quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: [QB] As expected no response from the jackass.
But yet he stalks my every post from thread to thread with his erroneous fabricated arguments, while pretending not to understand that Bay area Chinese, was a Chinese born individual living in the Bay area,
I was just schooling him in another thread on just this but edited it out as it was irrelevant to said thread. His lack of critical reading ability is surprising ,even for someone of his low IQ.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: As expected no response from the jackass.
But yet he stalks my every post from thread to thread with his erroneous fabricated arguments, while pretending not to understand that Bay area Chinese, was a Chinese born individual living in the Bay area, and when Bowcock says Europeans are ancestral Chinese then ancestral Asian in the same breath, is because they mean the same thing.
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
Hence Europeans are descended from ancestral Asians, and ancestral Africans.
If you feel this is indeed false, then feel free to name the non African, and non Asian lineages; ultimately the underived lineages attributable to Europe....
Of course this doesn't take away from the jackasses priority of the following which is at the root of all of his madness....
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: This is the quote you dread, cause it actually makes all of your posts for months and months become completely irrelevant. The original quote that specifically states the genetic fact of Europeans being Asian and African derived, is what actually deconstructs race!
Not because Bowcock et al used Pygmies to represent Africa. Pygmies have absolutely nothing to do with why Nuclear DNA studies deconstruct race; absolutely nothing!
You can click your heels over and over and over again; but this still won't help you, nor make it true. Sorry kid...I guess.
Recapped:
The racial schema, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units, is deconstructed by Nuclear DNA studies (Bowcock et. al). Bowcock et al suggest that Europeans are Asian and African derived.
Therefore, Keita points this out, and interprets it as deconstructing the racial schema, since Europeans are therefore not a fundamental unit, because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.
quote:Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type or race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.--- S.O.Y. Keita
posted
^^Lol thanks for linking others to threads in which you have been literally thrashed for pages and pages. But best of all don't forget...herePosts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah yes, how could I forget where your humiliation began. I guess I got caught up in your "primarily hybridised" Supra Saharan Africans who show as "phenotypic intermediaries". lol
posted
Sigh, again from your erroneous strawmen via "primarily hybridised" Supra Saharan Africans who show as "phenotypic intermediaries". Which is basically repetitive nonsense of which you think posting over and over is helping you, you're erroneous.
Remember yet another one of your many humiliations here.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Modern humans have been in Northwestern supra Saharan Africa for more than 60,000 years, perhaps in relative isolation due to the 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 as primarily the result of hybridization. -- S.O.Y. Keita
In this quote above from Keita, the highlighted part , what kind of similarities is Keita trying to explain that modern Berber speakers have with Europeans, which does not reflect colonization by Europeans, but indicates only that Europeans derive from populations that postdate the early differentiation, probably from supra-Saharan sources. I.e, the "intermediate" biological characteristics which are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization (admixture)?
A) Is he referencing phenotypic(I.e, thin nose, lips etc..) similarities, modern Berber speakers share with Europeans, which are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization (admixture)from Europeans (or Near Easterners)?
or
B) Is he referencing genetic similarities that modern Berber speakers share with Europeans, which are not easily explained as primarily the result of hybridization (admixture)from Europeans (or Near Easterners)?
Note: Many modern Berber speakers are in fact admixed with European populations and/or Near easterners.
This was a reasonable question; too bad it was never answered by its targets.
^^Indeed it was never answered by its target, and that target was you.
Which is why Explorer took it upon himself in explaining what was being said after also asking a question about the same quote with no response.
My mistake was that I thought the study was referencing uni-parentals mt(dna) and Y-(dna).
I was then informed by Explorer, not you, that the study was referencing at(dna), and hence the correction was made, and I admitted to my mistake.
Again, this correction was not made by you, you fallacious troll, but by an another intellectual poster who unlike you, actually knows what he's talking about, so therefore the fact that you harp on this as if YOU were the one who had an answer, or made a correction is pretty lame, and imbecilic and a clear sign of your incompetence[/QUOTE]
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Are you going to deny again that you said supra Saharan Africans intermediatness is primarily as a result of admixture/hybridization with non Africans?
If this would have been a uni-parental analysis, then yes, the Berber speaker sample shifting between populations would be primarily explained through hybridization/admxiture.
As Explorer (not you) clarified it was a atDNA study(autosomal), I then thanked him for the clarification.
But, as for you....
This does not take away from the fact that you tried to explain a Berber sample shifting between two populations as Tishkoffs local evolution, which was actually in explanation for East African, specifically horn populations, showing an intermediate pattern of genetic variation on the CD4 locus, and not the Berber sample, you wished it did.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Berber sample shifting, or Keita referencing intermediate biological characteristics as not being easily explained primarily as the result of said hybridization/admixture.
You tried to pass of Tishkoffs local evolution for East Africans, as if it was explaining intermediate biological characteristics of all supra Saharan Africans, in your case specifically a Berber sample shifting.. False! [/QB]
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just let me know when you want to stand up Keita calling you a hybrid of African and Asians...
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: This is the quote you dread, cause it actually makes all of your posts for months and months become completely irrelevant. The original quote that specifically states the genetic fact of Europeans being Asian and African derived, is what actually deconstructs race!
Not because Bowcock et al used Pygmies to represent Africa. Pygmies have absolutely nothing to do with why Nuclear DNA studies deconstruct race; absolutely nothing!
You can click your heels over and over and over again; but this still won't help you, nor make it true. Sorry kid...I guess.
Recapped:
The racial schema, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units, is deconstructed by Nuclear DNA studies (Bowcock et. al). Bowcock et al suggest that Europeans are Asian and African derived.
Therefore, Keita points this out, and interprets it as deconstructing the racial schema, since Europeans are therefore not a fundamental unit, because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.
quote:Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type or race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.--- S.O.Y. Keita
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lmao @ gringo trying to avoid his obligations with spam!
No need to spam selected quotes from your beat down gringo. We already know what happened to your round robin bullshit on those pages. And we all know you're trying to avoid where they have taken you now. [posted 11 March, 2009 07:06 PM]
I'm only asking you to clarify **your** postions gringo. That's all. Why all the spam? Why so scared? Remember you're the "expert" on OOA I here? lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:My mistake was that I thought the study was referencing uni-parentals mt(dna) and Y-(dna).
Your "mistake" was thinking your face saving BS wouldnt catch up with you!
"It's due primarily to them being an admixed group, with Europeans and near Easterners" lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Just let me know when you want to stand up to Keita calling you a hybrid of African and Asians...
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: This is the quote you dread, cause it actually makes all of your posts for months and months become completely irrelevant. The original quote that specifically states the genetic fact of Europeans being Asian and African derived, is what actually deconstructs race!
Not because Bowcock et al used Pygmies to represent Africa. Pygmies have absolutely nothing to do with why Nuclear DNA studies deconstruct race; absolutely nothing!
You can click your heels over and over and over again; but this still won't help you, nor make it true. Sorry kid...I guess.
Recapped:
The racial schema, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units, is deconstructed by Nuclear DNA studies (Bowcock et. al). Bowcock et al suggest that Europeans are Asian and African derived.
Therefore, Keita points this out, and interprets it as deconstructing the racial schema, since Europeans are therefore not a fundamental unit, because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.
quote:Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type or race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.--- S.O.Y. Keita
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:yet now you say they do in fact have defining lineages that **distinguishes** them from Asians and African. ...Please list the 65% Chinese lineages and the European ones that were derived from and now distinguished from it. Same for 35% so-called "pygmy".Link
Another aspect of your theory I need for you to clarify. Remember gringo, it's all **your** words. All we need for you is to explain the contradictions.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Europeans being 65% ancestral Asian, and 35% ancestral African are my wordsand theory? ?
Now you're distancing yourself from them! Bowcock et al. is getting to be a bit of a liability when they theorise hybrid populations entering Europe around 40kya!
But you worthless piece of ****! You can't answer the questions can you! Coat tailing rasolowitz has really caught up with you hasn't it? Your positions on hybrid, modern versus early, resembling Africans, incoming admixture, fundamental units etc all evolving face saving bullshit theories.
quote:yet now you say they do in fact have defining lineages that **distinguishes** them from Asians and African. ...Please list the 65% Chinese lineages and the European ones that were derived from and now distinguished from it. Same for 35% so-called "pygmy".Link
posted
^^A gringo is actually a whiteboy such as yourself, you dimwitted clown, so it's actually funny coming from a cracka like you.
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote: Europeans being 65% ancestral Asian, and 35% ancestral African are my wordsand theory? ?
Now you're distancing yourself from them! Bowcock et al. is getting to be a bit of a liability when they theorise hybrid populations entering Europe around 40kya!
Ad nauseum
Actually it's Keita who calls Europeans hybrids since Bowcock notes Europeans are descended from ancestral Africans and ancestral Asians.
Where does Bowcock state that hybrids entered Europe? I implore you to post it.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: But you worthless piece of ****! You can't answer the questions can you! Coat tailing rasolowitz has really caught up with you hasn't it? Your positions on hybrid, modern versus early, resembling Africans, incoming admixture, fundamental units etc all evolving face saving bullshit theories.
Lmao, are you serious?
Rasol has demolished you ad nauseum, as I have. You posted many threads, as I have, to this fact.
You are seriously delusional, and I am pretty sure after the numerous beatdowns you've received here you're going to need psychological help indeed.
Your fabricated nonsense is all face saving mumbo jumbo that has been dealt with repeatedly ad nauseum, and accordingly yet you still re-post it as if this somehow helps you, or as if you caught me or anyone in some kind of contradiction.
You're seriously delusional boy, go seek professional help.
Keita calls Europeans hybrids, no one else. Deal with it.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:yet now you say they do in fact have defining lineages that **distinguishes** them from Asians and African. ...Please list the 65% Chinese lineages and the European ones that were derived from and now distinguished from it. Same for 35% so-called "pygmy".Link
quote: Keita calls Europeans hybrids, no one else. Deal with it.
Ahmmm...no he doesn't. Its based on Bowcock's **interpretations**. Sorry.
Ammm yes he does, Bowcocks interpretation is actually that Europeans are descended from ancestral Asian and ancestral Africans not that they're hybrids,
Keita says they're hybrids.
Recapped:
The racial schema, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units, is deconstructed by Nuclear DNA studies (Bowcock et. al). Bowcock et al suggest that Europeans are Asian and African derived.
Therefore, Keita points this out, and interprets it as deconstructing the racial schema, since Europeans are therefore not a fundamental unit, because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.
quote:Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type or race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.--- S.O.Y. Keita
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Stalling to jackassoben is correcting his erroneous nonsense, discussing the post where Keita, not Bowcock, calls Europeans hybrids.
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Where does Bowcock state that hybrids entered Europe? I implore you to post it.
I implore you to **read** your sources before you support them. Thats what got you in this predicament remember? lol
Wrong crackaboy, show me where Bowcock states hybrids entered Europe; can you?
This is Bowcock....
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 alPosts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:yet now you say they do in fact have defining lineages that **distinguishes** them from Asians and African. ...Please list the 65% Chinese lineages and the European ones that were derived from and now distinguished from it. Same for 35% so-called "pygmy".Link
posted
Oh really? Which ones where "answered" Gringo? I must have missed it. Or is this your plan to "contain" me in here in order to "trash" me. LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't I already inform your dumb gringo ass, that gringo is actually in reference to whiteboys such as yourself?
Damn you're slow boy.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote: Europeans being 65% ancestral Asian, and 35% ancestral African are my wordsand theory? ?
Now you're distancing yourself from them! Bowcock et al. is getting to be a bit of a liability when they theorise hybrid populations entering Europe around 40kya!
Ad nauseum
Actually it's Keita who calls Europeans hybrids since Bowcock notes Europeans are descended from ancestral Africans and ancestral Asians.
Where does Bowcock state that hybrids entered Europe? I implore you to post it.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Akoben, you are ruined. How can you hold others to the standard of citing accurately when you have a habit of not cite-checking to begin with? You always comment on sh1t you know nothing about. You must have skimmed through Bowcock and Keita as indicated by your "Bay Area Chinese" and repetitive posts i.e., you have nothing new to say.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^You are seriously, and definitely a weird ass delusional whiteboy.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Akoben, you are ruined.
More than ruined, and it's been going on for a long time already. It's just a wonder as to why he repeatedly likes to embarrass himself.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:yet now you say they do in fact have defining lineages that **distinguishes** them from Asians and African. ...Please list the 65% Chinese lineages and the European ones that were derived from and now distinguished from it. Same for 35% so-called "pygmy".Link
quote:yet now you say they do in fact have defining lineages that **distinguishes** them from Asians and African. ...Please list the 65% Chinese lineages and the European ones that were derived from and now distinguished from it. Same for 35% so-called "pygmy".Link
Yes Europeans do have defining lineages which are derived from Asian or African lineages, otherwise how would we know when a population is admixed with European or not genetically?
Europeans being 65% ancestral ancestral Asian, and 35% ancestral African, is not my theory, you erroneous dimwitted braying jackass. It's Bowcock and Sforzas.
You can look at a genetic map and note that Europe comprises totally of Asian and African derived lineages.
Note also of course that 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.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yes, we are watching yet again how you "answer" questions gringo! We see how you have **yet to** list the 65% Chinese lineages and the European ones that were derived from and now distinguished from it and so the same for 35% so-called "pygmy".
We have seen also how you try to distance yourself from Bowcock yet go right back to arguing the case!
We have seen this round robin contradictions from you all the time gringo. Whats new? The question is, will you answer any of my questions gringo? lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Clown, just like Sundjata said, you're completely ruined.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:yet now you say they do in fact have defining lineages that **distinguishes** them from Asians and African. ...Please list the 65% Chinese lineages and the European ones that were derived from and now distinguished from it. Same for 35% so-called "pygmy".Link
posted
Notice how he has no response, but continues to ask the same redundant question, fake pseudo fraud is what he is.
This takes us right back to why he asks repetitive questions, but then when answered, deliberately switches to a different question without addressing the answer given to his initial question.
The answer simply is because he's an erroneous jackass...
Note;
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Ok, watch this....
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:yet now you say they do in fact have defining lineages that **distinguishes** them from Asians and African. ...Please list the 65% Chinese lineages and the European ones that were derived from and now distinguished from it. Same for 35% so-called "pygmy".Link
Yes Europeans do have defining lineages which are derived from Asian or African lineages, otherwise how would we know when a population is admixed with European or not genetically?
Europeans being 65% ancestral ancestral Asian, and 35% ancestral African, is not my theory, you erroneous dimwitted braying jackass. It's Bowcock and Sforzas.
You can look at a genetic map and note that Europe comprises totally of Asian and African derived lineages.
Note also of course that 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. [/QB]
Notice how he'll also picture spam to make it seem as if his post was actually more than an insignificant erroneous one liner, which is what he is always reduced to.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Predictable jackass, as expected, no intellectual response, and of course no answers.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Bowcock European sample showed 65% and 35% respectively. Hence *all* Europeans are hybrids of this admixture. There are **no Europeans** only mixed Asian and African. (Gringo, 2008)
Post specific Chinese lineages found in the sample here__________
Post specific Central African lineages found in the sample here________
Post the Europeans lineages that are **derived from** and are now **distinguished** from said lineages above.
Then we can move on to your next set of questions. So far you flunked about ten times. Backward child. LOL
quote:Originally posted by akoben: (Bowcock 1991) Chinese = ancestral Asians Pygmies = ancestral African
Post specific Chinese lineages found in the sample here__________
Post specific Central African lineages found in the sample here________
Erroneous one, Bowcock does not at all say Europeans are descended from Chinese and Pygmies.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Post the Europeans lineages that are **derived from** and are now **distinguished** from said lineages above.
Erroneous one, all European lineages are derived from Asian and African lineages the maps are on page one.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Then we can move on to your next set of questions. So far you flunked about ten times. Backward child. LOL
Crackaboy you've failed so many times in every thread you've posted on, that, it's not even funny anymore.
I answer all of your erroneous questions, but what do you do?
Oh Yea, you switch up and post more predictable erroneous face saving jackass questions.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Chinese are adequate prototypes for Asians then they must have "ancestral lineage(s)" that **defines** this archetype. What are these "ancestral" Asian lineage(s) that Chinese possess that **defines** this archetype? List it/them please and tell us if this is what was found in their Bay Area Chinese sample. And do the same for their "Forest Negro". What are the defining African "archetypal lineages" that "pygmies" possess that makes them adequate prototypes according to Bowcock.
**sigh**
(Bowcock 1991) Chinese = ancestral Asians Pygmies = ancestral African
Bowcock European sample showed 65% and 35% respectively. Hence *all* Europeans are hybrids of this admixture. There are **no Europeans** only mixed Asian and African. (Gringo, 2008)
Post specific Chinese lineages found in the sample here__________
Post specific Central African lineages found in the sample here________
Post the Europeans lineages that are **derived from** and are now **distinguished** from said lineages above.
Then we can move on to your next set of questions. So far you flunked about ten times. Backward child. LOL
quote:Originally posted by akoben: If Chinese are adequate prototypes for Asians then they must have "ancestral lineage(s)" that **defines** this archetype. What are these "ancestral" Asian lineage(s) that Chinese possess that **defines** this archetype? List it/them please and tell us if this is what was found in their Bay Area Chinese sample. And do the same for their "Forest Negro". What are the defining African "archetypal lineages" that "pygmies" possess that makes them adequate prototypes according to Bowcock.
You erroneous and redundant strawman crackaboy...
I am not Bowcock nor Sforza, so I can not tell you what specific lineages their sampled individuals tested for.
What I can tell you is, that when we take a look at a genetic map, we see that Europeans comprise totally of Asian and African derived lineages.
Don't be so upset kid....
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you said Chinese are adequate ancestral samples! **You** said they have this magic "ancestral lineage(s)" that somehow **defines** the Asian archetype?
And "Pygmies" don't carry the magical African ancestral lineage too? **You** agree with them that they are fairly representative of aboriginal populations! What was the significance of the samples? Why not Bronx Blacks and Seraphic Jews in Palestine? Thats Asians and Africans for you, no? lol
Now because you can't say why crips or bloods are just as good as "pygmies" you want to cop-out!?!?! "I can not tell you what specific lineages, I can not tell you what specific lineages, I can not tell you what specific lineages"
Obviously the choice of samples matter or they wouldnt say so! So then what are these "ancestral" Asian lineage(s) that Chinese possess that **defines** this archetype? List it/them please and tell us if this is what was found in their Bay Area Chinese sample. And do the same for their "Forest Negro" as they are not chosen willy nilly but **deliberately** chosen because they are fairly **representative** of aboriginal populations.
Or could they be "fairly" wrong? Keita thinks so. If so then how can you say Europeans are 65% Asian (based on Chinese sample) and 35% African (based on Forest negro sample that Keita says is fundamentally unsound?)
You fucking jackass at last you admit the reason why you always resort to your spam!
"so I can not tell you what specific lineages their sampled individuals tested."
Don't think we forgot..
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Early Europeans still resembled modern tropical peoples -> some resemble modern Australian and Africans
Now you're saying not **all** early Europeans were black (i.e. resembled Africans)? Now it's only "some". Ok, what did the **others** look like then? A cross between Bay Area Chinese and Pygmies (Bowock, 1991)? Is this where your "hybrid" theory comes in? But this is still before the Neolithic, your time of admixture.
LOL Mindless, how many times have your position on OOA changed?
quote:Originally posted by akoben: But you said , but you said, but you said....
You erroneous crackaboy.
I've never said anything about a magical gene carried by any population, neither did Bowcock, nor Keita.
This is exactly what I mean by when you post erroneous bullshit (all one has to do is click the links you've posted, as well the ones I've posted), that you simply make up, and add extra words to, just to save face.
It's ridiculous.
The original quote that specifically states the genetic fact of Europeans being Asian and African derived, is what actually deconstructs race!
Not because Bowcock et al used Pygmies to represent Africa. Pygmies have absolutely nothing to do with why Nuclear DNA studies deconstruct race; absolutely nothing!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
But, just let me know when you want to stand up to Keita calling you a hybrid of African and Asians...
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: This is the quote you dread, cause it actually makes all of your posts for months and months become completely irrelevant.
The original quote that specifically states the genetic fact of Europeans being Asian and African derived, is what actually deconstructs race!
Not because Bowcock et al used Pygmies to represent Africa. Pygmies have absolutely nothing to do with why Nuclear DNA studies deconstruct race; absolutely nothing!
You can click your heels over and over and over again; but this still won't help you, nor make it true. Sorry kid...I guess.
Recapped:
The racial schema, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units, is deconstructed by Nuclear DNA studies (Bowcock et. al).
Bowcock et al suggest that Europeans are Asian and African derived.
Therefore, Keita points this out, and interprets it as deconstructing the racial schema.
Since Europeans are therefore not a fundamental unit, because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.
quote:Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type or race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.--- S.O.Y. Keita
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gringo, stop running/spamming and think for sec. The sample choice was **deliberate**. You saw their quote. They see them as "fairly representative" of aboriginal populations. Keita said they followed the paradigm of the race schema. You are witness to all these quotes, stop lying to yourself.
Its not like they thought Snoop Doggy Dog (African) or Bobby Jindal (Asian) would be just as adequate. Their choice was **deliberate**.
So then, if you say its not phenotype but genetics that makes them adequate ***yet*** you are clueless about the specific lineages their sampled individuals tested for!!! So then what was it that **you used** to define them as adequate representatives of aboriginal populations? What *lineages* did you base your assumptions on? You must have based your acceptance of them on something? What was it? You already admit to ignorance of genotype, so maybe you based your acceptance of the samples on **phenotype**, craniofacial features? Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: I'm only a Gringo, but stop running/spamming and think for sec. The sample choice was **deliberate**. You saw their quote. They see them as "fairly representative" of aboriginal populations. Keita said they followed the paradigm of the race schema. You are witness to all these quotes, stop lying to yourself.
Aha you erroneous crackaboy...
The original quote, that specifically states the genetic fact of Europeans being Asian and African derived, is what actually deconstructs race according to Keita!
Not because Bowcock et al used Pygmies to represent Africa. Pygmies have absolutely nothing to do with why Nuclear DNA studies deconstruct race; absolutely nothing!
So you need to stop running jackass.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Gringo, come on. Are we going to do this again? We went over what part contributes to the deconstruction of the schema and what part does not. Why cant you tell us what you based your acceptance of the samples on? If you admit you are clueless, don't know, of any lineage that can be considered "ancestral", then what makes their samples such? If you are clueless about genotype, is it facial ("Mongoloid" and "Negroid" ) features that made them adequate?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Predictable jackass, how come you can't deal with the fact that Europeans being hybrids of Asians and Africans is what deconstructs race in this case according to Keita?
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: This is the quote you dread, cause it actually makes all of your posts for months and months become completely irrelevant. The original quote that specifically states the genetic fact of Europeans being Asian and African derived, is what actually deconstructs race!
Not because Bowcock et al used Pygmies to represent Africa. Pygmies have absolutely nothing to do with why Nuclear DNA studies deconstruct race; absolutely nothing!
You can click your heels over and over and over again; but this still won't help you, nor make it true. Sorry kid...I guess.
Recapped:
The racial schema, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units, is deconstructed by Nuclear DNA studies (Bowcock et. al). Bowcock et al suggest that Europeans are Asian and African derived.
Therefore, Keita points this out, and interprets it as deconstructing the racial schema, since Europeans are therefore not a fundamental unit, because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.
quote:Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type or race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units. In this case if the interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues (1991) is correct then one of the units is not fundamental because its genesis is qualitatively different from the other units and even connects them.--- S.O.Y. Keita
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: We went over what part contributes to the deconstruction of the schema and what part does not.
Sure we did, and you were shown to be an erroneous jackass, because what actually deconstructs race is the fact that Europeans are African and Asian derived, hence they unite two so called units.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Why can't you tell us what you based your acceptance of the samples on? If you admit you are clueless, don't know, of any lineage that can be considered "ancestral", then what makes their samples such? If you are clueless about genotype, is it facial ("Mongoloid" and "Negroid" ) features that made them adequate? Why are they, and not Snoop Doggy Dog or Bobby Jindal, "fairly representative" of aboriginal populations?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Lol @ the crackajackass who thinks his erroneous strawmen are somehow saving him.
Knowing full well what actually deconstructs race is the fact that Europeans are Asian and African derived, hence race is deconstructed since Europeans unite two so called units.
Not because Bowcock et al used Pygmies to represent Africa. Pygmies have absolutely nothing to do with why Nuclear DNA studies deconstruct race; absolutely nothing!
This is the erroneous strawman argument that the jackass is always reduced to spamming in attempt to save face.
Tsk tsk jackass, tsk tsk.
Let me put the following in bold, so the erroneous jackass knows not to post his strawman Pygmy argument, which has nothing to do with why Bowcock et al Nuclear DNA study contributes to the deconstruction of race.
Pygmies have absolutely nothing to do with why Nuclear DNA studies deconstruct race; absolutely nothing!Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Evading to the jackass is having him deal with the Keita quote in which Keita calls Europeans hybrids.
From this, Keita notes it deconstructs race, since under the persisting racial schema Europeans unite two units(Asia and Africa).
The fact that Europeans unite Asia and Africa-two so called units- is what deconstructs the persisting racial construct.
Nothing at all to do with Pygmies, but this is the fact that jackassoben can not deal with, and so he tries to evade with erroneous strawmen about Pygmies.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Why is he not here where he belongs, yet he's in other threads where I post, like the distraught stalker he is, following my every post with the nonsense, which is dealt with here.
What a distraught stalker he is.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Almost two hours later and still no rebuttal from the jackass, yet he is still in other threads posting his nonsensical propaganda, trying to spread his erroneous bullshit everywhere else but where it belongs, which is here.
Jackassoben, you have a clear and free thread to talk discuss all your misunderstandings.
It will be a miracle if you will actually address my above posts.
Of course he wont, since he knows what actually deconstructs the persisting race construct is Europeans being Asian and African derived, hence Europeans unite two so called units, not because of any use of Pygmies. lol
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
[QB]
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic