Evidence continues to accumulate showing that the black race is extremely ancient.
A reconstruction of the first anatomically modern humans from 195,000 years ago reveals a black looking man:
A forensic reconstruction of early humans 120,000 years ago revealed a black woman:
Mitochondrial Eve
A reconstruction of an African from 70,000 years ago revealed a black man:
A reconstruction of the first humans to enter Europe revealed a black man in the process of becoming Caucasoid:
A reconstruction of the first South Americans (before they were replaced by Mongoloid populations) revealed a black woman dubbed Lucia:
Walter Neves, an archaeologist from the University of Sao Paolo, has taken extensive skull measurements from dozens of skulls, including the oldest, a young woman who has been named Lucia.
“The measurements show that Lucia was anything but mongoloid,” he says.
The next step was to reconstruct a face from Lucia’s skull. First, a CAT scan of the skull was done, to allow an accurate working model to be made.
Then a forensic artist, Richard Neave from the University of Manchester, UK, created a face for Lucia. The result was surprising: “It has all the features of a negroid face,” says Dr Neave.
And now the most shocking evidence yet:
The Andaman islanders have long puzzled scientists. They look like African pygmies yet are located in the Bay of Bengal. “How the hell did these people get out of Africa?” raged one European monarch. Indeed they are so indistinguishable from Black Africans that they were long believed to be survivors of a slave ship.
Below is a fascinating documentary about these enigmatic people.
The most important part comes at the 8 minute mark when the narrator describes the research of a scientist:
She could see that the Andaman islanders not only looked like African pygmies, they were genetically very closely related to the Africans of today
What this suggests is that not only are all non-Africans descended from a migration out of Africa that occurred maybe 70,000 years ago, but that the Andaman islanders, because they lived in such isolation, are a relic of these original migrating Africans, and thus have preserved that African phenotype. If this documentary correctly described the scientist’s research (and it may not have) it’s strong evidence that the black race is at least 70,000 years old.
There is however a problem with this theory. As our very own anthropology expert Phil78 has noted, a 36,000 year-old skull found near Hofmeyr, South Africa resembled the earliest Europeans more than it resembled modern Africans.
But what is a modern African?
Any definition must be broad enough to cover all these diverse forms of blackness yet narrow enough to exclude all Caucasoids and Mongoloids.
Scientist JP Rushton defined Negroid race in the following way:
A major division of mankind originating and predominating in sub-Saharan Africa. Skin pigmentation is dense, hair wooly, nose broad, face generally short, lips thick, and ears squarish and lobeless. Stature varies greatly, from pygmy to very tall. The most divergent group are the Khoisan (Bushmen and Hottentot) peoples of southern Africa.
Of course no black person will have all these traits, but if one resembles this prototype more than any other race, one is arguably black. Of course it’s possible that people like the Andaman Islanders evolved these traits independently (convergent evolution) instead of inheriting them from Africans. If so, they’re not black no matter how black they look.
Pumpkin Person 
Lets see,
Sketch 1, craniometrically distinct from negroid and just merely posses Tropical adadpted Soft Tissue. Reconstruction 1, same cases as the first and this is actually Richard Neave’s Qafzeh 9 specimen, not Eve.
Source for Reconstruction 2? Reconstruction 3, Borderline Negroid-like surface traits, again. For Luzia see my comment here.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/03/04/the-problem-with-taxonomy/comment-page-1/#comment-53002
As for the documentary, listen on about that 40k isolation deciphered by language and this skull plot.
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/hanihara-characterization-of-biological-diversity-through-analysis-of-discrete-cranial-traits/
As for “modern Africans” it was precisely geographically close Sub Saharans of that region, seeing how Negroids as West Africans Proper which the Andaman people resemble didn’t get there til more recent times. What qualifies one ought to be based on genetics or Lineage relevant phenotypes.
BTW, Not all Africans are “black” or considered clearly black racially (Horners) so it’s sort of forced to included all of the people in that pictures.
“Of course no black person will have all these traits, but if one resembles this prototype more than any other race, one is arguably black.”
But what is “black” as you are using it in a taxonomical sense? A mere appearance of classification, because Modern blacks are physically closer to other Modern population than those Early Humans.
“Of course it’s possible that people like the Andaman Islanders evolved these traits independently (convergent evolution) instead of inheriting them from Africans. If so, they’re not black no matter how black they look.”
And convergence is likely given their skull clustering and having a genetic link with ancient *East* Africa rather than West Africans or Pygmies.
“A major division of mankind originating and predominating in sub-Saharan Africa. Skin pigmentation is dense, hair wooly, nose broad, face generally short, lips thick, and ears squarish and lobeless. Stature varies greatly, from pygmy to very tall. The most divergent group are the Khoisan (Bushmen and Hottentot) peoples of southern Africa.”
Rushton was no Taxonomist, not even using the most advance model (Coon’s) prior to genomics.
For the sake of closure though, I could agree with the superficial traits of Blacks in nature being possibly old due to the Tropical conditions of the area, but how old are genes to certain ones?
*Mere appearance or classification?
Point being, a Macro race needs more consistency than just merely THEORETICAL surface traits to establish your “black” category.
Update: Did some more research on Andaman craniometrics. As far as I can tell, A famous one Lauded was Howells 1973 data that confirmed a relation to Africans as well as replication by this study using the same data.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2013/836738/
This study revealed that Howells results changed however when adjusted for size, yet Raghavan did the same and still got the same results with african affinities, even collecting it’s own data to confirm it.
http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2053&context=humbiol
Though dentally closer to Asians, there crania are found to be closer to Africans in their study but they noted that it was not always that case with Wright (2002) and Stock (2007) finding associations with South Asians.
However, it doesn’t mention Hanihara (my study) that uses MMD rather than Mahalanobis distance like the study above, which doesn’t assume a genetic relationship and is model free. It’s reference is the assumption of trait independence, though when it comes to traits that are morphogenetically similar traits they show high correlations.
Hanihara’s findings being more accurate is also supported by this study that shows, through coding DNA, that Pygmy traits of Andaman Islanders are converged in nature.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC378623/
It is also worth mentioning that Raghavan explains the lack of affinity of Andman Islanders to South Indians can be explained by the former less specialized rather then lacking genetic similarity, thus the measurements of Howells are likely very selection determined.
Phil78 great comment!
I’ll respond tommorow. Wednesday’s my party night!
first, second, or both? Regardless, thanks for the compliment.
Out of curiousity, what direction are you planning to go with in your response? No elaborate explanations, just an idea.
I was referring to the first. The direction I’m planning to go in is to focus on taxonomy; how do scientists decide whether diverse life forms belong to the same unit and how do we apply those standards consistently and logically.
In that case I recommend my second one as well, as well as these texts.
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2011/02/cro-magnons-were-caucasoid-not-negroid.html- misclassification errors on ancient modern humans
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/09/racial-affinities-of-prehistoric-east.html-
Classification on ancient East Africans.
Is Race Realist going to respond? I don’t like reading the microaggressions in his comments.
I did respond. But people hate criticism.
I love criticism RR, there just aren’t enough hours in the day to respond to you, Afro & Phil78 so I’ve just chosen to discuss this with Phil78 because he makes the same points you guys make but more respectfully & with an ability to see the see the issue from more than one perspective
“with an ability to see the issue from more than one perspective”
Think back to how my views were when I started commenting here 18 months ago and think about them now. Then tell me that I don’t see other viewpoints.
You do, but just not on this particular issue, at this particular time
Just to clarify, my contention is that “Negroid” as in the Macro Race isn’t that particularly ancient for an modern race, however traits such as Tropical adapted Soft Tissue could be a fairly “old phenotype” mainly due to the conditions old hominids lived in.
My problem arrives at the point of using that as a criteria for “negroid” rather than simply describing the traits as “tropical adapted”. I could accept “negroid-like” to note a similarity but not an actual taxonomic relationship.
Another issue is whether or not genomes shows that these genes are the same as the ones in older hominids if they had them, not just due to splits but also considering the climate of East Africa at different time periods.
So far, it is confirmed with a recent split (in comparison) that phenotypes similarities are mainly converged for the Andamanese looking at coded DNA, so that leaves room for other Hominids that potentially could share those traits.
My solution, if you HAD to make note of similarities with a label, is not only to create and/or use a different term from Negroid (just for example, Melano-tropic) to describe the phenotype but to also distinguish clearly it from a taxonomic category.
Update: In the case of my “Melana-tropic” example, if using it as a “blog word” or promoting it as an official one, I suggest keeping the hyphen to distinguish it from “Melanotropic” that is alternately spelled “-trophic” as in “development” rather than meaning “pertaining to tropic environments”.
Another option could be “Melanotropical”.
Yes I like melanotropical or just tropical, in a descriptive sense without taxonomical implications. Just describing the fact that adaptation to tropical climates requires phenotypes similar to that of black Africans with local variations due to more specific environments and/or different genotypes (Melanesians are often blond for instance)
As opposite to these tropical phenotypes, we could group all Eurasians in a subtropical category mostly defined by light skin and straight hair, with local variations such as blond hair in northern Europeans or slanted eyes in East Asians.
But you can never divide humanity into subspecies, the taxonomical level before race.
To Afro,
I agree with your point on subspecies, however regarding your labels regarding non Africans I would say “subtropical” would work best for Non-Australoid Eurasians like South Americans that adapted to tropical areas but lack very melanated features.
For others, i think categories like Temperate, Mid Latitude/Mediterranean, and Artic would work best.
You know Phil, Tropical basically means dark skinned, so subtropical should basically mean light skinned.
See a Senegalese and a Native Australian, they are obviously not the same population, they barely look closer to each other than an Italian and a Japanese (ask me to rephrase if it sounds confuse). If we had to classify humans like dog breeds, no “race” would work.
The fact is that Natural selection has selected for some traits, sometimes strongly, sometimes weakly. Then, random genetic drifts, migrations mutations and different sexual selection have provoked additional variation in phenotype making populations that evolved in similar environments look different.
My opinion is that Native Americans came to the tropics too recently with too little genetic diversity to evolve a traditional tropical phenotype. Yet I guess the Natives of central America and northern south America are somewhat darker than those of Canada and Argentina, see how the Maya pictured themselves:
Or check for yourself if you think this painting aint representative.
South East Asians have recent non tropical Ancestry, mixed with local Negritos so they are not an example. Indigenous south Asians are black and were numerous enough for their phenotype to survive in spite of recent northern admixture.
More protien anaylsis conclusions.
. However, a 1950s study on blood groups and proteins suggested that the Andamanese were more closely related to Oceanic peoples than to Africans.[5].
Click to access S0960-9822(02)01336-2.pdf
“That goes against the evidence, blacks invented mining before europeans,”
Proof?
“black show the first evidence of mathematics before europeans”
You mean the Ishango bone?
http://www.storyofmathematics.com/prehistoric.html
“Some of the very earliest evidence of mankind thinking about numbers is from notched bones in Africa dating back to 35,000 to 20,000 years ago. But this is really mere counting and tallying rather than mathematics as such.”
.”blacks out perform europeans when you take them to their proportin in population. Tichit walata was a civilisation 100% black owned and created while 90% of europe was uncivilised.”
Tichit Walata, while a good civilization to be the foundation of future Sahelian/Savannah cultures like the Kingdom of Ghana, existed in the influence of North African Traders and was not representative of Africa for it’s time given it’s limits.
By That time most of Europe was at the Bronze age level of technology, the same/ similar could not be said of “Black Africa” till much later. Iron has evidence of being made around such a time be wasn’t widespread til post Nok culture.
you argue that the middle easterners where more advanced and they are in the
https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/link-suggestion/wpcd_2008-09_augmented/wp/i/Ishango_bone.htm
the ishango bone
===================
he three columns of asymmetrically grouped notches imply that the implement was more functional than decorative. The Ishango grouping may have been used to construct a numeral system.
The central column begins with three notches, and then doubles to 6 notches. The process is repeated for the number 4, which doubles to 8 notches, and then reversed for the number 10, which is halved to 5 notches. These numbers then, may not be purely random and instead suggest some understanding of the principle of multiplication and division by two. The bone may therefore have been used as a counting tool for simple mathematical procedures.
Furthermore, the number of notches on either side of the central column may indicate more counting prowess. The numbers on both the left and right column are all odd numbers (9, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 21). The numbers in the left column are all of the prime numbers between 10 and 20 (which form a prime quadruplet), while those in the right column consist of 10 + 1, 10 − 1, 20 + 1 and 20 − 1. The numbers on each side column add up to 60, with the numbers in the central column adding up to 48. Both of these numbers are multiples of 12, again suggesting an understanding of multiplication and division.
==============
Interestingly mathematicians beleive the concept of prime numbers first entered the caucasoid mind in 500 BC
http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=4
quote
========
If Marshack’s interpretation is correct, notched bones such as these may be, in the words of John Eccles, the earliest “conceptual performance of homo sapiens”
==============
Phill
Your link says africans show the earliest evidence of thinking in numbers, why not europeans?
=========================
You mean the Ishango bone?
http://www.storyofmathematics.com/prehistoric.html
“Some of the very earliest evidence of mankind thinking about numbers is from notched bones in Africa dating back to 35,000 to 20,000 years ago. But this is really mere counting and tallying rather than mathematics as such.”
=================
Proof?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining
The oldest-known mine on archaeological record is the “Lion Cave” in Swaziland, which radiocarbon dating shows to be about 43,000 years old. At this site Paleolithic humans mined hematite to make the red pigment ochre.[2][3] Mines of a similar age in Hungary are believed to be sites where Neanderthals may have mined flint for weapons and tools.[4]
Walatta was the Capital of Ghana. Ghana was a Soninke civilization, the Berbers and Arabs arrived later in its history and never became a ruling class. It is fully part of Black Africa. The foreign component changes nothing, European civilizations have been influenced by the Near-East likewise yet you wouldn’t say Greece and Rome aren’t really part of Europe. See, Europeans didn’t develop agriculture independently. Africans did and it seems European acquired bronze metallurgy from the near east.
You Chikoka,
Your history link also provides similar examples on non-African tallying aside from the Ishango bone at similar time periods, so while technically the earilest found the other sites suggest it wasn’t unique for it’s time among humans
http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=4
“Other supposed “lunar calendarsOffsite Link” from about the same date have been discovered on ojbects such as the Isturitz BatonOffsite Link, the Blanchard bone, and possibly in cave paintings in LascauxOffsite Link and elsewhere.”
“Your link says africans show the earliest evidence of thinking in numbers, why not europeans?”
Except YOUR own link showing otherwise that they did have similar knowledge, and my link distinguish the concept of using numbers from inventing the discipline of mathematics.
Your example, the actual use of using numbers or counting is hardly unique to sapiens, what is attested as distinguished is being able to separate the concept which is why my link then skips over to ancient civilizations that have for certain.
The same goes for your quote on mining.
“Walatta was the Capital of Ghana. Ghana was a Soninke civilization, the Berbers and Arabs arrived later in its history and never became a ruling class. It is fully part of Black Africa.”
I use “North African” meaning the source of diffusion, not exactly Berber culture. Perhaps I’ve should’ve said “Mediterranean”.
“The foreign component changes nothing, European civilizations have been influenced by the Near-East likewise yet you wouldn’t say Greece and Rome aren’t really part of Europe. See, Europeans didn’t develop agriculture independently. Africans did and it seems European acquired bronze metallurgy from the near east.”
I’m not talking about independent, hence why I brought up the similar if not older dates of Iron smelting in Africa (possibly in 2000 B.C in Nigeria), I’m talking about overall stages of development in each continent.
Walata regardless wouldn’t be representative of the region. Plus Chikoka argues that even counting Near Easterners as whites it would just be based on population sizes of the “White race” when that would also count towards proportion.
To be clear,
I’m not saying that Chikoka’s arguments in comparing Africa and Europe in Ancient times not being consistent with a equally rooted disparity don’t use valid finds in Africa, my point is the framework doesn;t fit the conlcusion that “African Outside Europeans) on these reasons.
1. The Ishango Bone’ significance in as early Sapien use Calendars wasn’t unknown in Europe (the main findings being in France at similar time periods as her own sources say).
2. Mining as well being at similar ages in Europe.
3. Using her own applied principle of proportions and outliers, using Tichit compared to Europe doesn’t warrant this conclusion.
”blacks out perform europeans when you take them to their proportin in population. Tichit walata was a civilisation 100% black owned and created while 90% of europe was uncivilised.”
My point being not that Tichit is without merit relative to it’s time Frame, but rather saying Europe was behind would be incorrect as at that point it already had Neolithic communities (well before Tichit) and was in the process of the Bronze Age.
While Evidence exists for both an ancient and independent Iron age in Africa, the bulk of the continent didn’t have it until much later than the Metal ages for Europe.
*African outdid europeans.
Phil, the Ghana Empire is completely representative of West Africa, it is the mother civilization of the Sudano-Sahelian Area. It is an indigenous civilization that exchanged with the middle east and north Africa like most did around the old world.
Regarding metallurgy, Africans were the first to smelt steel iirc. And many parts of Europe have been behind some parts of Black Africa for a long time. End of story.
“Phil, the Ghana Empire is completely representative of West Africa, it is the mother civilization of the Sudano-Sahelian Area. It is an indigenous civilization that exchanged with the middle east and north Africa like most did around the old world.”
First of all I was focussing on Tichit as a neolithic site, I only alluded to the Ghana Empire since that site was believed to have sprouted the culture.
Where do I deny the credit or either site for what they were? I only criticized Chikoka’s extrapolations on how it represented the continent.
“Regarding metallurgy, Africans were the first to smelt steel iirc. And many parts of Europe have been behind some parts of Black Africa for a long time. End of story.”
You are referring to the Haya tribe of Tanzania. Yes, they did create a indigneous steel however I have a book at home on African Metallurgy that clarifies that it wasn’t unique and found similar creations in India for instance.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813013844/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
I can’t access it at the moment but I’ll return with the quote.
That aside, you are missing the point. Chikoka was comparing stages of development between continents/populations, and here citations this not support that by simply comparing the the age and distribution of Neolithic and Metal age developments between SSA and Europe.
Tichit Walata was a neolithic site at 2000 B.C, See the Bronze age distribution of Europe around that time.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235410801_A_developmental_history_of_West_African_agriculture
The “2” in the map on page 44 would be both Dhar Tichitt and Dhar nema, the later site having metallurgy in it’s Late Period.
“Early Tichitt occupations (c. 17501500 cal. BC). While cattle were present from theinitial occupation, it is unclear whether these occupations were agricultural until theEarly Tichitt period when there is definite dated evidence for pearl millet cultivation.A more extensive occupation commenced around 1000 cal. BC. This settlement hadtypical Tichitt pillar structures and may be associated with early first millennium cal.BC iron metallurgy. ”
Dhar Néma: From early agriculture to metallurgy in southeastern Mauritania (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232873688_Dhar_Nema_From_early_agriculture_to_metallurgy_in_southeastern_Mauritania [accessed May 26, 2017].
Not talking about Inventions, but stages of development in proportion to populations. End of story.
To Afro,
Correction on your assertion with the Hadza, they weren’t the first to smelt steel. What is asserted was that they made a type of steel that was of a quality not seen in Europe til much later.
Their steel dates to the early AD periods of the Bantu expansion, the earliest steel site would be in Turkey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel#Ancient_steel
To Afro,
I’ve managed to at least find the Indian sites itself if not the book’s quote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wootz_steel
The reputation of this steel type seems to be of similar caliber as Haya steel (as the quality was not yet produced in europe) so this is likely the reference my book meant.
Afro
The “Ghana” Empire being representative of West Africa?
First off I was referring to Tichitt Walata the whole time, not Ghana. Second even if I was it would NOT be representative of “West Africa”, .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa
By that time you would already have multiple other cultures in the Guinea that were quite different in terms of occupations and trade, societies surrounding Ghana are another story.
Finally, the populations I was talking about were Blacks in General, and by the dates of Ghana you would have QUITE the wider range of established kingdoms and cultures.
BTW, Not all Africans are “black” or considered clearly black racially (Horners) so it’s sort of forced to included all of the people in that pictures.
Well according to Cavalli-Sforza, Horn Africans (or at least Ethiopians) are a hybrid population that is 60% sub-Saharan and 40% West Asian, but aside from such non-African admixture, why aren’t all indigenous sub-Saharans black? I normally eschew genetic taxonomy because I feel it emphasizes common ancestry at the expense of COMMON TRAITS INHERRITED from common ancestry (not to be confused with convergent evolution which is common traits inherited from different ancestry), but if you look at Cavalli-Sforza’s tree, all sub-Saharans (even capoids) are on the same branch, and also all fall in the same quadrant when he did a principal component analysis. Now admittedly this research is pretty old, so maybe it’s obsolete now, idk:
As for phenotype, think of the incredible physical diversity that exists within our species from African pygmies, to the tall Dutch to the Inuit of the arctic to the brow-ridged Australian aboriginals. Yet despite these huge physical differences, we all have certain physical traits in common that unite us as a single species yet differentiate us from the Neanderthals. And while genetics confirms it, scientists have classified us all as one species long before genetics because we all have a relatively dome shaped skull and relatively vertical face.
So when you think of the next level of taxonomic classification more precise than species (i.e. race), you also have to think about phenotypes very broadly and lump very different people together because as different as they look, they all look more like one another than any of them look like an Inuit, for example. I’m not saying it’s just about looks, but shared inherited traits in general, preserved from a COMMON ANCESTOR.
But what is “black” as you are using it in a taxonomical sense? A mere appearance of classification, because Modern blacks are physically closer to other Modern population than those Early Humans.
In skull shape, yes, but perhaps not in skin colour, hair texture, hair type, nose size, lip size, IQ, personality, genitalia, and countless other variables. Of course a lot of that is speculative, and we can only go by what we know, so I think you’re wise to focus on skulls, but I think scientists can probably make reasonable inferences about some of the external phenotype such as skin color, hair color, and nose morphology and perhaps if these were included in the cluster analysis (as another commenter once suggested), modern and ancient Africans would resemble each other more closely.
“Well according to Cavalli-Sforza, Horn Africans (or at least Ethiopians) are a hybrid population that is 60% sub-Saharan and 40% West Asian, but aside from such non-African admixture, why aren’t all indigenous sub-Saharans black?”
In part, because the are a *Hybrid population* hence why they were often class away from blacks in ancient anthropology.
” I normally eschew genetic taxonomy because I feel it emphasizes common ancestry at the expense of COMMON TRAITS INHERRITED from common ancestry (not to be confused with convergent evolution which is common traits inherited from different ancestry), but if you look at Cavalli-Sforza’s tree, all sub-Saharans (even capoids) are on the same branch, and also all fall in the same quadrant when he did a principal component analysis. Now admittedly this research is pretty old, so maybe it’s obsolete now, idk:”
Yes same branch, on the same level as Mongoloids and Caucasoids share branches if you look again.
“As for phenotype, think of the incredible physical diversity that exists within our species from African pygmies, to the tall Dutch to the Inuit of the arctic to the brow-ridged Australian aboriginals. Yet despite these huge physical differences, we all have certain physical traits in common that unite us as a single species yet differentiate us from the Neanderthals.”
Yes…and? I’m talking intra species variation in phenotype variation, and seeing how most differences abetween Homo species are derived by skulls and bones you are basically supporting my point.
“And while genetics confirms it, scientists have classified us all as one species long before genetics because we all have a relatively dome shaped skull and relatively vertical face.”
Sure, no disagreements.
“So when you think of the next level of taxonomic classification more precise than species (i.e. race), you also have to think about phenotypes very broadly and lump very different people together because as different as they look, they all look more like one another than any of them look like an Inuit, for example. I’m not saying it’s just about looks, but shared inherited traits in general, preserved from a COMMON ANCESTOR.”
And how would that differ from my approach in assessing relation from both metrics and genetics?
“But what is “black” as you are using it in a taxonomical sense? A mere appearance of classification, because Modern blacks are physically closer to other Modern population than those Early Humans.”
No, it IS an actual macro race if you study racial taxonomy. At the very least, it became more consistently such through time with it’s use.
“In skull shape, yes, but perhaps not in skin colour, hair texture, hair type, nose size, lip size, IQ, personality, genitalia, and countless other variables.”
Deviating from one baseline isn’t the same as being actually closer another without context on distances, in this case to archaic humans. You would need to prove that through some sort of factors.
Furthermore that also doesn’t mean, if they do, that they are an old race. What that tells you is that those traits were more useful in their environment.
That could mean they have older traits in certain respects, maybe even important, but that doesn’t mean they overall are old.
“Of course a lot of that is speculative, and we can only go by what we know, so I think you’re wise to focus on skulls, but I think scientists can probably make reasonable inferences about some of the external phenotype such as skin color, hair color, and nose morphology and perhaps if these were included in the cluster analysis, modern and ancient Africans would resemble each other more closely.”
And the conclusion from that is, surprise, they likely lived in similar climates.
Furthermore different traits have different power in determining association, what you are describing is more valuable for determining adaptation than genetic relations.
Again, these cases could be pointed out simply as being more R than K, having higher melanin than others, having a certain nasal index, etc. all because of the natural selection.
That doesn’t require misuse of “negroid”.
In part, because the are a *Hybrid population* hence why they were often class away from blacks in ancient anthropology.
Which might have been the correct decision idk. But that doesn’t mean un-mixed horn Africans are not black.
Yes same branch, on the same level as Mongoloids and Caucasoids share branches if you look again.
Yes but the genetic distance (represented by the length of the line separating any 2 ethnicities) appears to be much less among any 2 sub-Saharan groups than it is among any 2 Caucasoid/Mongoloid groups, further in the PC analysis I posted under the tree, all the sub-Saharans fall neatly into the bottom right corner, while Mongoloids and Caucasoids are spread across the entire top 2 quadrants. In addition, when Jensen applied varimax rotation of principal components to the genes of 42 populations studied by Nei & Roychoudhury (1993) he found 7 races and that ALL sub-Saharans (including) Bushmen loaded on the same race, though the Bushmen loading was not strong. So if you want a purely genetic definition of the black or Negroid race, it appears to be peoples of sub-Saharan ancestry, though genetics can be misleading for reasons I’ll repeat below.
“As for phenotype, think of the incredible physical diversity that exists within our species from African pygmies, to the tall Dutch to the Inuit of the arctic to the brow-ridged Australian aboriginals. Yet despite these huge physical differences, we all have certain physical traits in common that unite us as a single species yet differentiate us from the Neanderthals.”
Yes…and? I’m talking intra species variation in phenotype variation, and seeing how most differences abetween Homo species are derived by skulls and bones you are basically supporting my point.
It makes your point that skulls are a useful taxonomic marker, however it makes my points that very diverse people can all be lumped together by a few common features, and there are probably skin, hair, and facial features that all sub-Saharans have in common that all non-sub-Saharans lack, with the exception of Andaman Islanders and few others arguably relics of the original out of Africa migration. And keep in mind that scientists have to use the skull to define the human species because we are truly a global animal climatically adapted to many different kinds of local environments. Races by contrast tend to be defined by their adaptations to specific climate environments, so it makes sense traits to define them by climatic traits, at least in cases where these were not caused by convergent evolution.
“So when you think of the next level of taxonomic classification more precise than species (i.e. race), you also have to think about phenotypes very broadly and lump very different people together because as different as they look, they all look more like one another than any of them look like an Inuit, for example. I’m not saying it’s just about looks, but shared inherited traits in general, preserved from a COMMON ANCESTOR.”
And how would that differ from my approach in assessing relation from both metrics and genetics?
Well genetics can sometimes mislead. Let’s say we had a single population that split into two and were separated for 50,000 years. But because they both remained in environments identical to that of the parent population, they both preserved the exact same phenotype. Now that’s not convergent evolution because it’s not as if they evolved the same phenotype independently, they both simply preserved it from their common ancestor 100,000 years ago, and yet because of random mutations in neutral and non-coding DNA that accumulate over 50,000 years, they might be considered genetically very distant despite identical phenotype.
So, with respect to the Andaman islanders, the questions are:
1) are they at least as phenotypically similar to sub-Saharan ethnic groups as sub-Saharan groups are to each other?
2) if the answer to #1 is yes, did they preserve that phenotype from their ancient sub-Saharan ancestors (as opposed to evolving it since leaving Africa)?
If the answer to both questions is yes, as the documentary in my article claimed, then I think they should be considered Negroid and if they’re Negroid, it means the Negroid race must be at the very least, 50,000 years old.
“Which might have been the correct decision idk. But that doesn’t mean un-mixed horn Africans are not black.”
“unmixed” would basically be Nilotics which are typical distinguished from “horners”.
Also, this is an ancient population we are Talking about in terms of being in the state of mixed race so I’m unsure where you are going with this as if they were an exception.
“Yes but the genetic distance (represented by the length of the line separating any 2 ethnicities) appears to be much less among any 2 sub-Saharan groups than it is among any 2 Caucasoid/Mongoloid groups,”
Fair enough but fairly high when you consider that they share the same continent.
” further in the PC analysis I posted under the tree, all the sub-Saharans fall neatly into the bottom right corner, while Mongoloids and Caucasoids are spread across the entire top 2 quadrants.”
Lets look at that, Basicall West Africans, Nilosaharans, and Mbuti (likely Bantu Mixed) huddle closely, with East Africans and San branching away.
Granted the other are their closest groups, but clearly diversified in the pattern that I described previously.
” In addition, when Jensen applied varimax rotation of principal components applied to the genes of 42 populations studied by scholars Nei & Roychoudhury (1993) he found 7 races and that ALL sub-Saharans (including) Bushmen loaded on the same race, though the Bushmen loading was not strong.”
Define “sub saharans”. You could Easily Get 42 groups that are all either Niger Kongo and Nilosahran and fit expectedly in a Negroid cluster, I need more proof than that.
“So if you want a purely genetic definition of the black or Negroid race, it appears to be peoples of sub-Saharan ancestry, though genetics can be misleading for reasons I’ll repeat below.”
Actually no, you haven’t proved that for reasons I pointed out above. And also, you pointing out the San/Bushmen being consistent distinct in your evidence from other groups of Africans, arguably to a remote sense, that they ought to be noted for such and designated as Capoid and not just simplified to negroid.
“It makes your point that skulls are a useful taxonomic marker, however it makes my points that very diverse people can all be lumped together by a few common features, and there are probably skin, hair, and facial features that all sub-Saharans have in common that all non-sub-Saharans lack, with the exception of Andaman Islanders and few others arguably relics of the original out of Africa migration.”
Those people however are also organized in macro races by SKULLS as well primarly over those traits. Again, empahsizing my point.
Those features are again, as I said, more indicative of adaptation than ancestry.
I’ll reaffirm my point on Andamanese latter.
“And keep in mind that scientists have to use the skull to define the human species because we are truly a global animal climatically adapted to many different kinds of local environments. Races by contrast tend to be defined by their adaptations to specific climate environments, so it makes sense traits to define them by climatic traits, at least in cases where these were not caused by convergent evolution.”
That last part on convergent evolution proves my point on why we use skulls OVER external traits as I have repeated multiple times.
And how would that differ from my approach in assessing relation from both metrics and genetics?
“Well genetics can sometimes mislead. Let’s say we had a single population that split into and were separated for 50,000 years. But because they both remained in environments identical to that of the parent population, they both preserved the exact same phenotype. Now that’s not convergent evolution because it’s not as if they evolved the same phenotype independently, they both simply preserved it from their common ancestor 100,000 years ago, and yet because of random mutations in neutral and non-coding DNA that accumulate over 50,000 years, they might be considered genetically very distant despite identical phenotype.”
Despite me actually confirming that it is INDEED convergent looking at coding DNA.
“So, with respect to the Andaman islanders, the questions are:
1) are they at least as phenotypically similar to sub-Saharan ethnic groups as sub-Saharan groups are to each other?
2) if the answer to #1 is yes, did they preserve that phenotype from their ancient sub-Saharan ancestors (as opposed to evolving it since leaving Africa)?
If the answer to both questions is yes, as the documentary in my article claimed, then I think they should be considered Negroid and if they’re Negroid, it means the Negroid race must be at the very least, 50,000 years old.”
Well the answer is no, as I’ve already linked the study to on coding DNA in one of my responses.
So Phil78, you’re saying there was some ancient population in Africa 50,000 years ago that didn’t look like modern Africans, yet their descendants 50,000 years later both evolved an Africa phenotype independently? So you think an African looking phenotype is so useful in warm climates that it evolved independently in Africa and the Andaman islands yet did not fully evolve in India, much of Australia or South America?
The simpler explanation is that the African phenotype predated the African exodus and Africans, Andaman Islanders and Papuan New Guineans are virtually the only ones to preserve it.
Too PP, I looked at that link (it didn;t show up as one when I read your response on email) and a few problems.
(Nigerian-Bantu-Pygmy-Bushmen)
Alright, first of all, barely comprehensive enough as Nigerians and Bantu are fairly similar populations and both have been seen as traditionally negroid unlike Horners.
Pygmies are fairly leaning to Bushmen in terms of metrics when compared to Bantu but not quote likely due to many being mixed, so again consistent with how I defined their relationships.
BTW, appealing to taxonomy doesn’t help eother seeing how Bushmen have long been distinguish from blacks DUE to the features purer ones contrasted from blacks in those times, Coon even coining Congoid to split them up from Capoids.
“So Phil78, you’re saying there was some ancient population in Africa 50,000 years ago that didn’t look like modern Africans, yet their descendants 50,000 years later both evolved an Africa phenotype independently?”
That what the coding DNA says, no intuition required on my end.
“So you think an African looking phenotype is so useful in warm climates that it evolved independently in Africa and the Andaman islands yet did not fully evolve in India, much of Australia or South America?””
Okay, genetics lesson. 1. Converged evolution basically explains were *particular* conditions can yield the same phenotype, yets that would be based on what’s already there in the genepool.
Australians essentially do have dark skin but due to being in a desert rather than Tropics mainly lack the kinky hair of Blacks.
India, South Anyway, is Tropical yet is it essentially the same as Africa or the Andaman’s environment in other factors for such a long length of time to develop other features? Further the natives WERE fairly dark until MIXED with a Caucaspid group.
South American can be explained by the Majority of the Modern people’s ancestories being rather light and likely didn’t posses the genes in their pool.
“The simpler explanation is that the African phenotype predated the African exodus and Africans, Andaman Islanders and Papuan New Guineans are virtually the only ones to preserve it.”
Or, as genetics CONFIRMED, converged evolution as I provided.
That what the coding DNA says, no intuition required on my end.
Where does coding DNA say that Phil78? You’ve linked to sources about coding DNA, but they don’t seem to back your claim.
Further, the documentary in my article completely disagrees with you.
Australians essentially do have dark skin but due to being in a desert rather than Tropics mainly lack the kinky hair of Blacks.
India, South Anyway, is Tropical yet is it essentially the same as Africa or the Andaman’s environment in other factors for such a long length of time to develop other features? Further the natives WERE fairly dark until MIXED with a Caucaspid group.
South American can be explained by the Majority of the Modern people’s ancestories being rather light and likely didn’t posses the genes in their pool.
If you need that many explanations to support your theory it violates Occam’s razor. And the aboriginal Indians did not look like Africans either
Your only support from that was talking about her INTUITION, which could’n’t have been supported by genetic research becausee the documentry demonstrated that when they did collect DNA, it align with ASIANS
Second, I clearly stated that the link was in my responses here but fine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC378623/
Genetic proof with coding DNA.
Impressive research phil78, however it’s probably wrong:
Inhabitants of the Andaman Islands, a remote archipelago east of India, are direct descendants of the first modern humans to have inhabited Asia, geneticists conclude in a new study. But the islanders lack a distinctive genetic feature found among Australian aborigines, another early group to leave Africa, suggesting they were part of a separate exodus. The Andaman Islanders are ”arguably the most enigmatic people on our planet,” a team of geneticists led by Dr. Erika Hagelberg of the University of Oslo write in the journal Current Biology. Their physical features — short stature, dark skin, peppercorn hair and large buttocks — are characteristic of African Pygmies. ”They look like they belong in Africa, but here they are sitting in this island chain in the middle of the Indian Ocean,” said Dr. Peter Underhill of Stanford University, a co-author of the new report.
So they look like modern Africans and are direct descendants from the original out of Africa migration. The most reasonable explanation is that the original out of Africans looked like modern Africans
“If you need that many explanations to support your theory it violates Occam’s razor. ”
Not when they are not conditional presumptions rather than grounding in supporting logic, as Asians from the Bering straits being in colder conditions would’ve been lighter (thus limited in very dark alleles) and Australia isn’t exactly like Africa either to produce as close external features.
“And the aboriginal Indians did not look like Africans either.”
I said that they were still DARK and could’ve likely lived in different tropical conditions as I said.
And what would you know
http://www.survivalworld.com/maps/climatic-region-map.html#.WOiDQLgrLrc
Both Australia and South India are significantly more arid than were you would find Tropical Africans in their indigenous environment..
But your map shows the southern tip of India being just like Africa and the southern tip of Africa being just like India.
Furthermore, modern “south Indians” likely adapted to the environments of North Indian prior to the present due to the range of their Societies prior to the Bronze Age Aryan Migration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/08/indo-aryans-dravidians-and-waves-of-admixture-migration/
Update:
It appears that we should be careful with “South Indians” as a modern demographic equivalento to Dravidians vs. “ancestral South Indians”.
The Former appear to possess West Eurasian ancestry separate from Aryans in the form of a farming culture.
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-dravidian-migration-theory-vindicated/
To PP,
Yet that Southern Tip isn’t all of Southern India, plus I have provided more background on both the range of Dravidians prior to Aryan Nomads and West Eurasian genetic separate from those Nomads that could add to their Phenotype.
Second, that section only rehashed the same old observations but not CONFIRMATIOns unlike my DNA link showing them to be convergent.
All it does now is link them genetically to a different migration from Australian Aboriginals, which does little in the way of debunking my point.
Phil78, you’ve defended your position as well as possible, but it seems I’m right about this. Here’s the most important quote from the article:
Dr. Underhill, an expert on the genetic history of the Y chromosome, said the Paleolithic population of Asia might well have looked as African as the Onge and Jarawa do now, and that people with the appearance of present-day Asians might have emerged only later.
“Phil78, you’ve defended your position as well as possible, but it seems I’m right about this. Here’s the most important quote from the article:
Dr. Underhill, an expert on the genetic history of the Y chromosome, said the Paleolithic population of Asia might well have looked as African as the Onge and Jarawa do now, and that people with the appearance of present-day Asians might have emerged only later.”
No, because that only tells us what the people of Asia looked like when they were IN Asia Southern Environment likely as adaptation, not what Africans at that time looked like when they migrated.
And it still doesn’t matter, as I’ve shown based on CODED DNA, they are converged.
Also noted how the quote’s use of “might”, presenting it as a possibility and not overall likelihood.
That doesn’t even mention what ancient East African Skulls actually looked like, again consistent with a converged Hypothesis.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/09/racial-affinities-of-prehistoric-east.html
No, because that only tells us what the people of Asia looked like when they were IN Asia Southern Environment likely as adaptation, not what Africans at that time looked like when they migrated.
His point is they looked like Africans because they came out of Africa. That’s the whole point of the study, that they’re DIRECTLY descended from the out of Africa migration.
And it still doesn’t matter, as I’ve shown based on CODED DNA, they are converged.
I’m not a geneticist but I don’t think that study proves what you think it does. They didn’t look at the genes for skin color, hair texture, or any other African phenotype.
Also noted how the quote’s use of “might”, presenting it as a possibility and not overall likelihood.
Well we don’t know with certainty, but the best guess of the leading experts on this topic agrees with me on this point.
“His point is they looked like Africans because they came out of Africa. That’s the whole point of the study, that they’re DIRECTLY descended from the out of Africa migration.”
But regarding PHENOTYPE he only states it as possibilities.
“I’m not a geneticist but I don’t think that study proves what you think it does. They didn’t look at the genes for skin color, hair texture, or any other African phenotype.”
Yet it looks at the general coding profile, showing it to be converged and linked to Asian Halpotypes of the region rather than African.
“Well we don’t know with certainty, but the best guess of the leading experts on this topic agrees with me on this point.”
Except what the genetic data entail among other archaeological data shows supporting a converged hypothesis.
“The early colonization of the Andaman archipelago by bearers of the M2 lineage supports the growing evidence of an early movement of humans through southern Asia and indicates that phenotypic similarities with African groups are convergent. It also suggests that early human migrants were capable of reaching all the islands of southeast Asia and, therefore, Near Oceania by the late Pleistocene.”
Also, your paper shows a line to ANCIENT Africans, Which were not the same as modern as I’ve repeatedly demonstrated.
Read that article more…interesting.
Not only does it bring up how on the Why chromosome that they possess markers shared with other asians, thus being close associated with them, but that he ALSO accepts convergence.
“The mutation, known as Marker 174, occurs among ethnic groups at the periphery of Asia who avoided being swamped by the populations that spread after the agricultural revolution that occurred about 8,000 years ago. *It is found in many Japanese, in the Tibetans of the Himalayas and among isolated people of Southeast Asia, like the Hmong.*
The discovery of Marker 174 among the Andamanese suggests that they too are part of this relict Paleolithic population, descended from the first modern humans to leave Africa.
Dr. Underhill, an expert on the genetic history of the Y chromosome, said the Paleolithic population of Asia might well have looked as African as the Onge and Jarawa do now, and that people with the appearance of present-day Asians might have emerged only later. *It is also possible, he said, that their resemblance to African Pygmies is a human adaptation to living in forests that the two populations developed independently.*
Not only does it bring up how on the Why chromosome that they possess markers shared with other asians,
Other EARLY Asians
thus being close associated with them, but that he ALSO accepts convergence.
He accepts convergence to explain their uniquely pygmy phenotype, but believes their broader African phenotype was preserved from Africa. Also his co-author thinks the Andaman islanders might be the living ancestors of ALL MODERN HUMANS, as stated in the documentary in my article. The point is this isn’t just some nutty view I’m pushing, it’s shared by the leading experts on this topic.
I think it’s absolutely fascinating! Why don’t you like this theory Phil78?
PP, the andamanese aren’t just black, they are also pygmies. So now you think OoA people were pygmies.
Let’s make a breakdown of some traits that those “negroid” populations share or don’t share:
stature, skin color, hair texture, nose shape, hair color, steatopygia, labial harpoon, slanted eyes, malaria resistance, prognathism, admixture
Coastal West Africans
stature: average but highly variable, skin color: medium brown to black, hair texture: kinky, nose shape: flat, round and mid sized, hair color: black, steatopygia: absent, labial harpoon: absent, slated eyes: rare, malaria resistance: very high, prognathism: frequent, admixture: negligible west Eurasian Amixture
Sahelians:
stature: above average but highly variable, skin color: dark brown to jet black, hair texture: kinky, nose shape: flat, hair color: black, steatopygia: absent, labial harpoon: absent, slanted eyes: moderate frequency, malaria resistance: very high, prognathism: moderately frequent, admixture: moderate west Eurasian Admixture.
Bantus:
stature: slightly below average but variable, skin color: from light or reddish brown to black, hair texture: kinky, nose shape: flat and round, hair color: black, steatopygia: absent, labial harpoon: absent, slanted eyes: moderate to high frequency, malaria resistance: very high, prognathism: frequent, admixture: variable West Eurasian, East African, pygmy and capoid admixture.
Nilotics:
stature: above average but variable, skin color: black, hair texture: kinky, nose shape: flat and round, hair color: black, steatopygia: absent, labial harpoon: absent, slanted eyes: frequent, malaria resistance: low, prognathism: moderately frequent, admixture: variable west Eurasian and West African admixture
Horn Africans
stature: very variable, from very short to very tall depending on ethnicity, skin color: light brown to dark brown, hair texture: curly to kinky, nose shape: small, from flat to sharp, hair color: black, frequent red facial hair, steatopygia: absent, labial harpoon: absent, slanted eyes: rare, malaria resistance: low, prognathism: rare, admixture: substantial west Eurasian admixture.
Saharans
stature: above average and variable, skin color: from light brown to black, hair texture: curly to kinky, nose shape: from flat to sharp, hair color: black, steatopygia: absent, labial harpoon: absent, slanted eyes: moderate frequency, malaria resistance: moderate, prognathism: rare, admixture: variable West Eurasian admixture
African pygmies
stature: very short, skin color: from light brown to dark brown, hair texture: kinky, nose shape: flat and round, hair color: black, steatopygia: absent, labial harpoon: absent, slanted eyes: rare, malaria resistance: low, prognathism: frequent, admixture: West African admixture.
Capoids
stature: short, skin color: high yellow to medium brown, hair texture: very kinky, nose shape: flat and round, hair color: black, steatopygia: frequent, labial harpoon: frequent, slanted eyes: frequent, malaria resistance: low, prognathism: rare, admixture: recently Germanic and more anciently, West African.
Andamanese
stature: very short, skin color: seems very dark, hair texture: seems kinky, nose shape: flat but not African-flat, hair color: seems black, steatopygia: absent (?), labial harpoon (absent), slanted eyes: rare (?), malaria resistance: rare (?), prognathism: seems frequent, admixture: none
South Asians
stature: a bit below average with variation, skin color: light to dark brown, hair texture: straight, nose shape: caucasoid, hair color: black, steatopygia: absent absent, labial harpoon: absent, slanted eyes: rare (?) malaria resistance: high, prognathism: rare, admixture: significant West Eurasian admixture.
Negritos
stature: very short, skin color: light to medium brown, hair texture: curly to kinky, nose shape: looks flat, hair color: black (?), steatopygia: absent, labial harpoon: absent, slated eyes: probably moderate frequency, malaria resistance: low (?), prognathism: frequent (?), admixture: significant Austronesian admixture.
Papuan
stature: below average, skin color: medium to dark brown, hair texture: curly to kinky, nose shape: big and round, hair color: black (?), steatopygia: absent, labial harpoon: absent, slanted eyes: rare (?), malaria resistance: very high (?), prognathism: frequent (?), admixture: variable Austronesian admixture.
Melanesian
stature: below average (?), skin color: medium brown to black, hair texture: straight to kinky, nose shape: (???), hair color: black or blond, steatopygia: absent, labial harpoon: absent, slanted eyes: (???) malaria resistance: (???), prognathism: frequent (???), admixture: (???)
Australian
stature: below average, skin color: medium to dark brown, hair texture: straight to curly, nose shape: big and round, hair color: black, blond or red, steatopygia: absent, labial harpoon: absent, slanted eyes: rare, malaria resistance: low, prognathism: frequent, admixture: none.
Exercise one: list the traits that humans Out of Africa migrants had from 50ky to 70ky BP.
Exercice two: What do the above populations have in common ?
Native French
stature: average but highly variable, skin color: from dark olive to white with freckles, hair texture: straight to curly, nose shape: sharp, hair color: usually dark brown, less commonly black, blond and red, steatopygia: absent, labial harpoon: absent, slanted eyes: absent, malaria resistance: very low, prognathism: rare, admixture: Italic and Germanic admixture
To Afro,
“You know Phil, Tropical basically means dark skinned, so subtropical should basically mean light skinned.”
In terms of connatation, not in it’s actual root words. So “sub tropical” could also also be infered as just below Tropical.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sub+tropical&rlz=1CAACAJ_enUS665US665&oq=sub+tropical&aqs=chrome..69i57.3528j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
“See a Senegalese and a Native Australian, they are obviously not the same population, they barely look closer to each other than an Italian and a Japanese (ask me to rephrase if it sounds confuse). If we had to classify humans like dog breeds, no “race” would work.”
Well you can certain track phenotype and lineage continuity to organize them, and I said I agree your point on subspecies.
My use of “Tropical” is basically referring to a category of adaptation, Not actual lineage taxonomy.
“Other EARLY Asians” No, read the quote, he used modern asian populations who have the Marker.
“He accepts convergence to explain their uniquely pygmy phenotype,but believes their broader African phenotype was preserved from Africa.”
Where does it say in the context of the full quote that he believes that over convergence?
” Also his co-author thinks the Andaman islanders might be the living ancestors of ALL MODERN HUMANS, as stated in the documentary in my article. The point is this isn’t just some nutty view I’m pushing, it’s shared by the leading experts on this topic.”
Reread that, it says that they believes to genetic represent the genetic profile of the migrants that lead to paleolithic Asian Hunter-Gathers, that being the conclusion from the Y chromosome.
“Genetic analysis of mitochondrial DNA, a genetic element passed down only through women, shows that the Onge and Jarawa people belong to a lineage, known as M, that is common throughout Asia, the geneticists say. This establishes them as Asians, not Africans, among whom a different mitochondrial lineage, called L, is dominant.
The geneticists then looked at the Y chromosome, which is passed down only through men and often gives a more detailed picture of genetic history than the mitochondrial DNA. *The Onge and Jarawa men turned out to carry a special change or mutation in the DNA of their Y chromosome that is thought to be indicative of the Paleolithic population of Asia, the hunters and gatherers who preceded the first human settlements.*”
Second, they deducted the esarly migration from Africa BASED on that DNA suggests isolation, NOT at their phenotype, which They explain either to be converged or preserved.
MY genetic evidence suggests Converged.
“I think it’s absolutely fascinating! Why don’t you like this theory Phil78?”
Why? Because you misrepresented their findings and conclusions multiple times, even going as far as to blatantly leave out their comment supporting convergence.
To PP,
I see where you are going with “Africa” versus “Pygmy”, and Wade does seem to believe that.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZMDMnUn00DUC&pg=PT87&lpg=PT87&dq=nicholas+wade+andamanese&source=bl&ots=_ZEgzKKZ3k&sig=vdwnRjaqJhtC0s_9eQQYjVYscnY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy0d-H2JXTAhUl0IMKHceOBbcQ6AEIRzAK#v=onepage&q=nicholas%20wade%20andamanese&f=false
However their generally different coding regions still shows regardless that by “selected DNA” they are different.
“Through a combination of D-statistic, TreeMix, and MSMC-based cross-coalescent analyses, Bertranpetit and his colleagues traced the origins of the Andamanese to the same out-of-Africa event that peopled mainland India. For instance, D-statistics indicated that the Andamanese shared more alleles with each of the out-of-Africa populations than with sub-Saharan African populations, a finding also supported by TreeMix analyses.”
https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/andamanese-islander-genomic-analysis-indicates-single-origin-modern-asians
Alleles being the format of coded genes. Even if the observable ones have African roots, that is only a small portion of what makes “selected DNA”.
Phil78, go to about the 2:18 mark in the documentary in my article. They state that the scientist believed the Andaman islanders could even be the living ancestors of modern mankind. So if I’m misrepresenting the research, so are they.
And of course they’re going to be more related to non-Africans because they were part of the original out of African migration 50 to 100 thousand years ago, but the documentary implies they were virtually the only non-Africans to preserve this ancestral state.
I know you’ve cited studies claiming convergent evolution, but you might be taking them too literally because remember the debate was NOT between those (like me) who believed their phenotype was preserved from Africa, and those (like you) who believe it evolved independently.
The debate was actually between those who believed they were washed up from a slave ship a few centuries ago and those who believed they were part of the original modern human out of Africa migrations. So when they say convergent evolution, they may simply mean, not RECENTLY out of Africa. Convergent in the sense that they remained in an African type environment and thus evolved to KEEP their African phenotype, but you mean convergent in the more narrow sense of evolving it completely independently of Africans.
” They didn’t look at the genes for skin color”
There are like 6 genes that code for skin color. Twelve when looking between populations. Miniscule.
“Phil78, go to about the 2:18 mark in the documentary in my article. They state that the scientist believed the Andaman islanders could even be the living ancestors of modern mankind. So if I’m misrepresenting the research, so are they.”
At that early point of the documentary that would be talking about a “hook thesis” to grab attention, no elaborated conlcusions like the Wade article you gave me.
That article, full context, say that they are modern genetic representatives of paleolithic asians, only speculating on the condition of their phenotype.
“And of course they’re going to be more related to non-Africans because they were part of the original out of African migration 50 to 100 thousand years ago, but the documentary implies they were virtually the only non-Africans to preserve this ancestral state.”
Genetic state due to isolation from geneflow, that doesn’t excluded changes due to natural selection/
“I know you’ve cited studies claiming convergent evolution, but you might be taking them too literally because remember the debate was NOT between those (like me) who believed their phenotype was preserved from Africa, and those (like you) who believe it evolved independently.”
Except that I have shown multiple studies on protien and alleles that show, nonetheless, their overall coding profile matches eurasians more the modern Africans.
So, on a objective biological level of selected DNA (you original criteria), they are not aligned with modern negroids.
BTW, that specific note on their phenotype basically being of shared heritage with others is merely speculation nonetheless even if it wasn’t debated as it was *unconfirmed*.
“The debate was actually between those who believed they were washed up from a slave ship a few centuries ago and those who believed they were part of the original modern human out of Africa migrations. So when they say convergent evolution, they may simply mean, not RECENTLY out of Africa.*
When they say converged in my first study, they MEAN that their appearance, at least with height, isn’t ancestral with modern pygmies but likely overall in coding profile.
With earlier studies (and later ones) with protein profiles in general, they were closer to asians and thus their appearance, ancestral or converged, did not justified an alignment to negroid regardless on the basis of dna.
To reduce confusion, when I said “at least with height, isn’t ancestral with modern pygmies but likely overall in coding profile” I meant “overall converged” given their observation associating to an overall mtdna Haplogroup (M) and didn’t look exactly for genes height but looking at protein sequences extracted from DNA provided by teeth samples to compare with modern population affinity.
“The protein-coding region sequences produced clear results, with no ambiguities, and showed that all 12 specimens possessed 10400T and 10398G, placing them in the Asian M haplogroup (Passarino et al. 1996; Macaulay and Richards 2000) and ruling out an African origin.”
“Convergent in the sense that they remained in an African type environment and thus evolved to KEEP their African phenotype,”
That’s not what convergent means in regards to a trait, it means independently developed due to similar pressures.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/convergent_evolution.htm
“but you mean convergent in the more narrow sense of evolving it completely independently of Africans.”
Yes, it’s correct use.
Phil78, I agree with your definition of convergent but the problem is there’s no scientific vocabulary for the subtle distinction I’m making
If 2 groups look alike because they share a recent ancestor, that’s called being related, but if 2 unrelated groups look alike because they share a common environment, that will be labeled convergent evolution, even in cases where it’s not, because there’s no other word to describe it.
My argument is that andaman islanders look like Africans because they share ANCIENT ancestry, so it’s convergent in the sense that 2 unrelated groups look alike because they independently faced similar selection for a certain phenotype, but it’s nonconvergent in the sense that they both inherited that phenotype from a common ancestor.
I don’t think scientists always care or think about this subtle distinction when using the term convergent, they simply mean 2 unrelated groups who look alike because they share the same environment.
They don’t nessecarily bother to ask themselves whether the similar phenotype evolved before or after they split from an ancient common ancestor. The mere fact that they were separate for so long snd still look alike might be enough for them to use the C word since their interest is only how long ago andaman islanders left africa
“Phil 78, I agree with your definition of convergent but the problem is there’s no scientific vocabulary for the subtle distinction I’m making
If 2 groups look alike because they share a recent ancestor, that’s called being related, but if 2 unrelated groups look alike because they share a common environment, that will be labeled convergent evolution because there’s no other word to describe it, even if it’s not technically convergent.”
But even if they were convergent “by your definition”, that is likely not what they would’ve described it as in the studies as it would obviously be confused with the standard definition of convergent.
If they found the phenotypes to be of the nature you are talking about, they would be “ancestral” since it remained from a common ancestor, being “preserved” in an environment that selects for it wouldn’t change that definition.
Basically, you are reaching here.
“My argument is that andaman islanders look like Africans because they share ANCIENT ancestry, so it’s convergent in the sense that 2 unrelated groups look alike because of similar environments. And while i deny they evolved their phenotypes independently, i think they were both independently selected to PRESERVE their common ancestral phenotype.”
Yet it is shown that their phenotypes, based on protein and allele analysis, are of different origins.
“I don’t think scientists always care or think about this subtle distinction when using the term convergent, they simy mean 2 unrelated groups who look alike because they share the same environment.”
YES they would, and it’s not simply “looking alike” but evolving *similar* traits due to their environment. Similar =/= the same trait from the same sequence.
Second, my use of converged usually means arising from different sequences and that they originally didn’t have them prior to going into that environment.
Show me an example where “converged” is used as you described. If not, then why should we assume that was what the studies meant without proof of context?
“They don’t nessecarily bother to ask themselves whether the similar phenotype evolved before or after they split from an ancient ancestor.”
That was the direct aim of my studies to compare protiens, then later allele comparison shows consistency with those earlier conclusions.
“The mere fact that they were separate for so long snd still look alike might be enough for them to use the C word since their interest is only how long ago andaman islanders left africa”
IF they were looking at neutral DNA, which was not what they were looking at to compare their affinities.
And I’ll repeat one more time, that phenotype from the begin only had the significance to make interpretations on their selected DNA, yet more concrete metrics show otherwise despite what you contend.
IF they were looking at neutral DNA, which was not what they were looking at to compare their affinities.
And I’ll repeat one more time, that phenotype from the begin only had the significance to make interpretations on their selected DNA, yet more concrete metrics show otherwise despite what you contend.
Well I don’t feel knowledgeable enough to interpret that paper, so until I find a source that explains the research in layman terms, I’m not jumping to such conclusions. Below is a quote from such a source. Pay special attention to the sentences I put in bold:
Anthropologists separate the indigenous tribes living on the archipelago into two groups. It’s thought that those living on the Nicobar islands – the Shompen and Nicobaris – are of Asian descent, while the four surviving Andaman tribes – the Great Andamanese, Onge, Jarawa and the Sentinelese – all originated in Africa, a fact that makes their survival all the more remarkable.
The most reclusive of all are the Sentinelese, who have violently rebuffed all approaches from the outside world. According to a recent study of the tribes carried out by a team of biologists at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in the southern Indian city of Hyderabad, the indigenous islanders, often described by anthropologists as ‘pygmies’, may actually represent the first Asians – an early wave of ‘out of Africa’, who reached the Far East more than 40,000 years ago and have since evolved separately from most of the other native people of Asia, the South Seas and Australia.
The scientific team’s findings, based on DNA samples, fit into an ongoing debate about how and when the hominids who evolved in Africa to become Homo sapiens moved out into the Middle East, Asia and the rest of the world. One relatively new idea is that beaches exposed by low sea level provided a useful pathway, and the oceans supplied reliable food, allowing these humans to migrate easily.
The ‘Stone Age’ moniker, so regularly applied to the islanders, refers to the fact that the Sentinelese have lived in isolation for 60,000 years: genetically, therefore, there is a direct line between them and their pre-Neolithic ancestors. Unlike real Stone Age tribes, though, they probably use metal salvaged from shipwrecks, although their hostility to outside incursions means nobody has properly studied the question.
“Well I don’t feel knowledgeable enough to interpret that paper, so until I find a source that explains the research in layman terms, I’m not jumping to such conclusions. Here’s such a source:
Anthropologists separate the indigenous tribes living on the archipelago into two groups. It’s thought that those living on the Nicobar islands – the Shompen and Nicobaris – are of Asian descent, while the four surviving Andaman tribes – the Great Andamanese, Onge, Jarawa and the Sentinelese – all originated in Africa, a fact that makes their survival all the more remarkable.”
Not really suggesting much since we kniw the historical/ genetic context of “Africa”.
“The most reclusive of all are the Sentinelese, who have violently rebuffed all approaches from the outside world. According to a recent study of the tribes carried out by a team of biologists at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in the southern Indian city of Hyderabad, the indigenous islanders, often described by anthropologists as ‘pygmies’, may actually represent the first Asians – an early wave of ‘out of Africa’, who reached the Far East more than 40,000 years ago and have since evolved separately from most of the other native people of Asia, the South Seas and Australia.”
Early Asians indeed, supported by protien comparisons with modern Africans and mtdna lineage.
“The scientific team’s findings, based on DNA samples, fit into an ongoing debate about how and when the hominids who evolved in Africa to become Homo sapiens moved out into the Middle East, Asia and the rest of the world. One relatively new idea is that beaches exposed by low sea level provided a useful pathway, and the oceans supplied reliable food, allowing these humans to migrate easily.”
Cool geographic lesson.
“The ‘Stone Age’ moniker, so regularly applied to the islanders, refers to the fact that the Sentinelese have lived in isolation for 60,000 years: *genetically*, therefore, there is a direct line between them and their pre-Neolithic ancestors. Unlike real Stone Age tribes, though, they probably use metal salvaged from shipwrecks, although their hostility to outside incursions means nobody has properly studied the question.”
Emphasis on genetically.
But lets say for a moment that they did look like this prior to their current position, as I’ve already elaborated, both protiens and alleles shows them to be overall closer to Modern non-africans over Modern Africans.
But lets say for a moment that they did look like this prior to their current position, as I’ve already elaborated, both protiens and alleles shows them to be overall closer to Modern non-africans over Modern Africans.
Which proteins and alleles? Even brilliant scientists still don’t understand how genes determine phenotype, so I seriously doubt they know whether Andaman islanders have a genetically more similar phenotype to modern non-Africans, and it makes no sense. Just look at them.
Phil78, you’re never going to believe until a scientist comes flat out and says “the Andaman islanders have preserved the phenotype of the original Out of Africa migrants”. But sometimes you just have to view articles like the ones I’ve linked and read between the lines.
“Which proteins and alleles? Even brilliant scientists still don’t understand how genes determine phenotype,”
From article- “The research team lead by Georgia Tech Professor of Biology John McDonald has verified that while the DNA sequence of genes between humans and chimpanzees is nearly identical, there are large genomic ‘gaps’ in areas adjacent to genes that can affect the extent to which genes are ‘turned on’ and ‘turned off.’ ”
This is talking about non-coding DNA effecting gene expression, not whether or not scientists are adept in comparing similarities and differences in coding dna and protiens.
If anything, this supports alot of my arguments made in the past regarding how significant it is.
“so I seriously doubt they know whether Andaman islanders have a genetically more similar phenotype to modern non-Africans, and it makes no sense. Just look at them.”
It does makes sense, convergent evolution for starters as well as protien coding sequences do not all have observable phenotypes but the rest are involved in “coding” a biological quality nonetheless and counts as that “selected” DNA.
So your method of just “looking” was limited to begin with.
“Phil78, you’re never going to believe until a scientist comes flat out and says “the Andaman islanders have preserved the phenotype of the original Out of Africa migrants”. But sometimes you just have to view articles like the ones I’ve linked and read between the lines.”
Am I’m supposed to appear stubborn for you to say that? Yes, I probably won’t for three major reasons.
Firstly, all of you articles were talking about genetic isolation rather that phenotype studies (which overlaps with said phenotype studies of mine yet for an asian/non African association to modern populations), only SPECULATING on a direct relation in phenotype to OOA Africans who were the ancestors of modern Non-Africans. If I am to accept something, especially if unconfirmed, I would require convincing evidence that logically or expertly rules out other possibilities that argue against a relation to modern Africans over Non Africans.
Second, your persistence with phenotype is rooted in a distortion of what Jensen said on the matter.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/03/04/the-problem-with-taxonomy/comment-page-1/#comment-52957t.
The point being, he doesn’t say that it amends genetic’s distance’s inaccuracy by looking at selected DNA (as you do), what he is saying is closer to what that article was saying on Gene expression he states that it doesn’t capture the magnitude of genetic differences between populations due to natural selection. He clearly associates “selected” as talking about phenotype and not overall relation.
Observing some selected portions finding the same results under his investigation verifies the “genetic clock’s” reliability.
It’s worth mentioning that, rather than alleles, these sections are likely the gene expression relevant non-coding DNA as addressed in your human-chimp article, so that makes it even more likely that having similar neutral DNA would result in similar selected profile.
And thirdly, my studies, which observes genetic material relevant to phenotype, found repetitive discontinuity with modern Africans, closer to Modern Eurasians in turn. Therefore, what logical reason should I trust in proposed speculation?
To PP, I tried to find the 1950’s study finding protiens to be closer to Non-africans and failed to do so beyond just the year and scientist.
I have, however, found another study finding the Negritos closer to Non-Africans with citations that are consistent with their findings, including the one I was looking for.
“The phylogeny constructed with 15 microsatellites for comparison with West African populations (Gonçalves et al. 2002) also suggests that the Andaman Negritos
constitute a distinct cluster and separate out from the African populations (bootstrap value of 69%, Fig.3). *Anthropometric, dermatoglyphic and classical serogenetic data reported earlier also suggest the similar affinities (Lehman and Ikin 1954; Sarkar 1952; Guha 1954; Sarkar 1996)*. Studies on the Great Andamanese based on red cell genetic abnormalities have also supported the hypothesis that they are the surviving representatives of Negrito populations that were
distributed over the entire Southeast Asia in ancient times, which were genetically different from other African populations (Murhekar et al.
2001). ”
Serogenetics pertaining to protein polymorphisms, dermatoglyphics pertaining to the formation of the hands and feet.
The study however does include this note,
“A southern route of migration from Africa to Australia in the Pleistocene period has also been suggested to explain the similarities among some populations
in Africa, Southeast Asia and Australia (Nei and Roychoudhury 1993; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994;
Schurr and Wallace 2002).”
So while it does support their phenotype to be ancestral, it would STILL be convergent to modern Africans. A few reasons.
When addressing independent traits, there are two terms to address the phenomenon and it depends on time period relative to each other. If development is simultaneous it is Parallel Evolution, but if in different time periods it would be Convergent Evolution.
Now back to the study. Addressing the note on the ancestral body of the Andamanese, it was stated that it was different from other African populations, thus given a basis of their modern genetic distinction from Modern Africans and affiliation with Eurasians on observed selection relevant genetics and traits addressed before.
The note on the roots supports that they retain certain features YET when compared to Modern Africans showing no continuity, it would be proper to best label this as a convergent relationship between Modern Africans and the Andaman ancestors and a ancestral relationship with ancient Africans and Andamanese traits.
So I suppose you were on the right track with a ancestral hypothesis, the problem being your categorization of OOA populations to modern Africans, see my link on Howells regarding that.
To PP,
The link from the study I was quoting.
Click to access IJHG-03-1-005-011-2003-Kashyap.pdf
”Well according to Cavalli-Sforza, Horn Africans (or at least Ethiopians) are a hybrid population that is 60% sub-Saharan and 40% West Asian, ”
Holy sh*t, This means indians too (atleast 80% of them) are a mix of sub-saharan africans and west asians because modern-indians look remarkably close to modern ethiopians/eritreans/some of the other horn-africans but a shade lighter due to less sun-exposure.
Or IMO to be more precise they are mix of australoid (the race andamanese are believed to belong to) as the people who settled andamans’ must have also settled in india as india is the route through which they most likely went to andaman) and west asian.
The mixing must have happened in india after 10,000 B.C when west asians moved into the indian-subcontinent and mixed with them. A few thousand years later indo-aryans (if you believe the indo-european migration theory) went into india and mixed with the decandants of andamanese and west-asian mixed people. This is why you see three main skin-shade/colour groups in india dark wheatish, wheatish and light wheatish. There are even darker and fairer people in india but very few as a percentage compared to these three main groups.
I said holy sh*t because the origin/genetic composition of the indian ‘race’ has been one of the biggest puzzles to solveand cavalli-sforza helped me solve it. 🙂
If this is already known, then please forgive 🙂 becuase i didnt know it.
“Holy sh*t, This means indians too (atleast 80% of them) are a mix of sub-saharan africans and west asians because modern-indians look remarkably close to modern ethiopians/eritreans/some of the other horn-africans but a shade lighter due to less sun-exposure.”
Actually they are a mix of West Eurasian Farmers, Nomads, and Auatraloid Hunter gathers to be precise, rather than Negroid as people confuse the two terms.
I’ll give you this though, ancient writers did compare the two regions in having a similar light to dark gradient.
“Or IMO to be more precise they are mix of australoid (the race andamanese are believed to belong to) as the people who settled andamans’ must have also settled in india as india is the route through which they most likely went to andaman) and west asian.”
Correct.
“The mixing must have happened in india after 10,000 B.C when west asians moved into the indian-subcontinent and mixed with them. A few thousand years later indo-aryans (if you believe the indo-european migration theory) went into india and mixed with the decandants of andamanese and west-asian mixed people. This is why you see three main skin-shade/colour groups in india dark wheatish, wheatish and light wheatish. There are even darker and fairer people in india but very few as a percentage compared to these three main groups.”
Very accurate indeed in a lamen sense.
“I said holy sh*t because the origin/genetic composition of the indian ‘race’ has been one of the biggest puzzles to solveand cavalli-sforza helped me solve it. 🙂
If this is already known, then please forgive 🙂 because I didnt know it.”
No need for apologize. While made somewhat clearer in recent years based on composition, it is little understood by those not updated on population genetics.
PP Do you beleive evolution leads to over compensation? Living in a cold environment might lead to hominds gaining the intelligence to make clothes and tools for hunting new Game, but why would it lead to those hominids developing the intelligence to go to the moon. Do people in a cold environment need to go to the moon, if not why would they develop the intelligence to do this.
On top of that evolution works on the principle of equilibrium, change will only occur once an equilibrium has been broken, and will persist untill a new one occurs or the old one is retored.
Once homind living in a cold environment have gained the ability to survive in that environment they should not have gained more intelligence as the equilibrium was met.
that is your theory, africans reached a (lower) equilibrium and lacked the impetus to get more intelligent because of the equilibrium.
But if as according to evolutionary thoery whites also met an equilibrium then they should not have advanced in intelligence past the point to survive in that environment either, for the EXACT SAME REASON.
if the past that equilibrium please explain it, in a way that that excuse cant be used by blacks.
Fo if whtes can go past their equilibrium why couldnt blacks.
and if indeed an equilibrium was met then it couldnt have been stimulated by the environment, and must be a different type of equilibrium.
bear in mind that the only reason you are thinking the thoughts you are thinking RIGHT NOW is because i have broken the equilibrium on non thinkng in your head by positing this question. Once you have answered you will break my train of thoughts equilibrium and cause me to break yours again with a reply.
Hunting and making clothes will only break your thoughts equilibrium until you are familiar too them, but holding a conversation does so countless times. Thinking is a process of simulation and modeling. If you need to hunt you simulate different circumsatnces and choose the best. Same with holding a conversation. On top of that society’s structure calls for countless modeling, holding a conversation is one, tryng to impress a woman is another, trying to remain in favour with both “God” and men calls for much mental anguish i a society where brawn doesnt count for survival. Only the tribes with the best cohesion could coordinate themselves angainst others and win. And that gave rise “ultimately” to religion and science.
Learning to live among people requires you be a fully fledged sientis, “did i say the right thing to that guy? , what is the best way to appraoch the cheif. if i befreind so and so with these words perhaps i can gain his favour and move up the caste….all these choices required much more modeling than hunting or clothng. granted clothing was difficult to think up but it doesnt have the nuances and detail in simulating thought that the politics involed in living in a tribe had.
that is why we landed on the moon, because living in a society does not allow your thoughts to reach an equilibrium.
PP Do you beleive evolution leads to over compensation? Living in a cold environment might lead to hominds gaining the intelligence to make clothes and tools for hunting new Game, but why would it lead to those hominids developing the intelligence to go to the moon. Do people in a cold environment need to go to the moon, if not why would they develop the intelligence to do this.
Whites only had the intelligence to go to the moon after thousands of years of accumulating group knowledge and passing it down generation after generation. That’s cultural evolution, not biological evolution. In other words, once you have enough biological intelligence to solve simple problems in one generation, you can solve complex problems in many generations. But the intelligence evolved to do the former, not that latter.
Whites only had the intelligence to go to the moon after thousands of years of accumulating group knowledge and passing it down generation after generation.
This only means they only had the KNOWLEDGE to get to the moon after thousands of years, and they got the intelligence from living in a cold environment.
so all you need to do is be mentally large enough to be able to knit, then if you given the right knowledge , you can go to the moon?
so all you need to do is be mentally large enough to be able to knit, then if you given the right knowledge , you can go to the moon?
Well keep in mind that when the AVERAGE IQ of a population is high enough to knit, you’ll have a few people who are WAY above that average just by chance.
Think of height as an example. Men generally only need to be 5’9″ or so to survive, but because of selection for enough height genes to make the average man 5’9″, a few men lucked into to getting too many of those height genes and are able to join the NBA. In other words, evolution selects for an average level, but because of genetic luck, some individuals will be way above or below that average. And the bigger a population gets, the more outliers you’ll start to see, and after thousands of years of accumulating knowledge, those super high IQ outliers were able to take us to the moon.
and why couldnt the migration out of africa to colder environments lead to a situation where the hominids aquired greater knowledge on how to conqure the environment using the same intelligence as africans, if intelligence to knit makes you go t o the moon why cant intelligence to make a loin cloth make you able (after aquiring further knowledge) to make clothes.
knitting is to spaceship…as ….loin cloth is to full body outfit
If the change from knitting to making a space ship happened without an increase in intelligence, why should the much smaller change from loin cloth to a full body outfit for winter need it?
If the change from knitting to making a space ship happened without an increase in intelligence, why should the much smaller change from loin cloth to a full body outfit for winter need it?
Because whites could take their time going to the moon. It wasn’t an urgent problem that had to be solved for survival reasons so they could afford to wait thousands of years until they had the knowledge. Knitting was different. If you weren’t smart enough to figure out how to knit TODAY, you die. No time to acquire knowledge over generations, so only those with the genetic ability to learn IMMEDIATELY passed on genes in freezing Eurasia.
Just my opinion.
This needs an answer
=========
If the change from knitting to making a space ship happened without an increase in intelligence, why should the much smaller change from loin cloth to a full body outfit for winter need it?
===========
I’m sure there are africans with high enough iq’s by luck to survive in europe, why didnt they invent clothing for everyone else, just like as you say the euopeans with high iq’s by luck led us to the moon?
Clothing wasn’t valued in Africa because it’s so warm
\Because whites could take their time going to the moon. It wasn’t an urgent problem that had to be solved for survival reasons so they could afford to wait thousands of years until they had the knowledge. Knitting was different. If you weren’t smart enough to figure out how to knit TODAY, you die. No time to acquire knowledge over generations, so only those with the genetic ability to learn IMMEDIATELY passed on genes in freezing Eurasia.
Do you beleive that the time from the invention of science till we flew to the moon (avg 5000 years) is longer than the time when africans migrated to europe.
Also if its time that matterd , didnt africans have about 100 000 for the outliers to develop clothing that coverd the whole body which they had all the time to do?
and going to the moon was valued in europe why? your not seeing what i’m saying, it doesnt have to be clothing . thats just an example.
Blacks can accomplish all the same things whites can, but it might take them longer
So if whites figured out how to go to the moon in 1967, blacks might figure it out in 2067
That goes against the evidence, blacks invented mining before europeans, black show the first evidence of mathematics before europeans. blacks out perform europeans when you take them to their proportin in population. Tichit walata was a civilisation 100% black owned and created while 90% of europe was uncivilised. you argue that the middle easterners where more advanced and they are in the same race , but that just leaves you population numbers to be greater…and that simply means more outliers.
chikoka, one can argue tit-for-tat about specific inventions for decades, but the totality of evidence shows tropical races were WAY behind other races at virtually every moment in history. This isn’t even controversial. Even extreme HBD deniers like Jared Diamond admit it, they just have a non-genetic explanation.
Why do you refuse to be balanced in your views? there is a reason near easterners invented civilisation , agriculture and science while europeans didnt despite being in the same race and THAT EXACT REASON is why blacks did so later than near easterners. European neolithic culture was grafted on them from the middle east . What is native to the european is the cave, and there was no evidence that they would have moved out of the cave , indoors we it not for the middleeasterners despite the middle easterners being white ALSO. Why was that?, and why do you blindly not see that that also applied to africans?
Are whites (near easterners) more intelligent than whites (euopeans). Clearly all that you say about the difference between whites and blacks *now* could have been said about the difference between mesopotamians and europeans at one stage. Would they have been right to conlclude what you say? In hind sight no, so what basis do you have for comparison? you take 5000 years of human history and ignore 100 000 years of evolution. Middle easterners were ahead of europeans at one stage , now they are not, blacks were ahead of whites at one stage now they are not. the difference is blacks were ahead not because of popuation presssure, which is a non sentient mover, but on their own innitiative. the tally sticks in europe that come up later than in africa despite africa being much less explored do not show any of the sophistication that the african ones do. Show me one that manipulates numbers between two number bases or shows knowledge of prime numbers.
In your opinion why were africans doing manipulating concepts while europeans were occupied in their drawings?
please do not avoid this question.
know that if you play down the manipulation of concepts by blacks you have to explain why europeans werent capable of doing even that version of events
blacks were ahead of whites at one stage now they are not
Michael Hart would strongly disagree with you. He claims not a single important invention was made in sub-Saharan Africa in the last 20,000 years
Strawman!!! i never said an important invention was made by africans, i said the earliest evidence of conceptual performance was by africans, meaning europeans did so later. If the evidence shows an earlier date in africa ..when considering that africa hasnt been exploed as much , it implies even earlier dates than those we have are probable. And those in europe dont show the same sophistication as those in africa. show me one european example that shows the understanding of the concept of prime numbers then i will agree.
And you clean ignored the rest of my post! Isnt it true that europe showed no sign of moving out of the cave untill the were upgraded by the middle easterners.If not show me clear evidence that they had any acheivemnts that were original and not an extension of work done by middle easterners.
You sad “blacks were ahead of whites at one stage”. When? Also the distinction you’re making between whites and middle easterners is genetically & phenotypically meaningless. They’re both Caucasoids in both appearance and ancestry.
Pumpkin Person, do you really believe what you’re saying ? 🤡🤡🤡
Care to explain East Asians ?
Do you know that the commonly accepted reason for differentials in technological development throughout history is population density with long distance trade as an enhancer?
https://www.google.co.zw/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F6e%2F0c%2F1d%2F6e0c1d643192fbddbcf4b53674ddca02.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F560064903642169453%2F&docid=DeHDq3pIC0G-QM&tbnid=WUqX8-CHRrZpiM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwiDi5zQ8orUAhWmHsAKHRZYDYAQMwglKAEwAQ..i&w=600&h=370&bih=869&biw=1280&q=tichitt%20walata%20architecture&ved=0ahUKEwiDi5zQ8orUAhWmHsAKHRZYDYAQMwglKAEwAQ&iact=mrc&uact=8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining#Prehistoric_mining
As for Mining, that was in *Ancient* Swaziland which were more likely the ancestors of Khoisan people rather than Agricultural Blacks but I see your point regardless,
Still, the Wiki Shows that around mines of similar age in Hungary.
https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10036/4431/Evidence%20for%20prehistoric%20salt.pdf?sequence=5
To Chikoka,
Replied to the wrong thread.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/04/05/even-more-evidence-that-the-black-race-is-extremely-old/comment-page-1/#comment-60497
“That’s cultural evolution, not biological evolution.”
But human cultural change is an entirely distinct process operating under radically different principals that do allow for the strong possibility of a driven trend for what we may legitamately call “progress” (at least in a technological sense, whether or not the changes ultimately do us any good in a practical or moral way). In this sense, I deeply regret that common usage refers to the history of our artifacts and social orginizations as “cultural evolution.” Using the same term—evolution—for both natural and cultural history obfuscates far more than it enlightens. Of course, some aspects of the two phenomena must be similar, for all processes of genealogicallt constrained historical change must share some features in common. But the differences far outweigh the similarities in this case. Unfortunately, when we speak of “cultural evolution,” we unwittingly imply that this process shares essential similarity with the phenomenon most widely described by the same name—natural, or Darwinian, change. The common designation of “evolution” then leads to one of the most frequent and portentious errors in our analysis of human life and history—the overly reductionist assumption that the Darwinian natural paradigm will fully encompass our social and technological history as well. I do wish that the term “cultural evolution” would drop from use. Why not speak of something more neutral and descriptive—“cultural change,” for example?(Gould, 1996: 219-220)
“Think of height as an example. Men generally only need to be 5’9″ or so to survive, but because of selection for enough height genes to make the average man 5’9″, a few men lucked into to getting too many of those height genes and are able to join the NBA”
“Height genes”? Refer back to my comment the other day to Carl Churchill. All genes are height genes.
Your source gave a high estimate for the number of height genes, but even if all genes affect height, the ones I call “height genes” are the variants that INCREASE height.
My source stated that if you want to make alterations to height you’d need to change 300,000 genes and you’d still only be half way there.
One of my sources showed that 45 percent of the variance can be explained by considering all SNPs simultaneously.
The fact of the matter is, the data shows that all genes are height genes. The one gene that has the most effect on height only gives one sixth of an inch. It’s the same with IQ, the gene that gives the most points that we know of so far only gives .3 points (will provide citation later).
And thousands upon thousands of genes explain height. Furthermore how the genes interact with the environment also, obviously, has an effect.
If all genes effect height and are height genes as one of my sources stated, then we learn almost nothing about the genetic basis of height.
You’ll enjoy this.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170201131513.htm
I will comment on it later.
To Chikoka,
“Are whites (near easterners) more intelligent than whites (euopeans). Clearly all that you say about the difference between whites and blacks *now* could have been said about the difference between mesopotamians and europeans at one stage. Would they have been right to conlclude what you say? In hind sight no, so what basis do you have for comparison? you take 5000 years of human history and ignore 100 000 years of evolution. Middle easterners were ahead of europeans at one stage , now they are not, blacks were ahead of whites at one stage now they are not. the difference is blacks were ahead not because of popuation presssure, which is a non sentient mover, but on their own innitiative. ”
Well to first clarify, the “European” Mesolithic HG were not the same genetic people as modern europeans.
Modern europeans are a combination of multiple invasions,
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/our-magnificent-bastard-race/
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/europeans-share-common-ancestors-to-differing-extents/
So Modern Europeans partially descend from them as well as Nomads in terms of ancestry apart from HG populations.
Still, your point stands on how the disparity isn’t simply from European being a better place for population pressures since prehistory.
“the tally sticks in europe that come up later than in africa despite africa being much less explored do not show any of the sophistication that the african ones do.
Show me one that manipulates numbers between two number bases or shows knowledge of prime numbers.”
I’ve shown to you that this is incorrect in terms of use and in terms of age.
In regards to IQ, 3 genetic variants explain .3 IQ points:
After adjusting the estimated effect sizes of the SNPs (each R2 ∼ 0.0006) for the winner’s curse, we estimate each as R2 ∼ 0.0002 (SI Appendix), or in terms of coefficient magnitude, each additional reference allele for each SNP is associated with an ∼0.02 SD increase in cognitive performance [or 0.3 points on the typical intelligence quotient (IQ) scale].
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/38/13790.full
This is the gene with the highest known effect that we currently know of. No “but undiscovered X means Y!!”, because science isn’t based on ‘what ifs’.
So, clearly, intelligence is highly polygenic, and, contrary to what Plomin says, it’s doubtful that we’ll be able to genotype someone to predict their intelligene:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/
This is because you need more than 500,000 SNPs on a gene chip and even still, that would only explain half of the variance. So it’s reasonable to assume—as is the case with height—that all genes are IQ genes.
One SNP, rs2760118 in SSADH (also known as ALDH5A1), exhibited a nominally significant association with g (t = 2.01, p = .04), but this association did not survive a Bonferroni correction. The mean g values (transformed to the IQ scale) by genotype for this SNP were 98.3, 99.7, and 100.6 for genotypes TT, TC, and CC respectively.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498585/
In regards to the study I linked earlier, here it is:
https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_CB04B9543EC2.P001/REF
They found 83 rare and low-frequency genes that explain 1.7 percent of the adult heritability of height, along with newly identified and novel variants that explained 2.4 percent, “and all independent variants, known and novel together 104 explained 27.4% of heritability. By comparison, the 697 known height SNPs explain 23.3% of 105 height heritability in the same dataset (vs. 4.1% by the new height variants identified in this ExomeChip study)” (pg 7).
So 27.4 percent of the variance is explained with known common variants and these new variants discovered. They state that some of these new (and rare) variants can boost height by 8/10ths of an inch.
So it seems that all genes are height genes and all genes could possibly be IQ genes (that is, having a small effect). If most genes are height genes, and height is linked to IQ, then most genes should be IQ genes as well. Therefore, it is plausible that all genes are IQ genes.
Remember the title of this paper: “Most Reported Genetic Associations with General Intelligence Are Probably False Positives“
“They’re both Caucasoid in appearance.”
Stop using the term “Caucasian” to mean white.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/stop-using-the-word-caucasian-to-mean-white/
I’m not. I’m saying Europeans and Middle Easterners are BOTH CAUCASOID.
Caucasoid—relating to the Caucasian division of humankind.
Tomato, tomatoe. Same thing.
Please learn to read. I never said or implied that only whites were Caucasoid or Caucasian.
The Caucasus mountains bound the Middle East on the north, and the real Caucasians are to some extent a liminal Middle Eastern population.This gets really dumbfounding for the stupid people who ask and answer questions of the form “are Armenians white?” on the internet. After all, the Armenians are indubitably Caucasian, and Caucasian is white, right? Compare the subtly of a regular dictionary definition of Caucasian, to the straightforward acknowledgement of the idiocy of the common usage of the term in urban dictionary.
But I’ve been avoiding terming these people “Caucasians,” lest I just muddy the waters because of the disjunction between colloquial usage and coherency. But that’s what people from the Caucasus are! So I’m changing my practice, and using the term as I really want to use it. If people get confused, and they show up in the comments, I will “correct” them as I’m wont to do. For those readers who have qualms about the coarseness of “white,” and the genericness of “European, how about the term “Aryanoids”? It will still make you sound smarter to the herd. And, it’s just as stupid and also derived from a scientific tradition which is in disrepute. But it has the convenience that it doesn’t correspond to anything real in this world.
Yes. Learn to read.
OMG RR, you have the reading comprehension of a five-year-old. You keep citing sources debunking claims I never made.
I think four year old is more apt.
You said Caucasoid. Caucasoid means Caucasian. The true Caucasians (Caucasoids) are a middle eastern population.
You said Caucasoid. Caucasoid means Caucasian.
Dummy, I never denied Caucasoid means Caucasian
The true Caucasians (Caucasoids) are a middle eastern population.
I never implied they weren’t. No offense, but you must be the dumbest science blogger in the entire World. I’ve never seen anyone misunderstand so much.
Point: using Caucasian to mean white. Which you do. Point: Caucasians are derived from the Caucasus. Are Europeans? Nope. Therefore the term Caucasian is retarded for Europeans. Archaic terms, etc.
And thanks for the kind words. Appreciate it.
Get back to those diet convos if I’m so dumb. =^)
diets work for some people. Get over it!
That doesn’t rebut any of my arguments! Get over it!
You use the term Caucasoid. Caucasoid means Caucasian. The article linked states “stop using the term “Caucasian” to mean white “, which you do. So citing the article here in this instance is apt.
Stop using the term white to mean whites. Whites are pink.
#Think like RR
Then use the term European.
European’s not a race. Caucasoid is.
Did Europeans people come out of the Caucasus region? One of the groups that make up Europeans came out of the Middle East, but that doesn’t mean the term “Caucasian/Caucasoid” means anything in regards to race. Clearly MENA people cluster separately. It’s time to chuck Rushton’s 30 year old Caucasian terminology out.
I understand why it’s used—because of Blumenbach. Yea the term is used in science journals, etc. But 3 percent of papers use the term “great chain of being”, does that mean anything?
Relative to the rest of humanity, Euros and MENAs cluster together. I’m not sure you can ever separate them:
While the older classical physical anthropology terms like “Negroid” and “Caucasoid” fell into disuse after 1960, as you’d expect, “Caucasian” went through a renaissance in the 1990s. I think RPM’s supposition is probably correct, people wanted a pretentious term somewhat less coarse than white, and since most people are geography-challenged, “Caucasian” sounds good if you want to pose as the faux-sophisticate.
Point proven.
To PP, you certainly can.
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003316
Neolithic shared ancestry with levantine people does create a gradient, but the general clustering away is clear.
Okay, maybe you can subdivide the Caucasoid race into sub-races, but there doesn’t appear to be a white race, but there might be a white sub-race.
I doubt anyone here meant seriously that they were two “macro-races” to begin with.
If you want a new term that is occasionally used in modern times to correspond with “Caucasoid” of older anthropology, I would suggest “West Eurasian”.
The point is you can’t compare the accomplishments of an entire macro-race like sub-Saharans to a mere micro-race like Europeans, which some were doing
“The point is you can’t compare the accomplishments of an entire macro-race like sub-Saharans to a mere micro-race like Europeans, which some were doing.”
The reasoning is probably due to whites being esteemed as the best race under the part of HBD that overlaps with white supremacy, therefore ancient Europeans ought to be the same over ancient middle easterners.
The problem there is that Neolithic Middle easterners that brought farming are closer to modern Europeans than paleolithic hunter gatherers are.
Thus, a simple argument that Europeans are they way they are simply due to Europe always having the best selection pressure fails.
PP as long as you are going to say you can reconstrct someone from their MITOCHONDRIAL DNA rather than the dna from the nucleus, you do not have much credibility in my view. Mitochondrial dna codes for the formation of mitochondria NOT people….
It’s not really the mitochondrial eve but a skull from 120,000 years ago
oh! that name was confusing.
Actually the specimen itself was part of a population that migrated 120k, but it’s estimated age itself was 90k-110k
Uh oh. Trouble in mind control midtown manhattan. Uh oes.
Kendall Jenner’s BLM pepsi ad was pulled….from pressure from the ‘left’.
What the (certain foreign nation I’m not allowed mention) media won’t say is that the anger from the right was twice as much. What ad agency condones and sanctions such a divisive ad that not even the the ones they praise in it are happy? Such bad marketing. How does it help Pepsi’s brand to be associated with the ghetto and violence? It makes no sense.
When you close your eyes, what images do you join to pepsi’s brand when you see the ad – every ad man should ask themselves that.
It was bad marketing even without the politics. Possibly the worst ad of all time.
CLAP YO HANDZ
CLAP YO HANDZ
CLAP YO HANDZ
Note this post was not about (that certain middle eastern nation we all love). See Pumpkin! I can grow and grow.
My favourite countries in the world
1. Mine
My least favourite countries in the world.
194 Nigeria
195 Haiti
196 _____ – I don’t know. Haven’t thought about it much. Anyone have a suggestion?
The early 1990s were the ‘golden age of hip hop’.
Now its a bunch of (certain foreign countries) bullshit propaganda. Although Kanye does seem to have an ear.
A derelict makes a well known speech
We pay attention to the words he reads
Such good lyrics.
Gentile bankers tend to be rac-ist assholes. They just hide it very well. Our black secretary/admin was kind of mocked cruelly when my manager told the new guy she was ‘in love’ with him. Oh dear. Good laugh. They said it right in front of her. And she thought it was all a joke. The undertone was negative though.
But if blacks had banks, I imagine it would be the same. So I don’t feel any ‘shame’ or ’embarrassment’ at being tribal. I know how Zimbabwe and South Africa worked out.
The jewish bankers I imagine would be even more subtle about it. Maybe even saying the opposite all the time. You can imagine Steve Schwarzmann asking a middle manager why he has doubts about his new AA hires.
“Why John didn’t you bring this up in our quarterly meeting with the board?”
So sly and mischevious. Hahaha.
Henry Kravis believes in diversity as much as dogs in cat supremacy.
But he’s an Elder and really connected with the CFR setup. If you look at Kravis, you know he’s not a nice guy at all.
Publicis under Maurice Levy is a central cog in the globalist cabal.
Kravis wife is on its board. Levy is on the CFR board. Levy is a designated ‘European advisor’ for the the executive head of the CFR i.e. European agent.
He runs and ad agency that I’m sure Afro has been hired by for assignments en France.
You see how it all links up in my mind?
Don’t take my word for it. Take Mikey’s – who is an honest man – I’m right about the world and how it works.
You all think I’m ‘joking’ when I say they aren’t selling insurance with Afro, or Pepsi for tht matter….they’re using Bernays not to sell products anymore….but to sell a vision of their ideal world.
Its all a Plan. Its not a coincidence of wants as Robert says. Its all cooridinated. The Russia line. The lebensraum wars. The media. They all sit down weekly or via conference and plot The Narrative. Its common in every other country outside the West, so why not the West? Especially when our elites are not of the West?
At least publish this one. You can mod everything else above and I won’t mention my favourite country in the world again today.
You can mod everything else above and I won’t mention my favourite country in the world again today
I didn’t moderate any of them but good Lord pill, seven comments in a row about Jews?
For your own mental health you need to think about other things. For your own mental health, maybe you should just accept the fact that Jews have power and get on with your life.
There are far more oppressive elites people have had to live under. Jewish power comes largely through their intellectual influence & ability to shape the narrative unlike many elites who ruled by force.
No there isn’t any other type of elite that is worse.
Ask Russia under (certain foreign countries). Ask the Arabs in Canaan. What they do to the West is just far more subtle. But it annihilates the host far worse than even the Bolsheviks dreamed of because it involves bringing the host to its knees in debauchery and replacing each gentile to a man and getting him to enjoy it. I would rather die of syphilis or see my family/friends have a clean death on the battlefield or show trial firing squad than see them become brainwashed into a Jim Jones cult and call real patriots and decent folk, the ‘enemy’.
They hate this:
Because (certain foreign actors) are evil.
I’m of course talking about the conniving, treacherous, licentiousness, gamma Danish. The bane of all civilisations and races of man for 2500 years and counting.
http://1.images.southparkstudios.com/blogs/southparkstudios.com/files/2016/10/2005_blog.jpg?quality=0.8
That’s what you get for celebrating “originality” and censoring what makes sense.
Still don’t get this obsession with the Jews. I wish we could focus on abuses of power by ALL members of the elite, not just those of Jews.
Jews are disproportionately elite, though.
“Jews are disproportionately elite, though.”
What tells you they don’t deserve it ? Have they established Jewish-supremacist laws and states in the past ?
A study in the United States (based on data from 1985-1998), conducted by sociologist Lisa A. Keister and published in the Social Forces journal, found that adherents of Judaism and Episcopalianism[5] accumulated the most wealth, believers in Catholicism and mainline Protestants were in the middle, while conservative Protestants accumulated the least; in general, people who attend religious services accumulated more wealth than those who do not (taking into account variations of education and other factors).[6] Keister suggested that wealth accumulation is shaped by family processes.[7]
In the United States, 48% of Hindus have a household income of $100,000 or more, and 70% make at least $75,000, which is the highest among all religions in United States. [8] The median net worth of people believing in Judaism is calculated at 150,890 USD, while the median net worth of conservative Protestants (including Baptists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, Christian Scientists) was 26,200 USD. The overall median in the dataset was 48,200 USD.[6]
According to a 2014 study by the Pew Research Center, Jewish ranked as the most financially successful religious group in the United States, with 44% of Jewish living in households with incomes of at least $100,000, followed by Hindu (36%), Episcopalians (35%) and Presbyterians (32%).[9]
According to the same study there is correlation between education and income, about 77% of American Hindus have a graduate and post-graduate degree, followed by Jews (59%), Anglican (59%), Episcopalians (56%) and Presbyterians (47%).[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_and_religion
Have they established Jewish-supremacist laws and states in the past ?
Denmark?
Because blacks have the most genetic diversity it means ANY skull will look more black than any other race even if the difference between the black and the other race is smaller than that of the black and the owner of the unknown skull. even an aliens skull will look more black than white just by sheer probability.
Well actually allusions to blacks with ancient skulls goes back to times prior to that discover as well as the definition of “black” being somewhat narrower in those times as well.
The main reasons being Prognathism, robusticity, and a low cephalic index (long head) characterizing both by the views of those times.
Problem, while those traits are more prominent in “Black” skulls compared to others in certain aspects like tooth size and cranial density, they are closer in range to other modern humans than they are to these ancient beings.
Aside from those traits, better metric shows that say ancient ancestors of eurasians are closer to modern ones than modern Negroids.
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/early-upper-paleolithic-europeans-eups/
Ok, although I support the position that modern day “races” are recent, beware of Mathilda. She’s a virulent anti-Afrocentrist and a proponent of the theory of multiple origin of humanity (convergent evolution from local Homo Erectus varieties). So she has her biases too and she’s not a receivable source if you want to back your statements by science.
“Ok, although I support the position that modern day “races” are recent, beware of Mathilda. She’s a virulent anti-Afrocentrist and a proponent of the theory of multiple origin of humanity (convergent evolution from local Homo Erectus varieties). So she has her biases too and she’s not a receivable source if you want to back your statements by science.”
Well if you read her more recent articles on Humanity she didn’t say that OOA was wrong or completely wrong, but at that point and time Multi-regional Theory wasn’t completely outmatched and her main issue was that people treated as if it wasn’t credible.
Second, the Multi Regional theory you are suggesting was a Coon’s idea, the theory that she proposed was different
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans#.22Classic.22_vs_.22weak.22_multiregionalism
The basic idea is that our common ancestor existed 2mya, but not quite Erectus, more of of a mixed between modern and archaic traits, and we been mixing ever since.
Keep in mind, this was mainly supported by the holes that OOA had at the time with a simple, recent split between populations which was Mathilda’s biggest issue.
Regardless, I use her due to convenience of sources getting which I was referencing, not her own words on the matter. Basically your logic when suggesting me Afrocentric Forums.
Well on a different topic to the treacherous Danes.
Notice the way mixed breeds of all sub races/races with negroids look more negroid.
What can you infer from your wonderful verbal/propositional logic pumpkin.
That’s right. Miscegenation is a reversion to Kinshasa. We revert to our primordial form precisely because it is the best fit for survival – socially intelligent, muscular, aggressive, schizo and soft psychopath.
The algorithm chooses for SURVIVAL. Not THRIVAL.
The physiognomy is fairly obvious. Who looks more like a man that would beat up an old woman.
Another revelation. Evolution is ‘progressive’ in the sense it progresses towards ensuring survival no matter what the weather is. The optimal solution at all times is to be a bloodthirsty asshole.
How’s the evolution stuff workin out for ya? as the philosopher Sarah Palin once said after doing Glen Rice in a college dorm room. Woloolololololololololo.
You gotta be a masculine man to win. Not a smart one. But I draw the line at psychopathy….which is also selected for. I believe in sufficient numbers, psychopathy causes dysfunction against a united host i.e Kinshasa falls to Great Britain in the 1800s.
“Notice the way mixed breeds of all sub races/races with negroids look more negroid.”
Not Horners. And anyway that’s really more of a function of the lack genetic/phenotypical overlap Negroids and Capoids have with Non-Africans.
For example, analyzed in John Baker’s “Race”, Australian Aboriginal/White Hybrids retained more “white” looks compared to Negroid ones.
I believe that was one of my points one the differences in their phenotypes.
The real split in humanity is between races that genetically subsumed neanderthals and those the one race that didn’t south of the Sahara.
“The real split in humanity is between races that genetically subsumed neanderthals and those the one race that didn’t south of the Sahara.”
That’s basically what I said.
Hypergamy ‘greedy’ eyes, like Deal. Marsha like me, can tell a slut. If a girl has these eyes or even worse these eyes:
I can get them into bed pretty quick. Also if the girl is black, she is by definition ‘ready to droppeth the panties’…but again only if you look like you can hurt someone.
Of all types of girls from all over the world, only blacks and some arabs always initiate with me or approach. Most women like to stand nearby or make quick glances and such.
Iceberg slim doesnt realise but his description of his neighbourhood and how his mother rejected the hard working clerk cum accountant for the bad boy gangsta in the 70s is a good example of why the magical community in america essentially dissolved. His description of the clerk begging her not to leave is heartbreaking. Thomas Sowell writes about it very well I believe. I haven’t read his more sociological works. They’re obviously more important to understand human nature and the Algorithm than his economics.
Slim doesn’t ‘hate’ women in the Danish sense of that. Neither do I. I think the word my be ‘guarded’ or cognisant. However there are more autist or K selected women among other races of women, so I would not endorse everything he says all the time.
Afro might enjoy reading it actually. Its similar to his essay in terms of philosophy. Can I admit that I actually agree with Afro is his essay? Read ‘The Rational Male’ by Rollo Tomassi, an ex rock band drummer. Its also very good.
Many women hate themselves or other women more than any man could ever ‘hate’ them.
Can I admit that I actually agree with Afro is his essay?
He’ll never admit it of course but you just made his day.
No, sorry, my life is more exciting than that. It’s awkward coming from Philibuster, I prefered when he pretended my post sank like a rock for the reasons we both know.
I feel so bad you feel that way Afro but your article didn’t sink at all. Yes a couple of people found it sexist but in the HBD-o-sphere that’s a badge of honour!
Look at all the hate my post on Trump’s IQ got & yet that’s one of the most read articles in the history of this blog.
In this fragmented media age any attention is good
And in fact the original article you were responding to is the most read article in the history of this blog and I’m going to link your response to that article to quadruple your readership with people who are interested in that topic
I know my little blog is meaningless to you, but it’s just a small token of appreciation for all you have contributed!
Oh please, shut up.
Speaking of great black nonfiction, read Soul on Ice by Eldridge Cleaver, where he admits to practicing rape on black women before trying out white women.
I never said it didn’t sink like a rock. As a so called lawyer cum-deck chair, your reading comprehension is troubling.
The point you made about the need for domination is correct which I even said at the time. But the fact the prose and syntax were like an excited teenager at summer camp and that you kept using yourself as an example was what made it idiotic.
Read the feedback. People created accounts on wordpress just to comment on how bad it was. They were not sockpuppets.
You did say it sank like a rock
“Afro’s post on himself (wow, such a little explored topic in his comments) sank like a rock.”
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/03/28/artificial-intelligence-by-animekitty-illuminati-cat/#comment-55370
I said that you said it sank like a rock.
“It’s awkward coming from Philibuster, I prefered when he pretended my post sank like a rock for the reasons we both know.”
You can’t read, like your father.
The English was perfectible, but I’m not a native speaker and I speak French in my daily life. I asked PP to correct, he preferred moderating the largest part of the intro and conclusion… Your typing is inexcusable though.
Lots of people blog about themselves, it’s a more humble and safe strategy than faking scientific authority. At least, if people want to criticize, I can always say it’s written from my subjective perspective and it doesn’t have to be universally true. But no one criticized the post’s substance, except animekitty who was “a little sick”.
The only 2 critics were two pretendedly regular readers without a wordpress account who commented in the hour after the post’s publication, it should be a clue… These two persons were a creepy couple and a guy whose name I forgot. They never came back, but they should have sounded familiar to you if only you were minimally smart…
And the tone I used was just me being natural, faking formality on something so trivial is totally ridiculous.
Why can’t I reply to Philibuster ? As you can see, he’s dumb as a rock, he won’t understand my insinuations. And by the way, I have to ask him his lifts again.
Your reply was approved
Me: I never said it didn’t sink like a rock.
Your response: You did say it sank like a rock
Get out a magnifying glass out if it helps.
For me there was an unprecedented deluge of new posters on that thread who all voiced the same serious concerns I’ve been raising time and again for months. You can pretend all you like they were fake. For all we know it was you who created the criticism because you felt so ashamed of what you wrote. That’s the only other plausible explanation for me on that point.
Contrast that to the overwhelmingly positive response to a post I didn’t even write. Pumpkin essentially copied and pasted random comments I’d been making on various threads. Of course, Pumpkin won’t let me guest post on the real problem.
So guests posts on gardening, Big Macs and recycling is more likely at this point.
You: I never said your post was a success
Me: You did say my post was a failure and I never implied you didn’t say it.
I’m very satisfied of what I’ve done and I would rewrite the same thing with other anecdotes, and an even more straightforward tone.
The two “commenters” clearly weren’t real, the guys I have private correspondences with noticed, Cocorico noticed there was something creepy and abnormal with the couple. And of course, my brown boys are the only one whose opinion matters to me. I expect no lucidity from the others and I know that being virgin/single at 40 limits your ability to discuss the topics I evoked. But these two commenters were the only critics so I really, really don’t care.
Your insane ramblings were posted on a blog that overwhelmingly attracts a deranged crowd. Post the same substance on a more mainstream site and see the trashing. My post on the contrary, and although the tone was crude, has a large male and female audience that can identify with. Actually, most blogs sound like my post, not yours.
I’ve been a co-author for Robert Lindsay, I have invitations from RR, but yes I prefer to blog about how to throw the party of the year or how to get the girls you want and never lower your standards.
Philosopher
your insults are so lame. You either call me a slut or insult my appearance.
That’s not true. I also call you a sasquatch and a sexist.
Philosopher
you’re a bona fide misogynist. When you get mad at a woman, your first instinct is to slut shame her. Your second is to call her ugly, fat, etc.
your insults say a lot about you.
Looking forward to your guest post Deal!
Sorry I’m busy with exams rn.
There’s no time limit. Whenever you feel like it, if you ever do. But obviously exams should your top priority right now since it may affect the trajectory of your whole life!
And how many times have you insulted men on this blog and talked about them as sexual objects.
Can you recall the last time you criticised a woman in any way here? Even when that Swedish girl said I was dead right on the filthy Danish propoganda, you went silent rather than launch an SJW tirade against her hatred of diversity or some other slogan.
How many times have you slut shamed women?
Where did I slut shame women?
Anyway, lately I’ve hooked up with a guy on Tinder. Idgaf about what some random dude on the Internet says about me.
I implied the fact that you haven’t slut shamed women as evidence of your bias towards them. What drives your hatred of men anyway out of interest. Do you still identify with a gender?
Because slut shaming is society’s way of controlling what women do with their bodies. There’s no equivalent for men.
by “tinder” i assume you mean “grinder”.
PP called me a slut, I can feel Deal’s pain.
omg you’re like so right!! there is like a certain segment ofblack women that will only allow date masculine,Alpha males. i’ve talkd to black women about their children’s Father’s. ok,i admit that’s knot true. women never talk to me 😦 but i overheard their conversations. sooo many of them like get impregnated by men who are now in prison,turned out to be g*y or on the “DL”,or cheat on them.i think many are attracted to men who have deep voices,and use curse words.the young one’s especialy like it if you grab your cr*tch and mumble “know what im sayin” 100 times per minute. but realy,like with all women,”confidence” and “assertiveness” gets you in their p*nties.i put quotes around these words because we all knowe these are examples of men faking it til they make it.but,women buy nito it. sadly,even Astrology won’t help you get these girls if you don’t fit the mold.
nice!
Ahah, I should read your ramblings more often…
I can’t buy that you’re a womanizer, let alone that black and Arab chicks approach you. You’re too pale, fake tanning is obvious, it makes you orange instead of caramel or brown. IIRC, you also mentioned heel pads or something, implying that you’re short.
Anyway, for the third time, how much do you lift ? And what are your measurements ?
fucking jive turkey!
Since my on topic comments are stuck in the dungeon…
I released one of them from the dungeon, but the other one just brings up convergent evolution which I already conceded was a possibility in the article and which phil78 has also brought up.
Genuine question. Do you literally get paid to post ads on blogs?
I don’t get paid here, I’m just trolling. On social media yes. Or I get gifts to talk about them on videos.
afro says:
1. the jews deserve their riches.
2. the blacks don’t deserve their poverty.
after the revolutions of the early 19th c, latin america has never had apartheid in law. yet latin american whites still have all the money and all the power.
try harder. thus far you’ve done nothing but confirm the stereotype of blacks.
your jew worship is just plain…
sad!
furthermore even if jews had “earned” it, this is 100% irrelevant to the national socialists like myself and i suppose jimmy and pill, just as irrelevant as the lebanese domination of the west african economy or the chinese domination of the se asian economy. earned it or stole it…it make ZERO difference.
it should be said however that:
1. jews are the most tribal people on the planet.
2. the ways jews have accumulated their fortunes differ markedly from the ways gentiles have accumulated theirs. and the difference is that jewish fortunes are from parasitism not production…for the most part.
…just as irrelevant as the lebanese domination of the west african economy or the overseas chinese domination of the se asian economy (the west africans and se asians don’t care if the lebanese or chinese “earned” it.). earned it or stole it…it makes ZERO difference.
The Jews became rich during the middle ages because they were the only ones allowed to get involved in usury, something prohibited by the Catholic Church. Moreover, their dispersal all over Europe, their high literacy rate and their urban living gave them a headstart. The first Jewish in America were rich migrants from Western Europe, mostly Germany.
When the poor East Europeans Jews came, the wealthy Germans did a lot to uplift the poor from the Russian Empire. So they had a privileged class class of well established migrants helping the newcomers and weren’t impeded by laws to have a group strategy. Blacks on the other hand had a very small upper class, their poor were very poor and laws were their to prevent their advancement and collective strategy.
And for your information, the Lebanese in West Africa are nothing like the Jews in the West and the Chinese in South-East Asia. See Nigeria’s richest, not a single Lebanese, compare with the Philippines and Indonesia, 90%+ Chinese. The number of Lebanese in West Africa is very low, it’s nowhere above 0.5% of the population and many Lebanese are (middle class) refugees rather than capitalist migrants. Other fact, they’re on the decline, moving back to Lebanon or Latin America.
Source ? I went there, and read some news reports as well.
Anyway, what about the Episcopalians, they’re even less numerous than Jews and control just as much.
you’re pathetic afro. at 24 there may still be hope. but only a glimmer. a faint glimmer.
1. you hate white people. this is the ONLY explanation of your inconsistent worldview. that is, your worldview is, “whitie is evil.”
2. you identify as a white person.
3. you check every box of the black stereotype. (as does peepee.)
just plain sad!
Argue against my points, the ad hominem leads nowhere, as does antisemitism.
Tell me, you think Jews have too much power and do not deserve it ? Fine…
Watcha gon’ do ?
What’s funny here is that some guys call me an Uncle Tom, that I’m ashamed of being black, that I’m too dumb to realize the racist persecutions I’m victim of everyday… Yet on the other hand, some say I hate whites, that I’m a parading nigger, an hysterical SJW…
Funny to see perceptions from all sides of dementia.
Don’t get it twisted, I’m the definition of normal, or neurotypical to use words that you like, but of course too many people have are clueless about what it’s like to be just normal and balanced.
your “points” are dumb and irrelevant afro.
you’re an uncle tom (and black stereotype) who hates white people.
that’s the whole point. that’s why you’re a joke.
apparently you can’t read. (another box checked.)
1. you hate white people….
2. you identify as a white person.
3. you check every box of the black stereotype….
I’ll ask you to elaborate each of your statements. For the time being, you just sound lunatic.
They aren’t selling cars here. How many people buy a Merc and think ASAP Rocky is a good idea to be linked with psychologically.
Notice the message is ‘not listening to convention’, symbolised by the old white man…
These Danish advertising agencies are actually ruining sales, like with pepsi and Allstate.
To be honest I find it comical at this point. ASAP Rocky selling mercs.
THATTTHH MAKETHH SENTHHH!!!!
Mercedes-Benz is currently trying to refresh its image and is targetting millennials, thus breaking with the daddy’s car stereotype. Hence ASAP Rocky and #GrowUp, read stay cool with daddy’s brand.
the danes are the worst!
macedonians are pretty bad too.
Just a couple of points :
– Neanderthals were all white Europeans and had even more ancient features that the ones you attribute to black Africans. So couldn’t it be argued that the “white race” is even more ancient than the “black race”?
-The main mixing of Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans occurred in West Asia, because all non-African populations show it. There are signs also of some interbreeding in Europe. Couldn’t we go as far as to say that modern black Africans became white when they crossed with white Neanderthals, and this is how the white race became modern?
“Just a couple of points :
– Neanderthals were all white Europeans and had even more ancient features that the ones you attribute to black Africans. So couldn’t it be argued that the “white race” is even more ancient than the “black race”?”
By PP’s logic, which I disagree with, no, because his examples dealt with ancestral humans and not cousins.
If we did, we would have to account for the ancestor of Humans and Neanderthals likely “looking black”.
“-The main mixing of Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans occurred in West Asia, because all non-African populations show it. There are signs also of some interbreeding in Europe. Couldn’t we go as far as to say that modern black Africans became white when they crossed with white Neanderthals, and this is how the white race became modern?”
Well, no, because Neanderthal show more archaic features then Early Sapiens so that doesn’t make sense.
Also no, it would’ve been “ancient Africans”, not modern ones. Plus modern Northern Euro white skin is recent, though in overal pigmentation they likely would’ve been lighter compared to other groups.
Want to elaborate, yes, Neanderthal admixture is one of the compoenents in creating modern non-africans, but if you mean to explain why they have reduced archaic traits then no it wouldn’t.
Maybe brain size though but I’m unsure regarding the modern support, are you aware of it yourself?
“Maybe brain size though but I’m unsure regarding the modern support, are you aware of it yourself?”
I seem to recall something coming out recently talking about some Neanderthal alleles contributing to increased brain size in Eurasians but I can’t find it at the moment. Here is something similar, though.
Expression of Neanderthal alleles tended to be especially low in the brain and the testes, suggesting that those tissues may have experienced more rapid evolution since we diverged from Neanderthals approximately 700,000 years ago. “We can infer that maybe the greatest differences in gene regulation exist in the brain and testes between modern humans and Neanderthals,” says Akey.
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-neanderthal-dna-contributes-human-gene.html
It seems to say that the brain genes of neanderthals and sapiens were different and also that there was actually the least (or among the least) neanderthal contribution to the brains and testes of modern sapiens (whose ancestors interbred with neanderthals), as compared to (their contribution to) some other tissues (which may have recieved more contribution from the neanderthal genome).
Edit: “…were different and also that there was actually the least (or among the least) neanderthal contribution to the …(or expression in)…”
“– Neanderthals were all white Europeans and had even more ancient features that the ones you attribute to black Africans. So couldn’t it be argued that the “white race” is even more ancient than the “black race”?”
The white race is very recent, ~7kyo.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130423-european-genetic-history-dna-archaeology-science/
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/our-magnificent-bastard-race/
Neanderthals do not equal modern-day Eurasians (obviously).
White skin is very, very, recent.
“-The main mixing of Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans occurred in West Asia, because all non-African populations show it. There are signs also of some interbreeding in Europe. Couldn’t we go as far as to say that modern black Africans became white when they crossed with white Neanderthals, and this is how the white race became modern?”
Light skin evolved because it’s easier to absorb vitamin D (a steroid hormone, not a vitamin). Not for any cockamamie reasons such as higher intelligence or whatever Rushton and Templer or Templer and Arikawa state.
we know the genetic architecture of pigmentation. that is, we know all the genes (~10, usually less than 6 in pairwise between population comparisons). skin color varies via a small number of large effect trait loci. in contrast, I.Q. varies by a huge number of small effect loci. so logically the correlation is obviously just a correlation. to give you an example, SLC45A2 explains 25-40% of the variance between africans and europeans.
long story short: it’s stupid to keep repeating the correlation between skin color and I.Q. as if it’s a novel genetic story. it’s not. i hope don’t have to keep repeating this for too many years.
http://inductivist.blogspot.ca/2011/12/skin-color-and-desirable-traits.html
Light skin evolved to better synth vit D, for intelligence or aggression. Just. A. Correlation. Stop. Putting. So. Much. Stock. Into. Correlations.
“for intelligence or aggression.”
Not for intelligence or decreased aggression**
They’re just correlations. I’m sure I don’t need to spout the ol’ “correlation doesn’t equal causation’ line.
” Light skin evolved because it’s easier to absorb vitamin D ”
Politically correct Fairy tale
Stockholm gets more sunshine per year than Kinshasa
Kiev gets more sunshine than Lagos
Moscow gets more sunshine than Malabo
Helsinki gets more sunshine than Libreville
Vienna gets more sunshine than Yaoundé
What do you know about vitamin D? Saying that something is a PC fairy tale isn’t an argument.
How did light skin evolve then? Please enlighten me.
To Jimmy
https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-hours-Sunshine,lagos-ng,Nigeria
https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-hours-Sunshine,Kiev,Ukraine
Mind the annual distribution.
Jimmy,
Asserting something without evidence is retarded.
All you need to do is look at how black Americans have higher rates of disease that are co-morbid with vitamin D deficiency. One of which is prostate cancer.
Skin color is relevant to the synthesis of vitamin D.
Click to access 10.1159%40000354750.pdf
Sexual selection also plays a part, with men being more attracted to lighter-skinned women, but the main cause is lack of sunlight.
It’s best to know about something and what these things you’re talking about do before you talk about it.
It’s not sunsine that matters anyway, it’s the UV light that goes trough the clouds but this asshat doesn’t know an his pale skin burns.
To Afro, I figured that was another reason, UV radiation being different from sunshine.
I meant to include an actual global distribution of that but I was curious of his comment of sunshine and went to investigate.
Regardless, here’s one.
http://www.drb-mattech.co.uk/uv%20map.html
be kind,
jimmy is a mentally retarded child.
a horse kicked him in the head at royal asscot.
sad!
RR
” What do you know about vitamin D? Saying that something is a PC fairy tale isn’t an argument. ”
The claim that Europe is white purely because of a lack of sunshine is a politically correct claim made by people who feel sorry for gorillas like Afro
White skin spread because of Sexual selection
White skin is universally seen as more attractive than black/brown skin. You’re not allowed to say that so they do everything they can to avoid it.
look up the cities i gave as examples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_sunshine_duration
Those major african cities are gloomier than the European cities i mentioned.
Before you bombard me with ncbi stuff i want to say that obviously white skin helps
with D3 I’m not denying that
“How did light skin evolve then? ”
Random mutation
The vast majority of mutations are completely random and some of them don’t even have a fitness advantage.
The reason the people in those low sunshine african areas are black is because the random mutation for white skin didn’t occur there. If it did then you can bet that white skin would have spread because we all know that blacks crave white women.
The primary reason for the spread of white skin was not D3. it was sexual attraction.
btw i’m not accusing you of being politically correct. I’m talking about the people who have that agenda .
You don’t have the same agenda as them.
Your agenda is to defend southern Italians.
HBD cultists make claims about skin color and intelligence and so you get a little defensive about that.
The very dark S. italians are not italian at all. They’re not even mixed race. They are completely alien.
I’ve posted pictures on this blog proving that when a North African/ME’er mixes with an Italian the child is completely white looking.
That means that the very dark S. Italians are not even half Italian. They are completely alien to Italy
Stop getting defensive over people that you are not even genetically related to .
“The claim that Europe is white purely because of a lack of sunshine is a politically correct claim made by people who feel sorry for gorillas like Afro”
Maybe “purely because of lack of sunshine” is a bad way to phrase it, but the biggest driver of it? Yes.
“White skin spread because of Sexual selection
White skin is universally seen as more attractive than black/brown skin. You’re not allowed to say that so they do everything they can to avoid it.”
I don’t deny that this is a factor. I know it is, in fact, but the only way light skin could get sexually selected for is if the climatic conditions were right—which is what is was in Europe. You know that light skin evolved very recently, right?
“Before you bombard me with ncbi stuff i want to say that obviously white skin helps
with D3 I’m not denying that”
Seems we both just skew differently on climate/sexual selection. Neither of us deny the other hypothesis, but we just think one has more to do with it than the other.
“Random mutation”
What would this random mutation have done in Africa? How do albinos fair?
“The vast majority of mutations are completely random and some of them don’t even have a fitness advantage.”
Correct.
“The reason the people in those low sunshine african areas are black is because the random mutation for white skin didn’t occur there. If it did then you can bet that white skin would have spread because we all know that blacks crave white women.”
Then skin cancer and other maladies would be rampant. It would become selected against since it wouldn’t fair too well in African climes.
“The primary reason for the spread of white skin was not D3. it was sexual attraction.”
“You don’t have the same agenda as them.
Your agenda is to defend southern Italians.
HBD cultists make claims about skin color and intelligence and so you get a little defensive about that.”
I used to believe a lot of things that I do not believe anymore. This is one of them. The claims about skin color and intelligence are bullshit. My agenda is the truth (or as close to the truth as I can get).
““The primary reason for the spread of white skin was not D3. it was sexual attraction.”
That helped further push it towards fixation, but that didn’t occur until around 7kya. Hot climes and light skin=skin cancer, etc. Dark skin in cold climes=rickets, prostate cancer, etc. Hell, when we lost our fur we were pale, then skin cancer became a driver for darker skin.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4100513/
“The very dark S. italians are not italian at all. They’re not even mixed race. They are completely alien.”
Source?
“I’ve posted pictures on this blog proving that when a North African/ME’er mixes with an Italian the child is completely white looking.”
Anecdotes.
“That means that the very dark S. Italians are not even half Italian. They are completely alien to Italy”
Source?
To Jimmy,
First of all I demonstrated to you didn’t consider yearly distribution, neither do you understand how radiation works as I also pointed out.
So your “white gene didn’t randomly occur” there idea blows.
RR did acknowledge sexual selection, he however pointed out with evidence of the Vitamin D benefits of light skin.
Finally, some actual info on Italian genetics and origins.
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/italy-from-top-to-boot/#comment-1254143
Southern Italians aren’t “alien” to Italy. If anything, quite the opposite.
Second of all Jimmy where do you get off talking about “HBD Cultists” and agendas when you are barely any different?
So it’s cult ideology to associate skin color and intelligence, but not for attractiveness?
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/03/17/phil-donahues-iq/#comment-54337
Defensive and clear agenda?
By the way, Arctic people are darker because they eat a diet with a lot of seafood. So this means they can have darker skin further from the equator since their diet has ample amounts of vitamin D.
They get high levels of UV rays in the summer from the UV rays reflected from the snow and ice, and, of course, their dark skin is a protector from the UV rays.
s. italy is like no other part of the developed world except japan in the size of its organized crime. the sicilian mafia is actually smaller than the camorra and the ‘Ndrangheta.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_crime_in_Italy#/media/File:Mappa_del_Pizzo.svg
which came first the relative poverty or the crime?
Wtf, can’t we all just get along???
Because of the Philibuster, PP, Jimmy, and Carl Churchill of this world.
Add mug of pee to the list.
look in the mirror afro. you’re the racist, not me. you hate white people.
In my opinion Afro is the most demented black racist this side of the real Robert Mugabe.
the slants have higher IQs and it’s genetic?
yet their countries are shit, and they have to come to white countries to realize their potential and exclude whites?
it’s time for steve shoe to go back to china. it’s been time for a long time.
with the exception of the japs, of course.
not sad!
infuriating!
[last 2 sentences redacted by PP, April 6, 2017]
does this man wish her were the queen of the ant colony?
fucking danes!
the US gives more in foreign aid to denmark than to any other country except sweden.
why?
to prevent sweden from invading denmark.
90% of billionaire hedge fund and private equity CEOs are danish.
and danish comedians are so annoying!
israel is a much richer country than denmark.
i wonder why?
I hate to say I told you so, but I did
Jimmy 1 Trumpsteiners 0
Exactly. Look at all of the rationalizing his supporters are doing.
“He’s playing 8729274974^6 d chess!”
Anything so they don’t have to face the truth: that he’s just like the rest of the “Presidents”.
The concept of dysrationalia was first proposed by psychologist Keith Stanovich in the early 1990s. Stanovich originally classified dysrationalia as a learning disability and characterized it as a difficulty in belief formation, in assessing belief consistency, or in the determination of action to achieve one’s goals.[2] However, special education researcher Kenneth Kavale noted that dysrationalia may be more aptly categorized as a thinking disorder, rather than a learning disability, because it does not have a direct impact upon academic performance.[3]
Psychologist Robert Sternberg argued that the construct of dysrationalia needed to be better conceptualized since it lacked a theoretical framework (explaining why people are dysrational and how they become this way) and operationalization (how dysrationalia could be measured).[4] Sternberg also noted that the concept had the potential for misuse, as one may label another as dysrational simply because he or she does not agree with the other person’s view. Stanovich then replied to both Kavale[5] and Sternberg.[6] Stanovich and his colleagues further developed the dysrationalia concept in later books.
In 2002 Sternberg edited a book, Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid, in which the dysrationalia concept was extensively discussed.[7] In his 2009 book What Intelligence Tests Miss, Stanovich provided the detailed conceptualization that Sternberg called for in his earlier critique.[8] In that book, Stanovich showed that variation in rational thinking skills is surprisingly independent of intelligence. One implication of this finding is that dysrationalia should not be rare.
Stanovitch proposed two concepts related to dysrationalia: mindware gap and contaminated mindware.[9]
A mindware gap results from gaps in education and experience. This idea focuses on the lack or limitations within a person’s knowledge in logic, probability theory, or scientific method when it comes to belief orientation or decision-making. Due to these gaps, intelligent people can make seemingly irrational decisions.
Contaminated mindware, on the other hand, focuses on how intelligent people can “fall” for irrational ideologies, pseudosciences, and/or get-rich-quick schemes. A person can be led into such contaminated mindware through heuristic trust or fallacious reasoning.
One example that can be related to dysrationalia centers on two former Illinois schoolteachers who pulled their children from the local public school in the area because discussions of the Holocaust are a part of the history curriculum.[1] These parents, who are presumably competent due to their college education, believe that the Holocaust is a myth and should not be taught to their children. This is an example of a problem in belief formation regardless of intelligence.
A survey was given to Canadian Mensa club members on the topic of paranormal belief. Mensa members are provided membership strictly because of their high-IQ scores. The survey results show that 44% of the members believed in astrology, 51% believed in biorhythms, and 56% believed in the existence of extraterrestrial visitors. All these beliefs have no valid evidence.[1]
There are many examples of people who are famous because of their intelligence, but often display irrational behavior. Martin Heidegger, a renowned philosopher, was also a Nazi apologist and used the most fallacious arguments to justify his beliefs.[1] William Crookes, a famous scientist who discovered the element thallium and a Fellow of the Royal Society, was continually duped by spiritual mediums yet never gave up his spiritualist beliefs.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysrationalia
What do you think of Tariq Nasheed? He’s really hot rite now and he’s blowing up on Yourube.
I don’t know this character.
I think you mite like him.
Afro has it ever occured that there are differences in racial intelligence? Has this been’peer reviewed’, officialy endorsed or ‘lacks evidence’.
Afro is worse than an idiot.
He believes what suits his racist agenda.
Whereas idiots dont know any better like children.
I can clearly see that you belong to an inferior variety of man, call it a race if it makes you feel good.
The point of bringing this up was to show that IQ doesn’t protect against irrationality. Apparently, no one is bothered here. Don’t you think rationality is the very thing that tests that supposedly measure intelligence should reflect ?
As far as I’m concerned I lost the last bits of confidence that I had in psychometrics. It’s just measuring how good you are at silly puzzles.
(The survey results show that 44% of the members believed in astrology,)
Carl Jung’s IQ was 160
————
(51% believed in biorhythms,)
bi·o·rhythm
ˈbīōˌriT͟Həm/Submit
noun
plural noun: biorhythms
a recurring cycle in the physiology or functioning of an organism, such as the daily cycle of sleeping and waking.
a cyclic pattern of physical, emotional, or mental activity said to occur in the life of a person.
————
(and 56% believed in the existence of extraterrestrial visitors.)
To begin with, calling him a great director is a major understatement. He was a true perfectionist who always broke barriers and moved cinema forward. His movies have always been unapologetic and ahead of time. Kubrick was rumoured to have an IQ of almost 200.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-strange-facts-about-Stanley-Kubricks-movies
————
(All these beliefs have no valid evidence.)
Oh really:
Sternberg also noted that the concept had the potential for misuse, as one may label another as dysrational simply because he or she does not agree with the other person’s view.
The Philosopher, what are your feelings about Lyndon Larouche? It seems like you two would have a lot in common.
For Philosopher and PP.
Autists are not actually socially inept. They just morally and intellectually overestimate individuals they engage with.
I would be skeptical to refer anything from RaceRealist as to my knowedge nothing substantial and neutral comes from that mongrel given his pseudo science blitherings, biased opinions, unfounded theories and racial outlook on everything
All you do is make claims. You know, claims need evidence and arguments. So please present both. If not, shut the fuck up.
As multiple other commenters have pointed out, facial reconstruction of extinct hominins has it’s limits in accuracy. It cannot reliably predict the physical charcteristics of soft tissue. This is one of the reason why superfical traits like “Skin pigmentation is dense, hair wooly, nose broad, face generally short, lips thick, and ears squarish and lobeless. ” are useless when determining the race of any specimen.
Skull morphology, and genetic divergence are what dictates race. Which is why Afro is not wrong when he says race is a social construct, just like the categorization of “species” it has an air of subjectivity when defining parameters.
Funny, literally ever person in that set of pictures has a a very similar skull shape, even if their expressions for pigmentation are different.
The first European would not have looked like that.
As multiple other commenters have pointed out, facial reconstruction of extinct hominins has it’s limits in accuracy.
We can only guess what ancient people looked like, but it’s the most scientific educated guess we have. That should count for something.
I don’t think it’s inaccurate, it’s just “weak”. You shouldn’t be so quick to propagate inadequate evidence as core principles in your hypothesis.
My whole point is that Morphology is a better predictor because it is far less superficial and benign in function. The genetic magnitude is higher.
I agree. This is completely made up. How do they know that the persons face had big lips. They don’t. They add them to attack Whites. Fake Science.
Exactly. Soft tissue cannot be reconstructed. They’re just biased towards African-like traits because of where the fossils are found.
“Reconstructions” should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/04/04/problems-with-forensic-facial-reconstruction-implications-for-the-facial-reconstruction-of-mitochondrial-eve/
The reconstruction of the 70,000 year old man was not made the way you think it was RR. What they did was take a face of an extremely ancient Y chromosome extant tribe in Africa and then merged it was an archaic skull.
Do you know what the skull is called so I can read more into this?
“They add them to attack Whites.”
The reason Anthropologists like to put such speculated features is because they believe it is necessary evidence for the out of africa theory. Remember most scientists still incorrectly believe Evolution takes millions of years. I don’t necessarily think they’re being “anti-white”. Either way cognitive dissonance is involved.
“Remember most scientists still incorrectly believe Evolution takes millions of years.”
Examples? If most scientists believe this it should be easy to name some names. Other than Gould and Mayr. That’s cheating bringing them up.
“Examples?”
I guess these people for starters:
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/aug/lasting-evolutionary-change-takes-about-one-million-years
Also, You have used the “evolution takes a long time” argument on me before.
Another point I was trying to make was the prognathism isn’t a trait that is exclusive to Negroids, Australoids, or even our species. I don’t think it would be appropriate to classify Neanderthals as Negroid. Which is why it’s also a bad proxy for migrational divergence. Actual carbon/Potassium-argon dating on tools and skeletons is better….obviously.
“I guess these people for starters:”
Huh? He said that rapid evolution can happen and persist in the short term but it doesn’t occur long term.
“Rapid evolution is clearly a reality over fairly short time periods, sometimes just a few generations,” said Josef Uyeda, lead author of the study and a zoologist at Oregon State University. “But those rapid changes do not always persist and may be confined to small populations. For reasons that are not completely clear, the data show the long-term dynamics of evolution to be quite slow.”
Across a broad range of species, the research found that for a major change to persist and for changes to accumulate, it took about one million years. The researchers wrote that this occurred repeatedly in a “remarkably consistent pattern.”
“What’s interesting is not that we have so much biological diversity and evolutionary change, but that we have so little,” Uyeda said. “It’s a paradox as to why evolution should be so slow.”
He’s talking about stasis.
The debate is about whether evolution occurs in ‘bursts’, large amounts of evolutionary change over time, or if species change gradually.
The theory of Punctuated Equilibria is that evolutionary change takes place in a short amount of time, not gradually. PE basically argues the opposite of phyletic gradualism (PG).
Looking at the fossil record as a whole, species remain in stasis before evolutionary change occurs.
http://www.macroevolution.net/stephen-jay-gould.html
“Also, You have used the “evolution takes a long time” argument on me before.”
Punctuated equilibria, yes.
“Which is why it’s also a bad proxy for migrational divergence. Actual carbon/Potassium-argon dating on tools and skeletons is better….obviously.”
Why not genetic data? I do see your point though and do partly agree.
“He said that rapid evolution can happen and persist in the short term but it doesn’t occur long term.”
I think you misread that. It clearly states that for any significant change to accumulate, it needs around a million years.
“The debate is about whether evolution occurs in ‘bursts’, large amounts of evolutionary change over time, or if species change gradually.”
I’m aware but that has nothing to to do with what i was talking about, my point was that anthropologists underestimate the genetic effect bottlenecks have on populations, which is why so many forensic reconstructions on ancient hominins is biased towards black physical characteristics
“Why not genetic data?”
Genetic data is preferable, but two distinct haplotypes can come from the same population. In this sense every individual is a race. At what level of genetic haplogrouping do you draw the line and say that is a race? The issue you may be that you’re trying to pull out a level of objectivity that simply does not exist.
I have always believed that ‘australoids’ could be more of a ‘transitional’ race or a ‘hybrid’ race rather than a race unto themselves like negroids, caucasoids, mongoloids. Andaman islanders are not the only australoids in existence. IMO the pics in this article are even more evidence that australoids are either a ‘transitional’ race…….either negroids ‘becoming’ caucasoid or an ancient mixture of caucasoid and negroid races. Look at the thumbnail of the andaman video, the girl clearly has a caucasoid like nose and arguably lips thickness and shape (compared to seemingly negroid features in the pics above her) while she retains the curly hair and dark skin of negroids. (Probably also because andaman islands are extremly hot and humid). That said, there are a lot of australoids with straight hair, nose as thin as caucasoids, flat foreheads and thinner lips like caucasoids.
What do you all think PP and people? Am i wrong? right? Half right/wrong? 🙂
There was a theory that australian aboriginals are archaic caucasoids. They do look kind of like the missing link between negroids & caucasoids
In respect to the soft tissue, I would place them intermediate between tropical and drier adaptations.
Phylogenetically, no.
>”Phylogenetically, no.”.
Why not?
Because modern negroids are not the modern representations of ancient OOA people. See my previous comments regarding that.
Complete utter afrocentric rubbish. First Europeans were white and always were white. Europeans have never been black. Europeans came from the Ukrainian steppes not apefrica.
All humans came from Africa. That’s indisputable.