...
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 Swenet: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: Let's see: How you do figure someone can have "tropical limb ratios" but not have a "tropical body plan"?[/QUOTE]Trying to distract the attention away from the fact that the piece you're responding to points out what a big fat liar you are, huh? No biggie, if you insist in getting educated: I had recently posted an excerpt from Holiday 1999 saying limb proportions can be a poor predictor of limb length, which is what limb proportions ultimately try to get to the bottom to. It can also a poor predictor of trunk height per Holiday. But you wouldn't know, being the uneducated troll you are. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: 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.[/QUOTE]Your astronomic stupidity goes through the roof. You don't even know that a set of digits with the tilde symbol behind it in this context depicts an approximation. No surprise, really, with all your other recent phuckups bathing in broad daylight. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: 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?[/QUOTE]I'm sure that that's why you posted it. Cause, lord knows, your desperate hammering on their limb data in the absence of even a hint of opposition to their limb data (other than the opposition you fabricated with your lie), and in light of the other data posted in this thread (The Afalou/Circumpolar cluster), isn't exactly jiving with the hard data at hand, showing them to cluster away from Africans where the multivariate data is concerned. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: 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]Which, as late as the proportions still appear, further stamps in the ground your pseudo-scientific idea that IM limb proportions further your hopeless cause, especially in light of Holiday 2013's multivariate analysis. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: I take it your dumbass must not have been clued on what a linear stature is?[/QUOTE]I asked you a question, troll. No further stalling. What the hell is ''linear in stature''? [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: See above. [/QUOTE]No, troll. Too late for damage controll. You were asked what linearity has to do with ''long lower-limb bones''. And no, me drilling on this issue isn't going to stop until you admit what a fraud you are. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: Oh really. Tell me how body shape is determined without consideration given to limb proportions. You are obviously dancing around this issue.[/QUOTE]No need to dance around the issue, as those in the know are already aware of the fact that neither of Holiday's three visualizations of his multivariate analysis utilize or incorporate limb proportion indices; they are predicated on measurements (breadths, lengths and diameters, etc). Yes indeed, your posts smack of idiocy. Now, to get back on topic, how is the description below fig 5 consistent with the idea that it's depicting population relationships in limb proportions? [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: This is even funnier than the above.[/QUOTE]Face it, you thought you had the data behind you when you made the retarded insinuation that San limb proportions discredit fig 5, when the premise that insinuation is based on had been put to sleep by Holiday as early as 1999, and a host of other authors documenting that limb proportions don't have the last say in the matter. That you laugh at the fact that this very ancient fact makes your comment obsolete is further evidence of the fact that you're a total fraud. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: 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?[/QUOTE]Well, since you insist on trolling and lying, **prove** that the position of the Pygmy sample conformed to the following dictionary description of 'outlier' in the dendrograms that 2009 excerpt discusses. Perhaps you're better at gawking at dendrogram images than letters: [b]Outlier[/b] [QUOTE] A value [b]far from most others in a set of data[/b][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]So now, "linear" is a gradient, as opposed to shape.[/QUOTE]You're such a lying cretin. How does saying ''[i]The Holiday piece only spoke of a gradient (i.e., less linear and linear)[/i]'' equal saying ''[i]linear is a gradient, as opposed to shape''[/i]? [QUOTE]The dingbat even goes onto quote a material from a different publication, 1997, which in any case, is not helping[/QUOTE]Troll, the Holiday 1997 piece I cited makes [i]direct[/i] references to commonalities between the North African sample and the Pygmy sample, which, according to Holiday, makes them cluster. How are such inherent commonalities susceptable to change depending on the publication, when the publication you cited, or any other for that matter, isn't even in conflict with it, horrendously stupid megatroll? The Pygmy sample in fig 5 still occupies a position adjacent to the ''outlier'' (LOL) Christian era Nubian sample, which smacks the taste out of your retarded claim that fig 5 is contradicted by Holiday 2009. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: 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.[/QUOTE]Troll, your desperate hammering on your reference to ''other reports'' doesn't get your troll paws out of hot water, as it is preceded by a certain claim about Natufians, that you intended to to add substance to. If it wasn't your intention to add substance to that claim about Natufians, the coherence of your entire post falls apart. Not that that's a rarity for you, of course. [/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