posted
So, anguish-of-being-stupid, you and the ditz agree that there is such a thing as a "TRUE NEGRO", and he lives in the Forests of West Africa eh?
Just curious, aside from any straight-haired Albino, is there such a thing as a "TRUE CAUCASIAN"?
Likewise, is there such a thing as a "TRUE MONGOL"?
They say wisdom from the mouth of Babes, I'm just wondering if the same can be accomplished from the mouths of Idiots.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lion - If the answer is affirmative, does that mean that I will have to carry your bags and otherwise be relegated to servitude?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: So, anguish-of-being-stupid, you and the ditz agree that there is such a thing as a "TRUE NEGRO", and he lives in the Forests of West Africa eh?
I now understand your point better. Still you seem to be measuring with two different rulers.
I am not using any ruler. I am just explaining a citation to you that you don't understand. Like I told you earlier, whether you agree with it or not is another thing. I am also telling you why the citation is not doing what you said it is doing.
quote: You noted flaws in my approach because I didn’t mention variation, yet, when they do it
This shows that you did not actually understand what I just told you, even though you claim that you did.
quote:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer:
I hope this is not an inverted logic of an assumption that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people(?) But to answer the question that follows, it still goes back to what I just said above.
You use the same methods you used earlier when I used the example of Tutsi. This is straying the root of our discussion, but if you must ask, yes, I do believe that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people.
If I intended to stray, I would not have said this: But to answer the question that follows, it still goes back to what I just said above.
What do you mean by "systematically study people". Since you keep bringing up questionable ideas with each reply, you will be asked to clarify, if necessary. How you interpret this action, matters not to me.
quote: I challenge you to correct me, and if you can, I will give you credit.
That depends on what you are saying. See above.
quote: There were civilizations before, but there were no civilizations that had the standards, methods and understandings to systematically study people.
I would say the ancient Egyptians were quite adept at understanding human body, as it enabled them to do the functions they were able to do in their mummifications, and enabled them to put that to use in medicine, giving the Greeks chance to learn from them, allowing some of that knowledge to seep through to modern medicine. But this may be a digression, as it is a viewpoint that I'm expressing without fully understanding what you mean by "systematically understanding people".
quote:
Africoid, as you can see from the features I listed in this context, is NOTTT not the equivalence of True negro.
If that is not so, then why is its antonym according to your own citation, caucasoid? Why does it implicate traits that are presumably associated with the "forest negro"? Does your source implicate another African variation, that is different from the Africoid?
quote:
If this was the case, the Africoid features I listed wouldn’t be seen in East Africans.
This doesn't make sense. East Africa is in fact amongst one of the most diverse areas of Africa.
quote: Furthermore, it would NOT distinguish the 18 dynasty from Europeans because members of the 18th dynasty are not western Africans nor what we would describe as ‘’true Negro’’ or ‘’forest Negro’’.
I think I know the source being tacitly referenced here, but I'll let you provide the specifics anyway, before I can comment further on it.
quote: \Africoid simply means African-ish, and you would know that if you would take a look at the features I listed.
So, "caucasoid" traits are not African-ish?
quote: None of the ‘’Africoid’’ features I listed said broad nose opening, or broad face.
Did your source mention celphalometric index in its definition, or nasal aperture? Then how do you know those very traits would not have been implicated as well, had the source found it necessary to implicate it?
quote:
I do agree however, that the features I provided were generalizations. Any of the ‘’Caucasian’’ features in the quote can be found in Africans without needing gene flow.
And yet, you sit here telling me that there is nothing wrong with your citation's typological characterizations, which have long fell out of use scientifically but you are still trying to defend.
You disagree, why is orthognathism not included in your African-sh Africoid; are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that this trait is not African-sh?
quote: Why not just go back to my original post to see the context in which I’ve used Archaic?
Ok then, I am assuming that you are referring to this, unless otherwise stated:
Archaic features can only refer to what is older, and Africans, Australians have a lot of those ''archaic'' features. Europeans don't have those features anymore because they have adapted. Some of the so called archaic features are:
These traits are archaic because homo erectus and Neanderthals had some or a combinations of those features. - Kalonji
In which case, there are still some further clarification questions:
1)Is the definition--as highlighted--that you gave, really the one research analysts go by?
2)What do you understand by steep jawline. Are you saying Africans have this, but Europeans don't?
Like wise:
Are you suggesting that Africans have "sloping foreheads", but Europeans don't?
Are you saying Africans have "protruding incisors" but Europeans don't?
You can repeat this line of question for the rest of your list.
3)Since you claim that Homo Erectus and Neanderthal had or some of these features, are you then implying that Africans craniometrically cluster closer to these hominid phyla than Europeans do, and/or by extension, that Africans will cluster out of modern human clusters and form their own separate cluster that is in between those hominids and the rest of humanity? If so, then I'd like to see empirical scientific demonstration of this. If not, then why would any sane person consider anything about modern Africans "archaic"?
Also, does the general human body plan not share elements with either of the said homonids; should those too not be deemed "archaic"? Europeans show closer crural and brachial indices with Neanderthals. Should that not be "archaic"? Body hair; some folks have more of it than others, like Europeans generally tend to. Should that not be archaic?
quote: Archaic is not an idea that I harbor, it is a word you can find in the dictionary. I do agree that our usage in this context may differ
Nuff said then. Anything else you rationalize after that is immaterial to my need for clarification.
quote:
but I wasn’t referring to my usage when I said:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: In my opinion, you can only have trouble observing that some features are in common with earlier species if you attach negative meaning to the word ''archaic'' or archaic hominids in general.
I was referring to your own usage and your own understanding of the word.
You are kidding right; why would you be referring to my "own usage", if I had not provided one herein? I have questioned others on their usage of the term, but I fail to see how that remotely resembles anything that needs to be attributed to me.
And in any case, if I did [which to repeat, was not done], should that not have told you what I "agree" with, right then and there? Why would you then have to ask me if I agree or disagree with my "own idea" of "archaic"? Don't you find anything comical about that mindset?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Explorer - I admire your patience, but fail to see the point. Certainly long ago, you realized what you were dealing with.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Lion - If the answer is affirmative, does that mean that I will have to carry your bags and otherwise be relegated to servitude?
Mike I don't recall what I said that prompted the response above...Pls remind me again..
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lion - I thought you indicated previously that you were Nigerian (West African). In the spirit of the ongoing nonsense, west Africans are the "true Negros" therefore "King-of-the-Negros", get it?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: I am not using any ruler. I am just explaining a citation to you that you don't understand. Like I told you earlier, whether you agree with it or not is another thing. I am also telling you why the citation is not doing what you said it is doing.
I’m perfectly aware of your point but I rest my case as you can’t seem to think further than the authors intentions which according to you just have the last word. You argue, well that’s how both species compare in general, ignoring the misinterpretations that can and will arise from such generalizations when they are not acknowledged as such. That is what makes this description in my opinion still incomplete at best. Everybody can see that being more clear and showing the complete picture can prevent racist/limited thinking.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: What do you mean by "systematically study people". Since you keep bringing up questionable ideas with each reply, you will be asked to clarify, if necessary. How you interpret this action, matters not to me.
Explorer, first you open up a whole new can of worms by challenging the content of my fictitious example, and now when you realize you barely have something to stand on in terms of providing evidence for science in ancient times you want me to explain myself? The so called ‘’questionable ideas’’ you accuse me of were known to you when you fed it back in your question:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: I hope this is not an inverted logic of an assumption that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people(?)
You could’ve asked me what I meant then, but instead you chose to find flaws in my fictional example which was meant to demonstrate a point that still remains inadequately answered.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: I would say the ancient Egyptians were quite adept at understanding human body, as it enabled them to do the functions they were able to do in their mummifications, and enabled them to put that to use in medicine, giving the Greeks chance to learn from them, allowing some of that knowledge to seep through to modern medicine. But this may be a digression, as it is a viewpoint that I'm expressing without fully understanding what you mean by "systematically understanding people".
Bwahahahahah, translation: they weren’t practicing science. While their knowledge was indeed very impressive, they did not systematically conduct research to find out knowledge about the human body through research and experimentation etc. They didn’t set out to explain natural phenomena they didn’t understand by doing research and coming to the most logical conclusions. They didn’t set rules for conducting such research and neither was there any authority to make sure those rules were followed. The example you give (mummification) is a very ancient practice, even older than the first dynasty so you can expect them to have a decent amount of knowledge about the human body. They relied on demons and evil spirits and gods for the most part to explain deceases and other things they couldn’t explain, just like any other contemporary culture. This is not characteristic of science in general.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: If that is not so, then why is its antonym according to your own citation, caucasoid? Why does it implicate traits that are presumably associated with the "forest negro"? Does your source implicate another African variation, that is different from the Africoid?
Listen, if the features in the ‘’Africoid’’ category managed to distinguish Egyptians from Europeans, and Egyptians are considered to be at the one end of the African spectrum and the so called ‘’Forest negro’’ at the other end, how can you then equate the label (‘’Africoid’’) with ‘’forest Negro’’?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer:
This doesn't make sense. East Africa is in fact amongst one of the most diverse areas of Africa.
Yes, all the more reason why Egyptians who are a part of this east African diversity shouldn’t have been classified in some label you equate with ‘’forest negro’’. But they did, so how can you call the category ‘’forest negro’’? This goes to show that the generalizations listed under ‘’Africoid’’ apply to a much larger range than you seem to be willing to admit. The only point where I can see I was wrong is the lack of explanation about variation, and the usage of terms like ‘’Caucasoid’’.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: I think I know the source being tacitly referenced here, but I'll let you provide the specifics anyway, before I can comment further on it.
The source is: Description of X-ray images of Royal Mummies in X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: So, "Caucasoid" traits are not African-ish?
The source uses generalizations in order to make distinctions between other populations. The higher occurrence of a feature in any given continent is what justifies the placement of a feature in either one of the categories. NOT the notion that the features (ortochnathous or others in ‘’caucasoid’’) was either developed there or is restricted to that place. Ortochnathous profiles and other manifestations of indigenous variations listed under ‘’Caucasoid’’ are according to my knowledge not the norm in southern Egypt, so it wouldn’t be useful to list it in Africoid. It would be far more useful to consider it in a indigenous variation context rather than as a feature you can expect to see in high frequencies in southern Egypt or in Africans in general. If we were to go to Senegal, Nilotic/Saharan populations or other African nations who are known to have ortochnathous profiles in high frequencies, it would be a different story.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Did your source mention celphalometric index in its definition, or nasal aperture? Then how do you know those very traits would not have been implicated as well, had the source found it necessary to implicate it?
Because the observations and evaluations were listed under each individual X-ray
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: And yet, you sit here telling me that there is nothing wrong with your citation's typological characterizations, which have long fell out of use scientifically but you are still trying to defend.
You disagree, why is orthognathism not included in your African-sh Africoid; are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that this trait is not African-sh?
Sigh….. Whenever someone agrees that whatever he says is a generalization (the features listed under ‘’Africoid’’ and ‘’Caucasoid’’), he acknowledges that there is variation and exception. That is why I said, the generalizations are only nonsense if you don’t understand the concept of variation. In my mind, there is no reason to list the features that are known to be the product of variation next to the ‘’Africoid’’ features that occur in way higher frequencies, because variation, in and of itself can include all the features in the world. What would be the useful about listing thousands of features that are not even the norm, or anything near the norm in a population like southern Egypt, next to features that are way more concrete and that have a higher occurrence? The way I see it, is that the features listed under ‘’Africoid’’ in the case of Egypt, would separate the bulk of the southern Egyptian crania from non African populations, and they did, if you look at the observations beneath the x-rays. The crania that vary, would then have to be studied further to find out what the cause of the variation is, whether its indigenous or the product of admixture. I highly doubt that individuals that exhibit indigenous variation would be devoid of ALL the features listed under ‘’Africoid’’ or other tropical features that weren’t listed, so that ortochnathous individuals like some of the 19th dy may still exhibit other tropical features, if one or two may be lacking.
Furthermore, if ortochnathous profiles were included in the Africoid category, rather than the variation category, how would one separate them from ortochnathous non Africans? Especially if you note that Egyptians are already on one end of the indigenous African spectrum, that borders on the spectrum of Europeans and thus harder to seperate? Wouldn’t that be counterproductive?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Since you claim that Homo Erectus and Neanderthal had or some of these features, are you then implying that Africans craniometrically cluster closer to these hominid phyla than Europeans do, and/or by extension, that Africans will cluster out of modern human clusters and form their own separate cluster that is in between those hominids and the rest of humanity? If so, then I'd like to see empirical scientific demonstration of this. If not, then why would any sane person consider anything about modern Africans "archaic"?
Certain features can be the same without a need to cluster per se, I don’t think they would cluster at all. Icelanders and Greeks have certain features in common but their populations don't cluster in the least. Researches make distinctions between earlier hominids and moderns, and if they would cluster to moderns, they would be modern, wouldn’t they? I’m not arguing for clustering, I’m arguing for retained features. It also depends on what you try to measure and whether or not those ‘’things’’ are found more in Europeans or Africans. The back of the head and teeth of Neanderthals reminds brace of northern Europeans, while the constant sloping foreheads, forwrd projection of the mouth region, retreading chin, etc would remind any objective observer of Africans (generalization). Anyone can type in the names of: Idaltu, Omo, Qafze, Skhull etc. and see that they have the features I listed, also, we all know that many Cro Magnons share features with Africans and Australians. And Australians DO have brow ridges, so why would you make noting archaic features in moderns a question of being sane?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Also, does the general human body plan not share elements with either of the said homonids; should those too not be deemed "archaic"? Europeans show closer crural and brachial indices with Neanderthals. Should that not be "archaic"? Body hair; some folks have more of it than others, like Europeans generally tend to. Should that not be archaic?
It seems to me that you would only agree to the observation of archaic features in modern people if the people in question are not (only) Africans. If this is true, I didn’t expect this bias from you. Retained archaic features are archaic features to me whether they occur in other people/me or not. But to answer your question, I don’t know if the features are retained because science hasn’t reached a consensus yet about whether or not Neanderthals had anything to do with their (european) ancestors. Cold adapted body plans in Europeans arose when the Neanderthals were (nearly) extinct. Africans, Australians and the ancestors of Eurasians on the other hand, morphed from homo erectus eventually to modern people, so what would you call those shared features I listed, if not retained? What would you call Australian brow ridges, if not retained from earlier hominids? Would you also deny retaining other features we share with erectus like standing up straight, walking on two feet and having a less projecting profile compared to pre erectus hominids?
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: You are kidding right; why would you be referring to my "own usage", if I had not provided one herein? I have questioned others on their usage of the term, but I fail to see how that remotely resembles anything that needs to be attributed to me.
The thing is, I don’t have to know about your personal usage of a word to know that you DO attach positive, neutral or negative meaning to it. Whenever something is in a specific context (archaic features in moderns), you can only have those three meanings attached to it (or a combination). You don’t have to provide your own usage of ‘’archaic’’ for me to know that simple, basic fact.
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: And in any case, if I did [which to repeat, was not done], should that not have told you what I "agree" with, right then and there? Why would you then have to ask me if I agree or disagree with my "own idea" of "archaic"? Don't you find anything comical about that mindset? Jep, especially when you note that I didn’t have that mindset.
To prevent this discussion from going in diffusal/scattered directions that aren't usefull to our aspirations to learn and get closer to the truth, I ask of you that we continue this discussion specifically on the topics of: the usefulness of features listed under ''africoid'' and ''Caucasoid'' and ''archaic'' features. So that there is actually a goal instead of just opposing eachother because there are oppertunitíes to do so(no accussation).
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: They relied on demons and evil spirits and gods for the most part to explain deceases and other things they couldn’t explain, just like any other contemporary culture
Question: when did scientific reasoning/induction begin?...never mind.
"yes, I do believe that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people."
posted
I don't know when precisely scienfic reasoning began. Reasoning that can be considered logically sound, prolly is scattered troughout human history. But reasoning that can be considered scientifically correct does not equate practicing science per se. What is your opinion?
posted
Ancient people knew a lot of things that we now consider to be true, I believe there are several quotes in the bible that say the earth is a sphere. We now know that this is scientifically correct.
I've read once that the proportions of the ark of noach are the best proportians for making a stable boat.
Another example is that the Greeks said that Ethiopians were the first men, this is now proven to be correct.
This does not mean that they were practicing science.
posted
I dont know where in the Bible it says the earth is a sphere; Noah's ark being "the best" proportions for stable boat is news to me and I think alot of people; I dont think Ethiopians were the "first men" either. But none of this has anything to do with the fact that Europeans [which one in your view] weren't the first to gain knowledge from experience/induction/scientific method and explain phenomena through this.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Ethiopians meaning burned faced people ofcourse, not abyssinian types. I get back at you some other time when I find the book that lists the sources that agree with the correct proportions of the biblical ark.
And the point still is, that the ancients could have used sound reasoning to come to conclusions we now consider scientifically correct, whether or not this is the case with those specific examples.
quote: But none of this has anything to do with the fact that Europeans [which one in your view] weren't the first to gain knowledge from experience/induction/scientific method and explain phenomena through this.
I make a clear distinction between systematic and consciously applying scientific methods as a habit to make sense of the world, and noticing things by observation, reasoning and trial and error. See my response to Explorer. If you can find me examples of ancient people who did that, I'll be more than happy to adjust my views.
posted
Your specific examples aside, a complex civilization such as ancient Egypt could not possibly be the result of trial and error, the opposite of inductive/scientific method. Mummification, Astrology, irrigation etc all can't be explain by chance trial and error living. The old racist view that sees the genesis of the scientific method starting with Aristotle and the Greeks is just that, racist, not basis in fact.
quote:systematic and consciously applying scientific methods
So the AE were clueless and unsystematic in their methods and what they were observing? The papyrus etc seems very methodological and sytematic. As for examples Ausarianstein already gave you mummification, your laughter in response does nothing to refute it.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Craniometric variation among modern human populations. (Craniometry is the technique of measuring the bones of the skull ).
Relethford JH.
Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College at Oneonta 13820.
Previous studies of genetic markers and mitochondrial DNA have found that the amount of variation among major geographic groupings of Homo sapiens is relatively low, accounting for roughly 10% of total variation. This conclusion has had implications for the study of human variation and consideration of alternative models for the origin of modern humans. By contrast, it has often been assumed that the level of among-group variation for morphological traits is much higher. This study examines the level of among-group variation based on craniometric data from a large sample of modern humans originally collected by W. W. Howells. A multivariate method based on quantitative genetics theory was used to provide an estimate of FST--a measure of among-group variation that can be compared with results from studies of genetic markers. Data for 57 craniometric variables on 1,734 crania were analyzed. These data represent six core areas: Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Australasia, Polynesia, the Americas, and the Far East. An additional set of analyses was performed using a three-region subset (Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Far East) to provide comparability with several genetic studies. The minimum FST (assuming complete heritability) for the three-region analysis is 0.065, and the minimum FST for the six-region analysis is 0.085. Both of these are less than the average FST from genetic studies (average estimates of 0.10-0.11). The smaller value of the minimum FST estimates is expected since it provides an estimate of FST expected under complete heritability. Using an estimate of average craniometric heritability from the literature provides an estimate of FST of 0.112 for the three-region analysis and 0.144 for the six-region analysis. These results show that genetic and craniometric data are in agreement, qualitatively and quantitatively, and that there is limited variation in modern humans among major geographic regions.
PMID: 7527996 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
While their knowledge was indeed very impressive, they did not systematically conduct research to find out knowledge about the human body through research and experimentation etc. They didn’t set out to explain natural phenomena they didn’t understand by doing research and coming to the most logical conclusions. They didn’t set rules for conducting such research and neither was there any authority to make sure those rules were followed. The example you give (mummification) is a very ancient practice, even older than the first dynasty so you can expect them to have a decent amount of knowledge about the human body. They relied on demons and evil spirits and gods for the most part to explain deceases and other things they couldn’t explain, just like any other contemporary culture. This is not characteristic of science in general.
There was no habit that encompassed all the above so that new discoveries and innovations could flow freely, habitually and purposefully every day. There was no habit that allowed them to test and get rid of the beliefs (if nessecary)that were typical of those times.
You leave out the fact that Egypt was a very conservative country that didn't change much through the course of its history in terms of art, beliefs about the world etc. Most things that were great about Egypt were already in place when Egypt was unified. -Writing -Astrology -Mummification -Irrigation -Pottery -Art -Cosmetics -Mining -Metalworking -Medicine etc etc
You would expect more innovation by the time of the Common era if they were indeed practicing scientific methods by habit to explore the world and phenomena they didn't understand, not only in the things they were already skilled by the time of the 1st dynasty, but also in the things they didn't have by the time of the first dynasty.
I'm don't consider the ancient Greeks to have done the above neither.
posted
Conservative society or not they couldn't have made any breakthroughs in any of those fields and kept an organized society running that long if they were organized on haphard, unsystematic chance living.
In fact, trial and error isn't quite the opposite of inductive/scientific method. In fact your "clear distinction" is a false dichotomy as trial and error (experimentation), noticing things by observation are all part of the so-called scientific method. What I should have said was that their civilization was not the result of clueless haphazard living but quite systematic. The use of the senses (realism) as oppose to coming to know through deductive reasoning, mind (idealism) is seen as indispensible to the scientific method.
quote: I'm don't consider the ancient Greeks to have done the above neither.
Good for you, but I was really referring to Eurocentric history which has always traced the genesis of the scientific method to Aristotle: i.e. scientific observation, recording, and classification etc. Of course Aristotle and the Greeks were but children in the mysteries so that credit should rightfully go to the AEs.
The fact that mummification it is an old practice does not mean it was not the result of careful and systematic observation, study and recording. Your views on the ancients are outdated, a product of the Enlightenment [though not Newton or the freemasons] where the rationalists and empiricists [again a lot of them came out of the lodges] were reacting to the extremes of the church, were so self absorbed they thought no one else [save the Greeks] came up with this "new" way of organizing society based on reason and logic. But even during this time not everyone agreed with this Greek-centric view, esp. the freemasons and even Newton.
Simply put your statement [I'm thinking your "fawal" but anyway] that the Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people is just not true as it ignores not only AE but the Moorish civilization as well.
quote:There was no habit that encompassed all the above so that new discoveries and innovations could flow freely, habitually and purposefully every day. There was no habit that allowed them to test and get rid of the beliefs (if nessecary)that were typical of those times.
Europeans are not as freethinking and unique in this regard as you would like to think. This conservatism is characteristic of our age as well. The belief that six million Jews were killed in nazi gas chambers has never been proven i.e. put to scientific test and openly debated.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh my god, I was so wrong, you're actually right. -Egyptians -Greeks -Sumerians -Indus valley inhabitants
They were all one big happy family who were consciously practicing science. You're totally right. Just because the Egyptians had ''high civilization'' they all consciously asked questions about the world, constructed hypotheses, conducted experiments, analyzed results, drew conclusions and published their results, right? As a matter of fact, that might explain why they couldn’t see the relation between putting feces on open wounds and having people die because of infection. They could also raise their average life span above 40 years by applying scientific methods. They also could find out through scientific method why the remnants of their grinders in their bread caused their teeth to wear out by conducting such research. But even more important, because they conducted science, they were able to construct several conflicting creation theories and still not be uncomfortable with all of them being taught to their people in different temples. Seth butt-raping Horus could actually cause the sperm to talk in his body and by tricking Seth by capturing Seths sperm in his hand, the young Horus prevented such an embarrassment from happen in front of the gods. He developed a plan to do the same thing to Seth by ejaculating on food so he could embarrass Seth. Jep, sounds like a science practicing society to me!
NOTT
By the way, I’m not dissing ancient Egypt, I love ancient Egypt, but the picture of them practing science to the extent that they not in a few cases, but were consciously and habitually were
-Asking questions -Constructing hypotheses -Conducting experiments -Analyzing results -drew conclusions -Published results -Have authorities check up on those results
In order to solve their problems and find truth is just preposterous to me. I’ll just leave it at that.
posted
Before I respond I would still like to know when exactly did Europeans "develop science to systematically study people"? You omit the ancient Greeks, which goes against even Eurocentric convention, so I would like to know when exactly is your starting date or general time frame.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
I’m perfectly aware of your point but I rest my case as you can’t seem to think further than the authors intentions which according to you just have the last word.
Your reply to me says you are not aware of my point, and hence, the non-sequitur that follows, including that remark. It's simple: the piece is neither "agreeing with you" as you said earlier, nor is it doing what you said it was doing. It has nothing to do with the citation having the last word; it is about you not understanding the citation.
quote: You argue, well that’s how both species compare in general, ignoring the misinterpretations that can and will arise from such generalizations when they are not acknowledged as such.
I'll say this for the last time, and while you struggle with it, I am sure those who can read will understand what's being said:
Notwisthstanding variation among recent humans, when compared to the earlier hominids, recent humans have the following traits:
high forehead, small teeth and jaw, defined chin
In other words: The variations in recent humans pale in comparison to the stark differences in these traits between recent humans and earlier hominids...so that the examples above would be interpreted this way: compared with earlier hominids, recent humans generally have "higher foreheads, smaller teeth and jaw, and more defined chin". The micro-evolutionary variations in humans does not change this.
The citation goes onto say this:
Some of these features were possessed by the immediate ancestor, Homo erectus; but in the aggregate they are characteristic only of Homo sapiens.
We were not given what "some of those features" entail from the given citation, but it is safe to assume that this would have been, for example, the following trait: characteristics and habits such as bipedal stance and gait
As for cranial capacity, the citation says: brain capacity averaging about 82 cubic inches
Naturally variations of cranial capacities exist in recent humans, but the piece is contextualizing this as the average estimation in the trends observed. In other words, the lows and highs cannot be starkly deviant from the average estimation, but in nearby ranges.
The above explanation is not saying that the given citation has the "last word" as you fallaciously put in my mouth, but it is saying that you were wrongly reading the piece. Got it now?
quote: That is what makes this description in my opinion still incomplete at best. Everybody can see that being more clear and showing the complete picture can prevent racist/limited thinking.
What are the names of these "everybody"? You are the one here grappling with the given citation. You first use the citation as something that supposedly "agrees with what you said", which is not apparent, and then, you say that you were using the source to point out its flaws.
quote:
Explorer, first you open up a whole new can of worms by challenging the content of my fictitious example, and now when you realize you barely have something to stand on in terms of providing evidence for science in ancient times you want me to explain myself?
You brought up the "whole new can of worms" when you presented your "fictitious example", which you confirmed, is communicating from that "inverted" underlying premise that I suggested. So, your protest is dismissed.
As for legs to stand on, well, you have offered no clarification as you were requested to do, of your idea.
quote: The so called ‘’questionable ideas’’ you accuse me of were known to you when you fed it back in your question:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: I hope this is not an inverted logic of an assumption that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people(?)
You could’ve asked me what I meant then, but instead you chose to find flaws in my fictional example which was meant to demonstrate a point that still remains inadequately answered.
I did ask for what you meant. You just chose to outright lie about my not asking for clarification on what you mean by "first to develop science to systematically study people". Also, you are dead wrong; I have offered no comment on it, other than draw the obvious connection that I made above about the "inverted logic" -- that's it; and you responded with this nonsense.
Knowing the "inverted" premise of your idea, does not tell me the material details that forms its basis, and hence, request for those material details.
quote:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: I would say the ancient Egyptians were quite adept at understanding human body, as it enabled them to do the functions they were able to do in their mummifications, and enabled them to put that to use in medicine, giving the Greeks chance to learn from them, allowing some of that knowledge to seep through to modern medicine. But this may be a digression, as it is a viewpoint that I'm expressing without fully understanding what you mean by "systematically understanding people".
Bwahahahahah, translation: they weren’t practicing science.
Why would that not be science? Elaborate.
quote: While their knowledge was indeed very impressive, they did not systematically conduct research to find out knowledge about the human body through research and experimentation etc.
How does one have procedures for mummifications and for medicine, if not from "systematically conducting research" to gain knowledge "about the human body"? Explain.
quote:
They didn’t set out to explain natural phenomena they didn’t understand by doing research and coming to the most logical conclusions. They didn’t set rules for conducting such research and neither was there any authority to make sure those rules were followed.
Re: research -- Again, see and answer above. Who's supposed to be "authority" to make sure rules were followed? Doctors/healers were/are the authorities of medicine and the curators were the authorities of mummification. There; now what?
quote: The example you give (mummification) is a very ancient practice, even older than the first dynasty so you can expect them to have a decent amount of knowledge about the human body.
Precisely my point. And because they knew the human body considerably enough, they were able to develop medicinal procedures to cure ailments. Some of these techniques would become useful not only to ancient Greeks, but also modern medicine.
Yes, mummification was very ancient, and hence, the name ancient Egyptians. However, not all ancient societies practiced it, nor did all necessarily--if any at all--have the then *advanced* techniques that the ancient Egyptians used in their mummification.
quote: They relied on demons and evil spirits and gods for the most part to explain deceases and other things they couldn’t explain, just like any other contemporary culture. This is not characteristic of science in general.
Quote:
"It was not practiced by witch doctors as in primitive tribes, with mixture of magic, herbal remedy, and superstitious beliefs. This was acknowledged by Homer in the Odyssey:
“In Egypt, the men are more skilled in Medicine than any of human kind”.
...A wall painting in a Thebean grave of the 18th dynasty (1400 BC) depicts “Nebamun”, scribe and physician of the king, receiving a Syrian prince paying him for his services in gifts. According to Herodotus, King Cyrus of Persia has requested Amasis (Ahmose II of the 26th dynasty, 560 BC) to send him the most skilful of all the Egyptian eye-doctors...
THE CAUSES OF DISEASES, ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY:
... their study of anatomy and physiology was so advanced. No doubt, this was **due to their embalming of the dead, when other nations at that time used to burn them.**
For instance, the process of emptying the skull through the nostrils by means of a long hook could have never been devised without a good knowledge of the anatomy of the head and brain. In our modern medicine, many brain surgeries are nowadays performed through this route.
They obtained a good knowledge of the meninges, the cerebrospinal fluid, and the twitches and pulsations, and were aware that the brain was the seat of the body control.
"If thou examines a man having a gaping wound in his head penetrating to the bone, smashing his skull, and rending open the brain of his skull, thou shouldst palpate his wound. Shouldst thou find that smash which in his skull like those corrugations which form in molten copper, and something therein throbbing and fluttering under thy fingers, like the weak place of an infant's crown before it becomes whole- when it has happened there is no throbbing and fluttering under thy fingers until the brain of his skull is rent open and he discharges blood from both his nostrils, and he suffers with stiffness in his neck."
The Ebers Papyrus describes the position of the heart precisely, and illustrates some of its disorders, as dropped beats. Egyptian physicians recognized the heart as the source of blood vessels. They were aware that the blood vessels were hollow, having a mouth which opens to absorb medications, eliminate waste elements, distribute air and body secretions and excretions, in a confusion between blood vessels and other passages, as ureters.
The physiology of blood circulation was demonstrated in the Edwin Smith Papyrus, together with the its relation to the heart, as well as awareness of the importance of the pulse.
“It is there that the heart speaks”, and
“It is there that every physician and every priest of Sekhmet places his fingers…… …he feels something from the heart”.
They also knew that blood supply runs from the heart to all organs of the body.
"There are vessels in him for every part of the body”.
“It speaks forth in the vessels of every body part”.
However, their inability to distinguish between blood vessels, nerves, tendons and channels has limited their full understanding of the physiology of circulation..." - end Quote
Source: Full content, aside from intro statements, are by Dr. Sameh M. Arab, Associate Professor of Cardiology - Alexandria University - Egypt, member of several scientific societies, both national and international, of which are: Egyptian Society of Cardiology, the European Society of Cardiology, Founder member and Member of Board of Directors of the Egyptian Society of Pediatric Cardiology and Founder of the Congenital Heart Division of the Alexandria Patients' Welfare Association for financing charity treatment for children with congenital heart dieasesm, and has several publications in the field of diagnosis and treatment of congenital heart diseases in children and newborns, paticularly by catheter (non-surgical) interventions.
Tell me, in the above, where demons and gods are required? How does someone relying on demons and gods for heeling, have the knowledge described above? Shouldn't relying on gods and demons remove the need to know about the internal body system?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:How does one have procedures for mummifications and for medicine, if not from "systematically conducting research" to gain knowledge "about the human body"? Explain...where demons and gods are required? How does someone relying on demons and gods for heeling, have the knowledge described above? Shouldn't relying on gods and demons remove the need to know about the internal body system?
posted
I told you before, I don't know when specifically the world started to adopt a ''scientific'' mindset. Kinda hard to pin point something that has taken centuries to develop, to the more or less complete state we find it in today, don’t you think?
Why don't you focus on finding multiple examples of cases where ancient Egyptians consciously practiced the actions I listed?
You try to dispute a fact (no scientist in Egypt) by trying to illicit my subjective opinion about the exact date of the start of ''scientific method'' in Europe. My subjective opinion on the precise date does nothing to the fact that it was not present in Egypt or anything contemporary LOL.
Also, note that you refused to answer my questions , so why would I make efforts to answer yours?
quote: Many practices were ineffective or harmful. Michael D. Parkins says that 72% of 260 medical prescriptions in the Hearst Papyrus had no known curative elements,[8] and many contained animal dung which contains products of fermentation and molds, some of them having curative properties,[9] but also bacteria posing a grave threat of infection. Being unable to distinguish between the original infection and the unwholesome effects of the faeces treatment, they may have been impressed by the few cases when the patient's condition improved.
In case someone doubts the feces example I posted earlier.
Any responses after the Hearst Papyrus containing 72% ‘’non curative elements’’ noted above^ that still tries to argue for scientist in ancient Egypt will be ignored, unless you can provide flaws in how Michael D Parkins came to his conclusion.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I told you before, I don't know when specifically the world started to adopt a ''scientific'' mindset. Kinda hard to pin point something that has taken centuries to develop,
Surely you must be able to give us a general time frame, an era, century. Pioneering historical figures. Something.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Listen, if the features in the ‘’Africoid’’ category managed to distinguish Egyptians from Europeans, and Egyptians are considered to be at the one end of the African spectrum and the so called ‘’Forest negro’’ at the other end, how can you then equate the label (‘’Africoid’’) with ‘’forest Negro’’?
I just explained to you how, and yet you are still asking me how. And no, those who say ancient Egyptians are "Caucasoid" are not saying Egyptians are "at one end of the African spectrum".
quote: Yes, all the more reason why Egyptians who are a part of this east African diversity shouldn’t have been classified in some label you equate with ‘’forest negro’’.
Who classified Egyptians into "some label I equate with "forest negro""? Why did they make this classification; and why is the antonym classification "Caucasoid"?
quote: But they did, so how can you call the category ‘’forest negro’’? This goes to show that the generalizations listed under ‘’Africoid’’ apply to a much larger range than you seem to be willing to admit.
You engage in much inexplicable telepathy, perhaps through those demons and gods you claim that ancient Egyptians medically relied on, but produce little in way of making objective observations. What generalizations "listed under Africoid" are larger than "I see to be willing to admit", if the generalizations made under Africoid were already given in what you cited? Does you source give us any details about these larger generalizations? If not, then apparently your gods & demons-invoked telepathy has failed you.
quote: The only point where I can see I was wrong is the lack of explanation about variation, and the usage of terms like ‘’Caucasoid’’
That "wrong" is more than plenty. See above as well, for questions you decided not to answer, from my last post prior to these last two.
quote:
The source is: Description of X-ray images of Royal Mummies in X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies
I thought so.
First of all, your citation originally comes from a website that claims to be making references from the X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).
This does not tell me that Jim Harris and Ed Wente actually applied those concepts themselves as your citation puts it.
Secondly, that same website says this:
The purpose of this study is to refute the argument that the Pharaohs did not conform to the "Negroid" phenotype, but not to support any biological basis of the concept of race.
Which suggests to me that the author is well aware of the outdated concepts that he/she is about to use, but professes to use them nonetheless just to make some point. It also speaks of "negroid", which in outdated racial typology, is essentially a euphemism for the highly idealized "forest negro". No less interesting, is that it is saying that it is using said traits to "prove" the idea wrong, that ancient Egyptians did not conform to "negroid phenotype". What does that tell you then; that the other viewpoint is that ancient Egyptians were not "negroid".
Gist: Your citation only reaffirms my point.
quote:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: So, "Caucasoid" traits are not African-ish?
The source uses generalizations in order to make distinctions between other populations. The higher occurrence of a feature in any given continent is what justifies the placement of a feature in either one of the categories.
So, the so-called "caucasoid" traits does NOT have high occurrence in the African continent, and should therefore be dismissed? What material scientific backing can you produce for the justification of this dismissal? And above all, why did your source feel compelled to "disprove" that ancient Egyptians did not conform to "negroid", and hence, Africoid phenotype, if we are to take at face value what you say about "norms"?
quote: NOT the notion that the features (ortochnathous or others in ‘’caucasoid’’) was either developed there or is restricted to that place. Ortochnathous profiles and other manifestations of indigenous variations listed under ‘’Caucasoid’’ are according to my knowledge not the norm in southern Egypt, so it wouldn’t be useful to list it in Africoid.
So then, according to you, prognathism is the "norm" in southern Egypt; according to what comprehensive cranio-metric analysis of that region? Also, what about nasal aperture; one of the central features of the so-called "caucasoid" typology? Cephalometric index?
quote: It would be far more useful to consider it in a indigenous variation context rather than as a feature you can expect to see in high frequencies in southern Egypt or in Africans in general. If we were to go to Senegal, Nilotic/Saharan populations or other African nations who are known to have ortochnathous profiles in high frequencies, it would be a different story.
Your post shows a mindset embroiled in contradiction. On the one hand, you imply that African variation should be dismissed in favor of baseless "generalization", and on the other, you speak of high incidences of these very same variations amongst those "who are known to have orthognathous profiles" that we are supposed to dismiss under your banner of typological generalization.
quote:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: Did your source mention celphalometric index in its definition, or nasal aperture? Then how do you know those very traits would not have been implicated as well, had the source found it necessary to implicate it?
Because the observations and evaluations were listed under each individual X-ray
Good. Where does your source place these traits in its cranio-phsyiological dichotomy? What are we told about these "Africoid" cephalometric index and nasal aperture that distinguishes it from "caucasoid", the only other variant your source cites?
quote:
Sigh….. Whenever someone agrees that whatever he says is a generalization (the features listed under ‘’Africoid’’ and ‘’Caucasoid’’), he acknowledges that there is variation and exception.
You mean like overlapping variations; if so, according to what source? The whole root premise of these typological concepts is to restrict variation, and compartmentalize it to rigid, clearly demarcated and idealized types. This is one of the reasons why these concepts objectively fail and can no longer be scientifically tenable, and why they have scientifically fallen out of use. Ever heard of the expression: "variations within populations tend to be greater than those between populations"?
quote: That is why I said, the generalizations are only nonsense if you don’t understand the concept of variation. In my mind, there is no reason to list the features that are known to be the product of variation next to the ‘’Africoid’’ features that occur in way higher frequencies, because variation, in and of itself can include all the features in the world.
That is right: it is in "your mind", and hence, baseless opinion that has no objective backing. You disagree; let's see empirical scientific demonstration of your generalization.
Your source cites one variation, which is "caucasoid", and yet, in your mind, you see no reason to cite "other variations" which are presumably "products of variation" ? Gosh, do you even read what you write?
quote:
What would be the useful about listing thousands of features that are not even the norm
So, orthognathism is not a norm in Africa? According to what empirical continental-wide scientific study?
quote: Furthermore, if ortochnathous profiles were included in the Africoid category, rather than the variation category, how would one separate them from ortochnathous non Africans?
The variation category, which in your case, would be that lone "caucasoid" category. The answer is: you can't separate them, and precisely why your rigid typological constructs fail.
quote: Certain features can be the same without a need to cluster per se, I don’t think they would cluster at all. Icelanders and Greeks have certain features in common but their populations don't cluster in the least. Researches make distinctions between earlier hominids and moderns, and if they would cluster to moderns, they would be modern, wouldn’t they?
Wrong question posed as an answer. You were asked if Africans formed their own separate cluster outside that of other recent humans, in a plot involving earlier hominids, since you generalized Africans as having "archaic" features, which they presumably share with earlier hominids. Hence, you were also asked if Africans would first cluster to these hominids than they do to other recent humans, not to mention the notion that Africans somehow cluster closer to these hominids than other recent humans. Your non-responsive posturing suggests you have no material backing for your claims.
quote: I’m not arguing for clustering, I’m arguing for retained features. It also depends on what you try to measure and whether or not those ‘’things’’ are found more in Europeans or Africans.
"Retained" features translates into "affinities", and "affinities" translate into clustering. Simple . If that were not so, then your whole case about "archaic" falls apart quite swiftly.
Any cephalometric analysis will generally take into account the variable/features you described in your list. So, there really is no excuse for not supporting your uncorroborated opinions.
quote: The back of the head and teeth of Neanderthals reminds brace of northern Europeans, while the constant sloping foreheads, forwrd projection of the mouth region, retreading chin, etc would remind any objective observer of Africans (generalization).
Like which "objecitve observer"; provide the name(s), and specifics of this "objective observer's" empirical scientific observations that answer the host of unanswered questions I put to you earlier, with regards to those traits. Otherwise, this is just another logical fallacy.
quote: Anyone can type in the names of: Idaltu, Omo, Qafze, Skhull etc. and see that they have the features I listed, also, we all know that many Cro Magnons share features with Africans and Australians. And Australians DO have brow ridges, so why would you make noting archaic features in moderns a question of being sane?
It's simple really. Variations amongst recent humans pale in comparison to stark distinctions between them and earlier hominids. The distinctions are stark, precisely because change has occurred, and hence, insane to render some micro-evolutionary variations between recent humans as "archaic" while others "not archaic". Yes, Australian aborigines are known to have brow ridges, but so do recent Europeans. Now what?
quote:
It seems to me that you would only agree to the observation of archaic features in modern people if the people in question are not (only) Africans.
On what material basis would you assume that?
quote: If this is true, I didn’t expect this bias from you.
I guess the answer is right here: you have no basis for that assumption.
quote: Retained archaic features are archaic features to me whether they occur in other people/me or not.
Then much of your own anatomy would be archaic, don't you think?
quote: But to answer your question, I don’t know if the features are retained because science hasn’t reached a consensus yet about whether or not Neanderthals had anything to do with their (european) ancestors. Cold adapted body plans in Europeans arose when the Neanderthals were (nearly) extinct. Africans, Australians and the ancestors of Eurasians on the other hand, morphed from homo erectus eventually to modern people, so what would you call those shared features I listed, if not retained?
You fail to answer my question, only saying that you "don't know", yet have the audacity to say other features implicated in earlier hominids are "retained" in Africans, and that they are "archaic"? Rather, you go onto merely ask me a question, which quite frankly, has nothing to do with anything I've said.
quote: What would you call Australian brow ridges, if not retained from earlier hominids?
Simple. I would call it "brow ridges", as you just did. I know the Australian aborigines who have them, likely have them because it is a product of micro-evolution, possibly stemming from the interplay of dietary habits, lifestyle and pressures of the external environment. It is not even certain if elements in the successful OOA a.m.h. migrants had this trait, but certainly, Africans who have deeper-root clades lack it. This suggests that the trait in Australians is more than likely a matter of micro-evolution than retention of the trait. If so, is it reasonable to call it "archaic"?
quote: Would you also deny retaining other features we share with erectus like standing up straight, walking on two feet and having a more straighter profile compared to pre erectus hominids?
Red herring.
quote:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer: You are kidding right; why would you be referring to my "own usage", if I had not provided one herein? I have questioned others on their usage of the term, but I fail to see how that remotely resembles anything that needs to be attributed to me.
The thing is, I don’t have to know about your personal usage of a word to know that you DO attach positive, neutral or negative meaning to it.
Well, then why would you be asking me if I agreed or disagreed with my own usage of the word, if a) I had not provided one to begin with, and b)if you don't know what that usage is?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Many practices were ineffective or harmful. Michael D. Parkins says that 72% of 260 medical prescriptions in the Hearst Papyrus had no known curative elements,[8] and many contained animal dung which contains products of fermentation and molds, some of them having curative properties,[9] but also bacteria posing a grave threat of infection. Being unable to distinguish between the original infection and the unwholesome effects of the faeces treatment, they may have been impressed by the few cases when the patient's condition improved.
In case someone doubts the feces example I posted earlier.
Any responses after the Hearst Papyrus containing 72% ‘’non curative elements’’ noted above^ that still tries to argue for scientist in ancient Egypt will be ignored, unless you can provide flaws in how Michael D Parkins came to his conclusion.
Kalonji
Your logic is bankrupt. Nobody is implying that there were no flaws in their methodology. Heck, there are flaws in todays medicine as well. However, they did have "procedures" in treating people medically. They certainly had procedures for mummification. You have offered no evidence that suggests that this was anything but systematic, and attained from a learning about the human body. If one is to take Parkins claims at face value, then one would have to assume that the ancient Egyptians must have seen enough success rate in their treatment, such that they would incorporate it into practice, no? The Egyptians may not have gotten everything right, and not expected to, but they certainly lay foundations, as briefly demonstrated in the piece I cited.
There is a considerable span of time since the ancient Egyptians and recent times. Your idea that Europeans were the first to systematically study people assumes that it was some spontaneous development that just came about recently, and that since antiquity, science was arrested. What proof do offer for this, other than your subjective personal opinion.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I told you before, I don't know when specifically the world started to adopt a ''scientific'' mindset
Kalonji, you said Europeans first developed this systematic study I'm thinking it must be before the ninth century as your own source talks about European scientific schools at this time "reviving the tradition of the Ancient schools" - predictably though it cites only ancient Greece. But this is problematic for you as you lumped Greece with Egypt as not practicing science societies. Your own source claims science was being practiced then.
quote:Heck, there are flaws in todays medicine as well.
In fact Europeans were conducting flawed bizarre procedures right up to the 19th century as documented in Terence McLaughlin's Dirt and Conklin's Consuming Grief. Thats why I would love to know when is Kalonjis time frame for this scientific breakthrough by Europeans that was suppose to be so different from ancient societies.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Originally posted by Kalonji: I told you before, I don't know when specifically the world started to adopt a ''scientific'' mindset[b]
quote:Kalonji, you said Europeans first developed this systematic study I'm thinking it must be before the ninth century as your own source talks about European scientific schools at this time [b]"reviving the tradition of the Ancient schools" - predictably though it cites only ancient Greece. But this is problematic for you as you lumped Greece with Egypt as not practicing science societies. Your own source claims science was being practiced then.
^^ your critique has a point. Kalonji's claim is flawed because he is comparing ancient Egyptians to today's modern science. In any such comparison model, of course the ancients will come of looking "backward." A more apt comparison is of Europe contemporaneous with ancient Egypt. Let us ask: Did the ancient Germans or Celtics or Slavs contemporaneous with the ancient Egyptians have the glorious indicators of scietific study of humans that kalonji claims? i.e.
-Asking questions -Constructing hypotheses -Conducting experiments -Analyzing results -drew conclusions -Published results -Have authorities check up on those results
They didn't- so there goes most of Europe in an apples to apples ancient period comparison. Some may argue for Greeks but they too come up short on the list above. What "peer reviewed journals" existed in ancient Greece for medical findings to be "published" therein? And what "authorities" for example checked up on these findings and results? Modern Europeans were to invoke certain Greek writings as if they were light from heaven, but were they indeed so in a broad sense for most of Greece or mostly the writings of a select few cherry picked to fit whatever model the modern European wanted them to fit? If the measurement is to be made against modern practice, then the touted "advances" of the ancient Greeks are less than impressive.
The touted "rationalism" of the Greeks for example, was laughably invoked at the end of "300 Spartans" where the noble Greeks sallied forth to fight against Persian "superstition." In fact, the vaunted Greeks themselves were steeped in "superstition" and "irrationality." A look at their WHOLE record on medicine for example offers little indication of earth-shattering brilliance using hte comparison approach above.
Persian "superstition" versus Greek "rationality"
Quote:
"Drugs were applied not because of a belief that they had natural healing properties, but following the tenets of primitive medicine, because they had magical powers. he Greek word pharmakon, usually translated as "drug: originally designated a substance with magic powers. These powers, however, did not need to be therapeutic, (a pharmakon could be a poison or could turn humans into animals) but were originally considered to me magic..
Supernaturalistic medicine is characterized by a multiplicity of powers that can heal and kill. Primitive Greek medicine was no exception and many Greek gods had healing functions: Apollo, the first deity invoked in the Hippocratic oath; Vulcan, worshipped in Lemnos, gave his healing powers to terra lemmnia, Juno, Jupiter's wife assisted women in childbirth.. In addition some of the gods could cause sudden death: for example, both Apollo and Diana could shoot lethal darts at humans.." (--A history of medicine by Plinio Priorescho 2004)
The medical studies of the ancient Egyptians, Chinese and Babylonians show skill and insight every bit as great as that of the Greeks. The studies of Hippocrates were impressive to be sure and deserving of credit, but similar systematic observation can be found in Chinese and Near Eastern medical treatises. Hippocrates receives much press, but as a WHOLE, most Greek medicine was roughly based on the same natural balance of force concepts- the "humors" - as that found among other contemporaneous peoples.
In addition to all the Greek gods were assorted heroes and demigods with a piece of the medicinal action. Orpheus was a bard, seer but also physician, while Dioscuri, Castor and Pollux, the twin sons of Jupiter and Leda (a mortal girl raped by Jupiter/Zeus) came to the rescue of those in danger on the battlefield, on the high seas or sick. Their cult was widespread in Roman times and continued into the Christian era. The Centaur Chiron was considered a founder of medicine and a discovered of the medicinal properties so herbs. This however did not save him from being killed by Hercules via a poisoned arrow for which his "erb" had no answer. He was later transformed into the constellation Sagittarius for his troubles by a generous Jupiter.
quote:In fact Europeans were conducting flawed bizarre procedures right up to the 19th century as documented in Terence McLaughlin's Dirt and Conklin's Consuming Grief. Thats why I would love to know when is Kalonjis time frame for this scientific breakthrough by Europeans that was suppose to be so different from ancient societies.
Excellent question. As for those bizarre European procedures, while sanctimoniously condemning "barbarous" practices of non-European peoples, said Euros were themselves indulging in such things as cannibalism until comparatively recently.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh my god, you seriously have to be the most dens person I’ve ever met, not only that, in almost all your posts, you misrepresent what I was saying. This will be the last time I’ll ever engage in any discussion with you. Consider this my last reply.
quote: You brought up the "whole new can of worms" when you presented your "fictitious example", which you confirmed, is communicating from that "inverted" underlying premise that I suggested. So, your protest is dismissed.
So you agree that you were suggesting ‘’inverted logic’’ and not asking clarification in response to my example? Good. Note how you’re contradicting yourself and lying about me being a liar, because I noted correctly that you were NOT asking for clarification in your original post. Dumbass
quote: As for legs to stand on, well, you have offered no clarification as you were requested to do, of your idea.
More idiocy, you know what science is, and if you don’t, you can look it up in the dictionary. If I was actually wrong about my position about no science in Egypt, you could then refute me. The question is, why don’t you do that? Because you know that statements can be easily refuted, but not the dictionary or any institution that gives a complete description of what science entailes. You also know that a complete description of science would not support a presence of science in ancient Egypt.
quote: I did ask for what you meant. You just chose to outright lie about my not asking for clarification on what you mean by "first to develop science to systematically study people".
Well, then let’s go back to what you said in response to my Aboriginal example:
quote: I hope this is not an inverted logic of an assumption that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people(?) But to answer the question that follows, it still goes back to what I just said above.
And that is supposed to be a question asking for ‘’clarification’’ on why I think science started in Europe? It’s an accusation about using ‘’inverted logic’’ hidden in a question and it doesn’t ask for elaboration, so it is you who is lying about
quote: ‘’ I did ask for what you meant’’
and
quote: ‘’ You just chose to outright lie about my not asking for clarification’’.
You didn’t ask for clarification until I alerted you about certain requirements for something to be considered science.
quote: Science requires more than making observations and writing them down. I’m curious if any of the examples you will kindly give in your next post reflect those requirements.
quote: Why would that not be science? Elaborate. Idiot, why do you always have to rely on what I say to refute me? Why don’t you just look in the dictionary?
quote: How does one have procedures for mummifications and for medicine, if not from "systematically conducting research" to gain knowledge "about the human body"? Explain.
You’re so dense that you even fail to understand that the whole purpose of mummification doesn’t even have a scientific basis. Someone who tries to mummify a dead person thinking that the person is going to reincarnate using the same body clearly isn’t practicing science. Furthermore, it doesn’t make me a scientist if I have the knowledge needed to do what they did when they tried to mummify someone. The role a dry desert plays in mummification also totally fly past your dense head.
quote: Re: research -- Again, see and answer above. Who's supposed to be "authority" to make sure rules were followed? Doctors/healers were/are the authorities of medicine and the curators were the authorities of mummification. There; now what?
Because that leaves room for scam artists, practices like using cow dung and feces etc. Yet, your dense head can’t even comprehend that LOL.
quote: Precisely my point. And because they knew the human body considerably enough, they were able to develop medicinal procedures to cure ailments. Some of these techniques would become useful not only to ancient Greeks, but also modern medicine.
Exactly, and knowing how to do that would make someone a scientist right? Whatever happened to conducting research about WHY something works? Whatever happened to finding ways to isolate the useful chemicals in the used medicines to more effectively treat illnesses? All tribal society’s have medicine, and fear of not making it to the other world, which in itself is scientifically illogic, would force anyone to find out whatever he needs to know about making a mummy. This has little to do with practicing science. If it does, then better be ready to acknowledge all mummy producing and medicine using societies, scientist. Besides, certain Africans are using sugar in wounds, and that is making its way into western medicine now, does that mean they’re scientist? Certain tribal Africans know thousands of different plants that have certain effects, would that make them scientist? Stupid idiot
quote: Yes, mummification was very ancient, and hence, the name ancient Egyptians. However, not all ancient societies practiced it, nor did all necessarily--if any at all--have the then *advanced* techniques that the ancient Egyptians used in their mummification.
Yeah yeah whatever stop talking out of your neck. Not all ancient societies practiced it? So what are you saying, that that would make them scientist? You keep talking out the side of your neck, any scientist would know that knowledge to mummify doesn’t equate being a scientist. You also seen to conveniently leave out that Libya is a very likely contestant for having originated it.
quote: "It was not practiced by witch doctors as in primitive tribes, with mixture of magic, herbal remedy, and superstitious beliefs. This was acknowledged by Homer in the Odyssey:
Nutcase, since when is Homer an authority? Dream on
quote: They obtained a good knowledge of the meninges, the cerebrospinal fluid, and the twitches and pulsations, and were aware that the brain was the seat of the body control.
"If thou examines a man having a gaping wound in his head penetrating to the bone, smashing his skull, and rending open the brain of his skull, thou shouldst palpate his wound. Shouldst thou find that smash which in his skull like those corrugations which form in molten copper, and something therein throbbing and fluttering under thy fingers, like the weak place of an infant's crown before it becomes whole- when it has happened there is no throbbing and fluttering under thy fingers until the brain of his skull is rent open and he discharges blood from both his nostrils, and he suffers with stiffness in his neck."
Yes, they really thought the brain was important.. RIGHT, is that why they threw it away right after removing it? Dumbass. Is that why they stored it in a canonopic jar?
The Egyptians believed that the heart, rather than the brain, was the source of human wisdom, as well as emotions, memory, the soul and the personality itself.
Densehead, nowhere in that description it says that the brain is the seat of body control. Read your own quote. If I poke your knee in the right way, you leg will pop up as a reflex, does that make your knee the seat of body control?
quote: In fact, the only real function of the brain was thought to be to pass mucus to the nose, so it was one of the organs that were discarded during mummification.
^Lying densehead
quote: The Ebers Papyrus describes the position of the heart precisely
Yeah, that REALLY requires scientific knowledge, LOL
The rest of the things you post after that don’t require science, repeatedly dissecting people for mummification purposes will teach you that.
quote: Source: Full content, aside from intro statements, are by Dr. Sameh M. Arab,
Densehead, you was accusing other people of qouting blindly earlier weren’t you? Now everybody can see what a densehead you REALLY are. The Egyptians didn’t believe the brain was the seat of body movement at all. Hypocritical DENSEHEAD
quote: I just explained to you how, and yet you are still asking me how. And no, those who say ancient Egyptians are "Caucasoid" are not saying Egyptians are "at one end of the African spectrum".
What the hell are you talking about? I am saying that dumbass. It is clear to anyone who has ever seen a cranial plot that ‘’True negro’’ is supposed to be on one end of the spectrum and certain eastern Africans are supposed to be on the other one. Who was talking about what white supremacist are saying? You’re hearing voices in your head again aren’t you? Like for example when you were having those weir gay/incest accusations? I’ve seen some really weird comments have been coming out of your keyboard which made me lose all my respect for you. It’s amazing how someone can portray himself in certain ways and then totally be a different person.
You know what, I’m not going to finish this post. Why would I even care about what some densehead says who is supposed to teach pro African teachings but resorts to words like nigger and other racist rethoric knowing damn well the violent history black people had. Then you had the nerve to call people like Dirk disruptive. Get the bleep outta here man. DENSEHEAD
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bottom line is, Kalonji doesn't offer a starting point, because in doing so, he'll run into a problem. He'll find out that science progressed into the level it has attained today, as an outgrowth of a series of developments that took place since the ancient Egyptians to the present. I've already provided an example of this. Even the ancient Greeks credited ancient Egyptians with having the most advanced medical practices of their era. Current European inquisitions into human anatomy, are fallouts of Darwin's observations. Yet Darwin was not the first to make connections between survival of the fittest in the organic world, classifying organic world into phyla/groups or that biological evolution took place. These ideas were around long before Darwin showed up, and not amongst Europeans. However, Darwin did develop take these ideas to the next level, i.e. a materialist standpoint, rather than earlier observations which did not totally detach theological explanation; like for example, the will of a supernatural being in overseeing these processes. Those earlier ideas, while had flaws or at least questionable aspects from standpoint of contemporary scientific scrutiny, they too were made from a goal of systematically understanding organic world and its interaction with nature. One can see in this, a pattern wherein the base concept was in place and developed further as time progressed. Likewise, Darwin theories were not immediately followed by the "systematic study of people" as we know it today; there were flows in anthropological theories that followed, as exemplified in the attempt to produce "races" out of modern humans. However, one could say that "races" is yet another outgrowth, if not a degenerated one, from Darwin's theories. Only as recent as the 20th century, did human paleontological finds become systematically used to make a connection to the likes of Darwin's line of thinking in relation human evolution. On the other hand, molecular genetics is also an outgrowth of the Darwinian line of thinking, as it confirms that mutations indeed do exist, and that evolution is a phenotypic manifestation of this. We know that molecular genetics didn't just spring up out of vacuum from nowhere; the curiosities that Darwin's theories [and those prior to it] put forward, are the same ones that instigated curiosity around DNA. It was only quite recently, that molecular genetics made its way into the mainstream academia...as recent as the turn of the 20th century and dawn of the 21st century, even though foundations were put in place at about early-mid 20th century.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The bottom line is, Kalonji doesn't offer a starting point, because in doing so, he'll run into a problem. He'll find out that science progressed into the level it has attained today, as an outgrowth of a series of developments that took place since the ancient Egyptians to the present
Exactly! Which is why its his last reply. Watching him squirm his way out of it is quite comical. LOL
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Oh my god, you seriously have to be the most dens person I’ve ever met, not only that, in almost all your posts, you misrepresent what I was saying.
Then you haven't met yourself, because you are denser than I, by far.
quote: This will be the last time I’ll ever engage in any discussion with you. Consider this my last reply.
Well, if you wish. I have been posting here in your absence for a good deal of time. So, you non-existence has little impact on me. However, if you make stupid claims in the future, you will still be called out on them
quote:
quote: You brought up the "whole new can of worms" when you presented your "fictitious example", which you confirmed, is communicating from that "inverted" underlying premise that I suggested. So, your protest is dismissed.
So you agree that you were suggesting ‘’inverted logic’’ and not asking clarification in response to my example?
knucklehead, read. Where does it say up there in what you just cited, what you are now claiming?
quote: Good.
Being illiterate is a bad thing, not a good thing.
quote: Note how you’re contradicting yourself and lying about me being a liar, because I noted correctly that you were NOT asking for clarification in your original post. Dumbass
dick-pimping ape, my post is right here on the thread, asking you for clarification on what you meant. You are just too fvcked in the head to read simple English.
quote:
quote: As for legs to stand on, well, you have offered no clarification as you were requested to do, of your idea.
More idiocy, you know what science is, and if you don’t, you can look it up in the dictionary.
More knuckheadedness. I didn't ask for elaboration on what "science means". I asked you to elaborate you uncorroborated subjective personal feelings about Europeans being first to systematically study people. If you weren't totally fucked-up in the head, you'd notice the difference.
quote: If I was actually wrong about my position about no science in Egypt, you could then refute me.
Done. Where's your comeback? That's right. You have none.
quote: You also know that a complete description of science would not support a presence of science in ancient Egypt.
I don't know that, nor have you demonstrated that. And you are bad at telepathy. Change the demons and gods who guide you; they are punking your illiterate punk-ass.
quote:
quote: I did ask for what you meant. You just chose to outright lie about my not asking for clarification on what you mean by "first to develop science to systematically study people".
Well, then let’s go back to what you said in response to my Aboriginal example:
quote: I hope this is not an inverted logic of an assumption that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people(?) But to answer the question that follows, it still goes back to what I just said above.
And that is supposed to be a question asking for ‘’clarification’’ on why I think science started in Europe?
knucklehead, what does that sign "?" at the end of the sentence mean? LOL. You are freaking dumber than a door knob.
And furthermore, what is this; as the above was followed with this:
quote:Originally posted by the knucklehead:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:originally posted by shyt-for-brains:
quote: Originally posted by The Explorer:
I hope this is not an inverted logic of an assumption that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people(?) But to answer the question that follows, it still goes back to what I just said above.
You use the same methods you used earlier when I used the example of Tutsi. This is straying the root of our discussion, but if you must ask, yes, I do believe that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people.
If I intended to stray, I would not have said this: But to answer the question that follows, it still goes back to what I just said above.
What do you mean by "systematically study people". Since you keep bringing up questionable ideas with each reply, you will be asked to clarify, if necessary. How you interpret this action, matters not to me.
It’s an accusation about using ‘’inverted logic’’ hidden in a question and it doesn’t ask for elaboration, so it is you who is lying about
You dumb total heap of bonehead, it is essentially asking you if the said claim is indeed the case, and hence, the *question mark* at the end. It is obvious you can't even recognize a question mark when you see one. I didn't want to assume your premise without verification first, i.e. from you, which you then go on to do, and so, were questioned on it accordingly, as presented above -- in the recaps.
quote: You didn’t ask for clarification until I alerted you about certain requirements for something to be considered science.
Dramatically dumbed down Lucy [talking about the hominid here], read the above and learn. Your fantastic imaginations are getting the best of you.
quote: Idiot, why do you always have to rely on what I say to refute me? Why don’t you just look in the dictionary?
fuckhead, why do you never read what you are responding to? The cite you are responding to is quite concise. Go to kindergarten. You need to get your ABCs down, you fucking dirty little illiterate redneck's sap.
quote:
quote: How does one have procedures for mummifications and for medicine, if not from "systematically conducting research" to gain knowledge "about the human body"? Explain.
You’re so dense that you even fail to understand that the whole purpose of mummification doesn’t even have a scientific basis.
You're such a fucking illiterate bonehead. What does "systematic understanding" mean? Is mummification just some random act of a lunatic, or were procedures put in place, stemming from a learning of human body? What would those procedures be, if not "systematic understanding" of human body? Answer questions, not rambling randomly off-course out of you ass.
quote: Someone who tries to mummify a dead person thinking that the person is going to reincarnate using the same body clearly isn’t practicing science.
We are not talking about "afterlife". We are talking about the process of "mummification", dunce. There are scientists out there who still believe in God, yet that has no relevance in science or bearing on the practice of science. The issue is about "systematic understanding", which you brought up in here.
quote: Furthermore, it doesn’t make me a scientist if I have the knowledge needed to do what they did when they tried to mummify someone. The role a dry desert plays in mummification also totally fly past your dense head.
But it makes them scientists, when they correctly discovered certain internal operations of the body [as seen in the piece I cited], described them and wrote down the processes. It would just make you a learner, which you obviously aren't in any case, or a recipient of their knowledge.
quote:
quote: Re: research -- Again, see and answer above. Who's supposed to be "authority" to make sure rules were followed? Doctors/healers were/are the authorities of medicine and the curators were the authorities of mummification. There; now what?
Because that leaves room for scam artists, practices like using cow dung and feces etc. Yet, your dense head can’t even comprehend that LOL.
turdhead, you simply dodged the main question, and answered one that is only in your fucking blockhead.
quote:
quote: Precisely my point. And because they knew the human body considerably enough, they were able to develop medicinal procedures to cure ailments. Some of these techniques would become useful not only to ancient Greeks, but also modern medicine.
Exactly, and knowing how to do that would make someone a scientist right?
That's right, turdhead, modern medicine is science. Learning the workings of the human body is also science.
quote: Whatever happened to conducting research about WHY something works?
I just asked you a question pertaining to this, turdhead, around mummification, and you conveniently remained silent on it. How was the calculated methods applied therein acquired, if not from research?
quote: Whatever happened to finding ways to isolate the useful chemicals in the used medicines to more effectively treat illnesses?
turdhead, again you are engaging in a red herring. Nobody suggested that they got everything right. You can still approach "systematic" understanding of studying something, and still have flaws in your understanding. The ancient Egyptians were only human, and the product of their era but amongst the most forward-thinking ones of their era when it came to understanding human body, medicine and hygiene. Even today, we don't get everything right in today's science either. Not only do you fail to take into account the era in question, but you disregard the things that they did get right and that modern medicine has benefited from. You are fucking cherry-picking turdhead, you know that, don't you?
quote: All tribal society’s have medicine, and fear of not making it to the other world, which in itself is scientifically illogic, would force anyone to find out whatever he needs to know about making a mummy.
turdhead, this is a non-sequitur. For a change, address things that are relevant to what's specifically being discussed.
quote: Besides, certain Africans are using sugar in wounds, and that is making its way into western medicine now, does that mean they’re scientist? Certain tribal Africans know thousands of different plants that have certain effects, would that make them scientist? Stupid idiot
turdhead, read the above. Stick to the topic; relax being a bitch on pms.
quote:
quote: Yes, mummification was very ancient, and hence, the name ancient Egyptians. However, not all ancient societies practiced it, nor did all necessarily--if any at all--have the then *advanced* techniques that the ancient Egyptians used in their mummification.
Yeah yeah whatever stop talking out of your neck. Not all ancient societies practiced it? So what are you saying, that that would make them scientist?
I'm saying what is said above, which is different from your moronic questions. Do you know how to read? Then what is the above saying?
quote: You keep talking out the side of your neck, any scientist would know that knowledge to mummify doesn’t equate being a scientist. You also seen to conveniently leave out that Libya is a very likely contestant for having originated it.
turd-for-brains, take a que: save yourself from needlessly digressing . Just address what's being said, and what's not. What do you understand about ancient Egyptian procedures of mummification? What can you tell us about how the mummy in Libya was mummified, and how that compares to that undertaken in ancient Egypt through the Dynastic era. Let's see how much you know.
quote:
quote: "It was not practiced by witch doctors as in primitive tribes, with mixture of magic, herbal remedy, and superstitious beliefs. This was acknowledged by Homer in the Odyssey:
Nutcase, since when is Homer an authority? Dream on
This nutcase is a lettered surgeon. Dr. Sameh M. Arab, Associate Professor of Cardiology, not to mention, the following:
Associate Professor of Cardiology - Alexandria University - Egypt, member of several scientific societies, both national and international, of which are: Egyptian Society of Cardiology, the European Society of Cardiology, Founder member and Member of Board of Directors of the Egyptian Society of Pediatric Cardiology and Founder of the Congenital Heart Division of the Alexandria Patients' Welfare Association for financing charity treatment for children with congenital heart dieasesm, and has several publications in the field of diagnosis and treatment of congenital heart diseases in children and newborns, paticularly by catheter (non-surgical) interventions.
Yet, a more educated guy such as he is a nutcase, and an illiterate nobody internet scoundrel like you is supposedly intellectually above him? LOL
quote:
quote: They obtained a good knowledge of the meninges, the cerebrospinal fluid, and the twitches and pulsations, and were aware that the brain was the seat of the body control.
"If thou examines a man having a gaping wound in his head penetrating to the bone, smashing his skull, and rending open the brain of his skull, thou shouldst palpate his wound. Shouldst thou find that smash which in his skull like those corrugations which form in molten copper, and something therein throbbing and fluttering under thy fingers, like the weak place of an infant's crown before it becomes whole- when it has happened there is no throbbing and fluttering under thy fingers until the brain of his skull is rent open and he discharges blood from both his nostrils, and he suffers with stiffness in his neck."
Yes, they really thought the brain was important.. RIGHT, is that why they threw it away right after removing it? Dumbass. Is that why they stored it in a canonopic jar?
That "dumbass" --i.e Dr. Sameh M. Arab, says this:
They obtained a good knowledge of the meninges, the cerebrospinal fluid, and the twitches and pulsations, and were aware that the brain was the seat of the body control.,
...showing evidence, and your reply is, well, that of a clueless turdhead who can never read anything correctly, let alone reply intelligently.
quote: The Egyptians believed that the heart, rather than the brain, was the source of human wisdom, as well as emotions, memory, the soul and the personality itself.
Densehead, nowhere in that description it says that the brain is the seat of body control. Read your own quote. If I poke your knee in the right way, you leg will pop up as a reflex, does that make your knee the seat of body control?
turdhead, you are not reading the Edwin papyrus, whereas the doctor was actually giving you items mentioned in that medical papyrus, as proof of what's being said. You are clearly a horny bitch who hasn't gotten laid forever. This is what the good doctor told your illiterate uneducated, non-degreed ass:
Quote: They obtained a good knowledge of the meninges, the cerebrospinal fluid, and the twitches and pulsations, and were aware that the brain was the seat of the body control.
"If thou examines a man having a gaping wound in his head penetrating to the bone, smashing his skull, and rending open the brain of his skull, thou shouldst palpate his wound. Shouldst thou find that smash which in his skull like those corrugations which form in molten copper, and something therein throbbing and fluttering under thy fingers, like the weak place of an infant's crown before it becomes whole- when it has happened there is no throbbing and fluttering under thy fingers until the brain of his skull is rent open and he discharges blood from both his nostrils, and he suffers with stiffness in his neck." - end Quote.
There you have it.
quote:
quote: In fact, the only real function of the brain was thought to be to pass mucus to the nose, so it was one of the organs that were discarded during mummification.
^Lying densehead
Now turdhead has even given up actually addressing the piece that I actually cited, and addresses something else. Funny.
quote:
quote: The Ebers Papyrus describes the position of the heart precisely
Yeah, that REALLY requires scientific knowledge, LOL
...but this does, turdhead, which you'd be mindful of, if you bothered to keep on reading:
The Ebers Papyrus describes the position of the heart **precisely**, and illustrates some of its disorders, as dropped beats. Egyptian physicians recognized the heart as the source of blood vessels. They were aware that the blood vessels were hollow, having a mouth which opens to absorb medications, eliminate waste elements, distribute air and body secretions and excretions, in a confusion between blood vessels and other passages, as ureters.
Again, not perfect, but compared to their contemporaries, this was advanced knowledge of its time, turdhead. This was not something everyone, nor every society knew at the time. Now of course, we take these things for granted.
quote:
The rest of the things you post after that don’t require science, repeatedly dissecting people for mummification purposes will teach you that.
turhead's way of saying: "I am not capable of addressing or understanding the citation, and this is offered as my way out."
quote:
quote: Source: Full content, aside from intro statements, are by Dr. Sameh M. Arab,
Densehead, you was accusing other people of qouting blindly earlier weren’t you?
And this applies to me, how?
quote: Now everybody can see what a densehead you REALLY are. The Egyptians didn’t believe the brain was the seat of body movement at all. Hypocritical DENSEHEAD
Fucking retard, do you seriously think your mindless nattering, inability to read, not to mention avoidance of questions, is cause for anyone to be convinced that anybody else but you is a fucking DENSEHEAD? LOL. You are so fucking dead in the head, that if it were a crime to be dumb, you'd be in jail just about now.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just explained to you how, and yet you are still asking me how. And no, those who say ancient Egyptians are "Caucasoid" are not saying Egyptians are "at one end of the African spectrum".
What the hell are you talking about? I am saying that dumbass.
Well, bitch, then your irrelevant opinion is baseless, because those who use the term "caucasoid" to describe ancient Egyptians take the said premise, and these are the very people your own source purports to be discrediting. Your own source renders your knuckleheaded opinions worthless, as it doesn't support it.
quote:
It is clear to anyone who has ever seen a cranial plot that ‘’True negro’’ is supposed to be on one end of the spectrum and certain eastern Africans are supposed to be on the other one.
No, it isn't clear. Can you demonstrate this plot, because eastern Africans are diverse, as are western Africans. Give specifics of the samples, while you are at it. And even if what you say were so [which is questionable at this point], how does that in any way justify your discredited typological concepts?
quote: Who was talking about what white supremacist are saying? You’re hearing voices in your head again aren’t you?
You mean like those you are hearing now, turdhead? Who said anything about "white supremacist"?
quote: Like for example when you were having those weir gay/incest accusations? I’ve seen some really weird comments have been coming out of your keyboard which made me lose all my respect for you. It’s amazing how someone can portray himself in certain ways and then totally be a different person.
I could give a hoot about your approval, turd-for-brains? You give respect, you get respect. You act like a bonehead, like you do, then I'll approach you in that way.
quote:You know what, I’m not going to finish this post. Why would I even care about what some densehead says who is supposed to teach pro African teachings but resorts to words like nigger and other racist rethoric knowing damn well the violent history black people had.
So dickhead has decided to throw in the towel, with no comeback but cursing like a bitch who just gotten bitch-slapped senseless, and making up stories about people he/she doesn't even know. LOL. You even mindlessly cursed at a doctor, who is more degreed and lettered than you'll ever be in ages. This is the same character who tries to tell us to accept his uncorroborated subjective personal *feelings* about Africans having "archaic" traits, with sloping foreheads, protruding incisors, big teeth, steep jaws in the same league as earlier hominids, and yet, he/she sits here making fairy tales about how I use "nigger", presumably degrading blacks [which in any case, BAs use amongst themselves]....like h/she hasn't already done enough of that here.
quote:
Then you had the nerve to call people like Dirk disruptive. Get the bleep outta here man. DENSEHEAD
Indeed, I not only have the nerve, I am intellectually in a position to call them disruptive. I am intellectually in a position to call you a bonehead that is more dead than a door knob. Get you pussy outta here, and get it plugged. Lack of getting laid is having a mental impact on you. And while at it, get a child's ABC book or two. Your reading stinks worse than the funk of a skunk. LOL
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not even close. It's an archaic human. The Khoi San have evolved features that do not exist in archaic humans. One, the head is more robust. compare Alice Roberts to the skull. "Although the skull is similar to a modern human head, it has a larger cranium, is more robust and has larger molars." "'Richard creates skulls of much more recent humans and he's used to looking at differences between populations.
'He said the skull doesn't look European or Asian or African. It looks like a mixture of all of them.
'That's probably what you'd expect of someone among the earliest populations to come to Europe.'"
posted
This is not the "Old man"/Cro-Magnon I cranium. So, how it compares with that cranium, is anyone's guess unless specified. They both had relatively greater cranial capacities than the average recent human; at least that much seems to be common. And the article says this: He said the skull doesn't look European or Asian or African. It looks like a mixture of all of them....but certainly, the rendition makes it look more African than European.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: This is not the "Old man"/Cro-Magnon I cranium. So, how it compares with that cranium, is anyone's guess unless specified. They both had relatively greater cranial capacities than the average recent human; at least that much seems to be common. And the article says this: He said the skull doesn't look European or Asian or African. It looks like a mixture of all of them....but certainly, the rendition makes it look more African than European.
More? Sure. The original humans were tropical. And lived in humid areas. It would take millenia for arid territories to develop the leptorrhine and aquiline noses, both in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe. That is still, more than likely the ancestor of Europeans. And it still is not a modern African. At best, you can say that ancient Europeans looked closer to their relatives the Africans than they do today. Genetics shows this relationship as well.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
This is not the "Old man"/Cro-Magnon I cranium. So, how it compares with that cranium, is anyone's guess unless specified. They both had relatively greater cranial capacities than the average recent human; at least that much seems to be common. And the article says this: He said the skull doesn't look European or Asian or African. It looks like a mixture of all of them....but certainly, the rendition makes it look more African than European.
More? Sure. The original humans were tropical. And lived in humid areas. It would take millenia for arid territories to develop the leptorrhine and aquiline noses, both in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe.
Cro-Magnon I had a narrow nasal aperture; whatever that means, whether "aquiline noses" , then so be it. This however, does not preclude its tropical origins which you acknowledge nonetheless, as the limb-trunk and limb proportion indices suggest. Africans in the tropics have said nasal features as we speak, and it is part of the natural diversity.
quote: And it still is not a modern African.
Red herring.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
This is not the "Old man"/Cro-Magnon I cranium. So, how it compares with that cranium, is anyone's guess unless specified. They both had relatively greater cranial capacities than the average recent human; at least that much seems to be common. And the article says this: He said the skull doesn't look European or Asian or African. It looks like a mixture of all of them....but certainly, the rendition makes it look more African than European.
More? Sure. The original humans were tropical. And lived in humid areas. It would take millenia for arid territories to develop the leptorrhine and aquiline noses, both in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe.
Cro-Magnon I had a narrow nasal aperture; whatever that means, whether "aquiline noses" , then so be it. This however, does not preclude its tropical origins which you acknowledge nonetheless, as the limb-trunk and limb proportion indices suggest. Africans in the tropics have said nasal features as we speak, and it is part of the natural diversity.
quote: And it still is not a modern African.
Red herring.
Cro Magnon developed that type of nose before the earliest African variety which was Mechta Afalou.
The First European predates both and was before any such nose had developed (based on skulls we have found to this day) No it is not a part of natural diversity. It is specific adaptation to specific environments. That nose would never have occurred in the humid tropics.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Cro Magnon developed that type of nose before the earliest African variety which was Mechta Afalou.
That would have to be the case, based on dating of available specimens. Whether these dates really reflect how long the once living populations of the Epipaleolithic and early Holocene coastal northern African specimens actually lived, remains to be ascertained. We can only go by what archeology brings to light, until then...
quote: The First European predates both and was before any such nose had developed (based on skulls we have found to this day) No it is not a part of natural diversity.
Good. Let's get the empirical scientific evidence that suggest narrow nasal opening in tropical Africans isn't part of the natural diversity.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Good. Let's get the empirical scientific evidence that suggest narrow nasal opening in tropical Africans isn't part of the natural diversity.
Sure. Show me one population of tropical Africans that is not originally from a desertic or semi arid region with thin noses. From Somalia to Mauritania, all arid or semi arid regions. If it were natural diversity and not environment specific selection, then you would find that diversity across all of Africa including Central and South Africa.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Sure. Show me one population of tropical Africans that is not originally from a desertic or semi arid region with thin noses.
I don't have to show you jack. You claimed that the narrow nasal aperture found in tropical Africans isn't part of the natural diversity of these Africans. Your claim, hence your responsibility to back it up.
quote: From Somalia to Mauritania, all arid or semi arid regions. If it were natural diversity and not environment specific selection, then you would find that diversity across all of Africa including Central and South Africa.
??
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^I just showed you by lack of evidence. Now if you can show evidence of the contrary, be my guest.
To clarify. Natural diversity as in the natural variation that occurs within a population, all things remaining equal. Not after environmental influences in certain regions.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Using that logic, then we probably wouldn't even have had modern humans to begin with.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
^^^I just showed you by lack of evidence. Now if you can show evidence of the contrary, be my guest.[/b]
Not that your point makes any sense to me re: natural variation, but I'll play along anyway:
This fellow has a reasonably narrow nasal index, if not moderate. Does that mean he is from an arid region? Same could be asked of Paul Kagami? What about the Iraqw who sport narrow nasal indices as well. Do they live in an Arid region. According to your logic, these people should have already had micro-evolutions that would return back to nasal apertures that are distinct from narrow ones.
Ps -
Mugabe's daughter. Her nasal index?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Using that logic, then we probably wouldn't even have had modern humans to begin with.
Using your logic Eskimos are part of the natural diversity of Africa. Of course with time all populations adapt to their environment. But natural diversity is a diversity that is occurring at all times regardless of environmental pressures.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Chimu:
^^^I just showed you by lack of evidence. Now if you can show evidence of the contrary, be my guest.[/b]
Not that your point makes any sense to me re: natural variation, but I'll play along anyway:
This fellow has a reasonably narrow nasal index, if not moderate. Does that mean he is from an arid region? Same could be asked of Paul Kagami? What about the Iraqw who sport narrow nasal indices as well. Do they live in an Arid region. According to your logic, these people should have already had micro-evolutions that would return back to nasal apertures that are distinct from narrow ones.
Ps -
Mugabe's daughter. Her nasal index?
Not really. We know these diversifications take millenia. It would be interesting to see Mugabe's lineage fro the nasal bridge, but he does not have a low nasal index the width of his nose would mean he would have to have a longer face to have a longer nasal cavity to allow for a low nasal index. As for his daughter, a smaller nose does not necessarily mean a smaller nasal index. It would depend on the height of her nasal cavity vs its width. Cute girl.
Now show me some actual cranial studies, not your subjective eyeballing of what you think is a leptorrhine nose.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: It would take millenia for arid territories to develop the leptorrhine and aquiline noses, both in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe... From Somalia to Mauritania, all arid or semi arid regions
^ Salsassinboy Somalia is Sub Sahara, not North Africa.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: ^ Salsassinboy Somalia is Sub Sahara, not North Africa.
Somalia still has semi arid land.
The better question would be, why did the KhoiSan not develop the thinner noses. Maybe the mutation that led to that change did not occur in them, or other factors may be involved. But what hasn't been shown is thin noses in humid tropical places unless they are more recent migrations. You see that intermediate stage in tropical Natives in the Americas which vary the gamut. The best place to study is where in situ populations are in humid places, and that is tropical, rain forest, Africa. No development of that type of nose there.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: Somalia still has semi arid land.
Well then you should have included Sub Saharan Africa in your post "It would take millenia for arid territories to develop the leptorrhine and aquiline noses, both in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe".
But we all why you didnt and where you normally go with these phenotype arguments. I'm looking out now for you post the outdated Brace 1993 and other quack studies that claim to show the Ethiopians have heavy "Caucasian" admixture so as to explain away the elongated features in East Africans. LOL
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chimu - I see your logic, and have even pursued it myself. But it doesn't really hold up. Hot humid air contains less oxygen than cold dry air, so logically then, people in hot humid places should have bigger rounder nostrils to accommodate larger airflow.
And people in Colder places should have smaller noses because they don't need the increased airflow to get the same amount of oxygen.
The problem is, Neanderthal, the ONLY "Cold Adapted" humanoid, had a big wide nose.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
? Gosh, do you even read what you write?
Printer-friendly view of this topic