...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample (Holliday 2013)
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: Complete lie. I’ve always maintained that they had tropical limb proportions. Recap, from the thread where you got thrashed beyond repair: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [QUOTE] Originally posted by The Explorer: If there are EpiPaleolithic Maghreb specimens showing "tropical" proportions, how can that then be "not tropical enough"?[/QUOTE]Aside from not knowing what PCA is, you clearly also do not know what the difference is between a body plan and limb proportions, and [b]the known phenomenon that a population (e.g., Ibero-Maurusian) can seem tropical in the latter, but not in the former.[/b][/QUOTE]^You're such a liar.[/QUOTE]Let's see: How you do figure someone can have "tropical limb ratios" but not have a "tropical body plan"? [QUOTE]You’re such a lying troll. You call my observation that the IM had lower brachial and crural indices than European Mesolithic remains ''rubbish'', and then you go on to begrudgingly admit that the IM, or at least, Taforalt, brachial index is ~76%, which is lower than that of Mesolithic Europeans with more than a full percentage. [/QUOTE]You forgot to mention that I also quoted the pooled Mesolithic North African average indexes, which was either slightly higher or on par. As for your runny nose about 76%, that was not the actual value for the Taforalt, dummy; it was said that the Taforalt's own was similar to this value. Also, 76.3 is the neighborhood of 77.5. A few points difference is hardly something to call "significantly higher", or else let me guess, you are probably going to tell me, that by this, you were actually speaking of the statistical significance, right? [QUOTE] Even the crural index of the pooled North African sample, which includes the very tropically adapted Jebel Sahaba sample, does not exceed the Mesolithic European crural index, let alone when this sample is subtracted.[/QUOTE]Why should it need to "exceed the Mesolithic European" index, when it was merely posted to show how foolish you were, to speak of a "significantly higher" of the aforementioned? You are an idiot. We've already seen how quite high the Epipaleolithic indexes can be, as the Afalou had shown. The Jebel Sahaba's indexes, which you have not shown, has no bearing on this, just as the Taforalt's implied brachial index also suggests. You really are trying too hard to wish-away the tropical-adaptation affinities the Mesolithic share with "sub-Saharan" Africans, aren't you. [QUOTE]Gough’s Cave 1 Gramat 1 Hoëdic 5 Hoëdic 6 Hoëdic 8 Hoëdic 9 Rastel 1 Rochereil 1 Téviec 1 Téviec 11 Téviec 10 Now what, troll?[/QUOTE]Don't lose your panties; just wanted to confirm that these were pooled European burials. I couldn't help but also notice that many of the mentioned (e.g. Hoedic and Teviec) are actually younger than the Mesolithic Maghrebi series by reported estimates. [QUOTE]Lol. What the hell is ''linear in stature''? Admit it, you don’t even know what you’re talking about, do you? Just talking mumbo jumbo, like a confused puppy.[/QUOTE]I take it your dumbass must not have been clued on what a linear stature is? Let me know if this is the case, so I can clue you in, rather than using fuckheaded conclusions to mask your unawareness. [QUOTE]Before this bizarre line of reasoning can be entertained, explain what the hell ''Long lower-limb bones'' have to do with linearity. Yes, the insinuation that goes out from your posturing, i.e., that your grasp of the topic is more than sub par, is disintegrating by the minute.[/QUOTE]See above. [QUOTE]Certainly not by limb proportions, if that’s where you’re going with it. Now your turn: how is the description of ''log shape data'' below fig 5 consistent with the idea that it’s depicting population relationships in limb proportions?[/QUOTE]Oh really. Tell me how body shape is determined without consideration given to limb proportions. You are obviously dancing around this issue. [QUOTE]Its very simple. You tried to discredit fig 5 by referring to the moderately tropical limb proportions of the San, and how that was supposedly at odds with fig 5. [/QUOTE]Let me guess. This explanation supposedly tells us that my observation on the San limb proportions is not only "silly" but also "obsolete"? LOL [QUOTE] The applicability of that objection, however, is now shown to be totally baseless, and you have yet to come to grips with that fact.[/QUOTE]This is even funnier than the above. [QUOTE]Lying through your teeth again. The excerpt doesn’t even say that the Pygmies were an outlier group.[/QUOTE]numbnut I was not speaking to the piece word for word; I was merely trying to clue your dumbass with the simplified idea, which as it turns, was not simple enough for you. Who other than the idiot swenet has a lot of trouble understanding that the pygmies are essentially being described as an outlier among the sub-Saharan group? [i]It has two main branches—a long and linear body build branch that includes the Egyptians, Sub-Saharan Africans ([b]except for the Pygmies[/b]), and African-Americans and a second, [b]less linear body form branch[/b] that includes the Inuit, Europeans, Euro-Americans, Puebloans, Nubians, and [b]Pygmies[/b]. Note that the Nubians used in this study are thought by some to represent an immigrant population from Europe or Western Asia [see Holliday (1995)].[/i] - Holliday et al. (2009) [QUOTE] The Holiday piece only spoke of a gradient (i.e., less linear and linear).[/QUOTE]So now, "linear" is a gradient, as opposed to shape. You kill me with bursting my intestine out of laughter, at you, for sheer undiluted stupidity. LOL [QUOTE]How your mind pathologically distorts this very simple to understand concept into the idea that the Pygmy sample assumed an outlier position, away from North Africans, is something mental hospitals are quite good at deciphering.[/QUOTE]You are not even in the same universe as that quoted piece just above. LOL [QUOTE]Those who actually are familiar with Holiday’s work (and who are not frauds pretending to be in the know, like you), know that the following is a recurrent theme in Holiday's work: [i]One might find it odd that the [b]Pygmies cluster with North Africans[/b]. This is due to allometric effects associated with their small size. In particular HL-shape exhibits negative allometry, while FHAP-shape exhibits positive allometry (Holliday, 1995). Therefore, as a result of their small size, the Pygmies are characterized by small femoral heads and long humeri – [b]features aligning them more closely with the North Africans than with Sub-Saharan Africans.[/b][/i] --Holiday 1997[/QUOTE]The dingbat even goes onto quote a material from a different publication, 1997, which in any case, is not helping, but actually reaffirming what an illiterate idiot this character is. [QUOTE]Either that or I’m too perceptive to be oblivious to a troll who performs damage control when I see it. From the Troll’s mouth: [i]Upon reading this, one might get the gratuitous impression that [b]Natufian[/b] and northwest African "Ibero-Maurusian" series are similar, but delineated from the Jebel Sahaba series. Not so, when other reports are taken into account[/i] [/QUOTE]The fat-ass donkey forgot to highlight "other reports" [that I just clued the donkey's ass in], which--for those with no problem reading the full length of the post--would be unmistakable for its intentions. [/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