posted
The largest genetic distance between any two continents is between Africa and Oceania at 0.2470.
Based on physical appearance this may be counterintuitive, since Indigenous Australians and New Guineans resemble Africans with dark skin and sometimes frizzy hair. This large figure for genetic distance reflects the relatively long isolation of Australia and New Guinea since the end of the last glacial maximum when the continent was further isolated from mainland Asia due to rising sea levels. The next largest genetic distance is between Africa and the Americas at 0.2260. This is expected since the longest geographic distance by land is between Africa and South America. The shortest genetic distance at 0.0155 is between European Caucasoids and Non-European Caucasoids. Africa is the most genetically divergent continent, with all other groups being more related to each other than to Sub-Saharan Africans. This is expected in accordance with the recent single-origin hypothesis. Europe has a genetic variation in general about three times less than that of other continents, and the genetic contribution of Asia and Africa to Europe is thought to be 2/3 and 1/3 respectively.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:since Indigenous Australians and New Guineans resemble Africans with dark skin and sometimes frizzy hair.
No they don't. The Australian Aborigines are closest to archaic Caucasoids in physical form (convergent). Which is why as i have stated, when White Australians (Caucasoids) colonials have mated with Aborigines, they come out predominantly Caucasoid and full Caucasoid by the following generation...
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Stop running away from your responsibilities, b!tchboy
Bantu speakers and San on the same morphological branch. Indeed, they are much, much closer than some of the used groups in that study, of whom you've previously said they were closely aligned under the imaginary ''Caucasoid'' banner (Late Palaeolithic North Africans and Eurasians). Start explaining.
I'll show you my sources which counters this. i will be back online later and will show you.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I would caution the characterization of prognathism as a tropical African trait, as it can be found in many global populations.
...and I would say more like maxillary prognathism than alveolar prognathism [in reference to x-ray image].
Prognathism is found in other races (for example Australoids), however it is most pronounced or extreme (alveolar, mandibular, maxillary) in Negroids.
Let me announce it to you once more.
You are wrong again, first for using the term, second because extreme pronounced prognathism is mostly found within Asian groups.
Dumbass.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] Tutankhamun Colossal
Annoying little mosquito.
"the reality of the tropical adapted, alveolar prognathic African with overbite."
you come with alternate art which is in fact less "prognathic African with overbite than" (true Negro) than the colossal statue I posted. -not taking into account how the flesh overlayed in life rather than in the dried mummy
again for your ass:
Tutankhamun Colossal
Tutankhamun, Luxor Museum
You are slow and stupid again. You've once claimed to come from (West) Africa, I've heard. Yet, don't know anything about African diversity. Well let me reveal something to you here. You will find (West) Africans looking exactly like that. Image you keep posting.
So, once again you've been exposed for the fraud you are.
You try hard, but always fail.
Have you ever been to Luxor? lol
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:since Indigenous Australians and New Guineans resemble Africans with dark skin and sometimes frizzy hair.
No they don't
Boy oh boy. You really have a difficulty reading properly, don't you? It says and sometimes frizzy hair. This clearly makes an exception for some of the black, but non-frizzy haired populations in Oceania.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote:since Indigenous Australians and New Guineans resemble Africans with dark skin and sometimes frizzy hair.
No they don't. The Australian Aborigines are closest to archaic Caucasoids in physical form (convergent)
Where did Upper Palaeolithic European populations get their Australian Aboriginal-like features from? Need some help answering that, b!tch boy? See below:
quote:with all other groups being more related to each other than to Sub-Saharan Africans. This is expected in accordance with the recent single-origin hypothesis.
^You failed to address this, even though this glaringly contradicts your sh!tty views.
quote:Europe has a genetic variation in general about three times less than that of other continents,
^You failed to address this, even though this glaringly contradicts your sh!tty views that Africans are the ones with no variation.
quote:and the genetic contribution of Asia and Africa to Europe is thought to be 2/3 and 1/3 respectively.
^You failed to address this, even though this glaringly contradicts your sh!tty views, namely, that there is such a thing as an independent Caucasoid race, free of admixture.
quote:I'll show you my sources which counters this. i will be back online later and will show you.
50 year old Coonian speculation cannot be reproduced, Angho'. Hard statiscial analysis, such as the one carried out by the paper I just posted, can be reproduced anytime.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:since Indigenous Australians and New Guineans resemble Africans with dark skin and sometimes frizzy hair.
No they don't
Boy oh boy. You really have a difficulty reading properly, don't you? It says and sometimes frizzy hair. This clearly makes an exception for some of the black, but non-frizzy haired populations in Oceania.
Oh lard, I actually misunderstood him. Angho' is actually saying certain Sub Saharan Africans and Australian aboriginals don't generally resemble eachother. This boy is legitimately bonkers.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:50 year old Coonian speculation cannot be reproduced, Angho'. Hard statiscial analysis, such as the one carried out by the paper I just posted, can be reproduced anytime.
Modern studies on Sub-Saharan African cranial variation reveal that the highest diversity is in Capoids (Khoisans), not Negroids, and that there are five craniometric clusters which correspond to geographic regions: (1) Western Africa and Central Africa (2) Southern Africa (3) Eastern Africa (4) Khoisans (5) Pygmies.
These 5 clusters, exactly correspond to Bakers (1974) racial and subracial breakdown of Sub-Sahara Africa by geographical region (p. 328) -
(1) Palaeo-Negrid (Negroid A) (2) Kafrid (Negroid B) (3) Nilo-Hamitic (4) Sanids (Capoids) (5) Bambutid (Pygmies)
quote:[...] Six groups (table I): Western Africa (including Western-Central regions such as Cameroon and Nigeria), Central Africa (without Pygmies), Eastern Africa (excluding the Horn), Southern Africa (without KhoiSan), Pygmies and KhoiSan. The first six groups corresponded to approximate regions defined by physical geographical features or natural barriers that are observed all over the African continent.
- 'Differentiation of modern sub-Saharan African populations', Bulletins et mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, 16 (3-4), 2004.
NOTE: The above cranial study including 12 variables, discovered that ''Western Africa and Central Africa clustered well together'':
quote:A very close affinity between Western Africa and Central Africa, which was nevertheless less marked when the face only was analysed, was also often observed. This fact was noted previously by Froment (1992b, 1998).
These are the Palaeo-Negrids.
In Baker (1974, p. 331) both Western Africa and Central Africa cluster together as Palaeo-Negrid, which are further divided into two local microrace groups.
Now note the following from the above cranial study (2004):
quote:''[...]group differentiation was lower in the largest inter-regional data set (41%-54.4%) than in the two smaller ones (58.2%-80.1%). In addition, it was lower in Bantu- speakers (58.2%-71.4%) than in non Bantu-speakers (58.2%-80.1%).
Lowest differentation thus is in Negroids (Palaeo-Negrid and Kafrids). As the study continues:
quote:This fact suggested that, the latter reflected marked differences such as between Western Africa and KhoiSan, and that, Bantu-speakers groups were less differentiated between each other.
See bold...
Profound differences exist BETWEEN (inter not intra) groups. The Khoisans (Capoids) cluster seperate to Negroids, while having the greatest intra or inner-group diversity.
Continued -
quote:For all analyses especially using 12 variables (fig. 1), Western Africa and Central Africa clustered well together, and KhoiSan also fell quite apart.
The variables are clustering specific racial and subracial groups, while as noted the Khoisans cluster distinct to Negroids.
What are the clusters?
quote:The plots for both 12-variables (fig. 1a) and 9-variables (fig. 2a) analyses showed three clusters such as Southern Africa, KhoiSan, and Western Africa with Central Africa
The three prominent clusters support Baker (1974) -
Cluster 1: Kaffrids (Southern Africa) Cluster 2: Khoisans (Capoid) Cluster 3: Palaeo-Negrids (West and Central Africa)
quote:[...]the Western-Central Africa cluster had high long vault and wide orbits, and the KhoiSan low short vault and narrow orbits.
quote:In summary, the morphological differences were most of the time reflected between two extremes with the following features such as: the KhoiSan with short low vault, low and narrow orbits and narrow frontal; and Western Africa with high long vault, high and wide orbits and broad frontal. The remaining groups were positioned between these two extremes
So the two morphological extremes are Negroids and Capoids...
As the article further states -
quote:Furthermore, in agreement with Howells (1989) and Froment (1998) again, but in contrast to the observations of Hiernaux (1974), the range of variation in sub-Saharan Africa was not continuous or clinal, as significant differences were still observed between the different regions.
See bold...
No clines. haha. Zaharans bogus ''tropical african diversity'' has been debunked. Sub-Saharan africans are diverse because they are different races and subraces, and they cluster into distinct regional populations.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Modern studies on Sub-Saharan African cranial variation reveal that the highest diversity is in Capoids (Khoisans),
According to what evidence?
quote:and that there are five craniometric clusters which correspond to geographic regions: (1) Western Africa and Central Africa (2) Southern Africa (3) Eastern Africa (4) Khoisans (5) Pygmies.
It is at anyone’s whim how many clusters there are in a given region, depending how much attention is given to certain traits, how much population samples you leave out that don’t fit your model, and how much population distance is thought of as indicating a separation between populations. This is exactly why race Anthropologists have been at war with each other for ages about how many races there are worldwide:
quote:They are also agreed that there are races or equivalent taxonomic units sometimes designated by other names (Kalmus 1950; Montagu 1951). But there is considerable seeming disagreement as to how many races there are. Different taxonomies have listed as few as two races and as many as two hundred.
Give it up, Angho’, there is nothing objective about arbitrarily cutting up human variation, giving the variations a name, and having the arrogance to think you've just discovered the best thing since bottled water.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote:A very close affinity between Western Africa and Central Africa, which was nevertheless less marked when the face only was analysed, was also often observed. This fact was noted previously by Froment (1992b, 1998).
These are the Palaeo-Negrids. In Baker (1974, p. 331) both Western Africa and Central Africa cluster together as Palaeo-Negrid, which are further divided into two local microrace groups.
What is your point?
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote: Now note the following from the above cranial study (2004): [QUOTE]''[...]group differentiation was lower in the largest inter-regional data set (41%-54.4%) than in the two smaller ones (58.2%-80.1%). In addition, it was lower in Bantu- speakers (58.2%-71.4%) than in non Bantu-speakers (58.2%-80.1%).
Lowest differentation thus is in Negroids (Palaeo-Negrid and Kafrids).
Provide the full quote, with its surrounding context. For all I know, you’re lying again, like you did with that Billy study, when you said it was based on limb proportions.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote:This fact suggested that, the latter reflected marked differences such as between Western Africa and KhoiSan, and that, Bantu-speakers groups were less differentiated between each other.
See bold...
Profound differences exist BETWEEN (inter not intra) groups. The Khoisans (Capoids) cluster seperate to Negroids, while having the greatest intra or inner-group diversity.
You blind pig, that’s not what your quote says. It says there is a (unquantified) ‘’marked’’ difference between their West African samples and their Khoisan samples. The quote you’ve posted doesn’t say there is a marked difference between Bantu speakers and Khoisan, nor does it say that Khoisan have the greatest internal diversity.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote:For all analyses especially using 12 variables (fig. 1), Western Africa and Central Africa clustered well together, and KhoiSan also fell quite apart.
The variables are clustering specific racial and subracial groups
You just pulled that out of your ass. There is no indication whatsoever that we’re dealing with races, or subraces.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: while as noted the Khoisans cluster distinct to Negroids.
Cite the distances that were inferred from the samples, so we can see exactly how ‘distinct’ they were.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote: [QB] In summary, the morphological differences were most of the time reflected between two extremes with the following features such as: the KhoiSan with short low vault, low and narrow orbits and narrow frontal; and Western Africa with high long vault, high and wide orbits and broad frontal. The remaining groups were positioned between these two extremes
So the two morphological extremes are Negroids and Capoids...
Dumbass, your own quote clearly says West Africans were at the other extreme, while other groups were positioned in between these two extremes. You can’t even read, can you? You’ve just debunked yourself, dumbass.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote: [QB] Furthermore, in agreement with Howells (1989) and Froment (1998) again, but in contrast to the observations of Hiernaux (1974), the range of variation in sub-Saharan Africa was not continuous or clinal, as significant differences were still observed between the different regions. [/b]
See bold...
Means nothing to me without the distance values. Cite them.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anglo-Idiotic says: They are non-Negroid in virtually all anthropometric indices (cranial or post-cranial) and metric variables. For example, cephalic index, simotic index, zygomaxillary (facial flatness) index and so forth.
You're a lying bastard. Bushmen do not at all fall outside of the range of other Sub Saharan Africans in these characters. Even IF this is the case, and it isn't, it still would merely indicate morphological difference, rather than a phylogenetic difference. Their genetic heritage easily identifies them as part of a Sub Saharan lineage.
LMAO The moron say "Capoids" share no traits with "negroids" not even in facial-flatness index! But when the twit earlier said pronounced prognathism is a negroid trait, I posted a picture of a Mesolithic Nubian skull with pronounced prognathism, only for the dimwit to say that it is Capoid!! LOL Swenet, you are right! The Anglo-Dunce make for good entertainment.
Hey guys, I believe we have our new "Evil-Euro" troll, whom I affectionately called Stupid-Euro for obvious reasons! Posts: 26295 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for alleged differences in genotype between 'capoids' and 'negroids'..
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You (Anglo-Buffoon) say they are distinct in genotype, yet they both share a number of clades such as PN2 derived E as well as deeper clades like A and B which are shared by Ethiopians, specifically those "negroid" types you dismissed here as being new migrants!! LOL
I noticed you ignored my post above. I take it you have nothing to refute it, do you?
Posts: 26295 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is exactly why race Anthropologists have been at war with each other for ages about how many races there are worldwide.
Not true. It is agreed how many subspecies or major geographical races there are. The dispute of numbers only concerns local (sub, micro) races. Note the following -
quote:In the 1980s and 1990s Nei and Roychoudhury (1993) and Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Pi-azza (1994) developed a new method of classifying humans into races on the basis of a number of genetic polymorphisms (polymorphism means that a gene has more than one allele or alternative form). The technique is to take a number of polymorphic genes for blood groups, blood proteins, lymphocyte antigens, and immunoglobins, and tabulate the different allele frequencies in populations throughout the world. These tabulations are then factor analyzed to find the degree to which the allele frequencies are associated to form clusters of populations that are genetically similar to one another. The Nei and Roychoudhury data for 26 populations have been factor analyzed by Jensen (1998) to show the existence of six major groups of hu-mans that correspond closely to the races proposed by classical anthropologists.
(Lynn, 2006)
The six races modern genetics and skeletal biology has verified: Caucasoids, Mongoloids A (East Asians), Mongoloids B (Amerindians), Negroids, Australoids, Capoids.
All that has changed since Coon (1962) is that two Mongoloid branches are now recognised through modern genetic clusters. However given the fact Amerindians evolved isolated in the new world, having branched off from East Asians, and the fact they show some craniofacial variation - this is to be expected.
quote:What is your point?
Western Africa (and Central) is the true Negroid belt, further verifying Seligman's Races of Africa. All these modern studies are proving the old texts you ignorant Afronuts love to call ''white supremacist'' or ''Eurocentric''.
quote:Provide the full quote, with its surrounding context. For all I know, you’re lying again, like you did with that Billy study, when you said it was based on limb proportions.
Profound differences exist BETWEEN (inter not intra) groups. The Khoisans (Capoids) cluster seperate to Negroids, while having the greatest intra or inner-group diversity.You blind pig, that’s not what your quote says. It says there is a (unquantified) ‘’marked’’ difference between their West African samples and their Khoisan samples. The quote you’ve posted doesn’t say there is a marked difference between Bantu speakers and Khoisan, nor does it say that Khoisan have the greatest internal diversity.
The study is linked to above. What i have posted is exactly what it shows. There is a large morphological distance in metrics between Khoisans and Negroids, while smallest in-group (intra) diversity is in the latter. Negroids are not physically diverse. The intra diversity in sub-saharan africa is in the Capoids.
quote:You just pulled that out of your ass. There is no indication whatsoever that we’re dealing with races, or subraces.
quote:Dumbass, your own quote clearly says West Africans were at the other extreme, while other groups were positioned in between these two extremes. You can’t even read, can you? You’ve just debunked yourself, dumbass.
The two extremes: Capoids and Negroids. The other groups are intermediates through racial admixture. Baker (1974) discusses the Capoid admixture in Kafrids, and the 2004 study shows that the ''southern group'' (Baker's Kafrids) are essentially a cross between the Capoids and West/Central Africans.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As for alleged differences in genotype between 'capoids' and 'negroids'..
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You (Anglo-Buffoon) say they are distinct in genotype, yet they both share a number of clades such as PN2 derived E as well as deeper clades like A and B which are shared by Ethiopians, specifically those "negroid" types you dismissed here as being new migrants!! LOL
I noticed you ignored my post above. I take it you have nothing to refute it, do you?
A, is in East and North Africa because of Capoid admixture. Capoids once inhabited these areas (should be more shaded to the east on the map, but this appears generally accurate):
Congoids on map are the Pygmies.
Negroids mutated from them only as late as 12k years ago/ As we discussed in Lioness' thread, they have distant geneflow with Caucasoids and Capoids. The admixture is distant though as Coon (1965) notes, which is why little (if any) morphological variant traits have manifested in them. As Coon shows the Caucasoid traits that appear in them are mainly only in traits such as finger-print patterns. Some Negroids also through mating with Capoids have picked up steatopygia.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Lol. I asked you, according to what evidence do Khoisan have the most internal variation, not in what variables do they vary the most. Show me the exact quote that says that Khoisan people have more internal variation than Bantu speakers.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is exactly why race Anthropologists have been at war with each other for ages about how many races there are worldwide.
Not true. It is agreed how many subspecies or major geographical races there are. The dispute of numbers only concerns local (sub, micro) races. Note the following -
quote:In the 1980s and 1990s Nei and Roychoudhury (1993) and Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Pi-azza (1994) developed a new method of classifying humans into races on the basis of a number of genetic polymorphisms (polymorphism means that a gene has more than one allele or alternative form). The technique is to take a number of polymorphic genes for blood groups, blood proteins, lymphocyte antigens, and immunoglobins, and tabulate the different allele frequencies in populations throughout the world. These tabulations are then factor analyzed to find the degree to which the allele frequencies are associated to form clusters of populations that are genetically similar to one another. The Nei and Roychoudhury data for 26 populations have been factor analyzed by Jensen (1998) to show the existence of six major groups of hu-mans that correspond closely to the races proposed by classical anthropologists.
(Lynn, 2006)
You dumbo, I was talking about Craniometric divisioning of so called ''races’’, and that there hasn’t been a consensus regarding that. What does that have to do with Phylogenetics? Note: even your own genetic source don’t mention anything about Capoid, Pygmy, Negroid A, Negroid B and Nilotid races in Africa; there is only one, according to your own source. Additionally, the fact that genetic polymorphisms produce the same result as what was produced by classical anthropologists, shows how fake the interpretations of classical anthropologists are.
Genetic polymorphisms cannot structure people into races, because its analysis is based on tiny portions of our DNA which differ, outside of the non-polymorphic bulk of the genome, which is mostly identical. Races cannot be defined based on so little DNA, as the word implies total distinctiveness. The very fact that so much of the genome is identical, and that scientist would have to seek out polymorphic loci to begin with, in order to compare humans, contradicts any notions of races. Since all craniometic differences in populations are ultimately based on those exact same polymorphisms, craniometric variation must also be seen in the context of this 1% of the genome.
You have no phucking idea what you’re talking about. You’re just rambling on and on, talking out of your neck.
quote:The six races modern genetics and skeletal biology has verified: Caucasoids, Mongoloids A (East Asians), Mongoloids B (Amerindians), Negroids, Australoids, Capoids. […] All that has changed since Coon (1962) isthat two Mongoloid branches are now recognised through modern genetic clusters.
Phucking degenerate liar. Your own source doesn’t agree with your/Coons separation of Pygmies and Bushmen from Nigerians and Bantu speakers. This is how your genetic source delineated humans:
quote:these are (1) Africans of Sub-Saharan Africa (Pygmies, Nigerians, Bantu, Bushmen); (2) Caucasoids (Lapps, Finns, Germans, English, Italians, Iranians, North Indians); (3) East Asians (Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Tibetans, Mongolians); (4) Southeast Asians (Southern Chinese, Thais, Filipinos, Indonesians, Polynesians, Micronesians); (5) Amerindians (North and South Native American Indians and Inuit); and (6) Australian Aborigines (Australian Aborigines and New Guineans).
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote:What is your point?
Western Africa (and Central) is the true Negroid belt,
No one ever denied Western and Central African people were closely related, dumbo. LOL.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: further verifying Seligman's Races of Africa
Confused little boy. Seligman proposed the existence of a separate Pygmy race, which differs from your account of the six races you mentioned earlier, the phylogenetic data you cited, as well as the craniometric data you’ve posted. Seligman isn’t verified in anything. You’re only proving my point:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It is at anyone’s whim how many clusters there are in a given region, depending how much attention is given to certain traits, how much population samples you leave out that don’t fit your model, and how much population distance is thought of as indicating a separation between populations. This is exactly why race Anthropologists have been at war with each other for ages about how many races there are worldwide:
quote:They are also agreed that there are races or equivalent taxonomic units sometimes designated by other names (Kalmus 1950; Montagu 1951). But there is considerable seeming disagreement as to how many races there are. Different taxonomies have listed as few as two races and as many as two hundred.
quote:The study is linked to above. What i have posted is exactly what it shows. There is a large morphological distance in metrics between Khoisans and Negroids
‘’Large morphological difference’’ is relative, you idiot. For all we know, what was called ‘’markedly different’’, within this study, is much smaller than what you call ‘’close’’ under your imaginary Caucasoid header all the time. Indeed, glancing over at the Keita study, the distances between the Bushmen and some of the Africans is MUCH lower than the distances between the Badarians, whom you’ve called Caucasoid on several occasions, and Europeans.
quote:while smallest in-group (intra) diversity is in the latter. Negroids are not physically diverse.
Dumbass. The combined Southern, Central and Western (i.e., ‘Negroid’) confidence ellipses are much larger than the Khoisan ellipse. Additionally, divergent Bantu speakers such as the Tutsi, Himba and the Hima were left out. You fail miserably.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Dumbass, your own quote clearly says West Africans were at the other extreme, while other groups were positioned in between these two extremes. You can’t even read, can you? You’ve just debunked yourself, dumbass.
The two extremes: Capoids and Negroids.
No, liar, the two extremes are Khoisan and West Africans, and other African groups (i.e., Eastern, Central and Southern Bantu speakers) were situated in between.
In summary, the morphological differences were most of the time reflected between two extremes with the following features such as: the KhoiSan with short low vault, low and narrow orbits and narrow frontal; and Western Africa with high long vault, high and wide orbits and broad frontal. The remaining groups were positioned between these two extremes
quote:The other groups are intermediates through racial admixture. Baker (1974) discusses the Capoid admixture in Kafrids, and the 2004 study shows that the ''southern group'' (Baker's Kafrids) are essentially a cross between the Capoids and West/Central Africans.
You’re lying out of your ass again. The groups that were called ''intermediate’’ in between Khoisan and West Africans in the Ribot study you posted, were not closer to Khoisan because of admixture, but because they were simply less extreme in the vault, orbit and frontal measurements.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anglo-Idiotic says: They are non-Negroid in virtually all anthropometric indices (cranial or post-cranial) and metric variables. For example, cephalic index, simotic index, zygomaxillary (facial flatness) index and so forth.
You're a lying bastard. Bushmen do not at all fall outside of the range of other Sub Saharan Africans in these characters. Even IF this is the case, and it isn't, it still would merely indicate morphological difference, rather than a phylogenetic difference. Their genetic heritage easily identifies them as part of a Sub Saharan lineage.
LMAO The moron say "Capoids" share no traits with "negroids" not even in facial-flatness index! But when the twit earlier said pronounced prognathism is a negroid trait, I posted a picture of a Mesolithic Nubian skull with pronounced prognathism, only for the dimwit to say that it is Capoid!! LOL Swenet, you are right! The Anglo-Dunce make for good entertainment.
This guy is bonkers
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bottom line, these sculptures have been done by a French woman named Elizabeth Daynes. She is well known in anthropology circles for doing such reconstructions. Almost all of her reconstructions have a tell tale signature look that says Elizabeth Daynes, which tells you a lot.
Now, considering that the most ancient human in the world and not to mention the most ancient hominids in the world originate in tropical Africa, why are all of her reconstructions of a pale white variety? And why is she the only one doing reconstructions and especially in Egypt?
France is not part of ancient Egyptian history, but as I have said earlier on this forum, France in many ways as the former colonial power in North Africa and the one who made Egypt popular in Europe 200 years ago, is still trying hard to make a 'pan mediterranean' historical bloc. And by doing this they are trying to make North African, Egyptian and European history somehow more closely related in the ancient past than they really were. One example is the strong Berber academy located in France and the other is this woman becoming "the standard" for doing ancient reconstructions, but somehow never doing reconstructions of black folks who by all accounts are the oldest hominids of any type on earth in order to push this nonsensical notion of humans evolving from white European types, when they did not.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ]Lol. I asked you, according to what evidence do Khoisan have the most internal variation, not in what variables do they vary the most. Show me the exact quote that says that Khoisan people have more internal variation than Bantu speakers.
According to the study Capoids (Khoisans) have the most intra (in-group) diversity, while Negroids the least in-group differentiation:
quote:[...]group differentiation was lower in the largest inter-regional data set (41%-54.4%) than in the two smaller ones (58.2%-80.1%). In addition, it was lower in Bantu- speakers (58.2%-71.4%) than in non Bantu-speakers (58.2%-80.1%). This fact suggested that, the latter reflected marked differences such as between Western Africa and KhoiSan, and that, Bantu-speakers groups were less differentiated between each other.
quote:You dumbo, I was talking about Craniometric divisioning of so called ''races’’, and that there hasn’t been a consensus regarding that.
There has been consensus for a long time. Beals et al. (1984) who measured approximately 20,000 skulls discovered that all skulls could neatly fall in the tripartite forensic classification: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid.
Why are the other three major races (subspecies) not recognised in forensics? Only because of reasons of practicality, as Gill (1998) explains:
- Craniofacial criteria in the skeletal attribution of race. In Reichs KJ (ed.) Forensic Osteology. Charles C. Thomas Publishing. 1998.
Capoids are not recognised because of their very small population, and the average forensic anthropologist in a lab obviously doesn't have access to a Khoisan skull.
quote:What does that have to do with Phylogenetics? Note: even your own genetic source don’t mention anything about Capoid, Pygmy, Negroid A, Negroid B and Nilotid races in Africa; there is only one, according to your own source. Additionally, the fact that genetic polymorphisms produce the same result as what was produced by classical anthropologists, shows how fake the interpretations of classical anthropologists are.
Those are not all races, but include sub-races. In genetic studies sub-races are rarely ever distinguished, for example a genetic study on Europeans (Caucasoids) will not differentate between Alpines and Mediterranids.
quote:Genetic polymorphisms cannot structure people into races, because its analysis is based on tiny portions of our DNA which differ, outside of the non-polymorphic bulk of the genome, which is mostly identical. Races cannot be defined based on so little DNA, as the word implies total distinctiveness. The very fact that so much of the genome is identical, and that scientist would have to seek out polymorphic loci to begin with, in order to compare humans, contradicts any notions of races. Since all craniometic differences in populations are ultimately based on those exact same polymorphisms, craniometric variation must also be seen in the context of this 1% of the genome.
The differences are created through genetic frequency. The fact we are 99% identical in genes is irrelevant, it is the frequency or expression of the genes which massively differs.
Race deniers still continue to spout Lewontin's fallacy, despite it has been debunked over and over. Here is a 2007 paper on the difference in gene expression levels in Caucasoids ('whites')and Mongoloids ('Asians'):
quote:Phucking degenerate liar. Your own source doesn’t agree with your/Coons separation of Pygmies and Bushmen from Nigerians and Bantu speakers. This is how your genetic source delineated humans
Negroids are not a taxa, they are mutations from a racial taxa - Pygmies. They still obviously cluster with Pygmies when compared to other races (as they mutated from them), but they are not a taxonomic race or subspecies, rather a subtype as i have have shown.
quote:Confused little boy. Seligman proposed the existence of a separate Pygmy race, which differs from your account of the six races you mentioned earlier, the phylogenetic data you cited, as well as the craniometric data you’ve posted. Seligman isn’t verified in anything.
Seligman (p. 41) notes that the Pygmies are not degenerated Negroids. He believed like Coon and Gates, that the Pygmies were ancestral to Negroids and the the Negroids are recent mutations from the Pygmy racial taxa.
quote:’Large morphological difference’’ is relative, you idiot. For all we know, what was called ‘’markedly different’’, within this study, is much smaller than what you call ‘’close’’ under your imaginary Caucasoid header all the time. Indeed, glancing over at the Keita study, the distances between the Bushmen and some of the Africans is MUCH lower than the distances between the Badarians, whom you’ve called Caucasoid on several occasions, and Europeans.
The 2004 study has shown conclusively that Capoids differentate to Negroids in all cranial variables. Morphologically they are distinct races. Face it - GAME OVER.
Capoids (Khoisans) do not cluster with Negroids in skeletal biology, they cluster seperate.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ He probably has "caucasoid" mixture due to being orthognathic. LOL
quote:Originally posted by KoKaKoLa:
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_PrimaryIdiot:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As for alleged differences in genotype between 'capoids' and 'negroids'..
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You (Anglo-Buffoon) say they are distinct in genotype, yet they both share a number of clades such as PN2 derived E as well as deeper clades like A and B which are shared by Ethiopians, specifically those "negroid" types you dismissed here as being new migrants!! LOL
I noticed you ignored my post above. I take it you have nothing to refute it, do you?
A, is in East and North Africa because of Capoid admixture. Capoids once inhabited these areas (should be more shaded to the east on the map, but this appears generally accurate):
Congoids on map are the Pygmies.
Negroids mutated from them only as late as 12k years ago/ As we discussed in Lioness' thread, they have distant geneflow with Caucasoids and Capoids. The admixture is distant though as Coon (1965) notes, which is why little (if any) morphological variant traits have manifested in them. As Coon shows the Caucasoid traits that appear in them are mainly only in traits such as finger-print patterns. Some Negroids also through mating with Capoids have picked up steatopygia.
A is common among Nilotic population. so i dont believe the "capoid" admixture in east and north africa.
Correct! In fact, as I mentioned above both A & B are common among Ethiopians like these:
The dummy claims these Ethiopians above to be "recent immigrants", but he never answered from where.
I assume he thinks them to be 'Bantus'!! LOL They don't even speak Bantu language or practice any Bantu culture, so what are we to make of them?!
Posts: 26295 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Buffoon: Not true. It is agreed how many subspecies or major geographical races there are. The dispute of numbers only concerns local (sub, micro) races. Note the following
But there ARE NO subspecies of humans!! Genetics has disproved such a notion over two decades ago! Which means you are clinging onto a debunked lie. Posts: 26295 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Damn, I almost forgot what the actual topic of this thread was about! LOL No more Anglo-Idiocy.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Bottom line, these sculptures have been done by a French woman named Elizabeth Daynes. She is well known in anthropology circles for doing such reconstructions. Almost all of her reconstructions have a tell tale signature look that says Elizabeth Daynes, which tells you a lot.
Now, considering that the most ancient human in the world and not to mention the most ancient hominids in the world originate in tropical Africa, why are all of her reconstructions of a pale white variety? And why is she the only one doing reconstructions and especially in Egypt?
France is not part of ancient Egyptian history, but as I have said earlier on this forum, France in many ways as the former colonial power in North Africa and the one who made Egypt popular in Europe 200 years ago, is still trying hard to make a 'pan mediterranean' historical bloc. And by doing this they are trying to make North African, Egyptian and European history somehow more closely related in the ancient past than they really were. One example is the strong Berber academy located in France and the other is this woman becoming "the standard" for doing ancient reconstructions, but somehow never doing reconstructions of black folks who by all accounts are the oldest hominids of any type on earth in order to push this nonsensical notion of humans evolving from white European types, when they did not.
Interesting. So I take it that it was this Daynes woman who was part of the French team who did the reconstruction of Tut for Hawass and National Geographic. How many others has she done?
Posts: 26295 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Damn, I almost forgot what the actual topic of this thread was about! LOL No more Anglo-Idiocy.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Bottom line, these sculptures have been done by a French woman named Elizabeth Daynes. She is well known in anthropology circles for doing such reconstructions. Almost all of her reconstructions have a tell tale signature look that says Elizabeth Daynes, which tells you a lot.
Now, considering that the most ancient human in the world and not to mention the most ancient hominids in the world originate in tropical Africa, why are all of her reconstructions of a pale white variety? And why is she the only one doing reconstructions and especially in Egypt?
France is not part of ancient Egyptian history, but as I have said earlier on this forum, France in many ways as the former colonial power in North Africa and the one who made Egypt popular in Europe 200 years ago, is still trying hard to make a 'pan mediterranean' historical bloc. And by doing this they are trying to make North African, Egyptian and European history somehow more closely related in the ancient past than they really were. One example is the strong Berber academy located in France and the other is this woman becoming "the standard" for doing ancient reconstructions, but somehow never doing reconstructions of black folks who by all accounts are the oldest hominids of any type on earth in order to push this nonsensical notion of humans evolving from white European types, when they did not.
Interesting. So I take it that it was this Daynes woman who was part of the French team who did the reconstruction of Tut for Hawass and National Geographic. How many others has she done?
Yes, Daynes did the tut reconstruction.
She does a wide reconstructions of ancient hominids. But one thing she does not do is black ancient humans. She always does pale skinned ancient hominids and humans. And many of the early primate 'hominids' that she has done reconstructions of are also pale.
And she has also done a pale version of Lucy as well.
While I don't claim to know for certain what type of skin these early ancestors had, I dont believe her use of color is strictly scientific either, seeing as she has yet to do any reconstructions of early African humanoids who were obviously black.
Look at her website for yourself and see what she feels the first "homo sapien" looked like.
Now keep in mind the earliest humans living in caves took place in Africa but of course, Europeans like to pretend this is some special history unique to Europe.
Now keep in mind that part of the justification for killing off folks like the Aborigines of Australia and Tasmania is because they supposedly were example of primitive "archaic" humans who they often compared to ancient primate ancestors in Africa. But to see these reconstructions you would swear that the first humans out of Africa were damn there white folks. But note there are no representations of the first humans on the planet in Africa before they left Africa. Not to mention that the first humans out of Africa went to Asia not Europe.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ If you're interested in less Eurocentric reconstructions of early humans, you might want to check out this other paleoartist's gallery. I find his work refreshing after Daynes.
This whole thread makes me consider joining the business of reconstructing ancient and prehistoric people. At the very least it could be a hobby.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ]Lol. I asked you, according to what evidence do Khoisan have the most internal variation, not in what variables do they vary the most. Show me the exact quote that says that Khoisan people have more internal variation than Bantu speakers.
According to the study Capoids (Khoisans) have the most intra (in-group) diversity, while Negroids the least in-group differentiation:
quote:[...]group differentiation was lower in the largest inter-regional data set (41%-54.4%) than in the two smaller ones (58.2%-80.1%). In addition, it was lower in Bantu- speakers (58.2%-71.4%) than in non Bantu-speakers (58.2%-80.1%). This fact suggested that, the latter reflected marked differences such as between Western Africa and KhoiSan, and that, Bantu-speakers groups were less differentiated between each other.
Stop talking jibberish, Angho’. You say Negroids have less internal variation than Bushmen, your quote says group differentiation was lower in Bantu groups, than in non-Bantu groups. West Africans are ''negroid'' as well. Negroid A, and Negroid B, remember, Angho'? Those were your terms.
quote:There has been consensus for a long time. Beals et al. (1984) who measured approximately 20,000 skulls discovered that all skulls could neatly fall in the tripartite forensic classification: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid.
Why are the other three major races (subspecies) not recognised in forensics? Only because of reasons of practicality, as Gill (1998) explains:
LOL. Gill recognizes another one (Polynesian)? Man, do you have any idea how much you’re proving my point? Your racial categories are consistent with none of the authors you’ve mentioned. Gill makes no mention of Pygmies and Bushmen as separate races within Africa. Epic fail.
*Cambell, cited in Gill: Negroid, Caucasian, Mongoloid, Australoid, American Indian, Polynesian
*Lynn: Negroid, Caucasian, Mongoloid, Australoid, American Indians, Southeast Asians
*Selgman: Bushmanoids, Pygmies, Negroids, Caucasoids,. (Seligman already has four races in Africa alone)
*You (1st account): (1) Palaeo-Negrid (Negroid A) (2) Kafrid (Negroid B) (3) Nilo-Hamitic (4) Sanids (Capoids) (5) Bambutid (Pygmies)
*You (2nd account): Negroid, Caucasian, East Asians, Australoid, American Indians, Capoids
None of your sources converge, and even more ridiculously, your own positions regarding the human races don’t even converge. You cite several sources (Lynn, Gill, Ribot), who don’t even agree with you, then you give credence to another scholar (Seligman), whose classifications fit with NONE of your other scholars. You're exposing the absolute falseness of your lies regarding a supposed consensus among scientists, without me even having to do any work:
Not true. It is agreed how many subspecies or major geographical races there are.
^We’ve already figured out you’re basically wrong whenever you open your mouth. What remains to be figured out, is whether you actually believe the dose of crap that exits your mouth whenever you open it.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Those are not all races, but include sub-races. In genetic studies sub-races are rarely ever distinguished, for example a genetic study on Europeans (Caucasoids) will not differentate between Alpines and Mediterranids.
Further prove your race system is patently false. There are no traces of it, genetically. Since genetics has the last word, it has made your subraces, of which you’ve just admitted that they have no genetic underpinnings, totally obsolete. Of course, it takes a retard such as yourself to not be able to connect these dots yourself. You have to be told repeatedly that inferences drawn from our genome override any conclusions that can be drawn from the skeletal record.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: The differences are created through genetic frequency. The fact we are 99% identical in genes is irrelevant, it is the frequency or expression of the genes which massively differs.[/qb]
Are you capable of comprehending? I just told you about the polymorphic, and the non-polymorphic regions of the genome. The polymorphic regions of the genome ARE the loci where the different frequencies occur. This is one percent of the genome. Conclusion: there are no races, and ALL humans have a single recent origin.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Race deniers still continue to spout Lewontin's fallacy, despite it has been debunked over and over. Here is a 2007 paper on the difference in gene expression levels in Caucasoids ('whites')and Mongoloids ('Asians')[/QB]
LOL. He still doesn’t get it. The differences you cite occur in the polymorphic regions of our genome. You’re all about non sequitors. No one has ever denied that there are distributions of the same polymorphic traits that correlate somewhat along African, European, East Asian, etc. lines. Does that signify race? No. Back to the drawing board.
quote:Negroids are not a taxa, they are mutations from a racial taxa - Pygmies.
Prove it with the specifics, without citing some scholars opinion. Tell me what that scholar is basing it on. Let’s see the direct (genetic) evidence. Cite the uniparental lineages, for example, that show a parent/descendant relationship for Pygmies and West Africans and Bantu speakers.
quote:Seligman (p. 41) notes that the Pygmies are not degenerated Negroids. He believed like Coon and Gates, that the Pygmies were ancestral to Negroids and the the Negroids are recent mutations from the Pygmy racial taxa.
You’re not replying to what I said. I said Seligman’s contention that Pygmies are a separate race, is not supported by any of your sources. So, how many indigenous races are there in Africa? Seligman says three, Coon says two, Lynn says one, Campbell & Gill say one. Might I add, that these are all YOUR sources, and that you, two one who posted them, are on record LYING that there is a consensus. LOL.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Yes we understand all that. Especially soft tissue features such as the tip of the nose and fullness of lips as well as ears and even eyelid shaping cannot be given by the skull and only guessed by the forensic artist.
My bad; I got the impression that the broacher of a topic on "facial reconstruction" and asks questions like "so the purpose of this mess, is only to show the facial reconstruction of two random mummies? Why? to make us believe that the ancient egyptians were "white" by creating confusions?" must not have "understood all that".
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ]Lol. I asked you, according to what evidence do Khoisan have the most internal variation, not in what variables do they vary the most. Show me the exact quote that says that Khoisan people have more internal variation than Bantu speakers.
According to the study Capoids (Khoisans) have the most intra (in-group) diversity, while Negroids the least in-group differentiation:
quote:[...]group differentiation was lower in the largest inter-regional data set (41%-54.4%) than in the two smaller ones (58.2%-80.1%). In addition, it was lower in Bantu- speakers (58.2%-71.4%) than in non Bantu-speakers (58.2%-80.1%). This fact suggested that, the latter reflected marked differences such as between Western Africa and KhoiSan, and that, Bantu-speakers groups were less differentiated between each other.
Stop talking jibberish, Angho’. You say Negroids have less internal variation than Bushmen, your quote says group differentiation was lower in Bantu groups, than in non-Bantu groups. West Africans are ''negroid'' as well. Negroid A, and Negroid B, remember, Angho'? Those were your terms.
quote:There has been consensus for a long time. Beals et al. (1984) who measured approximately 20,000 skulls discovered that all skulls could neatly fall in the tripartite forensic classification: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid.
Why are the other three major races (subspecies) not recognised in forensics? Only because of reasons of practicality, as Gill (1998) explains:
LOL. Gill recognizes another one (Polynesian)? Man, do you have any idea how much you’re proving my point? Your racial categories are consistent with none of the authors you’ve mentioned. Gill makes no mention of Pygmies and Bushmen as separate races within Africa. Epic fail.
*Cambell, cited in Gill: Negroid, Caucasian, Mongoloid, Australoid, American Indian, Polynesian
*Lynn: Negroid, Caucasian, Mongoloid, Australoid, American Indians, Southeast Asians
*Selgman: Bushmanoids, Pygmies, Negroids, Caucasoids,. (Seligman already has four races in Africa alone)
*You (1st account): (1) Palaeo-Negrid (Negroid A) (2) Kafrid (Negroid B) (3) Nilo-Hamitic (4) Sanids (Capoids) (5) Bambutid (Pygmies)
*You (2nd account): Negroid, Caucasian, East Asians, Australoid, American Indians, Capoids
None of your sources converge, and even more ridiculously, your own positions regarding the human races don’t even converge. You cite several sources (Lynn, Gill, Ribot), who don’t even agree with you, then you give credence to another scholar (Seligman), whose classifications fit with NONE of your other scholars. You're exposing the absolute falseness of your lies regarding a supposed consensus among scientists, without me even having to do any work:
For the last time, races are not subraces.
Nilotid, Kafrid are the latter. And Negroids are a subtype of the Pygmy taxa. And looking above, most those names are just equivilant to others - ''Polynesians'' and ''South-East Asians'' etcetc. Polynesians have an adjacent Southeast Asian genetic and morphological origin.
You are clueless about anthropology and don't even know the difference between race and subrace.
I don't need to waste further time with a complete moron who doesn't know the basics.
You can continue to troll claiming my sources contradict myself, but you yourself know for that to happen you are diliberately confusing race with subrace.... I don't need to waste time with a complete liar.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And for the last time. The only liar in here is YOU. Swenet, Zarahan, myself, and others have continuously exposed your lies yet you continue to post your rubbish like it was meaningful. LOL I say sell it to someone even dumber than you.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Yes, Daynes did the tut reconstruction.
She does a wide reconstructions of ancient hominids. But one thing she does not do is black ancient humans. She always does pale skinned ancient hominids and humans. And many of the early primate 'hominids' that she has done reconstructions of are also pale.
And she has also done a pale version of Lucy as well.
While I don't claim to know for certain what type of skin these early ancestors had, I don't believe her use of color is strictly scientific either, seeing as she has yet to do any reconstructions of early African humanoids who were obviously black.
Look at her website for yourself and see what she feels the first "homo sapien" looked like.
Now keep in mind the earliest humans living in caves took place in Africa but of course, Europeans like to pretend this is some special history unique to Europe.
Now keep in mind that part of the justification for killing off folks like the Aborigines of Australia and Tasmania is because they supposedly were example of primitive "archaic" humans who they often compared to ancient primate ancestors in Africa. But to see these reconstructions you would swear that the first humans out of Africa were damn there white folks. But note there are no representations of the first humans on the planet in Africa before they left Africa. Not to mention that the first humans out of Africa went to Asia not Europe.
Yes, this reminds me of the traditional portrayal of human evolution from lower primate, to hominid, to modern human walking fully erect but that modern human is a 'white' man. Not withstanding the gender bias of the evolution of a human always portrayed as male, it is absolutely absurd to show the first modern human as 'white'. As for early hominids having pale skin, well if they are hair that sufficiently covers their bodies like in many chimps then it is possible for them to have had pale skin. But as was discussed before, the evolution of hair loss had to coincide with dark skin for protection from tropical UV exposure.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: If you're interested in less Eurocentric reconstructions of early humans, you might want to check out this other paleoartist's gallery. I find his work refreshing after Daynes.
This whole thread makes me consider joining the business of reconstructing ancient and prehistoric people. At the very least it could be a hobby.
The artworks in the link you cited are an interesting take, although I am somewhat slightly disturbed by the fact that they are merely distortions on the faces of modern people. I mean many of them appear to be Melanesians whose faces were photo-shopped to look like more primitive hominids.
Posts: 26295 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ And for the last time. The only liar in here is YOU. Swenet, Zarahan, myself, and others have continuously exposed your lies yet you continue to post your rubbish like it was meaningful. LOL I say sell it to someone even dumber than you.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Yes, Daynes did the tut reconstruction.
She does a wide reconstructions of ancient hominids. But one thing she does not do is black ancient humans. She always does pale skinned ancient hominids and humans. And many of the early primate 'hominids' that she has done reconstructions of are also pale.
And she has also done a pale version of Lucy as well.
While I don't claim to know for certain what type of skin these early ancestors had, I don't believe her use of color is strictly scientific either, seeing as she has yet to do any reconstructions of early African humanoids who were obviously black.
Look at her website for yourself and see what she feels the first "homo sapien" looked like.
Now keep in mind the earliest humans living in caves took place in Africa but of course, Europeans like to pretend this is some special history unique to Europe.
Now keep in mind that part of the justification for killing off folks like the Aborigines of Australia and Tasmania is because they supposedly were example of primitive "archaic" humans who they often compared to ancient primate ancestors in Africa. But to see these reconstructions you would swear that the first humans out of Africa were damn there white folks. But note there are no representations of the first humans on the planet in Africa before they left Africa. Not to mention that the first humans out of Africa went to Asia not Europe.
Yes, this reminds me of the traditional portrayal of human evolution from lower primate, to hominid, to modern human walking fully erect but that modern human is a 'white' man. Not withstanding the gender bias of the evolution of a human always portrayed as male, it is absolutely absurd to show the first modern human as 'white'. As for early hominids having pale skin, well if they are hair that sufficiently covers their bodies like in many chimps then it is possible for them to have had pale skin. But as was discussed before, the evolution of hair loss had to coincide with dark skin for protection from tropical UV exposure.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: If you're interested in less Eurocentric reconstructions of early humans, you might want to check out this other paleoartist's gallery. I find his work refreshing after Daynes.
This whole thread makes me consider joining the business of reconstructing ancient and prehistoric people. At the very least it could be a hobby.
The artworks in the link you cited are an interesting take, although I am somewhat slightly disturbed by the fact that they are merely distortions on the faces of modern people. I mean many of them appear to be Melanesians whose faces were photo-shopped to look like more primitive hominids.
Of course some apes have pale skin but that is more like the monkey variety, but most large ancestral relatively recent hominid groups were relatively hairless at some point.....
Either way, the whole idea is to make Europeans the epitome of evolution with blacks not even in the picture at all. By doing so they can claim everything in human history as "their" history.
And most of these reconstructions look like variations of Dayne's herself. But hey for all their so called concerns about historical accuracy you won't here these clowns complaining about those glaring discrepancies now will you?
Much like the idea that all the firsts in human and/or hominid history somehow occurred first in Europe..... LOL. Yet by any stretch of the imagination that is pure nonsense, hominid, homo sapien or otherwise....
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
LOL. You yourself said subraces cannot be distinguished genetically. Basically, this makes the term a pseudo-scientific term, according to your own words. Just give it up Angho’, you’re taking variation that occurs along populational lines, and you are arbitrarily labeling it racially, even though your own genetic source says the various morphological variations you delineate racially, have no genetic underpinnings (e.g., you posted Lynn, who said there is only one African race, when you look at the genetic level). You are so phucking dumb, its mind boggling.
quote:Nilotid, Kafrid are the latter.
Based on what? Oh, I forgot, they are sub-races regardless of the fact their genome says they aren’t
quote: And Negroids are a subtype of the Pygmy taxa.
According to what direct genetic evidence?
quote:And looking above, most those names are just equivilant to others - ''Polynesians'' and ''South-East Asians'' etcetc.
Even IF this is the case, there are still a ridiculously large amount of different proposed racial divisions:
quote:The number of “original” races these researchers claim existence for ranges from three to thirty-seven (Molnar 1998: 19).
^this proves that delineating races is an entirely arbitrary and subjective endeavor. Calling someone a race denier, or referring to polymorphic traits along broad ethnical lines will not do. You still haven’t provided a shred of evidence that races exist, your own sources are all over the place when it comes to the amount of races, and there is no consensus in the amount of races.
quote:You are clueless about anthropology and don't even know the difference between race and subrace.
No person with a functioning brain cell would want to be proficient in something which is thoroughly pseudo-scientific. Of course, you’re the exception to that rule. From pyramidology, to races/subraces to Emission theory (to everyone who doesn’t know what that is, it’s the theory that we see objects because our eyes actively shine out light). You’re a phucking numbskull, barely capable of producing a logical thought.
quote:I don't need to waste further time with a complete moron who doesn't know the basics.
Translation: DAMN my butt is being held to the fire. Let me exit gracefully while I still can.
quote:You can continue to troll claiming my sources contradict myself, but you yourself know for that to happen you are diliberately confusing race with subrace
You’re lying again. You propose the existence of two indigenous African races (negroid and capoid), Seligman proposes three, Lynn proposes one, Campbell proposes one. You include no Southeast Asian group, Lynn DOES, Campbell DOES, Coon does not. Coon proposes no Amerindian group, you do. None of the groups mentioned were thought of as sub-races by their assemblers, and the proposals are STILL all over the place.
quote:don't need to waste time with a complete liar.
Stop projecting ho’. There is no need for me to lie, or do any pro-active work for that matter, to expose you. You expose yourself with all the dumb sh!t you say, and the sources you post.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Tutankhamun Colossal
Annoying little mosquito.
The burial found in the South. Of "the reality of the tropical adapted, maxillary, alveolar prognathic African with overbite." Packed with melanin specimen of African (negroid) origin. He, who died of a typical African decease, like the rest of his family members who suffered from this illness, called sickle cel!
Everything indicated a boy of African origin. Yet the racist black woman imposter, lyingass, keeps on ranting for years.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] Tutankhamun Colossal
Annoying little mosquito.
"the reality of the tropical adapted, alveolar prognathic African with overbite."
you come with alternate art which is in fact less "prognathic African with overbite than" (true Negro) than the colossal statue I posted. -not taking into account how the flesh overlayed in life rather than in the dried mummy
again for your ass:
Tutankhamun Colossal
Tutankhamun, Luxor Museum
You are a uneducated racist lying Khazarian, who hates blacks! And I totally smit on you! And indeed Luxor is in the South, near Aswan. Where the boy is from, which I have posted! And as Djehuti stated morphologically they look African.
Luxor Museum, Egypt.
This statue represents Tutankhamun as Amun and it was discovered in the Karnak temple Cachette in 1904. The statue is 155cm high and is carved from Limestone.
In this statue he is wearing the twin plumes of Amun. His hands hold the Isis knot and he is standing with his left foot advanced.
Tutankhamun, in the popular theory, restored the cult of Amun after the death of Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV), and he changed his name from Tutankhaten (living image of Aten) to (living image of Amun). This was very probably politically expedient, and even necessary for his continued reign. Theories about his parentage, life and death are abound.
Been there, done that!
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beautiful facial reconstruction of that bald head Egyptian priest.He look like an Ethiopian?Abyssinian.The skin color is medium brown but shoud be darker caramel brown.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Tutankhamun Colossal 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The moron say "Capoids" share no traits with "negroids" not even in facial-flatness index! But when the twit earlier said pronounced prognathism is a negroid trait, I posted a picture of a Mesolithic Nubian skull with pronounced prognathism, only for the dimwit to say that it is Capoid!! LOL Swenet, you are right! The Anglo-Dunce make for good entertainment. 
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I don't need to waste time with a complete liar.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Bumb^ for Swenet!
Printer-friendly view of this topic