|
|
Post by osirica on Nov 26, 2005 19:24:22 GMT -5
Someone said: "Negroids are a core race and Aethiopids are only influenced by this core without fully belonging to it. "
Riiight. They belong to the "Caucasoid" race. Ethiopians have absolutely nothing in common with Caucasians from Britain or France. All of these charts are doing are measuring select biological and genetic traits, not compelete human characteristics.
When you start out with the biased assumption that Black (negroid) people are a "very specialized group" and the Caucasoid peopl are a very "broad" group, what you are doing is taking a relative perspective of human groupings, THEN you place your genetic or biological traits within.
I have yet to see anyone find a group of whites or Caucasoids who aren't "truely" Caucasoid... and this being within the supposed "broader" group.
But we know this is a lie. We know that Black people are the most diverse people genetically. So what you guys in here are doing is simply taking a chunk of that Black diversity, and reclassifying it as Caucasoid. You then find a comparison to the group that shares the least in common (obviously in comparison someone has to be least in common among the choices) and then say "oh yea, those west Africans must be the "true" Negroid types, because they are furthest from our Ethiopian types that we feel close to.
Oh and remember, those blacker, more "negroid" ethiopian types must be excluded through another biased assumption (that they were never part of the original Aethiopid roots) otherwise those pretty distanct charts will show the Ethiopians much closer to the "true" negroids.
"True"... funny way of trying to be objective.
|
|
|
|
Post by osirica on Nov 26, 2005 19:43:31 GMT -5
I just disproved it.
The issue isn't about biological traits, it's about what traits, and what subjects you use.
I know for a fact that Ethiopians range in appearance from very "true" Negroid (the type you recognize) to some very Caucasian in appearance.
The BS factor is that all of the elaboration in here ignores that. We want to trust and assume that we are dealing with a "specific" type of Ethiopian... the "True" Ethiopian, and the assumption is that this "true" Ethiopian must be more similar to the Caucasian than to the "true" Negroid...
and then of course those "other" Ethiopians... the ones that look very much like West Africans... oh we don't count those in our tests. Or we set aside a quota (instead of sampling from the population truely in proportion).
So yes, That table showing Ethiopia 30 points from norway, yet 60 points from "Bantu" is a bunch of crap.
Why? becasue for each "white" group compared, they took specific white groups (Norway, Armenia, etc)... With the Black groups, they lumped the ENTIRE group fo black people and compared that, instead of comparing to Rwanda, or Uganda or Senegalese.
This is like looking at a Cartesian map, where the northern hemisphere is stretched to 2/3rds the size of the entire map and then we are supposed to somehow objectively compare the sizes, distances, and relationships between Africa, America, and Europe.
IN addition, it says that 62% (not 99%) of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster. Ok, here is a silly question, what is the cluster defined as? Someone forgot that haplotypes are one indicator...
By the way, when I went to the site that is linked to this chart, this is what THEY have to say:
The pattern of haplotype variation and LD observed at the PLAT locus suggests a recent common ancestry of non-African populations, from a small population originating in eastern Africa. These data indicate that, throughout much of modern human history, sub-Saharan Africa has maintained both a large effective population size and a high level of population substructure.
This is saying that the original ethiopians were black and RECENT non-black admixture occurred (arabs DUH).
Where throughout this entire process, there is the absurd false argument that the original Ethiopians were NOT black, NT negroid, and later recent migrations of negroid people accounted for this "blackness" that is present.
See, you guys think you have to be a geneticist to understand human relationships. But there is a level of common sense.
1. Not all Black people exhibit the same traits. That does not make one group any less Black.
2. Since Black people are the ancestors of the Caucasoids, its bound to occur that some Black peoples share some of the traits that were passed down to Caucasoids.
You should not, and I stress this, you should not assume that everytime you find similaraties between a Black and Caucasoid type that this means that the Caucasoid originated the trait and passed it down to the Black type (in this case Ethiopians). It just as frequently goes in the other direction.
This idea that "Some africans left half a million years ago, became caucasoid, came back to Ethiopia and founded the civilizations, and after this the Blacks from the interior came" is false.
That is what this thread (and maybe the site) and it's evolutionary ideas are about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Nov 26, 2005 20:30:26 GMT -5
I wish he had the means ourselves to examine the skulls of every population cluster on earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Nov 26, 2005 20:56:18 GMT -5
Lappids are not fully Europid. Westsibirids neither - they are neither fully Europid nor Mongolid, Aralids, a more recent result of mixture (Tungid-Europid) neither.
Certain Weddoid variants and Indomelanids in general are Europoid without being fully Europid - the later rather than the first.
Protomalayids are hard to classify as well, best described as Protomongoloid, same is true for many Indianid forms.
What else but their strong pigmentation and frizzy (though longer) hair makes Aethiopids typical Negrids?
Typical Aethiopids deviate in almost every important feature from whats typical Negrid...
They are Negroid though or could be seen as such, but not Negrid, no members of the race in the narrower sense, an intermediate form between Negroid and Europoid.
|
|
|
|
Post by yigal on Nov 27, 2005 1:53:54 GMT -5
Lappids are not fully Europid. Westsibirids neither - they are neither fully Europid nor Mongolid, Aralids, a more recent result of mixture (Tungid-Europid) neither. Certain Weddoid variants and Indomelanids in general are Europoid without being fully Europid - the later rather than the first. Protomalayids are hard to classify as well, best described as Protomongoloid, same is true for many Indianid forms. What else but their strong pigmentation and frizzy (though longer) hair makes Aethiopids typical Negrids? Typical Aethiopids deviate in almost every important feature from whats typical Negrid... They are Negroid though or could be seen as such, but not Negrid, no members of the race in the narrower sense, an intermediate form between Negroid and Europoid. i dont know dude when i went to israel i was rather disapointed, i expected to see those ethiopians that every one loves to post, instead i saw black folk that look no diff than sandford and son  |
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Nov 27, 2005 9:03:35 GMT -5
Not all Ethiopians are Aethiopid btw...
But I saw some fully typical Jewish Aethiopids - those are not typical - though the picture is bad, its obvious - weak facial profile and relief, too flat nose.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Nov 27, 2005 15:52:46 GMT -5
Saying Ehtiopians are White is as ridiculous as the other poster saying that 20% of Sicilians have a classic Nordic phenotype.
|
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Nov 27, 2005 20:23:14 GMT -5
Yeah, thanks for explaining why you think so. Did you read the mission statement for this forum? Well, it says we're interested in facts here. If you don't want to present any, go away.
|
|
|
|
Post by jam on Nov 29, 2005 15:25:57 GMT -5
Maybe they just have a common ancestor, even maybe they're closer to the original look, and both black and white people originate from them, through different "routes"?
|
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Nov 29, 2005 20:07:11 GMT -5
Maybe they just have a common ancestor, even maybe they're closer to the original look, and both black and white people originate from them, through different "routes"? That question's already been answered with the time-origin of genetic markers present in them. |
|
|
|
Post by magneto on Dec 4, 2005 16:20:51 GMT -5
Ethiopian Jews in Israel  |
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on Dec 6, 2005 8:13:53 GMT -5
Amara and Tigraen Ethiopians aren't between anything lol they are a subrace of the negroid racial group that just happen to have slight caucasoid admixture due to its close proximity to Arabia. Thats that LOL, simple
|
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on Dec 6, 2005 9:15:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hajaz on Dec 6, 2005 17:31:34 GMT -5
ethiopians arn't true aethiopids many are mixed with bantus, nilotes, arabs, pygmees, bushmen etc i think somalis are the truest aethiopids
|
|
|
|
Post by magneto on Dec 6, 2005 21:34:05 GMT -5
|
|
