User Tag List

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Mong supremacy48 days old

  1. #31
    Established Member
    Lord of Asgard Odin's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-03-31 @ 13:00
    Join Date
    2018-05-08
    Posts
    692
    Location
    West Coast
    Gender
    Age
    29
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Germanic
    Ethnicity
    American
    Phenotype
    Nordo-Cromagnid
    Politics
    Paleoconservatism
    Religion
    Christian
    Suebi Kingdom Viking Norway Denmark Netherlands United States

    Default


  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Odin For This Useful Post:

    Thuringianer (2019-03-31)

  3. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Location
    ForumBiodiversity.com
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  4. #32
    Regular Member
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 20:00
    Join Date
    2015-02-20
    Posts
    79
    Gender
    Finland

    Default

    Asians are the most evolved (Lynn (2012) (An examination of Rushton's theory of differences in penis length and circumference and r-K life history theory in 113 populations)):

    > Rushton's (1985, 2000) r-K life history theory that Mongoloids are the most K evolved, Caucasoids somewhat less K evolved, and Negroids the least K evolved is examined and extended in an analysis of data for erect penis length and circumference in three new data sets. These new data extend Rushton's theory by presenting disaggregated data for penis size for European and North African/South Asian Caucasoids; for East Asian and Southeast Asian Mongoloids; for Inuit and Amerindians and Mestizos, and for thirteen mixed race samples. The results generally confirm and extend Rushton's r-K life history theory.
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > The K strategy is particularly strongly evolved in monkeys, apes and humans. Species that are K strategists have a syndrome of characteristics of which the most important are larger brain size, higher intelligence, longer gestation, and a slower rate of maturation in infancy and childhood.
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > The reason for these adaptations was that in the colder climates men had to co-operate in group hunting to secure food and effective hunting required a greater degree of co-operation and a reduction of inter-male sexual competitiveness and aggression than was required in equatorial latitudes, where plant and insect foods are available throughout the year, there is little need for co-operative group hunting is unnecessary, and a high level of inter-male aggression is adaptive for reproductive success.
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > Rushton's theory does not propose that there is a direct causal relationship between intelligence and penis length, such that high intelligence entails a reduction in penis length or greater penis length entails a reduction in intelligence. It is more probable that changes in these two variables evolved independently of each other in response to the climatic environments in which the races evolved. The colder environments of Europe and Northeast Asia selected for larger brains, greater intelligence, a reduction of intermale aggression, and a reduction of testosterone levels and penis length, entailing positive associations of these variables across the three major races.
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > A theory to explain this has been proposed by Miller (1994) as what he calls "paternal investment theory". This states that in the colder environments inter-male competition was reduced as a strategy by which men were able to secure females and replaced by increased provisioning of females with food obtained by hunting: "the colder the climate a population evolved in, the more they should have evolved drives that lead to provisioning" Miller (1994, p. 250). The reduced inter-male competition was secured by a reduction of testosterone, and this entailed a reduction in penis size. The effect of the colder climates on females would have been that they became dependent on males for provisioning them. This selected for fidelity because males would have been more likely to provision faithful than unfaithful female mates: "a female who has a child by a non-loyal male reduces her chance of catching a provisioning mate" (Miller, 1994, p. 242). Miller argues that his paternal investment theory explains why among Europeans and Northeast Asians men and women are more closely bonded, and marriages and non-marital relationships are more stable than those of Africans.

    The paper by Rushton I quoted before says that Asians have bigger boner angles and harder boners:

    > The ethnographic record (e.g. A French Army Surgeon, 1898/1972) makes reference to numerous anatomical distinctions, including the placement of female genitals (Orientals highest, blacks lowest); angle and texture of erection (Orientals parallel to body and stiff, blacks at right angles to body and flexible); size of genitalia (orientals smallest, blacks largest); salient muscularity, buttocks and breasts (Orientals least, blacks most).

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    correlation doesn't equal causation. This could very significantly socio-economic related and is certainly testosterone related too. Unless you think Men have much lower IQs than women. lol
    Non-criminality and intelligence are two different measures of superiority, and even if East Asians would rank higher than whites in both, I was not implying that either was the cause of the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reason1234 View Post
    The statistics you've presented are about averages. Whites may have more dumb people (I don't know), but for example the number of historically significant mathematical geniuses who were white is much greater than the number who were East Asians. Whilst East Asians may dominate math olympiads, they haven't had half as much of an impact on the history of mathematics... Similarly, East Asia produces amazing virtuoso performers of European classical music, they have no equivalent musical heritage of their own. Nor do they have anything which really matches the philosophy of Europe, for example.
    Whites have not made anything comparable to manga or anime. According to the figures listed by Wikipedia, 17 out of 20 of the best-selling game consoles have been Japanese. The Japanese made the first popular home gaming console (Atari 2600) and the first popular handheld gaming console (Game Boy).

    The function of philosophy was to serve as a transition between religion and science, and Confusianism enabled China to achieve irreligion before the West.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_China says that "Hu Shih stated in the 1920s that "China is a country without religion and the Chinese are a people who are not bound by religious superstitions.""

    The 10 most recent Fields medal winners who were affiliated with a U.S. university at the time when they received the award are Akshay Venkatesh (Indian), Maryam Mirzakhani (Iranian), Manjul Bhargava (Indian), Ngô Bảo Châu (Vietnamese), Elon Lindenstrauss (Israeli), Terence Tao (Chinese), Andrei Okounkov (born in the Soviet Union), Vladimir Voevodsky (born in the Soviet Union), Curtis T. McMullen (white born in the U.S.), and Maxim Kontsevich (born in Soviet Union). Even though five are Asian, only two are Mongoloid, but that's one more than the number of whites born in the U.S.
    Last edited by Yyy; 2019-03-31 at 13:34.

  5. #33
    Regular Member
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    2019-04-05 @ 21:14
    Join Date
    2019-03-16
    Posts
    63
    Gender
    United Nations United States Canada Quebec France Canada European Union

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post

    Nice one, I think the finnish guy Yyy must go back to anthroscape and project his "east asian" supremacy there.

  6. #34
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-04-15 @ 17:54
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    1,270
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default

    Non-criminality and intelligence are two different measures of superiority, and even if East Asians would rank higher than whites in both, I was not implying that either was the cause of the other.
    So women are superior to men I guess?

    Furthermor, crime statistics only measure failed criminal activity, not criminal activity itself.

  7. #35
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist NonFingo's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:15
    Join Date
    2017-06-01
    Posts
    378
    Gender

    Default

    @Yyy

    Assuming you've looked into it and thought about it. Thoughts? What does this mean, in your view? I'm talking about in terms of the racial IQ hierarchy of Rushton and others?

    Notice that the paedomorphic part (see bolded below) is supposed to be a marker of IQ if we go by Rushton et al. Maturation time or growth rate is part of his list of supposed ‘racial’ superiority traits. So even this trait implies a modal phenotype, just like other type fossils (e.g. Neanderthal I, Cro Magnon I, etc) were originally isolated finds that turned out to be good representatives of the larger populations they each belonged to.

    Quote Originally Posted by NonFingo View Post
    Boskop people were average height, not tall. You can tell by the size of the jaw fragments compared to the calvaria. The skull is big, but the face and other parts are relatively small and youthful looking (i.e. paedomorphic). So, using your math of adjusting for body mass, the discrepancy with living populations would only increase, not decrease.



    I'm sure it is. But the Boskop remains are part of a population. That is: the Boskop remains represent or approach the modal phenotype of a larger population built around that phenotype. No living population can accommodate their variations.

  8. #36
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist NonFingo's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:15
    Join Date
    2017-06-01
    Posts
    378
    Gender

    Default

    I hope this is not your reaction? Because the Boskop are not ancestral San, and San are not modern Boskop.

    As late as 2ky ago and 2.5ky ago, people with different genetics were walking around in southern Africa. These people don't exist anymore. San populations are simply what survived to the present day. They are not Boskop in small form.
    Last edited by NonFingo; 2019-04-16 at 22:41.

  9. #37
    Regular Member
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 20:00
    Join Date
    2015-02-20
    Posts
    79
    Gender
    Finland

    Default

    Singer (1958) (The Boskop 'Race' Problem):

    > In 1925 Pycraft of the British Muscum reviewed the Boskop fragments. He asserted that the eminentia articularis and the glenoid cavity are Bushmanlike, but if one examines a series of Bushman, Hottentot and Bush-Hottentot crania, it is clear that these Boskop features are common to individuals of all three groups. Along sound lines he estimated the cranial capacity as only 1,700 cubic centimetres rather than the 1,832 of Haughton and the 1,900 of Elliot Smith and Broom.
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > It is significant that wherever so-called Boskopoid types are considered to have been found, whether in mountain caves or coastal plains or rock shelters, the dominant features of most of the other crania in the same site were either Bushman or Hottentot; moreover, when a cranium had one or more of these features exaggerated they were called Boskopoid, and indeed the large skulls seem to have been selected from these excavations and labelled 'Boskopoid.'
    >
    > It is unrealistic to create a new racial type in the presence of other types which adequately explain its genetic makeup. The known modern Bushman and Hottentot types must be used to appraise the fossils, because they too occur as fossils, and where large numbers are found in strata, as for example at Matjes River, the various layers produce varying degrees of Bushman and Hottentot features (and possibly Negroid features) in the skeletal material.
    >
    > If one examines those crania which have been labelled Boskopoid one discovers the illogicality of the Boskop 'race' concept. In order to establish a Boskop 'race,' identical features in a large series of skulls must be attributed to the Boskop skull itself, but the only specific feature of the Boskop skull is its great length and width, the width falling well beyond the normal outer limits of the Bushman and of the Negro, the length being within the ranges of the Hottentot and Negro.

    In the table below from the same paper, the average breadth of the skulls classified as Boskopoid (140 mm) is not that different from the Hottentot (135 mm), Bushman (133 mm), Bush-Hottentot (135 mm), or Bantu (134 mm) groups. I don't know why the quotation above says "the width falling well beyond the normal outer limits of the Bushman and of the Negro", because in the table below the estimated breadth of the original Boskop skull fragment is 150 mm, which is the same as the maximum breadth listed under Bantu.



    In the table above, Capoids have nearly the same skull size as Bantu even though they are presumably much shorter. Lynn (2006) (Race Differences in Intelligence) also wrote: "The brain size of the Bushmen was estimated at 1,250cc by Drennan (1937) and a little higher at 1,270cc by Smith and Beals (1990)."

    Again using the formula which assumes that cranial capacity varies as a function of the cube of the height of the body, if Capoid cranial capacity is assumed to be 1250 cc, Capoid height to be 1.5 m, and Congoid height to be 1.7 m, then 1250*(1.7/1.5)^3 would result in about 1820 cc. I don't know how applicable the formula is however, because 9-year-olds already have nearly the same head size as adults, so maybe neoteny also results in a disproportionate decrease in height relative to head size. If let's say average height would be 133 cm in 9-year-olds and 175 cm in adults, but the cranial capacity of 9-year-olds would be roughly the same as in adults, or let's say 1350 cc, then using my formula, 1350*(1.75/1.33)^3 would result in about 3075 cc.

    Therefore maybe the primary reason why Mongoloids have larger cranial capacity relative to height than Caucasoids is that they have higher neoteny, and not that they are more cold-adapted or more "evolved". The same might be true of the difference between Capoids and Congoids.

    Maybe it's too simplistic even by Rushton's standards of simplicity to say that pedomorphy (or neoteny) is a marker of IQ like you said. Neoteny is a feature of Capoids in general and not only of "Boskopoids" (which I would guess is not even a valid racial category). I don't know if Khoisan have even longer life spans than East Asians, or if they mature more slowly, or if they have a lower rate of dizygotic twinning. I know they don't really fit into Rushton's triad of races.

    Bobby Lee who is a Korean American comedian said that Asians are the most evolved because they have the least body hair, but I guess Khoisan, Central African Pygmies, Negritos, and Native Americans have even less body hair than East Asians. Some Khoisan seem to have slight facial hair, and some Central African Pygmies and Negritos even have chest hair.
    Last edited by Yyy; Yesterday at 00:20.

  10. #38
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist NonFingo's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:15
    Join Date
    2017-06-01
    Posts
    378
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yyy View Post
    Singer (1958) (The Boskop 'Race' Problem):

    > In 1925 Pycraft of the British Muscum reviewed the Boskop fragments. He asserted that the eminentia articularis and the glenoid cavity are Bushmanlike, but if one examines a series of Bushman, Hottentot and Bush-Hottentot crania, it is clear that these Boskop features are common to individuals of all three groups. Along sound lines he estimated the cranial capacity as only 1,700 cubic centimetres rather than the 1,832 of Haughton and the 1,900 of Elliot Smith and Broom.
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > It is significant that wherever so-called Boskopoid types are considered to have been found, whether in mountain caves or coastal plains or rock shelters, the dominant features of most of the other crania in the same site were either Bushman or Hottentot; moreover, when a cranium had one or more of these features exaggerated they were called Boskopoid, and indeed the large skulls seem to have been selected from these excavations and labelled 'Boskopoid.'
    >
    > It is unrealistic to create a new racial type in the presence of other types which adequately explain its genetic makeup. The known modern Bushman and Hottentot types must be used to appraise the fossils, because they too occur as fossils, and where large numbers are found in strata, as for example at Matjes River, the various layers produce varying degrees of Bushman and Hottentot features (and possibly Negroid features) in the skeletal material.
    >
    > If one examines those crania which have been labelled Boskopoid one discovers the illogicality of the Boskop 'race' concept. In order to establish a Boskop 'race,' identical features in a large series of skulls must be attributed to the Boskop skull itself, but the only specific feature of the Boskop skull is its great length and width, the width falling well beyond the normal outer limits of the Bushman and of the Negro, the length being within the ranges of the Hottentot and Negro.
    Let's do a summary of your Singer quotes. He says the following:

    1) He gives a new estimate for the size of the skull
    2) He mentions that Boskop features are reportedly found in living southern Africans
    3) He mentions that prehistoric southern Africans show limited overlap with living southern Africans
    4) He says that crania historically included in the Boskop category range from uncertain match, to poor match, to no match with the Boskop fossil.
    5) He disputes that the Boskop skull represents something remarkable and claims it only differs in cranial width

    As far as Singer’s first point, the table I posted on the first page lists Boskop's cc as larger than 1700 (not as 1900). So Singer’s new estimate is included in what I posted.

    As far as point 2, 3, and 4. They have to do with dubious matches that have been reported between Boskop, living southern Africans and prehistoric southern Africans. I argued against making such matches in my previous post. Like I said, now-extinct populations in southern Africa have genetics that differ from living populations. So, I never made those dubious matches. You did make these comparisons, by bringing up San IQ in relation to Boskop.

    Point 2, 3, and 4 made by Singer are all consistent with holocene southern Africans having admixture from different pleistocene groups that are now extinct. I’ve been arguing that the Boskop fossil belongs to one of such pleistocene groups. I've also been arguing that living southern Africans are what remained when the dust settled after admixture that continued well into the Common Era.

    As far as I’m concerned, the only point in those Singer quotes, that is directly relevant here, is point 5. But I already addressed point 5 when I brought up extreme paedomorphy and other traits that peak in the Boskop skull. So, Singer is demonstrably wrong when he tries to force the Boskop remains in the variations of living Africans. Singer argues that a large sample is needed in order to establish a population from a fossil. This not true. We know people with ‘Cro Magnon’ ancestry, for instance, lived in southern Africa during the Pleistocene. This conclusion was based on a single skull. But who would argue against this? I have seen no one credible try to force Hofmeyr man among living southern Africans, where he clearly does not fit. But they have no problem forcing Boskop where he does not fit. So it seems like academics are selective in their willingness to extrapolate from a single fossil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yyy View Post
    In the table below from the same paper, the average breadth of the skulls classified as Boskopoid (140 mm) is not that different from the Hottentot (135 mm), Bushman (133 mm), Bush-Hottentot (135 mm), or Bantu (134 mm) groups. I don't know why the quotation above says "the width falling well beyond the normal outer limits of the Bushman and of the Negro", because in the table below the estimated breadth of the original Boskop skull fragment is 150 mm, which is the same as the maximum breadth listed under Bantu.
    Possible. But who are those Bantu speakers? If they are southern African Bantu speakers, they are different from other Bantu speakers in having head dimensions that fit Boskop better. See the Bantu speakers in the left-hand corner of figure 4 from Brauer 1980, where only the southern African ones approach the Mumba remains closely. Which .... you guessed it: this proves my point that a large-headed population existed in southern Africa.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yyy View Post
    In the table above, Capoids have nearly the same skull size as Bantu even though they are presumably much shorter. Lynn (2006) (Race Differences in Intelligence) also wrote: "The brain size of the Bushmen was estimated at 1,250cc by Drennan (1937) and a little higher at 1,270cc by Smith and Beals (1990)."
    I doubt these values are correct for all Khoisan populations, but it’s possible they are correct for some local Khoisan populations. (See the Brauer publication above, in which Khoisan vary strongly along the size axis). Again, this shows that a large skulled population existed in southern Africa, and that this trait was inherited to varying degrees by living southern Africans today (including Bantu speakers).

