Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
This is the first European. Is he white to you? Please explain.
.
quote:This suggest that haplogroup N was taken to Western Eurasia by the San people=Cro-Magnon.
Specific mtDNA sites outside HVRI were also analyzed (by amplification, cloning, and sequencing of the surrounding region) to classify more precisely the ancient sequences within the phylogenetic network of present-time mtDNAs (35, 36). Paglicci-25 has the following motifs: +7,025 AluI, 00073A, 11719G, and 12308A. Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV, two haplogroups rare in general but with a comparatively high frequencies among today's Near-Easterners (35). Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroupN,containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*. Following the definition given in ref. 36, the presence of a single mutation in 16,223 within HRVI suggests a classification of Paglicci-12 into the haplogroup N*, which is observed today in several samples from the Near East and, at lower frequencies, in the Caucasus (35). It is difficult to say whether the apparent evolutionary relationship between Paglicci-25 and Paglicci-12 and those populations is more than a coincidence. Indeed, the haplogroups to which the Cro-Magnon type sequences appear to belong are rare among modern samples, and therefore their frequencies are poorly estimated. However, genetic affinities between the first anatomically modern Europeans and current populations of the Near East make sense in the light of the likely routes of Upper Paleolithic human expansions in Europe, as documented in the archaeological record (37).
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/11/6593
quote:prmiddleeastern: To say that stupidity without even attempting to substantiate it with artifact or data, puts you in the same league with Dirkie and the Afroidiots. Congratulations, you have finally reached your natural level.
Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
False, the first europeans were Upper Paleolithic Whites, they do look similat to Khoisan because they share some body characteristics, but they aren't Khoisan(it would be the same as saying the latter euros were Mongolians, because some of them also share Mongolic traits.You will find similar characteristic in all races, as they are all human.
quote:
Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
False, the first europeans were Upper Paleolithic Whites, they do look similat to Khoisan because they share some body characteristics, but they aren't Khoisan(it would be the same as saying the latter euros were Mongolians, because some of them also share Mongolic traits.You will find similar characteristic in all races, as they are all human.
quote:Is that a mumified body or just an illustrative artwork from the imagination of an artist?
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
This is the first European. Is he white to you? Please explain.
.
quote:I repeat again: It this a mumified body or an artist's imagination?
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
This is the first European: Cro-Magnon man.
Below is the mythical Cro-Magnon man created by the Eurocentrist to make it appear the first people of European looked like contemporary Europeans.
quote:Ha,Ha, Ha-you're funny...and Sad.
Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
quote:I repeat again: It this a mimified body or an artist's imagination?
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
This is the first European: Cro-Magnon man.
Below is the mythical Cro-Magnon man created by the Eurocentrist to make it appear the first people of European looked like contemporary Europeans.
quote:No,is it a mumified body or th imagiantion of an artist?Because I don't consider an artist imagiantion a fact.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Ha,Ha, Ha-you're funny...and Sad.
quote:As you can see the name for the Cro-Magnon Caves, is really Grimaldi Cave.
Keith, Arthur. Ancient Types of Man, (1911) Chapter VI, The Grimaldi or Negroid Type in Europe, page 59-63:
In the cliffs which flank the beach near Men-tone there are a number of caves which for a long period of time afforded a habitation for ancient man. At the close of the last and at the beginning of the present century, largely owing to the interest taken in the history of primitive man by the Prince of Monaco, systematic excavations were carried out in deep strata of their floors. In one of these, the "Grotte des Enfants," usually named the Grimaldi Cave, the various strata of the floor made up a thickness of 8 1/2 metres (28 feet). In the lowest layer of all were found two skeletons—one of a woman past middle life, with a stature estimated at 1570 mm. (5 ft. 2 in.), and the other of a boy about sixteen to seventeen years of age, and about 1550 mm. (5 ft. 1 in.) in height.
See: http://wysinger.homestead.com/grimaldi.html
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
Clyde - I see that you are determined to continue with the Cro-magnon as modern-man assertion.
Well simply calling Grimaldi a Cro-Magnon will not provide any help. As any creditable source will tell you, Cro-magnon entered Europe at about 30,000 B.C. (See Wiki article below).
The term Cro-Magnon (pronounced /kroʊˈmæɡnən/, French [kʀomaɲɔ̃]) refers to one of the main types of early modern humans (Homo sapiens) of the European Upper Paleolithic. The earliest known remains of Cro-Magnon like humans are dated to 30,000 radiocarbon years. The name is taken from the cave of Crô-Magnon in southwest France, where the first specimen was found.
The Cro-Magnon term falls outside the usual naming conventions for early humans and is often used in a general sense to describe the oldest modern people in Europe, while remaining, anthropologically speaking, a specific (but very frequent) subtype among the fossil remains. In recent scientific literature the term "European early modern humans" is used instead.
The oldest definitely dated European early modern humans (EEMH) specimen [1] with modern and archaic, possibly Neanderthal, mosaic of traits is Oase 1 from 34,000–36,000 14C years ago.
Yet the story that accompanies your skull above says that it is from 36-40,000 B.C. So even though, in the story, they - like you, call the skeletons Cro-Magnon, they cannot be. But of course their PURPOSE is to confuse the issue.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1177123/The-European-Created-fragments-fossil-face-forbears-35-000-years-ago.html
In my opinion, by caving-in to terminology that Whites want, you are helping the White world to continue ignoring the actual and real modern Human Grimaldi skeletons in southern France.
As long as those skeletons are allowed to be ignored, the White man will have an opportunity to continue falsifying history.
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
^For those who still do not understand:
Please read this Wiki article below carefully.
Then compare it with this article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1177123/The-European-Created-fragments-fossil-face-forbears-35-000-years-ago.html
It will become clear that the White man is using his control of media to falsify history and deny that modern man Africans were the first actual Humans to settle Europe.
From Wiki
Grimaldi man
The name of Grimaldi man has been given in the early 20th century to a supposedly new species of paleolithic men, which was then believed to have negroid features. Today, the existence of a separate "negroid" species is believed to be partly an error, partly a hoax [1], and the two Grimaldi skeletons are considered to be Cro-Magnons. An article by Masset, based on the work of P. Legoux [2], distinguishes between the malevolent hoax of the Piltdown man and the Grimaldi hoax, as Masset discards the hypothesis of deceit.
In June 1901, canon de Villeneuve discovered two prehistoric skeletons in a cave of Grimaldi. One was an older woman, the other an adolescent. Reportedly, de Villeneuve was struck by the prognathism of the skulls [3]. The skulls having been damaged by the earth pressure, such observation would not have made much sense, but it has been established later that the old woman was indeed prognathic. Having lost all the molars of the lower jaw, she suffered from a phenomenon known in orthodontics, where the upper dental group is progressively translated forward. The lower part of the face becomes more protruded [4]. The adolescent had all his teeth, but these were manipulated by the anthropologists M. Boule and R. Verneau, when trying to reconstruct the skull and the face. M. Boule drilled the maxillaries in order to release the wisdom teeth that were still inside them. By doing this, he changed the face, as the natural growth of the wisdom teeth would have remodeled the dental arc in a natural way, which had not taken place yet. Having then too many teeth, he displaced them, possibly bearing in mind the prognathism of the woman, as a solution for the puzzle he was facing. The reconstruction was however not physiologically credible. The diagnosis of "prognathism" in the adolescent is hence without foundation - artificial and more or less intentionally created. Based on these characteristics, Boule and Verneau concluded that the two specimen were "negroid". Other non-negroïd characteristics were discarded. The fact that nowhere else in Europe such discoveries had been made did not seem to raise any concern, as it was believed that more were to follow.
[edit] Museum Display
Cro-Magnon, remains of Grimaldi, found at Monaco
The manipulation was then improved by preparing the fossils for museographic display. In order to make the prognathism very visible, the skeletons were not displayed as they had been found, the adolescent on his back and the woman face-down, but were prepared lying on their side, moreover suggesting a ritual burial. Photos of this display can be found in textbooks, without reference to the manipulations.
However, according to Masset, Dr. Verneau, although being the author of a hoax, should not be considered as a cheater. He documented his manipulations (at least partially), which he perfomed with the sole intention to accentuate a feature he really believed to be present. His honesty is further corroborated as he also made photos of the excavation, where one can see the old woman lying in a face-down position. Such photos were quite rare for that time.
[edit] Motivation
The Piltdown Man, discovered in 1912 (and definitively unmasked as hoax in 1953) was immediately accepted by many paleontologists, because it conveniently satisfied the need for a proof of the "missing link" between ape and man. Moreover, it helped the British paleontologists, who had no prestigious counterparts for the many discoveries on the continent. In spite of Boule's conclusion that Piltdown was a forgery (in 1915), scientists continued to believe in it, until modern dating methods finally exposed the fraud. In the same way, Grimaldi satisfied the need for an ancestor for Black people. The Cro-Magnon was an acceptable "white" ancestor, and findings in Chancelade suggested one for the "yellow" race[5]. Hence the wish to see negroid features in the skeletons, the lack of scientific prudence, and the extraordinary consequences claimed by some upon this finding[6].
Marianne Cornevin and Jean Leclant [7]are less tolerant in their judgment: they suggest that the Grimaldi man and the Chancelade man are imaginations resulting from the theories of Arthur de Gobineau, to prove the superiority and anteriority of the white race.
[edit] References in literature
No new discoveries of this type have been made, though some have been reported (without substance or reference): reportedly Mikhail Gersasimov identified other skeletons as Grimaldi [8]. The Grimaldi Man still lives further in literature, unexposed as a hoax, though rather as a footnote, possibly because of its relative obscurity, or because most references are in French.
Sir Arthur Keith[9] points out that the Grimaldi skeletons also show non-negroid features, but concludes then that Grimaldi must have been of a mixed type[10]. He provides explanation for the oddity of finding "negroid" features in Europe: the land connections between Africa and Europe have been much closer in the time of Grimaldi (however, the Strait of Gibraltar is known to be open for the last 5.33 million years[11], today 14 km wide from rock to rock, and, during the deepest Ice Age, some 7-10 km).
The belief in its reality as a separate species is held by many afrocentrists[12]. The belief sustains a theory that white man only appeared around 20,000 years ago, as a mutant of the negroid Grimaldi.
State of the art science, based on genetics, places the origins of Europeans in a migration from Africa to the Middle-East around 70,000 years ago, see Wikipedia article: Recent African origin of modern humans.
quote:They weren't white, as white skin didn't arise until thousands of years later.
Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
False, the first europeans were Upper Paleolithic Whites,
quote:Clyde, you do understand that Grimaldi and Cro-Magnon are names given to anatomically modern humans in Europe because of the area they were found in right?
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The term for the Grimaldi is Cro-Magnon.
quote:Hey twit, the man actually said the term for Grimaldi is Cro-Magnon, of which I noted is false as Cro Magnon and Grimaldi are simply the locations that AMH were named after since that's where they were found.
Originally posted by xyyman:
Hey KIK. The man said Grimaldi=San/Khoisan/Bushmen. . .you DO know THEY are modern men. But . . .a second thought. . . maybe YOU don't believe they are AMH.
You seem to be a knowledgeable guy. Try to process all that knowledge now. LOL
I beleive the Afrocentrics are pulling ahead. Genetics is giving us the momentum.
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Can you cite a reference that states the skeletal remains found in Cro-Magnon cave, France, was another species separate from AMH?
Originally posted by xyyman:
In one breath they talk like CM is AMM and in another he is a different species and he went extinct.
Question #2 is how would the AMH dubbed Cro-Magnon be of a different species when its noted by numerous anthropologists to resemble modern Australians and Africans like all other early humans in Europe?
Question #3 do you know of the ties Cro-Magnon shares with Mechta-Afalou and Mechtoids from north Africa?
quote:Yes I do. Just like we use the term African to refer to where this population is mainly found.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Clyde, you do understand that Grimaldi and Cro-Magnon are names given to anatomically modern humans in Europe because of the area they were found in right?
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The term for the Grimaldi is Cro-Magnon.
Both resembling modern tropical people.
quote:Just like Omo I found in Omo Ethiopia and Hofmeyr
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Yes I do. Just like we use the term African to refer to where this population is mainly found.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Clyde, you do understand that Grimaldi and Cro-Magnon are names given to anatomically modern humans in Europe because of the area they were found in right?
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The term for the Grimaldi is Cro-Magnon.
Both resembling modern tropical people.
quote:European early modern humans and the fate
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB]
Below is the mythical Cro-Magnon man created by the Eurocentrist to make it appear the first people of European looked like contemporary Europeans.
quote:Hey kid, Hofmeyr, Omo I, Qazfeh, Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi etc...
Originally posted by Mike111:
^Neither of which is actually true.
Cro-Magnon is officially described as an archaic form of Modern Humans. Now Scientifically defined as Homo Sapien.
Archaic means:
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time.
4 : surviving from an earlier period; specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage.
Since Africans are indisputably "Modern Humans" and "up-to-date" in every way, and NOT Archaic Humans, I just don't see why you find the difference difficult to understand.
quote:Well now we know better and are informed that both populations resembled modern tropical people, essentially Africans, more than the modern population in the area.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
I don't think the term Cro-Magnon was only used for
the osteo remains found there. Anthropologists used
it in general. Likewise for Grimaldi before it fell out
of use (to hide unquestionable advanced culture in
Europe from a people undeniably of inner African phenotype).
Anywhere a certain type of relics were found they were
attributed to Grimaldi as far away from Italy as Russia.
quote:No incorrect. The Cave were Grimaldi remains were found is now called "Cro-Magnon" Cave. As a result, the Grimaldi are Cro-Magnon.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Just like Omo I found in Omo Ethiopia and Hofmeyr
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Yes I do. Just like we use the term African to refer to where this population is mainly found.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Clyde, you do understand that Grimaldi and Cro-Magnon are names given to anatomically modern humans in Europe because of the area they were found in right?
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The term for the Grimaldi is Cro-Magnon.
Both resembling modern tropical people.
found in Hofmeyr south Africa or Qazfeh found in Qazfeh Isreal. Neanderthal named after Neander valley, Germany.
Then there shouldn't have been any reason for you to say the term for Grimaldi is Cro-Magnon, correct?
Which is like saying the term for Omo I is actually Hofmeyr...
The terms are simply names applied to anatomically modern humans who are dubbed after the places they were found.
quote:Greetings.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Above is a picture of Cro-Magnon man, the first anatomically modern European. The first Europeans were the Bushman or Khoisan people.
Hottentot
As I mentioned earlier the Bushman created much of the early civilization of Eurasia. They left us numerous figurines showing their type.
Venus Figurines
The Bushman continue to carry this ancient form.
The Aurignacian civilization was founded by the Cro-Magnon people who originated in Africa. They took this culture to Western Europe across the Straits of Gibraltar. The Cro-Magnon people were probably Bushman/Khoi.
There have been numerous "Negroid skeletons" found in Europe. Marcellin Boule and Henri Vallois, in Fossil Man, provide an entire chapter on the Africans/Negroes of Europe Anta Diop also discussed the Negroes of Europe in Civilization or Barbarism, pp.25-68. Also W.E. B. DuBois, discussed these Negroes in the The World and Africa, pp.86-89. DuBois noted that "There was once a an "uninterrupted belt' of Negro culture from Central Europe to South Africa" (p.88).
Boule and Vallois, note that "To sum up, in the most ancient skeletons from the Grotte des Enfants we have a human type which is readily comparable to modern types and especially to the Negritic or Negroid type" (p.289). They continue, "Two Neolithic individuals from Chamblandes in Switzerland are Negroid not only as regards their skulls but also in the proportions of their limbs. Several Ligurian and Lombard tombs of the Metal Ages have also yielded evidences of a Negroid element.
Since the publication of Verneau's memoir, discoveries of other Negroid skeletons in Neolithic levels in Illyria and the Balkans have been announced. The prehistoric statues, dating from the Copper Age, from Sultan Selo in Bulgaria are also thought to protray Negroids.
In 1928 Rene Bailly found in one of the caverns of Moniat, near Dinant in Belgium, a human skeleton of whose age it is difficult to be certain, but seems definitely prehistoric. It is remarkable for its Negroid characters, which give it a reseblance to the skeletons from both Grimaldi and Asselar (p.291).
Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe. Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.
The Boule and Vallois research makes it clear that the Bushman expanded across Africa on into Europe via Spain as the Grimaldi people. This makes it clear that the Bushman/Khoisan people were not isolated in South Africa. The Khoisan people carry the haplogroup N. The Hadza are Bushman they carry haplogroup N.
Cro-Magnon people carried haplogroup N:
quote:This suggest that haplogroup N was taken to Western Eurasia by the San people=Cro-Magnon.
Specific mtDNA sites outside HVRI were also analyzed (by amplification, cloning, and sequencing of the surrounding region) to classify more precisely the ancient sequences within the phylogenetic network of present-time mtDNAs (35, 36). Paglicci-25 has the following motifs: +7,025 AluI, 00073A, 11719G, and 12308A. Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV, two haplogroups rare in general but with a comparatively high frequencies among today's Near-Easterners (35). Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroupN,containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*. Following the definition given in ref. 36, the presence of a single mutation in 16,223 within HRVI suggests a classification of Paglicci-12 into the haplogroup N*, which is observed today in several samples from the Near East and, at lower frequencies, in the Caucasus (35). It is difficult to say whether the apparent evolutionary relationship between Paglicci-25 and Paglicci-12 and those populations is more than a coincidence. Indeed, the haplogroups to which the Cro-Magnon type sequences appear to belong are rare among modern samples, and therefore their frequencies are poorly estimated. However, genetic affinities between the first anatomically modern Europeans and current populations of the Near East make sense in the light of the likely routes of Upper Paleolithic human expansions in Europe, as documented in the archaeological record (37).
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/11/6593
This makes it clear, to me, that hg N in Africa is not the result of a back migration.
.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Anyway, that photo of the San man just reinforces the 'amusement' (the SMDH kind) I felt towards a racist 'White' female on another forum who referred to herself as "KhoisonGirl" and was just so sure of herself that Khoison people are not Black people, lol, surely they are not 'White' people no doubt about it ....I also wonder how many noticed that the epicanthal (sp?) fold of the eye is not just an Asian trait, but an African trait as well (which makes sense, because as we know, the African is the blueprint for the rest of HUEmanity): all peoples have this fold in the womb, but not all are born with it....quote:I've never heard of this, I.e, Grimaldi being dubbed Cro-Magnon.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:No incorrect. The Cave were Grimaldi remains were found is now called "Cro-Magnon" Cave. As a result, the Grimaldi are Cro-Magnon.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Just like Omo I found in Omo Ethiopia and Hofmeyr
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Yes I do. Just like we use the term African to refer to where this population is mainly found.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Clyde, you do understand that Grimaldi and Cro-Magnon are names given to anatomically modern humans in Europe because of the area they were found in right?
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The term for the Grimaldi is Cro-Magnon.
Both resembling modern tropical people.
found in Hofmeyr south Africa or Qazfeh found in Qazfeh Isreal. Neanderthal named after Neander valley, Germany.
Then there shouldn't have been any reason for you to say the term for Grimaldi is Cro-Magnon, correct?
Which is like saying the term for Omo I is actually Hofmeyr...
The terms are simply names applied to anatomically modern humans who are dubbed after the places they were found.
.
quote:Then if ancient Europeans looked like Bushmen, then modern Europeans are nothing like it(even the supposed "Cro-Magnoid"ones.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Above is a picture of Cro-Magnon man, the first anatomically modern European. The first Europeans were the Bushman or Khoisan people.
This is a bushman or San.
Hottentot
As I mentioned earlier the Bushman created much of the early civilization of Eurasia. They left us numerous figurines showing their type.
Venus Figurines
The Bushman continue to carry this ancient form.
The Aurignacian civilization was founded by the Cro-Magnon people who originated in Africa. They took this culture to Western Europe across the Straits of Gibraltar. The Cro-Magnon people were probably Bushman/Khoi.
There have been numerous "Negroid skeletons" found in Europe. Marcellin Boule and Henri Vallois, in Fossil Man, provide an entire chapter on the Africans/Negroes of Europe Anta Diop also discussed the Negroes of Europe in Civilization or Barbarism, pp.25-68. Also W.E. B. DuBois, discussed these Negroes in the The World and Africa, pp.86-89. DuBois noted that "There was once a an "uninterrupted belt' of Negro culture from Central Europe to South Africa" (p.88).
Boule and Vallois, note that "To sum up, in the most ancient skeletons from the Grotte des Enfants we have a human type which is readily comparable to modern types and especially to the Negritic or Negroid type" (p.289). They continue, "Two Neolithic individuals from Chamblandes in Switzerland are Negroid not only as regards their skulls but also in the proportions of their limbs. Several Ligurian and Lombard tombs of the Metal Ages have also yielded evidences of a Negroid element.
Since the publication of Verneau's memoir, discoveries of other Negroid skeletons in Neolithic levels in Illyria and the Balkans have been announced. The prehistoric statues, dating from the Copper Age, from Sultan Selo in Bulgaria are also thought to protray Negroids.
In 1928 Rene Bailly found in one of the caverns of Moniat, near Dinant in Belgium, a human skeleton of whose age it is difficult to be certain, but seems definitely prehistoric. It is remarkable for its Negroid characters, which give it a reseblance to the skeletons from both Grimaldi and Asselar (p.291).
Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe. Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.
The Boule and Vallois research makes it clear that the Bushman expanded across Africa on into Europe via Spain as the Grimaldi people. This makes it clear that the Bushman/Khoisan people were not isolated in South Africa. The Khoisan people carry the haplogroup N. The Hadza are Bushman they carry haplogroup N.
Cro-Magnon people carried haplogroup N:
quote:This suggest that haplogroup N was taken to Western Eurasia by the San people=Cro-Magnon.
Specific mtDNA sites outside HVRI were also analyzed (by amplification, cloning, and sequencing of the surrounding region) to classify more precisely the ancient sequences within the phylogenetic network of present-time mtDNAs (35, 36). Paglicci-25 has the following motifs: +7,025 AluI, 00073A, 11719G, and 12308A. Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV, two haplogroups rare in general but with a comparatively high frequencies among today's Near-Easterners (35). Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroupN,containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*. Following the definition given in ref. 36, the presence of a single mutation in 16,223 within HRVI suggests a classification of Paglicci-12 into the haplogroup N*, which is observed today in several samples from the Near East and, at lower frequencies, in the Caucasus (35). It is difficult to say whether the apparent evolutionary relationship between Paglicci-25 and Paglicci-12 and those populations is more than a coincidence. Indeed, the haplogroups to which the Cro-Magnon type sequences appear to belong are rare among modern samples, and therefore their frequencies are poorly estimated. However, genetic affinities between the first anatomically modern Europeans and current populations of the Near East make sense in the light of the likely routes of Upper Paleolithic human expansions in Europe, as documented in the archaeological record (37).
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/11/6593
This makes it clear, to me, that hg N in Africa is not the result of a back migration.
.
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Well now we know better and are informed that both populations resembled modern tropical people, essentially Africans, more than the modern population in the area.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
I don't think the term Cro-Magnon was only used for
the osteo remains found there. Anthropologists used
it in general. Likewise for Grimaldi before it fell out
of use (to hide unquestionable advanced culture in
Europe from a people undeniably of inner African phenotype).
Anywhere a certain type of relics were found they were
attributed to Grimaldi as far away from Italy as Russia.
And were simply named after the places they were found, correct?
quote:Which is why they were dubbed as such. Just like Omo I found in Omo Ethiopia and Hofmeyr
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Yes the first found Cro-Magnon and Grimaldi types
were found in those respective locations,
the
former in France and the latter in Italy, but that
doesn't stop the names from applying to many other
finds in far flung locations. See Boule and Vallois'
book Fossil Men for example.
Anyway the names are not limited to just the finds
at Cro-Magnon and Grimaldi. When did it become
the practice to do so?
quote:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Well now we know better and are informed that both populations resembled modern tropical people, essentially Africans, more than the modern population in the area.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
I don't think the term Cro-Magnon was only used for
the osteo remains found there. Anthropologists used
it in general. Likewise for Grimaldi before it fell out
of use (to hide unquestionable advanced culture in
Europe from a people undeniably of inner African phenotype).
Anywhere a certain type of relics were found they were
attributed to Grimaldi as far away from Italy as Russia.
And were simply named after the places they were found, correct?
quote:Bottom line is they were dubbed as such because of where they were found.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Bottomline and on focus, neither Cro-Magnon nor
Grimaldi can be limited to just the finds at
those locations and anthropology has subsumed
Grimaldi as a type of Cro-Magnon man though the
former was first found Italy not France.
quote:In current anthropology Grimaldi Man has been
Grimaldi man
n (Anthropol) a type of Aurignacian man having a negroid appearance,
thought to be a race of Cro-Magnon man
(C20: named after the Grimaldi caves, Italy, where skeletons of this
type were found)
Collins English Dictionary
quote:Noted.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
quote:Collins English Dictionary
Grimaldi man
n (Anthropol) a type of Aurignacian man having a negroid appearance, thought to be a race of Cro-Magnon man
(C20: named after the Grimaldi caves, Italy, where skeletons of this type were found)
In current anthropology Grimaldi Man has been
given the label Cro-Magnon. Dr. Winters didn't
make that up, it's from current anthropology.
I'm not saying this because I agree with it.
Quite to the contrary Grimaldi was subsumed
under Cro-Magnon in fear of it's blatant
inner African physical feaytures and what
that meant in opposition of a pure white
Europe.
I maintain the distinction between Grimaldi and
Cro-Magnon in the face of what current anthropology
posits.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
That's like saying there is such a thing as a Negro...as I have yet to find Negroland on any globe and/or map of the world... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:*Sighs* The Khoisan do not carry N nor did they carry it into Europe, and the cranio-metric data indicates that these individuals from UP Europe were not Khoisan.
Originally posted by xyyman:
So Clyde is correct. The first European were Khoisans
quote:Are you saying the Khoisan are not Africans?
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:They weren't white, as white skin didn't arise until thousands of years later.
Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
False, the first europeans were Upper Paleolithic Whites,
And they weren't Khoisan either as cranio-metric and genetic data indicates.
Indeed the first Europeans resembled modern tropical peoples I.e. Oceanic's and Africans.
This is the point of the Explorers thread, he notes the resemblance Cro-Magnon shares with the type Mechta-Afalou and Mechtoids from north Africa, but no apparent specific ties are noted with any early AMH from central or southwest Asia.
quote:Correct. Contemporary European originated in Anatolia not Western Europe.
Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[qb]
Above is a picture of Cro-Magnon man, the first anatomically modern European. The first Europeans were the Bushman or Khoisan people.
This is a bushman or San.
Then if ancient Europeans looked like Bushmen, then modern Europeans are nothing like it(even the supposed "Cro-Magnoid"ones.
quote:From where did you come to this conclusion Clyde?
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Are you saying the Khoisan are not Africans?
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:They weren't white, as white skin didn't arise until thousands of years later.
Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
False, the first europeans were Upper Paleolithic Whites,
And they weren't Khoisan either as cranio-metric and genetic data indicates.
Indeed the first Europeans resembled modern tropical peoples I.e. Oceanic's and Africans.
This is the point of the Explorers thread, he notes the resemblance Cro-Magnon shares with the type Mechta-Afalou and Mechtoids from north Africa, but no apparent specific ties are noted with any early AMH from central or southwest Asia.
.
quote:Question: What archaic features are we told about the Cro-Magnon?
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Hey kid, Hofmeyr, Omo I, Qazfeh, Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi etc...
Originally posted by Mike111:
^Neither of which is actually true.
Cro-Magnon is officially described as an archaic form of Modern Humans. Now Scientifically defined as Homo Sapien.
Archaic means:
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time.
4 : surviving from an earlier period; specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage.
Since Africans are indisputably "Modern Humans" and "up-to-date" in every way, and NOT Archaic Humans, I just don't see why you find the difference difficult to understand.
are all considered archaic anatomically modern humans who possess certain throwback characteristics.
Australians also exhibit archaic features associated with early anatomically modern humans.
So are you saying Australians are not modern humans since they possess certain archaic features?
quote:This is what you do: Never answer questions around your claims, and then, regurgitate them as "new topics". From a cranio-metric standpoint, do you have any material that links the so-called Cro-Magnon to San people?
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
This suggest that haplogroup N was taken to Western Eurasia by the San people=Cro-Magnon.
quote:This suggest that haplogroup N was taken to Western Eurasia by the San people=Cro-Magnon.
Specific mtDNA sites outside HVRI were also analyzed (by amplification, cloning, and sequencing of the surrounding region) to classify more precisely the ancient sequences within the phylogenetic network of present-time mtDNAs (35, 36). Paglicci-25 has the following motifs: +7,025 AluI, 00073A, 11719G, and 12308A. Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV, two haplogroups rare in general but with a comparatively high frequencies among today's Near-Easterners (35). Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroupN,containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*. Following the definition given in ref. 36, the presence of a single mutation in 16,223 within HRVI suggests a classification of Paglicci-12 into the haplogroup N*, which is observed today in several samples from the Near East and, at lower frequencies, in the Caucasus (35). It is difficult to say whether the apparent evolutionary relationship between Paglicci-25 and Paglicci-12 and those populations is more than a coincidence. Indeed, the haplogroups to which the Cro-Magnon type sequences appear to belong are rare among modern samples, and therefore their frequencies are poorly estimated. However, genetic affinities between the first anatomically modern Europeans and current populations of the Near East make sense in the light of the likely routes of Upper Paleolithic human expansions in Europe, as documented in the archaeological record (37).
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/11/6593
quote:The craniofacial evidence makes it clear that the Aurignacian people came from Africa . The Aurignacian people are called Grimaldi Or Cro-Magnon.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:This is what you do: Never answer questions around your claims, and then, regurgitate them as "new topics". From a cranio-metric standpoint, do you have any material that links the so-called Cro-Magnon to San people?
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
This suggest that haplogroup N was taken to Western Eurasia by the San people=Cro-Magnon.
quote:I provided the evidence. If you disagree provide the evidence disputing this relationship.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Well, what are you waiting for. Where are the cranio-metric specifics of the Cro-Magnon that unequivocally link the type to the San people? Citing titles or just names of authors tells us nothing of the specifics.
quote:No I'm saying you don't really care what the evidence is. I am citing research not people. And if you have evidence disconfirming the Research of these writers you should present it.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
You call simply naming authors and titles of french works "evidence"? Are you saying you don't know what the evidence is, and hence, reduced to citing names of people as "evidence"?
quote:Why should I . I already discussed the conclusions of Boule, M., HV Vallois in Fossil Man, that link the San people and the Aurignacians who are labled today Cro-Magnon today . You have not explained why you disagree with their analysis.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
If I didn't care, I wouldn't be asking you for *specifics*. Your remark is ironic, considering it is you who is reluctant to share evidence, that you are supposed to be already familiar with. What's holding you back?
What can you tell us about the anterior cranio-facial traits that tie the Cro-Magnon cranium to that of the San? Or put it another way: if one were to put the Cro-Magnon cranium aside that of a modern San, according to your understanding, one will not be able to tell which belongs to the Cro-Magnon, and which belongs to the San? No, then elaborate.
quote:Duh:...because you are supposed to back up your claims. This is not the so-called "dark ages" of Europe, where we willy-nilly accept anything anybody feels like spouting out randomly.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Why should I .
quote:Where have you demonstrated the *cranio-morphometric specificities* that I asked of you, that you were supposedly replying. I must have missed the answer. Run it by me...and I don't mean simply naming authors or work titles.
I already discussed the conclusions of Boule, M., HV Vallois in Fossil Man, that link the San people and the Aurignacians who are labled today Cro-Magnon today . You have not explained why you disagree with their analysis.
quote:Tell me; how am I supposed to judge an evidence that has not been presented? I'm not Miss Cleo.
Why do you think these writers are wrong.
quote:Here is the evidence I cited earlier. You have still failed to answer my questions.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
This was dealt with in the thread I initiated. Then, you refused to answer to questions around it, as you do now.
Cranio-metric specifics - ditto. Many old works had questionably compared certain crania to "Boskopoids" which is now largely discredited. This is why we need the cranio-metric specifics that you are supposedly mindful of but refused to share...for obvious reasons.
quote:What does this have to do with Boule and Vallois? I don't see any discussion in this quotation disputing the research of these anthropologists.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
BTW Clyde, what do you make of this from Groves:
Factor 1 represents robusticity, factor 2 represents the sub-Saharan/Caucasoid contrast. The Caucasoid populations (Egypt, Norse, Cro-Magnon) score positively on factor 2, the sub-Saharan Teita score negatively. The modern Dogon (Southern Mali) samples are intermediate. The fossil Nubians [who were described as being Mechtoid] score strongly negative, as does the Asselar skull (Central Mali). What is especially interesting is that Afalou also scores negatively, if only slightly; it occupies the same morphological position as do the modern Dogon.
quote:MindoverMatter718 - I believe explorer asked you to explain this, but you never did.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Hey kid, Hofmeyr, Omo I, Qazfeh, Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi etc...
Originally posted by Mike111:
^Neither of which is actually true.
Cro-Magnon is officially described as an archaic form of Modern Humans. Now Scientifically defined as Homo Sapien.
Archaic means:
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time.
4 : surviving from an earlier period; specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage.
Since Africans are indisputably "Modern Humans" and "up-to-date" in every way, and NOT Archaic Humans, I just don't see why you find the difference difficult to understand.
are all considered archaic anatomically modern humans who possess certain throwback characteristics.
Australians also exhibit archaic features associated with early anatomically modern humans.
So are you saying Australians are not modern humans since they possess certain archaic features?
quote:If you have to ask, then you probably should refrain from using cranio-morphology as evidence of connection between the Cro-Magnon and the San. What does your citation say about the Asselar fossil?
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:What does this have to do with Boule and Vallois? I don't see any discussion in this quotation disputing the research of these anthropologists.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
BTW Clyde, what do you make of this from Groves:
Factor 1 represents robusticity, factor 2 represents the sub-Saharan/Caucasoid contrast. The Caucasoid populations (Egypt, Norse, Cro-Magnon) score positively on factor 2, the sub-Saharan Teita score negatively. The modern Dogon (Southern Mali) samples are intermediate. The fossil Nubians [who were described as being Mechtoid] score strongly negative, as does the Asselar skull (Central Mali). What is especially interesting is that Afalou also scores negatively, if only slightly; it occupies the same morphological position as do the modern Dogon.
quote:Are you asking me or Mike? Because I didn't make mention of Cro-Magnon until Mike noted them to archaic.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Question: What archaic features are we told about the Cro-Magnon?
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Hey kid, Hofmeyr, Omo I, Qazfeh, Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi etc...
Originally posted by Mike111:
^Neither of which is actually true.
Cro-Magnon is officially described as an archaic form of Modern Humans. Now Scientifically defined as Homo Sapien.
Archaic means:
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time.
4 : surviving from an earlier period; specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage.
Since Africans are indisputably "Modern Humans" and "up-to-date" in every way, and NOT Archaic Humans, I just don't see why you find the difference difficult to understand.
are all considered archaic anatomically modern humans who possess certain throwback characteristics.
Australians also exhibit archaic features associated with early anatomically modern humans.
So are you saying Australians are not modern humans since they possess certain archaic features?
quote:No actually he asked what archaic features Cro-Magnon possessed, and if you go back and read your own post you'll note that you were the one who said Cro-Magnon was archaic, wherein I noted that humans 30k + ya are noted to possess certain throwback traits that are not present in modern humans while others are.
Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:MindoverMatter718 - I believe explorer asked you to explain this, but you never did.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Hey kid, Hofmeyr, Omo I, Qazfeh, Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi etc...
Originally posted by Mike111:
^Neither of which is actually true.
Cro-Magnon is officially described as an archaic form of Modern Humans. Now Scientifically defined as Homo Sapien.
Archaic means:
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time.
4 : surviving from an earlier period; specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage.
Since Africans are indisputably "Modern Humans" and "up-to-date" in every way, and NOT Archaic Humans, I just don't see why you find the difference difficult to understand.
are all considered archaic anatomically modern humans who possess certain throwback characteristics.
Australians also exhibit archaic features associated with early anatomically modern humans.
So are you saying Australians are not modern humans since they possess certain archaic features?
So I will ask: Which archaic features are you talking about.
Here is a picture, could you point them out to me?
P.S. I'm fuching with you. I know, and You know that I know, that you were talking about his Negroid features.
You White people just can't seem to get it, YOU are simply DEFECTIVE Blacks. The Australian is NORMAL, you are NOT!
quote:I was replying to whomever wrote the above, as highlighted. Whose post was that? I want to know what is being alluded to as "throwback characteristics".
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Are you asking me or Mike? Because I didn't make mention of Cro-Magnon until Mike noted them to archaic.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Question: What archaic features are we told about the Cro-Magnon?
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Hey kid, Hofmeyr, Omo I, Qazfeh, Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi etc...
Originally posted by Mike111:
^Neither of which is actually true.
Cro-Magnon is officially described as an archaic form of Modern Humans. Now Scientifically defined as Homo Sapien.
Archaic means:
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time.
4 : surviving from an earlier period; specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage.
Since Africans are indisputably "Modern Humans" and "up-to-date" in every way, and NOT Archaic Humans, I just don't see why you find the difference difficult to understand.
are all considered archaic anatomically modern humans who possess certain throwback characteristics.
Australians also exhibit archaic features associated with early anatomically modern humans.
So are you saying Australians are not modern humans since they possess certain archaic features?
But to answer your question, take note of Erik Trinkhaus and his persistence on positing Neanderthal admixture into early modern humans in Europe, he thinks there is admixture because some traits are noted as archaic, but Trinkhaus thinks its from Neanderthal.
I noted Australians as retaining some archaic features ex. their brow ridges.
quote:Hours on, no answer. Excellent.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:If you have to ask, then you probably should refrain from using cranio-morphology as evidence of connection between the Cro-Magnon and the San. What does your citation say about the Asselar fossil?
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:What does this have to do with Boule and Vallois? I don't see any discussion in this quotation disputing the research of these anthropologists.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
BTW Clyde, what do you make of this from Groves:
Factor 1 represents robusticity, factor 2 represents the sub-Saharan/Caucasoid contrast. The Caucasoid populations (Egypt, Norse, Cro-Magnon) score positively on factor 2, the sub-Saharan Teita score negatively. The modern Dogon (Southern Mali) samples are intermediate. The fossil Nubians [who were described as being Mechtoid] score strongly negative, as does the Asselar skull (Central Mali). What is especially interesting is that Afalou also scores negatively, if only slightly; it occupies the same morphological position as do the modern Dogon.
quote:European early modern humans and the fate
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:I was replying to whomever wrote the above, as highlighted. Whose post was that? I want to know what is being alluded to as "throwback characteristics".
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Are you asking me or Mike? Because I didn't make mention of Cro-Magnon until Mike noted them to archaic.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Question: What archaic features are we told about the Cro-Magnon?
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Hey kid, Hofmeyr, Omo I, Qazfeh, Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi etc...
Originally posted by Mike111:
^Neither of which is actually true.
Cro-Magnon is officially described as an archaic form of Modern Humans. Now Scientifically defined as Homo Sapien.
Archaic means:
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time.
4 : surviving from an earlier period; specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage.
Since Africans are indisputably "Modern Humans" and "up-to-date" in every way, and NOT Archaic Humans, I just don't see why you find the difference difficult to understand.
are all considered archaic anatomically modern humans who possess certain throwback characteristics.
Australians also exhibit archaic features associated with early anatomically modern humans.
So are you saying Australians are not modern humans since they possess certain archaic features?
But to answer your question, take note of Erik Trinkhaus and his persistence on positing Neanderthal admixture into early modern humans in Europe, he thinks there is admixture because some traits are noted as archaic, but Trinkhaus thinks its from Neanderthal.
I noted Australians as retaining some archaic features ex. their brow ridges.
quote:Yea, well the specimens labeled as "Cro Magnon" are included into Trinkaus' data.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Yeah, but my question was pertaining to the Cro-Magnon; what "throwback characteristics" were you thinking of, when you implicated the type?
quote:I'm pretty sure it does....
Originally posted by The Explorer:
The piece tell us nothing about the "throwbacks characteristics" that the Cro-Magnon are supposed to have.
quote:Per your understanding, why would Trinkaus note the traits as plesiomorphic and/or evidence of neanderthal admixture?
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Per your understanding, how does Trinkaus' figure that the Cro-Magnon have the so-called traits?
quote:You said you are pretty sure your piece does, and yet you are not able to identify what that author finds "throwback" about the Cro-Magnon. Do you not find anything strange about that?
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:I'm pretty sure it does....
Originally posted by The Explorer:
The piece tell us nothing about the "throwbacks characteristics" that the Cro-Magnon are supposed to have. [/qb]
If not, then what do you call the following (highlighted) of which Trinkaus notes after analyzing all EEMH (remember Cro-Magnon is an EEMH and is included)?
quote:Because certain crania or the other in his crania collection exhibit said traits, like say the Oase 2. But this in itself says nothing about the Cro-Magnon, unless specified. The Cro-Magnon is NOT cranio-morphometrically indistinguishable from say either Oase 1, Oase2 or say, Muierii 2, and neither of the latter not indistinguishable from one another.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Per your understanding, why would Trinkaus note the traits as plesiomorphic and/or evidence of neanderthal admixture?
quote:Throwback was my term obviously. Trinkaus notes it as plesiomorphic and or evidence of Neanderthal admixture...why?
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:You said you are pretty sure your piece does, and yet you are not able to identify what that author finds "throwback" about the Cro-Magnon. Do you not find anything strange about that?
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:I'm pretty sure it does....
Originally posted by The Explorer:
The piece tell us nothing about the "throwbacks characteristics" that the Cro-Magnon are supposed to have.
If not, then what do you call the following (highlighted) of which Trinkaus notes after analyzing all EEMH (remember Cro-Magnon is an EEMH and is included)?
Of course, the Cro-Magnon belongs to the Gravettian period. That has to do with the timeline; it doesn't automatically render Cro-Magnon traits "throwback". [/QB]
quote:Seriously? Lol. You can't be.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Indeed, what does Trinkaus suppose Cro-Magnon attained as "admixture" from Neanderthal or as plesiomorphic.
quote:Lol, your initial question was about what arhcaic features Cro-Magnon possessed, you were answered, so don't change your questions now.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Again, What does the above tells us about the Cro-Magnon; what? That it is EEMH, and therefore, we should just take the copy & paste regurgitation for granted as something that makes sense, and actually answers the question asked?
quote:Because I thought you would catch on half way, but I can see that I made an overestimation.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Yea you asked the same question five different ways,
quote:Which is what's instructive about that *singular* copy & paste response [mind you, NOT an actual answer]. It says that you are unable to think outside of the copy & paste material, that you very likely don't fully grasp.
and you received the same answer every time because it didn't change.
quote:Of course, it is your fault. *You* implicated the Cro-Magnon in the so-called "throwback characteristics", and you provided Trinkaus as your source. If you cannot tell us how the former applies to the Cro-Magnon, and if your supposed source doesn't answer this either, then it says the fault lies with you. Not the inquirer or your source.
Only your questions lol.
You asked "what does Trinkaus suppose Cro-Magnon attained as "admixture" from Neanderthal or as plesiomorphic."
Hey, if you can't find your answer into what Trinkaus supposed as such then it's not my fault.
quote:Well, if you'd answer the question, it wouldn't be necessary to frame it multiple different ways, while still asking the very same thing; and don't post your non-responsive copy & paste material that says nothing specifically about Cro-Magnon.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Lol, your initial question was about what arhcaic features Cro-Magnon possessed, you were answered, so don't change your questions now.
quote:Okay...
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Cro-Magnon is an EEMH correct?
quote:Yes, and did you? What I didn't come across therein--and I suspect the same is the case with you, and hence, the superb non-responsive copy & paste--is something specifically about Cro-Magnon having "throwback characteristics". Trinkaus has the talent to let his reader know about the specifics of such traits in other crania, like say Oase 2, and yet not the Cro-Magnon?
If you read Trinkaus' study you would've noted that he dealt with all EEMH which includes those EEMH identified as Cro-Magnon genius.
quote:You see, you translate EEMH to mean Cro-Magnon and everything else labeled as such as some sort of a "type". I don't, because these EEMH differ from one another in many respects. I read EEMH as more of a chronological construct than anything remotely resembling a "type".
Therefore his observation where he notes features that are either distinctive Neandertal traits and/or plesiomorphic and goes on to name them pretty much answered your question huh?
quote:The problem with the above is, Trinkaus did not say anything about Cro-Magnon being "admixed" with Neanderthal or that it has so and so "throwback characteristic". If he did, we would know, because you won't miss a heartbeat copying & pasting it, LOL. Don't you agree?
Yea it did, sorry but any further questions about it, you should E-mail Trinkaus because I'm not in his head to note why he feels they are plesiomorphic and or evidence of neanderthal admixture, but what I can tell you is that he posits this.
quote:There we go again -- back to numero uno point again. Same copy & paste material you were just informed not to bother posting again, LOL.
These features include aspects of neurocranial shape, basicranial external morphology, mandibular ramal and symphyseal form, dental morphology and size, and anteroposterior dental proportions, as well as aspects of the clavicles, scapulae, metacarpals, and appendicular proportions.---Trinkaus[/i]
quote:^^Question asked specifically, and specifically answered, no need to delve any further. Unless you have a different question.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Seriously? Lol. You can't be.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Indeed, what does Trinkaus suppose Cro-Magnon attained as "admixture" from Neanderthal or as plesiomorphic.
...features that are either distinctive Neandertal traits and/or plesiomorphic (ancestral)...
These features include aspects of neurocranial shape, basicranial external morphology, mandibular ramal and symphyseal form, dental morphology and size, and anteroposterior dental proportions, as well as aspects of the clavicles, scapulae, metacarpals, and appendicular proportions.---Trinkaus
^^The above as noted (several times already) is what Trinkaus proposes as plesiomorphic and/or evidence of admixture with Neanderthal into the EEMH lineage.
quote:What is there to rebuttal? It is not an answer. And yes, I already commented on why your post doesn't answer the question, but it seems like the simple language is very challenging to you.
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Yea here we go again, back to the questions that have already been addressed, but with no rebuttal from you, other than to ask again in another way. lol
quote:Hey copy & paste robot, is Cro-Magnon not a modern human? What else does that say about Cro-Magnon, other than the obvious?
Hey genius is Cro-Magnon not an EEMH?
quote:And yet, you cannot identify what specific trait(s) renders Cro-Magnon as a "throwback"?
I noted Cro-Magnon as having throwback traits (my words) because as Trinkaus posits after analyzing all EEMH, the specimens reflect their African early modern human ancestry while exhibiting a substantial degree of admixture between those early modern humans and Neandertals.
quote:You can color a pig ten times, it will still remain a pig. You tell your non-responsive copy & paste as many times as you want; it will still not answer the glaring question.
And again, for the tenth time, I made clear what Trinkaus deems to be Neanderthal features and or plesiomorphic in the quote I cited, and which is why I noted to Mike that so what if Cro-Magnon possessed archaic features so did all other early AMH.
quote:Hey, just because you reply a post, doesn't mean it is actually answered. I think you've been here long enough to realize that. But I'm ready to take this as the waving of a white flag, if you wish...as the question remains unanswered!
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
^Question asked specifically, and specifically answered, no need to delve any further. Unless you have a different question.
quote:I am not sure you carefully read the above. It is saying "Occipital buns are less common than among the EEMHs". Whose buns are being referred to here, that is supposed to be less common than among the EEMH samples?
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
As one should know Occipital buns are noted in connection with descriptions of classic Neanderthal crania. The appearance of these Occipital buns in the EEMH specimens as follows suggests to Trinkaus that it's evidence of Neanderthal admixture into EEMH...
European early modern humans and the fate
of the Neandertals
Occipital buns are less common than among the EEMHs. However, prominent ones are present in 18.9% (n = 37) of the individuals, including Brno 2, Cro-Magnon 3, Dolní Vĕstonice 11, Pavlov 1, and Předmostí 1, 2, and 7. In addition, hemi-buns are present in 29.7% of the sample. --Trinkaus [/QB]
quote:I believe Trinkuas is talking about the MPMH (middle paleolithic modern human) sample that the occipital buns are less common than amongst the EEMH samples.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Whose buns are being referred to here, that is supposed to be less common than among the EEMH samples?
quote:Sorry but that is not my mindset, as I don't adhere to Neanderthal introgression into EEMH, I was simply noting how Trinkaus proposes these features that he calls plesiomorphic or evidence of Nenderthal admxiture. It's Trinkaus' mindset, not mine.
In fact, Caramelli et al.'s goal was to disprove people with your mindset, about the so-called Neanderthal genetic introgression
quote:Indeed because this is the point of Trinkaus' work, in his conclusion, he notes the evidence for admixture in the paleontological record is present, but after tens of millennia, and the limitations inherent in ancient DNA, admixture is largely invisible in the genetic record.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
I found this questionable from Trinkaus:
In addition, the Cro-Magnon postcrania, despite uncertainties in associating the mixed femora and tibiae, can only have had Neandertal-like or intermediate crural indices.
Holliday's Cro-Magnon specimen fell in line with other Gravettian samples in generating crural and brachial index means similar to recent sub-Saharan means. This of course, could be a function of means hiding variability. Should that have been the case, Holliday would have likely pointed it out, as a relative "outlier" as he did with certain specimens. The claim above appears to have been done from the premise of a personal hunch as opposed to empirical research.
quote:Why would you believe that, when the heading of your post says this:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
I believe Trinkuas is talking about the MPMH (middle paleolithic modern human) sample that the occipital buns are less common than amongst the EEMH samples.
quote:Because he says;
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Why would you believe that, when the heading of your post says this:
Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
I believe Trinkuas is talking about the MPMH (middle paleolithic modern human) sample that the occipital buns are less common than amongst the EEMH samples.
THE MORPHOLOGICAL MOSAIC OF GRAVETTIAN MODERN HUMANS
quote:Ok, yes he was comparing the Gravettian EEMH samples to the other EEMH samples in which the Gravettian samples occipital buns are less common than among the other EEMH, I understand. This still doesn't take away from the fact that he notes Cro-Magnon 3 to have exhibited a prominent occipital bun of which Trinkaus sees as Neandertal admixture and/or plesiomorphic (ancestral).
Originally posted by The Explorer:
The obvious one: The Gravettian collection, into which the Cro-Magnon is placed!
quote:Mike, the Medjay of pan grave burials had archaic features too, does that mean they aren't modern peoples?
Originally posted by mike:
Cro-Magnon is officially described as an archaic form of Modern Humans. Now Scientifically defined as Homo Sapien.
Since Africans are indisputably "Modern Humans" and "up-to-date" in every way, and NOT Archaic Humans, I just don't see why you find the difference difficult to understand.
quote:Nope, what you have to understand is, that often when Europeans are talking about archaic features, they mean archaic compared to them.
Originally posted by Mike:
Hopefully after reading the above, and CONSIDERING its source, you will withdraw your question.
But at the very least, I hope that you will read-up on what constitutes an archaic Human.
quote:You dumb lil foolish clown, if you knew how to read it would've been clear to you that what I noted was a particular characteristic (rectangular eye sockets) that was once used to categorize an outdated classification known as "Negroid" (which is present in early European Cro-Magnon).
Originally posted by Mike111:
Mindlessone - I see that you couldn't resist interjecting some type of racist lie. By all means, do stay true to your kind.
quote:Lol. Lil Mike where are you sourcing your data from? Please do tell? I can certainly go for a laugh.
Originally posted by Mike111:
Cro-Magnoids
Modern type individuals with at least some Cro-Magnon characteristics (these are called Cro-Magnoids), are found during the stone age in Europe, roughly from 5,000 to about 2,000 B.C. At the same time, remains have also been found for individuals who were quite different, often broad-headed, (as opposed to narrow headed).
There are still some modern human groups that are thought to have retained a close relationship to Cro-Magnon types, at least in their cranial morphology. Particularly noteworthy of these are the Dal people from Dalecarlia (now Dalarna, Sweden.) and the Guanches of the Canary Islands, who are thought to represent a relatively pure Cro-Magnon stock.
quote:These are all features associated with Europeans, and no so much with Africans, Australians and other tropical people. (not saying that Africans can't exhibit those features). This shows my point that they do view archaic as archaic compared to them.
Originally posted by Mike:
The Genus and species to which all modern human beings (Homo-sapien-sapien), belong and to which are attributable fossil remains of humans in Africa, from 400,000 years ago or more. Homo sapiens are distinguished from other animals and from earlier humanoid species by characteristics and habits such as bipedal stance and gait, brain capacity averaging about 82 cubic inches, high forehead, small teeth and jaw , defined chin,
quote:They at first included Africa, by talking about fossils, but if you look at the bulk of the features they summoned, they did NOT make a distinction between modern humans and earlier homonids. They made a distinction between people with:
The piece was making a distinction between modern humans and earlier hominids.
quote:Sure, that is exactly why I don't attach meaning like mike does when he reads ''evolved europeans'' inside his mind.
If one is going to label each and every trait "archaic" because they were retained, then people around the globe will have had some aspect of their anatomy that is 'archaic'.
quote:You quoted Mike's piece, and this is what it reads:
Originally posted by Kalonji:
They at first included Africa, by talking about fossils, but if you look at the bulk of the features they summoned, they did NOT make a distinction between modern humans and earlier homonids. They made a distinction between people with:
a high forehead, small teeth and jaw , defined chin,
And earlier homonids who don't have those features. So if you would take their criteria for being a modern human litterally, alot of Africans, Australians would NOT be defined as modern humans. What they really are doing is taking the trends that have a high occurence in Eurasia, and juxtapose those trends with earlier homonids that don't have them. And by doing so, they're excluding a lot of Africans and other tropical people.
quote:Indeed noted.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Some of you might find the following interesting, found it on "All Experts" encyclopedia...
After Darwin popularized the idea that humans are descended from apes, the prognathous (protruding) jaw became a sign of lower development and of a closer relationship to primitive man. It also became the basis of much racial stereotyping of the Irish, and racial anthropologists argued that working class people were more prognathous than their social superiors- who were- self-flatteringly described as also biologically superior. In his very influential book, The Races of Man (1862), John Beddoe, the future president of the Anthropological Institute, emphasized the vast difference between the prognathous (protruding) and orthognathous (less prominent) jawed people of Britain. These were terms originally The Irish, Welsh, and significantly, the lower class people, were among the prognathous, whereas all men of genius were orthognathous. (Beddoe also developed an Index of Nigressence, from which he argued that the Irish were close to Cro-Magnon man and thus had links with the "Africinoid" races!) These activities were reminiscent of Pieter Camper's theory of a 'facial angle'. One should emphasize, however, that such craniological and anthropometric studies "always represented a minority" of the papers presented at the Anthropological Institute, 1871-1899. These late nineteenth-century anatomical and anthropological descriptions of 'races' and their characteristics, measurements etc. were later the inspiration for the sort of mid twentieth-century racial anthropology as promulgated in Nazi Germany. (Anthony S. Wohl [3]) - actual source
Take note of earlier perceptions of the Cro-Magnon, its association with "Africinoids" vs. its current glorification among Eurocentrists as the representative forebearer of modern Europeans. Naturally, it would be hard to miss as well, the typification of sections of Europeans.
quote:Kalonji
Africoid: Rounded, projecting glabella; sagittal plateau; rounded forehead, prognathism rounded occiput.
Caucasoid: Depressed glabella; rounded or arched sagittal contour; steep forehead ; orthognathism; variable occiput. And according to, S Rhine ("Non-metric skull racing"):
Africoid: Slight depression of nasion; vertical zygomatic arches; prognathism; receding, vertical chin straight mandibular edge.
Caucasoid: Depression of nasion; retreating zygomatic arches; orthognathism; prominent, bilobate chin wavy mandibular edge.
quote:Kalonji - I'm trying to figure out if you are just dizzy, or a Troll. In any event, no serious person would have posted the racist garbage that you have.
Originally posted by Kalonji:
Kalonji - While you are at it, how about posting some pictures of a group that DON'T have a high forehead, small teeth and jaw , defined chin.
lol mike, you're so funny. This is elementary. Here you go...
quote:Kalonji
Africoid: Rounded, projecting glabella; sagittal plateau; rounded forehead, prognathism rounded occiput.
Caucasoid: Depressed glabella; rounded or arched sagittal contour; steep forehead ; orthognathism; variable occiput. And according to, S Rhine ("Non-metric skull racing"):
Africoid: Slight depression of nasion; vertical zygomatic arches; prognathism; receding, vertical chin straight mandibular edge.
Caucasoid: Depression of nasion; retreating zygomatic arches; orthognathism; prominent, bilobate chin wavy mandibular edge.
quote:My highlights were meant to respond to that^, which I now realize is impossible, because he is talking about comparing two skulls. And as soon as you try to take patterns that occur in higher frequencies in both area's to compare the two, you're already excluding variation.
Originally posted by Mike:
Above is an African skull and a European skull, please point out what you are talking about.
quote:The thing is the rest of that quote isn't talking about physical features. So I maintain my opinion that the quote excludes people who don't have the features discribed in the quote.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
What about "archaic features" as far as that quote goes?
quote:What I posted is only nonsense in the hands of people who don't understand the concept of variation. Those guidelines worked pretty well they tried to classify the 18th dynasty as African. But I agree, I shouldn't have used the outdated models, my bad. Furthermore, what did you expect to see? The differences are subtle, but you probably can't even comprehend that. You're not gonna see what you'll see when you compare the skulls of a cat and a dogg. Both of the skulls are of human beings, so you can expect that both skulls generally look the same if you don't look at specific places.
Originally posted by Mike:
Even AFTER I had posted Black and White skulls above, that were in fact identical, except for the nasal openings, you STILL posted this NONSENSE
quote:You accuse my limited discription of African features as nonsense but yet, you do the same thing. You don't take variation into account neither. You have to be the dumbest idiot I ever came across in my life. And the funny thing is I'm not even mad at you, I can only laugh at you. Talking about racist propaganda hahahah, ey I'm going to bed with a smile on my face, thnx.
Originallyy posted by Mike:
Africoid
projecting glabella; The glabella is the space between the eyebrows and above the nose.
So Blacks have a pointy ridge between the eyes? Not according to the skull above.
quote:What did you think I was referring to; just the names? E.g.: Yes, prognathism occurs in visible frequencies in "tropical" Africa, but just as much, so does orthognathism. BOTH of these traits occur in "black" populations.
Originally posted by Kalonji:
Explorer, can you ignore the outdated concepts, and just focus on the highlighted parts please? I know about so called ''caucasoids'' and ''africoids'' being outdated. The highlighted parts are meant to demonstrate something to Mike which is that the features I described earlier do occur in higher frequency's in Africa. And that the other set of features which can be considered opposite features, are (in the Mike's bit) mainly given as criteria for being physically human. Again, physically is the keyword.
quote:These are not physical features to you?...
The thing is the rest of that quote isn't talking about physical features.
quote:The quote is talking about differences between modern humans and earlier hominids; why do you find this difficult to understand? It is not comparing modern humans with one another.
So I maintain my opinion that the quote excludes people who don't have the features discribed in the quote.
quote:You've lost me here. Mike's piece, which you recited, again, is talking about differences between modern humans and earlier hominids. That's the entire context of that particular piece that Mike cited, and you recited to make some point to Mike. The problem with the point you were making, is that the said piece was NOT making that same point.
The rest of the quote does give more criteria for being human, I agree, but since nobody argues that African ''archaic feature'' carriers are not human, I excluded it.
quote:I cannot take any position on that, unless you tell me what you mean by "archaic features"; what makes them "archaic" but others not "archaic".
Explorer, do you or don't you agree about some retained ''archaic features'' in African people?
quote:It isn't comparing modern humans, but since we were all taking about archaic features, I noticed that their physical criteria in that quote exclude a lot of people. In fact, the same flaw you noted in my approach (not taking variation into account) they are doing too, only in a different context, but in effect even worse, because they don't compare two populations but whole human species. That is my point
Originally posted by The explorer:
The quote is talking about differences between modern humans and earlier hominids; why do you find this difficult to understand? It is not comparing modern humans with one another.
quote:It isn't making the same point, but does that mean I or somebody else can't notice flaws in it? We notice flaws all the time here on Egyptsearch, even if the author or person wasn't making the same point we're making. For example, the outdated quote I posted wasn't trying to make the point that ALL africans must have those features at all times, but rather a guideline for quick distinguishing for mike, but you and others can still find flaws in it.
You've lost me here. Mike's piece, which you recited, again, is talking about differences between modern humans and earlier hominids. That's the entire context of that particular piece that Mike cited, and you recited to make some point to Mike. The problem with the point you were making, is that the said piece was NOT making that same point.
quote:I don't understand this reluctance and bias against ''archaic'' features, as seen by Mike's response. In my opinion, you can only have trouble observing that some features are in common with earlier species if you attach negative meaning to the word ''archaic'' or archaic hominids in general. This negative meaning is unnecessary because as noted before, we are dealing with modern humans, and having retained features does not make one not modern. Europeans had the exact same features I noted in my original ''archaic features'' post a couple of thousands years ago.
I cannot take any position on that, unless you tell me what you mean by "archaic features"; what makes them "archaic" but others not "archaic".
quote:I don't agree with your assessment, and here's the reason: The piece was comparing modern humans with earlier hominids. Compared to those hominids, as it pertains to the features that you have issue with, that's how modern humans compare with them in general, regardless of variations amongst modern humans themselves. In other words, regardless of the microevolutionary variations between modern humans, when compared to earlier hominids, this where they stand on average:
Originally posted by Kalonji:
It isn't comparing modern humans, but since we were all taking about archaic features, I noticed that their physical criteria in that quote exclude a lot of people. In fact, the same flaw you noted in my approach (not taking variation into account) they are doing too, only in a different context, but in effect even worse, because they don't compare two populations but whole human species. That is my point
Do you agree with that or not?
quote:I hope this is not an inverted logic of an assumption that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people(?) But to answer the question that follows, it still goes back to what I just said above.
Let me put it this way, lets say Australian people developed science before Eeuropeans, and they were the first to systematically study people and other hominids.
quote:Actually, it is implying that those who fit the "Africoid" description are well, Africoids, while those that don't, are caucasoid. That is flawed any way you look at it, as natural African variation that doesn't fit the "Africoid" criteria cannot automatically be considered "caucasoid". Your citation is dichotomizing Africans in a visibly flawed way. The "Africoid" descriptor seems to be yet another euphemism for "the forest negro", but like Mike had demonstrated to you [with his cranial photos], even Africans who have one or the other trait described in the "Africoid" camp, do not necessarily adhere to the aggregate of features described therein. The constructs you cited have a calculated effect of constricting tropical African diversity, which is the greatest world over, and at the same time, inflating the diversity of a fictitious sub-species called "Caucasians". "Africoid" limits tropical African diversity to essentially a highly idealized "forest negro" and limits its geography to just tropical Africa. "Caucasoid" on the other hand, is calculated to span populations world over. So, objection to flaws are very distinct here: i.e. your objection with respect to Mike's citation and mine over the constructs in your citation.
quote:It isn't making the same point, but does that mean I or somebody else can't notice flaws in it? We notice flaws all the time here on Egyptsearch, even if the author or person wasn't making the same point we're making. For example, the outdated quote I posted wasn't trying to make the point that ALL africans must have those features at all times, but rather a guideline for quick distinguishing for mike, but you and others can still find flaws in it.
You've lost me here. Mike's piece, which you recited, again, is talking about differences between modern humans and earlier hominids. That's the entire context of that particular piece that Mike cited, and you recited to make some point to Mike. The problem with the point you were making, is that the said piece was NOT making that same point.
quote:Well I do, because what may be "archaic" according to your understanding, may not necessarily be so according to mine.
I don't understand this reluctance and bias against ''archaic'' features, as seen by Mike's response.
quote:See above. I cannot attach negative or positive meaning to an idea that you harbor, if I am not clear on what that idea is. Hence clarification, and then, be in a position to comment on it either way. I am not blindly going to assume a position on something that isn't clear, on the fear that someone is going to gratuitously interpret otherwise as bias or negative feeling. It is up to you; you can either clarify your idea, so that I can be in a position to make an informed comment on it, or you can just draw baseless conclusions through some sort of inexplicable telepathy.
In my opinion, you can only have trouble observing that some features are in common with earlier species if you attach negative meaning to the word ''archaic'' or archaic hominids in general.
quote:I now understand your point better. Still you seem to be measuring with two different rulers.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
I don't agree with your assessment, and here's the reason: The piece was comparing modern humans with earlier hominids. Compared to those hominids, as it pertains to the features that you have issue with, that's how modern humans compare with them in general, regardless of variations amongst modern humans themselves.
quote:You use the same methods you used earlier when I used the example of Tutsi. This is straying the root of our discussion, but if you must ask, yes, I do believe that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people. I challenge you to correct me, and if you can, I will give you credit. There were civilizations before, but there were no civilizations that had the standards, methods and understandings to systematically study people. Science requires more than making observations and writing them down. I’m curious if any of the examples you will kindly give in your next post reflect those requirements. But right now I can only laugh at the notion of ANY people conducting something even remotely comparable to science we have today. Especially if you look at the context of my usage of science, (Aboriginals or any tropical people that study crania of earlier hominids) which is the sort of science that provides and accumulates knowledge about crania. Go ahead Explorer, I’ll wait.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
I hope this is not an inverted logic of an assumption that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people(?) But to answer the question that follows, it still goes back to what I just said above.
quote:Africoid, as you can see from the features I listed in this context, is NOTTT not the equivalence of True negro. If this was the case, the Africoid features I listed wouldn’t be seen in East Africans. Furthermore, it would NOT distinguish the 18 dynasty from Europeans because members of the 18th dynasty are not western Africans nor what we would describe as ‘’true Negro’’ or ‘’forest Negro’’. Africoid simply means African-ish, and you would know that if you would take a look at the features I listed. None of the ‘’Africoid’’ features I listed said broad nose opening, or broad face. I do agree however, that the features I provided were generalizations. Any of the ‘’Caucasian’’ features in the quote can be found in Africans without needing gene flow. That is exactly why I said to mike:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Actually, it is implying that those who fit the "Africoid" description are well, Africoids, while those that don't, are caucasoid. That is flawed any way you look at it, as natural African variation that doesn't fit the "Africoid" criteria cannot automatically be considered "caucasoid". Your citation is dichotomizing Africans in a visibly flawed way. The "Africoid" descriptor seems to be yet another euphemism for "the forest negro",
quote:
Originally posted by Kalonji:
What I posted is only nonsense in the hands of people who don't understand the concept of variation.
quote:Why not just go back to my original post to see the context in which I’ve used Archaic?
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Well I do, because what may be "archaic" according to your understanding, may not necessarily be so according to mine.
quote:Archaic is not an idea that I harbor, it is a word you can find in the dictionary. I do agree that our usage in this context may differ, but I wasn’t referring to my usage when I said:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
See above. I cannot attach negative or positive meaning to an idea that you harbor, if I am not clear on what that idea is. Hence clarification, and then, be in a position to comment on it either way. I am not blindly going to assume a position on something that isn't clear, on the fear that someone is going to gratuitously interpret otherwise as bias or negative feeling. It is up to you; you can either clarify your idea, so that I can be in a position to make an informed comment on it, or you can just draw baseless conclusions through some sort of inexplicable telepathy.
quote:I was referring to your own usage and your own understanding of the word. Your own understanding of the word ‘’archaic’’ can be negative or neutral when you observe something that can be considered as an ‘’archaic’’ feature in modern people. Clearly, Mike is one of those people who attach negative meaning. He is free to do so, but the features in question don’t go away, despite his attempts to show Europeans with prognathism and pictures of two (seemingly) similar crania.
Originally posted by Kalonji:
In my opinion, you can only have trouble observing that some features are in common with earlier species if you attach negative meaning to the word ''archaic'' or archaic hominids in general.
quote:exactly. jewboy is just desperate here.
Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Africoid, as you can see from the features I listed in this context, is NOTTT not the equivalence of True negro. If this was the case, the Africoid features I listed wouldn’t be seen in East Africans
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Your citation is dichotomizing Africans in a visibly flawed way. The "Africoid" descriptor seems to be yet another euphemism for "the forest negro",
quote:Oh Mike.
Originally posted by Mike111:
So, anguish-of-being-stupid, you and the ditz agree that there is such a thing as a "TRUE NEGRO", and he lives in the Forests of West Africa eh?
quote:I am not using any ruler. I am just explaining a citation to you that you don't understand. Like I told you earlier, whether you agree with it or not is another thing. I am also telling you why the citation is not doing what you said it is doing.
Originally posted by Kalonji:
I now understand your point better. Still you seem to be measuring with two different rulers.
quote:This shows that you did not actually understand what I just told you, even though you claim that you did.
You noted flaws in my approach because I didn’t mention variation, yet, when they do it
quote:If I intended to stray, I would not have said this: But to answer the question that follows, it still goes back to what I just said above.
quote:You use the same methods you used earlier when I used the example of Tutsi. This is straying the root of our discussion, but if you must ask, yes, I do believe that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
I hope this is not an inverted logic of an assumption that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people(?) But to answer the question that follows, it still goes back to what I just said above.
quote:That depends on what you are saying. See above.
I challenge you to correct me, and if you can, I will give you credit.
quote:I would say the ancient Egyptians were quite adept at understanding human body, as it enabled them to do the functions they were able to do in their mummifications, and enabled them to put that to use in medicine, giving the Greeks chance to learn from them, allowing some of that knowledge to seep through to modern medicine. But this may be a digression, as it is a viewpoint that I'm expressing without fully understanding what you mean by "systematically understanding people".
There were civilizations before, but there were no civilizations that had the standards, methods and understandings to systematically study people.
quote:If that is not so, then why is its antonym according to your own citation, caucasoid? Why does it implicate traits that are presumably associated with the "forest negro"? Does your source implicate another African variation, that is different from the Africoid?
Africoid, as you can see from the features I listed in this context, is NOTTT not the equivalence of True negro.
quote:This doesn't make sense. East Africa is in fact amongst one of the most diverse areas of Africa.
If this was the case, the Africoid features I listed wouldn’t be seen in East Africans.
quote:I think I know the source being tacitly referenced here, but I'll let you provide the specifics anyway, before I can comment further on it.
Furthermore, it would NOT distinguish the 18 dynasty from Europeans because members of the 18th dynasty are not western Africans nor what we would describe as ‘’true Negro’’ or ‘’forest Negro’’.
quote:So, "caucasoid" traits are not African-ish?
\Africoid simply means African-ish, and you would know that if you would take a look at the features I listed.
quote:Did your source mention celphalometric index in its definition, or nasal aperture? Then how do you know those very traits would not have been implicated as well, had the source found it necessary to implicate it?
None of the ‘’Africoid’’ features I listed said broad nose opening, or broad face.
quote:And yet, you sit here telling me that there is nothing wrong with your citation's typological characterizations, which have long fell out of use scientifically but you are still trying to defend.
I do agree however, that the features I provided were generalizations. Any of the ‘’Caucasian’’ features in the quote can be found in Africans without needing gene flow.
quote:Ok then, I am assuming that you are referring to this, unless otherwise stated:
Why not just go back to my original post to see the context in which I’ve used Archaic?
quote:Nuff said then. Anything else you rationalize after that is immaterial to my need for clarification.
Archaic is not an idea that I harbor, it is a word you can find in the dictionary. I do agree that our usage in this context may differ
quote:You are kidding right; why would you be referring to my "own usage", if I had not provided one herein? I have questioned others on their usage of the term, but I fail to see how that remotely resembles anything that needs to be attributed to me.
but I wasn’t referring to my usage when I said:
quote:I was referring to your own usage and your own understanding of the word.
Originally posted by Kalonji:
In my opinion, you can only have trouble observing that some features are in common with earlier species if you attach negative meaning to the word ''archaic'' or archaic hominids in general.
quote:Mike I don't recall what I said that prompted the response above...Pls remind me again..
Originally posted by Mike111:
Lion - If the answer is affirmative, does that mean that I will have to carry your bags and otherwise be relegated to servitude?
quote:I’m perfectly aware of your point but I rest my case as you can’t seem to think further than the authors intentions which according to you just have the last word. You argue, well that’s how both species compare in general, ignoring the misinterpretations that can and will arise from such generalizations when they are not acknowledged as such. That is what makes this description in my opinion still incomplete at best. Everybody can see that being more clear and showing the complete picture can prevent racist/limited thinking.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
I am not using any ruler. I am just explaining a citation to you that you don't understand. Like I told you earlier, whether you agree with it or not is another thing. I am also telling you why the citation is not doing what you said it is doing.
quote:Explorer, first you open up a whole new can of worms by challenging the content of my fictitious example, and now when you realize you barely have something to stand on in terms of providing evidence for science in ancient times you want me to explain myself? The so called ‘’questionable ideas’’ you accuse me of were known to you when you fed it back in your question:
Originally posted by The Explorer:
What do you mean by "systematically study people". Since you keep bringing up questionable ideas with each reply, you will be asked to clarify, if necessary. How you interpret this action, matters not to me.
quote:You could’ve asked me what I meant then, but instead you chose to find flaws in my fictional example which was meant to demonstrate a point that still remains inadequately answered.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
I hope this is not an inverted logic of an assumption that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people(?)
quote:Bwahahahahah, translation: they weren’t practicing science. While their knowledge was indeed very impressive, they did not systematically conduct research to find out knowledge about the human body through research and experimentation etc. They didn’t set out to explain natural phenomena they didn’t understand by doing research and coming to the most logical conclusions. They didn’t set rules for conducting such research and neither was there any authority to make sure those rules were followed. The example you give (mummification) is a very ancient practice, even older than the first dynasty so you can expect them to have a decent amount of knowledge about the human body. They relied on demons and evil spirits and gods for the most part to explain deceases and other things they couldn’t explain, just like any other contemporary culture. This is not characteristic of science in general.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
I would say the ancient Egyptians were quite adept at understanding human body, as it enabled them to do the functions they were able to do in their mummifications, and enabled them to put that to use in medicine, giving the Greeks chance to learn from them, allowing some of that knowledge to seep through to modern medicine. But this may be a digression, as it is a viewpoint that I'm expressing without fully understanding what you mean by "systematically understanding people".
quote:Listen, if the features in the ‘’Africoid’’ category managed to distinguish Egyptians from Europeans, and Egyptians are considered to be at the one end of the African spectrum and the so called ‘’Forest negro’’ at the other end, how can you then equate the label (‘’Africoid’’) with ‘’forest Negro’’?
Originally posted by The Explorer:
If that is not so, then why is its antonym according to your own citation, caucasoid? Why does it implicate traits that are presumably associated with the "forest negro"? Does your source implicate another African variation, that is different from the Africoid?
quote:Yes, all the more reason why Egyptians who are a part of this east African diversity shouldn’t have been classified in some label you equate with ‘’forest negro’’. But they did, so how can you call the category ‘’forest negro’’? This goes to show that the generalizations listed under ‘’Africoid’’ apply to a much larger range than you seem to be willing to admit. The only point where I can see I was wrong is the lack of explanation about variation, and the usage of terms like ‘’Caucasoid’’.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
This doesn't make sense. East Africa is in fact amongst one of the most diverse areas of Africa.
quote:The source is: Description of X-ray images of Royal Mummies in X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies
Originally posted by The Explorer:
I think I know the source being tacitly referenced here, but I'll let you provide the specifics anyway, before I can comment further on it.
quote:The source uses generalizations in order to make distinctions between other populations. The higher occurrence of a feature in any given continent is what justifies the placement of a feature in either one of the categories. NOT the notion that the features (ortochnathous or others in ‘’caucasoid’’) was either developed there or is restricted to that place. Ortochnathous profiles and other manifestations of indigenous variations listed under ‘’Caucasoid’’ are according to my knowledge not the norm in southern Egypt, so it wouldn’t be useful to list it in Africoid. It would be far more useful to consider it in a indigenous variation context rather than as a feature you can expect to see in high frequencies in southern Egypt or in Africans in general. If we were to go to Senegal, Nilotic/Saharan populations or other African nations who are known to have ortochnathous profiles in high frequencies, it would be a different story.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
So, "Caucasoid" traits are not African-ish?
quote:Because the observations and evaluations were listed under each individual X-ray
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Did your source mention celphalometric index in its definition, or nasal aperture? Then how do you know those very traits would not have been implicated as well, had the source found it necessary to implicate it?
quote:Sigh….. Whenever someone agrees that whatever he says is a generalization (the features listed under ‘’Africoid’’ and ‘’Caucasoid’’), he acknowledges that there is variation and exception. That is why I said, the generalizations are only nonsense if you don’t understand the concept of variation. In my mind, there is no reason to list the features that are known to be the product of variation next to the ‘’Africoid’’ features that occur in way higher frequencies, because variation, in and of itself can include all the features in the world. What would be the useful about listing thousands of features that are not even the norm, or anything near the norm in a population like southern Egypt, next to features that are way more concrete and that have a higher occurrence? The way I see it, is that the features listed under ‘’Africoid’’ in the case of Egypt, would separate the bulk of the southern Egyptian crania from non African populations, and they did, if you look at the observations beneath the x-rays. The crania that vary, would then have to be studied further to find out what the cause of the variation is, whether its indigenous or the product of admixture. I highly doubt that individuals that exhibit indigenous variation would be devoid of ALL the features listed under ‘’Africoid’’ or other tropical features that weren’t listed, so that ortochnathous individuals like some of the 19th dy may still exhibit other tropical features, if one or two may be lacking.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
And yet, you sit here telling me that there is nothing wrong with your citation's typological characterizations, which have long fell out of use scientifically but you are still trying to defend.
You disagree, why is orthognathism not included in
your African-sh Africoid; are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that this trait is not African-sh?
quote:Certain features can be the same without a need to cluster per se, I don’t think they would cluster at all. Icelanders and Greeks have certain features in common but their populations don't cluster in the least. Researches make distinctions between earlier hominids and moderns, and if they would cluster to moderns, they would be modern, wouldn’t they? I’m not arguing for clustering, I’m arguing for retained features. It also depends on what you try to measure and whether or not those ‘’things’’ are found more in Europeans or Africans. The back of the head and teeth of Neanderthals reminds brace of northern Europeans, while the constant sloping foreheads, forwrd projection of the mouth region, retreading chin, etc would remind any objective observer of Africans (generalization). Anyone can type in the names of: Idaltu, Omo, Qafze, Skhull etc. and see that they have the features I listed, also, we all know that many Cro Magnons share features with Africans and Australians. And Australians DO have brow ridges, so why would you make noting archaic features in moderns a question of being sane?
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Since you claim that Homo Erectus and Neanderthal had or some of these features, are you then implying that Africans craniometrically cluster closer to these hominid phyla than Europeans do, and/or by extension, that Africans will cluster out of modern human clusters and form their own separate cluster that is in between those hominids and the rest of humanity? If so, then I'd like to see empirical scientific demonstration of this. If not, then why would any sane person consider anything about modern Africans "archaic"?
quote:It seems to me that you would only agree to the observation of archaic features in modern people if the people in question are not (only) Africans. If this is true, I didn’t expect this bias from you. Retained archaic features are archaic features to me whether they occur in other people/me or not. But to answer your question, I don’t know if the features are retained because science hasn’t reached a consensus yet about whether or not Neanderthals had anything to do with their (european) ancestors. Cold adapted body plans in Europeans arose when the Neanderthals were (nearly) extinct. Africans, Australians and the ancestors of Eurasians on the other hand, morphed from homo erectus eventually to modern people, so what would you call those shared features I listed, if not retained? What would you call Australian brow ridges, if not retained from earlier hominids? Would you also deny retaining other features we share with erectus like standing up straight, walking on two feet and having a less projecting profile compared to pre erectus hominids?
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Also, does the general human body plan not share elements with either of the said homonids; should those too not be deemed "archaic"? Europeans show closer crural and brachial indices with Neanderthals. Should that not be "archaic"? Body hair; some folks have more of it than others, like Europeans generally tend to. Should that not be archaic?
quote:The thing is, I don’t have to know about your personal usage of a word to know that you DO attach positive, neutral or negative meaning to it. Whenever something is in a specific context (archaic features in moderns), you can only have those three meanings attached to it (or a combination). You don’t have to provide your own usage of ‘’archaic’’ for me to know that simple, basic fact.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
You are kidding right; why would you be referring to my "own usage", if I had not provided one herein? I have questioned others on their usage of the term, but I fail to see how that remotely resembles anything that needs to be attributed to me.
quote:To prevent this discussion from going in diffusal/scattered directions that aren't usefull to our aspirations to learn and get closer to the truth, I ask of you that we continue this discussion specifically on the topics of: the usefulness of features listed under ''africoid'' and ''Caucasoid'' and ''archaic'' features. So that there is actually a goal instead of just opposing eachother because there are oppertunitíes to do so(no accussation).
Originally posted by The Explorer:
And in any case, if I did [which to repeat, was not done], should that not have told you what I "agree" with, right then and there? Why would you then have to ask me if I agree or disagree with my "own idea" of "archaic"? Don't you find anything comical about that mindset?
Jep, especially when you note that I didn’t have that mindset.
quote:Question: when did scientific reasoning/induction begin?...never mind.
Originally posted by Kalonji:
They relied on demons and evil spirits and gods for the most part to explain deceases and other things they couldn’t explain, just like any other contemporary culture
quote:What do you mean here?
Originally posted by Kalonji:
reasoning that can be considered scientifically correct does not equate practicing science per se.
quote:I make a clear distinction between systematic and consciously applying scientific methods as a habit to make sense of the world, and noticing things by observation, reasoning and trial and error. See my response to Explorer. If you can find me examples of ancient people who did that, I'll be more than happy to adjust my views.
But none of this has anything to do with the fact that Europeans [which one in your view] weren't the first to gain knowledge from experience/induction/scientific method and explain phenomena through this.
quote:So the AE were clueless and unsystematic in their methods and what they were observing? The papyrus etc seems very methodological and sytematic. As for examples Ausarianstein already gave you mummification, your laughter in response does nothing to refute it.
systematic and consciously applying scientific methods
quote:Good for you, but I was really referring to Eurocentric history which has always traced the genesis of the scientific method to Aristotle: i.e. scientific observation, recording, and classification etc. Of course Aristotle and the Greeks were but children in the mysteries so that credit should rightfully go to the AEs.
I'm don't consider the ancient Greeks to have done the above neither.
quote:Europeans are not as freethinking and unique in this regard as you would like to think. This conservatism is characteristic of our age as well. The belief that six million Jews were killed in nazi gas chambers has never been proven i.e. put to scientific test and openly debated.
There was no habit that encompassed all the above so that new discoveries and innovations could flow freely, habitually and purposefully every day. There was no habit that allowed them to test and get rid of the beliefs (if nessecary)that were typical of those times.
quote:Your reply to me says you are not aware of my point, and hence, the non-sequitur that follows, including that remark. It's simple: the piece is neither "agreeing with you" as you said earlier, nor is it doing what you said it was doing. It has nothing to do with the citation having the last word; it is about you not understanding the citation.
Originally posted by Kalonji:
I’m perfectly aware of your point but I rest my case as you can’t seem to think further than the authors intentions which according to you just have the last word.
quote:I'll say this for the last time, and while you struggle with it, I am sure those who can read will understand what's being said:
You argue, well that’s how both species compare in general, ignoring the misinterpretations that can and will arise from such generalizations when they are not acknowledged as such.
quote:What are the names of these "everybody"? You are the one here grappling with the given citation. You first use the citation as something that supposedly "agrees with what you said", which is not apparent, and then, you say that you were using the source to point out its flaws.
That is what makes this description in my opinion still incomplete at best. Everybody can see that being more clear and showing the complete picture can prevent racist/limited thinking.
quote:You brought up the "whole new can of worms" when you presented your "fictitious example", which you confirmed, is communicating from that "inverted" underlying premise that I suggested. So, your protest is dismissed.
Explorer, first you open up a whole new can of worms by challenging the content of my fictitious example, and now when you realize you barely have something to stand on in terms of providing evidence for science in ancient times you want me to explain myself?
quote:I did ask for what you meant. You just chose to outright lie about my not asking for clarification on what you mean by "first to develop science to systematically study people". Also, you are dead wrong; I have offered no comment on it, other than draw the obvious connection that I made above about the "inverted logic" -- that's it; and you responded with this nonsense.
The so called ‘’questionable ideas’’ you accuse me of were known to you when you fed it back in your question:
quote:You could’ve asked me what I meant then, but instead you chose to find flaws in my fictional example which was meant to demonstrate a point that still remains inadequately answered.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
I hope this is not an inverted logic of an assumption that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people(?)
quote:Why would that not be science? Elaborate.
quote:Bwahahahahah, translation: they weren’t practicing science.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
I would say the ancient Egyptians were quite adept at understanding human body, as it enabled them to do the functions they were able to do in their mummifications, and enabled them to put that to use in medicine, giving the Greeks chance to learn from them, allowing some of that knowledge to seep through to modern medicine. But this may be a digression, as it is a viewpoint that I'm expressing without fully understanding what you mean by "systematically understanding people".
quote:How does one have procedures for mummifications and for medicine, if not from "systematically conducting research" to gain knowledge "about the human body"? Explain.
While their knowledge was indeed very impressive, they did not systematically conduct research to find out knowledge about the human body through research and experimentation etc.
quote:Re: research -- Again, see and answer above. Who's supposed to be "authority" to make sure rules were followed? Doctors/healers were/are the authorities of medicine and the curators were the authorities of mummification. There; now what?
They didn’t set out to explain natural phenomena they didn’t understand by doing research and coming to the most logical conclusions. They didn’t set rules for conducting such research and neither was there any authority to make sure those rules were followed.
quote:Precisely my point. And because they knew the human body considerably enough, they were able to develop medicinal procedures to cure ailments. Some of these techniques would become useful not only to ancient Greeks, but also modern medicine.
The example you give (mummification) is a very ancient practice, even older than the first dynasty so you can expect them to have a decent amount of knowledge about the human body.
quote:Quote:
They relied on demons and evil spirits and gods for the most part to explain deceases and other things they couldn’t explain, just like any other contemporary culture. This is not characteristic of science in general.
quote:LOL!!!
How does one have procedures for mummifications and for medicine, if not from "systematically conducting research" to gain knowledge "about the human body"? Explain...where demons and gods are required? How does someone relying on demons and gods for heeling, have the knowledge described above? Shouldn't relying on gods and demons remove the need to know about the internal body system?
quote:In case someone doubts the feces example I posted earlier.
Many practices were ineffective or harmful. Michael D. Parkins says that 72% of 260 medical prescriptions in the Hearst Papyrus had no known curative elements,[8] and many contained animal dung which contains products of fermentation and molds, some of them having curative properties,[9] but also bacteria posing a grave threat of infection. Being unable to distinguish between the original infection and the unwholesome effects of the faeces treatment, they may have been impressed by the few cases when the patient's condition improved.
quote:Surely you must be able to give us a general time frame, an era, century. Pioneering historical figures. Something.
Originally posted by Kalonji:
I told you before, I don't know when specifically the world started to adopt a ''scientific'' mindset. Kinda hard to pin point something that has taken centuries to develop,
quote:I just explained to you how, and yet you are still asking me how. And no, those who say ancient Egyptians are "Caucasoid" are not saying Egyptians are "at one end of the African spectrum".
Listen, if the features in the ‘’Africoid’’ category managed to distinguish Egyptians from Europeans, and Egyptians are considered to be at the one end of the African spectrum and the so called ‘’Forest negro’’ at the other end, how can you then equate the label (‘’Africoid’’) with ‘’forest Negro’’?
quote:Who classified Egyptians into "some label I equate with "forest negro""? Why did they make this classification; and why is the antonym classification "Caucasoid"?
Yes, all the more reason why Egyptians who are a part of this east African diversity shouldn’t have been classified in some label you equate with ‘’forest negro’’.
quote:You engage in much inexplicable telepathy, perhaps through those demons and gods you claim that ancient Egyptians medically relied on, but produce little in way of making objective observations. What generalizations "listed under Africoid" are larger than "I see to be willing to admit", if the generalizations made under Africoid were already given in what you cited? Does you source give us any details about these larger generalizations? If not, then apparently your gods & demons-invoked telepathy has failed you.
But they did, so how can you call the category ‘’forest negro’’? This goes to show that the generalizations listed under ‘’Africoid’’ apply to a much larger range than you seem to be willing to admit.
quote:That "wrong" is more than plenty. See above as well, for questions you decided not to answer, from my last post prior to these last two.
The only point where I can see I was wrong is the lack of explanation about variation, and the usage of terms like ‘’Caucasoid’’
quote:I thought so.
The source is: Description of X-ray images of Royal Mummies in X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies
quote:So, the so-called "caucasoid" traits does NOT have high occurrence in the African continent, and should therefore be dismissed? What material scientific backing can you produce for the justification of this dismissal? And above all, why did your source feel compelled to "disprove" that ancient Egyptians did not conform to "negroid", and hence, Africoid phenotype, if we are to take at face value what you say about "norms"?
quote:The source uses generalizations in order to make distinctions between other populations. The higher occurrence of a feature in any given continent is what justifies the placement of a feature in either one of the categories.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
So, "Caucasoid" traits are not African-ish?
quote:So then, according to you, prognathism is the "norm" in southern Egypt; according to what comprehensive cranio-metric analysis of that region? Also, what about nasal aperture; one of the central features of the so-called "caucasoid" typology? Cephalometric index?
NOT the notion that the features (ortochnathous or others in ‘’caucasoid’’) was either developed there or is restricted to that place. Ortochnathous profiles and other manifestations of indigenous variations listed under ‘’Caucasoid’’ are according to my knowledge not the norm in southern Egypt, so it wouldn’t be useful to list it in Africoid.
quote:Your post shows a mindset embroiled in contradiction. On the one hand, you imply that African variation should be dismissed in favor of baseless "generalization", and on the other, you speak of high incidences of these very same variations amongst those "who are known to have orthognathous profiles" that we are supposed to dismiss under your banner of typological generalization.
It would be far more useful to consider it in a indigenous variation context rather than as a feature you can expect to see in high frequencies in southern Egypt or in Africans in general. If we were to go to Senegal, Nilotic/Saharan populations or other African nations who are known to have ortochnathous profiles in high frequencies, it would be a different story.
quote:Good. Where does your source place these traits in its cranio-phsyiological dichotomy? What are we told about these "Africoid" cephalometric index and nasal aperture that distinguishes it from "caucasoid", the only other variant your source cites?
quote:Because the observations and evaluations were listed under each individual X-ray
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Did your source mention celphalometric index in its definition, or nasal aperture? Then how do you know those very traits would not have been implicated as well, had the source found it necessary to implicate it?
quote:You mean like overlapping variations; if so, according to what source? The whole root premise of these typological concepts is to restrict variation, and compartmentalize it to rigid, clearly demarcated and idealized types. This is one of the reasons why these concepts objectively fail and can no longer be scientifically tenable, and why they have scientifically fallen out of use. Ever heard of the expression: "variations within populations tend to be greater than those between populations"?
Sigh….. Whenever someone agrees that whatever he says is a generalization (the features listed under ‘’Africoid’’ and ‘’Caucasoid’’), he acknowledges that there is variation and exception.
quote:That is right: it is in "your mind", and hence, baseless opinion that has no objective backing. You disagree; let's see empirical scientific demonstration of your generalization.
That is why I said, the generalizations are only nonsense if you don’t understand the concept of variation. In my mind, there is no reason to list the features that are known to be the product of variation next to the ‘’Africoid’’ features that occur in way higher frequencies, because variation, in and of itself can include all the features in the world.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
? Gosh, do you even read what you write?quote:So, orthognathism is not a norm in Africa? According to what empirical continental-wide scientific study?
What would be the useful about listing thousands of features that are not even the norm
quote:The variation category, which in your case, would be that lone "caucasoid" category. The answer is: you can't separate them, and precisely why your rigid typological constructs fail.
Furthermore, if ortochnathous profiles were included in the Africoid category, rather than the variation category, how would one separate them from ortochnathous non Africans?
quote:Wrong question posed as an answer. You were asked if Africans formed their own separate cluster outside that of other recent humans, in a plot involving earlier hominids, since you generalized Africans as having "archaic" features, which they presumably share with earlier hominids. Hence, you were also asked if Africans would first cluster to these hominids than they do to other recent humans, not to mention the notion that Africans somehow cluster closer to these hominids than other recent humans. Your non-responsive posturing suggests you have no material backing for your claims.
Certain features can be the same without a need to cluster per se, I don’t think they would cluster at all. Icelanders and Greeks have certain features in common but their populations don't cluster in the least. Researches make distinctions between earlier hominids and moderns, and if they would cluster to moderns, they would be modern, wouldn’t they?
quote:"Retained" features translates into "affinities", and "affinities" translate into clustering. Simple . If that were not so, then your whole case about "archaic" falls apart quite swiftly.
I’m not arguing for clustering, I’m arguing for retained features. It also depends on what you try to measure and whether or not those ‘’things’’ are found more in Europeans or Africans.
quote:Like which "objecitve observer"; provide the name(s), and specifics of this "objective observer's" empirical scientific observations that answer the host of unanswered questions I put to you earlier, with regards to those traits. Otherwise, this is just another logical fallacy.
The back of the head and teeth of Neanderthals reminds brace of northern Europeans, while the constant sloping foreheads, forwrd projection of the mouth region, retreading chin, etc would remind any objective observer of Africans (generalization).
quote:It's simple really. Variations amongst recent humans pale in comparison to stark distinctions between them and earlier hominids. The distinctions are stark, precisely because change has occurred, and hence, insane to render some micro-evolutionary variations between recent humans as "archaic" while others "not archaic". Yes, Australian aborigines are known to have brow ridges, but so do recent Europeans. Now what?
Anyone can type in the names of: Idaltu, Omo, Qafze, Skhull etc. and see that they have the features I listed, also, we all know that many Cro Magnons share features with Africans and Australians. And Australians DO have brow ridges, so why would you make noting archaic features in moderns a question of being sane?
quote:On what material basis would you assume that?
It seems to me that you would only agree to the observation of archaic features in modern people if the people in question are not (only) Africans.
quote:I guess the answer is right here: you have no basis for that assumption.
If this is true, I didn’t expect this bias from you.
quote:Then much of your own anatomy would be archaic, don't you think?
Retained archaic features are archaic features to me whether they occur in other people/me or not.
quote:You fail to answer my question, only saying that you "don't know", yet have the audacity to say other features implicated in earlier hominids are "retained" in Africans, and that they are "archaic"? Rather, you go onto merely ask me a question, which quite frankly, has nothing to do with anything I've said.
But to answer your question, I don’t know if the features are retained because science hasn’t reached a consensus yet about whether or not Neanderthals had anything to do with their (european) ancestors. Cold adapted body plans in Europeans arose when the Neanderthals were (nearly) extinct. Africans, Australians and the ancestors of Eurasians on the other hand, morphed from homo erectus eventually to modern people, so what would you call those shared features I listed, if not retained?
quote:Simple. I would call it "brow ridges", as you just did. I know the Australian aborigines who have them, likely have them because it is a product of micro-evolution, possibly stemming from the interplay of dietary habits, lifestyle and pressures of the external environment. It is not even certain if elements in the successful OOA a.m.h. migrants had this trait, but certainly, Africans who have deeper-root clades lack it. This suggests that the trait in Australians is more than likely a matter of micro-evolution than retention of the trait. If so, is it reasonable to call it "archaic"?
What would you call Australian brow ridges, if not retained from earlier hominids?
quote:Red herring.
Would you also deny retaining other features we share with erectus like standing up straight, walking on two feet and having a more straighter profile compared to pre erectus hominids?
quote:Well, then why would you be asking me if I agreed or disagreed with my own usage of the word, if a) I had not provided one to begin with, and b)if you don't know what that usage is?
quote:The thing is, I don’t have to know about your personal usage of a word to know that you DO attach positive, neutral or negative meaning to it.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
You are kidding right; why would you be referring to my "own usage", if I had not provided one herein? I have questioned others on their usage of the term, but I fail to see how that remotely resembles anything that needs to be attributed to me.
quote:Your logic is bankrupt. Nobody is implying that there were no flaws in their methodology. Heck, there are flaws in todays medicine as well. However, they did have "procedures" in treating people medically. They certainly had procedures for mummification. You have offered no evidence that suggests that this was anything but systematic, and attained from a learning about the human body. If one is to take Parkins claims at face value, then one would have to assume that the ancient Egyptians must have seen enough success rate in their treatment, such that they would incorporate it into practice, no? The Egyptians may not have gotten everything right, and not expected to, but they certainly lay foundations, as briefly demonstrated in the piece I cited.
Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:In case someone doubts the feces example I posted earlier.
Many practices were ineffective or harmful. Michael D. Parkins says that 72% of 260 medical prescriptions in the Hearst Papyrus had no known curative elements,[8] and many contained animal dung which contains products of fermentation and molds, some of them having curative properties,[9] but also bacteria posing a grave threat of infection. Being unable to distinguish between the original infection and the unwholesome effects of the faeces treatment, they may have been impressed by the few cases when the patient's condition improved.
Any responses after the Hearst Papyrus containing 72% ‘’non curative elements’’ noted above^ that still tries to argue for scientist in ancient Egypt will be ignored, unless you can provide flaws in how Michael D Parkins came to his conclusion.
Kalonji
quote:Kalonji, you said Europeans first developed this systematic study I'm thinking it must be before the ninth century as your own source talks about European scientific schools at this time "reviving the tradition of the Ancient schools" - predictably though it cites only ancient Greece. But this is problematic for you as you lumped Greece with Egypt as not practicing science societies. Your own source claims science was being practiced then.
Originally posted by Kalonji:
I told you before, I don't know when specifically the world started to adopt a ''scientific'' mindset
quote:In fact Europeans were conducting flawed bizarre procedures right up to the 19th century as documented in Terence McLaughlin's Dirt and Conklin's Consuming Grief. Thats why I would love to know when is Kalonjis time frame for this scientific breakthrough by Europeans that was suppose to be so different from ancient societies.
Heck, there are flaws in todays medicine as well.
quote:
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
Originally posted by Kalonji:
I told you before, I don't know when specifically the world started to adopt a ''scientific'' mindset[b]
quote:^^ your critique has a point. Kalonji's claim is flawed because he is comparing ancient Egyptians to today's modern science. In any such comparison model, of course the ancients will come of looking "backward." A more apt comparison is of Europe contemporaneous with ancient Egypt. Let us ask: Did the ancient Germans or Celtics or Slavs contemporaneous with the ancient Egyptians have the glorious indicators of scietific study of humans that kalonji claims? i.e.
Kalonji, you said Europeans first developed this systematic study I'm thinking it must be before the ninth century as your own source talks about European scientific schools at this time [b]"reviving the tradition of the Ancient schools" - predictably though it cites only ancient Greece. But this is problematic for you as you lumped Greece with Egypt as not practicing science societies. Your own source claims science was being practiced then.
quote:Excellent question. As for those bizarre European procedures, while sanctimoniously condemning "barbarous" practices of non-European peoples, said Euros were themselves indulging in such things as cannibalism until comparatively recently.
In fact Europeans were conducting flawed bizarre procedures right up to the 19th century as documented in Terence McLaughlin's Dirt and Conklin's Consuming Grief. Thats why I would love to know when is Kalonjis time frame for this scientific breakthrough by Europeans that was suppose to be so different from ancient societies.
quote:So you agree that you were suggesting ‘’inverted logic’’ and not asking clarification in response to my example? Good. Note how you’re contradicting yourself and lying about me being a liar, because I noted correctly that you were NOT asking for clarification in your original post. Dumbass
You brought up the "whole new can of worms" when you presented your "fictitious example", which you confirmed, is communicating from that "inverted" underlying premise that I suggested. So, your protest is dismissed.
quote:More idiocy, you know what science is, and if you don’t, you can look it up in the dictionary. If I was actually wrong about my position about no science in Egypt, you could then refute me. The question is, why don’t you do that? Because you know that statements can be easily refuted, but not the dictionary or any institution that gives a complete description of what science entailes. You also know that a complete description of science would not support a presence of science in ancient Egypt.
As for legs to stand on, well, you have offered no clarification as you were requested to do, of your idea.
quote:Well, then let’s go back to what you said in response to my Aboriginal example:
I did ask for what you meant. You just chose to outright lie about my not asking for clarification on what you mean by "first to develop science to systematically study people".
quote:And that is supposed to be a question asking for ‘’clarification’’ on why I think science started in Europe? It’s an accusation about using ‘’inverted logic’’ hidden in a question and it doesn’t ask for elaboration, so it is you who is lying about
I hope this is not an inverted logic of an assumption that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people(?) But to answer the question that follows, it still goes back to what I just said above.
quote:and
‘’ I did ask for what you meant’’
quote:You didn’t ask for clarification until I alerted you about certain requirements for something to be considered science.
‘’ You just chose to outright lie about my not asking for clarification’’.
quote:
Science requires more than making observations and writing them down. I’m curious if any of the examples you will kindly give in your next post reflect those requirements.
quote:
Why would that not be science? Elaborate.
Idiot, why do you always have to rely on what I say to refute me? Why don’t you just look in the dictionary?
quote:You’re so dense that you even fail to understand that the whole purpose of mummification doesn’t even have a scientific basis. Someone who tries to mummify a dead person thinking that the person is going to reincarnate using the same body clearly isn’t practicing science. Furthermore, it doesn’t make me a scientist if I have the knowledge needed to do what they did when they tried to mummify someone. The role a dry desert plays in mummification also totally fly past your dense head.
How does one have procedures for mummifications and for medicine, if not from "systematically conducting research" to gain knowledge "about the human body"? Explain.
quote:Because that leaves room for scam artists, practices like using cow dung and feces etc. Yet, your dense head can’t even comprehend that LOL.
Re: research -- Again, see and answer above. Who's supposed to be "authority" to make sure rules were followed? Doctors/healers were/are the authorities of medicine and the curators were the authorities of mummification. There; now what?
quote:Exactly, and knowing how to do that would make someone a scientist right? Whatever happened to conducting research about WHY something works? Whatever happened to finding ways to isolate the useful chemicals in the used medicines to more effectively treat illnesses? All tribal society’s have medicine, and fear of not making it to the other world, which in itself is scientifically illogic, would force anyone to find out whatever he needs to know about making a mummy. This has little to do with practicing science. If it does, then better be ready to acknowledge all mummy producing and medicine using societies, scientist. Besides, certain Africans are using sugar in wounds, and that is making its way into western medicine now, does that mean they’re scientist? Certain tribal Africans know thousands of different plants that have certain effects, would that make them scientist? Stupid idiot
Precisely my point. And because they knew the human body considerably enough, they were able to develop medicinal procedures to cure ailments. Some of these techniques would become useful not only to ancient Greeks, but also modern medicine.
quote:Yeah yeah whatever stop talking out of your neck. Not all ancient societies practiced it? So what are you saying, that that would make them scientist? You keep talking out the side of your neck, any scientist would know that knowledge to mummify doesn’t equate being a scientist. You also seen to conveniently leave out that Libya is a very likely contestant for having originated it.
Yes, mummification was very ancient, and hence, the name ancient Egyptians. However, not all ancient societies practiced it, nor did all necessarily--if any at all--have the then *advanced* techniques that the ancient Egyptians used in their mummification.
quote:Nutcase, since when is Homer an authority? Dream on
"It was not practiced by witch doctors as in primitive tribes, with mixture of magic, herbal remedy, and superstitious beliefs. This was acknowledged by Homer in the Odyssey:
quote:Yes, they really thought the brain was important.. RIGHT, is that why they threw it away right after removing it? Dumbass. Is that why they stored it in a canonopic jar?
They obtained a good knowledge of the meninges, the cerebrospinal fluid, and the twitches and pulsations, and were aware that the brain was the seat of the body control.
"If thou examines a man having a gaping wound in his head penetrating to the bone, smashing his skull, and rending open the brain of his skull, thou shouldst palpate his wound. Shouldst thou find that smash which in his skull like those corrugations which form in molten copper, and something therein throbbing and fluttering under thy fingers, like the weak place of an infant's crown before it becomes whole- when it has happened there is no throbbing and fluttering under thy fingers until the brain of his skull is rent open and he discharges blood from both his nostrils, and he suffers with stiffness in his neck."
quote:^Lying densehead
In fact, the only real function of the brain was thought to be to pass mucus to the nose, so it was one of the organs that were discarded during mummification.
quote:Yeah, that REALLY requires scientific knowledge, LOL
The Ebers Papyrus describes the position of the heart precisely
quote:Densehead, you was accusing other people of qouting blindly earlier weren’t you? Now everybody can see what a densehead you REALLY are. The Egyptians didn’t believe the brain was the seat of body movement at all. Hypocritical DENSEHEAD
Source: Full content, aside from intro statements, are by Dr. Sameh M. Arab,
quote:What the hell are you talking about? I am saying that dumbass. It is clear to anyone who has ever seen a cranial plot that ‘’True negro’’ is supposed to be on one end of the spectrum and certain eastern Africans are supposed to be on the other one. Who was talking about what white supremacist are saying? You’re hearing voices in your head again aren’t you? Like for example when you were having those weir gay/incest accusations? I’ve seen some really weird comments have been coming out of your keyboard which made me lose all my respect for you. It’s amazing how someone can portray himself in certain ways and then totally be a different person.
I just explained to you how, and yet you are still asking me how. And no, those who say ancient Egyptians are "Caucasoid" are not saying Egyptians are "at one end of the African spectrum".
quote:Exactly! Which is why its his last reply. Watching him squirm his way out of it is quite comical. LOL
Originally posted by The Explorer:
The bottom line is, Kalonji doesn't offer a starting point, because in doing so, he'll run into a problem. He'll find out that science progressed into the level it has attained today, as an outgrowth of a series of developments that took place since the ancient Egyptians to the present
quote:Then you haven't met yourself, because you are denser than I, by far.
Originally posted by Kalonji:
Oh my god, you seriously have to be the most dens person I’ve ever met, not only that, in almost all your posts, you misrepresent what I was saying.
quote:Well, if you wish. I have been posting here in your absence for a good deal of time. So, you non-existence has little impact on me. However, if you make stupid claims in the future, you will still be called out on them
This will be the last time I’ll ever engage in any discussion with you. Consider this my last reply.
quote:knucklehead, read. Where does it say up there in what you just cited, what you are now claiming?
quote:So you agree that you were suggesting ‘’inverted logic’’ and not asking clarification in response to my example?
You brought up the "whole new can of worms" when you presented your "fictitious example", which you confirmed, is communicating from that "inverted" underlying premise that I suggested. So, your protest is dismissed.
quote:Being illiterate is a bad thing, not a good thing.
Good.
quote:dick-pimping ape, my post is right here on the thread, asking you for clarification on what you meant. You are just too fvcked in the head to read simple English.
Note how you’re contradicting yourself and lying about me being a liar, because I noted correctly that you were NOT asking for clarification in your original post. Dumbass
quote:More knuckheadedness. I didn't ask for elaboration on what "science means". I asked you to elaborate you uncorroborated subjective personal feelings about Europeans being first to systematically study people. If you weren't totally fucked-up in the head, you'd notice the difference.
quote:More idiocy, you know what science is, and if you don’t, you can look it up in the dictionary.
As for legs to stand on, well, you have offered no clarification as you were requested to do, of your idea.
quote:Done. Where's your comeback? That's right. You have none.
If I was actually wrong about my position about no science in Egypt, you could then refute me.
quote:I don't know that, nor have you demonstrated that. And you are bad at telepathy. Change the demons and gods who guide you; they are punking your illiterate punk-ass.
You also know that a complete description of science would not support a presence of science in ancient Egypt.
quote:knucklehead, what does that sign "?" at the end of the sentence mean? LOL. You are freaking dumber than a door knob.
quote:Well, then let’s go back to what you said in response to my Aboriginal example:
I did ask for what you meant. You just chose to outright lie about my not asking for clarification on what you mean by "first to develop science to systematically study people".
quote:And that is supposed to be a question asking for ‘’clarification’’ on why I think science started in Europe?
I hope this is not an inverted logic of an assumption that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people(?) But to answer the question that follows, it still goes back to what I just said above.
quote:You dumb total heap of bonehead, it is essentially asking you if the said claim is indeed the case, and hence, the *question mark* at the end. It is obvious you can't even recognize a question mark when you see one. I didn't want to assume your premise without verification first, i.e. from you, which you then go on to do, and so, were questioned on it accordingly, as presented above -- in the recaps.
Originally posted by the knucklehead:
quote:It’s an accusation about using ‘’inverted logic’’ hidden in a question and it doesn’t ask for elaboration, so it is you who is lying about
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:If I intended to stray, I would not have said this: But to answer the question that follows, it still goes back to what I just said above.
originally posted by shyt-for-brains:
quote:You use the same methods you used earlier when I used the example of Tutsi. This is straying the root of our discussion, but if you must ask, yes, I do believe that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
I hope this is not an inverted logic of an assumption that Europeans were the first to develop science to systematically study people(?) But to answer the question that follows, it still goes back to what I just said above.
What do you mean by "systematically study people". Since you keep bringing up questionable ideas with each reply, you will be asked to clarify, if necessary. How you interpret this action, matters not to me.
quote:Dramatically dumbed down Lucy [talking about the hominid here], read the above and learn. Your fantastic imaginations are getting the best of you.
You didn’t ask for clarification until I alerted you about certain requirements for something to be considered science.
quote:fuckhead, why do you never read what you are responding to? The cite you are responding to is quite concise. Go to kindergarten. You need to get your ABCs down, you fucking dirty little illiterate redneck's sap.
Idiot, why do you always have to rely on what I say to refute me? Why don’t you just look in the dictionary?
quote:You're such a fucking illiterate bonehead. What does "systematic understanding" mean? Is mummification just some random act of a lunatic, or were procedures put in place, stemming from a learning of human body? What would those procedures be, if not "systematic understanding" of human body? Answer questions, not rambling randomly off-course out of you ass.
quote:You’re so dense that you even fail to understand that the whole purpose of mummification doesn’t even have a scientific basis.
How does one have procedures for mummifications and for medicine, if not from "systematically conducting research" to gain knowledge "about the human body"? Explain.
quote:We are not talking about "afterlife". We are talking about the process of "mummification", dunce. There are scientists out there who still believe in God, yet that has no relevance in science or bearing on the practice of science. The issue is about "systematic understanding", which you brought up in here.
Someone who tries to mummify a dead person thinking that the person is going to reincarnate using the same body clearly isn’t practicing science.
quote:But it makes them scientists, when they correctly discovered certain internal operations of the body [as seen in the piece I cited], described them and wrote down the processes. It would just make you a learner, which you obviously aren't in any case, or a recipient of their knowledge.
Furthermore, it doesn’t make me a scientist if I have the knowledge needed to do what they did when they tried to mummify someone. The role a dry desert plays in mummification also totally fly past your dense head.
quote:turdhead, you simply dodged the main question, and answered one that is only in your fucking blockhead.
quote:Because that leaves room for scam artists, practices like using cow dung and feces etc. Yet, your dense head can’t even comprehend that LOL.
Re: research -- Again, see and answer above. Who's supposed to be "authority" to make sure rules were followed? Doctors/healers were/are the authorities of medicine and the curators were the authorities of mummification. There; now what?
quote:That's right, turdhead, modern medicine is science. Learning the workings of the human body is also science.
quote:Exactly, and knowing how to do that would make someone a scientist right?
Precisely my point. And because they knew the human body considerably enough, they were able to develop medicinal procedures to cure ailments. Some of these techniques would become useful not only to ancient Greeks, but also modern medicine.
quote:I just asked you a question pertaining to this, turdhead, around mummification, and you conveniently remained silent on it. How was the calculated methods applied therein acquired, if not from research?
Whatever happened to conducting research about WHY something works?
quote:turdhead, again you are engaging in a red herring. Nobody suggested that they got everything right. You can still approach "systematic" understanding of studying something, and still have flaws in your understanding. The ancient Egyptians were only human, and the product of their era but amongst the most forward-thinking ones of their era when it came to understanding human body, medicine and hygiene. Even today, we don't get everything right in today's science either. Not only do you fail to take into account the era in question, but you disregard the things that they did get right and that modern medicine has benefited from. You are fucking cherry-picking turdhead, you know that, don't you?
Whatever happened to finding ways to isolate the useful chemicals in the used medicines to more
effectively treat illnesses?
quote:turdhead, this is a non-sequitur. For a change, address things that are relevant to what's specifically being discussed.
All tribal society’s have medicine, and fear of not making it to the other world, which in itself is scientifically illogic, would force anyone to find out whatever he needs to know about making a mummy.
quote:turdhead, read the above. Stick to the topic; relax being a bitch on pms.
Besides, certain Africans are using sugar in wounds, and that is making its way into western medicine now, does that mean they’re scientist? Certain tribal Africans know thousands of different plants that have certain effects, would that make them scientist? Stupid idiot
quote:I'm saying what is said above, which is different from your moronic questions. Do you know how to read? Then what is the above saying?
quote:Yeah yeah whatever stop talking out of your neck. Not all ancient societies practiced it? So what are you saying, that that would make them scientist?
Yes, mummification was very ancient, and hence, the name ancient Egyptians. However, not all ancient societies practiced it, nor did all necessarily--if any at all--have the then *advanced* techniques that the ancient Egyptians used in their mummification.
quote:turd-for-brains, take a que: save yourself from needlessly digressing . Just address what's being said, and what's not. What do you understand about ancient Egyptian procedures of mummification? What can you tell us about how the mummy in Libya was mummified, and how that compares to that undertaken in ancient Egypt through the Dynastic era. Let's see how much you know.
You keep talking out the side of your neck, any scientist would know that knowledge to mummify doesn’t equate being a scientist. You also seen to conveniently leave out that Libya is a very likely contestant for having originated it.
quote:This nutcase is a lettered surgeon. Dr. Sameh M. Arab, Associate Professor of Cardiology, not to mention, the following:
quote:Nutcase, since when is Homer an authority? Dream on
"It was not practiced by witch doctors as in primitive tribes, with mixture of magic, herbal remedy, and superstitious beliefs. This was acknowledged by Homer in the Odyssey:
quote:That "dumbass" --i.e Dr. Sameh M. Arab, says this:
quote:Yes, they really thought the brain was important.. RIGHT, is that why they threw it away right after removing it? Dumbass. Is that why they stored it in a canonopic jar?
They obtained a good knowledge of the meninges, the cerebrospinal fluid, and the twitches and pulsations, and were aware that the brain was the seat of the body control.
"If thou examines a man having a gaping wound in his head penetrating to the bone, smashing his skull, and rending open the brain of his skull, thou shouldst palpate his wound. Shouldst thou find that smash which in his skull like those corrugations which form in molten copper, and something therein throbbing and fluttering under thy fingers, like the weak place of an infant's crown before it becomes whole- when it has happened there is no throbbing and fluttering under thy fingers until the brain of his skull is rent open and he discharges blood from both his nostrils, and he suffers with stiffness in his neck."
quote:turdhead, you are not reading the Edwin papyrus, whereas the doctor was actually giving you items mentioned in that medical papyrus, as proof of what's being said. You are clearly a horny bitch who hasn't gotten laid forever. This is what the good doctor told your illiterate uneducated, non-degreed ass:
The Egyptians believed that the heart, rather than the brain, was the source of human wisdom, as well as emotions, memory, the soul and the personality itself.
Densehead, nowhere in that description it says that the brain is the seat of body control. Read your own quote. If I poke your knee in the right way, you leg will pop up as a reflex, does that make your knee the seat of body control?
quote:Now turdhead has even given up actually addressing the piece that I actually cited, and addresses something else. Funny.
quote:^Lying densehead
In fact, the only real function of the brain was thought to be to pass mucus to the nose, so it was one of the organs that were discarded during mummification.
quote:...but this does, turdhead, which you'd be mindful of, if you bothered to keep on reading:
quote:Yeah, that REALLY requires scientific knowledge, LOL
The Ebers Papyrus describes the position of the heart precisely
quote:turhead's way of saying: "I am not capable of addressing or understanding the citation, and this is offered as my way out."
The rest of the things you post after that don’t require science, repeatedly dissecting people for mummification purposes will teach you that.
quote:And this applies to me, how?
quote:Densehead, you was accusing other people of qouting blindly earlier weren’t you?
Source: Full content, aside from intro statements, are by Dr. Sameh M. Arab,
quote:Fucking retard, do you seriously think your mindless nattering, inability to read, not to mention avoidance of questions, is cause for anyone to be convinced that anybody else but you is a fucking DENSEHEAD? LOL. You are so fucking dead in the head, that if it were a crime to be dumb, you'd be in jail just about now.
Now everybody can see what a densehead you REALLY are. The Egyptians didn’t believe the brain was the seat of body movement at all. Hypocritical DENSEHEAD
quote:Well, bitch, then your irrelevant opinion is baseless, because those who use the term "caucasoid" to describe ancient Egyptians take the said premise, and these are the very people your own source purports to be discrediting. Your own source renders your knuckleheaded opinions worthless, as it doesn't support it.
quote:What the hell are you talking about? I am saying that dumbass.
I just explained to you how, and yet you are still asking me how. And no, those who say ancient Egyptians are "Caucasoid" are not saying Egyptians are "at one end of the African spectrum".
quote:No, it isn't clear. Can you demonstrate this plot, because eastern Africans are diverse, as are western Africans. Give specifics of the samples, while you are at it. And even if what you say were so [which is questionable at this point], how does that in any way justify your discredited typological concepts?
It is clear to anyone who has ever seen a cranial plot that ‘’True negro’’ is supposed to be on one end of the spectrum and certain eastern Africans are supposed to be on the other one.
quote:You mean like those you are hearing now, turdhead? Who said anything about "white supremacist"?
Who was talking about what white supremacist are saying? You’re hearing voices in your head again aren’t you?
quote:I could give a hoot about your approval, turd-for-brains? You give respect, you get respect. You act like a bonehead, like you do, then I'll approach you in that way.
Like for example when you were having those weir gay/incest accusations? I’ve seen some really weird comments have been coming out of your keyboard which made me lose all my respect for you. It’s amazing how someone can portray himself in certain ways and then totally be a different person.
quote:So dickhead has decided to throw in the towel, with no comeback but cursing like a bitch who just gotten bitch-slapped senseless, and making up stories about people he/she doesn't even know. LOL. You even mindlessly cursed at a doctor, who is more degreed and lettered than you'll ever be in ages. This is the same character who tries to tell us to accept his uncorroborated subjective personal *feelings* about Africans having "archaic" traits, with sloping foreheads, protruding incisors, big teeth, steep jaws in the same league as earlier hominids, and yet, he/she sits here making fairy tales about how I use "nigger", presumably degrading blacks [which in any case, BAs use amongst themselves]....like h/she hasn't already done enough of that here.
You know what, I’m not going to finish this post. Why would I even care about what some densehead says who is supposed to teach pro African teachings but resorts to words like nigger and other racist rethoric knowing damn well the violent history black people had.
quote:Indeed, I not only have the nerve, I am intellectually in a position to call them disruptive. I am intellectually in a position to call you a bonehead that is more dead than a door knob. Get you pussy outta here, and get it plugged. Lack of getting laid is having a mental impact on you. And while at it, get a child's ABC book or two. Your reading stinks worse than the funk of a skunk. LOL
Then you had the nerve to call people like Dirk disruptive. Get the bleep outta here man. DENSEHEAD
quote:More? Sure. The original humans were tropical. And lived in humid areas. It would take millenia for arid territories to develop the leptorrhine and aquiline noses, both in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
This is not the "Old man"/Cro-Magnon I cranium. So, how it compares with that cranium, is anyone's guess unless specified. They both had relatively greater cranial capacities than the average recent human; at least that much seems to be common. And the article says this: He said the skull doesn't look European or Asian or African. It looks like a mixture of all of them....but certainly, the rendition makes it look more African than European.
quote:Cro-Magnon I had a narrow nasal aperture; whatever that means, whether "aquiline noses" , then so be it. This however, does not preclude its tropical origins which you acknowledge nonetheless, as the limb-trunk and limb proportion indices suggest. Africans in the tropics have said nasal features as we speak, and it is part of the natural diversity.
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:More? Sure. The original humans were tropical. And lived in humid areas. It would take millenia for arid territories to develop the leptorrhine and aquiline noses, both in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
This is not the "Old man"/Cro-Magnon I cranium. So, how it compares with that cranium, is anyone's guess unless specified. They both had relatively greater cranial capacities than the average recent human; at least that much seems to be common. And the article says this: He said the skull doesn't look European or Asian or African. It looks like a mixture of all of them....but certainly, the rendition makes it look more African than European.
quote:Red herring.
And it still is not a modern African.
quote:Cro Magnon developed that type of nose before the earliest African variety which was Mechta Afalou.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Cro-Magnon I had a narrow nasal aperture; whatever that means, whether "aquiline noses" , then so be it. This however, does not preclude its tropical origins which you acknowledge nonetheless, as the limb-trunk and limb proportion indices suggest. Africans in the tropics have said nasal features as we speak, and it is part of the natural diversity.
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:More? Sure. The original humans were tropical. And lived in humid areas. It would take millenia for arid territories to develop the leptorrhine and aquiline noses, both in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
This is not the "Old man"/Cro-Magnon I cranium. So, how it compares with that cranium, is anyone's guess unless specified. They both had relatively greater cranial capacities than the average recent human; at least that much seems to be common. And the article says this: He said the skull doesn't look European or Asian or African. It looks like a mixture of all of them....but certainly, the rendition makes it look more African than European.
quote:Red herring.
And it still is not a modern African.
quote:That would have to be the case, based on dating of available specimens. Whether these dates really reflect how long the once living populations of the Epipaleolithic and early Holocene coastal northern African specimens actually lived, remains to be ascertained. We can only go by what archeology brings to light, until then...
Originally posted by Chimu:
Cro Magnon developed that type of nose before the earliest African variety which was Mechta Afalou.
quote:Good. Let's get the empirical scientific evidence that suggest narrow nasal opening in tropical Africans isn't part of the natural diversity.
The First European predates both and was before any such nose had developed (based on skulls we have found to this day)
No it is not a part of natural diversity.
quote:Sure. Show me one population of tropical Africans that is not originally from a desertic or semi arid region with thin noses. From Somalia to Mauritania, all arid or semi arid regions. If it were natural diversity and not environment specific selection, then you would find that diversity across all of Africa including Central and South Africa.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Good. Let's get the empirical scientific evidence that suggest narrow nasal opening in tropical Africans isn't part of the natural diversity.
quote:I don't have to show you jack. You claimed that the narrow nasal aperture found in tropical Africans isn't part of the natural diversity of these Africans. Your claim, hence your responsibility to back it up.
Originally posted by Chimu:
Sure. Show me one population of tropical Africans that is not originally from a desertic or semi arid region with thin noses.
quote:??
From Somalia to Mauritania, all arid or semi arid regions. If it were natural diversity and not environment specific selection, then you would find that diversity across all of Africa including Central and South Africa.
quote:Not that your point makes any sense to me re: natural variation, but I'll play along anyway:
Originally posted by Chimu:
^^^I just showed you by lack of evidence. Now if you can show evidence of the contrary, be my guest.[/b]
quote:Using your logic Eskimos are part of the natural diversity of Africa. Of course with time all populations adapt to their environment. But natural diversity is a diversity that is occurring at all times regardless of environmental pressures.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Using that logic, then we probably wouldn't even have had modern humans to begin with.
quote:Not really. We know these diversifications take millenia. It would be interesting to see Mugabe's lineage fro the nasal bridge, but he does not have a low nasal index the width of his nose would mean he would have to have a longer face to have a longer nasal cavity to allow for a low nasal index. As for his daughter, a smaller nose does not necessarily mean a smaller nasal index. It would depend on the height of her nasal cavity vs its width. Cute girl.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Not that your point makes any sense to me re: natural variation, but I'll play along anyway:
Originally posted by Chimu:
^^^I just showed you by lack of evidence. Now if you can show evidence of the contrary, be my guest.[/b]
This fellow has a reasonably narrow nasal index, if not moderate. Does that mean he is from an arid region? Same could be asked of Paul Kagami? What about the Iraqw who sport narrow nasal indices as well. Do they live in an Arid region. According to your logic, these people should have already had micro-evolutions that would return back to nasal apertures that are distinct from narrow ones.
Ps -
Mugabe's daughter. Her nasal index?
quote:^ Salsassinboy Somalia is Sub Sahara, not North Africa.
It would take millenia for arid territories to develop the leptorrhine and aquiline noses, both in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe... From Somalia to Mauritania, all arid or semi arid regions
quote:Somalia still has semi arid land.
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
^ Salsassinboy Somalia is Sub Sahara, not North Africa.
quote:Well then you should have included Sub Saharan Africa in your post "It would take millenia for arid territories to develop the leptorrhine and aquiline noses, both in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe".
Originally posted by Chimu:
Somalia still has semi arid land.
quote:Neanderthal had something humans didn't have.
Originally posted by Mike111:
Chimu - I see your logic, and have even pursued it myself. But it doesn't really hold up. Hot humid air contains less oxygen than cold dry air, so logically then, people in hot humid places should have bigger rounder nostrils to accommodate larger airflow.
And people in Colder places should have smaller noses because they don't need the increased airflow to get the same amount of oxygen.
The problem is, Neanderthal, the ONLY "Cold Adapted" humanoid, had a big wide nose.
quote:That came direct from Colin Groves, a noted physical anthropologist. Try again. It was he who made me aware of that discrepancy. I used to think, like you that Neanderthal just had a wide nose like, say Aborigines.
Originally posted by Mike111:
Chimu Quote; - They had a larger Nasal Cavity because they had larger olfatory senses.
I see that treating your opinion seriously was a mistake.
quote:The comment was through email. I keep in contact with a lot of these guys.
Originally posted by Mike111:
^Please post his study and comments.
quote:The thing I don't get is why the variability in nose types within Europe and Meso-America aren't being scrutinized in such a manner. I have plenty of relatives with much more aquiline and beak-like noses than white counterparts.
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Well then you should have included Sub Saharan Africa in your post "It would take millenia for arid territories to develop the leptorrhine and aquiline noses, both in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe".
Originally posted by Chimu:
Somalia still has semi arid land.
But we all why you didnt and where you normally go with these phenotype arguments. I'm looking out now for you post the outdated Brace 1993 and other quack studies that claim to show the Ethiopians have heavy "Caucasian" admixture so as to explain away the elongated features in East Africans. LOL
quote:Not at all. Somalia is east of the Sahara, not below it.
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Well then you should have included Sub Saharan Africa in your post [i]"It would take millenia for arid territories to develop the leptorrhine and aquiline noses, both in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe"
Originally posted by Chimu:
Somalia still has semi arid land.
quote:Europe and Meso-America have been scrutinized like this. Look up studies by Coon or Wiercinski.
Originally posted by Bob_01:
The thing I don't get is why the variability in nose types within Europe and Meso-America aren't being scrutinized in such a manner. I have plenty of relatives with much more aquiline and beak-like noses than white counterparts.
quote:West African, yes, but not Sub Saharans. Not all dark skinned people are Sub Saharan. Many are still Saharan. Dinkas are in the Sudanese Sahara.
Besides, I've seen the trait amongst numerous "West Africans" as well, and even dark-skinned Dinkans.
quote:Well, two things throw a wrench in the studies. Human progression has led to a lot more migrations, and humans now use clothing, so that changes the parameters as well.
Since climate profiles are quite diverse, it ought to vary amongst African populations who developed longer in the region than other populations.
quote:This does not make sense, and doesn't follow what you are citing. Why would Eskimos be part of the natural diversity of Africa, if they are not autochthonous Africans. Stay with the topic. I am referring to Africans; you know, the people native to a continent called "Africa". Ring a bell?
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:Using your logic Eskimos are part of the natural diversity of Africa.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Using that logic, then we probably wouldn't even have had modern humans to begin with. [/qb]
quote:What is considered a "narrow nasal" index, according to your understanding? Give me the value.
Not really. We know these diversifications take millenia. It would be interesting to see Mugabe's lineage fro the nasal bridge, but he does not have a low nasal index the width of his nose would mean he would have to have a longer face to have a longer nasal cavity to allow for a low nasal index.
quote:Do you know what nasal index is?
As for his daughter, a smaller nose does not necessarily mean a smaller nasal index.
quote:So you are essentially saying you cannot even tell what a narrow nasal index is, even by staring at a person? Classic!
It would depend on the height of her nasal cavity vs its width.
quote:I am not going to show crap. You show us your "objective" studies done in African regions out of the so-called arid regions who supposedly do not have narrow nasal aperture. This is THE odd statement here, and it is your's. Get to work!
Now show me some actual cranial studies, not your subjective eyeballing of what you think is a leptorrhine nose.
quote:Coon has referred to nearly every population as European. That is, even when it is widely known (even amongst the population) that foreign admixture is great. Italians, Palestinians, even Yemenites were considered part of the "white race".
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:Not at all. Somalia is east of the Sahara, not below it.
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Well then you should have included Sub Saharan Africa in your post [i]"It would take millenia for arid territories to develop the leptorrhine and aquiline noses, both in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe"
Originally posted by Chimu:
Somalia still has semi arid land.
quote:Europe and Meso-America have been scrutinized like this. Look up studies by Coon or Wiercinski.
Originally posted by Bob_01:
The thing I don't get is why the variability in nose types within Europe and Meso-America aren't being scrutinized in such a manner. I have plenty of relatives with much more aquiline and beak-like noses than white counterparts.
quote:West African, yes, but not Sub Saharans. Not all dark skinned people are Sub Saharan. Many are still Saharan. Dinkas are in the Sudanese Sahara.
Besides, I've seen the trait amongst numerous "West Africans" as well, and even dark-skinned Dinkans.
quote:.
Since climate profiles are quite diverse, it ought to vary amongst African populations who developed longer in the region than other populations.
quote:The cause of the look is still the same. Not natural diversity, but adaptation to environment. Migration out of Africa would not have changed features.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
This does not make sense, and doesn't follow what you are citing. Why would Eskimos be part of the natural diversity of Africa, if they are not autochthonous Africans. Stay with the topic. I am referring to Africans; you know, the people native to a continent called "Africa". Ring a bell?
quote:What is considered a "narrow nasal" index, according to your understanding?
Not really. We know these diversifications take millenia. It would be interesting to see Mugabe's lineage fro the nasal bridge, but he does not have a low nasal index the width of his nose would mean he would have to have a longer face to have a longer nasal cavity to allow for a low nasal index.
quote:I am not claiming that Saharan Africans are somehow distant from Sub Saharan. People have migrated back and forth, and they are all related. But prevalence of features tends to show where certain features originated. Just cause you saw pygmies in Egypt doesn't mean their body type evolved there.
Originally posted by Bob_01:
Coon has referred to nearly every population as European. That is, even when it is widely known (even amongst the population) that foreign admixture is great. Italians, Palestinians, even Yemenites were considered part of the "white race".
It didn't even matter if high variability was inferred, because these quite distinct populations were classified as Caucasian. It was African regions given limited plasticity despite being in the continent for a longer period than all OOA populations. That would explain regional variability. That would involve a longer history where innovations in clothing didn't exist.
quote:You don't know the concept of staying on-topic, do you? Again, I am talking about "Africans". What part of the term "Africans" do you find hard to understand?
Originally posted by Chimu:
The cause of the look is still the same. Not natural diversity, but adaptation to environment. Migration out of Africa would not have changed features.
quote:Good, tell us wherein there, Mugabe stands, since you made an absolute claim that he doesn't have narrow nasal index.
quote:Yes. I can tell whether a person has a narrow nose or not, just by looking at the person. It is not rocket science; it is called the ability to "see".
Again, you have nothing except eyeballing.
quote:LOL!
Not at all. Somalia is east of the Sahara, not below it.
quote:Sudan is considered Sub Saharan too. Dinka are southern Sudan, not Sahara.
Dinkas are in the Sudanese Sahara.
quote:
West African, yes, but not Sub Saharans
quote:Topic: Natural diversity vs Environmental adaptation.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
You don't know the concept of staying on-topic, do you? Again, I am talking about "Africans". What part of the term "Africans" do you find hard to understand?
quote:Sigh...
Good, tell us wherein there, Mugabe stands, since you made an absolute claim that he doesn't have narrow nasal index.
quote:I am not talking political barriers, moron.
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:LOL!
Not at all. Somalia is east of the Sahara, not below it.
Somalia is considered a Sub Saharan African country dufus.
quote:Let's see, the topic is arid regions and nasal adaptation. The Sahara region is continuous. How you call it is irrelevant. Big African desert, from arid to semi arid. Guess what Somalia is in it.
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
Israel, Jordan, etc are East of the Saharan but Somalia is clearly below it, you grasping for straws Jaime boy.
quote:I thought you said it was east of it geographically? lol
Originally posted by Chimu:
Big African desert, from arid to semi arid. Guess what Somalia is in it
According to your own freakin map Somalia is the African country that's below the Saharan, you clearly can't read how the hell are you going to represent anyone in court soldierboy?
quote:You do know how Latitude and Longitude works do you?
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:I thought you said it was east of it geographically? lol
Originally posted by Chimu:
Big African desert, from arid to semi arid. Guess what Somalia is in it
quote:WTF? Somali is Sub Saharan African country for the simple fact that it is a part of the African continent located below the Saharan, hence Sub Saharan Africa.
Originally posted by Chimu:
It is East of the Sahara proper and it is a part of that desert system. Keep arguing semantics.
quote:Whatever rocks your subjective boat. But Somalia is not in the Saharan desert.
The point still sticks.
quote:Actually both hot dry and cold dry adaptations require larger thinner noses to allow the air to get humid before it hits the lungs. I don't know where you got the idea that there is a difference in the percentage of oxygen
Originally posted by Mike111:
Chimu - I see your logic, and have even pursued it myself. But it doesn't really hold up. Hot humid air contains less oxygen than cold dry air, so logically then, people in hot humid places should have bigger rounder nostrils to accommodate larger airflow.
And people in Colder places should have smaller noses because they don't need the increased airflow to get the same amount of oxygen.
The problem is, Neanderthal, the ONLY "Cold Adapted" humanoid, had a big wide nose.
quote:Apparently you have an acute case of Alzheimer's. This is what spark this new round of talks between us, which naturally has nothing to do with the main topic; I wrote:
Originally posted by Chimu:
Topic: Natural diversity vs Environmental adaptation.
Right on topic.
quote:You are quite comical. You are able to measure a person's nose on a two dimensional 373px X 435px size photograph? Tell us what tool you used; a ruler? LOL. Anyone with a good pair of eyes, looks at those images and says that those noses are broad, going by your crayon scribbles on the photos, will have to be a total nut. You need to ditch that crude "tool" you used, and come up with something objective than chicken scratches on photos. LOL. Next what are you going to tell us: that he has "bulbous lips", with more crayon scribbles?
Sigh...
quote:You are too much of a fuckhead to stay on-topic and actually answer what is requested of you.
Originally posted by Chimu:
As usual, you are too dumb to get it.
quote:The is a load of irrelevant crap. I said something about narrow nasal index being part of the natural African diversity, and you protested without a clue. Are you now trying to say Europeans gave Africans "narrow nasal index" as I suspected you'd try to do as some point down the road? For your sake, it had better not be the case.
The oldest examples of low nasal indexes are in Europe, not Africa, so they did not originate there.
quote:Who said otherwise. Do you just talk to have arguments with people for no reason?
If anything you have convergent evolution. But European thin noses are a local evolution.
quote:You need to get yourself a new hobby than scribbling on photos and taking that as objective science. The angles of the photos alone is enough to make anyone with common sense see that it is futile business to measure someone's nasal index, with some crude tool.
And I don't need a ruler . As it is an index. a ratio of one measurement with another. Pixels work just fine for that measurement.
quote:Sorry, you must be totally blind or stupid to look at those two figures, and conclude that they have broad noses.
Sorry you can't handle the truth. Both are platyrrhine.
quote:Tropical regions however INCLUDE deserts, so the notion of confining "tropical" peoples to areas of wet jungle is deeply flawed, as is the notion that "recent migrations" are needed to make the noses of the peoples there vary. In fact the tropical climates are of 3 types:
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:Somalia still has semi arid land.
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
^ Salsassinboy Somalia is Sub Sahara, not North Africa.
The better question would be, why did the KhoiSan not develop the thinner noses. Maybe the mutation that led to that change did not occur in them, or other factors may be involved. But what hasn't been shown is thin noses in humid tropical places unless they are more recent migrations. You see that intermediate stage in tropical Natives in the Americas which vary the gamut.
The best place to study is where in situ populations are in humid places, and that is tropical, rain forest, Africa. No development of that type of nose there.
quote:The notion of narrow noses somehow being "non African" is deeply flawed. As Hiernaux 75 showed, confirmed by Keita 2005, such noses occur in some of the oldest populations of Africa who by the way are located in "tropical" regions. Said regions comprise not merely wet jungle, but wet/dry savannah and arid desert as well.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:The is a load of irrelevant crap. I said something about narrow nasal index being part of the natural African diversity, and you protested without a clue. Are you now trying to say Europeans gave Africans "narrow nasal index" as I suspected you'd try to do as some point down the road? For your sake, it had better not be the case.
Originally posted by Chimu:
[QUOTE] The oldest examples of low nasal indexes are in Europe, not Africa, so they did not originate there.
quote:You can still see where the Nasion is and the Nasal Sil. As an index is based on a ratio, not the measurement itself (both measurements are from the same picture, so the ratio will remain the same.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Nasal index has to be measured on a real nose.
One needs a profile shot for the length. One
can't do it from a face front picture because
one then has no idea of how the slope effects
the length.
Then either measurement remains inaccurate
because the actual centimeters aren't what's
measured.
Nor can one use a profile picture and a face front
picture for pixel count because something will have
effected the subject's distance from the camera.
quote:African Americans don't count because they have known European admixture.
Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
Whats in a nose only god knows
Jennifer Hudson and Winnie Mandela and before you cry fowl Jennfier is a New world Black and so shouldn't count then waddabout Wennie?
quote:These guys are still platyrrhine, but you are seein the development of a higher nasal bridge. Rmember that aquilinity and leptorrine are not the same thing. One is the projection of the nose from the face, the other is the ratio of with of nose vs height of nose. And yes Senegal is still in the Sahara region.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:You can figure out the nasal indexes if you have full frontal picture.
Nasal indices of the folks? Are they from arid regions?
quote:Hence the reason why I have not been dividing people into tropical and sub tropical/supra tropical. So that is a straw man, unless you are addressing someone else or an older conversation. All we are addressing is desertic environment vs rainforest. Or more accurately humid vs. dry.
Originally posted by zarahan:
Tropical regions however INCLUDE deserts, so the notion of confining "tropical" peoples to areas of wet jungle is deeply flawed, as is the notion that "recent migrations" are needed to make the noses of the peoples there vary.
quote:There was one study I read I while back that seemed to indicate that the less seasonal variation the more the more the nose could narrow. Or something like that. So I suspect, the deserts would be more conductive to narrow noses over savannas and savannas over rainforests, wetlands.
* Wet-Dry Tropical Climates (Aw) savanna
A seasonal change occurs between wet tropical air masses and dry tropical air masses. As a result, there is a very wet season and a very dry season.
quote:Usual strawman, and foolish reaction. But I suspect we are using Natural diversity in different ways. You are just saying that the various noses in Africa are natural to Africa, not foreign influence. But I was talking about arid vs humid land, so making that comment after mine seemed to say that the natural diversity was present in both arid and humid land. And that is where I checked you. All of them are part of the natural diversity of Africa, but all of them are not spread all over Africa. Some come from arid regions and others come from humid regions. One evolving from the other.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:The is a load of irrelevant crap. I said something about narrow nasal index being part of the natural African diversity, and you protested without a clue. Are you now trying to say Europeans gave Africans "narrow nasal index" as I suspected you'd try to do as some point down the road? For your sake, it had better not be the case.
Originally posted by Chimu:
The oldest examples of low nasal indexes are in Europe, not Africa, so they did not originate there.
quote:It is. and that is why it is a strawman. As I never mentioned such a thing. Here is a video of mine to clarify.
Originally posted by zarahan:
The notion of narrow noses somehow being "non African" is deeply flawed.
quote:That is actually not true. While some traits are shared we do not know if they come from ancestral stock or convergent evolution at times. Like epicanthic folds. We do not know if populations in Africa always had them, or developed them with time, while OOA populations did so as well. OOA epicanthic folds have the single eyelid as well as double eyelid versions, while African versions are just double eyelid.
Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
I am no med student like some on this board but just from what i see and read there is hardly a feature/phenotype that is found anywhere in the world that is not of African origin..including lank hair and norrow noses,epicanic eye folds,really tall folks and really short folks
quote:Same general region yes, but not same ecotype. Like the Twa living inside the rainforests while the Bantu lived on the outskirts. The heat of the rainforests led to economic bodies (small). This same function has occurred in Amazonian natives who have gotten smaller.
living in the same region sometimes
So not true to the extent that not EVERY African-American has European admixture. There are not just a few folks who have had DNA testing done and found they have no 'White' folks perched up in their family tree. Africans are the first people and the blueprint for everyone else. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
only 13% of us have European ancestry.
[i]
Research Articles
The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
Sarah A. Tishkoff,1,2,* Floyd A. Reed,1,, Françoise R. Friedlaender,3, Christopher Ehret,4 Alessia Ranciaro,1,2,5, Alain Froment,6, Jibril B. Hirbo,1,2 Agnes A. Awomoyi,1,|| Jean-Marie Bodo,7 Ogobara Doumbo,8 Muntaser Ibrahim,9 Abdalla T. Juma,9 Maritha J. Kotze,10 Godfrey Lema,11 Jason H. Moore,12 Holly Mortensen,1,¶ Thomas B. Nyambo,11 Sabah A. Omar,13 Kweli Powell,1,# Gideon S. Pretorius,14 Michael W. Smith,15 Mahamadou A. Thera,8 Charles Wambebe,16 James L. Weber,17 Scott M. Williams18
Africa is the source of all modern humans, but characterization of genetic variation and of relationships among populations across the continent has been enigmatic. We studied 121 African populations, four African American populations, and 60 non-African populations for patterns of variation at 1327 nuclear microsatellite and insertion/deletion markers. We identified 14 ancestral population clusters in Africa that correlate with self-described ethnicity and shared cultural and/or linguistic properties. We observed high levels of mixed ancestry in most populations, reflecting historical migration events across the continent. Our data also provide evidence for shared ancestry among geographically diverse hunter-gatherer populations (Khoesan speakers and Pygmies). The ancestry of African Americans is predominantly from Niger-Kordofanian (~71%), European (~13%), and other African (~8%) populations, although admixture levels varied considerably among individuals. This study helps tease apart the complex evolutionary history of Africans and African Americans, aiding both anthropological and genetic epidemiologic studies.[/1]
quote:Why? Because a non-degreed faux physical anthropologist that is you, says so? Andd what about the rest; no "subjective" comments?
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:These guys are still platyrrhine, but you are seein the development of a higher nasal bridge.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Who are you reminding here; yourself?
Rmember that aquilinity and leptorrine are not the same thing. One is the projection of the nose from the face, the other is the ratio of with of nose vs height of nose.
quote:It is south of the Sahara. How are you supposed to make any informed comments about Africa, if you can't even get its basic geography right? Kindergarten kids could teach you this.
And yes Senegal is still in the Sahara region.
quote:Non-sequitur.
quote:You can figure out the nasal indexes if you have full frontal picture.
Nasal indices of the folks? Are they from arid regions?
quote:It is called actually measuring a cranium, not throwing out subjective political opinions and scribbling over photographs.
I have not seen any craniometric writing on how to objectively measure the projection and aquilinity of the nose. I did not see it in Valois.
quote:Your post speak of someone on crack, because you cannot possibly in the right state of mind to give the sort of answers you been throwing back at specific questions put to you. I spoke of 'narrow nose' being part of the Natural African diversity, and you cried about it for no reason. You go onto to speak of the trait appearing in European paleontological record before it appears in Africa; what relevancy does that have on my claim, if you were not tacitly implying that the trait must have been introduced into Africa by Europeans? Explain.
quote:Usual strawman, and foolish reaction.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:The is a load of irrelevant crap. I said something about narrow nasal index being part of the natural African diversity, and you protested without a clue. Are you now trying to say Europeans gave Africans "narrow nasal index" as I suspected you'd try to do as some point down the road? For your sake, it had better not be the case.
Originally posted by Chimu:
The oldest examples of low nasal indexes are in Europe, not Africa, so they did not originate there.
quote:Should that be the case, then I'm using the term in the natural way, and you are using it the odd way. Therefore, it's your responsibility to tell us why you think my statement is incorrect, i.e. saying that 'narrow nose is part of the natural African variation'.
But I suspect we are using Natural diversity in different ways.
quote:Exactly. Do you have evidence that "narrow nose" only occurs in Africa due to foreign influence?
You are just saying that the various noses in Africa are natural to Africa, not foreign influence.
quote:Just about much of the continent constitutes populations with variant nasal indices, hence part of the natural ranges of those populations; there is no clear cut demarcation, as your post seems to suggest. This is why you are having trouble with basic geography, and scribbling on photographs, rather than giving us concise concrete scientific evidence for you subjective feelings, which nobody cares about.
But I was talking about arid vs humid land, so making that comment after mine seemed to say that the natural diversity was present in both arid and humid land.
quote:Which regions of the continent do you NOT find variant nasal indices? What are nasal singular indices of these regions?
And that is where I checked you. All of them are part of the natural diversity of Africa, but all of them are not spread all over Africa.
quote:Chimu is making that claim on the basis that the Cro-Magnon I fossil is said to date earlier than the Epipaleolithic and early Holocene remains of the coastal North African crania of Mechta-el-Arbi and Afalou-bou-Rhummel. It revolves around the claim that the Cro-Magnon 1 has a narrow nasal aperture. Fact is, Neanderthal, who preceded the Cro-Magnon's in the region, and are generally acknowledged to be cold-adapted to the temperate environment of Europe, had large nasal apertures. Does anyone have the stats on Cro-Magnon's nasal metrics, because interestingly, at least one publication implicated early modern Europeans at around the same mean [in terms of nasal breadth] as the Epipaleothic or Mesolithic northern African crania [Mectha-el-Arbi and Afalou-bou-Rhummel], and even some Bantu sample.
Originally posted by zarahan:
Are there credible scientific references showing narrow noses appearing in the European palentological record before that of Africa?
quote:That would be the logical conclusion to draw, seeing as how this is the case on the continent presently, which is considered to be the continuum of natural variation on the continent, according to preponderance of evidence.
Also, would environmental adaptation be the sole
determinant? Given the OOA migrations of people
already with a wide range of variation could not
the narrow indices be something ALREADY in place
by the OOA migrants, laying the basis for further
derivatives elsewhere outside of Africa? In other
words some of the OOA migrants already had narrow
nose patterns to begin with? Further variation
in cold areas may have taken place, but the
originals from Africa already had the basis laid?
quote:The vast majority do.
Originally posted by TruthAndRights:
Greetings.
"African Americans don't count because they have known European admixture."
quote:Uh no. That is the average per individual. As in the Average African American has 13% African Ancestry.
Originally posted by xyyman:
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
only 13% of us have European ancestry.
[i]
Research Articles
The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
Sarah A. Tishkoff,1,2,* Floyd A. Reed,1,, Françoise R. Friedlaender,3, Christopher Ehret,4 Alessia Ranciaro,1,2,5, Alain Froment,6, Jibril B. Hirbo,1,2 Agnes A. Awomoyi,1,|| Jean-Marie Bodo,7 Ogobara Doumbo,8 Muntaser Ibrahim,9 Abdalla T. Juma,9 Maritha J. Kotze,10 Godfrey Lema,11 Jason H. Moore,12 Holly Mortensen,1,¶ Thomas B. Nyambo,11 Sabah A. Omar,13 Kweli Powell,1,# Gideon S. Pretorius,14 Michael W. Smith,15 Mahamadou A. Thera,8 Charles Wambebe,16 James L. Weber,17 Scott M. Williams18
Africa is the source of all modern humans, but characterization of genetic variation and of relationships among populations across the continent has been enigmatic. We studied 121 African populations, four African American populations, and 60 non-African populations for patterns of variation at 1327 nuclear microsatellite and insertion/deletion markers. We identified 14 ancestral population clusters in Africa that correlate with self-described ethnicity and shared cultural and/or linguistic properties. We observed high levels of mixed ancestry in most populations, reflecting historical migration events across the continent. Our data also provide evidence for shared ancestry among geographically diverse hunter-gatherer populations (Khoesan speakers and Pygmies). The ancestry of African Americans is predominantly from Niger-Kordofanian (~71%), European (~13%), and other African (~8%) populations, although admixture levels varied considerably among individuals. This study helps tease apart the complex evolutionary history of Africans and African Americans, aiding both anthropological and genetic epidemiologic studies.[/1]
quote:The measurement was objective. Not my fault you can't handle it. Fully replicable.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Why? Because a non-degreed faux physical anthropologist that is you, says so? Andd what about the rest; no "subjective" comments?
quote:Wrong again.
It is south of the Sahara. How are you supposed to make any informed comments about Africa, if you can't even get its basic geography right? Kindergarten kids could teach you this.
Sigh.
Again, where are your leptorrhine noses in Central Africa?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer:
Fact is, Neanderthal, who preceded the Cro-Magnon's in the region, and are generally acknowledged to be cold-adapted to the temperate environment of Europe, had large nasal apertures. Does anyone have the stats on Cro-Magnon's nasal metrics, because interestingly, at least one publication implicated early modern Europeans at around the same mean [in terms of nasal breadth] as the Epipaleothic or Mesolithic northern African crania [Mectha-el-Arbi and Afalou-bou-Rhummel], and even some Bantu sample.
quote:The Sahara is in dark red dufus. Senegal is below it. Again, arid regions in Africa does not equal Sahara. LOL
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:Replicating something doesn't make it objective. A parrot mimicking gibberish doesn't turn that gibberish into something objective. You truly have some weird-ass way of thinking...as the following will also show...
Originally posted by Chimu:
The measurement was objective. Not my fault you can't handle it. Fully replicable.
quote:The guy cannot even locate the Sahara, or Senegal on the map.
quote:Sigh.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
It is south of the Sahara.
quote:I already posted several photos, which you dismissed as either being "broad nosed" [even though any decent-thinking person can see otherwise] by way of your kindergarten-like scribbles all over photographs...or you dismissed them as being from the Sahara, even though they all come from locations south of the Sahara. I can now see why you are having trouble moving up with Law degree or credentials. You have to be convincing liar, in order to make a good lawyer. Your lies are quite amateurish, and I'm being generous even with that description.
Again, where are your leptorrhine noses in Central Africa?
quote:It is homo sapiens sub-species. What does that mean biologically?
Wrong again.
Neanderthal is not homo sapiens sapiens
quote:Really? So walking upright has affected "our" species and Neanderthal, yet according to your mentality, we are supposed to believe that this evolutionary trait does not reflect "our's", because Neanderthal has it?
so whatever adaptations they had do not necessarily reflect ours.
quote:Despite your irrational feelings about the Neanderthal; fact is, even early other European crania [homo sapiens sapiens] are implicated with "broad nasal aperture", including some casually labeled as Cro-Magnon.
Again, they seem to have had other adaptations in the nose that humans just didn't have.
quote:North African Mechta crania are considered to be much younger than your 23 ky estimation. They are considered to be within the range of late Epipaleolithic or early Holocene time frames.
Dates to 32,000BC. Mechta dates to 23,000BC.
quote:That has no relevancy to what my point was.
The Bantu look doesnt appear until much later.
quote:Another red herring. Anything else you got...aside from making a fool of yourself about geography, scribbling all over photographs as presumably something "objective, or what the Neanderthal is? It has been abysmal failure for you, from start to this point...
I still Mechta was a localized evolution. but no evidence that it was a precursor to Cro-Magnon.
quote:Fair-enough, doesn't change my point, arid to semi-arid land.
Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:The Sahara is in dark red dufus. Senegal is below it. Again, arid regions in Africa does not equal Sahara. LOL
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:It's objective if the person that can replicate it is neutral. I gave the measurement graph. Do the measurement yourself. Then do the index. Then STFU.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Replicating something doesn't make it objective.
quote:Shut your anal hole up. Your Neanderthal ain't us, doesn't change the fact that Neandrthal, part of the human (Homo Sapiens) species, was subject to the same pressures as modern humans, and in some instances, they adapted the same way the moderns would eventually do.
Originally posted by Chimu:
quote:It's objective if the person that can replicate it is neutral. I gave the measurement graph. Do the measurement yourself. Then do the index. Then STFU.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Replicating something doesn't make it objective.
quote:You should spend more time addressing the specifics and less in red herrings. Your protest do you little, as it was brought to your attention, even early homo sapiens sapiens of Europe had "broad nasal" index, and they were contemporaneous to the Cro-Magnon I specimen. As you like to say, cry me a river, if you wish.
Neanderthal clearly has a a nasal cavity that differentiates itself from that of homo sapiens sapiens.
quote:This is total bs. Cro-Magnon I is thus far the earliest example of its kind. Show me the earliest Cro-Magnon specimen with "broad nose", and then show us the chronology of the paleontological record, that shows that the Cro-Magnon went from "broad" nasal breadth to "narrower" nasal breadth. Do the walk or as you like to protest, STFU.
Cro-magnon early on starts with a wide aperture but slowly the prevalence goes toward narrow. natural selection due to cold.
quote:Your arguments are devoid of a mind.
Your arguments are amateurish.
quote:Turns out Neanderthals have longer noses so they don't need smaller apertures to heat the air.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
Your Neanderthal ain't us, doesn't change the fact that Neandrthal, part of the human (Homo Sapiens) species, was subject to the same pressures as modern humans, and in some instances, they adapted the same way the moderns would eventually do.
quote:As for Cro-Magnon, the name of the skull is given to the first one with the narrow nasal traits. All we have to do is look at the precursors of Cro-Magnon and see what their nasal indexes were.
Perhaps Neanderthals possessed this trait because they retained the ancestral trait of prognathism. Prognathism can be measured by the basion-prosthion length (BPL), roughly the distance between the hole at the bottom of the skull and the point between the front two teeth.
It turns out that BPL rather than ICB explains more variance in the breadth of the nasal aperture, and hence this tends not to support the theory that Neanderthals had broad noses because they had wide palates.
So, how did Neanderthals manage to have broad noses against ecological expectation? They were "forced" to have such noses because of their substantial prognathism. But, their nasal heights were also great, and hence their nasal index (breadth/height) was fairly low. Thus, they may have dealt with their cold and dry environment by having a broad and long nose, rather than a short and narrow one.
Neandertals have been characterized as possessing features indicative of cold-climate adaptation largely based on ecogeographical morphological patterning found in recent humans. Interestingly, one character that deviates from this pattern is a relatively wide nasal aperture. The ecogeographical patterning of the nasal aperture in recent humans would predict instead that Neandertals should exhibit reduced nasal breadth dimensions.
It is unknown to what degree the relationship between anterior palate breadth and nasal breadth in Neandertals is a function of the pleisiomorphic retention of a prognathic facial skeleton. We used path analysis to test for a causal relationship between intercanine breadth and nasal breadth taking into account the potential effect of facial projection and facial prognathism (i.e., basion-nasion length and basion-prosthion length) using a large sample of geographically diverse recent and fossil Homo.
The results of these analyses indicate that more variation in nasal breadth can be explained through basion-prosthion length.
quote:Whether they had longer noses or not, is immaterial to the fact that their nasal aperture bespeak of "broad nasal" breadth. And, this is only relevant to the extent that they lived in Europe before modern humans arrived. But the Neanderthal issue just hits the surface; ad infinitum-- met with no comeback from you, is that early *modern* humans of Europe have also been implicated in broad nasal breadth, contemporaneous with the Cro-Magnon.
Originally posted by Chimu:
Turns out Neanderthals have longer noses so they don't need smaller apertures to heat the air.
quote:Who are the precursor's of the Cro-Magnon?
As for Cro-Magnon, the name of the skull is given to the first one with the narrow nasal traits. All we have to do is look at the precursors of Cro-Magnon and see what their nasal indexes were.
Like the first European.
quote:Red herring dismissed.
Now if you can show me prior African fossils with narrow nasal indexes
quote:So what if humans didn't have "prognathism" as acute as Neanderthals. What is the connection between "prognathism" and "nasal" breadth, other than your worthless whinin' and moanin' off-tangent rants? And what relevance does your worthless cry-babying in any event, have on the fact that the early *modern* human paleontological record contemporaneous to the Cro-Magnon I have been implicated in "broad noses"? Put up or shut up your anal hole.
as humans do not have Neanderthal's facial prognathism, or if not STFU...
quote:Even your very OWN source debunks your moronic mentality, about Neanderthal evolutionary traits not being useful for comparative purposes with their modern human cousins. Only according to them, the nasal aperture presents an anamolous situation in this case.
Originally posted by Chimu:
Neandertals have been characterized as possessing features indicative of cold-climate adaptation largely based on ecogeographical morphological patterning found in recent humans.
quote:LOL soldier boy that looks like a cracker from the Freeman militia did some editing. You are pathetic private pyle.
Originally posted by Chimu:
Nice try. I just pulled up this study:
nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB320-2007/honors/neadertal.pdf
Mean NLH (Nasal Height) 62.1
Mean NLB (Nasal breadth) 32.5
Nasal Index: 52.3
Mesorrhine
quote:One bantu sample. Could be the result of admixture/migration of northern populations. Not a trend. And again. Neanderthal is not leptorrhine, just mesorrhine.
Originally posted by The Explorer:
According to Chimu's post above, Neanderthal's nasal breadth is 32, whereas the mean reported [and remember that the mean hides variability] for one Bantu sample in one study was 27; yet Chimu would interpret the latter's as "platyrrhine", while accepting Neanderthal's as "mesorrhine"? LOL.
quote:You jumped to conclusion without knowing what sample is being reference. Perhaps, you need to try again, with evidence, to explain why the "Bantu" are not truly representative of the sample, as labeled.
Originally posted by Chimu:
One bantu sample. Could be the result of admixture/migration of northern populations. Not a trend. And again.
quote:Well, if you want that, then you'll just have to scroll your eyes back to those already given earlier, but with an active mind. Don't simply dismiss them with bad basic geography, scribble over them with your faulty measurements, or select which ones you want to comment on.
You have yet to show me your population with a trend of leptos.
quote:LOL. I am guessing that the holes in Howell's database is something that you are still in the dark about?
Out of Howell's entire database, only one sample that was below the Sahara showed leptorrine. And that was a Teita, a north eastern Bantu tribe.
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
This suggest that haplogroup N was taken to Western Eurasia by the San people=Cro-Magnon.
This makes it clear, to me, that hg N in Africa is not the result of a back migration..
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Are you then saying that gene divergence sometimes
predates population divergence?
[
quote:don't ask
Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
I did not read the whole thread, yet, but its mighty important to me.
Does anyone know the number of Grimaldi bodies which are discoverd.
