posted
Damn, so I see the clown jackassoben still hasn't addressed anything.
The longer the jackass stays away and avoids this thread, well, the more we know he's a fraudulent unintellectual coward. 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?
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^Please answer the questions, and then we can move on to discuss who the Badarians were, and who they were not.
As a side note, Badarians were the earliest farmers in Egypt.
^ Check this asshole demanding others to answer questions when he hasn't been able to support his own theory of "morphologically white"**Asians** in Europe "re-mixing" with in coming Africans and some more Asians during the Neolithic to create the "modern European" after earlier modern Europeans 28kya. lol
quote:Originally posted by akoben: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by akoben: ^
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?
The sampled Pygmies, Chinese, Melanesian etc.. have absolutely nothing to do with why Europeans are hybrids, or why this hybridization destroys race.
You can continue to act as if it does, but we all know this is just for you to save face from accepting the fact that Keita saw Europeans as hybrids, and therefore noted this hybridization as deconstructing race.
You clown.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Continue to wallow in your filth, and on with your cowardly evasive clown antics, by answering questions with questions...
..but just remember all anyone has to do is take a quick glimpse at a genetic map, and poof there we go, Europeans consist totally of Asian and African derived lineages.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bowcock used your Wikipedia sourced genetic map to show 65% Chinese derived European lineages and 35% Pygmies?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I didn't know J.D. McDonald published on Wikipedia; where did you come to that conclusion?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Lmao @ the clown getting caught in his own s h i t yet again, and having to post more clown antics, poor sap.
Point was that J.D. McDonald does not publish for Wikipedia....
Wallow in your filth, jackasss.
.but just remember all anyone has to do is take a quick glimpse at a genetic map, and poof there we go, Europeans consist totally of Asian and African derived lineages.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Why can't you tell us what you based your acceptance of the samples on?
Well clown, the sampled Pygmies, Chinese, Melanesian etc.. have absolutely nothing to do with why Europeans are hybrids, or why this hybridization destroys race.
You can continue to act as if it does, but we all know this is just for you to save face from accepting the fact that Keita saw Europeans as hybrids, and therefore noted this hybridization as deconstructing race. Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
..but of course this still doesn't change the fact that the European population is a hybridization of Asians and Africans, and that this is the key to what further deconstructs race.
Like I said: Continue to wallow in your filth, and on with your cowardly evasive clown anticsPosts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Was it Asians that mixed with incoming Africans (or incoming Africans and more Asians) during the Neolithic or was it "morphologically whites" that **re-mixed** with them?
Does this mean there was mixing before and you therefore accept Bowcock et al.'s theory that "hybrids" entered Europe as early as 40kya?
Were Europeans modern around 28kya or after mixture between Asians in Europe (or whites) and incoming Africans (or incoming Africans and more Asians) during the Neolithic?
Were **some** early Europeans (or Palaeolithic Asians?) black or all were?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
No matter how many different imbecilic questions you ever ask (all you're good for), or how many erroneous and evasive posts you contribute to this board, they will still have nothing at all to do with why Keita calls Europeans hybrids, and therefore why Keita noted this as deconstructing race.
Wallow in your own filth, jackasss.
.but just remember all anyone has to do is take a quick glimpse at a genetic map, and poof there we go, Europeans consist totally of Asian and African derived lineages.Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: .but just remember all anyone has to do is take a quick glimpse at a genetic map, and poof there we go, Europeans consist totally of Asian and African derived lineages.
Or they can look at this and see that the genetic variations in both the Asia and European populations are mere subsets of the variation in the African population. Data says nothing about two already differentiated populations in Asia and Africa (i.e. Chinese looking and Pygmy types in 40kya!?!!?) coming together to create a new one (Caucasian).
What is actually a population expansion has been mistakenly termed "racial divergence," which implies morphological differentiation into the recognizable entities now labeled "races." In reality, it represents the early genetic divergence of ancestral Homo sapiens. From the genetic data we find evidence of in situ differentiation (or genetic divergence) of mid-Pleistocene populations in Africa and subsequent migrations out of Africa into Europe and Asia, with continued drift due to isolation by distance and founder effects, which abruptly end when expansion in population size and frequent migrations occurred. - Keita
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Or they can look at this and see that the genetic variations in both the Asia and European populations are mere subsets of the variation in the African population.
Indeed, all non Africans are but a mere subset of African variation, especially due to poulation bottenecks etc...
But, are you denying that geneticists can identify if a population is admixed or not?
Of course, well, hopefully you're not that remedial, regarding genetics; but instead just arguing to save face as the erroneous clown we already know you to be.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Stop asking stupid questions to hide the fact that your effort to draw some deep fundamental distinctions between Europeans and Asians isn't accepted even by your own source. They are seen, based on the data, as being essentially the same genetic wise, "Asians and Europeans possess almost the same set of variants."
This is strikingly different compared to Africans. But this isn't the first time your own source contradicts you gringo. Recall your ScienceDaily clip on modern Europeans. Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Your fabricated lies about me, will not help you.
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:But, are you denying that geneticists can identify if a population is admixed or not?
No I wasn't.
Very well then, just like I said, all of your erroneous evasive strawmen were all to save face from the fact of Europeans being Asian, and post OOA African derived.
Which is the reason Keita noted Bowcocks nuclear DNA study as deconstructing race, not because she sampled Pygmies Chinese or Melanesian's, but because Europeans unite Asia and Africa, two so called units.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Stop asking stupid questions that's my job
Very true, but none of my queries are stupid.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note: you have yet to address your own crackpot contradictory theories of early human beginnings. But no problem, like I said, it only shows you up.
quote: Europeans being Asian, and post OOA African derived.
More straws. Point is gringo it doesn't stop them from possessing "almost the same set of variants."
Sorry, the data shows no deep fundamental distinctions between.
The rest of your post is the usual stuck record spam already demolished.
E.g.
quote:not because she sampled Pygmies Chinese
^ why did she sample them gringo? Why? Why are they, and not Snoop Doggy Dog or Bobby Jindal, "fairly representative" of aboriginal populations?
Do hope you think up new crackpot theories to answer my questions you've been avoiding for years now. We could use some more humour in here. Cheer everybody up. lol
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Note: you have yet to address your own crackpot contradictory theories of early human beginnings. But no problem, like I said, it only shows you up.
Your illiteracy and misunderstandings have nothing to do with me kid.
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote: Europeans being Asian, and post OOA African derived.
More straws. Point is gringo it doesn't stop them from possessing "almost the same set of variants."
Straws?
This is the reason Keita noted Bowcocks nuclear DNA study as deconstructing race, you jackass.
Your straw is that they all possess a sub-set of African diversity which is already known, but not why Keita denoted Europeans as uniting Asia and Africa which deconstructs race.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:but not why Keita denoted Europeans as uniting Asia and Africa which deconstructs race.
He did no such thing.
Poor poor jackassoben....
Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities .....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 in context: [Ann Bowcock and her colleagues' interpretation of analyses of restriction-site poly-morphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs)...]if the **interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues** (1991) is correct..."
Data says nothing about two already differentiated populations ("units") in Asia and Africa (i.e. Chinese looking and Pygmy types in 40kya!?!!?) coming together to create a new one (Caucasian) (non-fundamental unit).
You missed a spot.
why did she sample them gringo? Why? 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 |
"if the **interpretation of Bowcock and her colleagues** (1991) is correct..."
....then her Nuclear DNA analysis deconstructs race, because Europeans unite Asia and Africa as Keita denoted.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Data says nothing about two already differentiated populations ("units") in Asia and Africa (i.e. Chinese looking and Pygmy types in 40kya!?!!?) coming together to create a new one (Caucasian) (non-fundamental unit).
True it doesn't, because this is all your jackasss distortion.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: You missed a spot.
why did she sample them gringo? Why? Why are they, and not Snoop Doggy Dog or Bobby Jindal, "fairly representative" of aboriginal populations?
You dimwitted remedial gringo clown.
Bowcocks samples have nothing to do with why Bowcocks Nuclear DNA study (which has to be correct) deconstructs race.
Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities .....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: Your straw is that they all possess a sub-set of African diversity which is already known,
My argument, based on data and your own source, is that there are no deep fundamental distinctions between **Europeans and Asians**. They are seen as being essentially the same genetic wise, "Asians and Europeans possess almost the same set of variants."
But as shown to you, the data says nothing about two already differentiated populations ("racial units") in Asia and Africa (i.e. Chinese looking and Pygmy types in 40kya!?!!?) coming together to create a new one (Caucasian) (non-fundamental unit or secondary type) or being connected by this new one.
quote: ....then her Nuclear DNA analysis deconstructs race,
It conforms to the racial schema (Keita)
quote: True it doesn't, because this is all your jackasss distortion.
This is you not reading Bowcock. Recall you thought they weren't implying early Asians looked Chinese!
quote: Clown, Bowcocks samples have nothing to do with why Bowcocks Nuclear DNA study (which has to be correct) deconstructs race.
Still can't answer the question eh? We all understand your dilemma gringo. lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your straw is that they all possess a sub-set of African diversity which is already known,
My argument, based on data and your own source, is that there are no deep fundamental distinctions between **Europeans and Asians**. They are seen as being essentially the same genetic wise, "Asians and Europeans possess almost the same set of variants."
This is a straw as already noted.
My argument (which are facts) is that Keita noted Bowcocks Nuclear DNA analysis as deconstructing race since Europeans united two so called units, (Asia and Africa).
quote:Originally posted by akoben: But as shown to you, the data says nothing about two already differentiated populations ("racial units") in Asia and Africa (i.e. Chinese looking and Pygmy types in 40kya!?!!?) coming together to create a new one (Caucasian) (non-fundamental unit or secondary type) or being connected by this new one.
Indeed, I already noted this is because it is your own distortion.
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote: ....then her Nuclear DNA analysis deconstructs race,
It conforms to the racial schema (Keita)
Europeans deconstruct the racial schema (Keita)
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote: True it doesn't, because this is all your jackasss distortion.
This is you not reading Bowcock. Recall you though they weren't implying early Asians looked Chinese!
Nope, it's simply your distortion as already noted, and they don't imply early Asians looked Chinese this is of course again your distorted wishful thinking.
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote: Clown, Bowcocks samples have nothing to do with why Bowcocks Nuclear DNA study (which has to be correct) deconstructs race.
Still can't answer the question eh? We all understand your dilemma gringo. lol
There is no dilemma as the sampled Pygmies, Chinese, Melanesian's etc.. haven't anything to do with why Keita denoted Bowcocks Nuclear DNA study as deconstructing race.
Your dilemma of course is in accepting the fact that it's your precious Europeans who are the sole reason for this deconstruction. Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your straw is that they all possess a sub-set of African diversity which is already known,
My argument, based on data and your own source, is that there are no deep fundamental distinctions between **Europeans and Asians**. They are seen as being essentially the same genetic wise, "Asians and Europeans possess almost the same set of variants."
This is a straw as already noted.
My argument (which are facts) is that Keita noted Bowcocks Nuclear DNA analysis as deconstructing race since Europeans united two so called units, (Asia and Africa).
quote:Originally posted by akoben: But as shown to you, the data says nothing about two already differentiated populations ("racial units") in Asia and Africa (i.e. Chinese looking and Pygmy types in 40kya!?!!?) coming together to create a new one (Caucasian) (non-fundamental unit or secondary type) or being connected by this new one.
Indeed, I already noted this is because it is your own distortion.
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote: ....then her Nuclear DNA analysis deconstructs race,
It conforms to the racial schema (Keita)
Europeans deconstruct the racial schema (Keita)
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote: Clown, Bowcocks samples have nothing to do with why Bowcocks Nuclear DNA study (which has to be correct) deconstructs race.
Still can't answer the question eh? We all understand your dilemma gringo. lol
There is no dilemma as the sampled Pygmies, Chinese, Melanesian's etc.. haven't anything to do with why Keita denoted Bowcocks Nuclear DNA study as deconstructing race.
Your dilemma of course is in accepting the fact that it's your precious Europeans who are the sole reason for this deconstruction.
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:they don't imply early Asians looked Chinese this is of course again your distorted wishful thinking.
Oh really?
Yes really.
They didn't imply early Asians looked Chinese.
What would be great is if you can show where they did, but of course you can't.
quote:Originally posted by akoben: then why did she sample them gringo? Why? Why are they, and not Snoop Doggy Dog or Bobby Jindal, "fairly representative" of aboriginal populations?
Not because they thought early Asians looked Chinese;
...and of course this has nothing to do with why Bowcocks Nucear DNA study deconstructed race.
All of your posts are always non sequiturs, strawmen, ad hominem drivel, with more and more ridiculous evasive tactics, replying to posts with more erroneous questions, does not follow etc...
Your dilemma of course is in accepting the fact that it's your precious Europeans who are the sole reason for this deconstruction of race.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:They didn't imply early Asians looked Chinese.
^ Oh really? It always come back to this gringo:
then why did she sample them gringo? Why? Why are they, and not Snoop Doggy Dog or Bobby Jindal, "fairly representative" of aboriginal populations?
No escape...
The rest of your post is the usual stuck record spam already demolished.
Wow, first you denied they implied they looked like Chinese now you edited your post to say "Not because they thought early Asians looked Chinese"!!!!!!
There's that condition coming on you again gringo!!!
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Damn that Bowcock, damn her to hell. I am not a hybrid, I am a pure European Caucasian dammit grrrrr... 
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
) features that made them adequate? Why are they, and not Snoop Doggy Dog or Bobby Jindal, "fairly representative" of aboriginal populations?
Printer-friendly view of this topic