posted
I finally managed to track down this important paper, Wiercinski A. (1965). "The analysis of racial structure of early dynastic populations in Egypt". Mater i Prace Antropol. 71. pp. 3–48.
I added the results first on my blogspot, but will post them here.
Wiercinski (1965) undertook a typological analysis of 155 Pre/early Dynastic skulls from Egypt, identifying nine types:
Note: The Berberic is loosely synonymous with Aethiopid and shows a mixture of Caucasoid and Negroid traits. Wiercinski's "Negroid" is in fact Bushmanoid, his Sudanese is Sudanid (Negroid). The Oriental is not Mongoloid, but a type close to the Mediterranean, most closely representing the Irano-Afgan, or Orientalid.
I have summarised the types as follows for convenience (some micro-variations exist):
Wiercinski also took orbital index, and absence or presence of the nasal spine into account.
His conclusion was that: "The results of individual racial analysis seems to contradict a concept of African cradle of Predynastic populations since their core is constituted by the element characteristic for ancient a well as modern populations of Western Asia and Indian Peninsula".
- Pretty much a strong blow to Afrocentrism.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
Note (before i'm accused of copy & paste): I'm the same user who posted this study at FB and was the first to upload this online.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also note: I have no interest in further wasting time with Afroloons. This study was just posted here for the public (with the amount of lies and misinformation posted on this site, it makes a change).
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2,
Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004
Abstract
During an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly developed methods. Furthermore, three fixatives were tested with each of the rehydration fluids.
Meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and a placenta were used for this study. The rehydration and fixation procedures were uniform for all methods.
Materials and methods
In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approxi- mately 1550-1080 BC).
Skin Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1).
The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin.
In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed.
To evaluate the influence of postmortum tissue decay by micro-organisms, the samples were tested for the presence of fungi using silver staining.
Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7Á/13
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ponsford: These studies are much too ancient[1965] in the era of Genetics.
LOL If you notice all the sources this troll posts dates no later than the 70s! LOL The entire foundation of his beliefs (and his very life) are outdated and debunked racial notions. LOL @ "racial structure"!
Farthead, explain how a presumably pure Caucasian of the tin islands of presumably superior intelligence gets so soundly and easily debunked by a bunch of low-IQ negroes?? LOLPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ponsford: These studies are much too ancient[1965] in the era of Genetics.
LOL If you notice all the sources this troll posts dates no later than the 70s! LOL The entire foundation of his beliefs (and his very life) are outdated and debunked racial notions. LOL @ "racial structure"!
Farthead, explain how a presumably pure Caucasian of the tin islands of presumably superior intelligence gets so soundly and easily debunked by a bunch of low-IQ negroes?? LOL
He is not the young buck he claims, this is an old person, who uses a picture of someone else.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Meanwhile, in the real word, where Cashitty's figment Anthropology has no bearing on objective reality, Hannihara's global data shows that the Euronut oft-touted prime examples of ortochnathy are, in fact, more prognathic than certain groups referred to here as ''Berberic'' (e.g., Somali's, Northern Ethiopian Christians, Early Nubians and undoubtedly, other Ethiopian Cushitic speakers as well). Yet, the same Berberic types (shown to be within, and at the mid/low end of, the European range by Hanihara and others) are described by Cashitty as ''meso-prognathic'', while the more prognathic Europeans (relative to these ''Berberic'' groups) are described as orthognathic.
posted
yes my friend, this creature absoltely possesses low levels of self esteem and self confidence and consequently feels insecure. I could not have said it better myself! To counter these feelings of insecurity this reprobate creates fake names and trolls the internet. The degenerate spends ALL of its time and life ceating situations in which it becomes the centre of attention
HERE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE FAKE NAMES THAT THIS PATHETIC, LONELY, CREATURE HAS CREATED IN THIS FORUM ALONE! IT MUST SUCK TO BE HIM
posted
Vansertimavindicated that list is outdated. And what is your evidence that it's all one person? I have suspected that it's probably all one person but would have to see some sort of proof to be convinced
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: He (Castrated) is not the young buck he claims, this is an old person, who uses a picture of someone else.
No. I've seen sufficient evidence that Castrated really is a young male. He uses old sources out of necessity because all and any recent and new data debunks his racial claims. This is why he refuses to cite anything past the 70s! LOL Just read Swenet's post below.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:I have summarised the types as follows for convenience (some micro-variations exist):
Meanwhile, in the real word, where Cashitty's figment Anthropology has no bearing on objective reality, Hannihara's global data shows that the Euronut oft-touted prime examples of ortochnathy are, in fact, more prognathic than certain groups referred to here as ''Berberic'' (e.g., Somali's, Northern Ethiopian Christians, Early Nubians and undoubtedly, other Ethiopian Cushitic speakers as well). Yet, the same Berberic types (shown to be within, and at the mid/low end of, the European range by Hanihara and others) are described by Cashitty as ''meso-prognathic'', while the more prognathic Europeans (relative to these ''Berberic'' groups) are described as orthognathic.
LOL Exactly. This guy is living in a delusion and not reality. He chooses to believe in his racial fairy tales than accept actual data from relevant studies.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think its pretty obvious why. Post-70's political correctness saw race-based approaches in physical anthropology nearly disappear.
Dart (1959), Wiercinski (1965) and Strouhal (1971) were among the last studies done that involved typological classification of crania (earlier Mahalanobis and Stoessiger).
Wiercinski (1965) is an important study. Others can be found in "Population Biology of the Ancient Egyptians" (1973) ed. Brothwell DR, Chiarelli BA (London: Academic Press). This compendium also contains a final study by Wiercinski (1973). "The problem of anthroposcopic variations in ancient Egyptians". pp. 143–165.
That compenium however costs up to $1000. No one has it, or if they do it will be on a dusty shelf somewhere. It needs to be uploaded online.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I think its pretty obvious why. Post-70's political correctness saw race-based approaches in physical anthropology nearly disappear.
Dart (1959), Wiercinski (1965) and Strouhal (1971) were among the last studies done that involved typological classification of crania (earlier Mahalanobis and Stoessiger).
Wiercinski (1965) is an important study. Others can be found in "Population Biology of the Ancient Egyptians" (1973) ed. Brothwell DR, Chiarelli BA (London: Academic Press). This compendium also contains a final study by Wiercinski (1973). "The problem of anthroposcopic variations in ancient Egyptians". pp. 143–165.
That compenium however costs up to $1000. No one has it, or if they do it will be on a dusty shelf somewhere. It needs to be uploaded online.
quote: He is not the young buck he claims, this is an old person, who uses a picture of someone else.
Yep, I suspect this to be the case.
There have been times when his use of British English makes me think of someone older than a 22 year old. Significantly older.
And for someone at one of the lower ranking universities (Roehampton, ranked, according to The Guardian, as 109/120 in its 2013 guide), he's also noticeably well read.Your typical British student these days, unless they're at Oxbridge, or maybe even one of the other Russell group unis, doesn't have the dedication to read the core reading list and the volume of (crappy) material that Anglo/faheemdunker cites here.
There's more than one of them - the face of Anglo, and someone else who leads with the trolling.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a single user. The reason people think there are "others" is because countless fake accounts have been made either to imitate me or misrepresent my views. Accounts even on this forum claiming to me, aren't. There was a whole string of names around 6 months back, which Ausar confirmed weren't mine (he IP checked them and they came from American servers).
I am not responsible for what other people write, or pretend to be me. This bothered me a while back, but doesn't now - its just cyberspace. If you want to waste your time creating further fakes/socks, go ahead.
The amount of names banned at Wikipedia, where people are trying to link them to me - arn't mine. They're all on my univerity server. People regularly go on the entries to vandalise them. This is why late last year, Wikipedia just blocked most school servers from editing.
By the way, before Christmas I got an email from the "Black" guy who was involved in the thread showing my alleged accounts at Christianforums. He admitted he photoshopped them all, but was laughing because people think they are me. In actual fact if you type those names ("Aryanist", "SumerAryan") in at the database, they don't show - because they never existed.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I think its pretty obvious why. Post-70's political correctness saw race-based approaches in physical anthropology nearly disappear.
Dart (1959), Wiercinski (1965) and Strouhal (1971) were among the last studies done that involved typological classification of crania (earlier Mahalanobis and Stoessiger).
Wiercinski (1965) is an important study. Others can be found in "Population Biology of the Ancient Egyptians" (1973) ed. Brothwell DR, Chiarelli BA (London: Academic Press). This compendium also contains a final study by Wiercinski (1973). "The problem of anthroposcopic variations in ancient Egyptians". pp. 143–165.
That compenium however costs up to $1000. No one has it, or if they do it will be on a dusty shelf somewhere. It needs to be uploaded online.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I think its pretty obvious why. Post-70's political correctness saw race-based approaches in physical anthropology nearly disappear...
LMAO That is the typical excuse given by race-idiots like yourself; however "political correctness" has nothing to do with it! The debunking of race began well before the 70s. Franz Boas is considered the father of contemporary physical anthropology since his works in the first two decades of the 1900s proved that racial categories are simply nothing more than subjective and arbitrary constructs that have no genetic basis! Several decades later, Ashley Montagu the father of genetic anthropology further confirmed this in his studies of human population phenotype and inheritance. It was Montagu's work that pretty much picked apart the work of your idol Carlton Coon, but of course you only cite Coon's work but never Montagu's! LOL Most genetic work used prior to the 70's consisted of blood groupings, non-metric phenotypic features, and protein markers and/or heritable diseases or traits. But ever since the boom of DNA science especially from the mid 90s anthropologists like C. Loring Brace and Joseph Graves supported the notion that race is a social construct. By the early 2000s with the complete profile of the human genome, it was pretty much confirmed that human variation is too tremendous to be based on one genetic line or another, therefore racial groupings have no scientific basis and thus do not truly exist.
We how much this pains you since white losers like yourself rely so much on the notion of race and thus racial superiority. Instead of having pride in your own accomplishments as an individual you (as a loser) feel compelled to attach yourself to the accomplishments of others. What's more is apparently you are not satisfied with the achievements of your European forebears but have this sick need to include the works of Africans to that list and white-wash them with the label of "caucasoid".
It ain't working, bloke. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The debunking of race began well before the 70s.
Race denial is not traceable before 1962, it started with Livingstone's paper. It then gained ground during the mid-60's during the "civil rights" movement, and then by the 70's race in science became a taboo (hence works were massively reduced) through political correctness.
The roots of "race denial" are political, not scientific. It was linked to earlier Boasianism, but outright denial of race only appeared in 1962. The earlier Boasians only claimed races were equal, they didn't outright deny them.
Montagu got hold of Livingstone's paper, and he adopted the race denial or rather clinalist position with Brace in 1964 ("A nonracial approach towards the understanding of human diversity", [in:] The Concept of Race).
quote:Ashley Montagu the father of genetic anthropology further confirmed this in his studies of human population phenotype and inheritance. It was Montagu's work that pretty much picked apart the work of your idol Carlton Coon, but of course you only cite Coon's work but never Montagu's! LOL
I've actually quoted Montagu. Prior to 1962, he accepted races existed.
Montagu drafted UNESCO's statement "The Race Question" (1950) which supported the existence of three major racial stocks:
"Anthropologists agree on classifying the greater part of the present-day mankind into three major divisions as follows: (a) the Mongoloid division; (b) the Negroid division; and (c) the Caucasoid division." (par. 7)
And btw, in his earlier works he denied Grimaldi was Negroid -
"In point of fact the Grimaldi skulls exhibit traits which are far more reminiscent of the Archaic Caucasoid than they are of the Negroid type, that is to say they resemble those of Australians or Pre-Dravidians of India and Ceylon more closely" (Montagu, Introduction to Physical Anthropology, 1951, p. 173)
Thats a nice quote for you.
quote:Most genetic work used prior to the 70's consisted of blood groupings, non-metric phenotypic features, and protein markers and/or heritable diseases or traits. But ever since the boom of DNA science especially from the mid 90s anthropologists like C. Loring Brace and Joseph Graves supported the notion that race is a social construct. By the early 2000s with the complete profile of the human genome, it was pretty much confirmed that human variation is too tremendous to be based on one genetic line or another, therefore racial groupings have no scientific basis and thus do not truly exist.
Different breeds of dogs overlap as well by the same genetic studies. Are you saying you can't distinguish between a chihuahua and great dane?
Race denial is not scientific or remotely rational.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Race denial is not traceable before 1962, it started with Livingstone's paper. It then gained ground during the mid-60's during the "civil rights" movement, and then by the 70's race in science became a taboo (hence works were massively reduced) through political correctness.
You can't deny something that doesn't exist, you twit.
quote:The roots of "race denial" are political, not scientific. It was linked to earlier Boasianism, but outright denial of race only appeared in 1962. The earlier Boasians only claimed races were equal, they didn't outright deny them.
You keep saying it's political. We all know politics may affect scientists but it does not effect (true) science itself. It's already been explained that racial groupings are inconsistent and not concrete because they are arbitrary. Classifications based on subjectivity are not true classifications in science.
quote:Montagu got hold of Livingstone's paper, and he adopted the race denial or rather clinalist position with Brace in 1964 ("A nonracial approach towards the understanding of human diversity", [in:] The Concept of Race).
I've actually quoted Montagu. Prior to 1962, he accepted races existed.
So you quote an expert from earlier before he changed his mind. Why is that? Does it not occur to you that science progresses with new theories either being refined or debunked completely? Why do you not quote him later on why he changed his mind??
quote:Montagu drafted UNESCO's statement "The Race Question" (1950) which supported the existence of three major racial stocks:
"Anthropologists agree on classifying the greater part of the present-day mankind into three major divisions as follows: (a) the Mongoloid division; (b) the Negroid division; and (c) the Caucasoid division." (par. 7)
And btw, in his earlier works he denied Grimaldi was Negroid -
"In point of fact the Grimaldi skulls exhibit traits which are far more reminiscent of the Archaic Caucasoid than they are of the Negroid type, that is to say they resemble those of Australians or Pre-Dravidians of India and Ceylon more closely" (Montagu, Introduction to Physical Anthropology, 1951, p. 173)
Thats a nice quote for you.
LOL Again, why not quote something from him when his views were corrected?
quote:Different breeds of dogs overlap as well by the same genetic studies. Are you saying you can't distinguish between a chihuahua and great dane?
Yet different breeds of dog are the result of breeding isolates constructed artificially by man and thus each breed has a particular lineage! Even though all dogs descend from wolves certain populations of domesticated wolf were breed to specific forms by specific human populations. The same cannot be said about humankind itself! Human populations throughout time have been migrating and intermixing with each other. You have Europeans for example who carry recent African lineages and genetic influence even though they may appear white and non-African at all in looks. In the mean time, there are Eurasians who have been isolated for millennia like the Andamanese who do look African yet are the most genetically distant of all from Africans. You can tell a white Brit from a Nigerian but that does not mean the Brit has not recent African genes, at the same time you can't tell an Andamanese man from a Bantu even though they share no recent genes. This is why the whole concept of 'race' as phenotype correlating to genotype is debunked.
quote:Race denial is not scientific or remotely rational.
And again the explanations I provided you can't deny something that doesn't exist. I provided a simple scientific explanation that even a grade schooler can understand. That you refuse to is what is truly not rational. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LMAO. I couldn't help to burst out in laughter:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Race denial is not traceable before 1962, it started with Livingstone's paper. It then gained ground during the mid-60's during the "civil rights" movement, and then by the 70's race in science became a taboo (hence works were massively reduced) through political correctness.
You can't deny something that doesn't exist, you twit.
and:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I've actually quoted Montagu. Prior to 1962, he accepted races existed.[/qb]
So you quote an expert from earlier before he changed his mind. Why is that? Does it not occur to you that science progresses with new theories either being refined or debunked completely? Why do you not quote him later on why he changed his mind??
This guy has to be on be on the threshold of a new level of dumb. A level which I suspect even Lioness hasn't passed. Seriously.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:I have summarised the types as follows for convenience (some micro-variations exist):
Meanwhile, in the real word, where Cashitty's figment Anthropology has no bearing on objective reality, Hannihara's global data shows that the Euronut oft-touted prime examples of ortochnathy are, in fact, more prognathic than certain groups referred to here as ''Berberic'' (e.g., Somali's, Northern Ethiopian Christians, Early Nubians and undoubtedly, other Ethiopian Cushitic speakers as well). Yet, the same Berberic types (shown to be within, and at the mid/low end of, the European range by Hanihara and others) are described by Cashitty as ''meso-prognathic'', while the more prognathic Europeans (relative to these ''Berberic'' groups) are described as orthognathic.
''Faheem'', any reason in particular, why have you yet to reply to my post, that doesn't involve tails in between legs, peed pants and trembling knees?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:''Faheem'', any reason in particular, why have you yet to reply to my post, that doesn't involve tails in between legs, peed pants and trembling knees?
Hannihara's papers are based on population wholes, not individuals. You still evidently don't understand typology. "Africans" and "Europeans" are not races. They were only synonymous if you go back 20,000 or so years (although Africans then were divided into Capoids/Congoids). See the maps from Coon I posted on the changes during the post-pleistocene.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:''Faheem'', any reason in particular, why have you yet to reply to my post, that doesn't involve tails in between legs, peed pants and trembling knees?
Hannihara's papers are based on population wholes, not individuals. You still evidently don't understand typology. "Africans" and "Europeans" are not races. They were only synonymous if you go back 20,000 or so years (although Africans then were divided into Capoids/Congoids). See the maps from Coon I posted on the changes during the post-pleistocene.
^All the more evidence that your head is not functioning properly. What part in my posts refers to individuals, typology or races, in order for it to make sense that you randomly invoke such irrelevant issues when you address that excerpt of my post?
Just admit it, it burns you, doesn't it? ''Berberic'', supposedly ''meso-prognathic'' Somali's with a lower Gnathic index (see M40/M5 in the table below) mean ratio than representatives of all the groups you've described as ''ortochnathous'' in your opening posts, including your precious Nordic epitomes of Caucasoidness:
quote:''Faheem'', any reason in particular, why have you yet to reply to my post, that doesn't involve tails in between legs, peed pants and trembling knees?
Hannihara's papers are based on population wholes, not individuals. You still evidently don't understand typology. "Africans" and "Europeans" are not races. They were only synonymous if you go back 20,000 or so years (although Africans then were divided into Capoids/Congoids). See the maps from Coon I posted on the changes during the post-pleistocene.
^All the more evidence that your head is not functioning properly. What part in my posts refers to individuals, typology or races, in order for it to make sense that you randomly invoke such irrelevant issues when you address that excerpt of my post?
Just admit it, it burns you, doesn't it? ''Berberic'', supposedly ''meso-prognathic'' Somali's with a lower Gnathic index (see M40/M5 in the table below) mean ratio than representatives of all the groups you've described as ''ortochnathous'' in your opening posts, including your precious Nordic epitomes of Caucasoidness:
There's no racial types in that study.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
Of course there are no racial groups in that study because like ALL recent studies, it is accepted that race does not exist!! Therefore any accurate assessment of populations use more objective ethnic groups.
Of course your dumbass will then return to the circular reasoning that it is due to "political correctness". LOL
You are an utterly hopeless cause for reason or intelligence. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You can't deny something that doesn't exist, you twit.
The consensus among genuine (non-PC) biologists, and others who are educated enough, is that races exist (one recent peer-reviewed survey has shown race denial decreases among those that are more knowledgeable in relevant fields). Although I don't agree with Jerry Coyne's approach to race, read his 2012 essay "Are there human races?" here.
Race denial is popular among the public in the West for political reasons, yes its trendy among young liberals (just look at Badumtish) but its a different matter when it comes to scientists. The PC biologists are just more vocal and get better exposure as they are writing for a politically correct audience. Yes, we've all heard of Montagu, Brace, Graves, Diamond etc. You hardly though hear of today's prominent scientists that defend the reality of race (e.g. Henry Harpending, George W. Gill). These people don't get the same sort of treatment or exposure.
People are conditioned in the West to deny races exist through liberal/pc/"anti-racism" agendas.
quote:Classifications based on subjectivity are not true classifications in science.
Every single classification involves an element of subjectivity, however at the same time they can be part objective. See my old posts on boolean logic and why biology only deals with fuzzy logic. Nothing biological is discrete.
quote:So you quote an expert from earlier before he changed his mind. Why is that? Does it not occur to you that science progresses with new theories either being refined or debunked completely? Why do you not quote him later on why he changed his mind??
He published a book in 1942 titled Man's Most Dangerous Myth: Fallacy Of Race. However contrary to this title, the book never denied races existed. On the contrary throughout it he divides mankind into three or four races, which Montagu asserted have a biological basis.
Montagu was an academic fraud, who thought he could make easy cash out of the egalitarian and later "race denial" movement. Note exactly what I said above how race denial is popular among the public, but is not scientific. Montagu as a scientist knew races existed, but to the public he downplayed them and later denied them. You can make easy $$$$ out of writing a book with the subtitle "fallacy of race".
Did Montagu really change his mind? Only on show.
quote:Yet different breeds of dog are the result of breeding isolates constructed artificially by man and thus each breed has a particular lineage! Even though all dogs descend from wolves certain populations of domesticated wolf were breed to specific forms by specific human populations. The same cannot be said about humankind itself! Human populations throughout time have been migrating and intermixing with each other.
No they haven't, only recently. By recent: with the rise of agriculture, domestication and later technology that saw geographical barriers passed. This all happened around 10,000 years ago, or slightly earlier.
Let's go back 30,000 years. The zones were as follows: Western Eurasia (Caucasoid), Eastern Eurasia (Mongoloid), Southern Eurasia (Australoid), and Africa (Capoid/Congoid - note some may put those as the same taxon, however its debated). Coon argued the Capoids formerly inhabited North Africa, so the barrier was the Sahara Desert, hence the seperate taxon (and their physical traits are notably different).
Ainuids and Negritids can be debated.
Anyway, to make things simple: Caucasoids, Mongoloids and Congoids 30k ago were in allopatry to pass as subspecies (races).
quote:In the mean time, there are Eurasians who have been isolated for millennia like the Andamanese who do look African yet are the most genetically distant of all from Africans.
That is where you are mistaken. They look Negroid in surface traits, but their morphology is different. A physical anthropologist can easily distinguish a Negroid and Negritid skull.
quote:You can tell a white Brit from a Nigerian but that does not mean the Brit has not recent African genes, at the same time you can't tell an Andamanese man from a Bantu even though they share no recent genes. This is why the whole concept of 'race' as phenotype correlating to genotype is debunked.
Humans share 60% of their DNA with flies, and veg like cabbages. Does that mean they are expected to be flies or cabbage half way down?
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:''Faheem'', any reason in particular, why have you yet to reply to my post, that doesn't involve tails in between legs, peed pants and trembling knees?
Hannihara's papers are based on population wholes, not individuals. You still evidently don't understand typology. "Africans" and "Europeans" are not races. They were only synonymous if you go back 20,000 or so years (although Africans then were divided into Capoids/Congoids). See the maps from Coon I posted on the changes during the post-pleistocene.
^All the more evidence that your head is not functioning properly. What part in my posts refers to individuals, typology or races, in order for it to make sense that you randomly invoke such irrelevant issues when you address that excerpt of my post?
Just admit it, it burns you, doesn't it? ''Berberic'', supposedly ''meso-prognathic'' Somali's with a lower Gnathic index (see M40/M5 in the table below) mean ratio than representatives of all the groups you've described as ''ortochnathous'' in your opening posts, including your precious Nordic epitomes of Caucasoidness:
There's no racial types in that study.
Just because you're deranged enough to make sense of your own unintelligible mumblings, it doesn't mean others can too. What exactly do you mean with a ''racial type'', and what does its supposed absence in this study have to do with the fact that this table utterly destroys the descriptions of the racial classifications in the OP..?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fatheadkers: The consensus among genuine (non-PC) biologists, and others who are educated enough, is that races exist (one recent peer-reviewed survey has shown race denial decreases among those that are more knowledgeable in relevant fields). Although I don't agree with Jerry Coyne's approach to race, read his 2012 essay "Are there human races?" here.
Race denial is popular among the public in the West for political reasons, yes its trendy among young liberals (just look at Badumtish) but its a different matter when it comes to scientists. The PC biologists are just more vocal and get better exposure as they are writing for a politically correct audience. Yes, we've all heard of Montagu, Brace, Graves, Diamond etc. You hardly though hear of today's prominent scientists that defend the reality of race (e.g. Henry Harpending, George W. Gill). These people don't get the same sort of treatment or exposure.
People are conditioned in the West to deny races exist through liberal/pc/"anti-racism" agendas.
LMAOH
Have you even bothered to read the source which you linked to?!! "This shows the difficulty of answering the question of “how many races are there?” One could call Eurasians a race, or one could call Bedouins a race. It all depends on how finely you want to divide things up, and this is precisely what is expected if populations have evolutionary ancestry, which produces clusters of groups nested within each other. What is clear, though, is that human populations are genetically different, and can be diagnosed as genetically different using multiple pieces of DNA. Thus, although you may not be able to determine the geographic origin of a single person simply by looking at her morphology, you may be able to do that pretty accurately by combining information from lots of genes. I’m not aware that anybody has tested the accuracy of diagnosing a single indvidual’s geographic origin from her multilocus genotype; if such studies exist, please let me know."
Thus, the very author you cite debunks your very outdated racial typology!! LOL
The issue is not whether there are genetic differences between different populations, you idiot! The issue is whether such differences correlate with phenotypic look or physical appearance. It does NOT therefore 'race' the way YOU define it does not exist!!
quote:Every single classification involves an element of subjectivity, however at the same time they can be part objective. See my old posts on boolean logic and why biology only deals with fuzzy logic. Nothing biological is discrete.
Idiot, I and Jerry Coyne whom you cited have debunked your typology based claims.
quote:He published a book in 1942 subtitlted Man's Most Dangerous Myth: Fallacy Of Race. However contrary to this title, the book never denied races existed. On the contrary throughout it he divides mankind into three or four races, which Montagu asserted have a biological basis.
And what about after 1962, when he did away with racial divisions entirely?? You admitted that prior to that he believed in races so what changed his mind??!
quote:Montagu was an academic fraud, who thought he could make easy cash out of the egelitarian and later "race denial" movement. Note exactly what I said above how race denial is popular among the public, but is not scientific. Montagu as a scientist knew races existed, but to the public he downplayed them and later denied them. You can make easy $$$$ out of writing a book with the subtitle "fallacy of race".
Actually one reason or motivation for his change of thought was the Holocaust and World War II when Nazis began using so-called 'race science' to distinguish members of the Jewish or Semitic race as inferiors. Montagu was himself Jewish and he and others began to see that methodology behind such ideology was flawed to say the least.
quote:Did Montagu really change his mind? Only on show.
So YOU say. But then again you say a lot of things.
quote:No they haven't, only recently. By recent: with the rise of agriculture, domestication and later technology that saw geographical barriers passed. This all happened around 10,000 years ago, or slightly earlier.
If this is true, then why are there populations who carry multiple clades that date back to the paleolithic?? Also what about Europeans during and after the neolithic who carry African ancestry yet today look 'white'??
quote:Let's go back 30,000 years. The zones were as follows: Western Eurasia (Caucasoid), Eastern Eurasia (Mongoloid), Southern Eurasia (Australoid), and Africa (Capoid/Congoid - note some may put those as the same taxon, however its debated). Coon argued the Capoids formerly inhabited North Africa, so the barrier was the Sahara Desert, hence the seperate taxon (and their physical traits are notably different).
Ainuids and Negritids can be debated.
Anyway, to make things simple: Caucasoids, Mongoloids and Congoids 30k ago were in allopatry to pass as subspecies (races).
Mothafucka quit with the damn Coon nonsense!! His work is mashed bullocks covered in pig sh|t!! NOBODY and I mean NO scholar or scientist would ever dare bother addressing Coon's works since modern science, especially genetics has utterly destroyed it!! You are better off with Jerry Coyne.
quote:That is where you are mistaken. They look Negroid in surface traits, but their morphology is different. A physical anthropologist can easily distinguish a Negroid and Negritid skull.
If that's so then what do you call this dendogram from Coon?
quote:Humans share 60% of their DNA with flies, and veg like cabbages. Does that mean they are expected to be flies or cabbage half way down?
And Humans share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, yet there is more obvious phenotypic diversity among humans then there is among chimps even though the latter is far older and possess far greater genetic diversity!! Your very statement proves my point, you moron! LOLPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Just because you're deranged enough to make sense of your own unintelligible mumblings, it doesn't mean others can too. What exactly do you mean with a ''racial type'', and what does its supposed absence in this study have to do with the fact that this table utterly destroys the descriptions of the racial classifications in the OP..?
I would need to see the measurements for each individual to determine their racial type. One, or two is also not sufficient. You need around 10. The study I posted used 15 for each individual, hence the accuracy of sorting or identification is 99.5 - 100%.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You can't deny something that doesn't exist, you twit.
The consensus among genuine (non-PC) biologists, and others who are educated enough, is that races exist (one recent peer-reviewed survey has shown race denial decreases among those that are more knowledgeable in relevant fields).
The study that I refuted in the other thread?
"On the one hand, our results would seem to justify the following statement: deeper knowledge in the field of human biology inclines one to reject race conceptions as inconsistent with biological knowledge (i.e., impossible to verify by the methods of modern biology).
The oldest generation of Eastern European anthropologists grew up with a strong sense of the reality of race (first in the typological, then in the populational sense) and, therefore, it is hardly surprising that they still believe that human races exist. Experience of the following factors probably influenced this belief: half a century of socialism; a protracted period of isolation of Eastern European science from that of the West; curtailment of international contact; lack of exposure to the Western world’s literature; and, therefore, unfamiliarity with the details of the U.S. debate over race of the 1960s and the human clinal data. These scientists therefore retain their original understanding of “race” probably from the perspective of tradition and convenience."
It's really no surprise when these people are referring to 40- and 50-year-old science. These people are ignorant and have a superficial, antiquated knowledge, as the emboldened part demonstrates.
This is their conclusion and corroborates the notion that the people who still believe in the myth of 'races' are ignorant and outdated:
The discourse on division of the human species into races—their definition, origin, number, and genetic determinants—has continued for over 200 years and does not seem likely to end soon. It is time, perhaps, to agree on one point: the problem of human races has ceased to be an issue of biological knowledge. Race is a vague term that is impossible to define. In biological terms, enough arguments (above all, the genetic ones) have accumulated against the notion of human races as taxonomic units to consider the matter closed. As George Armelagos aptly summarizes: “Race is dead as a scientific method for understanding human variation” (1995:108).
[...]
We are well aware that dispensing with the term altogether has proved difficult. One of the reasons is an attachment to paradigms (we might call it “tradition”), but there is also a second factor: convenience. Hence, the struggle against the concept of “race”—in all of its connotations—is bound still to be long and arduous. Nonetheless, it is one eminently worthwhile to continue to undertake" (Kaszycka, Strkalj and Strzałko, 2009).
quote:Race denial is popular among the public in the West for political reasons, yes its trendy among young liberals (just look at Badumtish) but its a different matter when it comes to scientists.
I've quoted a wide range of contemporary scientists and have presented arguments that you have been unable to refute (hence, selectively quoting me; making unsubstantiated circumstantial ad hominem; and just not replying at all, despite repeated requests from me).
It's the consensus in the 'West' because Western scientists are at the forefront of academia and have reached the conclusion that it doesn't exist; how many leading articles in any academic field are published outside of America, Canada and Western Europe? Very, very few, if any. Ironically, it's your ideological inclinations that cause you to declare the acknowledgement that 'race' is a myth is a product of an ideology.
quote:Every single classification involves an element of subjectivity, however at the same time they can be part objective. See my old posts on boolean logic and why biology only deals with fuzzy logic.
Nothing biological is discrete.
Which is why I argue that the use of discrete categories (categories, sets or whatever you want to call them are discrete by their very nature) is misplaced and socially constructed. If "nothing biological is discrete" it is clear that the use of categories is a socially constructed convention that does not conform to the natural state of continuous, non-concordant variation. Equally, the electromagnetic spectrum does not have the discrete colours of red, orange, yellow, etc.; these categories are a socially constructed convention.
It is impossible for something to be both subjective and objective; they are necessarily antithetical concepts.
Posts: 495 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Just because you're deranged enough to make sense of your own unintelligible mumblings, it doesn't mean others can too. What exactly do you mean with a ''racial type'', and what does its supposed absence in this study have to do with the fact that this table utterly destroys the descriptions of the racial classifications in the OP..?
I would need to see the measurements for each individual to determine their racial type. One, or two is also not sufficient. You need around 10. The study I posted used 15 for each individual
So, then, if you need at least 10 measurements to identify a racial type, why is your claim of the mid-holocenic appearance of the Negroid morphology predicated on a single trait, namely, the absence of a brow ridge? What 10+ measurements did you take into account to rule out Negroid ancestry for Jebel Sahabans, Wadi Kubbaniya, Natufians and other pre holocene Northeast African specimen?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: hence the accuracy of sorting or identification is 99.5 - 100%.
I don't recall saying anything about the accuracy of the identifications (even though issues loom over this aspect of his analysis as well), but rather, your acceptance of the fabricated characterization of Cushitic speaking Horners as Meso-Prognathic, while more prognathic Nordics and Lapps are described as ortochnathous in your post. Again, what does race, typology or sorting have to do with the above, other than that its just a ploy to divert attention away from the fact that you're utterly failing to back up your claim that Cushitic speaking Horners are outside of the European range when it comes to prognathism.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ In fact was there not a study cited in this forum a few times that showed Africans, specifically Sub-Saharans, as displaying more gracile facial forms than Europeans?! LOLPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Have you even bothered to read the source which you linked to?!!
I *specifically* stated I do not support Coyne's approach to race. Coyne is a population geneticist. The point was - prominent biologists believe categorization by race is valid science. How they proceed to categorize is a different matter entirely. You claimed races don't exist because of genetic overlap; i've just shown you that is clearly a false position, since Coyne divides man into (continental) gene pools. Other prominent geneticists like Neil Risch, Director of the Institute for Human Genetics at California University, do as well.
I do not agree with the method used. However i'm in agreement races can be identified and Humans categorized. You however have asserted this can't be achieved.
quote:And what about after 1962, when he did away with racial divisions entirely?? You admitted that prior to that he believed in races so what changed his mind??!
Left wing politics/civil rights. Remember civil rights activists even tried to ban Coon's The Origin of Races. These same people at gunpoint forced Whites to mix with Blacks in schools. You can find photos on google.
quote:Actually one reason or motivation for his change of thought was the Holocaust and World War II when Nazis began using so-called 'race science' to distinguish members of the Jewish or Semitic race as inferiors. Montagu was himself Jewish and he and others began to see that methodology behind such ideology was flawed to say the least.
Yes. Most Jews deny races exist because of their politics and emotions -
"Hitler's persecution of the Jews has greatly oversensitized the American Jew toward anything which smacks of racial distinction. The preoccupation of the Jews with racial matters today is evident in the activities of various Jewish organizations. Most of these belligerently support the equalitarian dogma which they accept as having been "scientifically" proven." (Garrett, 1961)
All the more evidence race denial is not science.
quote:If this is true, then why are there populations who carry multiple clades that date back to the paleolithic??
Peripheral gene flow.
quote: Also what about Europeans during and after the neolithic who carry African ancestry yet today look 'white'??
Someone who looks Caucasoid is Caucasoid. The one drop rule is nonsense. Its only Afrocentrics who today use it. Hence they put out a booklet claiming 6 or 7 US presidents were "Black" because they may have had a distant African-American ancestor.
quote:If that's so then what do you call this dendogram from Coon?
I don't think that is from Coon. Maybe it was Howells. However this didn't include non-metrics. This is though another population study, not types. I don't take these very serious.
quote:And Humans share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, yet there is more obvious phenotypic diversity among humans then there is among chimps even though the latter is far older and possess far greater genetic diversity!! Your very statement proves my point, you moron! LOL
The point was we share genetics with many other organisms - yet look nothing like them. Yet when it comes to races, you claim because of the genetic overlap we can't identify races or types. I was just pointing out the double standard. Despite sharing 98% DNA with chimps - they look nothing like us and are considered a different species. Races are just the same. We can distingush them as types, regardless of genes.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: So, then, if you need at least 10 measurements to identify a racial type, why is your claim of the mid-holocenic appearance of the Negroid morphology predicated on a single trait, namely, the absence of a brow ridge? What 10+ measurements did you take into account to rule out Negroid ancestry for Jebel Sahabans, Wadi Kubbaniya, Natufians and other pre holocene Northeast African specimen?
There are disqualifying traits for all types - Caucasoid: facial flatness, wide nose; Negroid: large brow-ridges, thin nose. etc. This goes for non-morphological as well. Do Mongoloids have flaxen blonde hair? Certain racial types can just be ruled out straight away. If you found a long wavy-straight ginger hair strand on the floor, would you think it belonged to a Negroid?
The reason early anthropological literature claimed Australoids were all over Africa through to the Holocene is because Australoid skulls are very smilar to Proto-Negroid crania.
quote:I don't recall saying anything about the accuracy of the identifications (even though issues loom over this aspect of his analysis as well), but rather, your acceptance of the fabricated characterization of Cushitic speaking Horners as Meso-Prognathic, while more prognathic Nordics and Lapps are described as ortochnathous in your post. Again, what does race, typology or sorting have to do with the above, other than that its just a ploy to divert attention away from the fact that you're utterly failing to back up your claim that Cushitic speaking Horners are more prognathous than Europeans.
Horners are prognathic to orthognathic. There are different race types there. The Caucasoids tend to be in the higher castes, who are orthognathic, Negroids in the lower (although there are exceptions). The Aethiopid is an interracial clinal type. This type is just a convenient label for anyone who shows a spectrum of Negroid-Caucasoid traits, usually the latter more dominant (Baker, 1974, has a list of some of the specifics). Aethiopids are not Caucasoids - we had this debate before, they are a hybrid type/taxon.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: There are disqualifying traits for all types - Caucasoid: facial flatness, wide nose; Negroid: large brow-ridges, thin nose. etc.
Pseudo-science. The basis for these confused statements are founded on your assumption that there is something out of the ordinary when present populations aren't identical to their ancestral predecessors. In itself, this wouldn't be as much of a retarded thing to subscribe to, were it not for your entirely willful cherry picking when it comes to establishing what features are ''disqualifying traits'' for which racial type.
Even though I've asked you numerous times, you've been totally at a loss, and in denial of your utter loss and befuddlement, when it comes to your glaring inability to answer the simple question why traits like rectangular eye sockets, wide mandibular rami, wide broad interorbital breadths and other traits, like rates of ~65% occipital buns in Western Eurasian AMHs aren't disqualifying traits for their Caucasoid status, even though the aforementioned traits are much more genetically controlled than brow ridges, which are just associated with robusticity, and hence, they decrease in frequency when populations become more gracile due to lifestyle induced changes:
As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, the foods we eat and the manner in which they are prepared tremendously infl uence our physical appearance. The relationship between food and morphology is well illustrated by the major anatomical changes throughout human evolution. As discussed in chapter 9, the massiveness of the late australopithecines’ face and jaws was clearly linked to the hard foods those hominids ate, such as seeds. Generating the power to chew hard foods required large masticatory muscles (and their boney support). Thus, the welldeveloped sagittal crests of some later australopithecines—such as Australopithecus aethiopicus—are adaptations related to chewing. Over the course of human evolution following the australopithecines, the face and jaws have continuously reduced in size and robusticity, refl ecting a general decrease in the demand placed on the jaws and teeth as culture became increasingly complex and foodstuffs changed. --Essentials of physical anthropology: discovering our origins, Clark Spencer Larsen.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Horners are prognathic to orthognathic. There are different race types there. The Caucasoids tend to be in the higher castes, who are orthognathic, Negroids in the lower (although there are exceptions).
All populations are prognathic to orthognathic. Try again, jackass. Your response has nothing to do with my post. Tip: try to actually address what someone says, for a change:
I don't recall saying anything about the accuracy of the identifications (even though issues loom over this aspect of his analysis as well), but rather, your acceptance of the fabricated characterization of Cushitic speaking Horners as Meso-Prognathic, while more prognathic Nordics and Lapps are described as ortochnathous in your post. Again, what does race, typology or sorting have to do with the above, other than that its just a ploy to divert attention away from the fact that you're utterly failing to back up your claim that Cushitic speaking Horners are outside of the European range when it comes to prognathism.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: There's no racial types in that study.
You've used that study to attempt to show how much prognathism Negroids have, you've attempted to use it to show how large the Caucasoid component in Ancient Egypt was, you've used it to show the low frequency of infra-glabellar notch in Africans--basically, you've used it for every Euronut purpose under the sun.
But when I use it to show how false your description of the ''Berberic'' category is, all of a sudden there are ''no racial types'' in that study, and the goal post gets shifted to the need for at least ''10 variables''. I then ask you how you've managed to come to the conclusion that various Palaeolithic (North) African remains were distinct from modern day Niger-Congo speakers, in the absence of a 10+ variable study that confirmed your position. This then caused you to panic and jump the sinking ship of your earlier goal post shift, re: the 10 variables you said you needed to sort craniums. Now you're back full circle with your circular reasoning (literally), i.e., back to your retarded 1 variable Anthropology. SMH at this phuckin' clown.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Pseudo-science. The basis for these confused statements are founded on your assumption that there is something out of the ordinary when present populations aren't identical to their ancestral predecessors.
They aren't populations. Secondly, here's Michalski (1955) for selected types:
Disqualifying traits on right. This is standard typology and still used in forensics. Note also how you once said Meds could be prognathic, when in fact as I told you they are strictly ortho. Meso-prognathism is a disqualifying trait.
quote: Even though I've asked you numerous times, you've been totally at a loss, and in denial of your utter loss and befuddlement, when it comes to your glaring inability to answer the simple question why traits like rectangular eye sockets, wide mandibular rami, wide broad interorbital breadths and other traits, like rates of ~65% occipital buns in Western Eurasian AMHs aren't disqualifying traits for their Caucasoid status, even though the aforementioned traits are much more genetically controlled than brow ridges, which are just associated with robusticity, and hence, they decrease in frequency when populations become more gracile due to lifestyle induced changes
The Cro-Magnoid type still exists. I've already shown you. You're now though confusing intra-types with macro/the largest (race) divisions: Caucasoid, Negroid etc. The intra-types have additional features through modification. Caucasoid/Negroid/Mongoloid etc are just very broad labels for the morphology the intra-varieties all fall under.
quote:All populations are prognathic to orthognathic. Try again, jackass. Your response has nothing to do with my post.
Types aren't populations. The only time for convenience when these are equated is very loosely if the largest divisions are applied to continents or certain areas (however this is still very inaccurate) that are homogenous. So we can say Europe 10k years ago was Caucasoid. Each landmass will have a different population history of settlement. Congoids/Negroids are very primitive, so they were mostly confined to only specific regions in Africa (they didn't wander into Europe or the Middle-east for example in prehistoric times). Caucasoids however expanded far by the Mesolithic.
You cannot today equate an African population to a single race type. Those areas are all mixed.
quote:[i]I don't recall saying anything about the accuracy of the identifications (even though issues loom over this aspect of his analysis as well), [b]but rather, your acceptance of the fabricated characterization of Cushitic speaking Horners as Meso-Prognathic, while more prognathic Nordics and Lapps are described as ortochnathous in your post. Again, what does race, typology or sorting have to do with the above, other than that its just a ploy to divert attention away from the fact that you're utterly failing to back up your claim that Cushitic speaking Horners are outside of the European range when it comes to prognathism.
Nordids are orthognathous. They have no prognathism. As the table shows above, prognathism is a disqualifying trait.
quote:You've used that study to attempt to show how much prognathism Negroids have, you've attempted to use it to show how large the Caucasoid component in Ancient Egypt was, you've used it to show the low frequency of infra-glabellar notch in Africans--basically, you've used it for every Euronut purpose under the sun.
Negroids are prognathic. I never used this table to prove what I already know. I posted this table months back, when Zaharan misused it, and by playing his own game, I showed the data actually refutes his interpretation that the ancient egyptian data clusters with "Tropical Africans" -- when the study clusters most AE traits with "Europeans". See below.
quote:But when I use it to show how false your description of the ''Berberic'' category is, all of a sudden there are ''no racial types'' in that study, and the goal post gets shifted to the need for at least ''10 variables''. I then ask you how you've managed to come to the conclusion that various Palaeolithic (North) African remains were distinct from modern day Niger-Congo speakers, in the absence of a 10+ variable study that confirmed your position. This then caused you to panic and jump the sinking ship of your earlier goal post shift, re: the 10 variables you said you needed to sort craniums. Now you're back full circle with your circular reasoning (literally), i.e., back to your retarded 1 variable Anthropology. SMH at this phuckin' clown.
The types can only be equated to populations if they are homogenous/historical (look at the maps I always show). Historically Europe was much more "pure" than Africa (pure meaning uniformity in traits not some ubermensch). While Caucasoids poured into Africa, Negroids never moved into Europe. That's why a population study on Neolithic or modern "Somalis" is going to not be the same as a single race type. The orthognathic Somalis are Caucasoid. You then have the clinal interracial Aetheopid spectrum and also Negroids, and others.
Do you now understand? Its not hard.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ We understand alright. That YOU are a retard! Racial typology is nothing more that arbitrary groupings based on stereotyped features. Thus racial groupings do NOT exist!! Even the source you cited says NOTHING about the definition of 'race' that YOU yourself use, you nitwit! Yet you cited that source anyway as some sort of support for your claims. Funny how the ONLY up to date source you cite contradicts you. LOLPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's really no surprise when these people are referring to 40- and 50-year-old science. These people are ignorant and have a superficial, antiquated knowledge, as the emboldened part demonstrates.
Its not an antiquated science. Its still used in forensics, and by most physical anthropologists.
So that's why someone ended up writing a paper with (sub)title: "If races don't exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them?".
quote:It's the consensus in the 'West' because Western scientists are at the forefront of academia and have reached the conclusion that it doesn't exist; how many leading articles in any academic field are published outside of America, Canada and Western Europe? Very, very few, if any. Ironically, it's your ideological inclinations that cause you to declare the acknowledgement that 'race' is a myth is a product of an ideology.
No its not a consensus in the West in academia. Its consensus in the West among the public. Two different things entirely. The average man on the street works in mcdonalds or has an office job.
Moon landing denialism is popular among the public (some polls put it as high as 40%). Yet virtually no scientists (astronomer, astrophysicists) will support that same position.
quote:Which is why I argue that the use of discrete categories (categories, sets or whatever you want to call them are discrete by their very nature) is misplaced and socially constructed. If "nothing biological is discrete" it is clear that the use of categories is a socially constructed convention that does not conform to the natural state of continuous, non-concordant variation. Equally, the electromagnetic spectrum does not have the discrete colours of red, orange, yellow, etc.; these categories are a socially constructed convention.
It is impossible for something to be both subjective and objective; they are necessarily antithetical concepts.
Then why are you using exactly my logic (fuzzy) but reducing it to invidivuals?
If you think categorization is impossible with some degree of objectivity, then you cannot recognise an individual.
Boolean logic applied to the universe + everything (e.g. Human) is this:
(0) unknown/nothing (1) everything
You employ fuzzy logic to recognise individals. Human sensory perceptions are collective generalizations. How do you know you are an "individual", and not the same as everthing else in the universe (1)? The boolean 0 would be nothing, unknown. Further "you" are composed of the same atomic material as everything else. Why are you therefore making a distinction.
I pointed out this flaw months back. If you are genuine about your philosophy, why are you identifying individuals? Those are arbitrary according to your own logic.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also noted another mistake you have made. You say race categories are arbitrary/social constructs. While I disagree, the point here is that by your own logic, races aren't arbitrary, but the divisions are. The "division" is not the same as what has been split. Yet you confuse the former with the latter always.
Your arguments are not good. They are filled with fallacies, errors and mistakes because you are so desperate to deny categorization. Someone can easily detect an underlying emotional bias.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I also noted another mistake you have made. You say race categories are arbitrary/social constructs. While I disagree, the point here is that by your own logic, races aren't arbitrary, but the divisions are. The "division" is not the same as what has been split. Yet you confuse the former with the latter always.
Your arguments are not good. They are filled with fallacies, errors and mistakes because you are so desperate to deny categorization. Someone can easily detect an underlying emotional bias.
As humans spread to different parts of the world you see a continuum of gradual transitioning:
^^^ we are dealing with this on a lot of levels not just skin color, variations in features etc.
So it's arbitrary to look at that transition and then divide it into some number of parts and then name each part. Looking at the above you could divide it up into three segments and then name the segments something. Then you claim that the races exist because you came to this gradual situation and choose to divide it up so you can talk about parts of it. Somebody else divides it into four segments another into eleven parts and because you have arbitrarily cut it up you say therefore race exists. Race then just means dividing something to analyze it. It doesn't exist in reality. It's just an abstract concept to try to take something of infinate steps and try to simplify it for the sake of discussion
Posts: 42939 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its not an antiquated science. Its still used in forensics, and by most physical anthropologists.
So that's why someone ended up writing a paper with (sub)title: "If races don't exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them?".
Here we go again... the amount of times I've had to explain this to you is ridiculous. It's still used in forensics because it is still a salient social construct; in crimes, people say "erm, he looked like a white male", so that is what forensic scientists seek. It would be just as easy for them to use a combination of earwax type, natural hair colour, skin tone, or any other genetic traits to collaboratively pinpoint somebody, but it's probably more expensive. As long as there is geographical biological variation it is possible to use anything that varies geographically to determine somebody's geographical origin; e.g., as long as earwax consistency varies geographically it is possible to use this trait to determine somebody's geographical location.
quote:No its not a consensus in the West in academia. Its consensus in the West among the public. Two different things entirely. The average man on the street works in mcdonalds or has an office job.
Moon landing denialism is popular among the public (some polls put it as high as 40%). Yet virtually no scientists (astronomer, astrophysicists) will support that same position.
How is it the consensus in the public? The public is the main reason 'race' is still a social reality; 'racial' terms are still very widely used in day-to-day public interaction.
It really is. Refer to the Pena (2011) quote I posted in the other thread.
quote:Then why are you using exactly my logic (fuzzy) but reducing it to invidivuals?
If you think categorization is impossible with some degree of objectivity, then you cannot recognise an individual.
Boolean logic applied to the universe + everything (e.g. Human) is this:
(0) unknown/nothing (1) everything
You employ fuzzy logic to recognise individals. Human sensory perceptions are collective generalizations. How do you know you are an "individual", and not the same as everthing else in the universe (1)? The boolean 0 would be nothing, unknown. Further "you" are composed of the same atomic material as everything else. Why are you therefore making a distinction.
I pointed out this flaw months back. If you are genuine about your philosophy, why are you identifying individuals? Those are arbitrary according to your own logic. [/QB]
Because not everything in the universe can sense? I am a discontiguous organism.
This:
"If you think categorization is impossible with some degree of objectivity, then you cannot recognise an individual."
Makes no sense. We are able to arbitrarily classify anything. How does my argument that 'classification systems are arbitrary' mean 'we cannot classify anything'? Of course we can classify things; I am simply saying that the way we do so and/or the basis of that classification is arbitrary.
Your argument isn't saying anything is "part objective" (this is impossible), it is saying everything is subjective and/or socially constructed. This is not particularly incompatible with anything I'm saying and still doesn't establish the notion that 'race' is an objective concept.
Posts: 495 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: [QB] I also noted another mistake you have made. You say race categories are arbitrary/social constructs. While I disagree, the point here is that by your own logic, races aren't arbitrary, but the divisions are. The "division" is not the same as what has been split. Yet you confuse the former with the latter always.
I have implicitly been arguing this since the first discussion I had with you. I am not denying the presence of biological difference; is saying the temperature 'sets' on that graph you presented are arbitrary equivalent to saying there is no variation in temperature? No. The presence of biological/temperature variation is a fact; the categorisation of this different into significant categories (for 'race'—e.g., seeing certain aspects of craniofacial morphology as more important than any other biological variation, then further arbitrarily separating gradients of craniofacial morphology (the nasal index into three categories, for example)) or categories at all (for temperature) is done so arbitrarily. Anything can be split/categorised according to an innumerable range of dimensions. You have acknowledged this when you agreed that the 'sets' in fuzzy logic are subjective.
"Given the multitude of dimensions along which people and objects might be perceived as either dis-similar or similar, the question remains why some dimensions become salient and important for categorisations and others do not. For instance, Medin and Wattenmaker (1987) point out that plums and lawnmowers are unlikely to be categorised together, even though they are clearly similar on a number of dimensions (both weigh less than 1000 kg, both cannot hear, both have a distinct smell, both can be dropped). It is not the case that one comparison dimension is objectively more relevant than another one, and that empirical reality would dictate which dimension should be attended to. Rather, the choice of comparison dimensions is informed by socially constructed meaning. However, if the choice of relevant dimensions is subjective rather than objective, judgements of relative similarity between objects are necessarily subjective too. Thus, again, perceived similarity does not straightforwardly stem from objective similarity – there is a disjunction between the two" (Zagefka, 2009).
quote:Your arguments are not good. They are filled with fallacies, errors and mistakes because you are so desperate to deny categorization. Someone can easily detect an underlying emotional bias.
Lol, says the one who selectively quotes me or doesn't bother replying at all. A bad argument is easily refuted, is it not?
Posts: 495 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I also noted another mistake you have made. You say race categories are arbitrary/social constructs. While I disagree, the point here is that by your own logic, races aren't arbitrary, but the divisions are. The "division" is not the same as what has been split. Yet you confuse the former with the latter always.
Your arguments are not good. They are filled with fallacies, errors and mistakes because you are so desperate to deny categorization. Someone can easily detect an underlying emotional bias.
As humans spread to different parts of the world you see a continuum of gradual transitioning:
^^^ we are dealing with this on a lot of levels not just skin color, variations in features etc.
So it's arbitrary to look at that transition and then divide it into some number of parts and then name each part. Looking at the above you could divide it up into three segments and then name the segments something. Then you claim that the races exist because you came to this gradual situation and choose to divide it up so you can talk about parts of it. Somebody else divides it into four segments another into eleven parts and because you have arbitrarily cut it up you say therefore race exists. Race then just means dividing something to analyze it. It doesn't exist in reality. It's just an abstract concept to try to take something of infinate steps and try to simplify it for the sake of discussion
Are you saying you can't distinguish between Black and White on that colour spectrum? They are the two extremities or poles.
Only the crossover point between 0, 1 has maximum ambiguity of membership.
fuzzy logic still includes binary values. It merely extends membership to more categories of truth-value indeterminacy or vagueness. Only when you hit mid point is there maximum ambiguity.
Races are exactly the same as those colours. The poles or extremities are Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid etc., while the shades inbetween that are more ambiguous - are interracial clinal types (such as Aethiopid and Turanid).
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Races are exactly the same as those colours. The poles or extremities are Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid etc., while the shades inbetween that are more ambiguous - are interracial clinal types (such as Aethiopid and Turanid). [/QB]
"Whether the investigator uses external information or makes estimates from the samples at hand, the parental populations are abstractions that conform to only the simplest kind of genetic structure. This structure places heavy emphasis on the idea that the world once harbored distinct and independently evolved populations that have now undergone admixture of an unstated type (often seeming to connote admixture due to colonial era migrations). Regardless of the intent, this idea of population structure is unfortunately more in line with race concepts held by European explorers and traders than with the recent genetic evidence supporting the serial sampling model of human evolutionary history" (Weiss and Long, 2009).
The evidence suggests polygenism/creationism is not a valid account of population history. It's funny that you actually quote sources out of a time where people believed in polygenism.
Posts: 495 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Races are exactly the same as those colours. The poles or extremities are Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid etc., while the shades inbetween that are more ambiguous - are interracial clinal types (such as Aethiopid and Turanid).
"Whether the investigator uses external information or makes estimates from the samples at hand, the parental populations are abstractions that conform to only the simplest kind of genetic structure. This structure places heavy emphasis on the idea that the world once harbored distinct and independently evolved populations that have now undergone admixture of an unstated type (often seeming to connote admixture due to colonial era migrations). Regardless of the intent, this idea of population structure is unfortunately more in line with race concepts held by European explorers and traders than with the recent genetic evidence supporting the serial sampling model of human evolutionary history" (Weiss and Long, 2009).
The evidence suggests polygenism/creationism is not a valid account of population history. It's funny that you actually quote sources out of a time where people believed in polygenism. [/QB]
As usual you are wrong.
"The term "interracial" referred to hybrid populations which resulted from an admixture of two genetically different race groups, while an ‘intraracial cline’ referred to the genetic variation which resulted from natural selection operating on colonies subjected to new and different environmental pressures not experienced by their parent group. Racial clines have complicated modern efforts to reconstruct racial history by comparing the gene pools of different populations and calculating the genetic distance between these populations. Clearly, intraracial clines result from speciation, they are produced as a result of an evolutionary process, but interracial clines result from crossbreeding as a result of genetic migration (where invaders or immigrants mix their genes with the former proprietors of a territory)." (Pearson, 2002)
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Genetics itself has exploded the very fallacy of race typology. Our closest relative species-- chimpanzees-- have far more genetic diversity than our own yet their phenotypic diversity at least in obvious physical appearance is very limited. Two chimpanzees living in different parts of the same rainforest have more genetic distance between them than two humans living on opposite ends of the globe! At the same time you have black Africans like Cameroonians who carry R1 lineages that make them closer related on the Y-chromosome to white Nordic Europeans. They share single lineage yet they are typologically different in looks. But then you have black Andamanese and Pacific aborigines who look no different from some Sub-Saharans yet are no more related to Sub-Saharans than Japanese. This is exactly why racial typology is false because one cannot correlate phenotype with genetic lineage.
Case closed. End of story. That Fartheadbonkers wants to cling on to outdated and debunk Coonian race fantasies is not our problem. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Badumtish: Here we go again... the amount of times I've had to explain this to you is ridiculous. It's still used in forensics because it is still a salient social construct; in crimes, people say "erm, he looked like a white male" so that is what forensic scientists seek. It would be just as easy for them to use a combination of earwax type, natural hair colour, skin tone, or any other genetic traits to collaboratively pinpoint somebody, but it's probably more expensive.
How are traits with some degree of historic geographical concordance, "social constructs"? Someone identified as a "white male", will have traits that are associated with Western Eurasia -- and are Caucasoid.
"Morphological characteristics... like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc." (Gill, 2000)
quote:As long as there is geographical biological variation it is possible to use anything that varies geographically to determine somebody's geographical origin; e.g., as long as earwax consistency varies geographically it is possible to use this trait to determine somebody's geographical location.
You can only use enviro-climatic traits, as they are geographically circumscribed, at least so historically e.g. pale skin with blue eyes appeared in/or around Europe. Anything else leads to Diamond's fallacy. Not all physical traits are racial. Diamonds fallacy is where you take random non-racial traits.
quote:The public is the main reason 'race' is still a social reality; 'racial' terms are still very widely used in day-to-day public interaction.
No they aren't. Social races, are not races. How many people if you stop them in the street would know nomenclature like Caucasoid or Australoid? You're still on studentforums - so take a look around. The users there who claim they believe races exist, just know "white" "black" and "asian"; if they know anything else it will just be from wikipedia (these people are not educated). They even call Obama "black", despite he is clearly phenotypically mixed, a hybrid type, with a Caucasoid mother.
Most people who claim races exist, are using a socially constructed or rather political definition of race. That's very different to scientific typology or biological race.
quote:Because not everything in the universe can sense? I am a discontiguous organism.
Nope you aren't according to your logic. Your senses are collective generalizations, and are actually fuzzy, not discrete in principle.
How do you know you arn't a "bookshelf" or a "tree"? Your senses such as seeing, touching, smelling etc, are all fuzzy or vague. So a tree that is green and is smooth, the colour is a spectrum not discrete, the smooth is a generalization not a discrete or crisp property.
According to boolean logic, individuals do not exist. You have to employ fuzzy logic to distinguish or identify individuals.
quote: Makes no sense. We are able to arbitrarily classify anything. How does my argument that 'classification systems are arbitrary' mean 'we cannot classify anything'? Of course we can classify things; I am simply saying that the way we do so and/or the basis of that classification is arbitrary.
You said individuals are not arbitrary. However according to your own logic they are.
You should not stop at the individual with boolean logic. You have to go further and say individuals are fuzzy since our senses are vague collective generalizations.
Boolean logic applied to biodiversity =
0, nothing (everything is unknown) 1, everything (everything as a whole)
quote:Your argument isn't saying anything is "part objective" (this is impossible), it is saying everything is subjective and/or socially constructed. This is not particularly incompatible with anything I'm saying and still doesn't establish the notion that 'race' is an objective concept.
Its incompatible with you saying individuals exist. You are actually employing fuzzy logic to distinguish between individuals.
Your philosophy only works as boolean if you want to claim everything is a whole/the same.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic