...
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 Faheemdunkers: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: 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]You're not answering still. Nilotids are platyrrhine, prognathic, and ulotrichous. They are tall and linear in body and face - these traits emerged as adaptations to dry heat, but as shown in the other thread, thinner noses [but not as low NI as cold] are adaptations to the same arid-climatic conditions. Nilotids however are platyrrhine, so the Nilotid phenotype is not true dry heat adapted at all. And I explained why the Nilotids are platyrrhine in the other thread as well - its because of their large inter-canine breadth and megadont teeth. [QUOTE]Prove it[/QUOTE]What? I gave you the reference. [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? 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]All populations by that time period were not genetically homogenous, but mixed. So types are not cladistic, lineal or genetic. I've opposed genetic definitions of race from the start for this reason. The Afrocentric user "Beyoku" has got hold of my posts and is now on forums, adopting my stance :rolleyes: : "Europeans can look the same even though they undergo admixture, drift, and population replacement" - Beyoku He's now claiming genetic and phenotypic continuity are two different things - a central tenet of Multiregionalism he stole off me. [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).[/QUOTE]This is precisely what I stated. The traits formerly had centers of crystallization or were geographically circumscribed [= subspecies/races and subraces]. [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]They are consistent: When the races were circumscribed geographically, they obviously adapated/changed. Types are static now though, because of migration and mixing. No population is homogenous, so only the individual represents a whole set of traits. [/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