...
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: No? Point to me, an instance where one comes across "tropical limb proportions" without that relating to a tropical body plan. [/QUOTE]You yourself have cited an exerpt stating that the Pygmy and the Nubian sample are ''less linear'', in spite of their clearly tropically adapted limbs, you phucking degenerate troll! They have tropical limbs, which is not so much attested in their overal bodyplan. Note: they're both more tropically adapted that the Afalou sample in multivariate space, as seen in fig 5, yet, the Afalou sample is supposedly not an outlier sample according to the crack infested heap you call your brain? [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: My "astronomic stupidity" could not be as astronomic as your's. Otherwise, you wouldn't have made such a big deal about an "approximation", and one with essentially little difference at that, from the value you were making such a fuss about.[/QUOTE]This is just a manupulative non-reply to obfuscate the fact that things got to the all time low where you needed to be schooled on what the tilde symbol exactly is. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: Of course limb proportions cannot predict the trunk height, because they (body segments) are not even the same thing. [/QUOTE]That's why your dumbass is the earth shattering buffoon that you are. Here above, you admit that trunk measurements may not co-vary with limb proportions ''because they are not the same thing'', yet a few seconds prior to writing this self-assured post, your dumbass was bewildered by the suggestion that limb proportions may yield different results than the overall bodyplan. Has to be verge of disintegrating into a brain-dead vegetable, this ''The Explorer'' character. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: They cannot be "clustering away from Africans" on the account of the tropical body proportions or tropical body plan[/QUOTE]Another manipulative device, intended to buy time and make it seem like you didn't get your buttocks handed to you a couple of exchanges ago. The piece you're replying to talks about the fact that the IM clusters away from Sub-Saharan Africans in multivariate analysis, and your glaring inability to come to grips with that fact. You're merely confirming my reading of the situation with this post. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: You have been hell bent on saying that they only had affinities with Europeans, when in fact if anything ,it is both the [b]Mesolithic Maghrebi[/b] and UP Europeans [b]who would cluster with "Africans" before they did with Europeans in their average body plans[/b][/QUOTE]Prove it, liar! [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: Rather than reading the underhanded point that you were comparing apples with oranges[/QUOTE]Pointing out the fact that it doesn't mean much that IM have tropical limp proportions because most, if not all, Late Upper Palaeolihic Eurasian samples still did, is '''comparing apples with oranges'', simply because some of the European comparative material was younger than the IM remains? Tell me, how did this shitty line of reasoning by-pass your frontal lobe, if not that its just barely functioning? [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: It certainly doesn't advance your cause that the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi were some little lost Europeans in Africa, does it?[/QUOTE]What claim it doesn't advance, is your insinuated claim that the IM limb proportions would have been any different in the scenario that they came out of Eurasia. It is this specific claim that I'm tackling by using Mesolithic European limb data, and you have yet to come to grips with this inconvenient truth. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: The longer the limbs, the more linear the body is likely to be.[/QUOTE]You're such a troll. You're being told again and again that this doesn't hold up for specimen whose limb ratios contrast with their overall bodyplan, because the former is still in a pleisiomorphic state. Besides, your dumbass used the IM limb proportions as a proxy for considering them ''linear''. How did this work out for your dumbass, given the fact that the ''less linear'' Nubians and Pygmies used in this study are certainly more tropically adapted than the Afalou sample? [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: How does one determine body shape without factoring in the limb proportions?[/QUOTE]That's what you were just schooled on, and, was totally unable to refute. Despite of your glaring inability to refute what I'm saying, you still choose to reiterate the same sentiment that was thrashed an exchange ago. The true mark of a megatroll: simply ignoring past thrashings and reposting the stuff that got you thrashed in the first place. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: How does Holliday "put to rest", the finding of sub-tropical limb proportion index among the San?[/QUOTE]Another lie and manipulative distraction to get away from the fact that you can't refute that Holiday 1999 demonstrated that limb proportions don't predict bodyplan, and that this exposes your horribly failed attempt to use San limb ratios as valid grounds to attempt to discredit fig 5, simply because it wasn't in agreement with the wishful emotion-based image you had of the Afalou. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: I don't have to dumbass[/QUOTE]Translation: ''don't mind me, I'm just doing my usual round of making up sh!t as I go along. Nothing new here''. Repeat: prove that you're even close to having a clue about what you're rambling about, and prove that the Pygmy sample doesn't cluster with North Africans in that paper. Here is your chance to shine, what are you waiting for, fraud? [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: because that is what the Holliday piece was essentially saying.[/QUOTE]Lying out your ass. Other than what your emotion-based vested interests lead you to read into the excerpt, The Holiday piece said Pygmies and their Nubian sample were ''less linear'' relative to the other African groups, without any statement pertaining to the degree of the distance between what Holiday termed ''linear'' and ''less linear''. [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: This is still the dumbass red herring now as it was when you first posted it in response to a citation you couldn't understand. [/QUOTE]The only thing that's a red herring is your crackpot notion that ''less linear'' is tantamount to ''outlier''. The irony! My citation from Holiday, which points out the existence of post-cranial relationships between Pygmies and North Africans, and that actually vindicates fig 5, is somehow a red herring, but your ''outlier'' fabrication, which is based on nothing other than the fact that you're a degenerate who doesn't even own the paper, is gospel. Such a lying troll, and unashamedly so. [/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