that the student was using racialclassifications to define them. Keita made it clear that while he doesn't prescribe to the term Negro he does believe that they were dark-skinned ("Black") based on ecological principles (i.e. they had dark skin because they were adapted to a tropical climate).
In fact if you think about it Keita does use tropical and Black interchangeably. When speaking to the student he was trying to describe the people physically (dark skin and tropical body plan). When talking about ancestry he used the social designation Black ("quote unquote") for convenience.
In one of his studies about the Ancient Egyptians he does infact use tropical African (or Saharo-Tropical variant) and "Black African" interchangeably.
quote:...Hiernaux has dismissed the Hamitic racial construct and concept; instead the characteristic features are seen as the product of a hot-dry climatic microadaptation or genetic drift. Hiernaux calls this phenotype "elongated African", and parsimoniously lays to rest all doubts about the fundamental Africanity of more southern groups called Hamitic. In spite of this, even modern biologists occasionally make the error of assuming that all "black Africans" (Saharo-tropical variants) necessarily have a specific characteristic, for instance notable prognathism.....
....This review has addressed several issues regarding the biological affinities of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile Valley. The morphological metric, morphometric, and nonmetric studies, demonstrate immense overlap with tropical variants. General scholars must understand that a "shift in paradigm" from "Negro"-only-as-African has occured, just as Nordic-only-as-European was never accepted. Actually, it was always biologically wrong to view the Broad phenotype as representative of the only authentic "African," something understood by some nineteenth century writers.
Early Nile Valley populations are best viewed as part of an African descent group or lineage with tropical adaptations and relationships. This group is highly variable, as would be expected. Archaeological data also support this position, which is not new. Overtime, gene flow (admixture) did occur in the Nile valley from Europe and the Near East, thus also giving "Egyptians" relationship with those groups. This admixture, if it had occurred by Dynasty I, little affected the major affinity of southern predynastic peoples as illustrated here. As indicated by the analysis of the data reviewed here, the southern predynastic people were Saharo-tropical variants.
Source: Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships, S.O.Y. Keita, History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)
As I mentioned before Richard Poe who consulted Keita for his book summazied the conclusions of his research in more laymen friendly terms freely using the word Black.
quote:Were the Ancient Egyptians black? That is entirely up to you. But were they biologically African? It would seem that they were. After considering the full range of anatomical, linguistic, cultural, archaeological, and genetic evidence, Shomarka Keita feels confident in concluding that the original Egyptians --- by which he means the pre-dynastic people of Southern Egypt, who founded Egyptian civilization--evolved entirely in Africa. Both culturally and biologically, he says, they were more related to other Africans than they were to non-Africans from Europe or Asia.
Through the years, Keita believes, the Egyptians appear to have blended with many immigrants and invaders, many of whom were lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid in appearance than the original Egyptians. Libyans, Persians, Syro-Palestinians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans all left their imprint on the faces of Egypt. But Egyptian civilization remain profoundly African to the very end.
Keita himself rarely resorts to such crudely racial expressions as black and white. But if we might be forgiven a momentary lapse into everyday speech, it would probably not hurt to conceive of Keita's theory as the polar opposite of the Hamitic Hypothesis. Whereas the Hamitic theorists saw Egypt as a nation of white people that was gradually infiltrated by blacks, the biological evidence seems to suggest that it was more like a black nation that was gradually infiltrated by whites.
Source: Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? Chapter 77. Black, White or Biologically African? page. 471
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^Of course he knows this, but he doesn't want Europeans to be hybrids of any kind, so he distorts and says we're implying Europeans are hybrids due to racial divergence.
quote:Were the Ancient Egyptians black? That is entirely up to you. But were they biologically African? It would seem that they were. After considering the full range of anatomical, linguistic, cultural, archaeological, and genetic evidence, Shomarka Keita feels confident in concluding that the original Egyptians --- by which he means the pre-dynastic people of Southern Egypt, who founded Egyptian civilization--evolved entirely in Africa. Both culturally and biologically, he says, they were more related to other Africans than they were to non-Africans from Europe or Asia.
Through the years, Keita believes, the Egyptians appear to have blended with many immigrants and invaders, many of whom were lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid in appearance than the original Egyptians. Libyans, Persians, Syro-Palestinians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans all left their imprint on the faces of Egypt. But Egyptian civilization remain profoundly African to the very end.
Keita himself rarely resorts to such crudely racial expressions as black and white. But if we might be forgiven a momentary lapse into everyday speech, it would probably not hurt to conceive of Keita's theory as the polar opposite of the Hamitic Hypothesis. Whereas the Hamitic theorists saw Egypt as a nation of white people that was gradually infiltrated by blacks, the biological evidence seems to suggest that it was more like a black nation that was gradually infiltrated by whites.
^ also correct, ie - a fair synopsis of Keita by and author who consulted with him.
some good posts in this thread, in spite of the usual borish ignorance from the usual trolls.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
distressed at his lack of traction on egypt search, akoben stripped for action...
Posts: 90 | From: Paramaribo | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:2. When asked when did people that looked like Mediterranean people enter Africa he said Mediterraneans are just different Africans(?
^ now *this* is and example of a miscitation, of Keita, by *you*.
evidently you know this, since you try to cover for it with a question mark.
a fake claim, punctuated by a question mark, is incoherent and unintelligent.
Indeed, Keita's premise as I noted, was that there is no such thing as "Mediterranean type" to begin with. In disavowing this construct, he understandably refused to allow north African populations to be defined by it, and hence, simply referred to said populations as but extensions of Africa's populations who just so happen to live immediately below the Mediterranean sea, preferring to speak about them in the African context.
