|
Post by zarahan on May 4, 2014 13:22:20 GMT -5
Ben says: H. sapiens began to enter Europe about 40,000 BP, but it is only at 28,000 BP that we get a fossil that shows any Caucasoid features – the Old Man from Cro-Magnon, in France. Dubious. Cro-magnons have variable features, many resembling Africans depending on the sample tested. And in fact, Africans have the most diverse phenotypes- the most diverse in the world. Things like narrow noses are part and parcel of Africans, and do not need any "Caucasoids" to explain why.. ^^So much for "Caucasoid" Cro-Magnons... I already pointed out what 'race' means in multivariate analyses, i.e. averages in terms of (sampled) morphological frequency. In regards to the total variation, populations overlap, so it is quite pointless. If its pointless, on what basis do you identify these mysterious "Caucasoid" Cro-Magnons? However, there are features that appear in certain regions more frequently than others, and the averages are different. At the continental level, it is still therefore convenient to recognize these frequencies as 'racial', but this word can easily be substituted for another.If many Cro-Magnons show averages that cluster them with Africans on what basis do they become your "Caucasoid" race? And what is "convenient" may be so for racialists, and assorted right wingers but not for credible science. Grouping humans by continent dies not meet criteria for for biological race, which involves clear subspecies as in other animals. Under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, a common way to decide what is a sub-species, is that organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they do not interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation or other factors. Humans from different continents have been interbreeding for millennia, and have not been isolated from each other to the extent that a separate "subspecies" or biological "race" arises. If you study the appearance of 'races', they are very recent. Mongoloids only appeared between 12,000 and 6,000 BC a Groves notes, and Europeans to Cro-Magnon 1. Up above you say "Caucasoid" Cro-Magnons appeared 28,000 years ago. But yet here now you say the appearance of "races" is only very recent. Which is it? And why would "African" features among people already in Africa, have to wait for "Caucasoid" features to appear first, after people left Africa? WHy do Africans, the originals with the most diverse phenotypes, have to wait for everyone else to develop "racial" features before they finally "obtain" such features? Djehuti says: Exactly what do you mean by "Negroid" or "Afrotropical". Last time I checked Anatomically Modern Humans originated in tropical Africa so which populations today do you think resembled the early AMH populations the most??... Contemporary Europeans? Contemporary East Asians? Perhaps contemporary Native Americans?? LOL Even the bizarre source you are cited makes no sense. How could the early AMH specimens like Herto or Irhoud not be "racially African" if they evolved in Africa like all AMH?? The term "generalized modern" is nothing more than a bogus euphemism for "negroid features" minus certain archaic traits.
Homo sapiens idaltu a.k.a. Herto Man (160,000 years b.p.)
Modern day man from Herto, Ethiopia
Even anthropologist Cavalli Sfroza says the Herto Man skull possesses so many affinities with modern Ethiopians that he could be directly ancestral to them. Indeed. HErto man above from Africa has plenty of features that would make him "racially" African. How come he is not, yet curiously, boldly, Cro-Magnon 28kya is "Caucasoid"? One can see the bogus (and typical) double standard at work here. A detailed debunking of the "generalized modern" claim re the outdated anthropological work of Colin Groves is found below: exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2008/09/crania-behind-generalized-modern-human.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 22:00:47 GMT -5
Cro-Magnon 1 ("Old Man") has never been directly dated. 27,680 ± 270 BP is a carbon-14 date of a marine shell found from the same site, but its relation to the skull is disputed. Anyway, the "Old Man" site is not culturally Aurignacian, but Gravettian. Your sources are only talking about Aurignacians, or before 30,000 BP. Stringer et al. claim Aurignacian Europeans were 'Australoid', which is often likened to the generalized cranial morphology of AMH. Regardless, minus possibly stature and limbs, Europeans by the end of the Gravettian were morphologically on average as they look now. Cheikh Anta Diop had no problem with admitting this fact.
Holliday (2006, "Body Proportions", Early modern human evolution in Central Europe: the people of Dolní Věstonice and Pavlov. Oxford University Press.) points out that during the Gravettian (e.g. Dolni vestonice, 28,000 - 20,000 BP) Europeans show adaptive modification in their post-crania, and that they no longer cluster with sub-saharan africans in their relative bi-iliac breadth. You do not mention this in your diagram.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 22:14:16 GMT -5
Just to point out, Colin Groves is not a racist or what you call 'HBD'. He has spent his time debunking Rushton:
"Another vocal critic of Rushton's r/K selection theories was Professor Colin Groves (who wrote the foreword to this book). In an article titled 'Genes, Genitals and Genius', Groves noted that Rushton preselected growth and maturation data that supported his thesis and overlooked data that did not." - Straightening the Bell Curve: How Stereotypes about Black Masculinity Drive Research on Race and Intelligence... By Constance B. Hilliard (2012)
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on May 4, 2014 22:33:33 GMT -5
Fair enough, as to Groves, but whatever the pattern, the Caucasoid Cro-magnons advanced by some don't wash.
On Holiday, a good proportion of Dolni Vestonice samples group with Africans per Holiday, on his intralimb category. quote: "the combined Gravettian sample has a mean nearly identical to that of recent sub-Saharan Africans."
As far as bi-iliac breaths, the Gravettian samples show a mixed pattern- quote: "The combined Gravettian sample is intermediate relative to recent Europeans and Africans.." Some fall nearer the African mean, some nearer the European mean. This mixed data pattern, again contradicts assorted claim of "Caucasoids." If anything to use the racial categories favored by HBDers, they suggest a dreaded "race mix" not "Caucasoids."
And on limb/trunk proportions the clustering is towards the African average. When Holliday's 4-factor "lineup" is viewed, the combined weight rests with the African affinities. Intralimb- African. Limb Proportion- African. Femoral head size- European. Body mass- they split the difference.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on May 5, 2014 8:43:20 GMT -5
Ignoring all the “racial” Negroid, Caucaosid, Ethiopiod , X-oid spat and discussion between Ben and Mary(she likes to brown nose), typical Hindu. The only point that warrants a response is this:
Quote: I've hardly studied the topic. I only pointed out that Neanderthals given their geographical boundary should not be expected to be white, but tawny.
Well Ben. Fortunately you hardly studied the topic. As a result a smart man would not discuss something he knows nothing about. Don’t take your cue from Mary. She does that a lot. Typical Hindu. You know she is a trouble-maker. She has her agenda. Here and on ES.
Neanderthal was not tawny he was …well…the same complexion as Melanesians, why?, La Brana, Neanderthal and Melenesians all have the same genetic pigmentation profile. And just incase you still don’t get it. In order for humans(and homonins) to lighten they need to at least carry the dipigmentation genes. All the above did not and do not.. And if you had studied the topic, and understood it, you would understand that Melenisians, Neanderthals and La Brana did NOT carry these skin lightening genes therefore they were UNABLE to become light. That is what is so startling about the revelation of the Neaderthal genome AND La Brana. This is what caught the researchers by surprise(La Brana). Hence the title of the thread. Neanderthal was…BLACK like Melenisians.
Further studies would also enlighten you that YRI/SSA carry the depignetation genes unlike Melenesians and Neanderthal. And regions beyond and prior to the related SNP are highly derived(much more than Europeans). So what is the signifinance of that you ask? Just as everything else. Light skin has an African origin and apparently it is “recent”. Ie less than 6000yo. Don’t believe me?…Shriver et al.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on May 5, 2014 9:07:07 GMT -5
To enlighten you and the lurkers further. ALL the ancient DNA thus far confirm several things, from Malstrom et al , Lazaridis et al(Loschbour report), Paabo etc, Ancient Europeans (preNeolithic) and South Asian like Melenesians, Australians, Anderman Islander etc are genetically closer(including pigmentation genes) than ancient Europeans to modern Europeans. Do you grasp the significance of this??!! I will let you in on a open secret. It looks like Australian type AMH occupied areas from W. Europe to the far East and Australia. Keeping in mind La Brana was hg-C.!!
That would explain the “supposedly” higher Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture in Melenesians etc.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on May 6, 2014 7:36:22 GMT -5
Just in case some of you missed this. The paper peaked my curiosity. What did they mean by “Neandertals …… whereas genes involved in behavior and pigmentation have changed more on the modern human lineage”
Did they mean that Neanderthal pigmentation remained unchanged? Therefore, what was/is it? ie the pigmentation of Neanderthal. Following up on their referenced study. I found out Neanderthal was indeed black skinned. Shocking! Now the follow -up question is…did Paabo know this all along? Is this known by the masses of admixed Neanderthal/Europeanist who are lining up to be part Neanderthals.
Patterns of coding variation in the complete exomes of three Neandertals(2014)
Abstract We present the DNA sequence of 17,367 protein-coding genes in two Neandertals from Spain and Croatia and analyze them together with the genome sequence recently determined from a Neandertal from southern Siberia. Comparisons with present-day humans from Africa, Europe, and Asia reveal that genetic diversity among Neandertals was remarkably low, and that they carried a higher proportion of amino acid-changing (nonsynonymous) alleles inferred to alter protein structure or function than present-day humans. Thus, Neandertals across Eurasia had a smaller long-term effective population than present-day humans. We also identify amino acid substitutions in Neandertals and present-day humans that may underlie phenotypic differences between the two groups. We find that genes involved in skeletal morphology have changed more in the lineage leading to Neandertals than in the ancestral lineage common to archaic and modern humans, whereas genes involved in behavior and pigmentation have changed more on the modern human lineage
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on May 6, 2014 7:42:43 GMT -5
Ignorance is truely bliss.....
|
|
|
Post by djehuti on Jun 18, 2014 15:02:35 GMT -5
Sorry for the late reply... I already pointed out what 'race' means in multivariate analyses, i.e. averages in terms of (sampled) morphological frequency. In regards to the total variation, populations overlap, so it is quite pointless. However, there are features that appear in certain regions more frequently than others, and the averages are different. At the continental level, it is still therefore convenient to recognize these frequencies as 'racial', but this word can easily be substituted for another. The author of that article is Colin Groves, a leading biological anthropologist. He understands that 'race' doesn't exist in any non-abstract sense, and even in the article claims it is subjective, but that it is still a useful tool. Cranial studies show that AMH do not cluster with any living 'race'/population. They are as distant to Europeans than what Groves calls Afrotropical or Negroid. Again, we are talking averages (anyone can find an individual resemblance from any population). If you study the appearance of 'races', they are very recent. Mongoloids only appeared between 12,000 and 6,000 BC a Groves notes, and Europeans to Cro-Magnon 1. As I stated 'generalized modern' is just a silly euphemism for "negroid features" plus archaic features. It is these archaic features such as thick brow ridges that make early AMH specimens plot distantly with contemporary AMH populations in multivariate analyses. Interestingly, the contemporary populations that come relatively closest to early AMH specimens are Australasian aborigines. However, if these archaic features are not factored in, then early AMH would indeed overlap with contemporary Africans as well as Australasian aborigines.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Jul 17, 2014 15:05:20 GMT -5
What doe sit all mean? It means that AMH and Neanderthals never crossed paths in Iberia s many Euronuts believe.
---------- New evidence of early Neanderthal disappearance in the Iberian Peninsula
Bertila Galván et al.(2014)
The timing of the end of the Middle Palaeolithic and the disappearance of Neanderthals continue to be strongly debated. Current chronometric evidence from different European sites pushes the end of the Middle Palaeolithic throughout the continent back to around 42 thousand years ago (ka). This has called into question some of the dates from the Iberian Peninsula, previously considered as one of the last refuge zones of the Neanderthals. Evidence of Neanderthal occupation in Iberia after 42 ka is now very scarce and open to debate on chronological and technological grounds. Here we report thermoluminescence (TL) and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dates from El Salt, a Middle Palaeolithic site in Alicante, Spain, the archaeological sequence of which shows a transition from recurrent to sporadic human occupation culminating in the abandonment of the site. The new dates place this sequence within MIS 3, between ca. 60 and 45 ka. An abrupt sedimentary change towards the top of the sequence suggests a strong aridification episode coinciding with the last Neanderthal occupation of the site. These results are in agreement with current chronometric data from other sites in the Iberian Peninsula and point towards possible breakdown and disappearance of the Neanderthal local population around the time of the Heinrich 5 event. Iberian sites with recent dates (less than 40 ka) attributed to the Middle Palaeolithic should be revised in the light of these data.
|
|
|
Post by forty2tribes on Aug 11, 2014 18:49:06 GMT -5
Large parts of Europe were not occupied until as recent as the Mesolithic. Early settlement was restricted to the south because of the inhospitable glaciers that covered the north. Iberia served as a main refuge area for Neanderthals. So why would Neanderthals be pale white? It is not out of place at all they were a light brown or "tawny" colour - like most south europeans today. In case you hadn't noticed, very few Europeans are literal pale white/light pink in skin colour. This was recognized by Benjamin Franklin who suggested in 1751 that since the number of white skinned Europeans was very small, America ought to exclude the darker peoples of Europe including the Italians, Spaniards etc. Antonio Carluccio and Gennaro Contaldo [img src=" chrisneillsdirtykitchen.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/antonio-and-gennaro.jpg" src="" style="max-width:100%;"] Neanderthal That image isnt Neanderthalish enough eyes are too small, need more prognathism and larger brow ridges.
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Sept 17, 2018 10:07:21 GMT -5
I had this figured out more than 5 years ago. They are stealing my work again - Black Neanderthals, black Europeans I told you so…. Black Neanderthals, black blue-eyed Cro-Magnons antropogenez.ru/article/1096/
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Sept 17, 2018 11:03:14 GMT -5
|
|