More empty rhetoric. Which is all you can give because:
I see you did not read Neves discussion with Armelagos. I see you haven't addressed the fact that Neves supports craniometry as evidence of affinity, you haven't addressed that the other article does not. And you still haven't given sources for your claim that Neves used his craniometry in context with any genetic study.
^Blowing hot air, because...
quote:Originally posted by Mustafino:
I see you did not read Neves discussion with Armelagos.
...because it is immaterial to the Neves et al. post that you've been babbling on about, but producing no evidence for your weird claims.
Williams et al. is cautioning against the idea that cranial affinity and variation can be utilized to place groups in to discrete entities, as in a racial sense [like the forensics do] which tends overlook variations within populations, and hence lead to grossly misleading conclusions. Neves et al. have already made it known that they don't use the multivariate discriminant analysis for such purposes, i.e. to use it within the 'racial' context.
quote:Mustafino:
I see you haven't addressed the fact that Neves supports craniometry as evidence of affinity
That is a given; that is the whole point of using cranio-metry, to determine affinity and variations between specimens in question.
quote:Mustafino:
, you haven't addressed that the other article does not.
What the other article doesn't do, has no bearings on what Neves et al.'s study does...and you have failed to demonstrate how it does.
quote:Mustafino:
And you still haven't given sources for your claim that Neves used his craniometry in context with any genetic study.
Why should I, when you've already provided it? If you are to obtuse to understand it, then so be it.
Ps - Oh what the heck, we all know you are too dense to understand your own citations, so I'll give you a break:
“As presented in detail elsewhere (Neves et al., 2003) the arrival of an ''Australo-Melanesian-like'' population in the Americas is easily accommodated under what is presently known about the place of origin and the routes taken by modern humans in their first long-distance dispersions (Lahr and Foley, 1998).
Accordingly, a population that began to expand from Africa around 70 ka reached southeast Asia by the middle of the late Pleistocene, carrying with it a cranial morphology characterized by long, narrow neurocrania and narrow, projecting faces. We postulate that after reaching southeast Asia, this stem population gave rise to at least two different dispersions. One took a southward direction and arrived at Australia around 50 ka. Sometime between 50 and 20 ka a second branch dispersed towards the north, and arrived in the Americas by the end of the Pleistocene, bringing with it the same cranial morphology that characterized the first modern humans.” - Neves et al.
What does this mean to you?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see you did not read Neves discussion with Armelagos
We see that SuperCar uses your citations to refute you, and you respond by trying to strike attitude to substitute for inability to address your own citations.
“As presented in detail elsewhere (Neves et al., 2003) the arrival of an ''Australo-Melanesian-like'' population in the Americas is easily accommodated under what is presently known about the place of origin and the routes taken by modern humans in their first long-distance dispersions (Lahr and Foley, 1998).Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Thank you rasol, for the badly needed re-emphasis...which apparently needs to be done time and again for trolls...their modus operandi is to pretend that something has not already been brought to their attention.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hypothesis testing is the backbone of science. When we come up with a hypothesis, we test the reality of it thorugh real world scrutiny. FOr example, for many years it was stated that U haplotype is European haplotyle but few people have contested it! You know why? There are socio-political and power plays associated with a seemingly innocuous biological hypothesis.
Null hypothesis: U is a European haplotype Alternative hypothesis: U is not
So you sample across Europe, across Africa and across Asia and you find that U also exists in Africa. At this junction your initial hypothesis crashes because U is also in another location. Next step: in midstream you say U begain in Europe but migrated to Africa as backmigration? You examine the Africa age of U (pylogenetically speaking) and you find that it is older (by comparison) than European U but still no change to the status quo.
At some point you see something developing that has nothing to do with biology or science, in general, and realize this is about power and control!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see you did not read Neves discussion with Armelagos
We see that SuperCar uses your citations to refute you, and you respond by trying to strike attitude to substitute for inability to address your own citations. Towards a theory of modern human origins: geography, demography, and diversity in recent human evolution “As presented in detail elsewhere (Neves et al., 2003) the arrival of an ''Australo-Melanesian-like'' population in the Americas is easily accommodated under what is presently known about the place of origin and the routes taken by modern humans in their first long-distance dispersions (Lahr and Foley, 1998).
That is a nice strawman. One, I never said I did not agree with Neves beleif of AustraloMelanesians. What I stated was that the evidence of craniometry per se is disputed. You can still come up with the right result with the wrong methodology. Furthermore, the study you quoted was an anthropological study, not a genetic study. He claimed a genetic study. Try again. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1998;Suppl 27:137-76. Lahr MM, Foley RA.
Posts: 354 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mustafino:
[quote]Williams et al. is cautioning against the idea that cranial affinity and variation can be utilized to place groups in to discrete entities, as in a racial sense [like the forensics do] which tends overlook variations within populations, and hence lead to grossly misleading conclusions. Neves et al. have already made it known that they don't use the multivariate discriminant analysis for such purposes, i.e. to use it within the 'racial' context.
And they state that affinity can be for environmental causes and not just shared ancestry.
Posts: 354 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mustafino:
[quote]Williams et al. is cautioning against the idea that cranial affinity and variation can be utilized to place groups in to discrete entities, as in a racial sense [like the forensics do] which tends overlook variations within populations, and hence lead to grossly misleading conclusions. Neves et al. have already made it known that they don't use the multivariate discriminant analysis for such purposes, i.e. to use it within the 'racial' context.
And they state that affinity can be for environmental causes and not just shared ancestry.
Posts: 354 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
[quote]Williams et al. is cautioning against the idea that cranial affinity and variation can be utilized to place groups in to discrete entities, as in a racial sense [like the forensics do] which tends overlook variations within populations, and hence lead to grossly misleading conclusions. Neves et al. have already made it known that they don't use the multivariate discriminant analysis for such purposes, i.e. to use it within the 'racial' context.
And they state that affinity can be for environmental causes and not just shared ancestry.
You can talk jibberish all day about nothing, but don't let it distract you from answering this...
“As presented in detail elsewhere (Neves et al., 2003) the arrival of an ''Australo-Melanesian-like'' population in the Americas is easily accommodated under what is presently known about the place of origin and the routes taken by modern humans in their first long-distance dispersions (Lahr and Foley, 1998).
Accordingly, a population that began to expand from Africa around 70 ka reached southeast Asia by the middle of the late Pleistocene, carrying with it a cranial morphology characterized by long, narrow neurocrania and narrow, projecting faces. We postulate that after reaching southeast Asia, this stem population gave rise to at least two different dispersions. One took a southward direction and arrived at Australia around 50 ka. Sometime between 50 and 20 ka a second branch dispersed towards the north, and arrived in the Americas by the end of the Pleistocene, bringing with it the same cranial morphology that characterized the first modern humans.” - Neves et al.
What does this mean to you?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again. I was talking about the second study. And I stated Neves used craniometry to conclude within other Anthropological studies, NOT GENETIC studies, which you are referencing.
Posts: 354 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Again. I was talking about the second study. And I stated Neves used craniometry to conclude within other Anthropological studies, NOT GENETIC studies, which you are referencing.
Your own citation has been shown to you, which specifically talks about the Paleo-American specimens studied, and you haven't been able to refute it. You have been caught lying with your pants down.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You wish. It specifically talks about an anthropological study. not a genetic study. Feel free to go look up the study. herePosts: 354 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
You wish. It specifically talks about an anthropological study. not a genetic study. Feel free to go look up the study. here
^More hot air from your rear end, because from your very own citation in question, it clearly states:
The first 13 principal components explain 76.6% of the original variation. Table 4 shows the scores obtained for each sample and the percentage of the total variance explained by each of the 13 principal components used here individually. Their scores were used to build the dendrogram of Fig. 3. The individual from Capelinha shows a close association with the four Paleoindian samples represented in the analysis. These samples form a major cluster with Australians, Tasmanians, and Tolais. The other American samples appear to be associated with some Polynesians (Buriat and Moriori) and the European samples on a first level, and with the remaining Asians, which cluster together, on a second level. All African samples appear clustered together, and distant to the Asian, European, and recent Amerindian samples. The cluster formed by Capelinha Burial II, Paleoindians, and Australians appears as the most distant cluster from all others.
Conclusions p. 411. Even if few studies with large sample from single sites have been carried out so far with Paleoindians (see Neves et al., 2003, 2004, as examples of these studies), it is evident by now that South America, Central America, and possibly North America were populated by human groups with a more generalized cranial morphology before the arrival of the Mongoloids. Since **this more generalized morphology (''Australo-Melanesian-like'')** was also present in East Asia at the end of the Pleistocene, transoceanic migrations are not necessary to explain our findings.
As presented in detail elsewhere (Neves et al., 2003) the arrival of an ''Australo-Melanesian-like'' population in the Americas is easily accommodated under what is presently known about the place of origin and the routes taken by modern humans in their first long-distance dispersions (Lahr and Foley, 1998).
Accordingly, a population that began to expand from Africa around 70 ka reached southeast Asia by the middle of the late Pleistocene, carrying with it a cranial morphology characterized by long, narrow neurocrania and narrow, projecting faces. We postulate that after reaching southeast Asia, this stem population gave rise to at least two different dispersions. One took a southward direction and arrived at Australia around 50 ka. Sometime between 50 and 20 ka a second branch dispersed towards the north, and arrived in the Americas by the end of the Pleistocene, bringing with it the same cranial morphology that characterized the first modern humans. - Neves et al.
If you are too stupid to understand your own citations, it begs the question of why you even bother to cite them. You may now proceed to lie you way through this again.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that is Genetic how? You keep on showing your ignorance. You claimed he made claims within a genetic context. SO show it.
Posts: 354 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
And that is Genetic how? You keep on showing your ignorance. You claimed he made claims within a genetic context. SO show it.
Have you read the Lahr and Foley publication in question? Feel free to share it with the rest of us.
You need to also learn how to read; I was refuting your claim that Neves et al. were deriving 'genetic' conclusions from cranial analysis, as opposed to placing their findings within the context of findings already derived from population genetics. English is apparently your second language.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
population genetics What does that have to do with the Lahr and Foley study? He did state he believed there was an affinity that was ancestral related with Australians or other Melanesians. But not because of a genetic study.
English is my second language. It must not be yours at all.
Posts: 354 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
population genetics What does that have to do with the Lahr and Foley study?
You tell us, since you've apparently read the study, right? Well, where is it; share it with the rest of us, instead of running your mouth of like diarrhea.
quote:Mustafino:
He did state he believed there was an affinity that was ancestral related with Australians or other Melanesians. But not because of a genetic study.
English is my second language. It must not be yours at all.
Which would make me ahead of you then, considering I can actually read my own citations, which you've demonstrated that you are incapable of doing.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: You tell us, since you've apparently read the study, right? Well, where is it; share it with the rest of us, instead of running your mouth of like diarrhea.
quote:Which would make me ahead of you then, considering I can actually read my own citations, which you've demonstrated that you are incapable of doing.
You have failed to prove these claims with direct quotes before.
Posts: 354 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: You tell us, since you've apparently read the study, right? Well, where is it; share it with the rest of us, instead of running your mouth of like diarrhea.
^Lol. This here, is what you call "having read the study"?...
Abstract:
Towards a theory of modern human origins: geography, demography, and diversity in recent human evolution.
Lahr MM, Foley RA.
Departamento de Biologia, Instituto de Biociencias, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brasil.
The origins of modern humans have been the central debate in palaeoanthropology during the last decade. We examine the problem in the context of the history of anthropology, the accumulating evidence for a recent African origin, and evolutionary mechanisms. Using a historical perspective, we show that the current controversy is a continuation of older conflicts and as such relates to questions of both origins and diversity. However, a better fossil sample, improved dates, and genetic data have introduced new perspectives, and we argue that evolutionary geography, which uses spatial distributions of populations as the basis for integrating contingent, adaptive, and demographic aspects of microevolutionary change, provides an appropriate theoretical framework. Evolutionary geography is used to explore two events: the evolution of the Neanderthal lineage and the relationship between an ancestral bottleneck with the evolution of anatomically modern humans and their diversity. We argue that the Neanderthal and modern lineages share a common ancestor in an African population between 350,000 and 250,000 years ago rather than in the earlier Middle Pleistocene; this ancestral population, which developed mode 3 technology (Levallois/Middle Stone Age), dispersed across Africa and western Eurasia in a warmer period prior to independent evolution towards Neanderthals and modern humans in stage 6. Both lineages would thus share a common large-brained ancestry, a technology, and a history of dispersal. They differ in the conditions under which they subsequently evolved and their ultimate evolutionary fate. Both lineages illustrate the repeated interactions of the glacial cycles, the role of cold-arid periods in producing fragmentation of populations, bottlenecks, and isolation, and the role of warmer periods in producing trans-African dispersals.
How does this abstract, apparently not the study itself, help you? I wonder how they would talk about lineages, without actually discussing 'genetics'.
quote:Mustafino:
quote:Which would make me ahead of you then, considering I can actually read my own citations, which you've demonstrated that you are incapable of doing.
You have failed to prove these claims with direct quotes before.
In other words you are saying, I am mentally incapable of reading my own sources
^You bet; you lack reading skills.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ^Lol. This here, is what you call "having read the study"?...
If the abstract is not about genetics, why would I need to read the whole article?
quote:How does this abstract, apparently not the study itself, help you? I wonder how they would talk about lineages, without actually discussing 'genetics'.
The same way genealogists, and anthropologists have discussed lineage for many years without doing genetic studies.
Posts: 354 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Again. I was talking about the second study. And I stated Neves used craniometry to conclude within other Anthropological studies, NOT GENETIC studies, which you are referencing.
Your own citation has been shown to you, which specifically talks about the Paleo-American specimens studied, and you haven't been able to refute it. You have been caught lying with your pants down.
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: ^Lol. This here, is what you call "having read the study"?...
If the abstract is not about genetics, why would I need to read the whole article?
Have you read the study; reading an abstract is "not considered reading the study". How do know what the study talks about if you haven't even read it? If you have read the study on the other hand, why haven't you already posted it. "Abstract" doesn't equal "complete study". Plus, you are too obtuse to see that even in the abstract, it said that the lineages of "Neanderthal" and "modern" Humans would be discussed.
quote:Mustafino:
quote:How does this abstract, apparently not the study itself, help you? I wonder how they would talk about lineages, without actually discussing 'genetics'.
The same way genealogists, and anthropologists have discussed lineage for many years without doing genetic studies.
How can you claim to have read the study, when you can't even understand just the 'abstract' for it. Lol. I hope you haven't yet gone to kindergarten and primary school...'cause it would have been a total waste of money.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never claimed I read the study, I just skimmed over the abstract, While they base a lot of their studies on prior genetic studies, their analysis is, per their words, evolutionary geography, which uses spatial distributions of populations as the basis for integrating contingent, adaptive, and demographic aspects of microevolutionary change. It does not sound like a genetic study.
Posts: 354 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Thanks for finally admitting that you haven't actually read the study; that says a lot. Whatever the case maybe, it is safe to say that Lahr and Foley's analysis will be based on what is known in the genetic world about the movement of OOA migrants from, perhaps, the time of the Neanderthals to earliest "successful" OOA anatomically modern humans [Homo Sapiens Sapiens] to Asia and from thence, the Americas. The bottom line is this: Your claim that Neves et al. produce 'genetic' results from the analysis, as opposed to them placing their findings within the broader context of what is already known out there [about the peopling of the world], and as they make quite clear in their piece, is baseless.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is that you made the calim that he had put it within the context of genetic population studies. And I know of no genetic study that links the two (paleoindians and their descendants and Australians) in any way that differs from other Asians. Maybe you know of one? After all, there have been craniometric studies that have shown equal affinity of those paleoindians with some modern amerind populations.
Posts: 354 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
The point is that you made the calim that he had put it within the context of genetic population studies. And I know of no genetic study that links the two (paleoindians and their descendants and Australians) in any way that differs from other Asians. Maybe you know of one? After all, there have been craniometric studies that have shown equal affinity of those paleoindians with some modern amerind populations.
I don't have the foggiest idea of what you are saying? First you say, the Lahr and Foley study must be based on some prior genetic studies, even though you haven't actually read the study, and then you retract and say that their premises doesn't rely on it; which is it? and based on what? Either way, you are wrong about Neves et al.'s claims.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: I don't have the foggiest idea of what you are saying? First you say, the Lahr and Foley study must be based on some prior genetic studies, even though you haven't actually read the study
I read the abstract. It was enough. "However, a better fossil sample, improved dates, and genetic data have introduced new perspectives" Just means that in general scinece has improved the data. They do not mention specific genetic tests, nor do they use genetic methodology but evolutionary geography. So unless you actually pay and read the article, nothing ther says they are talking about any specific test that puts PaleoAmerindians and South Asians any closer to each other. In fact, the study is about neanderthals. Don't play naive.
quote:Either way, you are wrong about Neves et al.'s claims.
Feel free to quote what I supposedly claim and then rebutt it with some solid evidence.
Posts: 354 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't have the foggiest idea of what you are saying? First you say, the Lahr and Foley study must be based on some prior genetic studies, even though you haven't actually read the study
I read the abstract. It was enough.
Then please let us know what the entire study tells. We are all ears.
quote:Mustafino:
"However, a better fossil sample, improved dates, and genetic data have introduced new perspectives"
Just means that in general scinece has improved the data. They do not mention specific genetic tests, nor do they use genetic methodology but evolutionary geography. So unless you actually pay and read the article, nothing ther says they are talking about any specific test that puts PaleoAmerindians and South Asians any closer to each other. In fact, the study is about neanderthals. Don't play naive.
Nice selective reading, but in any case don't keep pretending that you aren't really stupid. You proclaimed to know what the study is about, even though you haven't even read it yet. Go ahead and tell us what the study is about, the parameters used, and what conclusions the author's arrived.
quote:Mustafino:
quote:Either way, you are wrong about Neves et al.'s claims.
Feel free to quote what I supposedly claim and then rebutt it with some solid evidence.
Feel free to browse through the thread to find it yourself.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet you claim to know there is a genetic study nvolved based on the same abstract. LMAO. The only one showing stupidity is you. You do realize what abstracts are for right?
Posts: 354 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
And yet you claim to know there is a genetic study nvolved based on the same abstract. LMAO. The only one showing stupidity is you. You do realize what abstracts are for right?
And yet you claim to know what the study entails, even though you haven't actually read it. LMAO. You don't show stupidity, you are stupid. You can't even read a simple abstract, much less know what they are for.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a moron, I give him direct quotes and he still doesn't get it. I understood the abstract just fine. Sorry you can't grasp it. Sad.
As you obviously don't have enough brains to add anything of substance, I'll let you have the last word. Two pages of junk, and I still made my point. Africans did not come over to start the Olmecs ala Clyde's theories. Now post away with your idiotic claims.
Posts: 354 | From: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
What a moron, I give him direct quotes and he still doesn't get it.
What an asshole, I give him the direct quotes in their 'original' formats, and he doesn't still get it.
quote:Mustafino:
I understood the abstract just fine. Sorry you can't grasp it. Sad.
If you didn't you come up the b.s. you deduced from it. Now, that's sad.
quote:Mustafino:
As you obviously don't have enough brains to add anything of substance, I'll let you have the last word. Two pages of junk, and I still made my point. Africans did not come over to start the Olmecs ala Clyde's theories. Now post away with your idiotic claims.
You obviously have an ass for a head, and can add nothing of substance, eversince you've been proven to be lying about Neves et al., and cannot understand your own citations. Clyde's claims are immaterial to the fact of the sheer stupidity you exhibit in expressing what you actually understand from your own citations. Now be gone with your idiotic self.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic