-------------------- "TRUTH IS LIKE LIGHTNING WITH ITS ERRAND DONE BEFORE YOU HEAR THE THUNDER" - Gerald Massey "TRUTH IS FINAL" -Mumia Abu-Jamal Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
It would be public humiliation, but he. He called Keita a pseudo and what not... So let us put up this debate.....SOOOOOOOON!
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would Keita waste time on an imbecile, it's not like Anglo is of great mind or anything all he is, is a very redundant dunce,who learnt not a damned thing the time he has been here as a matter of facts you all humiliate him here daily,let keita go on to debate people in his own league who has accreditation but different opinion,I swear sometimes you guys give this clown too much attention.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't need to. Everything Keita states has already been debunked. You do realise this whole racial denial ''cline'' argument for phenotype diversity was debunked back in the 60's.
By the way, it was very strange watching the Keita video posted. His visual representations are all lifted from BAKER 1974. Including the opening slide...
What the heck are Afrocentrics and self-proclaimed ''race denialists'' [sic] like Keita doing reading race realism literature like Baker and lifting all their images from it? Deep insecurity and projection as usual. Everyone deep down knows race is a reality.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
You know it isn't, thats why you always run away when I break it down to you.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
You know it isn't, thats why you always run away when I break it down to you.
No what you do is like Narmarthoth and others, is confuse subspecies with race, or race with sub-race. Hence Narmarthoth in the other thread posts ''Races of Europe'' by Coon (1939) as to infer he is saying Europe is racially mixed with Negroids and Mongoloids. Just epic fail. It is why i left that other thread, as this is all you were doing. I'm not wasting time with retards who play around with semantics and don't understand basic racial taxonomy.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
That isn't the only thread you ran from, liar. You ALWAYS run, because you know I put the fire to your pink buttocks.
Lets see how much of what you're saying is true. Go back to that thread, and show me where in my latest post where I supposedly confused any sub race with the parent races.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know where the thread is. But as i have already shown, forensic anthropology and genetics confirms the same taxonomy over and over. For sake of practicality, forensics usually only deals with the classical tripartite scheme: Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid. This is because Australoids are reduced to a small world population, and Capoids number no more than a few ten thousand.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Where did I confuse sub race with race in my last post?
quote:This is because Australoids are reduced to a small world population, and Capoids number no more than a few ten thousand.
Stop lying. Its because they cannot discriminate metrically between a good portion of what you call ''Negroids'' and what you call ''Australoids''. The same thing goes for ''Negroids'' and ''Capoids''. That is the only reason why they have three groups. They simply don't have the means to discriminate between the other so called races, so they ''settle'' with the three most divergent, and hence, most recognizable, groups. And even with these three groups, they still have to speak in percentages, as in, a certain likelihood that a given persons morphology belongs to East Asians, Africans or Europeans.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Australoids are different to Negroids in craniofacial features and metrics. For example depth of infraglabellar notch:
- Hanihara, T., Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations, Am J Phys Anthropol, 111, 105 (2000).
Australoids and Negroids are the furthest away from each other, polar extremes. This is only one trait of many, its exactly the same for indexes, especially the orbit shapes. We can go through hundreds more. lol. The fact you think an anthropologist cannot distinguish between a Negroid skull from an Australoid once again exposes yourself as a complete charlatan.
As i have explained the reason most forensics do not include Australoids in their skeletal biological classification is because they don't have access, precisely what Gill (1990) and more recently Wilkinson (2004) have discussed. But when they *do* have access, they are recognised. Australoid crania is easily recognisable through multiple criteria, just like Caucasoid etc.
quote:Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the clinal perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the 'race denial' faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in 'race denial' are in 'reality denial' as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence.
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.
How many ''major groups'' (subspecies or geographical races) have classical anthroplogists proposed?
The answer is 5 or 6.
And so modern genetics has not at all changed much, but confirmed the standard racial classification. You are just nit-picking, but that is all race denialists can do, you actually have no solid data against the reality of race.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Australoids are different to Negroids in craniofacial features and metrics. For example depth of infraglabellar notch:
What you're citing is a single trait. Start citing conclusions from modern papers that are based on the whole cranium, such as this one:
quote:The major findings are as follows: 1) Australians show closer similarities to African populations than to Melanesians.
LOL. Representatives of the so called ''Negroid race'' are closer to the epitome of the ''Australoid race'' (Australian aboriginals themselves) than some other groups from the ''Australoid race'' are to Australian aboriginals?
So much for the idea that cranio-facial trends equal races.
quote:The fact you think an anthropologist cannot distinguish between a Negroid skull from an Australoid once again exposes yourself as a complete charlatan.
You can keep running your mouth all you want, but where are your sources that debunk what I've said, Angho'?
Are the researchers who implicitly state there is extensive overlap between certain Africans and Australian Aboriginals charlatans too?
(when referring to a Epi-Palaeolithic Egyptian specimen)
quote:“it may be seen that the skull in question shows the closest affinity to Wadi Halfa, modern Negroes and Australian aborigines, being quite different from Epipalaeolithic materials of Northern Africa usually labeled as “Mechta” type.
-Midnant Reynes
and
quote:Then a forensic artist, Richard Neave from the University of Manchester, UK, created a face for Lucia. The result was surprising: "It has all the features of a negroid face," says Dr Neave.
The skull dimensions and facial features match most closely the native people of Australia and Melanesia.
-Richard Neave
and
quote:Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a cranial morphology distinct from that displayed by most late and modern Native Americans. The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more generalized and can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians. Here, we present the results of a comparative morphological assessment of a late Paleoindian/early archaic specimen from Capelinha Burial II, southern Brazil. The Capelinha skull was compared with samples of four Paleoindian groups from South and Central America and worldwide modern groups from W.W. Howells' studies. In both analyses performed (classical morphometrics and geometric morphometrics), the results show a clear association between Capelinha Burial II and the Paleoindians, as well as Australians, Melanesians, and Africans, confirming its Paleoamerican status.
-Neves et al
quote:How many ''major groups'' (subspecies or geographical races) have classical anthroplogists proposed?
Which of the groups mentioned by Lynn are subraces of another, larger race, and which ones are the original races?
quote:The answer is 5 or 6.
There is no 5 or 6, dummy. The idea of races is not a subtle one, a group either constitutes a race, or it belongs to one. Thanks for admitting the frivolousness of the concept. LOL.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
@anglo I don't need to. Everything Keita states has already been debunked.
Please answer the question.
Would you publicly debate Keita? Don't try and wriggle out of it. I'll pm you if needs be and post your response here. If you're going to start trying to discredit Keita, then you should be confident of your performance debating him. So, again, if Keita agreed to it, would you debate him publicly? It would be a walkover if 'everything Keita states has already been debunked', no?
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keita has no time for this nonsense. Bothering him with this garbage will only make him adverse to answer questions from lay people. I sent him some very pertinent Data on Ancient DNA but the message went un-answered. Afro-clowns and Euro-clowns and the extreme shenanigans by Salsassin probably burned the bridge long ago. Dr. Keita is a genius and has no time for this foolishness.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: Australoids are different to Negroids in craniofacial features and metrics. For example depth of infraglabellar notch:
What you're citing is a single trait. Start citing conclusions from modern papers that are based on the whole cranium, such as this one:
quote:The major findings are as follows: 1) Australians show closer similarities to African populations than to Melanesians.
LOL. Representatives of the so called ''Negroid race'' are closer to the epitome of the ''Australoid race'' (Australian aboriginals themselves) than some other groups from the ''Australoid race'' are to Australian aboriginals?
So much for the idea that cranio-facial trends equal races.
quote:The fact you think an anthropologist cannot distinguish between a Negroid skull from an Australoid once again exposes yourself as a complete charlatan.
You can keep running your mouth all you want, but where are your sources that debunk what I've said, Angho'?
Are the researchers who implicitly state there is extensive overlap between certain Africans and Australian Aboriginals charlatans too?
(when referring to a Epi-Palaeolithic Egyptian specimen)
quote:“it may be seen that the skull in question shows the closest affinity to Wadi Halfa, modern Negroes and Australian aborigines, being quite different from Epipalaeolithic materials of Northern Africa usually labeled as “Mechta” type.
-Midnant Reynes
and
quote:Then a forensic artist, Richard Neave from the University of Manchester, UK, created a face for Lucia. The result was surprising: "It has all the features of a negroid face," says Dr Neave.
The skull dimensions and facial features match most closely the native people of Australia and Melanesia.
-Richard Neave
and
quote:Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a cranial morphology distinct from that displayed by most late and modern Native Americans. The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more generalized and can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians. Here, we present the results of a comparative morphological assessment of a late Paleoindian/early archaic specimen from Capelinha Burial II, southern Brazil. The Capelinha skull was compared with samples of four Paleoindian groups from South and Central America and worldwide modern groups from W.W. Howells' studies. In both analyses performed (classical morphometrics and geometric morphometrics), the results show a clear association between Capelinha Burial II and the Paleoindians, as well as Australians, Melanesians, and Africans, confirming its Paleoamerican status.
-Neves et al
quote:How many ''major groups'' (subspecies or geographical races) have classical anthroplogists proposed?
Which of the groups mentioned by Lynn are subraces of another, larger race, and which ones are the original races?
quote:The answer is 5 or 6.
There is no 5 or 6, dummy. The idea of races is not a subtle one, a group either constitutes a race, or it belongs to one. Thanks for admitting the frivolousness of the concept. LOL.
Australoids moved into Africa. So it is not surprising to find reports on old crania from African regions which look Australoid (i have reports, from Elliot-Smith to more recent). The scientists you cite just employ a circular logic, starting from the non-proven OOA theory. So when an Australoid looking skull is indeed found in Africa, they automatically equate it to ''African populations''... just circular reasoning.
In responce to what you posted about race, you are again incorrect -
quote:If a geographical race is defined as a collection of similar populations inhabiting a broad continental area or island chain, then the number of geographical races is six...
- Garn. Stanley M. Readings on Race, 2nd Ed. 1968, p. 13.
The figure has always been around 5 or 6. As the quote states, geographical races (subspecies) can easily be recognised from each continent or large geographical reas. For example, if you compare a native European, to a native East Asian, to a native West African there are more than enough phenotypic differences (hair texture, craniofacial features etc) to cluster them as seperate races.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: @anglo I don't need to. Everything Keita states has already been debunked.
Please answer the question.
Would you publicly debate Keita? Don't try and wriggle out of it. I'll pm you if needs be and post your response here. If you're going to start trying to discredit Keita, then you should be confident of your performance debating him. So, again, if Keita agreed to it, would you debate him publicly? It would be a walkover if 'everything Keita states has already been debunked', no?
No. I have made it clear i don't socialise with ''Blacks'' or other races in real life. That is why i debate other races here. The internet is different, it is cyberspace (not real), and i have contacts and even friends (not blacks though) of other races on various forums and mmorpgs.
I have no interest in Keita. I just watched a few minutes of a video that was posted here. Everything Keita is saying, was debunked by Coon back in the 60's. Its just the same ''clinal'' arguments against race, this time though from his nonsensical idea ''Africans'' are the most diverse in phenotype through in situ evolution. In reality though they are most diverse because they are a mixture of different races.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Australoids moved into Africa. So it is not surprising to find reports on old crania from African regions which look Australoid (i have reports, from Elliot-Smith to more recent).
I’m not even going to get side tracked by that bullsh!t about ‘’Australoids’’ moving into Africa. The fact of the matter is, Australians and certain Africans show even closer relationships than certain groups who have been lumped in the Australoid group, as noted by Hanihara when he said:
quote:The major findings are as follows: 1) Australians show closer similarities to African populations than to Melanesians.
The used Africans here were Southern African Bantu speakers. Despite your attempts to derail the conversation and distract the attention from your emotion based denial of the affinities Australian aboriginals have with certain Africans, your earlier contention that Australians and certain Africans could be easily distinguished is patently false.
quote:So when an Australoid looking skull is indeed found in Africa, they automatically equate it to ''African populations''... just circular reasoning.
You phucking dufus, that was not the point. The point was that, metrically speaking, it occurs all the time that craniums display a morphology which occurs both in certain Africans and Australian aboriginals. In case you’re slow enough to not get the implications of this, let me spill the beans for you. There is no way we’d get those morphologies in both certain Africans and Australian aboriginals, if those Africans and Australian aboriginals didn’t overlap extensively in craniofacial appearance.
quote:If a geographical race is defined as a collection of similar populations inhabiting a broad continental area or island chain, then the number of geographical races is six...
Lol. And you think that by citing someone who implies the amount of races depends on how you interpret the term, it helps your case?
quote:The figure has always been around 5 or 6.
This is a blatant lie. The figure has always been around 5 or 6, among the scholars you’ve cited. As I’ve shown earlier, according to the source I've posted, the amount of postulated races have ranged from 2 to 200.
quote:For example, if you compare a native European, to a native East Asian, to a native West African there are more than enough phenotypic differences (hair texture, craniofacial features etc) to cluster them as seperate races.
So then if those phenotypic differences are enough to group them into races, why is the ’’Negroid race’’ genetically closer to Europeans, than to Australian aboriginals, while the picture is reversed in cranio-metric analysis? Answer: genetic distances, which has the last word in the end over cranio-metrics, are a separate thing entirely from cranio-metric trends. They may or may not allign, and each time they don't allign, they remind sound thinking people of why phenotype-based race was abandoned a long time ago, in the first place.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This train wreck is not even fun to watch anymore!
DNA has the last word and the indigenous unmixed Australian, Melenesian, southeast Asian, East Asian and indigenous peoples of the Americas possessed ZERO% Neanderthal DNA, and there is not one study after May of 2010 that will tell you any differently.
Anyone that attempts to refute that is an uneducated moron or is intentionally lying to you and hoping that you are too stupid to understand the difference between an INDIGENOUS population, a native population and a modern day population
The INDIGENOUS australian population genome has already been sequeneced and it shows ZERO% Neanderthal DNA. If you want to see what the last full blooded people of Australia and Tasmania just look online and you will see that they were as black and woolly haired as any African, but more importantly with ZERO% Neanderthal DNA.
The indigenous Austrailian gemone has already been sequenced and the ancient DNA has already been analyzed, which is why you see this monkey using old data, talking about skulls. its really quite sad.
The INDIGENOUS southeast Asians, and the DIRECT ancestors of ALL asians are the Jarawa and they still exist to this very day. We do not even have to look at bones to find out who the original people of Asia were because they still exist! They also are as black as any African and once again their DNA shows them to possess ZERO% Neandertrhal DNA.
You see this is the reason why the filthy moron monkey wants to show you pics of MODERN DAY populations which are NOT the same as the INDIGENOUS populations, but unfortunately for the filthy pig not only do we have pics of the last INDIGENOUS full blooded people of Austrailia and Tasmania before they died, but we also have their bones along with the bones of their ancestors which show ZERO% Neanderthal DNA
Why is anyone even paying attention to this filthy monkey talking about skulls, and spamming pics when we have the DNA?
DOSENT ANYONE THAT ACTUALLY LISTENEED TO THIS DEVIL FEEL STUPID NOW?
The Neanderthal genome project has completely destroyed this monkeys abilty to lie with any credibilty. it is now preaching to the uninformed easily led moron
REMEMBER DNA DOES NOT LIE, IT DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES AND DOES NOT PLAY FAVORITES
Posts: 3642 | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
ya know... Anglo_Battywashologist being one of them....
BY THE WAY, LEMME HELP YOU: THE WORD IS 'SOCIALIZE'
quote:Anglo_battywashologist said: No. I have made it clear i don't socialise with ''Blacks'' or other races in real life.
That is why i debate other races here. The internet is different, it is cyberspace (not real), and i have contacts and even friends (not blacks though) of other races on various forums and mmorpgs.
^^ Oooohhhh boy this here is just waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy toooooooooo easy
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: In reference to Keita's thesis on African variability, you said in an earlier post-
This is the new trend for afronuts, started by that retard pseudo-scientist Keita.
Would you publicly debate Keita?
LOL Even calling the Anglo-Idiot's attempt at arguing with an expert like Keita a "debate" is comical enough!
By the way, Keita is not the first nor is he the only one to point out the blatant scientific FACT of African variability. Calling Keita an 'Afrocentric' let alone an 'Afronut' because he's black is too obvious of a cop-out. I wonder what the fool has to say about other experts like Stephen Oppenheimer or Spencer Wells or others who note African variability due to eldest genetic age. Even Japanese expert Hanihara has come to the same conclusion as was discussed here!
But I forgot, the Anglo-Idiot does not rely on genetic evidence but rather outdated and debunked concepts of racial types! Yet he calls an actual expert like Keita a "retard pseudo-scientist"?!! LMAO
Talk about a pitch pot calling a porcelain plate 'black'!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet another thread where you guys try to engage our uninvited Anglopsycho. SIGGHHHH!! Why do you persist? For all practical purposes its like debating a farm animal. After all this time,you haven't realised? I've never understood your need to communicate with him.
Posts: 433 | From: nairobi | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
kikuyu22 I tried telling these guys Cass more than likely chewed on lead based paint chips while being ignored as a child,but they find it hard not to give him the time of day,all this attention feeds into his ego not even his own Hairy Ann Wyt supremacist takes him seriously,but here we are posting legit up to date studies,while he spams works from the turn of last fuking century day in day out,after a while even spending time to ridicule him gets old.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Part of me agrees with you and I know that it was one of the frustrations that Al-Takuri had with this place, and unfortunately whilst I myself suggested ignoring people Anglo and Lioness, I'm pretty crap at taking my own advice...I think this is because there is the risk that lay people like me who might come to this site for the first time might see an argument by Anglo and Lioness and wonder whether it contains some truth. They need to be systematically taken to pieces and their 'credibility' picked apart. I don't have anything like the technical knowledge of people like Swenet, but I can call people out on their sweeping statements and dig at their credibility. So when Anglo refers to Keita as a debunked retard or whatever, or when Lioness was evasive about whether he/she had been to Africa then it's an opportunity to make them squirm in terms that lay people can readily understand.
Just to state that, even if possible, I wouldn't dream of asking someone like Keita to debate Anglo. I would be too embarrassed. To be honest, I would be embarrassed to admit in my off-line life that I even bother to engage with people like Anglo.
My post was meant to be hypothetical.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
No. I have made it clear i don't socialise with ''Blacks'' or other races in real life. That is why i debate other races here. The internet is different, it is cyberspace (not real), and i have contacts and even friends (not blacks though) of other races on various forums and mmorpgs.
So, in short, you wouldn't debate Keita. You're hiding behind your hatred for people of African descent as a lame excuse as to why you wouldn't deign to associate with him. The truth is that you know that he would wipe his ass with you and flush you away. Pathetic.
Do you think this Berber girl though identifies as ''Black'' or ''tropical african''???
Nice sleight of hand, but not good enough... I note you say 'similar' but it would be more convincing if you could post one of the actual pictures that Keita uses rather than ones that are 'similar'. Would you do that? Do you know for certain that the woman you posted has indigenous African ancestry and a tropical body plan? I await your answers with interest.
Moreover, whilst the Berber woman above is fully entitled to adopt whatever identity she wants, if the analysis says that she has a tropical body plan then ultimately how would you, Anglo, argue with that? Look forward to your response on this one, too.
BTW identities are social constructs- there are people of African or partial African descent who don't regard themselves as black, yet most people would regard them as such.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: [qb] @anglo I don't need to. Everything Keita states has already been debunked.
Please answer the question.
Would you publicly debate Keita? Don't try and wriggle out of it. I'll pm you if needs be and post your response here. If you're going to start trying to discredit Keita, then you should be confident of your performance debating him. So, again, if Keita agreed to it, would you debate him publicly? It would be a walkover if 'everything Keita states has already been debunked', no?
No. I have made it clear i don't socialise with ''Blacks'' or other races in real life. That is why i debate other races here.
♫ What's new PU$$Ycat Woooaah wooaah woaaah♫ ♫ What's new PU$$Ycat Wooooaaah woah wooaah woah ♫
quote:The internet is different, it is cyberspace (not real), and i have contacts and even friends (not blacks though) of other races on various forums and mmorpgs.
So the internet is not "real" but then you suggest you have "friends" of other races online. Sounds like a paradox to me. Either they're not really friends or you regard online interaction as "real" which means you can socialize with blacks. OR you could discuss stuff with Keita online. You'd probably get your ass handed anyway.
What's new Pu$$ycat.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Australoids moved into Africa. So it is not surprising to find reports on old crania from African regions which look Australoid (i have reports, from Elliot-Smith to more recent).
I’m not even going to get side tracked by that bullsh!t about ‘’Australoids’’ moving into Africa. The fact of the matter is, Australians and certain Africans show even closer relationships than certain groups who have been lumped in the Australoid group, as noted by Hanihara when he said:
quote:The major findings are as follows: 1) Australians show closer similarities to African populations than to Melanesians.
The used Africans here were Southern African Bantu speakers. Despite your attempts to derail the conversation and distract the attention from your emotion based denial of the affinities Australian aboriginals have with certain Africans, your earlier contention that Australians and certain Africans could be easily distinguished is patently false.
quote:So when an Australoid looking skull is indeed found in Africa, they automatically equate it to ''African populations''... just circular reasoning.
You phucking dufus, that was not the point. The point was that, metrically speaking, it occurs all the time that craniums display a morphology which occurs both in certain Africans and Australian aboriginals. In case you’re slow enough to not get the implications of this, let me spill the beans for you. There is no way we’d get those morphologies in both certain Africans and Australian aboriginals, if those Africans and Australian aboriginals didn’t overlap extensively in craniofacial appearance.
quote:If a geographical race is defined as a collection of similar populations inhabiting a broad continental area or island chain, then the number of geographical races is six...
Lol. And you think that by citing someone who implies the amount of races depends on how you interpret the term, it helps your case?
quote:The figure has always been around 5 or 6.
This is a blatant lie. The figure has always been around 5 or 6, among the scholars you’ve cited. As I’ve shown earlier, according to the source I've posted, the amount of postulated races have ranged from 2 to 200.
quote:For example, if you compare a native European, to a native East Asian, to a native West African there are more than enough phenotypic differences (hair texture, craniofacial features etc) to cluster them as seperate races.
So then if those phenotypic differences are enough to group them into races, why is the ’’Negroid race’’ genetically closer to Europeans, than to Australian aboriginals, while the picture is reversed in cranio-metric analysis? Answer: genetic distances, which has the last word in the end over cranio-metrics, are a separate thing entirely from cranio-metric trends. They may or may not allign, and each time they don't allign, they remind sound thinking people of why phenotype-based race was abandoned a long time ago, in the first place.
^LOL. Angho's race scheme is falling aparrt in front of his eyes, and there is nothing he can do about it. No Coon, Seligman, Baker to save him.
Running away as usual.
Of course, only to resurface later with the same race falsehoods that got his ass intellectually whooped, here and elsewhere
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: @Kikuyu22, Brada,
Part of me agrees with you and I know that it was one of the frustrations that Al-Takuri had with this place, and unfortunately whilst I myself suggested ignoring people Anglo and Lioness, I'm pretty crap at taking my own advice...I think this is because there is the risk that lay people like me who might come to this site for the first time might see an argument by Anglo and Lioness and wonder whether it contains some truth. They need to be systematically taken to pieces and their 'credibility' picked apart. I don't have anything like the technical knowledge of people like Swenet, but I can call people out on their sweeping statements and dig at their credibility. So when Anglo refers to Keita as a debunked retard or whatever, or when Lioness was evasive about whether he/she had been to Africa then it's an opportunity to make them squirm in terms that lay people can readily understand.
Just to state that, even if possible, I wouldn't dream of asking someone like Keita to debate Anglo. I would be too embarrassed. To be honest, I would be embarrassed to admit in my off-line life that I even bother to engage with people like Anglo.
My post was meant to be hypothetical.
Frankly,if any noob believes any of Angloho's BS about Caucasian Egypt or Australoid migration to Africa nothing can help them-let them stew in their ignorance. Perpetually answering this f'tard keeps us locked in redundancy repeating ourselves,making no further progress. How many similar threads contain his hallmarks of low iq, childishly emotional assertions,outdated sources and redundancy?? Since he can't or won't be banned for some reason the time has now come for all mildly intelligent forumers to IGNORE HIM!! Its obvious your replies keep him going as brada says.
Posts: 433 | From: nairobi | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Now now lol...we all know it's never gonna happen 
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Just epic fail. It is why i left that other thread, as this is all you were doing. I'm not wasting time with retards who play around with semantics and don't understand basic racial taxonomy.
Anglo_Battywashologist being one of them.... 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
this here is just waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy toooooooooo easy 
^ ''Tropical african diversity'' [sic] according to Keita. LMAO. Yes he actually uses similar photos of Caucasoid Nordid types.
Printer-friendly view of this topic