    Quote Originally Posted by Yyy View Post
    Therefore maybe the primary reason why Mongoloids have larger cranial capacity relative to height than Caucasoids is that they have higher neoteny, and not that they are more cold-adapted or more "evolved".
    Keep in mind that Cro Magnon have more paedomorphy than living Europeans, and they have larger heads as well. Asians have more paedomorphy than living Europeans, and bigger heads. Boskop is the epitomy of both characteristics (so far), with living southern Africans having inherited those traits to varying degrees. It seems to me the pattern is very consistent, across many populations. It seems to me that Rushton's racial hierarchy goes down the toilet once you start adding more data.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yyy View Post
    Maybe it's too simplistic even by Rushton's standards of simplicity to say that pedomorphy (or neoteny) is a marker of IQ like you said. Neoteny is a feature of Capoids in general and not only of "Boskopoids" (which I would guess is not even a valid racial category). I don't know if Khoisan have even longer life spans than East Asians, or if they mature more slowly, or if they have a lower rate of dizygotic twinning. I know they don't really fit into Rushton's triad of races.
    I think you're missing the point. Khoisan have Boskop ancestry mediated by successive groups in southern Africa who presumably lived long after the Boskop people. Hence, the absurd Boskop mania among European race scientists at the time, where they tried to assign Boskop status to many fossils with only hints of Boskop resemblance. They were mistaking a Boskop component in southern Africa, for Boskop identity. So, a degree of paedomorphism is expected among living southern Africans. So long as it's much lower than in the Boskop remains (which it is), it's perfectly consistent with a surviving Boskop component.

    BTW, I’m still very interested in your take on the question I posed. If you disagree there was a Boskop population, then fine. I can rephrase the question and bypass the Boskop remains. A pleistocene population was the source of the paedomorphic and large headed element among modern and ancient southern Africans. Where does this pleistocene source population fit in Rushton’s racial hierarchy, in your view?

  11. #39
    Regular Member
    Junior Member
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 20:00
    Join Date
    2015-02-20
    Posts
    79
    Gender
    Finland

    Default

    How do you know that present-day Khoisan display lower pedomorphy than the original Boskop skull fragment? What about the other crania classified as Boskopoid?

    In a Nigerian population (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5101979/), the average cranial capacity among males who were 20 years old or older was estimated as 1460.31 cc, with an SD of 93. Even 1460.31+2.5*93 is 1692.81, and about .6% of a normal distribution is above 2.5 SDs. In their sample of 95 males, the maximum cranial capacity was estimated as 1725.2 cc. The maximum width of the crania was estimated as 159.50 mm, or almost 10 mm more than the width of the Boskop skull given in the paper by Singer (150 mm).

    In case you didn't read the paper by Singer, he also wrote that Raymond Dart came up with the concept of a "Boskop physical type" based on what Singer called "undoubted Bush-Hottentot remains found with their recognized cultural associations." Dart did not even make a distinction between Bushmen and Hottentots.

    > Dart initiated the concept of a Boskop physical type in 1923, after a preliminary study of the poorly fossilized Zitzikama remains, which are undoubted Bush-Hottentot remains found with their recognized cultural associations. These remains proved, he stated, that the fossilized Boskop was representative of the type which had been widely dispersed in South Africa before its occupation by the Bushmen. Subsequently Dart's students took up this theme and expanded it into the 'Boskop race.' The main exponents were Gear (1926) and Galloway (1937a, b). Dart (1940) gave the final statement of the case.
    >
    > It is not clear how the 'Middle Stone Age Physical Type' (which became synonymous with the Boskop 'race') came into existence in the literature. Probably it was the result of the view that Boskop was pre-Bush, and subsequently, when the South African Middle Stone Age was defined, it came to be identified with the Boskop 'race.' However, when Wells (1943) made a thorough seudy of all those remains found in association with M.S.A. cultures, it became obvious from his report that a common 'type' did not exist. Wells, who was originally an exponent of the Boskop 'type,' began to express a change of his views (in print) in his First Pan-African Congress on Prehistory paper (1947) and in a summary of a communication to the Royal Anthropological Institute (MAN, 1952, 52). It is now clear that what Orford and Wells (1936) described as 'Boskop' features (which they considered to have been absorbed by the 'Bush' group and retained by the Bantu population) are actually Hottentot features, but they were then accepting Dart's teaching, which did not recognize 'Hottentot' as being physically distinct from 'Bushman,' both being lumped together as 'Bush.' Galloway (1937a) was the first to determine the Boskopoid 'range' on a number of skulls and post-cranial remains (Zitzikama, Fish Hoek, 3 Matjes River skulls, Springbok Flats and U.C.T. 80), and thereafter the Boskop 'type' characteristics were assessed thereby without re-investigation of the conclusions. In that publication Galloway stated: 'During the few years, workers in this department have slowly been piecing together an imaginary picture of the skull of the Boskop physical type.' Jones (1940) used the term 'Boskop type' to embrace all pre-Negro types which are more robust than the Bushman. Wells (1950) now wishes to confine the term only to one out of several robust pre-Negro types. He adds, nevertheless, that these types all appear to be fundamentally related to the Bushman with whom they may be bracketed as constituting a 'Bushmanoid' variety of modern man. 'The height/length ratio is equivalent to that in the Bushman, the height being in the range of modern forms. The breadth/length ratio, breadth being 75 per cent. of the length, is common to Bushman, Hottentot and Bush-Hottentot. The prominence of the frontals is a Bushman feature, although the supra-orbital constriction appears also in Hottentot or Bush-Hottentot crania. This dolichocephaly and relatively low vault is a feature found in the Kakamas Hottentots, some Bush-Hottentot hybrids, Negroes and Negroids. Why the large-headedness should be referred to as pre-Negro when no fossil Negroes have been found in Southern Africa is difficult to understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by NonFingo
    only the southern African ones approach the Mumba remains closely
    Except Maasai had even larger skull size than Southern Africans.

    Quote Originally Posted by NonFingo
    Again, this shows that a large skulled population existed in southern Africa, and that this trait was inherited to varying degrees by living southern Africans today (including Bantu speakers).
    In the map below from Beals et al. (1984), cranial capacity in South America ranges from 1250-1299 cc in the north to 1400-1449 cc in the southernmost part. Does it prove that Tierra Del Fuego Indians assimilated some mysterious ancient melonhead population? New Zealand also falls in the third highest category (1350-1399 cc).



    Quote Originally Posted by NonFingo
    BTW, I’m still very interested in your take on the question I posed. If you disagree there was a Boskop population, then fine. I can rephrase the question and bypass the Boskop remains. A pleistocene population was the source of the paedomorphic and large headed element among modern and ancient southern Africans. Where does this pleistocene source population fit in Rushton’s racial hierarchy, in your view?
    My guess is still that the so-called Boskopoids were simply regular Khoisan. I already acknowledged that Khoisan don't fit into Rushton's hierarchy of races.

  12. #40
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist NonFingo's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:15
    Join Date
    2017-06-01
    Posts
    378
    Gender

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yyy View Post
    How do you know that present-day Khoisan display lower pedomorphy than the original Boskop skull fragment? What about the other crania classified as Boskopoid?
    Look at pictures of skulls with this trait, like Cro Magnon I and Mladec I. They have a face that looks too small for their braincase. Khoisan don’t really stand out that much in regards to this feature. And there are no other crania that match Boskop, so I don't know what you mean. Look at Cro Magnon I and Mladec I. That is what I would call a match or evidence of homogeneity. AFAIK, we don't have this yet for Boskop. There are only crania that resemble Boskop very loosely. The resemblance is enough to let us know that Boskop is not an anomaly, and that other fossils belonging to this type will be found eventually, but it's not enough to justify European Boskop mania.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yyy View Post
    In a Nigerian population (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5101979/), the average cranial capacity among males who were 20 years old or older was estimated as 1460.31 cc, with an SD of 93. Even 1460.31+2.5*93 is 1692.81, and about .6% of a normal distribution is above 2.5 SDs. In their sample of 95 males, the maximum cranial capacity was estimated as 1725.2 cc. The maximum width of the crania was estimated as 159.50 mm, or almost 10 mm more than the width of the Boskop skull given in the paper by Singer (150 mm).
    I’m pretty sure I’ve already responded to your sample bias argument. In the Brauer paper it shows LSA populations generally had large skulls and Henneberg shows the same for Europe. Sample bias has nothing to do with any of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yyy View Post
    In case you didn't read the paper by Singer, he also wrote that Raymond Dart came up with the concept of a "Boskop physical type" based on what Singer called "undoubted Bush-Hottentot remains found with their recognized cultural associations." Dart did not even make a distinction between Bushmen and Hottentots.
    Who cares, though? When these researchers argue among themselves, the only arbiter is hard data. You can’t pick and choose who you’re going to believe, so why are you telling me what Singer said, like I’m supposed to take his word for it? I already posted skeletal analyses (e.g. Brauer 1980, Grine et al 2007) and none of these southern African remains closely resemble Khoisan. K13 (see Brauer 1980) comes from a sample that was thought to be “Boskopid”. I’m not saying I agree with this, but, clearly, “Boskopid” does not equal Khoisan because K13 is nowhere near the Khoisan samples. This is based on Brauer’s skeletal analysis, not confabulation, like Singer is doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yyy View Post
    Except Maasai had even larger skull size than Southern Africans.
    I posted Brauer to show that southern African Bantu speakers have absorbed now-extinct southern Africans. The point was that it’s not surprising that southern Africans sometimes fit better in Boskop variations. If Singer would have used eastern Bantu samples (see Brauer’s Teita sample) along with southern Africans, he would have noticed that there is a cline in the Boskop direction. This cline helps southern Africans fit better in Boskop variations. Singer uses this as evidence that Boskop was a member of these populations, which is totally backwards. It’s like saying water causes soot when it puts out fire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yyy View Post
    In the map below from Beals et al. (1984), cranial capacity in South America ranges from 1250-1299 cc in the north to 1400-1449 cc in the southernmost part. Does it prove that Tierra Del Fuego Indians assimilated some mysterious ancient melonhead population? New Zealand also falls in the third highest category (1350-1399 cc).

    Brauer’s samples include Bantu speakers from in and outside of southern Africa, with the latter gravitating towards older southern African populations in cranial size and shape. AFAIK, there is nothing comparable in the Americas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yyy View Post
    My guess is still that the so-called Boskopoids were simply regular Khoisan. I already acknowledged that Khoisan don't fit into Rushton's hierarchy of races.
    I notice you’re introducing words that have nothing to do with what I said. The Boskopid construct is a false construct and a product of European Boskop mania. I never mentioned “Boskopid” in any of my posts to warrant talking about it. The so-called “Boskopid” fossils are a patchwork of individuals with varying degrees of relatedness, who eventually gave rise to living Khoisan. What does this patchwork group of fossils have to do with my question? You’re talking about a patchwork of fossils that aren’t even closely related, while I’m talking about the Boskop fossil and closely related samples that have yet to be excavated.

    BTW, if you don’t want to answer the question, you can just say so. All this "Boskopids" or San IQ talk is unnecessary.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2015-03-31, 19:14
  2. Old racial, phenotypes built on racism and/or supremacy
    By Mela-nun in forum Race & Ethnicity in Society
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-07-19, 17:25
  3. are women conscious of their erotic supremacy?
    By fulvioterzapi in forum Race & Ethnicity in Society
    Replies: 160
    Last Post: 2012-07-03, 18:30
  4. Does this Southern White American show Amerindian/Mong influence?
    By upyours in forum Typology & Classifications
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 2011-12-17, 23:30

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<