posted                      

quote:

---

Tropical limb proportions are not exclusive to Sub-Saharan Africans and never have been.


"The elongation of the distal segments of the limbs is also clearly related to the dissipation of metabolically generated heat. Since heat stress and latitude are clearly related, one would expect to find a correlation between the two sets of traits that are associated with adaptation to survival in areas of great ambient temperature-namely skin color and limb proportions. This is clearly the case in such areas as equatorial Africa, the tropical portions of South Asia, and northern Australia, although there is little covariation with other sets of inherited traits. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be “super-negroid,” meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans (Robins and Shute, 1986). It would be just as accurate to call them “super-Veddoid or “super-Carpentarian” since skin color intensification and distal limb elongation is apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term “super-tropical” would be better since it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more “racially loaded” term “negroid.”"

http://wysinger.homestead.com/brace.pdf


Neighboring peoples in South America from related ethnic groups were found to have evolved markedly different limb proportions due to one group having adapted to a higher, colder elevation than the others from lower, more tropical elevations.


"Living human populations from high altitudes in the Andes exhibit relatively short limbs compared with neighboring groups from lower elevations as adaptations to cold climates characteristic of high-altitude environments."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20137/abstract


Until quite recently, most Europeans -- who ultimately expanded into Europe from the Near East, not directly from tropical Africa -- had tropical limb ratios.


"Upper Palaeolithic humans not only were taller and had more robust bones in comparison with the Linear Band Pottery Culture Neolithic people; they also had longer limbs, a shorter trunk and, similar to modern African people, very long forearms and crural segments. The low brachial index* is a very recently acquired characteristic of White Europeans."

http://hormones.gr/preview.php?c_id=127


Even African Americans do not consistently show the tropical limb ratios of their West African ancestors. While some are still tropically adapted, many others actually have a cold-adapted body plan as a consequence of both admixture with cold-adapted peoples (modern Europeans and Native Americans) and localized adaptation. And this change in their limb ratios at the population level did not take place over thousands of years, but instead over just a few hundred years of living in North America.


"The argument from morphology depends on the presupposition that body proportions are to a large degree genetically controlled. The fact that contemporary African Americans do not have tropical limb proportions but have in a few hundred years changed to more European body proportions (through adaptation to new climate plus intermixture with Europeans and First Nations Peoples) puts this claim into perspective (Pat Shipman, adjunct professor of biological anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, personal communication, 14 May 2004)."

http://books.google.ca/books?id=n7-BHoeyStgC&pg=PA350#v=onepage&q&f=false

---

Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot:

quote:

---

That's correct, though I'm sure the Anglo-Idiot will claim BOTH that is all Ethiopians as 'Caucasoid' or Caucasoid-mixed

---

You are honestly the dumbest poster on this board, even worse than Zaharan.

Anyone who knows the basics, realizes the African Ethiopia of antiquity was not the Ethiopia of today.

---

LOL No, YOU are the dumbest poster in the history of this board's existence!! Where the hell did I ever say anything about Ethiopia of "today"?! I am well aware that the region called 'Ethiopia' in ancient times has nothing to do with the modern day country, nitwit! That's ONE of your many psychological problems is that you read things that aren't there which is another sign of delusion!

'Ethiopia' as first coined by the Greeks is simply the southern lands which include not only Africa but Arabia and perhaps the Levant. By their various descriptions, all these regions were inhabited by blacks.

LOL You come in this board lecturing us like you're an expert when even the most basic layman can debunk your claims. My knowledge on ancient Egypt and African history in general as well as anthropology very well surpasses your own years ago when I was in high school, so don't even start you British buffoon!

By the way you deny the single African origins of mankind even though that is the major consensus among scientists!

The pattern of haplotype variation and LD observed at the PLAT locus suggests a recent common ancestry of non-African populations, from a small population originating in eastern Africa.
These data indicate that, throughout much of modern human history, sub-Saharan Africa has maintained both a large effective population size and a high level of population substructure. [meaning diversity]
-- Sarah Tishkoff et. al 1998

Such data includes mitochondrial DNA (maternal lineages) via British geneticist Stephen Oppenheimer as described in his book below...



..which was also made into a TV program by Discovery Channel and the BBC. Data also includes Y-chromosomal DNA (paternal lineages) via American geneticist Spencer Wells as described in his book below...



.. which was also made into a TV program by PBA.

These three scientists are just a few of countless who have no choice but to accept the genetic and archaeological data. Of course there are a few naysayers and deniers who hold out due to their own biases and prejudices but oh well. There are always a few who don't accept reality such as YOURSELF!

Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
The Brace et al study is probably the most interesting. It clusters ancient egyptians with Indians "Hindoos", who are obviously Caucasoid.

---

^Witless buffoon, will you never learn? Your new
"position" remains pathetically weak on 5 points.
Let us school you again:

DEBUNK 1: The alleged "Massive Study Dismisses
A.E."Tropical" Limb Ratios"

1A- RIght off the bat this is simply pathetic. You
try to spin the study as if it is something new
but it is 1993, almost 20 years old and long
superseded. Even more laughable, the BRace study
deals with CRANIA, fool, crania, NOT limb proportions.
How incompetent can "the white faithful" of the "Hamitic" Union be?

1B- As for the "massive" study, Brace has been
dealt with years ago. His calculations are fine,
but his sampling was problematic, as people like
KEita noted. He excluded key Egyptian populations
like the ancient Badari who cluster with
Africans, and used a stereotypical 'true negro'
African construct to get "Caucasoid" matches.



-------------------------------------------

DEBUNK 2: "Other" people have tropical proportions

This is supposed to be some sort of significant point?
Sure other tropical populations have tropical adapations.
That is no secret or at issue. The main point is
that the migrants were tropically adapted people
that came from Africa, which you keep denying,
even after your own citations say you are wrong.
ANd the second main point is that as far as Egypt
the people who founded the Nile Valley Dynastic
civ were those tropically adapted sub-Saharans
as Mary Lefkowitz herself admits.


-----------------------------------

DEBUNK 3: Your "supporting reference" destroys your OOA denials. You said:- QUOTE:

The low brachial index* is a very recently acquired characteristic of White Europeans."
http://hormones.gr/preview.php?c_id=127

^^Dumbass, do you just realize you debunked yourself?
You have been denying OOA, and been denying any
tropical adaptations in your precious whites. But
your own "supporting reference" says that those
Early Europeans did have the tropical adaptations.
You just destroyed all the denials you have been
making over several thread. Dude, how stupid can
you be?

Furthermore the "white faithful" of the Hamitic Union make
another glaring mistake. Your own reference says:
The low brachial index* is a very recently acquired characteristic of White Europeans.

^^Idiots.. If those indexes are very recently acquired that
means that BEFORE they got those low indices, they were
more like tropical Africans. Fools.. your own reference
undercuts your denial.. HEre is the full quote from your
own reference:

"Upper Palaeolithic humans not only were taller and had more robust bones
in comparison with the Linear Band Pottery Culture Neolithic people; they also
had longer limbs, a shorter trunk and, similar to modern African people, very long
forearms and crural segments.
---Michael Hermanussen (2003) Stature of early Europeans. HORMONES 2003, 2(3):175-178

^^Pathetic idiots! Your own citation destroys your argument.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

DEBUNK 4: ONLY "some" aFRICAN aMERICANS ARE
TROPICALLY ADAPTED. You admit it, but then turn
around and quote a professor who denies it
altogether! LMAO! Fools! WHich is it?
----------------

Here is the bogus "Hamitic Union" blurb:

"Even African Americans do not consistently show the tropical limb ratios of their West African ancestors. While some are still tropically adapted, many others actually have a cold-adapted body plan as a consequence of both admixture with cold-adapted peoples (modern Europeans and Native Americans) and localized adaptation. And this change in their limb ratios at the population level did not take place over thousands of years, but instead over just a few hundred years of living in North America.

LOL... pathetic "hamitic union" buffoons.. The fact
of US Black-WHite admixture does not at all hide
the clear tropical limb adaptations of Black Americans.
They clearly show such limb proportions as do ancient Egyptians.
The bogus "rebuttal" is just that, pathetically bogus.
Is this all you people got?


---------------------------------------------------------


DEBUNK 5: "THE WHITE FAITHFUL" quote a professor
in "support" but they professor denies their own
argument offered earlier. They say, OK well we admit
that only "some" African Americans have tropical
proportions,, but then your own "expert witness"-
your professor, denies that African Americans do
altogether. Idiots! Their own "expert witness"
contradicts their argument. LMAO!

-------------
The bogus "Hamitic Union" proferred an email blurb
by one "adjunct" professor Pat SHipman as a "supporting
reference." It says:

"The argument from morphology depends on the presupposition that body proportions are to a large degree genetically controlled. The fact that contemporary African Americans do not have tropical limb proportions but have in a few hundred years changed to more European body proportions (through adaptation to new climate plus intermixture with Europeans and First Nations Peoples) puts this claim into perspective (Pat Shipman, adjunct professor of biological anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, personal communication, 14 May 2004)."
----

^^ Pathetic fools... SHipman's blurb does nothing whatsoever
to bolster your denials of the tropical adaptations
of both US Blacks, Egytians and early modern
Europeans. SHipman is clearly wrong in saying
that US blacks do not retain tropical body plans.

The fact that she is saying that email and not
in a published paper tells us she would not dare
make such a glaring error in a peer reviewed venue.
ANd while US blacks have changed to a bit less
tropical body proportions, due to admixture, they
clearly show tropical retentions, a fact noted in
peer reviewed research since the 1950s. Notice
also how SHipman is reluctant to say more- she hedges
and ends the "personal communication" blurb by
saying "puts things in perspective."

Furthermore, in fact, tropical adaptations are strongly genetically
controlled. They can go up and down here and there
with admixture, but they STILL show through clearly
as scholar after scholar shows. The "personal communication"
by SHipman sounds either bogus, or something she was
"guided" into saying. But it makes no difference
whatsoever. Shipman or no SHipman, credible, published,
peer-reviewed experts, much mor credible than a
part-time "adjunct";s manipulated "personal communication"
show that yes indeed: (a) African Americans show
clear tropical adaptations, and (b) Limb proportions
are heavily genetically embedded. Small proportions
of race mixing with US whites do not change this
reality.

