posted
"Biology points to the stenothermy of Negroes, who are best adapted to the hot and humid conditions of the woodland regions to the south of the savanna. In the Egyptian Nile valley they found themselves in the opposite extreme of climate, that of the dry desert with great differences between day maxima temperature and night minima. A possible demonstration of the harmful influence of the Egyptian climate on Negroes was the shocking case reported in 1824 from Aswan, where 17,000 out of 20,000 ill-clothed Sudanese soldiers died of pneumonia and other consequences of cold. Egyptian soldiers remained healthy under the same conditions" (Strouhal, 1971)
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Faheemdunkers : Negroids are not dry heat adapted
You're only destroying yourself, modo-face. That the negroid ''typology'' is simply a response to humid-hot climates, is what I've been telling you all along. **You** are the one who erringly said that Negroid typology is adapted to both dry-heat and humid-heat, which your current excerpt is totally destroying. You said in response to my observation that hot-dry climates can and do select for narrow phenotypes: ''No they don't. There is only one type of adaptation in Africa: heat, of which is divided into two environments: humid heat and dry heat.''
What your excerpt shows is that Negroid typology isn't racial but simply an adaptation to the hot-humid climates that radiate from most of equatorial Africa. There are many African populations that haven't been in tropical rainforests for tens of thousands of years. According to typology, they're necessarily affiliated with Eurasians, simply because they're not adapted to tropical rainforests.
Only mentally retarded Euroloons will try to racialize simple and basic non-racial anthropological principles like Bergman's rule and Allen's rule, as evidenced by your failed attempt to post that Strouhal quote (which demonstrates that tropically adapted populations are built to dissipate heat, and that this is harmful in cold areas, where the bodily retention of heat is necessary).
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: A possible demonstration of the harmful influence of the Egyptian climate on Negroes was the shocking case reported in 1824 from Aswan, where 17,000 out of 20,000 ill-clothed Sudanese soldiers died of pneumonia and other consequences of cold. Egyptian soldiers remained healthy under the same conditions" (Strouhal, 1971)
Were their conditions really the same though? For example, would the Islamic Egyptians really be so ill-clothed or otherwise ill-protected against the cold as these Sudanese supposedly were? Furthermore, was the cold in 1824 normal for Aswan?
Note that the minimum temperature for Aswan is 10 degrees Celsius, or around 50 degrees. That is definitely in the cool range, but not what I would call devastatingly cold.
Posts: 7174 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're only destroying yourself, modo-face. That the negroid ''typology'' is simply a response to humid-hot climates, is what I've been telling you all along. **You** are the one who erringly said that Negroid typology is adapted to both dry-heat and humid-heat, which your current excerpt is totally destroying. You said in response to my observation that hot-dry climates can and do select for narrow phenotypes: ''No they don't. There is only one type of adaptation in Africa: heat, of which is divided into two environments: humid heat and dry heat.''
I said Africa has two climatic environments: dry heat and humid heat, not that Negroids were dry heat adapated [they aren't]. Specifically note that Nilotids despite predominantly dwelling in arid heat conditions, are not dry heat adapted. They don't have low NI's. See Baker (1974). Eickstedt, Das negride Afrika. Körperformgruppen on Nilotids:
"But the nostrils are inflated in [a] Negroid way, though the broadness of button noses or Sudanid funnel noses is not reached."
There's no such thing as a leptorrhine "Black".
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: I said Africa has two climatic environments: dry heat and humid heat, not that Negroids were dry heat adapated [they aren't].
LMAO. You're such a low life liar. You posted what you call ''Bantuids'' or ''kaffrids'' as examples of a hot-dry population via that 2011 paper you repeatedly posted a few days ago. You've also said in the past (like the dumbass retard that you are) that Bantu speakers are elongated because they're hot-dry adapted, even though the elongated description is never even applied to them in the literature. Flip flopping jackass.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Specifically note that Nilotids despite predominantly dwelling in arid heat conditions, are not dry heat adapted.
So now, you're back to arguing that hot-dry climates don't select for narrow phenotypes, and that Negroid phenotypes are, in fact, typical for hot-dry regions? This is exactly what I mean; not only do all your sources contradict each other, you yourself are a walking contradiction. You talk so much smack that you're bound to stumble over your own retarded assertions.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: There's no such thing as a leptorrhine "Black".
Of course there are, and you know it. A few days ago I posted a paper that had a Hausa sample from the Sahel, where the females were leptorrhine. You're totally debunked and you know it.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol. You're such a liar. What the hell is a "Bantuid" or "Kaffrid"? I've never even heard those terms, let alone used them.
Nilotids are elongated, yes. However as I showed with Wolpoff, and Brues, limb indices seem to have been affected by cultural factors:
"The importance of velocity in the use of the projectile immediately places a premium on speed leverages in the body. We should expect, then, that concomitant with refinement in shape and increased penetrating power in stone artifacts, a situation is arising in which linear body build is becoming the most efficient type for weapon manipulation." (Brues, 1959)
They are not clear cut racial adaptations. This is why Coon never payed them much attention.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: lol. You're such a liar. What the hell is a "Bantuid" or "Kaffrid"? I've never even heard those terms, let alone used them.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: [QB] Coon's theory has an element of truth to it, however if you look you will see most Bantu inhabit the tropical savannas not rainforests. The savannas are humid and tropical, but not all year round. Hence populations there would be somewhat taller. In Baker's (1974) terminology the Bantu are mostly Kafrids. They fall intermediate between dry heat adapted Negroids, and the tropical adapted palaeo-Negrids and Pygmies. 'True Blacks' (Forest Negroids/palaeo-Negrids) look a lot like Pygmies and are also small. They are confined to only certain regions.
Here is a map -
I would personally though extend Kafrid more into the palaeo-negrid zone. [/QUOTE
Posts: 43045 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: lol. You're such a liar. What the hell is a "Bantuid" or "Kaffrid"? I've never even heard those terms, let alone used them.
You can linger on typos all you want, but it isn't going to distract from my point. Lying dumbass, was the following excerpt written by you or not?
They fall intermediate between dry heat adapted Negroids
quote:Nilotids are elongated, yes.
Lying ape, you're all over the place. First you argue that Negroids are adapted to heat (both hot and humid) and that only cold climates produce narrow facial traits. Then when I repeatedly school your dumbass on the fact that hot-dry climates DO select for narrow phenotypes, you take the position that hot-dry climates do select for narrow phenotypes. Today, however, you undermine your own position again by stating that this principle must not work because the Nilotes you're talking about don't have narrow facial traits. LMAO.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: There's no such thing as a leptorrhine "Black".
Of course there are, and you know it. A few days ago I posted a paper that had a Hausa sample from the Sahel, where the females were leptorrhine. You're totally debunked and you know it.
^Is there a particular reason why your dumbass is running away from addressing this? LMAO.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
That's not even mine. It was a copy and paste from here: http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html Again, I don't agree with it [heck the source is even OOA, which I have never been a proponent of]. I only posted that to show how anthropologists have divided up Africa into different historical races/subraces.
"Bantid" doesn't even exist, it appears to be a neologism from MccCulloch. I copied this in 2011 without even reading it properly. I have never myself used those terms.
And "Bantuid"/"Kaffrid" don't exist, so its lame to even raise this.
quote: They fall intermediate between dry heat adapted Negroids
In stature only. I've said this many times, but not nasal index, or other factors. You can even check that thread posted, where I noted Nilotids are not dry heat adapted in these other traits. So this is nothing more than semantics (Nilotids are long and linear, but in facial appearance appear humid heat, not dry, adapted]. But knowing your love of word games [like with the whole Baker Aethiopid thing], i'm sure you will persist to make a big thing out of nothing.
quote:Lying ape, you're all over the place. First you argue that Negroids are adapted to heat (both hot and humid) and that only cold climates produce narrow facial traits. Then when I repeatedly school your dumbass on the fact that hot-dry climates DO select for narrow phenotypes, you take the position that hot-dry climates do select for narrow phenotypes. Today, however, you undermine your own position again by stating that this principle must not work because the Nilotes you're talking about don't have narrow facial traits. LMAO.
You can't read. As I have highlighted Negroids never altered [unless you consider stature] under dry heat selection pressures. I've shown you several papers why. Low nasal indices only evolved in Caucasoids, because they had microdont teeth. There is a direct link between tooth and palate size and nasal breadth and height. Low NI's only evolved if teeth were small. If the teeth were not microdont, the nasal breadth could not be reduced hence Neanderthals despite living in cold dry climate had very wide noses. Only Caucasoids possess the highly evolved small microdont teeth (Coon 1962, p. 354) hence they are leptorrhine.
quote:^Is there a particular reason why your dumbass is running away from addressing this? LMAO.
See above.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
LMAO, EUgene Strouhal, circa 1971- long since debunked? ANd "Negroid" types are well represented in hot, dry desert climes, not merely forested zones. They are indigenous to all, or move freely in and out of all climatic zones found on the African continent. They are not by any claimed or hoped for climatic " apartheid" areas.
-----------------------------------------------
RECAP:
Credible modern scholars dismiss attempts at any "Caucasoid race" labeling for the ancient remains of East Africa. Africans the most diverse, making such labels inaccurate and irrelevant
“In other parts of Africa there is much more variation, disclosing a mosaic of forms, some unrelated to recent groups (Lukenya Hill - Gramly and Rightmire, 1973), others with possible Khoi-San affinities (Neolithic crania associated with the Wilton tradition of Kenya), others with clear Negro traits (Ishango, Congo - Ferembach, 1986c; Howells, 1959; Rightmire, 1975b; Chad, Tamaya Mellet in Niger, and El Guettara in Mali - Chamla, 1968; Asselar, Ibalaghen, Tin Lalou sites - Chamla, 1968), and yet still others suggesting trans-Saharan movements (Wadi Halfa, Jebel Sahaba - Anderson, 1968; Greene and Armelagos, 1972)..”
..These findings are very important, for they suggest that not only late Pleistocene to early Holocene remains like Gamble's Cave and Elmenteita should not be interpreted as Caucasoid immigrants, but that the great levels of cranial variation observed today in sub-Saharan Africa were probably even greater in the late Pleistocene. “ ----Marta Lahr 1996. The Evolution of Modern Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Variation. pg 283
^^More tropically proportioned diversity ...... note brachial and cural indexes
And just as tropical African environments are diverse, so are tropical African peoples as credible scientists note time and time again. QUOTES:
Most phenotypic variation – Quote: "Both methods for estimating regional diversity show sub-Saharan Africa to have the highest levels of phenotypic variation, consistent with many genetic studies." --- Relethford, John 2001. Global Analysis of Regional Differences.. Human Biology - V73, n5, pp. 629-636)
Most genetic diversity – Quote: "Africa contains tremendous cultural, linguistic and genetic diversity.. Studies using mitochondrial (mt)DNA and nuclear DNA markers consistently indicate that Africa is the most genetically diverse region of the world." ---Tishkoff & Williams. 2002. Genetic analysis of African populations.. NatuRevGen (8)
Most skin color diversity – Quote: "Regional differences in local within-population [skin color] diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits." -- Relethford JH.(2000). Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. Hum Biol. 72(5):773-80.)
Most ancestral and intra-regional dental diversity – Quote: “.. research by the first author revealed that, relative to other modern peoples, sub-Saharan Africans exhibit the highest frequencies of ancestral (or plesiomorphic) dental traits.." --Irish JD, Guatelli-Steinberg D.(2003) Ancient teeth.. Hum Evol. 45(2):113-44
"The patterns of inter- and intra-regional variation among 12 major geographical groups from around the world were investigated .. Subsaharan Africans show the largest intra-regional diversity among the groups compared." --Hanihara 2008 Morphological variation of major human populations AJPA 136,2 169-182
Highest level of albinism in the world and built-in native diversity gives tropical Africans variation in hair and eye color. Quote- "Blondism, especially in young children, is common in many dark haired populations (e.g. Australian, Melanesian), and is still found in some Nubian villages.“ (-Hardy D. 1978. Analysis of Hair..AJPA 49) Though Europe posts more people by volume, Africa’s high albinism means differing hair and eye colors are present.
Quote: "In general, the prevalence of albinism in Africa is much higher, in the range of 1 in 1 100 to 1 in 3900.“ (-Roach and Miller. 2004. Neurocutaneous disorders.)
Hair also varies in Africa – from the Horn, to the Atlantic to the Cape. Quote: “Extremely "wooly" hair is not the only kind native to tropical Africa.." (S. Keita 1993. "Studies and Comments)
"Several other long-range migration events have shaped the genetic l andscape of Africa. Analyses of mtDNA and the Y chromosome supports studies of classical polymorphisms as well as archaeological data indicating that Khoisian-speaking populations (those whose languages contain clicks, which includes the !Kung San) may have originated in Eastern Africa and migrated into southern Africa >20 - 10kya (Cavalli-Sforza, 1997, Scozzari, et al. 1999). Analyses of Y-Chromosome haplotype variation have identified that the most ancestral Y-chromosome haplotype is present at moderate to high frequency in East African Sudanese and Ethiopians, as well as in southern African !Kung San .." -- Michael Crawford 2006. Anthropological Genetics: Theory, Methods and Applications. p. 363-364
"The shallower slope, that of the INuit, has a value of 0.77 versus 0.86 for the Khoisan, indicating thjat the tibiae of the cold-adapted Inuit grow less per increment of femral growth theoughout their entire ontogenetic sequence tha do those of the Khoisan. The Neanderthal data points can be seen to follow the Inuit trajectory." --Nancy Minugh-Purvis, Kenneth J. McNamara. Human Evolution through Developmental Change 2001
"Variation in limb proportions between prehistoric Jomon and Yayoi people of Japan are explored by this study. Jomon people were the descendents of Pleistocene nomads who migrated to the Japanese Islands around 30,000 yBP. Phenotypic and genotypic evidence indicates that Yayoi people were recent migrants to Japan from continental Northeast Asia who likely interbred with Jomon foragers. Limb proportions of Jomon and Yayoi people were compared using RMA regression and "Quick-Test" calculations to investigate relative variability between these two groups. Cluster and principal components analyses were performed on size-standardized limb lengths and used to compare Jomon and Yayoi people with other groups from various climatic zones. Elongated distal relative to proximal limb lengths were observed among Jomon compared to Yayoi people. Jomon limb proportions were similar to human groups from temperate/tropical climates at lower latitudes, while Yayoi limb proportions more closely resemble groups from colder climates at higher latitudes. Limb proportional similarities with groups from warmer environments among Jomon foragers likely reflect morphological changes following Pleistocene colonization of the Japanese Islands. Cold-derived limb proportions among the Yayoi people likely indicate retention of these traits following comparatively recent migrations to the Japanese Islands. Changes in limb proportions experienced by Jomon foragers and retention of cold-derived limb proportions among Yayoi people conform to previous findings that report changes in these proportions following long-standing evolution in a specific environment." --Temple et al. 2008. Variation in limb proportions between Jomon foragers and Yayoi agriculturalists from prehistoric Japan. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008 Oct;137(2):164-74.
quote: "At the same time, there is a genetic component. Low stature persists even under apparently favourable health conditions. The small body size and lean physique of living Khoisan peoples are often cited in human population biology texts as exemplary of adaptation to a hot, sometimes specifically desert, climate. Their low body-mass index is portrayed as support for Bergmann's and Allen's rules (cf. Molnar 1998, Relethford 1997)." --Sealy and Pfeiffer (2000) ------------------------------
ANd as to tropical Africans in the Nile Valley:
RECAP:
Even in the far northern Nile Valley limb proportions cluster the early dynastic inhabitants more with Africans than Europeans
Numerous Pharaohs show tropical limb proportions
Limb proportions to not change quickly but are more stable and are heavily genetically embedded. The distinctive presence of such limb proportions in Egypt shows that the fundamental core populations were tropical Africans. Skin color or nose shape changes under the Medit climate do not change this pattern. In any event, desert conditions can produce narrow noses, and Africans as a whole have the highest skin color diversity, without needing any "race mix" to explain why.
Even in the North, Egyptians cluster with other tropical people like US Blacks rather than Europeans or Middle Easterners
Genesis of Egyptian Dynastic civilization was fromt he tropical south
Holocene Middle Easterners didn’t have tropical body plan like Egyptians – QUOTE: “Results indicate that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have African-like, or tropically adapted, proportions... What we can say, however, is that in the Holocene, humans from southwest Asia do not exhibit tropically adapted body shape..”
--Holliday, T. 2000. Evolution at the Crossroads. Amr Anthr, 102. 54-68
Northern Egyptians group with Africans: QUOTE – Smith 2002: "Limb length proportions in males from Maadi and Merimde group them with African rather than European populations. Mean femur length in males from Maadi was similar to that recorded at Byblos and the early Bronze Age male from Kabri, but mean tibia length in Maadi males was 6.9cm longer than that at Byblos. At Merimde both bones were longer than at the other sites shown, but again, the tibia was longer proportionate to femurs than at Byblos (Fig 6.2), reinforcing the impression of an African rather than Levantine affinity.“
-- Smith, P. (2002) The palaeo-biological evidence for admix.. In: Egypt & the Levant.. Leicester Univ. 118-28
Egyptians group with other tropical African populations
“Previously estimated intralimb indices for ancient Egyptians are generally quite similar to ours, and are more similar to US Blacks than to US Whites… Intralimb indices are not significantly different between Egyptians and American Blacks... Many of those who have studied ancient Egyptians have commented on their characteristically ''tropical'' or ''African'' body plan..” - Raxter & Ruff, et al. (2008) Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians. Amer J. Phy Anthro 136 (2), 147-55.
Posts: 5935 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
That's not even mine. It was a copy and paste from here: http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html Again, I don't agree with it [heck the source is even OOA, which I have never been a proponent of]. I only posted that to show how anthropologists have divided up Africa into different historical races/subraces.
I don't care whose excerpt it is. YOU posted it. It also isn't the first time that you've quoted from a source that subscribes to OOA. Since the exact wording of those terms have nothing to do with the argument I was making, you're obviously only making spelling an contention, because you want to distract away from the issue I was raising--not going to work:
You posted what you call ''Bantuids'' or ''kaffrids'' as examples of a hot-dry population via that 2011 paper you repeatedly posted a few days ago.
If you didn't subscribe to the idea that South Africans are hot-dry adapted, why did your dumbass post a paper wherein 2/3 of the representatives of hot-dry populations were South African samples?
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: In stature only. I've said this many times, but not nasal index, or other factors.
Irrelevant. If it is your belief that dry climates selected for height in certain negroid populations, how does this gel with your claim in this thread that no negroid population is hot-dry adapted? Like I said, you're a walking contradiction.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Low NI's only evolved if teeth were small. If the teeth were not microdont, the nasal breadth could not be reduced hence Neanderthals despite living in cold dry climate had very wide noses. Only Caucasoids possess the highly evolved small microdont teeth (Coon 1962, p. 354) hence they are leptorrhine.
This post is just one of the many examples of how you keep throwing in alternative hypotheses whenever your pre-existing hypothesis gets annihilated. Your support of typology is emotional and faith-based, rather than the evidence that you initially said you were basing it on re: ''geographic boundaries'' (that's why you choose to flip flop to other 'evidence' rather than admitting that typology is dead when the said 'evidence' turned out to be a product of your lively imagination).
First low nasal indices were an adaptation to cold-dry climates, then you tacitly admitted it was also an adaptation to hot-dry climates and now your dumbass claims that it necessarily co-varies with tooth size. This is, of course, patently false, like everything else you say. Just like nasal index, tooth size isn't distributed in racial patterns either. You keep racializing aspects of human morphology, from nasal index, to facial height to tooth size, etc. Even though you admit that those traits are subject to selection (by falsely accusing others of ignoring adaptation and biology), you utterly fail to make the connection that natural selection and other biological principles destroy the basic tenets of typology. This obviously has to do with how dumb you are. At this point, I think its clear to everyone that you're as dumb as a rock.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: See above.
You're evidently a fraud who has no qualms with wilfully rejecting scientific findings. What you're basically saying is that you don't have to respond to the fact that leptorrhiny in certain Hausa populations destroys typology, simply because some hypothesis somewhere says that meso or megadont populations cannot have leptorrhiny.
Instead of questioning the validity of your hypothesis because its at odds with reality (that Hausa sample), you're basically wishing away that reality because your hypothesis says it cannot occur. That is how astronomically DUMB you are.
The Anglo Farthhead is obviously tripping. In his desperation to limit African diversity, it's not enough that he limits "Negroids" to Sub-Sahara, now he limits them to humid areas only! LOL
Yet obviously mainstream academia contradicts his nutty claims.
Jean Hiernaux, The People of Africa (1975) p.53, 54 "In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range....."
and
From Britannica Encyclopedia (1990 ed.) East African local race, a subgroup, roughly corresponding to a breeding isolate in genetics, of the Negroid (African) geographical race, comprising the populations of East Africa and The Sudan. The physical type of the East African local race is primarily one of adaptation to a hot, dry climate; it is marked by long, thin body build, long, narrow face and nose, and moderate to heavy skin pigmentation. The Sudanese peoples are dark-skinned and extremely tall and thin (linear) in build. The other East African populations are also more or less linear in build and somewhat lighter skinned than the Sudanese. All have dark eyes and dark hair, wavy to frizzy in texture.
Posts: 26415 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I don't care whose excerpt it is. YOU posted it.
...
If you didn't subscribe to the idea that South Africans are hot-dry adapted, why did your dumbass post a paper wherein 2/3 of the representatives of hot-dry populations were South African samples?
You also have posted Carleton Coon and John Baker. Does that make you a proponent of their theories? Yes, according to your new silly logic if someone copies something they must believe in it. Genius.
quote:Irrelevant. If it is your belief that dry climates selected for height in certain negroid populations, how does this gel with your claim in this thread that no negroid population is hot-dry adapted? Like I said, you're a walking contradiction.
Because they aren't dry-heat adapted in many features as I've already shown.
Here's a Nilotid (Nilotic Negroid [on the right]):
Why don't Nilotids have low NI's?
quote: First low nasal indices were an adaptation to cold-dry climates, then you tacitly admitted it was also an adaptation to hot-dry climates and now your dumbass claims that it necessarily co-varies with tooth size. This is, of course, patently false, like everything else you say. Just like nasal index, tooth size isn't distributed in racial patterns either.
You're debunked dumbass. Look above.
Negroids never evolved low nasal indices or orthognathism. Reduction in prognathism and the evolution of microdont teeth only occurred in Caucasoids, because historically West Eurasians made the shift of raw to cooked food [Africans never did].
quote:You keep racializing aspects of human morphology, from nasal index, to facial height to tooth size, etc. Even though you admit that those traits are subject to selection (by falsely accusing others of ignoring adaptation and biology), you utterly fail to make the connection that natural selection and other biological principles destroy the basic tenets of typology. This obviously has to do with how dumb you are. At this point, I think its clear to everyone that you're as dumb as a rock.
Straw man typology again. The types today are not populations, hence they are not prone to change. Someone cannot change their morphology in their lifetime. Traits were subject to selection only in populations. The races are not populations today. Typology is the science of the individual only.
quote:You're evidently a fraud who has no qualms with wilfully rejecting scientific findings. What you're basically saying is that you don't have to respond to the fact that leptorrhiny in certain Hausa populations destroys typology, simply because some hypothesis somewhere says that meso or megadont populations cannot have leptorrhiny.
See how thick you are. Still confusing populations with indvidiuals. You still don't know what typology is. You are the biggest fail I have ever encountered over the internet (others I have debated got what typology was by now... you still don't).
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Student in the year 2013? Do they actually teach this stuff in Anthropology school?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I don't know but I personally majored in biology, and when I took an intro course to anthropology in the biology part of anthropology it was discussed that biological 'race' doesn't exist and concepts of 'race' are based on arbitrary stereotypes. No bio-anthropology teaches that there is such a thing as typological races within the human species.
As for Farthead, last time I checked he is a major in Classics. Why the hell does he talks about bio-anthropology then as if he were an expert?! LOLPosts: 26415 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You also have posted Carleton Coon and John Baker. Does that make you a proponent of their theories?
More mumbo jumbo. You spammed around a conclusion from that 2011 study that was based on skewed sampling (taking representatives of cold regions, but not proper representatives of hot-dry regions) in your exposed attempts to repeatedly lie and bolster your false claim that narrow phenotypes are only selected for in cold climates. This has nothing to do with what you say I’ve done in the past (quoting a scholar on already established observations, even though I normally don't agree with that author).
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Because they aren't dry-heat adapted in many features as I've already shown.
So, whose problem is that, yours or mine? I’ve never said that most Nilotes have a facial configuration that necessarily evinces long term habitation of the desert.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Reduction in prognathism and the evolution of microdont teeth only occurred in Caucasoids, because historically West Eurasians made the shift of raw to cooked food [Africans never did].
Even IF this is true (and it obviously isn’t), you’ve just admitted that there is nothing inherent about racial groups. You’re basically admitting that every population can become (more) leptorrhine and microdontic, and hence, become more like other populations with a similar evolutionary trajectories (e.g., ’’negroids’’ becoming more like Caucaosids due to a shared diet) while changing nothing about their ancestral makeup.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The types today are not populations, hence they are not prone to change. Someone cannot change their morphology in their lifetime. Traits were subject to selection only in populations. The races are not populations today. Typology is the science of the individual only.
This is exactly what I mean. You’re dumber than a rock. Of course someone isn’t going to change typology during their lifetime. I don't even know what the phuck you're talking about. I spoke of natural selection and other forms of microevoluton. None of them even remotely suggest what your dumbass is reading into my post (lifetime evolution, [LMAO]).
Typology can only remain logically coherent by rejecting the notion that types can eventually have descendants that look more like other types than themselves, without necessitating admixture with those other types (parallel evolution). You’re definitely not in your right mind to think that natural selection and typology are even remotely compatible concepts.
An example of this may occur when a species colonizes several new areas which are isolated from, but environmentally similar to, each other. Similar selective pressures in these environments result in parallel evolution among the traits that confer reproductive isolation.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: See how thick you are. Still confusing populations with indvidiuals.
You’re the only one who is thick. You’ve posted an image of a leptroposopic Nilote and called him ’’negroid’’, in the very thread where you’ve claimed that non-negroid features don’t occur among negroid types. This Nilote man's morphology violates the negro type on several counts, and your dumbass STILL tries to accuse others of being ’’lumpers’’ and ignorant about typology.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Even IF this is true (and it obviously isn’t), you’ve just admitted that there is nothing inherent about racial groups. You’re basically admitting that every population can become (more) leptorrhine and microdontic, and hence, become more like other populations with a similar evolutionary trajectories (e.g., ’’negroids’’ becoming more like Caucaosids due to a shared diet) while changing nothing about their ancestral makeup.
How can they change? They are individuals. You observe only very minor alterations during your lifetime. You can't go from one nasal index to another etc, while an adult.
quote:This is exactly what I mean. You’re dumber than a rock. Of course someone isn’t going to change typology during their lifetime. I don't even know what the phuck you're talking about. I spoke of natural selection and other forms of microevoluton. None of them even remotely suggest what your dumbass is reading into my post (lifetime evolution, [LMAO]).
Typology can only remain logically coherent by rejecting the notion that types can eventually have descendants that look more like other types than themselves, without necessitating admixture with those other types (parallel evolution). You’re definitely not in your right mind to think that natural selection and typology are even remotely compatible concepts.
It doesn't matter who their descendants are. There is no clear cut link between ancestry and type, all that can be estbalished is that certain types are rarer in some places than others.
quote:You’re the only one who is thick. You’ve posted an image of a leptroposopic Nilote and called him ’’negroid’’, in the very thread where you’ve claimed that non-negroid features don’t occur among negroid types. This Nilote man's morphology violates the negro type on several counts, and your dumbass STILL tries to accuse others of being ’’lumpers’’ and ignorant about typology.
Nilotids are Negroid. The same way Nordics are Caucasoid. Can you explain why the Nilotid is non-Negroid? The plate is also from one of the most prominent typologists of the 20th century.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: How can they change? They are individuals. You observe only very minor alterations during your lifetime. You can't go from one nasal index to another etc, while an adult.
What do you mean ''how can they change''? When you talk about West Eurasians there is no emotional b!tching about ''lifetime alterations'' and ''individuals'':
''Reduction in prognathism and the evolution of microdont teeth only occurred in Caucasoids, because historically West Eurasians made the shift of raw to cooked food''. --Fareemdunkers
When the exact same evolutionary mechanisms for change are said to pertain to Africans as well, your dumbass starts talking about ''individuals cannot change during their lifetime'' out of nowhere, like a retarded loony who likes to talk incoherent mumbo jumbo.
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: There is no clear cut link between ancestry and type
Exactly, so how can you be so adamant that Wiercinski was right that her clusters represents the presence of actual Nordics, Cromagnonoids, Horners, Negroids etc, in the proportions that she says they were present? What credibility does this table have, if, as you say, there is no clear cut link between ancestry and type:
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Nilotids are Negroid. The same way Nordics are Caucasoid.
Dumbass. You were talking about typology, and how I supposedly confuse typology with populations. Explain how come your dumbass posts a leptoprosopic, leptene, mesorrhine and narrow inter-orbital width having Nilote as an example of a negroid, right after bitching on and on about how those traits are foreign to negroids.
posted
Dunkers is a complete idot who keeps posting a lot of superannuated amateur race anthropology. The jackass does not know that there is science and pseudoscience. That's why he goes for the bunk written by race-obsessed pseudo-researchers like the notoriously dumb Baker.
Re cooking food: the fool does not know that the first to use fire were Africans in Africa itself. And what do you use fire for? That's a simple IQ question for the latent homosexual who is always carrying on about "looks". Just pitiful.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In any case whenever this Dunkers "guy" shows up below the basket just keep dunking on his head. Sorry, there is streak of sadism in all of us.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I guess. The guy is obviously bonkers yet we continue to act like we take him seriously by arguing back and basically refuting his nonsense.
Take for example the topic of this very thread...
quote:Originally posted by Fartheadebunked: "Biology points to the stenothermy of Negroes, who are best adapted to the hot and humid conditions of the woodland regions to the south of the savanna. In the Egyptian Nile valley they found themselves in the opposite extreme of climate, that of the dry desert with great differences between day maxima temperature and night minima. A possible demonstration of the harmful influence of the Egyptian climate on Negroes was the shocking case reported in 1824 from Aswan, where 17,000 out of 20,000 ill-clothed Sudanese soldiers died of pneumonia and other consequences of cold. Egyptian soldiers remained healthy under the same conditions" (Strouhal, 1971)
This guy pulls out some old racial study from the beginning of the 70s and y'all jump on him, even though we know modern bio-anthropology disavows the whole false notion of 'race'. Posts: 26415 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Faheemdunkers - YOU ARE FVCKING DUMB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic