...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Uncovering the Origins of Ancient Egypt
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: What exactly is non-Negroid about them? When I asked that last time, you ran away.[/QUOTE]This is exactly what I mean. You accuse others of not knowing what typology is, and then you go on to confound my comments regarding that Nilote man you posted with the Nilote meta population in general. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: You claimed the Nilotid posted was mesorrhine, when his nasal index is platyrrhine.[/QUOTE]Prove it [QUOTE]Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: And that study merely confirmed all the others (Michalski, 1958; Wiercinski, 1973).[/QUOTE]Even when I'm in your face telling you I don't necessary disagree with their allocation of predynastic skulls to those types (only that these types necessarily represent actual foreigners), you still insist that the allocation of types is correct and reproducible, as if I denied that. SMH. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: No they don't originate there via lineage. The traits however did in the past as a center of crystallization.[/QUOTE]So, once the traits emerge and hitch-hike along with populations who migrate, the presence of those traits in other populations who inherit them, isn't necessarily complemented by actual genetic lineages of the populations who originally carried those traits? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Typology is polydimensional clustering, nothing more.[/QUOTE]LMAO. This is getting more interesting by the minute. Wiercinsky is more in agreement with me than your dumbass. Judging by that quote, Wiercinsky obviously knew its theoretically possible that all those predynastic Egyptians had 100% West African ancestry--which is something you staunchly disagree with. And guess what..when I ask you why you disagree with it, you'll argue in circles like a brain dead psycho and tell me about the presence of Caucasoid ''types'' in predynastic burials, [b]even though you've just admitted that those types are ''irrespective their populational descent''.[/b] SMH. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Typology is polydimensional clustering, nothing more. The same way you can group together any object, based on their physical similarities. [/QUOTE]You're lying your ass off. Typology is about (sub)races, and the idea that a given set of traits can always be traced back to single (sub)race, so that it becomes possible to slice populations up and determine their underlying racial substructure (e.g., 5% European,, 10% East Asian, etc). Typological types/(sub)races aren't superficial outer shells that are only skin deep; they imply thousands of years of isolation. Typology doesn't acknowledge parallel evolution and phenotypical plasticity, as that would mean its acute death. In fact, scientific discoveries that demonstrated cranio-facial plasticity [b]HAVE[/b] discredited typology in academic circles. That you're sitting here, telling me that cranio-facial plasticity and typology are logically consistent is clearly a consequence of me giving you the ass-whooping of your life twice on the topic of adaptation, since you were singing the tune of ''traits are geographically circumscribed'', and ''people of Negroid ancestry cannot have Caucasian features'' prior to these astronomical ass whoopings. [/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