WIther the "white faithful"? Your own "expert witness"
undermines one of your arguments. Is this BS all
you people got? Hell, send in Madilda and Dienekes the Greek!
They at least presented greater challenge to the vets
of the old days.




----------------------------------------------------------------------


RECAP OF YOUR DEBUNKING:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:

quote:

---

^^Note they say that their founding population Homo Erectus
came from Africa. In short, the ANglo-idiot's own
"supporting" reference contradicts his claim.

---

Fail once again.

Read the HEADER:

quote:

---

This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information.

---

Not only is it out of date by around 5 years, but a lot of it is wrong in the first place, I only linked to it for a brief overview.

www.nature.com/news/2011/110606/full/news.2011.350.html

"Human ancestors in Eurasia earlier than thought. Stone fragments found in Georgia suggest Homo erectus might have evolved outside Africa"

Going further back:

Fossil Discovery: More Evidence for Asia, Not Africa, as the Source of Earliest Anthropoid Primates

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120604155705.htm

This is a June, 2012 article.

Out of Africa, for pre-Homo, Homo and Humans has all been challenged. You ony cling to the "out of africa" and "everything = africa" thing because of your bogus political views.

---

Pitiful failure on 2 counts:


1) Failure #1: Your own "supporting reference" says the fossils in
question are too weathered to offer any clear conclusion as to if they
are homo erectus, and (b) competent scientists say the Dmansi
specimens STILL represent hominids evolving from Africa originals. So
yea, there may have been subsequent development in Asia but the
originals were STILL from Africa. Your "just say no to OOA" is a
bust.

-----Debunk 1A: QUOTE from Article: " The presence of a tool-using
population on the edge of Europe so early hints that the northern
continent, rather than Africa, may have been the evolutionary
birthplace of H. erectus. Unfortunately, the fossils of the hominins
responsible for making the tools are not proving very helpful to the
debate. Fossilized bone fragments found in the same sedimentary
layers as the Dmanisi artefacts are too weathered to be identified as
belonging to any one species, so it is impossible to say for sure
whether the tools were made by H. erectus."
--Matt Kaplan. 2011. Human ancestors in Eurasia earlier than thought.
Nature magazine

-----Debunk 1B: QUOTE by Palentologist CHris Stringer:
"This alternative scenario has a small brained and small-bodied
pre-erectus species, perhaps comparable to Homo Hablis, or even a
late australopithecine, dispersing from Africa with primitive
tools over 2 million years ago, reaching the Far East and eventually,
FLores. In Asia this ancestral species also gave rise to the Dmanisi
people and Homo-erectus.."
--Chris Stringer (2012) Lone Survivors: How we came to be the only
human on earth


^^There you have it. The fossils offer little
firm conclusion due to their state AND the
ORIGINAL hominids are STILL from Africa,
which you keep denying again and again. And you
are debunked again and again by your own "supporting"
references...


Failure #2: ANthropoid primates 37 million years ago that may
have come to Africa STILL does not affect the migrations of HUMANS
out of Africa to colonize the world. We are dealing with HUMANS not
quasi ape-like primates 37 millions years past.
Said anthropoid primates may 37 million years ago have been around
in Asia and relatives may have wandered into Africa. Even so, this
STILL is irrelevant to your argument, which denies that humans
evolved in Africa and migrated out to colonize the globe. The 37
million years old primates were in Asia, but even if
the LIbyan fossils turn out to be related, it was
HUMANS that came out of Africa. OOA also has several variants-
replacement, interbreeding, etc. But no matter
the flavor, all variants hold the central point
that it is humans than came out of Africa. You
attempt to deny this, and repeatedly fail. All the
talking points you are getting from Anthroscape,
Stormfront, Skadi and other "biodiversity" places
are sheer nonsense, easily debunked. They may work
well as an "amen chorus" for "the white faithful"
in those venues, but in the real world they will
be exposed for the bunk they are.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Anglo-Pyramidologist
Read the HEADER:
quote:This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to
out-of-date information.

^^Dumbass. YOU were the one who used the article as YOUR
"supporting reference". Now you are trying to back away from your
debunking by referring to a Wikipedia tag someone added? LMAO..
This is a new low for your idiocy. WHat? You went to the WIkipedia
page to add the tag and now use that as an escape hatch? Pathetic..
But It STILL doesn;t matter. WHat matters is that you cited the
article to support your argument. Instead the article text YOU
proffered, itself contradicted your argument. Now you are disavowing
YOUR OWN citation, essentially admitting defeat, and that your whole
argument was a fraud to begin with. Alack and alas.. pitiful buffoon...
why do you bother?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

RECAP 2

-----------------------------------------------



THE ANGLO-IDIOT EXPOSED- PART 19: He says there is no
OOA but the very "supporting reference" he proffers directy contradicts
his claim.
-------------------------
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on 07 May, 2012 08:45 AM:

OOA never happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans
-----------------------------

The idiot gives a Wikipedia "reference" to back up his claim
but the very same "supporting reference" he gives
states that multi-regionalists acknowledge that
hominid species came from Africa in the first place.
Their argument is for continuity and distinct development
in separate locations AFTER the initial
OOA exit putting hominins in different places. This
approach STILL recognizes and acknowledges hominin OOA.

Quote from Anglo-Idiot's "supporting" reference:

"This species arose in Africa two million years ago as H. erectus and then spread out over the world, developing adaptations to regional conditions. Some populations became isolated for periods of time, developing in different directions, but through continuous interbreeding, replacement, genetic drift and selection, adaptations that were an advantage anywhere on earth would spread, keeping the development of the species in the same overall direction while maintaining adaptations to regional factors. By these mechanisms, surviving local varieties of the species evolved into modern humans, retaining some regional adaptations but with many features common to all regions.[10]

^^Note they say that their founding population Homo Erectus
came from Africa. In short, the ANglo-idiot's own
"supporting" reference contradicts his claim.

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_pisspot:

Dental affinities

Dental Metric


SOURCE : Hanihara T and Ishida H, (2005) Metric dental variation of major human populations American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 128 Issue 2, Pages 287 - 298.

Dental Non-metric


SOURCE : Irish J.D. 1998b. Diachronic and synchronic dental trait affinities of late and post-pleistocene peoples from North Africa. Homo. 49(2) 138-155

[/QB]

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:


Until quite recently, most Europeans -- who ultimately expanded into Europe from the Near East, not directly from tropical Africa -- had tropical limb ratios.


"Upper Palaeolithic humans not only were taller and had more robust bones in comparison with the Linear Band Pottery Culture Neolithic people; they also had longer limbs, a shorter trunk and, similar to modern African people, very long forearms and crural segments. The low brachial index* is a very recently acquired characteristic of White Europeans."

http://hormones.gr/preview.php?c_id=127

---

page 120



page 192


The Evolution Of Modern Humans In Africa: A Comprehensive Guide
by Pamela R. Willoughby

quote:

---

"Molecular biology has traced the ancestry of the Cro-Magnons deep into tropical Africa, into the territory of the hypothetical African Eve"...

---

quote:

---

In modern humans, this elongation is a pattern characteristic of warm-adapted populations, and this physique may be an early Cro-Magnon retention from African ancestors. Similar retentions may be observed in certain indices of facial shape ...

---

Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory: Second Edition
by Eric Delson


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1177123/The-European-Created-fragments-fossil-face-forbears-35-000-years-ago.html


And long before that.


190,000 Kya in Africa

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_Pisspot:


[QUOTE]Tropical limb proportions are not exclusive to Sub-Saharan Africans and never have been.


"The elongation of the distal segments of the limbs is also clearly related to the dissipation of metabolically generated heat. Since heat stress and latitude are clearly related, one would expect to find a correlation between the two sets of traits that are associated with adaptation to survival in areas of great ambient temperature-namely skin color and limb proportions. This is clearly the case in such areas as equatorial Africa, the tropical portions of South Asia, and northern Australia, although there is little covariation with other sets of inherited traits. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be “super-negroid,” meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans (Robins and Shute, 1986). It would be just as accurate to call them “super-Veddoid or “super-Carpentarian” since skin color intensification and distal limb elongation is apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term “super-tropical” would be better since it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more “racially loaded” term “negroid.”"

http://wysinger.homestead.com/brace.pdf

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

^^Dumbass, do you just realize you debunked yourself?
You have been denying OOA, and been denying any
tropical adaptations in your precious whites. But
your own "supporting reference" says that those
Early Europeans did have the tropical adaptations.
You just destroyed all the denials you have been
making over several thread. Dude, how stupid can
you be?

Furthermore the "white faithful" of the Hamitic Union make
another glaring mistake. Your own reference says:
The low brachial index* is a very recently acquired characteristic of White Europeans.

^^Idiots.. If those indexes are very recently acquired that
means that BEFORE they got those low indices, they were
more like tropical Africans. Fools.. your own reference undercuts your denial.. HEre is the full quote from your
own reference:

---

quote:

---

Parallel to the climatic changes, morphological changes occurred in the European populations, first between the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic (first transition around 6600 BC in Central and Northeast Europe, and some 2,000 years earlier in the Eastern Mediterranean)

---

quote:

---

Until quite recently, most Europeans -- who ultimately expanded into Europe from the Near East, not directly from tropical Africa

---

What part of Eastern Mediterranean (NOT Africa) and "not directly from tropical Africa" do you not understand?

Europeans who had tropical limb proportions had NOTHING to do with Africans, they picked up their tropical limb proportions in Western Asia as the paper discusses through "local adaptations".

You have made a fool of yourself once again.

The Eastern Mediterranean:



Its not Africa... a 5 year old knows this.

Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

The ancestors of modern Europeans arrived in Europe at least 40,000 years before present. Of very tall stature, they experienced extremely cold conditions, especially during the maximum of glacial expansion around 16,000 BC. Nevertheless, they succeeded well and relatively quickly replaced the Neanderthals.

---

quote:

---

"Molecular biology has traced the ancestry of the Cro-Magnons deep into tropical Africa, into the territory of the hypothetical African Eve"...

---

quote:

---

In modern humans, this elongation is a pattern characteristic of warm-adapted populations, and this physique may be an early Cro-Magnon retention from African ancestors. Similar retentions may be observed in certain indices of facial shape ...

---

Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory: Second Edition
by Eric Delson


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1177123/The-European-Created-fragments-fossil-face-forbears-35-000-years-ago.html


And long before that.


190,000 Kya in Africa

quote:

---

"From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that sub-Sabaran genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2001) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey (E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinniogclu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinniogelu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.

Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt - such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semai 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980) - show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens.

This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic-early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations...... This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005).

In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005), in concordance with a process of demie diffusion accompanying the
extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_pisspot:

quote:

---

^^Dumbass, do you just realize you debunked yourself?
You have been denying OOA, and been denying any
tropical adaptations in your precious whites. But
your own "supporting reference" says that those
Early Europeans did have the tropical adaptations.
You just destroyed all the denials you have been
making over several thread. Dude, how stupid can
you be?

Furthermore the "white faithful" of the Hamitic Union make
another glaring mistake. Your own reference says:
The low brachial index* is a very recently acquired characteristic of White Europeans.

^^Idiots.. If those indexes are very recently acquired that
means that BEFORE they got those low indices, they were
more like tropical Africans. Fools.. your own reference undercuts your denial.. HEre is the full quote from your
own reference:

---

The source is clear Europeans did NOT derive tropical limbs from Africans, but West Asians ("East Mediterranean/Levant):

quote:

---

Parallel to the climatic changes, morphological changes occurred in the European populations, first between the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic (first transition around 6600 BC in Central and Northeast Europe, and some 2,000 years earlier in the Eastern Mediterranean)

---

http://www.hormones.gr/127/article/article.html

Simpleton, even a keyword of the paper is Eastern Mediterrenean. Once again proving you lack basic reading skills.

As the Hamatiuser summarised:

quote:

---

Until quite recently, most Europeans -- who ultimately expanded into Europe from the Near East, not directly from tropical Africa

---

What part of Eastern Mediterranean (NOT Africa) and "not directly from tropical Africa" do you not understand?

Europeans who had tropical limb proportions had NOTHING to do with Africans, they picked up their tropical limb proportions in Western Asia as the paper discusses through "local adaptations".

You have made a fool of yourself once again.

The Eastern Mediterranean:



Its not Africa... a 5 year old knows this.

---

LET'S RECAP!!!


—PN2 clade (E3) bearers in the vicinity of the Sudanese-Central African Republic -Ugandan-Kenyan region give rise to E3a ~ between 21 and 18 ky ago [pending additional or new info]; E3b-M35* would have likely arose relatively earlier than E3a*[as evidenced by its near absence in some the populations that carry this], sometime prior to the Ogolian and the LGM period. At this time, it was likely the M78 derivative that came about ~ between 19 and 15 ky ago. It was also likely during this period, that some E3b-M35 variants spilled over to the "southwest Asia", which would be identified as E-M34. The E-M78* likely arose somewhere in the bidirectional-migration route between Northeast and sub-Saharan East Africa; this location was likely in the region straddling upper Egypt and Sudan of the eastern Sahara, amongst earlier E-M35 migrants from sub-Saharan East Africa. These M78 bearers were increasingly pressured to move further south due to progressive aridity, possibly as far as Uganda-Kenya and/or Tanzanian general region.




Here, we describe a system for the molecular dissection of haplogroup E-M78 (E1b1b1a), consisting of multiplex polymerase chain reaction and minisequencing of M78 and nine population-informative Y-SNPs (M148, M224, V12, V13, V19, V22, V27, V32, V65) in a single reaction.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/907v531h2757w162/?MUD=MP




Phylogeny of Y-chromosome haplogroups and their frequencies (%) in the examined populations. Nomenclature and haplogroup labelling according to the Y Chromosome Consortium (http://ycc.biosci.arizona.edu/) updated according to Karafet et al. 32 *Paragroups: Y chromosomes not defined by any phylogenetic downstream-reported and -examined mutation. aIntrapopulation haplogroup diversity. The terminal markers of haplogroups E-V12 and E-V13 (V32 and V27, respectively) were typed but did not show any variation.




Frequency (left) and variance (right) distributions of the main Y-chromosome haplogroups, I-M423, E-V13 and J-M241, observed in this survey. Frequency data are reported in Figure 2, variance data are relative to the examined microsatellite reported in the Supplementary Table S2. We acknowledge that interpolated spatial frequency surfaces should be viewed with caution because of sample size.41 Data from this study. Frequency and variance values were assigned to sample-collection places (dots). Population samples (geographically close) with less than five observations were pooled and the corresponding variance assigned to a middle position of the pooled sample locations. +Data from the literature.13, 23, 27, 28, 36, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n6/fig_tab/ejhg2008249ft.html

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_pisspot:
[The source is clear Europeans did NOT derive tropical limbs from Africans, but West Asians ("East Mediterranean/Levant):

quote:

---

Parallel to the climatic changes, morphological changes occurred in the European populations, first between the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic (first transition around 6600 BC in Central and Northeast Europe, and some 2,000 years earlier in the Eastern Mediterranean)

---

http://www.hormones.gr/127/article/article.html

Simpleton, even a keyword of the paper is Eastern Mediterrenean. Once again proving you lack basic reading skills.

As the Hamatiuser summarised:

quote:

---

Until quite recently, most Europeans -- who ultimately expanded into Europe from the Near East, not directly from tropical Africa

---

What part of Eastern Mediterranean (NOT Africa) and "not directly from tropical Africa" do you not understand?

Europeans who had tropical limb proportions had NOTHING to do with Africans, they picked up their tropical limb proportions in Western Asia as the paper discusses through "local adaptations".

You have made a fool of yourself once again.

The Eastern Mediterranean:



Its not Africa... a 5 year old knows this. [/QB]

---

REEEEEEEEEECAP!!!!LOL


BJMG 11/2 (2008) 25-30
10.2478/v10034-008-0030-0

ALU INSERTION POLYMORPHISMS IN POPULATIONS
OF THE SOUTH CAUCASUS


Litvinov S* et al.

Although it was not possible to determine a contribution of Neolithic farmers to the Caucasian gene pool, the principal component analysis showed clear differences between these populations and those of Europe, Siberia and Asia. No evidence of correlation between genetic and linguistic data in
our populations was disclosed.


Armenians are a separate ethnic group,
which originated from Neolithic tribes of the Armenian Uplands. In the 12th- 11th centuries BC...

However, we cannot exclude a Neolithic contribution to the contemporary gene pool. The possible reason for the absence of the frequency distribution gradient can be genetic drift, reinforced by isolation that could conceal the influence of Neolithic farmers on the Caucasus populations [1,21].


While an Alu insertion marker does not
have enough power of resolution to assess the contribution of the influence of Neolithic farmers on the Caucasian gene pool, it clearly separates both South and North Caucasus populations (except Karanogays) from Siberian and Asian populations.




C.L. Brace (2005): "If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element."
















Larry Angel (1972): "one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.(McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians...

The Emergence of the Natufian

The emergence of the Natufian is explained by Bar-Yosef (1998) as follows: “On the one hand, climatic improvements around 13,000BP provided a wealth of food resources. On the other hand, contemporaneous population growth in both the steppic and desertic regions made any abrupt, short-term climatic fluctuation a motivation for human groups to achieve control over resources” (p.167). He sees a semi-sedentary lifestyle resulting from environmental change which led to a “shift of resource scheduling” (p.167).


Fellner (1995) states that “the transition from the Geometric Kebaran to the Early Natufian culture can be described as the most important cultural change within the Epipalaeolithic of Palestine, as the lifestyle of the Natufian groups differed very substantially from that practiced by their Geometric Kebaran ancestors” (p.122) The Natufian is usually seen as a key stage in Near Eastern Prehistory as it represents many features usually associated with the Neolithic. - courtesy of neareast historians, uk; epipaleolithic background.

The Mushabian is founded in southern Jordan, the Negev, and Sinai. It is usually divided into an earlier phase (c.14,500-12,800bp) and a later phase which overlaps with the Early Natufian (12,800-11,000bp).


The Classic Mushabian is characterized by a dominance of arched-back bladelets, La Mouillah points, and scalene triangles, all of which were truncated at one end using the microburin technique. Helwan lunates are also featured.


Evidence for economic activities are few and far between – there are very few botanical or faunal remains, but some rare pounding tools suggest that plant exploitation was a feature of the economy. Bar-Yosef and Meadow (1999) hypothesize that the subsistence strategies employed in the Mushabian were much the same as those of the steppic Geometric Kebaran and Hamran groups.


The Mushabian was traditionally thought to derive from North Africa via the Nile Delta and the Sinai: “The Mushabian sites in Sinai are interpreted as the remains of mobile groups budded off from the Nile region who were attracted to the expanding, lusher steppic environment” (Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1999, p.55). This view was based on the early occurrence of the microburin technique in industries like the Sisilian. “However, the recent discovery of even earlier use of the microburin technique in the Azraq Basin fundamentally weakens the argument, and may even indicate diffusion of this technique in the other direction” (Fellner 1995, p.26). Fellner believes that the Mushabian is most likely to derive from the Nizzanian of the Negev. - courtesy of neareast historians, uk; epipaleolithic background.


"From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that sub-Sabaran genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2001) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey (E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinniogclu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinniogelu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.

Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt - such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semai 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980) - show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens.

This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic-early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations...... This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005).

In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005), in concordance with a process of demie diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

E3b originated in East Africa and expanded into the Near East and northern Africa at the end of the Pleistocene (Underhill et al. 2001).

E3b lineages would have then been introduced from the Near East into southern Europe by farmers, during the Neolithic expansion (Hammer et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2001).




Mitochondrial DNA structure in the Arabian Peninsula

Khaled K Abu-Amero1 et al.

quote:

---

Two potential migratory routes followed by modern humans to colonize Eurasia from Africa have been proposed. These are the two natural passageways that connect both continents: the northern route through the Sinai Peninsula and the southern route across the Bab al Mandab strait. Recent archaeological and genetic evidence have favored a unique southern coastal route. Under this scenario, the study of the population genetic structure of the Arabian Peninsula, the first step out of Africa, to search for primary genetic links between Africa and Eurasia, is crucial. The haploid and maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) molecule has been the most used genetic marker to identify and to relate lineages with clear geographic origins, as the African Ls and the Eurasian M and N that have a common root with the Africans L3.

---

quote:

---

Abstract

Newly discovered outcrops of the middle Pleistocene Benot Ya'aqov Formation are strongly disturbed due to recent tectonic activity along the Dead Sea Rift. The lacustrine-fluviatile sediments of this formation comprise the littoral facies of a paleo-lake that occupied the adjacent Hula Basin. Acheulian artifacts, found embedded in the formation, have typical African characteristics. The geographical position of the site (the northern extension of the East African Red Sea Rift System) is important for understanding hominid diffusion from Africa to Eurasia.

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT EARLY CRO MAGNONS CAME FROM AFRICA. AND SPREAD INTO THE LEVANT BECAUSE THE CLIMATE WAS SUITED THERE, DURING THAT TIME. MORE TROPICAL AFFILIATED, WHEREAS EUROPE AND EURASIA WERE ARCHIC COLD. THUS IT ISEN'T POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP TROPICAL LIMBS IN SUCH EXTREME COLD REGION. THE RELATION IN TO AFRICA DOES GIVE THE FINAL KICK INTO YOUR DUMBASS!

---

quote:

---

Tropical limb proportions are not exclusive to Sub-Saharan Africans and never have been.

---

Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_dumbass:

quote:

---

WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT EARLY CRO MAGNONS CAME FROM AFRICA. AND SPREAD INTO THE LEVANT BECAUSE THE CLIMATE WAS SUITED THERE, DURING THAT TIME. MORE TROPICAL AFFILIATED, WHEREAS EUROPE AND EURASIA WERE ARCHIC COLD. THUS IT ISEN'T POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP TROPICAL LIMBS IN SUCH EXTREME COLD REGION. THE RELATION IN TO AFRICA DOES GIVE THE FINAL KICK INTO YOUR DUMBASS!

---

The paper mentions nothing about Africa. It has a single reference to Africans: "similar to modern African people, very long forearms and crural segments". The paper shows that tropical limb indices arrived in Europe from the East Mediterranean (West Asia/Levant).

The East Mediterranean is not Africa.

Cro-Magnons' arrived in Europe from Western Asia, not Africa. There is no Africa link at all.

Segments of Western Asia, are tropical. As already stated:

quote:

---

Tropical limb proportions are not exclusive to Sub-Saharan Africans and never have been.

---

Cro-Magnons were Caucasoid -

David de Laubenfels, a Syracuse University anthropologist, says of them: “All have certain physical characteristics in common; all have well formed chins, high straight foreheads, smaller modern teeth, and brains as big as Neanderthal [...] The original Upper Paleolithic people would, if they appeared among us today, be called Caucasoid''

---

You are truly dumber than a bag of bricks.lol


page 120



page 192


The Evolution Of Modern Humans In Africa: A Comprehensive Guide
by Pamela R. Willoughby

quote:

---

"Molecular biology has traced the ancestry of the Cro-Magnons deep into tropical Africa, into the territory of the hypothetical African Eve"...

---

quote:

---

In modern humans, this elongation is a pattern characteristic of warm-adapted populations, and this physique may be an early Cro-Magnon retention from African ancestors. Similar retentions may be observed in certain indices of facial shape ...

---

Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory: Second Edition
by Eric Delson


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1177123/The-European-Created-fragments-fossil-face-forbears-35-000-years-ago.html


And long before that.


190,000 Kya in Africa

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

E3b originated in East Africa and expanded into the Near East and northern Africa at the end of the Pleistocene (Underhill et al. 2001).

E3b lineages would have then been introduced from the Near East into southern Europe by farmers, during the Neolithic expansion (Hammer et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2001).




Mitochondrial DNA structure in the Arabian Peninsula

Khaled K Abu-Amero1 et al.

quote:

---

Two potential migratory routes followed by modern humans to colonize Eurasia from Africa have been proposed. These are the two natural passageways that connect both continents: the northern route through the Sinai Peninsula and the southern route across the Bab al Mandab strait. Recent archaeological and genetic evidence have favored a unique southern coastal route. Under this scenario, the study of the population genetic structure of the Arabian Peninsula, the first step out of Africa, to search for primary genetic links between Africa and Eurasia, is crucial. The haploid and maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) molecule has been the most used genetic marker to identify and to relate lineages with clear geographic origins, as the African Ls and the Eurasian M and N that have a common root with the Africans L3.

---

quote:

---

Abstract

Newly discovered outcrops of the middle Pleistocene Benot Ya'aqov Formation are strongly disturbed due to recent tectonic activity along the Dead Sea Rift. The lacustrine-fluviatile sediments of this formation comprise the littoral facies of a paleo-lake that occupied the adjacent Hula Basin. Acheulian artifacts, found embedded in the formation, have typical African characteristics. The geographical position of the site (the northern extension of the East African Red Sea Rift System) is important for understanding hominid diffusion from Africa to Eurasia.

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

No one is arguing for Cro-Magnons in Africa.

---

Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo_dumbass:

quote:

---

No one is arguing for Cro-Magnons in Africa.

---

Says the idiot who headlines his bogus quote-mines "Cro-Magnons are us?" LOL.

So are you now saying you are NOT a tropical african? Who is "us"?

Given the fact you pretended to be a white jew on anthroscape, are you even Black? lol

Show me the findings of Cro-Magnon in Africa, or stop spamming this site claiming Cro-Magnons are tropical africans.

If cro-Magnons were tropical africans, then it should be very easy to find a cro-magnon crania from africa...

---

lol YOUR COMPREHENSION SKILLS ARE LOW AND YOU ARE NOT IN UNIVERSITY!!!!!!!!!!lol


"Both skeletal/cranial and DNA studies by other authors confirm that some Neolithics did not derive from the Near East. They most likely resembled African populations. Hence comparisons using older European Neolithics versus Africans are comparisons with older prehistoric Europeans who looked more like Africans, than modern 'white' Europeans, as shown by Brace (2005), and Hanihara (1996) also, who states "Early West Asians looked like Africans."





page 120



page 192


The Evolution Of Modern Humans In Africa: A Comprehensive Guide
by Pamela R. Willoughby

quote:

---

"Molecular biology has traced the ancestry of the Cro-Magnons deep into tropical Africa, into the territory of the hypothetical African Eve"...

---

quote:

---

In modern humans, this elongation is a pattern characteristic of warm-adapted populations, and this physique may be an early Cro-Magnon retention from African ancestors. Similar retentions may be observed in certain indices of facial shape ...

---

Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory: Second Edition
by Eric Delson


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1177123/The-European-Created-fragments-fossil-face-forbears-35-000-years-ago.html


And long before that.


190,000 Kya in Africa

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Abstract


Body proportions covary with climate, apparently as the result of climatic selection. Ontogenic research and migrant studies have demonstrated that body proportions are largely genetically controlled and are under low selective rates; thus studies of body form can provide evidence for evolutionarily short-term dispersals and/or gene flow. Following these observations, competing models of modern human origins yield different predictions concerning body proportion shifts in Late Pleistocene Europe. Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess "tropical" body proportions (assuming Africa is the center of origin), while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering. This study tests these predictions via analyses of osteometric data reflective of trunk height and breadth, limb proportions and relative body mass for samples of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) and Mesolithic (MES) humans and 13 recent African and European populations. Results reveal a clear tendency for the EUP sample to cluster with recent Africans, while LUP and MES samples cluster with recent Europeans. These results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions. These data do not, however, preclude the possibility of some (albeit small) contribution of genes from Neandertals to succeeding populations, as is postulated in Bräuer's "Afro-European Sapiens" model.

---

quote:

---

Abstract


The Upper Paleolithic represents both the phase during which anatomically modern humans appeared and the climax of hunter-gatherer cultures. Demographic expansion into new areas that took place during this period and the diffusion of burial practices resulted in an unprecedented number of well-preserved human remains. This skeletal record, dovetailed with archeological, environmental, and chronological contexts, allows testing of hypotheses regarding biological processes at the population level. In this article, we review key studies about the biology of Upper Paleolithic populations based primarily on European samples, but integrating information from other areas of the Old World whenever possible. Data about cranial morphology, skeletal robusticity, stature, body proportions, health status, diet, physical activity, and genetics are evaluated in Late Pleistocene climatic and cultural contexts. Various lines of evidence delineate the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) as a critical phase in the biological and cultural evolution of Upper Paleolithic populations. The LGM, a long phase of climatic deterioration culminating around 20,000 BP, had a profound impact on the environment, lifestyle, and behavior of human groups. Some of these effects are recorded in aspects of skeletal biology of these populations. Groups living before and after the LGM, Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) and Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP), respectively, differ significantly in craniofacial dimensions, stature, robusticity, and body proportions. While paleopathological and stable isotope data suggest good health status throughout the Upper Paleolithic, some stress indicators point to a slight decline in quality of life in LUP populations. The intriguing and unexpected incidence of individuals affected by congenital disorders probably indicates selective burial practices for these abnormal individuals. While some of the changes observed can be explained through models of biocultural or environmental adaptation (e.g., decreased lower limb robusticity following decreased mobility; changes in body proportions along with climatic change), others are more difficult to explain. For instance, craniodental and upper limb robusticity show complex evolutionary patterns that do not always correspond to expectations. In addition, the marked decline in stature and the mosaic nature of change in body proportions still await clarifications. These issues, as well as systematic analysis of specific pathologies and possible relationships between genetic lineages, population movements and cultural complexes, should be among the goals of future research

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

Its just more Google index points

---

Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged |