quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: ^ desperate retard.
If you bothered to read the article, instead of rushing to quote-mine, it shows dark skin is a recent mutation -
''...early modern man (like their present day descendants such as the San People and Khoisan) in the forested shelters of southern Africa initially had light brown skin'' [p. 293]
''The early modern man who migrated to the open plans of equatorial Africa (Niger, Sudan) where UV radiation is the most intense developed a deep black skin'' [p. 294]
The author subscribes to the 'Out of Africa' theory, so he believes in a dispersion out of Africa by the Bushmen (proto-Capoids), who as he points out are light brown skinned, not dark or 'deep black' like Negroids.
Regardless of what evolution model however you subscribe to, dark skin is a recent mutation. Indigenous Africans were light brown.
And btw, talking of who doesn't look at their own data, your article states that Caucasoids evolved thin noses through cold (European) climate:
quote:the smaller nasal index (narrower nose) of the caucasoid
I've been saying this for years on this forum, yet have been called a 'white supremecist' for saying only Caucasoids have narrow noses. Yet now you quote an article that agrees, lol.
Caucasoids did, but black people with long narrow noses are thought to have developed it through hot, arid and dry heat, not cold weather.
Sorry to bust your bubble.
Negroids don't have thin noses. The only places in Africa you will find narrow noses and smaller nasal indexes are where Caucasoids settled.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Races aren't solely defined by their skin pigmentation or hair colour, and never have been. This thread is an epic fail.
There is not such thing as races, so your claim is a epic fail to begin with.
If you claim so, start explaining your races of Europe?
Coon and Ripley's 'Races of Europe' as they clarify are Caucasoid (white) subraces, which are distinguished locally and typologically into these smaller divisions on the basis of a few phenotype characteristics.
There are different subraces of Europe, this is common anthropological knowledge. Each European country is distinct because its population is made up of different subracial types.
The most diversity is in the Caucasoid race, its why it has the most subraces. Negroids in contrast have very few subraces, because they all look the same: wooly haired, prognathic, wide nosed.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: ^ desperate retard.
If you bothered to read the article, instead of rushing to quote-mine, it shows dark skin is a recent mutation -
''...early modern man (like their present day descendants such as the San People and Khoisan) in the forested shelters of southern Africa initially had light brown skin'' [p. 293]
''The early modern man who migrated to the open plans of equatorial Africa (Niger, Sudan) where UV radiation is the most intense developed a deep black skin'' [p. 294]
The author subscribes to the 'Out of Africa' theory, so he believes in a dispersion out of Africa by the Bushmen (proto-Capoids), who as he points out are light brown skinned, not dark or 'deep black' like Negroids.
Regardless of what evolution model however you subscribe to, dark skin is a recent mutation. Indigenous Africans were light brown.
And btw, talking of who doesn't look at their own data, your article states that Caucasoids evolved thin noses through cold (European) climate:
quote:the smaller nasal index (narrower nose) of the caucasoid
I've been saying this for years on this forum, yet have been called a 'white supremecist' for saying only Caucasoids have narrow noses. Yet now you quote an article that agrees, lol.
Caucasoids did, but black people with long narrow noses are thought to have developed it through hot, arid and dry heat, not cold weather.
Sorry to bust your bubble.
Negroids don't have thin noses. The only places in Africa you will find narrow noses and smaller nasal indexes are where Caucasoids settled.
A few things here, from where did your precious caucasiod come, to go and settle everywhere?
And when exactly did this happen?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Races aren't solely defined by their skin pigmentation or hair colour, and never have been. This thread is an epic fail.
There is not such thing as races, so your claim is a epic fail to begin with.
If you claim so, start explaining your races of Europe?
Coon and Ripley's 'Races of Europe' as they clarify are Caucasoid (white) subraces, which are distinguished locally and typologically into these smaller divisions on the basis of a few phenotype characteristics.
There are different subraces of Europe, this is common anthropological knowledge. Each European country is distinct because its population is made up of different subracial types.
The most diversity is in the Caucasoid race, its why it has the most subraces. Negroids in contrast have very few subraces, because they all look the same: wooly haired, prognathic, wide nosed.
The title of that book says "the races of Europe" not the sub races of Europe.
So how is it, they are different "sub-racially"?
On what is this based, what caused these "races of Europe" to become distinct from one another?
Btw, I am not speaking of "negriod" or what ever. Let's focus on Europe and its races...without the distractions...
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] but Mike how did this albinism enable whites to conquer the world and enslave our people for over 400 years?
But it's a good question, with a complicated answer that has more to do with Blacks, especially those in Europe, not taking lowly Albino seriously.
It's like if you have a pet chimp and if you don't watch the chimp before you know it he's making love to your wife and driving your car
you've always got to watch
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You must pay attention and use your intelligence to see that albinoid is not albino.
"aibinoid" is a made up word that doesn't appear in Websters or Oxford distionary. It's an attempt to extract the "oid" suffix from Negroid, or Caucasoid or Mongolid and racialize "albino" This thread is a bone thrown to a cockeyed dog named Mike
All words are made up, eventually.
With or without the suffix.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: The title of that book says "the races of Europe" not the sub races of Europe.
They are races, but they fall within the Caucasoid division, making them subraces or local typological variations. This is clarified in the introduction of the book. The term race has numerous meanings, it can refer to local populations for example Winston Churchill wrote a lengthy book on the 'British race', but the races of Europe are all Caucasoid subracial variations.
quote:So how is it, they are different "sub-racially"?
On what is this based, what caused these "races of Europe" to become distinct from one another?
Through localised environmental adaptations. Armenoids for example have a planoccipital head and large convex nose, through an adaptation process called dinaricization. Nordids (Nordics) in contrast went through a process of depigmentation, a reduction of melanin, which is why they have blonde hair, white skin and blue eyes.
Every single population is physically different, its why its silly to deny races exist. All races and subraces are: distinct populations defined by their heritable phenotypic traits. You see them wherever you go.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: The title of that book says "the races of Europe" not the sub races of Europe.
They are races, but they fall within the Caucasoid division, making them subraces or local typological variations. This is clarified in the introduction of the book. The term race has numerous meanings, it can refer to local populations for example Winston Churchill wrote a lengthy book on the 'British race', but the races of Europe are all Caucasoid subracial variations.
quote:So how is it, they are different "sub-racially"?
On what is this based, what caused these "races of Europe" to become distinct from one another?
Through localised environmental adaptations. Armenoids for example have a planoccipital head and large convex nose, through an adaptation process called dinaricization. Nordids (Nordics) in contrast went through a process of depigmentation, a reduction of melanin, which is why they have blonde hair, white skin and blue eyes.
Every single population is physically different, its why its silly to deny races exist. All races and subraces are: distinct populations defined by their heritable phenotypic traits. You see them wherever you go.
1) you're telling me they are the same race....yet are different / division/ dinaricization? They now for some odd reason fall into a category called "the same"? Yet are of a different categorization in the first place?
2) you're giving me traits, which one group has and the other doesn't? Including the pigmentation and depigmentation.
So what let to this differentiation amongst these groups. Other than: "Through localised environmental adaptations"?
When did this happen...and from where do your precious caucasian come, where did they originate? What is their history...from where they originate?
Every single population is physically different. Based on: local typological variations!?
But what is so variable about the typological landscape, you didn't summarize?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Phenotype is the old way of looking at things. Genotype is deeper
The key to this is:
"Through localised environmental adaptations"
"Local typological variations"
"Dinaricization"... is it actually a word?
Ironically these processes only took place amongst Europeans.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
TP this is the same idiot that claimed one thing in one thread then not more that a day or so later claimed the opposite.. Anglo_Pyramidiot quote: Thick lips and wide noses are not an exclusive Negroid feature. Mongoloids sometimes show those traits with zero Black admixture. Blacks have actually zero unique physical features, all are found in other races. Its just that they have the most retention for all the most primitive traits in one, while the other races only have one or two of these shared archaic features. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=006551 Then still chatting out of his ass turn around and states the following quote: Please do tell us how Mongoloid Koreans look like Negroids... their hair texture, bone structure and craniofacial features are completely different. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=006598Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: TP this is the same idiot that claimed one thing in one thread then not more that a day or so later claimed the opposite.. Anglo_Pyramidiot quote: Thick lips and wide noses are not an exclusive Negroid feature. Mongoloids sometimes show those traits with zero Black admixture. Blacks have actually zero unique physical features, all are found in other races. Its just that they have the most retention for all the most primitive traits in one, while the other races only have one or two of these shared archaic features. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=006551 Then still chatting out of his ass turn around and states the following quote: Please do tell us how Mongoloid Koreans look like Negroids... their hair texture, bone structure and craniofacial features are completely different. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=006598
I know...I know...this is why it's so funny...
The keyword now is: dinaricization (process) to explain the "differences". A theory invented somewhere in the late-1930'. This was taken from William Z. Ripley 1899, who was an economist.
Coon rewrote the work of Ripley and dedicated it to him, for some odd reason. And it was published in 1939. A time when America was segregated under brown vs the board and the Jim crow law.
1). The Caucasoid race is of dual origin consisting of Upper Paleolithic (mixture of sapiens and neanderthals) types and Mediterranean (purely sapiens) types.
2). The Upper Paleolithic peoples are the truly indigenous peoples of Europe.
3). Mediterraneans invaded Europe in large numbers during the Neolithic and settled there.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: TP this is the same idiot that claimed one thing in one thread then not more that a day or so later claimed the opposite.. Anglo_Pyramidiot quote: Thick lips and wide noses are not an exclusive Negroid feature. Mongoloids sometimes show those traits with zero Black admixture. Blacks have actually zero unique physical features, all are found in other races. Its just that they have the most retention for all the most primitive traits in one, while the other races only have one or two of these shared archaic features. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=006551 Then still chatting out of his ass turn around and states the following quote: Please do tell us how Mongoloid Koreans look like Negroids... their hair texture, bone structure and craniofacial features are completely different. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=006598
Not my problem you are just too dumb to understand.
Races can have an overlap or similar features by convergent evolution, but these traits are usually limited and races are still distinct by their obvious marked differences.
Some Mongoloids have prognathism, but they look nothing like Negroids. The same way both Mongoloids and Capoids have epicanthic folds, yet they look nothing a like because of other marked differences, they just share a singular trait by convergence.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: TP this is the same idiot that claimed one thing in one thread then not more that a day or so later claimed the opposite.. Anglo_Pyramidiot quote: Thick lips and wide noses are not an exclusive Negroid feature. Mongoloids sometimes show those traits with zero Black admixture. Blacks have actually zero unique physical features, all are found in other races. Its just that they have the most retention for all the most primitive traits in one, while the other races only have one or two of these shared archaic features. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=006551 Then still chatting out of his ass turn around and states the following quote: Please do tell us how Mongoloid Koreans look like Negroids... their hair texture, bone structure and craniofacial features are completely different. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=006598
Not my problem you are just too dumb to understand.
Races can have an overlap or similar features by convergent evolution, but these traits are usually limited and races are still distinct by their obvious marked differences.
Some Mongoloids have prognathism, but they look nothing like Negroids. The same way both Mongoloids and Capoids have epicanthic folds, yet they look nothing a like because of other marked differences, they just share a singular trait by convergence.
lol you do realize, you've just debunked yourself. Do you?
Now, what causes this convergent evolution to be limited at some regions and at other regions not? Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:lol you do realize, you've just debunked yourself. Do you? [Big Grin]
Maybe the the Anglo-Pict cretin doesn't see it.
If you argue for phenotypical convergence on the one hand for geographically diaparate populations then you have to apply that principle consistently.
But this weak-minded intellectual amateur argues that phenotypical metrics such as ~70-75 leptorrhine indices--the man is absolutely obsessed with noses. Freud where are you when we need you?--as is found in lesser or geater incidences all over Africa derive from some nebulous "caucasoid" admixtures. And parenthetically what about those East Asians that have lower leptorrhine indices. Mixed with caucasoids? LOL.
The man is a joker and is just a lot of fun to play with.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: 1) you're telling me they are the same race....yet are different / division/ dinaricization? They now for some odd reason fall into a category called "the same"? Yet are of a different categorization in the first place?
Why is basic racial typology hard for you to understand? There are the major racial divisions (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid), and then you have subraces or smaller divisions within each.
There are small variations within each race, enough to recognise and group such populations.
For example a Swede and Italian are both Caucasoid, yet most are of different subrace. A Swede is usually Nordid, while an Italian, Mediterranid. Most British are Atlantid, while most Poles, Alpine. If you travel across Europe, you will see these regional/minor phenotypic differences.
quote:2) you're giving me traits, which one group has and the other doesn't? Including the pigmentation and depigmentation.
Minor subracial differences include head shape (Alpines are broad headed, Nordids/Medierranids are narrow), hair colour (Nordids are blonde, Mediterranids and Alpines dark haired), skin colour (Nordids are pale white, Alpines medium white, Mediterranids olive or dark white) see here -
quote:So what let to this differentiation amongst these groups. Other than: "Through localised environmental adaptations"?
They are all minor environmental adaptations.
quote: When did this happen...and from where do your precious caucasian come, where did they originate? What is their history...from where they originate?
Caucasoids evolved out of Cro-Magnon, 35,000 B.P. Cro-Magnon's were proto-Caucasoids or robust whites. How far you take it back from there depends on personal taking of evolution in regards to racial model (out of africa vs. multiregionalism).
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:lol you do realize, you've just debunked yourself. Do you? [Big Grin]
Maybe the the Anglo-Pict cretin doesn't see it.
If you argue for phenotypical convergence on the one hand for geographically diaparate populations then you have to apply that principle consistently.
But this weak-minded intellectual amateur argues that phenotypical metrics such as ~70-75 leptorrhine indices--the man is absolutely obsessed with noses. Freud where are you when we need you?--as is found in lesser or geater incidences all over Africa derive from some nebulous "caucasoid" admixtures. And parenthetically what about those East Asians that have lower leptorrhine indices. Mixed with caucasoids? LOL.
The man is a joker and is just a lot of fun to play with.
Leptorrhine noses (N.I. 70 -) are only found among living Caucasoids. Thin nasal openings are obviously not going to be a feature natural to the hot climate. The only Africans with thinner noses are those with Caucasoid admixture.
Negroids have very wide noses, compared below, Caucasoid (left), Negroid (right):
Negroids as you can see have very wide nasal measurments. From a physical attractive perspective they are very ugly, however in Sub-Sahara Africa wide noses are suited to the climate.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Cass - You have been on the forum for 2 1/2 years and this is your ONLY subject. Come-on, even you must suspect that there is something wrong with you. Don't you think that you should address your problem? Posting here will never solve your problem, it can only compound it.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed something pathologically wrong with Anglo-Pict.
You make a point in response to Anglo-Pict--call it A. You then expect Anglo-Pict to respond to A--i.e. make a point such as A*. But this illogical poster just goes off on a tangent argues for C*. The impact is just amusement on the other side.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Cass - You have been on the forum for 2 1/2 years and this is your ONLY subject. Come-on, even you must suspect that there is something wrong with you. Don't you think that you should address your problem? Posting here will never solve your problem, it can only compound it.
I've corrected the lies in this thread.
Caucasoids are not albino's.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Albino's what? Fool, its albinos, not albino's. Just so amusing to see the kinds of dullards that Britannia is producing these days. Dysgenics at work, no doubt.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ lol, epic fail from the pseudo-intellectual.
Albinos can be spelt albino's. A variation of the spelling is albinoe or albinoes, so the apostrophe is used correctly as a contraction.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anglo_Pyramidologist is an outcast in the white world. So he enters the black world (in cyberspace) where he gets more special attention. He tricks himself that in seeking this attention he is advancing the "white race" by doing this but there's actually an emotional need being met
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
So far a lot of tooth gnashing and hand wringing but not even one attempt at falsifying any full paragraph context Finch proposal.
This means no one has found any part of Finch's Vitamin D - albinism hypothesis on the evolution of white skin in Europe to be unsound.
There is only dislike for Finch's hypothesis.
Here it is again with the same invitation for any and all to pick one or all of its premises, quote such premise(s) in full paragraph context, and then disconfirm.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Negroids have very wide noses, compared below, Caucasoid (left), Negroid (right):
Negroids as you can see have very wide nasal measurments. From a physical attractive perspective they are very ugly, however in Sub-Sahara Africa wide noses are suited to the climate.
Hooray Stephen Jay Gould was a Negro with his wide nasal measurements according to this fool.
posted
Gould's ancestry is highly questionable, hardly a good example of a pure Caucasoid.
It's also lucky he died, since it was recently discovered that he had falsified his research in a desperate attempt to demonise anthropologists who believe in race. If he had been alive, he would have been stripped from his scientific position and there would probably have been a lawsuit over his scientific misconduct.
Stephen Jay Gould mismeasured skulls in racial records dispute -
quote:lol you do realize, you've just debunked yourself. Do you? [Big Grin]
Maybe the the Anglo-Pict cretin doesn't see it.
If you argue for phenotypical convergence on the one hand for geographically diaparate populations then you have to apply that principle consistently.
But this weak-minded intellectual amateur argues that phenotypical metrics such as ~70-75 leptorrhine indices--the man is absolutely obsessed with noses. Freud where are you when we need you?--as is found in lesser or geater incidences all over Africa derive from some nebulous "caucasoid" admixtures. And parenthetically what about those East Asians that have lower leptorrhine indices. Mixed with caucasoids? LOL.
The man is a joker and is just a lot of fun to play with.
Leptorrhine noses (N.I. 70 -) are only found among living Caucasoids. Thin nasal openings are obviously not going to be a feature natural to the hot climate. The only Africans with thinner noses are those with Caucasoid admixture.
Negroids have very wide noses, compared below, Caucasoid (left), Negroid (right):
Negroids as you can see have very wide nasal measurments. From a physical attractive perspective they are very ugly, however in Sub-Sahara Africa wide noses are suited to the climate.
1). what you find very ugly is merely your opinion.
2). you've made a fool of yourself.
3). you aren't well traveled.
4). Sub Sahara Arfrica has more phenotypes, than what you believe and always show. There are types with thin lips and small noses, without admixture. Your ideology is outdated.
But you're right about the climatic adaption, in how it is suited.
Why is your European man cold adapted?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Finch in 1985 used tyr+ to describe one type of albinism. Today tyr+ is called type II (tyrosinase positive) oculocutaneous albinism. It is recognized as one of the approximately 10 different types of oculocutaneous albinism. Type II's can develop pigment.
There is a type IB which can also exhibit pigment. They used to call it yellow mutant oculocutaneous albinism.
The relevancy to Finch's hypothesis is that type II (tyrosinase positive, i.e. tyr+) albinism is highest in Africans and it makes for albinoids. Albinoid means like an albino. Unlike albinos, albinoids can display the whole range of lighter skin, lighter eye, and lighter hair colors of European whites.
The idea is that albinoids, through the process of prolonged genetic isolation, produced an "inbred" stock of humans with pink skin, blue to hazel eyes, and blond to light brown hair when their darker parent stock succumbed to the environment and its ecology and were not abundantly replenished from outside sources.
There is nothing hateful or racist about that.
Not being genetically isolated, albinoids in Africa were never under the circumstances that would lead to a self-reproducing regional human variety.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] So far a lot of tooth gnashing and hand wringing but not even one attempt at falsifying any full paragraph context Finch proposal.
This means no one has found any part of Finch's Vitamin D - albinism hypothesis on the evolution of white skin in Europe to be unsound.
There is only dislike for Finch's hypothesis.
Here it is again with the same invitation for any and all to pick one or all of its premises, quote such premise(s) in full paragraph context, and then disconfirm.
explain the difference between Frederick Murray's (or Jabolinsky)
"Vitamin D Hypothesis for the Depigmentation of Human Skin" supported by recent genetic findings: slc24a5 and EDAR
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: before (s)he edited it
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
So far a lot of tooth gnashing and hand wringing but not even one attempt at falsifying any full paragraph context Finch proposal.
This means no one has found any part of Finch's Vitamin D - albinism hypothesis on the evolution of white skin in Europe to be unsound.
There is only dislike for Finch's hypothesis.
Here it is again with the same invitation for any and all to pick one or all of its premises, quote such premise(s) in full paragraph context, and then disconfirm.
explain the difference between Frederick Murray's "Vitamin D Hypothesis for the Depigmentation of Human Skin" and Finch's "Vitamin D Albinism theory"
Employ comprehension while reading p.21b sentences 1 and 2.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: 1) you're telling me they are the same race....yet are different / division/ dinaricization? They now for some odd reason fall into a category called "the same"? Yet are of a different categorization in the first place?
Why is basic racial typology hard for you to understand? There are the major racial divisions (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid), and then you have subraces or smaller divisions within each.
There are small variations within each race, enough to recognise and group such populations.
For example a Swede and Italian are both Caucasoid, yet most are of different subrace. A Swede is usually Nordid, while an Italian, Mediterranid. Most British are Atlantid, while most Poles, Alpine. If you travel across Europe, you will see these regional/minor phenotypic differences.
quote:2) you're giving me traits, which one group has and the other doesn't? Including the pigmentation and depigmentation.
Minor subracial differences include head shape (Alpines are broad headed, Nordids/Medierranids are narrow), hair colour (Nordids are blonde, Mediterranids and Alpines dark haired), skin colour (Nordids are pale white, Alpines medium white, Mediterranids olive or dark white) see here -
quote:So what let to this differentiation amongst these groups. Other than: "Through localised environmental adaptations"?
They are all minor environmental adaptations.
quote: When did this happen...and from where do your precious caucasian come, where did they originate? What is their history...from where they originate?
Caucasoids evolved out of Cro-Magnon, 35,000 B.P. Cro-Magnon's were proto-Caucasoids or robust whites. How far you take it back from there depends on personal taking of evolution in regards to racial model (out of africa vs. multiregionalism).
1). You keep repeating that there are differences between these groups. And based on relatively "minor" differences you cluster groups together. However, they do differ. This is the problem with your theory.
2). See point one.
3). The Cro-Magnon claim is interesting. Where they tropical adapted in limb portions...? If so, how come? And from where does his Cro-Magnon come?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] So far a lot of tooth gnashing and hand wringing but not even one attempt at falsifying any full paragraph context Finch proposal.
This means no one has found any part of Finch's Vitamin D - albinism hypothesis on the evolution of white skin in Europe to be unsound.
There is only dislike for Finch's hypothesis.
Here it is again with the same invitation for any and all to pick one or all of its premises, quote such premise(s) in full paragraph context, and then disconfirm.
explain the difference between Frederick Murray's (or Jabolinsky)
"Vitamin D Hypothesis for the Depigmentation of Human Skin" supported by recent genetic findings: slc24a5 and EDAR
and Finch's
"Vitamin D Albinism theory"
.
alTakruri like Finch obscures the differnce between what Murray said and what Finch says. In failing to distingush the two for lack of knowledge on the Vitamin D hypothesis the resort is to ask me to read the same Finch item over again. This just exposes a lack of knowledge on alTakruri's part about Murray's Vitamin D hypothesis and how it is different from Finch's. The intent is to switch they theories so that a less knowledgable reader assumes Finch = Murray
This will have to taken as a fail by alTakruri
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Look.
I presented Finch's hypothesis.
As I post earlier there are other hypotheses.
posted April 01, 2012 05:11 AM
Nobody knows exactly how European white people came into existance. There are only hypotheses. Sustained congenital loss of colour whether spurred on by survival and reproduction of better vitamin D synthesizers and/or tyr+ albinoids (either/both occuring 20-30kya) and/or an SLC24A5 "sweep" (6kya).
Take your pick. They're all just somebody's best guess. If one is racist they all are racist as they all rely not on hatred or notions of superiority. They each and all rely on genetics.
Finch obviously differs from Murray in proposing albinism as the mechanism for depigmentation, as seen in Finch p.21b sentence 2. I invite the Lioness to post Finch p.21b sentences 1 and 2 and demonstrate that Finch does not indeed say that albinism as the mechanism is recent for 1985 whereas Murray's Vitamin D hypothesis was 50 years old in 1985.
Not liking Finch or erecting a Finch=Murray strawman does not falsify Finch's hypothesis.
Now, no more wasting time hating on Finch or pitching screwy curveballs like Finch=Murray which makes no sense and appears nowhere in either Finch or myself but only in Lioness' imagination.
I will ignore ad hominem, red herring, appeal to authority, strawman, and other logical fallacy inferences and await well thought out falsifications of any parts of Finch in full contextual refutation. We see that Lioness for one is incapable of such a relevant reply.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
albanoidism is an obsolete term for tyrosinase-positive oculocutaneous albinism, although "albanoid" is not used. basically it's a less extreme form of albinism with some pigmenation and certain eye problems not occuring.
The tyrosinase-positive oculocutaneous albinism gene shows locus homogeneity on chromosome 15q11-q13 and evidence of multiple mutations in southern African negroids.
M. A. Kedda, G. Stevens, P. Manga, C. Viljoen, T. Jenkins, and M. Ramsay Department of Human Genetics, School of Pathology, South African Institute for Medical Research, Johannesburg.
Tyrosinase-positive oculocutaneous albinism (ty-pos OCA) is an autosomal recessive disorder of the melanin pigmentary system. South African ty-pos OCA individuals occur with two distinct phenotypes, with or without darkly pigmented patches (ephelides, or dendritic freckles) on exposed areas of the skin. These phenotypes are concordant within families, suggesting that there may be more than one mutation at the ty-pos OCA locus. Linkage studies carried out in 41 families have shown linkage between markers in the Prader-Willi/Angelman syndrome (PWS/AS) region on chromosome 15q11-q13 and ty-pos OCA. Analysis showed no obligatory crossovers between the alleles at the D15S12 locus and ty-pos OCA, suggesting that the D15S12 locus is very close to or part of the disease locus, which is postulated to be the human homologue, P, of the mouse pink-eyed dilution gene, p. Unlike caucasoid "ty-pos OCA" individuals, negroid ty-pos OCA individuals do not show any evidence of locus heterogeneity. Studies of allelic association between the polymorphic alleles detected at the D15S12 locus and ephelus status suggest that there was a single major mutation giving rise to ty-pos OCA without ephelides. There may, however, be two major mutations causing ty-pos OCA with ephelides, one associated with D15S12 allele 1 and the other associated with D15S12 allele 2. The two loci, GABRA5 and D15S24, flanking D15S12, are both hypervariable, and many different haplotypes were observed with the alleles at the three loci on both ty-pos OCA-associated chromosomes and "normal" chromosomes.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
However Finch incorrectly speculates (a complete guess with no evidence) that tyrosinase-positive oculocutaneous albinismalbininoidism is associated with environemntal conditions above the 51st parallel. But It's a birth defect and not related to environmental conditions as is illustrated by the above School of Pathology, Johannesburg study of such persons in Africa shows. Further, extreme Northern conditions are still present even at higher latitudes above the 60th parallel yet where is the genetic evidence that this form of albinism is more common? Ther is none. It's a bogus theory, a semantic trick to try to transform Murray's description evolutionary adaptation at play into an accidental birth defect, a sudden change not related to the environmnet which just happens to be advanageous in Northern latitudes. However no data of any kind from either Africa or Northern latitudes is presented
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Reasons to ignore the above:
Finch nowhere states tyr+ arose in Europe
Finch gave much information on African albinos
Finch told of current neutral and ice age advantageous conditions as relates to albino(id)s.
Lioness does not understand that per Finch - isolated genepool - limited geography - environmental filtering - 10k+ years of time made a new biogeographic human variety
and naively promotes an imaginary leap of one generation displacement with no antecedents and no evolutionary processes involved.
It took up sometime but at least Lioness finally comprehends type II OCA can depigment without a display of harmful deleterious effects. That's a confirmation of one element of Finch's idea not a falsification.
I will ignore ad hominem, red herring, appeal to authority, strawman, and other logical fallacy inferences and await well thought out falsifications of any parts of Finch in full contextual refutation. We see that Lioness remains incapable of such a relevant reply.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:lol you do realize, you've just debunked yourself. Do you? [Big Grin]
Maybe the the Anglo-Pict cretin doesn't see it.
If you argue for phenotypical convergence on the one hand for geographically diaparate populations then you have to apply that principle consistently.
But this weak-minded intellectual amateur argues that phenotypical metrics such as ~70-75 leptorrhine indices--the man is absolutely obsessed with noses. Freud where are you when we need you?--as is found in lesser or geater incidences all over Africa derive from some nebulous "caucasoid" admixtures. And parenthetically what about those East Asians that have lower leptorrhine indices. Mixed with caucasoids? LOL.
The man is a joker and is just a lot of fun to play with.
Leptorrhine noses (N.I. 70 -) are only found among living Caucasoids. Thin nasal openings are obviously not going to be a feature natural to the hot climate. The only Africans with thinner noses are those with Caucasoid admixture.
Negroids have very wide noses, compared below, Caucasoid (left), Negroid (right):
Negroids as you can see have very wide nasal measurments. From a physical attractive perspective they are very ugly, however in Sub-Sahara Africa wide noses are suited to the climate.
The members of the populations above are way older then Europeans who genetically carry downstreams.
Indeed the environment provided well suited traits.
Ironically you will find people with light complexion in North Africa who carry the prognathic trait, wide nose and such...
Sahelians and Saharans are intermediate Africans...where all traits are possible. The Sahara has regions of extreme cold and heat, quickly shifting streams. These things you will not know, since all you do is sit behind your computer googling eugenic nonsense all day. No field experience what or ever.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somali's and Ethiopians are heavily Caucasoid admixed.
''On the basis of historical, linguistic, and genetic data, it has been suggested that the Ethiopian population has been strongly affected by Caucasoid migrations since Neolithic times. On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation....'' - Passarino et al. (1998) Different Genetic Components in the Ethiopian Population, Identified by mtDNA and Y-Chromosome Polymorphisms. Am J Hum Genet; 62:420-434
''The occurrence of E*5 212 and E*5 204 alleles in two populations of the Mediterranean basin (Turkey and Italy) but not in West Africans can be explained by taking into account that the Ethiopian gene pool was estimated to be >40% of Caucasoid derivation (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).'' - Scacchi et al. (2003) Genetic Variation at Apolipoprotein E Locus in Ethiopia: An E5 Variant Corresponds to Two Different Mutant Alleles: E*5 (Glu212Lys) and E*5 (Gln204Lys; Cys112Arg). Hum Biol; 75:293-300
''Ethiopian and Somali populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations.'' - Tishkoff et al. "Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins". Am J Hum Genet, 2000
In craniometric studies Somali's cluster with Caucasoids (Europeans) before West Africans (Negroids).
''Somalis cluster with Europeans before showing a tie with the people of West Africa or the Congo Basin.'' - Brace et al. "Clines and Clusters Versus 'Race': A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile". Year Phys Anthro, 1993.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Somali's and Ethiopians are heavily Caucasoid admixed.
''On the basis of historical, linguistic, and genetic data, it has been suggested that the Ethiopian population has been strongly affected by Caucasoid migrations since Neolithic times. On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation....'' - Passarino et al. (1998) Different Genetic Components in the Ethiopian Population, Identified by mtDNA and Y-Chromosome Polymorphisms. Am J Hum Genet; 62:420-434
''The occurrence of E*5 212 and E*5 204 alleles in two populations of the Mediterranean basin (Turkey and Italy) but not in West Africans can be explained by taking into account that the Ethiopian gene pool was estimated to be >40% of Caucasoid derivation (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).'' - Scacchi et al. (2003) Genetic Variation at Apolipoprotein E Locus in Ethiopia: An E5 Variant Corresponds to Two Different Mutant Alleles: E*5 (Glu212Lys) and E*5 (Gln204Lys; Cys112Arg). Hum Biol; 75:293-300
''Ethiopian and Somali populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations.'' - Tishkoff et al. "Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins". Am J Hum Genet, 2000
In craniometric studies Somali's cluster with Caucasoids (Europeans) before West Africans (Negroids).
''Somalis cluster with Europeans before showing a tie with the people of West Africa or the Congo Basin.'' - Brace et al. "Clines and Clusters Versus 'Race': A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile". Year Phys Anthro, 1993.
Somali girls (heavily caucasoid admixed) -
Now compared to Negroids...
I know you aren't the same person as the other dimwit, you are somewhat slightly smarter. And your writting style is different.
However, you are predictible and the fact remains, Somalis and Ethiopians are tropical adapted and not hairy like Eurasians or Europeans, who are cold adapted in limbs and hairy to extensive hairy..
Secondly, did you not claim that the environment suites and fits a phenotype? I told you before, I agree. The region where Somalis and Ethiopians have remained for thousands of years provides just that.
They are sub Saharans, but part of the Saharan/ Sahelian bridge.
Here is the actual composition of Somalis and Ethiopians...not the wishful thinking one.
The Northeast Africa-based E1b1b1a subclade is defined by SNP M78. Somalia, Sudan and Egypt are among the present day countries with very high frequencies (60-90%) of the E1b1b1a M78 subclade. The STR data also support its origin in this area with a TMRCA estimated at 14-23 kya.
The E1b1b1a1b (V32) subclade is a descendant of E1b1b1a1 (V12). E1b1b1a1b/V32 is highest in Somalia (47-75%),
This somewhat rare haplogroup, E1b1b1e (V6), has only been observed in East Africa with the most appreciable levels seen in Ethiopia (4-17%). Kenya and Somalia also harbor a moderate frequency (5%) of this subclade.
"The high frequency (77.6%) of haplogroup E3b1 was characteristic of male Somalis. The frequency of E3b1 was significantly lower in Ethiopian Oromos (35.9%), Ethiopian Amharas (22.9%), Egyptians (20.0%), Sudanese (17.5%), Kenyans (15.1%),10 Iraqis (6.3%), Northern Africans (6.1%), Southern Europeans (0.55.1%) and sub-Saharan populations." (Sanchez et al.,(2005) High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males, Eu J of Hum Genet (2005) 13, 856866)
Lastly, the woman you showed....you may explain where she is from....because clearly not everybody in sub Sahara Africa has her pheonotype, extensive prognathic bone structure. As I have shown before. And you of course, ignored that part. Just like the tropical adaptation in limbs of cro-magnons. lol
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Make room. Others are following in exponential droves. Soon the whole world will acknowledge the Black man's mutation to melanin loss which created the "white" man.
There is no such illusion as "RACE". Only those who have and have not, Melanin.Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yes, it does seem strange to see Tukuler aka alTakruri, post such a thread. We have fought so often that I hesitate to tease him, but it does seem like someone or something "Radicalized" him.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I had previously brought up the Russian swamps albino origin of whites. I had read it in Rogers many decades ago. Then two decades ago I read Finch's idea about whites originating from albinoids.
Since the idea has been around for damn near a century and was first promulgated by whites themselves I see nothing radical nor racist about it. It's just another alternative view on something no one knows for sure, that being, how did the pure blanco arise.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic