...
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: Late UP linear/leptoprosopic Negroid crania are not found in tropical (humid-heat) zones.[/QUOTE]Shifting the goalpost again (as expected). You defined stature as a hot-dry adaptation, and specifically used the Nilote type as an example of this. This is the second time in a row that you try to obfuscate the fact that the remains tagged as Proto-Nilotes have always been relatively tall. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: The plate posted is described as platyrrhine by Dixon.[/QUOTE]What are you waiting for? Prove it, as requested! [QUOTE]Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Hence the low fixation index (low inter-variation/high intra-variation) in any modern population today.[/QUOTE]Complete bullsh!t. The further one goes back in time, the more intra populational variation one finds. Rather than seeing duplicate types in the same burials, the further one goes back in modern human history (up until 200kya), the remains show much more variations than modern humans do, even as small as the Pleistocene samples are. :rolleyes: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Convergence never replicated an entire phenotype.[/QUOTE]Clearly you don't even know what phenotype means, but to address your point, this is a complete red herring. Parallel evolution doesn’t need to duplicate complete European phenotypes in Africa for me to make the point that typology falsely classifies skulls who share some traits with alleged 'original trait bearers' due to parallel evolution, as ‘mixed’. Case in point: epicanthic folds in Khoisan populations. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: See above.[/QUOTE]Just seen the above and it’s a red herring, as usual. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: No, there are many.[/QUOTE]Other than light eyes, there are none. Every trait that Europeans have, that’s relevant to typology, evolved independently elsewhere, as demonstrated by the different genetic underpinnings for traits that look identical on the surface (e.g., pale skin). Genetics is nothing other than a big boot up in Typology’s ass. That's why you ignore genetics. [QUOTE]Aethiopids are not Caucasoid. And despite Baker (1974) 'lumping' them as Caucasoids, he notes they are 25% Negroid in traits [in actual fact other anthropologists extend this as high as 75%].[/QUOTE]Irrelevant. Even with the high estimates of up to 75% negroid traits, that's still a 25% of ''pure'' Caucasoids, while population genetics has yet to find a single physically Caucasoid Horner person, with 100% or even near 100% Mediterranean ancestry. Regardless of their physical ''type'' (i.e., Negroid, Mediterranean, Nordic), they all have an almost identical amount of African ancestry. Take Tiskoff 2009, for instance. Every vertical line represents the genetic profile of a single person, and there is not a single uniformly blue vertical line in the East African samples: [IMG]http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/1574/africak813.gif[/IMG] There isn't a single blue bar in Sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, there isn't even a single 100% blue bar in the sampled Northern Africans. If typology were scientific (reproducible) it would have no problems duplicating its observations with genetics. Instead all we see is that types have no in footing in genetic reality. [/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