Who were the latter Pleistocene eastern Africans?

[mhagneto]

bertrand said:

mhagneto said:

/

Give an example of what you claim above. Do you have Cavalli-Sforza's HGHG? His coancestry coefficients (Fst's)are there. So are M Nei's. A K Roychoudhury gives similar findings. So, what do "dodona people" say that violates this data?

I'm talking physical anthropology, genetics and none of that what you say refute this. You bring up the same crap everytime with Cavalli-Sforza as if he's the authority, why don't you read more than one source? My original post in this thread stands unrefuted.

/

I'm not talking about the original post, but the one I quoted. I didnt give C-S, only, but Nei and Roychoudhury. Add Rosenberg. BTW, C-S is a great authority , because subsequent research has confirmed
his work, and he is one the pioneers of population genetics. So, I ask you once again, what is the "same old crap" you're referring to? And, how do "dodona people" do what you claimed they do? And, dont do what you did last time--- ask me to "refute" something I wasnt commenting on and hadnt even read-- so remember I'm not talking about your first post on this thread but the one I quoted--- about "dodona people dividing up Africans and giving "caucasoids" an astronomical range. So, answer the question if you care to, but please dont rant and rave about something I'm not talking about and then pretend you've answered. It's your choice.

[Agrippa]

Ah, to you and Pontikos they're not true Negroes which is core Negrid to you, what garbage! These people are what I've been stating they- are subtype of "Negroid",

Agreed. Even v. Eickstedt put Aethiopids under Negroid, even Negrid finally, but he recognised their deviation and intermediate character. Baker on the other hand preferred morphology and put the more Europoid Aethiopids under Europid.

no more no less. No Negrid type came later bringing admixture and altered the phenotype.

Speaking of Niloto-Hamits, that might be right, but the Bantus are of another category, they represent the Negrid core. Just compare typical Tutsis and Hutus, I might post plates from Hiernaux...
Its obvious EA elongated type without significant foreign admixture evolved in and intermediate way and didnt participated in the forming of the (WA) Negrid core which expanded Southwards and Eastwards mainly with Bantus.

I'd be a fool to argue with outdated anthropology in light of the obvious that anyone can see when they look at East Africans, that they are Negroid.

Yes they are, but morphologically intermediate and there are clearly Europid (direct, more recently) influenced EA as well, just compare with Amharas...its impossible to generalise for the whole region and by specialisation EA elongated types without significant admixture have mainly the skin-hair-proportion characteristics, even that not that extreme, other than that, skull+facial morphology, they are deviating in a Europoid direction.

[Planet Asia]

agrippa said:

Ah, to you and Pontikos they're not true Negroes which is core Negrid to you, what garbage! These people are what I've been stating they- are subtype of "Negroid",

Agreed. Even v. Eickstedt put Aethiopids under Negroid, even Negrid finally, but he recognised their deviation and intermediate character. Baker on the other hand preferred morphology and put the more Europoid Aethiopids under Europid.

First of all, get rid of the Aethiopoid term, its as meaningless and bankrupt as "Mediterranean race". The Elongated linear type is just a subtype that has nothing to do with Europoids.

Speaking of Niloto-Hamits, that might be right, but the Bantus are of another category, they represent the Negrid core. Just compare typical Tutsis and Hutus, I might post plates from Hiernaux...

Bantus are not a core race[True Negroes in disguise] of anything, they, just like the Elongated linear peoples are another subtype of Negroid. Furthermore, Tutsis are just as "Bantu" as Hutus.

[Planet Asia]

mhagneto said:

bertrand said:

I'm talking physical anthropology, genetics and none of that what you say refute this. You bring up the same crap everytime with Cavalli-Sforza as if he's the authority, why don't you read more than one source? My original post in this thread stands unrefuted.

/

I'm not talking about the original post, but the one I quoted. I didnt give C-S, only, but Nei and Roychoudhury. Add Rosenberg. BTW, C-S is a great authority , because subsequent research has confirmed
his work, and he is one the pioneers of population genetics. So, I ask you once again, what is the "same old crap" you're referring to? And, how do "dodona people" do what you claimed they do? And, dont do what you did last time--- ask me to "refute" something I wasnt commenting on and hadnt even read-- so remember I'm not talking about your first post on this thread but the one I quoted--- about "dodona people dividing up Africans and giving "caucasoids" an astronomical range. So, answer the question if you care to, but please dont rant and rave about something I'm not talking about and then pretend you've answered. It's your choice.

Why can't you stick to the topic in this thread instead of continually rambling about a book by Cavalli-Sforza? You bring up the same sorry routine everytime. This thread is about East Africans in the fossil record, not about genes and Fst distances, post that crap in another thread but quit ruining threads with the same off-topic nonsense.


Was Cavalli-Sforza right about everything? In that same book you keep talking about, he even said the Khoisan had 51% Near Eastern mixture, now is that confirmed in other genetic studies? Your arguments are always full of fallacies. And what about Rosenberg et al and how is anything that he sauid relevant to this thread? Put up or shut up, plain and simple.

[Agrippa]

bertrand said:

First of all, get rid of the Aethiopoid term, its as meaningless and bankrupt as "Mediterranean race". The Elongated linear type is just a subtype that has nothing to do with Europoids.

As I said, Aethiopid is a term for their type no matter if you say they belong to Negroids or Europoids, or are, whats making the most sense, intermediate.

Bantus are not a core race[True Negroes in disguise] of anything,

Thats right, but the ethnic Bantus spread the Negrid core race so to say in many parts of Africa.

they, just like the Elongated linear peoples are another subtype of Negroid.

Agreed.

Furthermore, Tutsis are just as "Bantu" as Hutus.

Ethnic-linguistic Bantus yes, but finally by race and subsistence closer to Massai than Hutus...

[Planet Asia]

Basically, you have no evidence for a "Negrid core race" in the fossil record. It simply doesn't exist. The predecessors of modern West Africans came from the Sahara and were morphologically variable, just like present day West Africans. The concept of a "Negrid" core race[true Negroes] is pure fantasy.

[Agrippa]

bertrand said:

Basically, you have no evidence for a "Negrid core race" in the fossil record. It simply doesn't exist. The predecessors of modern West Africans came from the Sahara and were morphologically variable, just like present day West Africans. The concept of a "Negrid" core race[true Negroes] is pure fantasy.

I know the records - yes, you are right, but my opinion is thats because of the poor remains, such a drastic change in such a short time without a centre is a poor explanation for the relative high homogenity of the Negrid core from Mali (Sudanid without admixture) to South Africa (Kafrid without strong Aethiopid or Khoisanid influence).
The diverse skulls we see seem to be the result of constant pressure from a centre which sent "half evolved" Negrids North and pushed them away.
Then we suddenly see almost exclusively typical Negrid. We can study that even better in Sudan, where the record is better because of the climate, here we see constant waves coming from elsewhere, mostly the South West as it should be according to the WA-core explanation.
They push other types away or mix with them and the result are the various Negrid subtypes which deviate f.e. in the direction of Europoids, Bambutids, Khoisanids etc.
The relatively rapid Bantu expansion is proven, or do you deny that too and claim "Bantu continuity"?
Or the formerly much wider distribution of Boskopids-Khoisanids in East-South-East Africa?

[Planet Asia]

agrippa said:

bertrand said:

The diverse skulls we see seem to be the result of constant pressure from a centre which sent "half evolved" Negrids North and pushed them away.

This is nonsense and the product of a wild imagination. "Half evolved" Negrids? Whats the problem with accedpting variation?

Then we suddenly see almost exclusively typical Negrid. We can study that even better in Sudan, where the record is better because of the climate, here we see constant waves coming from elsewhere, mostly the South West as it should be according to the WA-core explanation.

Nonsense, again, there is no proof of migrations from an alleged WA "Negrid core" into the modern region now called Sudan. This is nonsense stated in theory but not even close to being supported in the fossil record and through archaeology. Thus, what you say cannot be taken as an absolute, undeniable truth.

[mhagneto]

bertrand said:

mhagneto said:

/

I'm not talking about the original post, but the one I quoted. I didnt give C-S, only, but Nei and Roychoudhury. Add Rosenberg. BTW, C-S is a great authority , because subsequent research has confirmed
his work, and he is one the pioneers of population genetics. So, I ask you once again, what is the "same old crap" you're referring to? And, how do "dodona people" do what you claimed they do? And, dont do what you did last time--- ask me to "refute" something I wasnt commenting on and hadnt even read-- so remember I'm not talking about your first post on this thread but the one I quoted--- about "dodona people dividing up Africans and giving "caucasoids" an astronomical range. So, answer the question if you care to, but please dont rant and rave about something I'm not talking about and then pretend you've answered. It's your choice.

Why can't you stick to the topic in this thread instead of continually rambling about a book by Cavalli-Sforza? You bring up the same sorry routine everytime. This thread is about East Africans in the fossil record, not about genes and Fst distances, post that crap in another thread but quit ruining threads with the same off-topic nonsense.


Was Cavalli-Sforza right about everything? In that same book you keep talking about, he even said the Khoisan had 51% Near Eastern mixture, now is that confirmed in other genetic studies? Your arguments are always full of fallacies. And what about Rosenberg et al and how is anything that he sauid relevant to this thread? Put up or shut up, plain and simple.

/

Naturally, you're afraid to answer, or too dumb to understand, or both. Everything by C-S, Rosenberg, et al is relevant to comments like yours. You' re just weaseling out of the truth, and the implications of your post. My fallacies! Bass, your new name is the Kingfish. You should star in a new version of the "Amos and Andy Show". With your ridiculous pretentions, your stupidity, your grandiosity, your jive, you're an up-dated version of the old Kingfish. You ought to be flattered I stooped to your level to try to teach you something. How typical! Then you wonder why you, and your kind--which is so easy to smell out--- are held in contempt.

"Never argue with the inferior; they drag you down to their level. " Especially "race-men" like you, Bass.

[Planet Asia]

mhagneto said:

bertrand said:

Why can't you stick to the topic in this thread instead of continually rambling about a book by Cavalli-Sforza? You bring up the same sorry routine everytime. This thread is about East Africans in the fossil record, not about genes and Fst distances, post that crap in another thread but quit ruining threads with the same off-topic nonsense.


Was Cavalli-Sforza right about everything? In that same book you keep talking about, he even said the Khoisan had 51% Near Eastern mixture, now is that confirmed in other genetic studies? Your arguments are always full of fallacies. And what about Rosenberg et al and how is anything that he sauid relevant to this thread? Put up or shut up, plain and simple.

/

Naturally, you're afraid to answer, or too dumb to understand, or both. Everything by C-S, Rosenberg, et al is relevant to comments like yours. You' re just weaseling out of the truth, and the implications of your post. My fallacies! Bass, your new name is the Kingfish. You should star in a new version of the "Amos and Andy Show". With your ridiculous pretentions, your stupidity, your grandiosity, your jive, you're an up-dated version of the old Kingfish. You ought to be flattered I stooped to your level to try to teach you something. How typical! Then you wonder why you, and your kind--which is so easy to smell out--- are held in contempt.

"Never argue with the inferior; they drag you down to their level. " Especially "race-men" like you, Bass.

Your ad-hominems, strawmans and non sequitir aside, please explain ´how anything by Cavalli-Sforza and Rosenberg et al has anything to do with my original post in this thread. You keep bringing up so why don't *YOU* explain what the relevance of it. my post was about the existence of linear Elongated East Africans being in the fossil record since the Upper Pleistocene as an indigenous African people and not the product of a blending on African and non-African elements. Nothing Rosenberg nor Cavalli-Sforza says is relevant to this or changes this fact, END OF STORY

[mhagneto]

bertrand said:

mhagneto said:

/

Naturally, you're afraid to answer, or too dumb to understand, or both. Everything by C-S, Rosenberg, et al is relevant to comments like yours. You' re just weaseling out of the truth, and the implications of your post. My fallacies! Bass, your new name is the Kingfish. You should star in a new version of the "Amos and Andy Show". With your ridiculous pretentions, your stupidity, your grandiosity, your jive, you're an up-dated version of the old Kingfish. You ought to be flattered I stooped to your level to try to teach you something. How typical! Then you wonder why you, and your kind--which is so easy to smell out--- are held in contempt.

"Never argue with the inferior; they drag you down to their level. " Especially "race-men" like you, Bass.

Your ad-hominems, strawmans and non sequitir aside, please explain ´how anything by Cavalli-Sforza and Rosenberg et al has anything to do with my original post in this thread. You keep bringing up so why don't *YOU* explain what the relevance of it. my post was about the existence of linear Elongated East Africans being in the fossil record since the Upper Pleistocene as an indigenous African people and not the product of a blending on African and non-African elements. Nothing Rosenberg nor Cavalli-Sforza says is relevant to this or changes this fact, END OF STORY

/

But not irrelevant to your post I quoted, right Kingfish?I didnt address your first post; you know the post I'm referring to.

[Planet Asia]

mhagneto said:

bertrand said:

Your ad-hominems, strawmans and non sequitir aside, please explain ´how anything by Cavalli-Sforza and Rosenberg et al has anything to do with my original post in this thread. You keep bringing up so why don't *YOU* explain what the relevance of it. my post was about the existence of linear Elongated East Africans being in the fossil record since the Upper Pleistocene as an indigenous African people and not the product of a blending on African and non-African elements. Nothing Rosenberg nor Cavalli-Sforza says is relevant to this or changes this fact, END OF STORY

/

But not irrelevant to your post I quoted, right Kingfish?

Since you're contributing nothing to the discusion about East Africans in the Upper pleistocene why don't you get out of the thread with your non-sequitir?

[mhagneto]

bertrand said:

mhagneto said:

/

But not irrelevant to your post I quoted, right Kingfish?

Since you're contributing nothing to the discusion about East Africans in the Upper pleistocene why don't you get out of the thread with your non-sequitir?

/

What I'm contributing is an assertion about your cowardice, evasion, and dishonesty, since in your obstreperous way you keep pointing to a post I didnt address, and ignoring the one I did. Do you make the rules on this forum, that one can only address the first post? What bullshit! That's never been the case, and you know it.

[Planet Asia]

mhagneto said:

bertrand said:

Since you're contributing nothing to the discusion about East Africans in the Upper pleistocene why don't you get out of the thread with your non-sequitir?

/

What I'm contributing is an assertion about your cowardice, evasion, and dishonesty, since in your obstreperous way you keep pointing to a post I didnt address, and ignoring the one I did. Do you make the rules on this forum, that one can only address the first post? What bullshit! That's never been the case, and you know it.

Your ad-hominems aside again, how is Cavalli-Sforza and Rosenberg relevant to this study? What is your relevant contribution to this thread? Its been nothing but straws, non-sequitirs and ad-hominems. just get out of a thread you logically can't contribute to.

[mhagneto]

bertrand said:

mhagneto said:

/

What I'm contributing is an assertion about your cowardice, evasion, and dishonesty, since in your obstreperous way you keep pointing to a post I didnt address, and ignoring the one I did. Do you make the rules on this forum, that one can only address the first post? What bullshit! That's never been the case, and you know it.

Your ad-hominems aside again, how is Cavalli-Sforza and Rosenberg relevant to this study? What is your relevant contribution to this thread? Its been nothing but straws, non-sequitirs and ad-hominems. just get out of a thread you logically can't contribute to.

/

LOL! Run, Kingfish! Here come Sapphire!