On that note, as to the query about how one would define "what is African" -- from presumably a physiological standpoint, one can almost sense from Keita's reply, that the intention was to relate the idea that Africans are too diverse to be simply and narrowly defined; and hence, one aspect of African diversity simply cannot be used as a transposition over the remaining diversity therein, to describe "what is African" just one way or the other. My answer to such question would have simply been this: What defines "African" -- from both the genetic and physical standpoint, is that greatest diversity is found in Africa, and so, it won't be surprising to come across non-Africans who converge or appear similar to some African group or the other [in fact, Keita sought to demonstrate an example on this, by pointing to first glance superficial correlations/similarities that could possibly be seen between likes of Melanesian and some Africans], either secondary to gene flow or by way of convergent evolution, or yet, both. So, rather than defining and confining "what is African" by non-African models (templates), Africans are [and should be] defined by Africa's own overall diversity, with no aspect of it being overlooked by one or another subtype. Doing otherwise, would be tantamount to treading into narrowly defined, and by implication, non-overlapping typological science, not too different from that which characterizes 'racialism'.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course Keita agrees Europeans are hybrids, he's the one who said it in the first place, you idiot.
There's that abnormal reading comprehension skills again.
quote:Again, nice try troll, but you're wrong as usual. I agreed with Morpheus that Europeans are Asian and African derived genetic hybrids, not racially.
Oh please mindless, he said what you meant by hybrid is "that Europeans are a geographic hybrid of Asian and African derived", and you agreed. Go you back and look. You're so clueless you don't even realise the implications of what I posted from Keita quotes to the Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity thread. It all went straight over your head, as usual!
It's truely entertaining again watching you back track once again. You've tied yourself into a knot not realizing that when Keita (and others) point out that in some studies classical race types conform to geography it applies to Bowcock and Sforza!
quote:he does believe that they were dark-skinned ("Black") based on ecological principles (i.e. they had dark skin because they were adapted to a tropical climate).
Yes we know what he means by some of the terms he uses (Saharo-tropical variants, southern predynastic people, notable prognathism, elongated African etc) but as I said, terms such as "dark skin" and "light skin" are just as subjective as "black", the definition depends on the person using the terms. It still needs a consensus. Putting black African and black in quotes but not dark skin, as if everyone knows exactly what is meant by that term, doesn't make sense to me unless those doing it are engaging in political correctness.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^Of course he knows this, but he doesn't want Europeans to be hybrids of any kind, so he distorts and says we're implying Europeans are hybrids due to racial divergence.
correct.
Correct? I thought you said they were not hybrids?
quote:Don't let EuroDisney bait you into calling Southern Europeans hybrids as a form of revenge argument. Cavalli-Szforza and others found that Europeans collectively cluster IN BETWEEN AFRICA AND EAST ASIA. Using Disney's logic you could then call the whole white "race" mongrel-hybrid, etc…. By Disney's ridiculous rhetoric and logic-free semantics.... wherein intermediacy on a genetic distance map somehow equates to hybrid, European whites are merely mongrel-hybrids of Black and Asian pure races.[Genetic distances in Africa] – Rasolowitz
This troll is just lacking in any orginal thought whatsoever. What an irritant. Now he's gone and annoyingly highjacked Myra's signature image for her Obama raves.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
and yet, might this not suggest a plea for help by Akoben? A burning desire to be "down with the peeps?" A delayed reaction to his charisma bypass operation?
Posts: 90 | From: Paramaribo | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Yes we know what he means by some of the terms he uses (Saharo-tropical variants, southern predynastic people, notable prognathism, elongated African etc) but as I said, terms such as "dark skin" and "light skin" are just as subjective as "black", the definition depends on the person using the terms. It still needs a consensus. Putting black African and black in quotes but not dark skin, as if everyone knows exactly what is meant by that term, doesn't make sense to me unless those doing it are engaging in political correctness.
I agree that dark-skin is a vague description.
The student cited the host of the workshop as someone who could be considered "dark-skinned".
Dark skin is vague which is why Keita says he doesn't know how dark. The San are lighter-skinned than the average tropical African and yet dark-skinned compared to the average European.
Keita was trying to be descriptive without using racial terminology which he felt would have been misleading in that situation.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: [QUOTE]I agree that dark-skin is a vague description.
The student cited the host of the workshop as someone who could be considered "dark-skinned".
Dark skin is vague which is why Keita says he doesn't know how dark. The San are lighter-skinned than the average tropical African and yet dark-skinned compared to the average European.
Keita was trying to be descriptive without using racial terminology which he felt would have been misleading in that situation.
Evergreen Writes:
Melanin intensification in the skin can be quantified. Diop was successful in this area.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course Keita agrees Europeans are hybrids, he's the one who said it in the first place, you idiot.
There's that abnormal reading comprehension skills again.
Fact remains unrefuted: Europeans are mixed between two morphologically and genetically differentiated groups, and hence are hybrids.
...and supra Saharan Africans are not admixed as Europeans are, hence are not hybrids, or atleast as Keita explains their intermediate biological characteristics can not be primarily explained as result of said hybridization, as the mixed Europeans(Asian and African) are.
As explained by Keita....
The "intermediate" biological characteristics of supra Saharan Africans are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization.---Keita
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Again, nice try troll, but you're wrong as usual. I agreed with Morpheus that Europeans are Asian and African derived genetic hybrids, not racially.
Oh please mindless, he said what you meant by hybrid is "that Europeans are a geographic hybrid of Asian and African derived", and you agreed. Go you back and look.
Unlike you, I don't make sh*t up, nor do I have to rely on distortion. When I said to Morpheus that "you know this" What was meant is you know Europeans are hybrid of Asian and African derived genetic lineages, not a racial hybrid, but you'll rather distort since you don't want Europeans to be hybrids of any kind.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic