If a person who looks like a 100% white caucasian has a small percentage of non-white genes are they properly called mixed and not white? Do you need 100% genetic purity to be white caucasian or is a small percentage of non-caucasoid allowed? What are the markers?
-please let the whites answer this question first, after all they're white
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: What are the markers?
Homogenous races have the following traits -
Caucasoid
Reduced or no prognathism (orthognathic) Leptorrhine (thin) nose (minority Mesorrhine) Prominent nasal spine Thin nasal bridge + interorbital area Nasal Index: - 48 mm Prominent nasal sill Tear shaped nasal hole(s) Prominent chin Thin lips Larger supraorbital (brow) ridges Microdont (small) teeth Cymotrichous (wavy) hair Pale white - brown pigmentaion Full range of hair and eye colours
Negroid
Extreme facial prognathism Platyrrhine (wide) nose Reduced nasal spine Wide nasal bridge + interorbital area Nasal Index: 53 + mm Absent Nasal sill Round shaped nasal hole(s) Rounder chin Thick lips Reduced supraorbital (brow) ridges Macrodont (large) teeth Ulotrichous (wooly) hair Dark brown - black pigmentation Only dark hair and dark eyes
Mongoloid
Moderate facial prognathism Mesorrhine (medium) nose (minority Platyrrhine) Medium nasal spine Moderate nasal bridge + interorbital area Oval shaped nasal hole(s) Slightly prominent chin Moderate lips Nasal Index: 48-53 Less prominent nasal sill Small supraorbital (brow) ridges Mesadont (medium) teeth Shovel-shaped incisors Leiotrichous (straight) hair Sallow white - brown pigmentation Epicanthic folds (slanted eyes) Predominant dark hair and dark eyes
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: To the white caucasians:
If a person who looks like a 100% white caucasian has a small percentage of non-white genes are they properly called mixed and not white? Do you need 100% genetic purity to be white caucasian or is a small percentage of non-caucasoid allowed? What are the markers?
Whites already answered this question in traditional texts. No one needs to consult whites living today because it's not as if their opinion will suddenly change the reality of what was the historical standard. even if a person looks stereotypically Caucasian, they are not white unless they are about 3/4th to 7/8ths European. If we factor in traditional definitions of race throwing in Native Americans it would be only 1/15th Native American.
quote: Caucasoid
Reduced or no prognathism (orthognathic) Leptorrhine (thin) nose (minority Mesorrhine) Prominent nasal spine Thin nasal bridge + interorbital area Nasal Index: - 48 mm Prominent nasal sill Tear shaped nasal hole(s) Prominent chin Thin lips Larger supraorbital (brow) ridges Microdont (small) teeth Cymotrichous (wavy) hair Pale white - brown pigmentaion Full range of hair and eye colours
So you are suggesting your white ancestors were so retarded that when they SAW people with these features, they classified them as black because they were 1/4th-1/8th African, (and in more extreme cases ANY traceable lineage)? Because they did that. This is reality: They didn't classify people as black because they were too stupid to see black people with stereotypically white features. It didn't matter what their features were to begin with. Historically race was defined by ancestral percentages.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: To the white caucasians:
If a person who looks like a 100% white caucasian has a small percentage of non-white genes are they properly called mixed and not white? Do you need 100% genetic purity to be white caucasian or is a small percentage of non-caucasoid allowed? What are the markers?
Whites already answered this question in traditional texts. No one needs to consult whites living today because it's not as if their opinion will suddenly change the reality of what was the historical standard. even if a person looks stereotypically Caucasian, they are not white unless they are about 3/4th to 7/8ths white. If we factor in traditional definitions of race throwing in Native Americans it would be only 1/15th Native American.
There is a phenotypic criteria to race (see my list above). Mixed-race people are quite easily detectable as they exhibit a mixture of Mongoloid, Caucasoid or Negroid traits, their physical features are hybrid and not natural.
Look up the Melungeons.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You say "phenotypic criteria" but there is plenty of evidence of blacks having some of these traits in Africa AND Africans with some European ancestry being classified as a member of the black race on the basis of admixture percentages. There was no such thing as "phenotypic criteria" making someone white. If it did, many mulattos, quadroons and ocatroons would've been legally entitled to the same rights as whites.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: So you are suggesting your white ancestors were so retarded that when they SAW people with these features, they classified them as black because they were 1/4th-1/8th African, (and in more extreme cases ANY traceable lineage)? Because they did that. This is reality: They didn't classify people as black because they were too stupid to see black people with stereotypically white features. It didn't matter what their features were to begin with. Historically race was defined by ancestral percentages. [/QB]
Not sure what era you are talking about. Physical anthropology (1850's - present) divides race based on their heritable phenotypic traits -
Definition of race -
''populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features''- Sarich & Miele, 2004: 207
Negroids, Mongoloids and Caucasoids have always been differentated based on their distinct physical appearances. Also though there is more to race outside of physical anthropology such as culture, intelligence, behaviour etc.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: You say "phenotypic criteria" but there is plenty of evidence of blacks having some of these traits in Africa AND Africans with some European ancestry being classified as a member of the black race on the basis of admixture percentages. There was no such thing as "phenotypic criteria" making someone white. If it did, many mulattos, quadroons and ocatroons would've been legally entitled to the same rights as whites.
I said homogenous races. You have to have all those phenotypic traits to be Caucasoid, Negroid or Mongoloid. You don't get Negroids with thin noses and straight-wavy hair, nor do you get Caucasoids with wide noses and wooly hair.
Mixed race people have certain traits of whoever they are mixed with - but they are not a homogenous representation of any race. They are hybrid.
quote:There was no such thing as "phenotypic criteria" making someone white.
This comment is bizarre, Of course there is phenotypic criteria to race. Black africans do not look white, and east asians don't look like Australian Aborigines (Australoids).
All races are phenotypically distinct.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
the definition of a white Caucasian is a British person these guys cant pretend that Arabs and Greeks are white Caucasians but in the real world whites would never consider these people the same as themselves
Posts: 1064 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Confirming poop: Cass said enough to clarify the issue.
quote:Originally posted by asante:
quote:Originally posted by Confirming poop: Excellent breakdown, Cass!
-please let the whites answer this question first, after all they're white
lolol
That's ok, but what is not ok is for the dummy to define the African. Nor are you or the lyin' ass.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: So you are suggesting your white ancestors were so retarded that when they SAW people with these features, they classified them as black because they were 1/4th-1/8th African, (and in more extreme cases ANY traceable lineage)? Because they did that. This is reality: They didn't classify people as black because they were too stupid to see black people with stereotypically white features. It didn't matter what their features were to begin with. Historically race was defined by ancestral percentages.
Not sure what era you are talking about. Physical anthropology (1850's - present) divides race based on their heritable phenotypic traits -
Definition of race -
''populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features''- Sarich & Miele, 2004: 207
Negroids, Mongoloids and Caucasoids have always been differentated based on their distinct physical appearances. Also though there is more to race outside of physical anthropology such as culture, intelligence, behaviour etc. [/QB]
When the head of the Human Genome Project and a former President of the United States both assure us that we are all, regardless of race, genetically 99.9% the same, the clear implication is that racial differences among us are superficial. The concept of race, many would argue, is an inadequate map of the physical reality of human variation. In short, human races are not biologically valid categories, and the very ideas of race and racial difference are morally suspect in that they support racism. In Race, Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele argue strongly against received academic wisdom, contending that human racial differences are both real and significant. Relying on the latest findings in nuclear, mitochondrial, and Y-chromosome DNA research, Sarich and Miele demonstrate that the recent origin of racial differences among modern humans provides powerful evidence of the significance, not the triviality, of those differences. They place the "99.9% the same" figure in context by showing that racial differences in humans exceed the differences that separate subspecies or even species in such other primates as gorillas and chimpanzees. The authors conclude with the paradox that, while, scientific honesty requires forthright recognition of racial differences, public policy should not recognize racial-group membership.
Well, they need to explain the PN2 clade then, which they left out, for obvious reasons. lol
And they both seem to have a habit in fascist condo. lol
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: So you are suggesting your white ancestors were so retarded that when they SAW people with these features, they classified them as black because they were 1/4th-1/8th African, (and in more extreme cases ANY traceable lineage)? Because they did that. This is reality: They didn't classify people as black because they were too stupid to see black people with stereotypically white features. It didn't matter what their features were to begin with. Historically race was defined by ancestral percentages.
Not sure what era you are talking about. Physical anthropology (1850's - present) divides race based on their heritable phenotypic traits -
Race in practice separated people on the basis of ancestry. Society didn't regard such anthropological definitions. Ancestry was more important. A white person who held some stereotypical features that were black would still be considered white because his ancestry was more than 3/4ths white. A black person with about 3/4ths-1/8th African ancestry was still regarded as black, even if they had stereotypically white features.
quote:Definition of race -
''populations or groups of populations, within a species, that are separated geographically from other such populations or groups of populations and distinguishable from them on the basis of heritable features''- Sarich & Miele, 2004: 207
Well ask Sarich and Miele why quadroons and octaroons were black and not white. Again it was a social construct built around ancestral percentages. It was not an issue of features.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by TrollPatrol: And they both seem to have a habit in fascist condo. lol.
A number of white scholars hold that this trait is inherent in whiteness- the greedy drive to grasp and appropriate the cultures and resources of others. Some hold that whiteness is a social construct. Others hold that this feature of greed, grasping and appropriation is a biological trait of whiteness as a race. Proponents of both schools agree on the greed of persons identified as white- whether as a social construct, or a biological race. On the biological side, it is held that deprivation brought in by cold climate evolution, shaped whiteness, producing lineages selected for greed and duplicity in behaviors.
White racial traits such as fair hair, and light eyes have proven to be superior by scientists. Yet out of envy, Zaharan calls these traits a ''disease''...
Blue eyes are associated with strategic thinking, higher intelligence and achievement (“Blue-eyed people better off, say scientists,” News.com.au, Aug. 20, 2007; Clerkin, B., “Why blue-eyed boys (and girls) are so brilliant,” London Daily Mail, Aug. 20,2007).
Light eye shades (blue, green) can transmit up to 100 times as much light as dark eyes (Mogk, 2003).
I also have studies on how fair hair = higher IQ as well.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
White genetic evolution has produced certain traits scholars of whiteness hold. Murderous violence is one of those traits. Books such as "The Iceman Inheritance" posit evolution in glacial climes selects for white lineages predisposed for murder and violence.
White ancestral lineages, reputed "role models", lead humanity in the crime of murder.
While making up only about one-third of the world's population, Europeans have perpetrated around 90% of the world's genocides including not only 6 million Jews in WWII, but several million others includng Slavs, Poles, Russians etc. WHite hypocrites attempt to wriggle away from this criminal history by claiming that genocide is not a crime. But in fact it is, and has been so recognized by almost every major white Western nation and international law since 1948, under a CONSERVATIVE definition that specifically excludes mere political violence or warfare It was European nations that established the definition. It is thus hilarious to see how European race proponents attempt to wriggle away from the bloody facts on the ground, perpetrated by Europeans, even allowing for the most conservative definition.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
My source does not says 90% outright but the math is not hard to see from studies such as Totten and Parsons- 2009- Century of Genocide. They list a large number from Asia to Europe. Just looking at "Caucasoid "role models" Hitler and Stalin and you easily get about 20 million, using a conservative definition that excludes mere war operations or even direct civilian collateral damage from said war operations, and excluding simple internal political fighting between say 2 factions seeking power in a country or region, like say Trotsky versus Stalin. Its "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group".
Now in the 20th century, what ancestral lineage has racked up a higher body count using the most conservative definition? Just Hitler managed about 10 million, including not merely Jews but people like Gypsies, and unlucky "sub-human" Slavs.. The "Caucasoid" Turks, tallied about one million Armenians. Caucasoid Joe Stalin boosted the body count in the Ukraine with 7 -10 million, adding another 2-4 million elsewhere from "liquidated" persons among ethnic Soviet minorities.
Next behind the Caucasoids are the Asians, but even they are nothing like the Caucasoids- a "mere" 3 mil in Bangladesh for example. Africa weighs in at about 1.0 million, including 3/4 mil Rwanda, and 1/4 mil Darfur. Caucasoid "role models" are way ahead in the sweepstakes, massively, multiple times ahead in criminal mass murder.
But the above is understated for our "role models" as Totten and Parsons book shows. Additional body counts rise if you include the Balkan "cleansings" (Bosnia, Kosovo etc) of the late 20th century, and they really soar if you include the brutal murders by white imperialists in the colonial era. The unlucky Herrero of southern Africa for example were done in by the GErmans to the tune of about 60,000 to 80,000 people in the early 1900s. If the term genocide is expanded to take in the millions of deaths of indigenous peoples at the hands of European imperialists, then the numbers start going off the charts. Indeed a number of scholars contend that modern 20th genocide got its "dry run" practice from European activities in the colonies. See: Holocaust and genocide studies: Volume 20. See: Holocaust Memorial Council, Yad ṿa-shem, rashut ha-zikaron la-Shoʼah ṿela-gevurah - 2006
See Totten and Parsons, 2009, Century of genocide: critical essays and eyewitness accounts
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
3--White ancestral lineages lead in abortion - killing 2 children for each live birth in some white territories. In the 1960s, the record of the white "role models" was even worse, with 3 children destroyed for each live birth.
"Caucasoid" hypocrites continually point the finger at those perennial scapegoats - the black and brown "NAMs" but they carefully avoid the real story. The highest rates of abortion in the world are among white women in Russia, where almost 2 babies are killed for each live birth according to scholars Loveless and Holman (2006) And this is the good news. Before that it was even worse, with 3 children killed for each live birth (DaVanzo and Grammich 2001). QUOTE:
"By the mid 1930s in Moscow, there were nearly three abortions for every birth.. By 1965, the total number of abortions had climbed to 5.5 million and the abortion rate had risen to more than 16 abortions per 100 women of child bearing age (Popov, 1996).. With three out of four pregnancies ending in abortion in the mid-1960s, Soviet health planners finally recognized low fertility and small family sizes as a reaction.. Today in Russia there are two induced abortions per live birth.. It is considerably lower than the mid-1960s ratio of three abortions per live birth." --J. DaVanzo, C. Grammich. 2001. Dire demographics: population trends in the Russian Federation, Issue 1273. 2001 p31-32
White hypocrites are quick to trot out "genetic deficiency" explanations on this score where black folk are concerned, but hypocritically, start to hem and haw when their touted more virtuous "Caucasoids" post statistics multiple times worse than blacks. You suddenly hear a mysterious silence then. They never consistently apply their own biased methods to whites, and say that white "genetic deficiencies" cause such outcomes.
Some writers on of Whiteness or white evolution hold that glacial climes, selected for this pattern of killing embedded in white lineages and white culture.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting you post that picture as just last night I was watching Nazi Collaborators on television from WW2 and noted the genocide workers were white.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
If a person who looks like a 100% white caucasian has a small percentage of non-white genes are they properly called mixed and not white? Do you need 100% genetic purity to be white caucasian or is a small percentage of non-caucasoid allowed? What are the markers?
-please let the whites answer this question first, after all they're white
thank you,
lioness productions
shouldn't u have gone first then, Svenska? Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: What are the markers?
Homogenous races have the following traits -
Caucasoid
Reduced or no prognathism (orthognathic) Leptorrhine (thin) nose (minority Mesorrhine) Prominent nasal spine Thin nasal bridge + interorbital area Nasal Index: - 48 mm Prominent nasal sill Tear shaped nasal hole(s) Prominent chin Thin lips Larger supraorbital (brow) ridges Microdont (small) teeth Cymotrichous (wavy) hair Pale white - brown pigmentaion Full range of hair and eye colours
Negroid
Extreme facial prognathism Platyrrhine (wide) nose Reduced nasal spine Wide nasal bridge + interorbital area Nasal Index: 53 + mm Absent Nasal sill Round shaped nasal hole(s) Rounder chin Thick lips Reduced supraorbital (brow) ridges Macrodont (large) teeth Ulotrichous (wooly) hair Dark brown - black pigmentation Only dark hair and dark eyes
Mongoloid
Moderate facial prognathism Mesorrhine (medium) nose (minority Platyrrhine) Medium nasal spine Moderate nasal bridge + interorbital area Oval shaped nasal hole(s) Slightly prominent chin Moderate lips Nasal Index: 48-53 Less prominent nasal sill Small supraorbital (brow) ridges Mesadont (medium) teeth Shovel-shaped incisors Leiotrichous (straight) hair Sallow white - brown pigmentation Epicanthic folds (slanted eyes) Predominant dark hair and dark eyes
the reason you make theads about Capoids being different from Negroids but don't make a list of them is that were you to list traits of Capoids, except for height they would largely overlap Negroids.
When we talk about diversity of "Negroids" you say we all look the same. When we look at Pygmies who we have a lot of similarites to and are related to all of the sudden they look "drastically" different. Obviously you are slanting things for political reasons. Except for height Pygmies and West Africans don't look drastically different from West Africans they look very similar. Stop your racist nonsense. If you were to list Capoid traits you would be exposed. You also talk about Austrailoid being different from Negroid and there are some differences. However you conveniently leave them out becasue they too have traits which can be found, example blond hair, not only found in your pristine whites. Coon talks about Austrailoids. But you leave them out of the above lists because the overlap messes up your racist theory which is not motivated by anthropology but by attempts to dominate other people by using selective information taken from anthropology. Furthermore West Africans have more traits similar to Pygmies than either does to Khosians who have lighter skin,epicanthic fold, peppercorn hair.
But all three of these types are more similar to each other than they are to Europeans. That's the bottom line.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's interesting you post that picture as just last night I was watching Nazi Collaborators on television from WW2 and noted the genocide workers were white.
Some writers hold that evolution in glacial climes selected for white lineages to be the most murderous on earth. Note: this is not an endorsement but a demonstration of how the methods of these white writers, applying the same "biodiversity" concepts they with others, can also be applied to white people.
The Iceman Inheritance was in 1978, but newer writers like JP Rushton and Satoshi Kanazawa also argue for white cold climate evolution. However, they spin their "evolution" notions to put white people in a "feel good" light, while being sure to cast as much distorted negatives as they can on blacks. But they assume the scrutiny will only go one way: whites = good, blacks = bad.
Using their own notions of white evolution however, there is an altogether less self-serving and flattering reality. Far from being paragons of virtue and goodness, white "role models" far exceed other ethnic groups in criminal violence and murder.
Consider the torture of children. In the Caucasian death camps, thousands of children were used in medical "experiments", tortured and killed for "study" of reactions to drowning, to electrocution, to being infected with diseases like typhus.
One "kindly" Caucasian officer gave young children balloons and a smile, just before he injected them with phenol, a "treatment" designed to cause heart seizures in the children. Almost all of them died shortly. Their bodies were dumped into holding areas, joining thousands of others every day slated for the crematoriums, which ran 24 hours per day. The "output" of murdered innocents exceeds over 4,000 people per day at Auschwitz. Here is an example of white "role models" at work:
The most medical of all Auschwitz killing methods was the phenol injection, which was institutionalized during the relatively early phases of Auschwitz. A patient was brought to a treatment room and there administered a drug by a physician or (in most cases) his assistant, who wore a white coat and used a syringe and needle for the injection. In camp jargon, there were the active verb spritzen (to "inject, squirt, spray"), the passive verb abgespritzt ("to be injected off", or killed) and equivalent noun forms meaning "syringing" and "phenoling".
Initially, phenol was injected into a victim's vein, maximizing the medical aura of the entire procedure...Before long, the technique was changed to injecting the phenol directly into the heart. Some witnesses thought that the change was made because the veins were sometimes hard to locate, but the real reason seems to have been the greater killing efficiency of a direct cardiac injection. Patients injected by vein might linger for minutes or even an hour or more...The "concentrated aqueous solution of phenol" that was developed proved "inexpensive, easy to use, and absolutely effective when introduced into the heart ventricle", so that an injection of ten to fifteen millileters into the heart caused death within fifteen seconds.
Phenol injections were given in Block 20:
At that point two Jewish prisoner assistants brought a victim into the room (sometimes victims were brought in two at a time) and positioned him or her on a footstool, usually so that the right arm covered the victim's eyes and the left arm was raised sideways in a horizontal position....The idea was for the victim's chest to be thrust out so that the cardiac area was maximally accessible for the lethal injection, and for him or her to be unable to see what was happening....The person giving the injection--most often the SDG Josef Klehr--filled his syringe from the bottle and then thrust the needle directly into the heart of the seated prisoner and emptied the contents of the syringe.
Thus, an average of two minutes and 22 seconds sufficed to murder one prisoner.
very few white Caucasians who refused to carry out the mass murders were prosecuted. In other words, few were ever shot or imprisoned for failing to murder innocent inmates. Several cases of whites who walked away from the killing are documented. They did not get into trouble with the authorities. In fact there were plenty of others willing to take their place. This makes a lie of the standard excuse used at Nuremberg by those who operated the death camps- that they were following orders thru fear of their lives. The cold fact is that thousands of white role models willingly volunteered to carry out these monstrous crimes, accepting such' rewards as extra pay, extra rations, exploitation of inmates, and the chance to loot and enrich themselves with the belongings of the murdered. It is also documented that a large proportion of white murder camp operators escaped punishment after the war.
QUOTE on the Caucasian role models- "They represented a cross-section of German scociety and no one was ever coerced into killing Jews or ever punished for refusing to do so." A. Roberts. A Storm of War
Most of the Caucasoid lineages escaped justice after the war including not only Caucasian death camp guards but huge numbers of Caucasian civilians that helped facilitate the mass murders.
QUOTE: "Of the estimated 7,000 men and 200 women guards who served at Auschwitz during the war, only 800 were ever prosecuted. The rest merely disappeared into private life, and very many must have been able to escape with valuables stolen from inmates.. Despicably, Polish villagers even killed some Jews after the end of the war in Europe when they returned to reclaim their property, as happened at the village of Jedwabne."
QUOTED FROM: The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War. By Andrew Roberts. 2009
As shown above, not only were white Germans involved, but white Poles, Lithusians, Belorussians and others greatly facilitated the criminal murder of millions.
Using the methods of "biodiversity" proponents, the above criminal violence and murder can be posited as due to how whites have evolved in cold climates. Rushton and Kanazawa argue for r/k "selection" theory, that "adaptation" to "novel" cold climate environments, shaped Caucasian intelligence, culture and behavior. Again, they spin the framework to portray whites in a good, virtuous light. But using THEIR OWN methods they don't get to conveniently play the game one-way. Its a two-way street, that is anything but flattering towards reputed "role models" for humanity.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
great zarahan teaching here most white people are basically Nazis, the term Nazi and white are interchangable.
Not that zarahan believes whites are a "race". Just that they are biologically different from other people.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
As silly as lioness' question was, it should not have been left to "whites" like cassiterides to answer it. lioness asks a genealogical question and cassiterides comes in answering it with a list of cranio-facial features. Yet, cassiterides swears that whites are supposed to have "high IQ".
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: As silly as lioness' question was, it should not have been left to "whites" like cassiterides to answer it. lioness asks a genealogical question and cassiterides comes in answering it with a list of cranio-facial features. Yet, cassiterides swears that whites are supposed to have "high IQ".
you are the guy that says Africans can be defined by PN2 clade. I have a recent thead about that in Egyptology.
If that is the case perhaps one could use it as an argument that that is race.
But putting aside this word "race" for a moment. If you can define Africans biologically by higher percentage of PN2 transition, then how would you answer the question, what markers define a person as "biologically European" genetically?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ Do you know what race is defined as in Biology, its a Sub-Species. How can you get a Sub-Species out of the PN2 clad??
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, if someone on this thead subscribes to Coon on race,
wiki: _____________________ Later extensions of the terminology, such as Carleton S. Coon's Origin of Races, placed this theory in an evolutionary context. Coon divided the species homo sapiens into five groups: Caucasoid, Capoid, Congoid, Australoid and Mongoloid, based on the timing of each taxon's evolution from homo erectus. Positing the Capoid race as a separate racial entity, and labeling the two major divisions of what he called the Congoid race as being the "African Negroes" and the "Pygmies", he divided indigenous Africans into these two distinct groups based on their date of origin, and loosened classification from mere appearance — however, this led to disagreement between approaches to dating divergence, and consequent conflicting results. Cavalli-Sforza also accepts this twofold division, pointing out that the Pygmies are have a very different genetic signature than other Black Africans, so they must have originally had their own now unknown language, but have since adopted the language of the Bantu peoples around them. Cavaill-Sforza does not accept as Coon did that each race evolved separately; he accepts the currently dominant paradigm, the Out of Africa theory, i.e. that all human beings are descended from small bands of people that migrated out of Africa beginning about 60,000 years ago. _________________________________
Coon categorizes Pygmies and African Negroes as both of the Congoid Race. Now how come cassertides forgets this when he talks about how different "True Negroids" are from Pygmies and Khosians? Obviously the people most similar to Pygmies are Bantu Africans. True that on a gentic level Pygmies are different from other Africans. However cassertides defines race phenotypically and phenotypically, except for height, Bantu Africans are quite similar to Pygmies, similar enough for Coon to place them in the same "Congoid" category. (cass- crickets) Coon spoke of 5 races. Cassertides will use Coon to make arguments but will also leave out Austrailoids intentionally.
So what if we had to have only three "races" ? According to Coon, if we were to overlook the two smaller populations Capoid (Khosians) and Australoids we would be left with: Mongoloid, Congoid, and Caucasian. Coon says Pygmies and African Negroids are not primary races but are "sub races" of the larger category "Congoid".
If someone wants to argue that there are different races you can't mix up criteria. You can't use phenotype and when it gets unclear and overlaps then switch to genotype. If someone wanted to define people as biologically different from other people, phenotype and genotype would have to first be outlined separately.
If we look at cassertides phenotype list for Caucasian, Caucasian can't be defined by a hair type "Full range of hair and eye colours". Therefore hair and eye color would have to be removed from lists of things that are particular to Caucasians. Also you can't define a person who has thin lips as something particular to Caucasians because some people you would be categorized as Caucasian don't have thin lips: Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ What gets me is by debunking cassiteredes you prove how invalid race is, yet you still uphold it yourself.
You are quite a character..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^ Do you know what race is defined as in Biology, its a Sub-Species. How can you get a Sub-Species out of the PN2 clad??
we can drop the word "race" out of the discussion if you want. Somebody might say that people who have E3a or E3b in frequencies over 70% are biologically distinct.
We can see the conflict that goes on today beteen people that look different and make that an issue. In the future when more and more people are genetically tested they can drop the old identifiers "black" , "white" , "caucasian" "negro" and call themselves by their haplogroups.
So in the future the hate could be based on this, for example people in haplogroup F might say they hate haplogroup D people, they're idiots. That sort of thing. That's what's going to happen in the future, the new labeling
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^ Do you know what race is defined as in Biology, its a Sub-Species. How can you get a Sub-Species out of the PN2 clad??
we can drop the word "race" out of the discussion if you want. Somebody might say that people who have E3a or E3b in frequencies over 70% are biologically distinct.
We can see the conflict that goes on today beteen people that look different and make that an issue. In the future when more and more people are genetically tested they can drop the old identifiers "black" , "white" , "caucasian" "negro" and call themselves by their haplogroups.
So in the future the hate could be based on this, for example people in haplogroup F might say they hate haplogroup D people, they're idiots. That sort of thing. That's what's going to happen in the future, the new labeling
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^^ What gets me is by debunking cassiteredes you prove how invalid race is, yet you still uphold it yourself.
You are quite a character..
unlike zarahan, I mention Coon's views from the beginning. If you state Coon said there are 5 races from the beginning it's not necessarily your own point of view. However if you make a headline saying "Europeans are not a Primary race" that's a mistake because then there is nothing to show that it might not be your own point of view. The title and opening words in opinion are most important. If you say as a title" "Cavalli Sforza says that Africans and Asians are primary races but Europeans are not" (although I belive that is an erronoues simplification of what Cavalli Sforza believes) But then it's clear what follows is not necesarily your own point of view. If you leave that out you are suggesting "this is my point of view" and in below text is an anthropologist who also believes it. Another difference is that you might say something in a forum and not be 100% certain of it but it's part of an ongoing casual discussion. That's different to commiting to a pre-made graphic and posting it over and over again in diffgernt places. That suggests you are saying you are 100% certain of it. but how can you accuse me, I just put up Mick jagger which breaks the stereotype?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^ Do you know what race is defined as in Biology, its a Sub-Species. How can you get a Sub-Species out of the PN2 clad??
we can drop the word "race" out of the discussion if you want. Somebody might say that people who have E3a or E3b in frequencies over 70% are biologically distinct.
We can see the conflict that goes on today beteen people that look different and make that an issue. In the future when more and more people are genetically tested they can drop the old identifiers "black" , "white" , "caucasian" "negro" and call themselves by their haplogroups.
So in the future the hate could be based on this, for example people in haplogroup F might say they hate haplogroup D people, they're idiots. That sort of thing. That's what's going to happen in the future, the new labeling
E3a and E3b, are brother/ sister clades with one common root who split early in history.
Do you know what caused this nuclear mutation? lol
Dr Spencer Wells, Harvard evolutionary geneticist:There is more genetic diversity in any single African village than in the whole world outside Africa.
Why is this?
Because modern humans originate in Africa and lived only in Africa for much of our genetic history.
Today Africans make up only a fraction of the population but still retain the majority of genetic diversity.
Again, why?
Geneticist Sarah Tishkoff:Non-Africans are recently descendant from a small population of East Africans.
Throughout much of modern human history, sub-Saharan Africa has maintained a large effective population size.
Physiologically Africans have always been diverse as well.
There is no such thing as a single African phenotype, or 'pure' race, and there never has been.
Afrocentric critic C. Loring Brace's 2005 study groups ancient Egyptian populations like the Naqada closer to Nubians and Somalis than European, Mediterranean or Middle Eastern populations. Brace's study shows that the closest European linking with Africans in Egypt or Nubia are Middle Stone Age Portugese and Neolithics, OLDER populations more closely resembling AFRICANS than modern Europeans. Early Neolithic populations, like the Nautifians, in what is now Israel, show sub-Saharan 'negroid' affinities. (Brace, et al. The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 January 3; 103(1): p. 242-247.)
"The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample, both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians, and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa" (Brace, 2005)
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing you have not figured out is people DO group themselves by their HGs, why because hgs usually cluster regionally. For example a European in India will be seen as a European.
Again this regional clustering(I.E PN2) does not mean race is valid, as Brace et al. have proved..
Truthcentric tried to use Regional Clusters=Race and you can see Mind and others debate the topic..
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^ Do you know what race is defined as in Biology, its a Sub-Species. How can you get a Sub-Species out of the PN2 clad??
we can drop the word "race" out of the discussion if you want. Somebody might say that people who have E3a or E3b in frequencies over 70% are biologically distinct.
We can see the conflict that goes on today beteen people that look different and make that an issue. In the future when more and more people are genetically tested they can drop the old identifiers "black" , "white" , "caucasian" "negro" and call themselves by their haplogroups.
So in the future the hate could be based on this, for example people in haplogroup F might say they hate haplogroup D people, they're idiots. That sort of thing. That's what's going to happen in the future, the new labeling
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by xyzman: The strategy should be to dis-assembly the word CAUCASIAN.
We need to expand the narrative- lets not talk only about influx into Africa, but that of Africans into Europe. Let's start talking about "mixed race" Caucasians, turning their own race category methods back on them. Using their own methods, it is clear that Europeans are a mixed, hybrid "race." This is another attack on the bogus concept of "Caucasian" that needs to be stepped up.
"A tree calculated by the maximum-likelihood method and showing that admixture between ancenstral African and ancestral CHinese was responsible for the genesis of the European population (from Bowcock et al, 1991)." ---Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza The history and geography of human genes
Bowcock's original study shows Europeans are mixed:
QUOTE: "Tree constructed by maximum likelihood, assuming a model of admixture between ancestral Africans and ancestral Asians, fitting the distances of the lower triangle of Table 1. According to this model two divergent populations contribute in specified proportions to form a new population. Various pairs of ancestral populations from which the European branch may have descended by *admixture were tested* for choosing ancestral types that contributed to the admixture. Data were found to be most consistent with this tree; ancestral Europeans are estimated to be an admixture of 65% ancestral Chinese and 35% ancestral Africans." --Bowcock, et al 1991 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apply their one drop" rule in reverse. When it suits the hypocrites, the Eurocentric "one drop" rule of social construct "races" holds all with a small mix of "black blood" or genes to be "black." Fine. Let's apply their own race rule in reverse. OK, yeah, we will take your one drop rule and apply it to Europe. This means that any European population that shows a trace of African genetic material is "tainted" to be "black" as well. SO using their hypocritical race categories, Europeans like Greeks are black.
"A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998). This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005), in concordance with a process of demic diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."
-- F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564
QUOTE: "Underhill et al. (2001) showed that the frequency of the YAP+ Y haplogroup commonly referred to as haplogroup E or (III) is relatively high (about 25%) in the Middle East and Mediterranean. This haplogroup E is the major haplogroup found in sub-Saharan Africa (over 75% of all Y chromosomes). SPecifically, Europeans contain the E3b subhaplogroup, which was derived from haplogroup E in sub-Saharan Africa and currently is distributed along the North and East of Africa.. It appears that the 171 AIM test subject of this chapter may recognize the haplogroup E character as West African."
--T. Frudakis. 2008. Molecular photofitting: predicting ancestry and phenotype using DNA
Oh no you say hypocrites? Why not? Let's apply the same methods you use across the board. Even steven, hypocrites.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Caucasians, turning their own race category methods back on them.
look at zarahan saying people should use erroneus methods if they lead to a desired conclusion. How foolish.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dumbass. I am saying use those methods to expose the hypocrisy of people like your fake, frontin' "black woman" persona, as well as other assorted racists.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: The thing you have not figured out is people DO group themselves by their HGs, why because hgs usually cluster regionally. For example a European in India will be seen as a European.
Again this regional clustering(I.E PN2) does not mean race is valid, as Brace et al. have proved..
Truthcentric tried to use Regional Clusters=Race and you can see Mind and others debate the topic..
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^ Do you know what race is defined as in Biology, its a Sub-Species. How can you get a Sub-Species out of the PN2 clad??
we can drop the word "race" out of the discussion if you want. Somebody might say that people who have E3a or E3b in frequencies over 70% are biologically distinct.
We can see the conflict that goes on today beteen people that look different and make that an issue. In the future when more and more people are genetically tested they can drop the old identifiers "black" , "white" , "caucasian" "negro" and call themselves by their haplogroups.
So in the future the hate could be based on this, for example people in haplogroup F might say they hate haplogroup D people, they're idiots. That sort of thing. That's what's going to happen in the future, the new labeling
In the Brace paper you mention he says in the abstract:
"Skeletal analysis provides no direct assessment of skin color, but it does allow an accurate estimate of original geographical origins. African, eastern Asian, and European ancestry can be specified with a high degree of accuracy. Africa of course entails "black," but "black" does not entail African."
If race is a social contruct then man would say "black" does entail African. Example the U.S. census reflects the opinion of most Americans that, for example, a Pakistani person who is dark is not expected to identify as black.
One can debate the precise meaning of "race", regardless most conversations where "Negroid", "Caucasian" and Mongolid" are used the words "African", "European" and "Asian" can be susbstitued and in most cases the same intent is being used and the same conclusions made.
So without even mentioning the word "race" or "black" the exact same type of conflicts occur between people defined biologically as Mongolid, African and European.
Also notable in the Brace abstract on regional differences is that the first thing mentioned is skeletal characteristics. Haplogroup is not even mentioned in the abstract. (I'm not saying that's wrong or right just pointing it out)
.___________________________________________
Region does not mean "race"--reality versus convention in forensic anthropology.
Brace CL. Source Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. Abstract Norman Sauer has posed the rhetorical question: if races do not exist, how come forensic anthropologists are so good at identifying them? The simple answer is that, as members of the society that poses the question, they are inculcated into the social conventions that determine the expected answer. They should also be aware of the biological inaccuracies contained in that "politically correct" answer. Skeletal analysis provides no direct assessment of skin color, but it does allow an accurate estimate of original geographical origins. African, eastern Asian, and European ancestry can be specified with a high degree of accuracy. Africa of course entails "black," but "black" does not entail African. The significant identifying features of a given region then are stochastically determined and are not the products of natural selection. If they are valuable for purposes of identification, they have no coherent adaptive, that is, biological, significance. Neither individual traits nor a configuration of them associated with a given region have any adaptive significance and thus have no comparative worth. Traits of adaptive value however are not constrained by region and cannot be used to identify "race." .
So if the word "race" is debunked it doesn not stop very similar disputes between supposedly biologically distinguishable " African", "European" and "Asian" groups
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: I am saying use those methods
yes it's plain to see what you are saying.
You think if the right conclusion is reached the method to get to it is valid.
Once a method is used and approved of as a method, then this same method can be valid when applied to any subject. So the method has not been debunked it has been expanded on and shown that it is a valid method that can be applied to a broader range of subjects.
In other words sink to their level, fight fire with fire, tit for tat, the type of mentatity children have. You assume that if a certain method is reversed on somebody they will see that the method itself is wrong. But that often does not work it just leads to a vicious circle. The thing is many people actually like being in such circles.
at least xxyman was approaching a more sophisitcated way of thinking about this
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the Brace paper you mention he says in the abstract:
"Skeletal analysis provides no direct assessment of skin color, but it does allow an accurate estimate of original geographical origins. African, eastern Asian, and European ancestry can be specified with a high degree of accuracy. Africa of course entails "black," but "black" does not entail African."
If race is a social contruct then man would say "black" does entail African. Example the U.S. census reflects the opinion of most Americans that, for example, a Pakistani person who is dark is not expected to identify as black.
Correct, which is why Brace is talking bio-logically not Socially. Again what/who is black and what/who is white etc differs from Country and Nation. In some places in the Middle East and Islamic Nations people with direct African Ancestry could be considered "Arab" instead of African.
Once again this is why Race is invalid.
In the Brace paper you mention he says in the abstract:
"Skeletal analysis provides no direct assessment of skin color, but it does allow an accurate estimate of original geographical origins. African, eastern Asian, and European ancestry can be specified with a high degree of accuracy. Africa of course entails "black," but "black" does not entail African."
quote: One can debate the precise meaning of "race", regardless most conversations where "Negroid", "Caucasian" and Mongolid" are used the words "African", "European" and "Asian" can be susbstitued and in most cases the same intent is being used and the same conclusions made.
So without even mentioning the word "race" or "black" the exact same type of conflicts occur between people defined biologically as Mongolid, African and European.
Not so. Lets use "Asian" for example. you have people such as the Adaman Islanders, the Chinese, Persians and Mongols grouped as "Asian" same with Africa and Europe. Leaving out the Coastal Berbers who have Non African admixture African people would be the most diverse. Then Asians, then Europeans who are the least Diverse.
Also you have to deal with the fact that Europeans descend from Melanasians and Tropical Africans.
quote:Also notable in the Brace abstract on regional differences is that the first thing mentioned is skeletal characteristics. Haplogroup is not even mentioned in the abstract. (I'm not saying that's wrong or right just pointing it out)
This study was made to debunk Forensic Racialists
Here is a Link where Truth tried to do what you are claiming, read some of the responses from Aguyebana et al.
This is common knowledge in Anthropology and Biology.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the Brace paper you mention he says in the abstract:
"Skeletal analysis provides no direct assessment of skin color, but it does allow an accurate estimate of original geographical origins. African, eastern Asian, and European ancestry can be specified with a high degree of accuracy. Africa of course entails "black," but "black" does not entail African."
If race is a social contruct then man would say "black" does entail African. Example the U.S. census reflects the opinion of most Americans that, for example, a Pakistani person who is dark is not expected to identify as black.
Correct, which is why Brace is talking bio-logically not Socially. Again what/who is black and what/who is white etc differs from Country and Nation. In some places in the Middle East and Islamic Nations people with direct African Ancestry could be considered "Arab" instead of African.
Once again this is why Race is invalid.
My point is hate between one group and another can be applied in a very similar way when people are identified with the following skeletal analysis categorizations:
posted
Jari says: Not so. Lets use "Asian" for example. you have people such as the Adaman Islanders, the Chinese, Persians and Mongols grouped as "Asian" same with Africa and Europe. Leaving out the Coastal Berbers who have Non African admixture African people would be the most diverse. Then Asians, then Europeans who are the least Diverse.
Also you have to deal with the fact that Europeans descend from Melanasians and Tropical Africans.
^^According to some scholars, the first "Europeans" were cold-adapted Neanderthals, who evolved in Europe. Other hominids went on to become anatomically modern humans who evolved in Africa. QUOTE:
"Middle Pleistocene Diversity in Africa and the Origin of Modern Humans Günter Bräuer1 -- There is wide agreement on a speciation event in Africa at around 0.8 or 0.9 mya when Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) gave rise to a species named Homo heidelbergensis, or Homo rhodesiensis, or Homo sapiens. The new species expanded into Europe leading to the Neanderthal lineage, whereas in Africa it evolved into anatomically modern humans. The lineage of anatomical modernization can be subdivided into three groups, morphs, or grades: an early one including Bodo, Saldanha, Kabwe, Salé, a subsequent one including Florisbad, Laetoli H 18, Ileret (ER 3884), Jebel Irhoud, and early anatomically moderns with Omo Kibish, Herto and others." --Günter Bräuer, "Middle Pleistocene Diversity in Africa and the Origin of Modern Humans". IN: Modern Origins: A North African Perspective. 2012. Series: Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Hublin, Jean-Jacques; McPherron, Shannon P. (Eds.)
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
According to some scholars, the first "Europeans" were cold-adapted Neanderthals, who evolved in Europe. Other hominids went on to become anatomically modern humans who evolved in Africa. QUOTE:
Incorrect, some interbreeding with Neanderthals, to a small extent,
____________________________
Partial Replacement Model (replacement)
Proposed by Gunter Brauer, University of Hamburg, this idea also starts with the idea that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and migrated into both Europe and Asia. However, Mr. Brauer believes that there was some interbreeding, to a small extent with local populations. The result being that old groups were replaced with genetically different populations which evolved into modern Homo sapiens of the world today. In short, a gradual replacement of the old with the new.
_________________________________________
when he says "neanderthal lineage" he means the "neanderthal lineage" of AMH, those who had small mixtures with Neanderthal. This does not mean they were Neanderthals primarily.
also why you hate on Neanderthals? you killed them all
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic