posted
According to Afronuts, every phoenotype outside Africa proper or north of sahara belongs to Africans. How can you reason w/a madman like that? According to Afronuts, every history, in some indirect or direct way, belongs to Africa. How can you reason w/a fool like that?
To answer your question: FALSE.
Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you'd do well in showing a facial feature of which you think is not indigenous to Africa. We can work from there.
Now, before you answer, take into consideration that non Africans experienced numerous population bottlenecks after they left the continent, which immensely decreased their variation not only genetically but pheno-typically as well, and remember that non Africans descend from a subset of Africans.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^Nope, Africans don't mutate any faster than non Africans, we are all humans with the same capabilities, non Africans descend from Africans. What I'm saying is that since Africa has been the home to anatomically modern humans for atleast 120-140kya before sucessfully populating the world around 60-80kya has allowed for an immense amount of genetic variation within Africans to accumulate even before Africans left the continent, and the reason we don't see this in non Africans is due to the fact that non Africans descend from a subset of Africans, and along the path of populating the world these Africans who left the continent experienced numerous population bottlenecks which decreased not only the genetic variation of non Africans but also the phenotypical...
quote: Distance from Africa, not climate, explains within-population phenotypic diversity in humans
Lia Betti1, François Balloux2, William Amos1, Tsunehiko Hanihara3, Andrea Manica1
December 02, 2008
Abstract
The relative importance of ancient demography and climate in determining worldwide patterns of human within-population phenotypic diversity is still open to debate. Several morphometric traits have been argued to be under selection by climatic factors, but it is unclear whether climate affects the global decline in morphological diversity with increasing geographical distance from sub-Saharan Africa. Using a large database of male and female skull measurements, we apply an explicit framework to quantify the relative role of climate and distance from Africa. We show that distance from sub-Saharan Africa is the sole determinant of human within-population phenotypic diversity, while climate plays no role. By selecting the most informative set of traits, it was possible to explain over half of the worldwide variation in phenotypic diversity. These results mirror those previously obtained for genetic markers and show that ‘bones and molecules’ are in perfect agreement for humans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
And so? Clyde believes in the the "true negro", I already know this, so what's your point? Clyde believes the Dravidian languages are African while Berber is not, Clyde believes that an Mtdna haplogroup is the same as a Y-haplogroup.
Now get back to what I said, above your response to me.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
why would I answer? I made a thread that was in the form of a true or false question. I'm not sure what I think on this so I put this question out there. This is not a thread for "I'll post a long paragraph quote instead of answering the question" Anyway, I thought you were are tropical adapted type now you seemed to have switched into being a distance man. Who is the real MOM?...I have a whole separate climate zone thread for that. Anyway: True or False: There is no such thing as facial features which are not African?
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Please take a course in logic. You will learn that you cannot prove a negative. Question for you, T or F. "There are no animals in Africa that are not unicorns".
But back some genetics: note that population bottlenecks occurred not only for those who migrated away from the massive landmass now called Africa, they also occurred in Africa. After all, why make a distinction in terms of anthropological events that took place in 3 arbitrarily delineated areas humans now call Africa, Asia, and Europe.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
why would I answer? I made a thread that was in the form of a true or false question. I'm not sure what I think on this so I put this question out there.
Oh of course you do have an idea, which is why you created the thread, so don't give me that nonsense.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: This is not a thread for "I'll post a long paragraph quote instead of answering the question
I think what I posted made you have second thoughts about answering the first question. Now you're doing the run around.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: Anyway, I thought you were are tropical adapted type now you seemed to have switched into being a distance man.
What the hell does tropically adapted have to do with the fact that as humans left Africa they experienced population bottlenecks which decreased their variation genetically and phenotypically the further they went?
quote:Originally posted by the lion: Who is the real MOM?...I have a whole separate climate zone thread for that.
What does this have to do with anything I posted in this thread? One of those non sequiturs huh.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: Anyway: True or False: There is no such thing as facial features which are not African?
I haven't seen a facial feature in non Africans that can not be found in Africa. Have you?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mind you you should have started your post, saying
"True,
etc, etc, details"
but thank you for finally answering the question.
It seems odd. You were the one arguing that Caucasian depigmentation was an adaptation that occurred out of Africa. I think therefore there would also subtle facial feature characteristics that are slightly different in non Africans including Asians and Caucasians. Posting modern Africans is anecdotal and who knows if each posted have pure African ancestry? Thin noses that also protrude longly straight out I don't see this combination. Smooth inward curve upturned noses. I don't see it. If you were to paint certain contemporary Africans white I still don't think you can match the exact proportions of all types of whites and Asians. Some not all. Obviously the hair type is different. Some hair is similar in rare instances but not the same thin type hair. I don't think you are being consistent here when you support adaptation in Northern climes. No African has very straight hair that is like a Chinese person. And where's the the very red red heads (not the reddish brown)? This should clue us to other things, subtle facial proportions that don't exactly match. For example you can have a nose and lips that might match but not match their proportion to the size of the head or one to the other. You posted a quote referring to "within-populations" trying to change the context of this thread to indigenous to Africa. I didn't say indigenous to Africa I said "non-African"
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: LOL! this is her stupid way of trying to keep the Negroid/Caucasoid dichotomy.
what Negroid/Caucasoid dichotomy, I said "non-Africans" not Caucasoids. "Non- Africans inlcudes Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Australoid and all others
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
the lion, you just don't get the Afrocentric thinking process. They have to divide the world into two races - black and white. All non-white history and culture belongs to the black man; it is there way of hijacking history and culture of non-whites. As long as humans are seperated into multiple categories, Afrocentrists can no longer lay claim to non-white history. It must be limited to just two. I think are nearing the point on realizing the psychosis Afrocentrism breeds.
Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lion: Mind you you should have started your post, saying
"True,
etc, etc, details"
I started my post exactly how it should've been started, hence you were stumped into replying something about Clyde at first and then you moved onto tropical adaptations and then to hair and head shape lol all but facial features.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: but thank you for finally answering the question.
Indeed.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: It seems odd. You were the one arguing that Caucasian depigmentation was an adaptation that occurred out of Africa.
Sorry, but I don't use the term Caucasian.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: I think therefore there would also subtle facial feature characteristics that are slightly different in non Africans including Asians and Caucasians.
The lightening of the skin didn't alter their facial features, sorry.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: Posting modern Africans is anecdotal and who knows if each posted have pure African ancestry?
quote:Originally posted by the lion: Thin noses that also protrude longly straight out I don't see this combination. Smooth inward curve upturned noses. I don't see it.
Just because YOU don't see it doesn't mean its not there, Africa is a huge continent with a wide ranging variety of facial features, non Africans are merely a pond compared to a grand ocean of what is Africa.
Let's look at what someone who worked out in the field had to say about the variation seen in Africa as opposed to your opinions of what YOU see.
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 : only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record . Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
quote:Originally posted by the lion: If you were to paint certain contemporary Africans white I still don't think you can match the exact proportions of all types of whites and Asians. Some not all.
Well, what is so different about their facial features, I.e., what is so unique to them?
quote:Originally posted by the lion: Obviously the hair type is different. Some hair is similar in rare instances but not the same thin type hair.
Hair is not a facial feature.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: I don't think you are being consistent here when you support adaptation in Northern climes.
Uhh, the lightening of the skin, doesn't change facial features, it changes the skin color.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: No African has very straight hair that is like a Chinese person. And where's the the very red red heads (not the reddish brown)?
So hair is a facial feature now huh?
quote:Originally posted by the lion: This should clue us to other things, subtle facial proportions that don't exactly match. For example you can have a nose and lips that might match but not match their proportion to the size of the head or one to the other.
So now you're changing from facial features to head shape instead?
quote:Originally posted by the lion: You posted a quote referring to "within-populations" trying to change the context of this thread to indigenous to Africa. I didn't say indigenous to Africa I said "non-African"
Well, what I did was explain to you that non Africans do not vary very much phenotypically, and this has been shown time and again, this being said there wouldn't be much about non Africans that you couldn't find somewhere in Africa where the variation is extremely immense.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, what I did was explain to you that non Africans do not vary very much phenotypically, and this has been shown time and again, this being said there wouldn't be much about non Africans that you couldn't find somewhere in Africa where the variation is extremely immense.
Do you mean "non-Africans" taken as a whole group or in single groups?
After all, New Guineans, Swedes, Philippino "Negritos", Andaman Islanders, Tamanians, Scotsmen, Australian Aboriginese, Inuit, Han Chinese, Maori, Navajo, etc,--when together do demonstrate quite a wide range of phenotypical variation.
But if you go the "single group" route then wouldn't one be justified in doing the same for Africa--as is normally done to underscore Africa's diversity--both genomic and phenotypic.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ I meant exactly what I said, the simple fact that I have been explaining that these populations went through bottlenecks, remember that only a subset of Africans left the continent hence only a subset of the variation went with them and the numerous bottlenecks decreased phenotypic diversity along with genetic. With this limited variation to begin with, after populations became decreased and interbreeding came about within populations, these populations tended to look more alike within population speaking. You can take a few from each population and they'd be perfectly representative of that population, this is due to their not being much within population phenotypic diversity amongst them. As explained.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:... hence only a subset of the variation went with them and the numerous bottlenecks decreased phenotypic diversity along with genetic.
Assuming that the first migrants out of Africa were phenotypically akin to the Andaman Islanders, was there a decrease in phenotypical diversity when the Andaman Islander types were variously transformed into Swedes, Han Chinese, Philippino "Negritos", Tamanians, Fijians, etc.?
I want to believe that genotypical diversity is much greater that phenotypical diversity given that the latter is always constrained by the specific existing environments. Thus Inuit and Andaman Islanders point to sets of regional homogeneity when taken singly but much diversity when lumped together.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:... hence only a subset of the variation went with them and the numerous bottlenecks decreased phenotypic diversity along with genetic.
Assuming that the first migrants out of Africa were phenotypically akin to the Andaman Islanders, was there a decrease in phenotypical diversity when the Andaman Islander types were variously transformed into Swedes, Han Chinese, Philippino "Negritos", Tamanians, Fijians, etc.?
Well for one lamin, you shouldn't assume, secondly given the numerous studies that I know you have read and have likened early humans outside of Africa to Africans, Australians as well as to New Guineans. I don't see how you would assume to liken all early modern humans to Andaman Islanders who have been isolated for thousands of years, which in turn has limited their variation.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: I want to believe that genotypical diversity is much greater that phenotypical diversity given that the latter is always constrained by the specific existing environments.
You don't trust your own thoughts? Well yea, genetic diversity will always be more greater than phenotypical...
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Thus Inuit and Andaman Islanders point to sets of regional homogeneity when taken singly but much diversity when lumped together.
Are there philipino Negritos who have epicanthal folds? How about any other indigenous darkskin southeast Asians, new Guineans etc..?
What about these Papua New Guineans, do they resemble any other population in any way?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Climate is recognized to be the most important selective force on cranial traits
However, climate has been shown repeatedly to affect the size of certain traits
current climate has repeatedly been shown to capture a large extent of the environmental pressures that affected humans over time as illustrated by the amount of between-population differentiation explained by climate on morphometric and genetic traits.
A strong influence of extremely cold climate on cranial traits has been suggested by various authors (i.e. Hennessy & Stringer 2002; Relethford
2004a; Roseman 2004; Harvati & Weaver 2006; von Cramon-Taubadel & Lycett 2008). von Cramon- Taubadel & Lycett (2008) reported an increase in variance explained by distance Africa after excluding the single population in their dataset that came from an extremely cold environment.
Conclusion: by choosing the most informative phenotypic traits we could explain an impressive 50 per cent of within-population diversity without any contribution from climate. __________________________
The other 50 percent could be attributed to climate. North, Equatorial and Southern regions of Africa do vary greatly but they do not nearly approach the cold temperature extremes of the upper quarter of the Northern hemisphere. As noted animals in these regions differ in body and skull type as well as skin, fur and color traits adaptive to the environment.
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^You're not understanding what the study is saying, which is not that climate doesn't play a role in how humans adapt cranio-facially or skeletally, what the point of the study is noting is that the limited genetic and phenotypic diversity seen outside of Africa is due to numerous population bottlenecks and the further humans went from Africa the more we see this decrease in diversity.
Gives testament to the fact that non-Africans descend from a sub-set of Africans, so only a subset of diversity went with them. Compared to the rest that really doesn't hold any weight, especially after experiencing numerous population bottlenecks outside of Africa.
Franck Prugnolle1, Andrea Manica2 and François Balloux1
A leading theory for the origin of modern humans, the ‘recent African origin’ (RAO) model [1], postulates that the ancestors of all modern humans originated in East Africa and that, around 100,000 years ago, some modern humans left the African continent and subsequently colonised the entire world, displacing previously established human species such as Neanderthals in Europe [2,3]. This scenario is supported by the observation that human populations from Africa are genetically the most diverse [2] and that the genetic diversity of non-African populations is negatively correlated with their genetic differentiation towards populations from Africa [3]. Here we add further compelling evidence supporting the RAO model by showing that geographic distance — not genetic distance as in [3] — from East Africa along likely colonisation routes is an excellent predictor for genetic diversity of human populations (R2 = 85%). Our results point to a history of colonisation of the world characterised by a very large number of small bottlenecks [4] and limited subsequent gene flow. The pattern of decrease in genetic diversity along colonisation routes is very smooth and does not provide evidence for major genetic discontinuities that could be interpreted as evidence for human ‘races’ [2,5].
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^You're not understanding what the study is saying, which is not that climate doesn't play a role in how humans adapt cranio-facially or skeletally, what the point of the study is noting is that the limited genetic and phenotypic diversity seen outside of Africa is due to numerous population bottlenecks and the further humans went from Africa the more we see this decrease in diversity.
[/QUOTE] You are referring to populations leaving Africa were limited in diversity. It seem to be true. However, when one of these populations left Africa they experienced adaptation to the environments they were in. This includes climates unlike Africa. This is what you are not understanding.
Randomly I'll make up some numbers to illustrate a point. Suppose you have a diversity of 50 populations in Africa. Let's call them "types" of "A". 4 types leave Africa they are the "B" types.
Each of the "B" types migrates into different regions of the world. Eventually there are some within-population variations in Each type. So now each of the "B" types has 3 sub types within it in addition to the original B type.
B _____
B type #1 + 3 sub types = 4 B type #2 + 3 sub types = 4 B type #3 + 3 sub types = 4 B type #4 + 3 sub types = 4
Now there are 16 "B" types. Yes, that's still less diversity than the "A" type Group "A" still has 50 types, "B" only 16.
The thing is the variation between the types in the Northern most and the Southern most portion of Africa are not as drastic as one or more of the "B" types who live in a much colder climate compared to an "A" type. So Africa still has many more variations. And it has more variations than any of the "B" groups variations. But the variations are different, although Africa crosses many latitudes it does not get into the Northern extremes. And there are other factors such as the climate of the ice age and this new thing about possible mixing a little with the Neanderthal. You're confusing diversity with divergence. You have 7500 types of Apples. There are only 5000 pear types. Yet the difference between any one of these apples is less than the difference between an apple and a pear. (although the skin can be the same color)
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^You're not understanding what the study is saying, which is not that climate doesn't play a role in how humans adapt cranio-facially or skeletally, what the point of the study is noting is that the limited genetic and phenotypic diversity seen outside of Africa is due to numerous population bottlenecks and the further humans went from Africa the more we see this decrease in diversity.
You are referring to populations leaving Africa were limited in diversity. It seem to be true. However, when one of these populations left Africa they experienced adaptation to the environments they were in. This includes climates unlike Africa. This is what you are not understanding. [/QUOTE]
What you are not understanding is that non Africans descend from a sub-set of Africans.
This sub-set of Africans leaving Africa experienced population bottlenecks which decreased their genetic and phenotypic diversity the further they went from Africa.
Compared to Africa, the population that left Africa with its limited sub-set of African diversity which wound up decreasing along the colonization route is of no comparison to the rest of Africa where they came from.
This brings up another important note explained by biologists, which is that there is more genetic diversity in one African village than outside of Africa put together.
I've cited two sources for this fact, whereas you've cited...none!!!
What happens to populations when they experience bottlenecks genius?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see you avoided answering my post below...figures.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by the lion: Mind you you should have started your post, saying
"True,
etc, etc, details"
I started my post exactly how it should've been started, hence you were stumped into replying something about Clyde at first and then you moved onto tropical adaptations and then to hair and head shape lol all but facial features.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: but thank you for finally answering the question.
Indeed.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: It seems odd. You were the one arguing that Caucasian depigmentation was an adaptation that occurred out of Africa.
Sorry, but I don't use the term Caucasian.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: I think therefore there would also subtle facial feature characteristics that are slightly different in non Africans including Asians and Caucasians.
The lightening of the skin didn't alter their facial features, sorry.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: Posting modern Africans is anecdotal and who knows if each posted have pure African ancestry?
quote:Originally posted by the lion: Thin noses that also protrude longly straight out I don't see this combination. Smooth inward curve upturned noses. I don't see it.
Just because YOU don't see it doesn't mean its not there, Africa is a huge continent with a wide ranging variety of facial features, non Africans are merely a pond compared to a grand ocean of what is Africa.
Let's look at what someone who worked out in the field had to say about the variation seen in Africa as opposed to your opinions of what YOU see.
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 : only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record . Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
quote:Originally posted by the lion: If you were to paint certain contemporary Africans white I still don't think you can match the exact proportions of all types of whites and Asians. Some not all.
Well, what is so different about their facial features, I.e., what is so unique to them?
quote:Originally posted by the lion: Obviously the hair type is different. Some hair is similar in rare instances but not the same thin type hair.
Hair is not a facial feature.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: I don't think you are being consistent here when you support adaptation in Northern climes.
Uhh, the lightening of the skin, doesn't change facial features, it changes the skin color.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: No African has very straight hair that is like a Chinese person. And where's the the very red red heads (not the reddish brown)?
So hair is a facial feature now huh?
quote:Originally posted by the lion: This should clue us to other things, subtle facial proportions that don't exactly match. For example you can have a nose and lips that might match but not match their proportion to the size of the head or one to the other.
So now you're changing from facial features to head shape instead?
quote:Originally posted by the lion: You posted a quote referring to "within-populations" trying to change the context of this thread to indigenous to Africa. I didn't say indigenous to Africa I said "non-African"
Well, what I did was explain to you that non Africans do not vary very much phenotypically, and this has been shown time and again, this being said there wouldn't be much about non Africans that you couldn't find somewhere in Africa where the variation is extremely immense. [/QB]
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
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 : only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record . Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
Mind, your argument is good, that measurements indicate the variations within African populations are greater than the differences between any given African and an indigenous upper Mongolian. It's from 1975 from Jean Hiernaux a physical anthropologist who specializes in African biology. The theory might also accept that hair and skin vary more widely but their greater variance is not relative to body type variation and is superficial compared to body type. That sounds possible.
If this is the case and measurements of the human body is the determining factor of variation than perhaps a Watusi is more related to a person indigenous to the Balkans, who are very tall on average, more related to him than a Mbuti from the Congo who average very short.
But Mind, This guy is a physical anthropologist, how would DNA comparisons correspond or not correspond with this?
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing: genomic variation is a function of time. Mutations occur sooner or later--and given the length of time people have been in Africa, such mutations leading to genomic differentials would have been much more in Africa than elsewhere.
But phenotypic variation is constrained by the environment[natural selection] and the sheer contingencies of genetic drift, assorted mating, and those mutations that confer advantages or disadvantages in particular environmental and social contexts.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 : only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record . Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
Mind, your argument is good, that measurements indicate the variations within African populations are greater than the differences between any given African and an indigenous upper Mongolian.
Where did I say the above? You seem to be misinterpreting something I've said, or just making this up. Please quote me wherein you came to this conclusion.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: It's from 1975 from Jean Hiernaux a physical anthropologist who specializes in African biology.
Ok, and it shows the immense cranio-facial and skeletal forms within Africa.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: The theory might also accept that hair and skin vary more widely but their greater variance is not relative to body type variation and is superficial compared to body type. That sounds possible.
What theory? And might also "what" accept?
quote:Originally posted by the lion: If this is the case and measurements of the human body is the determining factor of variation than perhaps a Watusi is more related to a person indigenous to the Balkans, who are very tall on average, more related to him than a Mbuti from the Congo who average very short.
Where did you read this? Where is it stated that measurements of the human body was the determining factor of variation?
quote:Originally posted by the lion: But Mind, This guy is a physical anthropologist, how would DNA comparisons correspond or not correspond with this?
Correspond with what? Something you made up that was never stated? Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^You really think you're not being exposed for the fraud you are huh? Keep thinking that way, but it's been my pleasure exposing you!!
quote:Originally posted by the lion: [QB]
Jean Hiernaux "The People of Africa" 1975 p.53, 54
In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record .
.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^You really think you're not being exposed for the fraud you are huh? Keep thinking that way, but it's been my pleasure exposing you!!
quote:Originally posted by the lion: [QB]
Jean Hiernaux "The People of Africa" 1975 p.53, 54
In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record .
.
Calm down. you're getting emotional now. You're starting to sound nervous breakdown-ish. Stick to the information. It's complex and your position is very hard to figure out sometimes because you don't state it in your own words first before trying to back it with data. You don't do summarizing as much as quoting data that indirectly answers given question. At first I thought you thought true, There is no such thing as facial features which are not African. I went back over your Hiernaux quote and see that it coincides with an answer that could only be "false" to that question. The problem is you didn't answer true or false. You put up data and we are supposed to guess what you think. I did that and see that you have selected by this the answer false. I say selected because the data you put up is selected.
in other words "busted"
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Here lil girl answer my posts, why do you always ignore my posts and then accuse me of not explaining myself, you troll.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by the lion:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
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 : only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record . Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
Mind, your argument is good, that measurements indicate the variations within African populations are greater than the differences between any given African and an indigenous upper Mongolian.
Where did I say the above? You seem to be misinterpreting something I've said, or just making this up. Please quote me wherein you came to this conclusion.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: It's from 1975 from Jean Hiernaux a physical anthropologist who specializes in African biology.
Ok, and it shows the immense cranio-facial and skeletal forms within Africa.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: The theory might also accept that hair and skin vary more widely but their greater variance is not relative to body type variation and is superficial compared to body type. That sounds possible.
What theory? And might also "what" accept?
quote:Originally posted by the lion: If this is the case and measurements of the human body is the determining factor of variation than perhaps a Watusi is more related to a person indigenous to the Balkans, who are very tall on average, more related to him than a Mbuti from the Congo who average very short.
Where did you read this? Where is it stated that measurements of the human body was the determining factor of variation?
quote:Originally posted by the lion: But Mind, This guy is a physical anthropologist, how would DNA comparisons correspond or not correspond with this?
Correspond with what? Something you made up that was never stated? [/QB]
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^You really think you're not being exposed for the fraud you are huh? Keep thinking that way, but it's been my pleasure exposing you!!
quote:Originally posted by the lion: [QB]
Jean Hiernaux "The People of Africa" 1975 p.53, 54
In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record .
.
Calm down. you're getting emotional now. You're starting to sound nervous breakdown-ish. Stick to the information. It's complex and your position is very hard to figure out sometimes because you don't state it in your own words first before trying to back it with data. You don't do summarizing as much as quoting data that indirectly answers given question. At first I thought you thought true, There is no such thing as facial features which are not African. I went back over your Hiernaux quote and see that it coincides with an answer that could only be "false" to that question. The problem is you didn't answer true or false. You put up data and we are supposed to guess what you think. I did that and see that you have selected by this the answer false. I say selected because the data you put up is selected.
in other words "busted"
You nitwit, you quoted a line from Hiernaux and left out the following, stating 92% of the worlds nose range can be found in Africa, you took it to mean there are features which are not African which is ok, but you then go on to say that you wonder which ones, meanwhile right after the one liner you selectively quoted states, only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Dunce, stop playing games.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're playing games. I never asked for percentages. You're saying 8% of world noses are not African therefore the statement There is no such thing as facial features which are not African is false. Clyde was right
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: ^You are starting to see the inconsistencies and contradictions w/this nutcase.
92% is pretty good though, it seems to indicate why my declining birthrates thread in the ancient forum never got answered.
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lion: You're playing games. I never asked for percentages. You're saying 8% of world noses are not African therefore the statement There is no such thing as facial features which are not African is false. Clyde was right
92% of the worlds nose range can be found in Africa, 8% seems to be only a narrow nose of extremely low means which is missing from the African record. **Shrugs**. And no, Clyde wasn't right, Clyde stated the classic British nose is not African, this is false.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lion: You're playing games. I never asked for percentages. You're saying 8% of world noses are not African therefore the statement There is no such thing as facial features which are not African is false. Clyde was right
92% of the worlds nose range can be found in Africa, 8% seems to be only a narrow nose of extremely low means which is missing from the African record. **Shrugs**. And no, Clyde wasn't right, Clyde stated the classic British nose is not African, this is false.
well genius, then what is comprised in this 8% or is that a trade secret?
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lion: You're playing games. I never asked for percentages. You're saying 8% of world noses are not African therefore the statement There is no such thing as facial features which are not African is false. Clyde was right
92% of the worlds nose range can be found in Africa, 8% seems to be only a narrow nose of extremely low means which is missing from the African record. **Shrugs**. And no, Clyde wasn't right, Clyde stated the classic British nose is not African, this is false.
well genius, then what is comprised in this 8% or is that a trade secret?
Wow, can you read? It's stated in the very next line. Only a narrow nose of extremely low means is absent from the African record.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lion: You're playing games. I never asked for percentages. You're saying 8% of world noses are not African therefore the statement There is no such thing as facial features which are not African is false. Clyde was right
92% of the worlds nose range can be found in Africa, 8% seems to be only a narrow nose of extremely low means which is missing from the African record. **Shrugs**. And no, Clyde wasn't right, Clyde stated the classic British nose is not African, this is false.
well genius, then what is comprised in this 8% or is that a trade secret?
Wow, can you read? It's stated in the very next line. Only a narrow nose of extremely low means is absent from the African record.
I read that line also. What type of nose or what nationality of people typically have this extremely low means non-African nose?
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lion: You're playing games. I never asked for percentages. You're saying 8% of world noses are not African therefore the statement There is no such thing as facial features which are not African is false. Clyde was right
92% of the worlds nose range can be found in Africa, 8% seems to be only a narrow nose of extremely low means which is missing from the African record. **Shrugs**. And no, Clyde wasn't right, Clyde stated the classic British nose is not African, this is false.
well genius, then what is comprised in this 8% or is that a trade secret?
Wow, can you read? It's stated in the very next line. Only a narrow nose of extremely low means is absent from the African record.
I read that line also.
Well then you shouldn't be asking the same repetitive questions when you already have your answer to, correct? But yet you still do.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: What type of nose
Jeez again? A narrow nose of extremely low means.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: or what nationality of people typically have this extremely low means non-African nose?
Beats me.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Only a pathetic loser would be obsessed with something so mundane as facial features. Yet that is exactly what the Arab-wannabe psychos of northern Sudan are! They obsess and idealize anything they perceive as Eurasian or non-African including facial features while ignorantly forgetting that Africans possess the most diverse cranio-facial traits.
Posts: 26260 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do you, as a dirk-obsessed Filipino weirdo, "know" what Africans in Sudan think? According to Dana, Arabia was just an extension of black Africa. So-called "Arab-wannabes" could be just an example of certain blacks wanting to be like certain other blacks. The president of Sudan himself said that he sees himself as black. I mean how does a troll like you "know" that Sudanese northerners "perceive" certain facial features as Eurasian or non-African? Stop spreading Zionist propaganda Lefkowitz troll.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Have you ever been to Sudan? If not then what makes you an expert on them. Folks, what type of numbskull pretends to be an expert on something he knows nothing about?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Too bad he "manned up" at the wrong time, was false and couldn't help you out? Yet another thread you open only to be shut down, with no point being made by you.
Jeez you seem to be getting whooped everywhere (thread) you turn.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^Too bad he "manned up" at the wrong time, was false and couldn't help you out? Yet another thread you open only to be shut down, with no point being made by you.
Jeez you seem to be getting whooped everywhere (thread) you turn.
this whole "whooped" concept and "shut down" is not scholarly, not revealing any knowledge. It's just a competitive gaming oriented mind set. Love to all my peoples.
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Well, I've tried debating with you in an intellectual fashion only to be met with ignorance, you've shown that you're far from a scholar and incapable of learning, no need to pretend and present oneself as if dealing with one. You've been whooped, shutdown, made a fool of etc etc...saving face is now your last choice.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic