...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
OT: To Study Islamic History...is to Study Black History
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bettyboo: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Bettyboo: [qb]You are a real fvcking idiot. The 'article' you posted is not what we are discussing. They are discussing "phenotype". But what about those who are not distance from "sub-sahara" africa but possess different phenotype. [/qb][/QUOTE]Of course you're the idiot. As this article is in accordance with the other one I posted which confirms that humans originated in a single area in Africa. Which is mirrored by a loss in phenotypic diversity within a population the farther that population moved from Africa, as a result of bottlenecks(decrease in population size). [QUOTE] This article is comical. Of course bone structure determines phenotype; this shyt don't need scientific studies, and it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. [/QUOTE]This study says nothing about bone structure determining phenotype, so where did you read that? Once again showing your illiteracy as well as your delusional state of mind. [QUOTE] You're a fvcking idiot. Different studies, Different theorists, Different results. And phenotype don't come from being "distance" from Africa, and for them to say that climate don't have no role in phenotype is an automatic pink slip. [/QUOTE]Within population phenotypic and genetic diversity is greater in Africa, than outside amongst non Africans, this was determined genetically, and through studying 6000 skulls around the world, which concluded phenotypic variability (diversity) is determined by distance from Africa, of course there are adaptations to the environments, but that has nothing do with within population phenotypic diversity. All non Africans carry genetic marker M168,(which represents a subset of East African diversity) as does the population from which they descend from, in East Africa. Which is how we know that the people who populated the world (60+kya) was a subset of East Africans to begin with, represented by this East African marker M168 which indicates all non Africans carry but a small subset of African diversity. This original OOA population who left to populate the world over 60kya, went through subsequent population bottlenecks (decrease in population size), and hence the loss of phenotypic and genetic diversity due these subsequent decreases in population size, AGAIN, which is represented by, and proves the fact yet again, that all non Africans descend from a small subset of East Africans. Note, if the continents were populated by subsequent migrations, or if humans arose around the world independently from homo Erectus(as you propose), than the genetic diversity of non Africans should be much greater than what it is, but this is not the case, and all non Africans lose diversity phenotypically, and genetically, the farther the population is from Africa. [i] [b]"The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes."[/b] [/i] [/qb][/QUOTE]That fvcking article is not in accordance with the previous article(s) you fvcking idiot. We are not discussing PHENOTYPE or PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES. We are discussing whether "ARAB" 'origins' lies in "Africa" or not. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3