The Paleolithic Black-White IQ gap
≈ 268 Comments
One reason people think the black-white IQ gap is at least partly genetic is its durability over time. The roughly one standard deviation IQ gap (15 points) between blacks and whites living for centuries in the United States was first observed in World War I during a time of extreme racism. It was thought that after decades of racial progress in civil rights, the IQ gap might diminish, but the most recent high quality IQ data shows the adult racial gap remains over 15 points (though the gap has narrowed to 12 points in children).
As Arthur Jensen noted, what makes the consistency of the U.S. black-white IQ gap especially striking is that it has endured over a period of such extreme environmental chance that the entire U.S. population is now performing as much as two standard deviations higher on IQ tests because of some combination of increased schooling and media making folks more test savvy, and increased health and nutrition causing brain size and function to improve. So even though Americans of all races today score some 30 points higher than their great grandparents in WWI, the U.S. gap between blacks and whites adults is still 15 points!
Of course one could argue that even a century of IQ gaps proves little, because even though the environment for black Americans has improved dramatically since WWI, they continue to lag way behind white Americans on most measures of socio-economic well-being.
What is needed is data going back much further in time and space. Obviously, we can't get in a time machine and return to the paleolithic to give IQ tests to the ancestors of today's blacks and whites, but what we can do is check the archeological record for evidence of prehistoric intelligence.
On page 134 of his landmark 2007 book Understanding Human History, Princeton astrophysicist Michael Hart documents some of the greatest achievements of the Upper Paleolithic.
Hart notes that with the exception of pottery, all of these inventions were made by people dwelling in Europe.
On page 135 he writes:
None were made by Negroids, nor by any other group living in tropical regions.
These facts are consistent with–and most easily explained by–the hypothesis that the groups that were living in cold climates had already evolved higher intelligence by 40 kya…
Critics dismiss IQ as just a score on a silly little test with no relevance to real world intelligence, however if racial differences in IQ predict real world creativity tens of thousands of years ago, this suggests the tests are measuring differences that are very real, very important, and very genetic and ancient in origin.
One problem with Hart's book is that he credits the bow and arrow to Europeans. As commenter Jm8 likes to remind us, archaeologists working at South Africa's Pinnacle Point cave site found evidence that humans had already invented the bow and arrow 71,000 years ago, likely before the major races had diverged. However preeminent paleoanthropologist Richard G Klein finds the evidence for this unconvincing (see the 28:06 mark in this video).
Another problem is Hart's exclusion of the Ishango bone from his list of important paleolithic inventions, as some believe this 20,000 year old African object preserves the earliest known example of math, however skeptics believe the notches on the bone "may in fact be meaningless, simply scratched in to create a better gripping surface."
268 thoughts on "The Paleolithic Black-White IQ gap"
I came up with 4 reasons human intelligence works.
1. New information compression of redundant information creates no new wiring of the cortex for higher perception and other processes.
2. The White matter tracks under control theory organized information flow as working memory bandwidth and structure.
3. Reflective thinking creates new information internally, socially and culturally.
4. Motivation determined by wiring allows for more than stimulus-response mechanisms. People can be motivated by abstract high cultural values like art and science. Reading Harry Potter is more than operant conditioning.
The Paleolithic Black-White IQ gap would be bound by the ability for innovation under culture selection at a mass scale. Egypt had very abstract ideas. As people are constantly exposed to new things their minds complexify. South of the Sahara most were not concerned with smelting and other metalworks to the extent northern countries were. It just seems they remained archaic and uninterested in technology. I think technology is a factor and social organization. They mostly did not work together in large city-states. I think the selection pressures for sub-Saharan Africans would be higher if they had city-states.
Fenoopy said:
Question: How does genetic potential for intelligence work?
If a man has a genetic IQ of 85 but an actual IQ of 100, is he simply educated, or does he have a higher genetic IQ than the rest of his race?
Does average IQ represent the base genetic IQ for a specific race or ethnic group, or does it simply represent the 'average genetic IQ' and people from that race can have varying genetic IQs.
In other words, is the variation in SDs from the mean IQ due to education or genetics?
Would a highly intelligent African at 120 IQ be equal in potential as an uneducated African peasant at 75 IQ?
Or is the intelligent African blessed with superior genes?
I've seen some startlingly intelligent Africans, I wonder if they are genetically blessed or simply educated.
I also wonder what would happen if they had children. Would the children share their genetics?
Why then, are smart people so often born from incredibly stupid parents?
It implies he's had such a great environment that his phenotype exceeds those of superior genotypes.
It represents both the average genes and the average environment of the race.
Just because two people are the same race doesn't mean they have the same genetic potential.
Probably both
The children would be expected to regress to the African mean because they likely wouldn't inherit all of their dad's high IQ genes, nor would they likely inherit whatever lucky developmental experiences made the parent so smart.
Most brilliant people have at least slightly smart parents. The ones with dumb parents are the exception, not the rule.
Jm8 said:
"South Africa's Pinnacle Point cave site found evidence that humans had already invented the bow and arrow 71,000 years ago, likely before the major races had diverged. However preeminent paleoanthropologist Richard G Klein finds the evidence for this unconvincing (see the 28:06 mark in this video)."
Where does he say that, exactly? He doesn't say it is "unconvincing, but seems to describe that he oldest undoubted evidence as from ca. 55 Ka in Africa—an opinion I believe most archaeologists of the MSA period Africa would disagree with, in light of the evidence for earlier use of arrows. There is little else they could be and their size and fracture and wear patterns were, in the Sibudu studies, found to indicate their use as arrowheads rather than atlatl points or spearheads (also they resemble the microlithic arrowheads of the later paleolithic an mesolithic) But the stone microlithic arrows also come from Sibudu (which I referred to before, rather than the ones at Pinnacle point)—In the case of Pinncle Point some of the microliths were likely used to make harpoons are well (and the people had a combined aquatic/fishing and savannah game (like antelope, etc) based subsistence strategy. In addition, bone arrows points from the around same period (ca. 61 ka BC) are found at Sibudu almost identical to Bushman arrow heads.
re: bone arrows at Sibudu (as well as a needle-like implement):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440307002142?via%3Dihub
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibudu_Cave#Technology
As before, Hart is very incorrect, and I'm afraid grossly inappropriate as a source or authority on this kind of thing (his omissions, that I have cited, include things that were known even when he wrote his book—though not all were known—, and many of his statements it seems, could hardly be anything other than agenda-driven dishonesty). And his "none were made by negroids or other tropical people" claim is frankly flat out wrong.
The following, I believe have likely mentioned before:
As I have mentioned, harpoons (like those of the Magdalenian in Europe) appear in Africa by 90,000 BC at Katanda, and continued to be used for fishing from then on in Africa (harpoons were also made at Pinnacle point, but of microliths rather than bone. A similar harpoon-fishing culture (with bone harpoons) existed at Ishango from the 50,000s or so through the 20,000s BC and later (where the Ishango bone, the second oldest mathematical object ca 20,000 BC was found—the Ishango people were a semi-sedentary river fishing culture) in the same general region (the older Lebombo bone from Swaziland is from between 42-44,000 BC).
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-katanda-harpoons.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishango_bone
Spear throwers (as well as the earlier javelins), also occur in Africa before the bow.
The earliest dated cave paintings (the environment in Africa is somewhat less favorable to the preservation of caves than Europe) come from Apollo 11 cave in South Africa ca. 25,000 BC, though heated and synthesized fat and ocher-based paints (not merely ground pigment) are dated at Blombos South Africa from 100,000 BC, so cave paintings there are possible but have not yet not yet found or possibly not survived.
http://arthistorypart1.blogspot.com/2008/01/prehistoric-rock-art-in-africa-apollo.html
Pottery (as I discussed before here in another pretty recent thread) was invented in Africa (in Mali and/or the North-Central Sudan) before the Middle East (it reached Europe from the Middle East). It was also invented in China (and may also have been invented in the Middle East independently, after it was in Africa.)
earliest dates for Africa pottery are in south central Mali at Ounjougou in 9-10,000 bc (before it appeared in North Africa of the Middle East in a region and time where no Eurasians had contact, and associated with a style of microlithic stone tools with affinities to those of the earlier Cameroonian Shum Laka culture even deeper in subsaharan Africa.
The emergence of pottery in Africa during the 10th millennium calBC: new evidence from Ounjougou (Mali)
Click to access mag_epa_2.pdf
Another early site for pottery in the North Central Sudan in the mesolithic—also before agriculture (almost as early as the Ounjougou dates), at a time long before any Eurasian admixture/peoples had entered that part of Africa (dna studies of Sudanese remains show that a low moderate amount of Mid Eastern admixture only began to diffuse into north Sudan in the later Neolithic from Egypt, and was absent previously)
http://anthromadness.blogspot.com/2016/05/modelling-diffusion-of-pottery.html
The ancient North Sudanese dna Study: Neolithic samples are dominated by common subsaharan Nilotic/Nilo-Saharan Y haplotypes A and B (the earlier mesolithic would be even more so—the people were, as one would expect for the time and place, racially Nilotic/Nilo-Saharan-like, like the Fur or perhaps Dinka)
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/archive/index.php/t-37459.html
deep sea fishing was practiced by tropical peoples (racially similar to the ancestors of Papuans/Melanesians and/or Australian Aborigines) around 40,000 BC likely using using fishhooks and/or nets (nets are also in evidence from paleolithic Africa where stone net weights exist), though hooks are securely dated by 11,000-16,000 BC there.
http://www.wideopenspaces.com/the-oldest-deep-sea-fishing/
The oldest cave paintings in Indonesia (by tropical proto-Australoid people that long predate the mongoloid migrations there start by circa 40,000 BC.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141008-cave-art-sulawesi-hand-science/
Also, I did not notice your mention of the Ishango bone (unless that was added later). I would think the opinion that the marks are "meaningless" and to "make a better gripping surface", would be fringe at best and very unsupported (this is not a serious opinion of specialists, but seemingly was suggested in passing as a possibility by the author of an overview on the history of Math, Peter Rudman. Otherwise there marks would not show an understanding of multiplication/division—and even if not that, at the very least it would have likely been a tally stick of some kind (which Rudman does not deny but considers).
"…(which Rudman does not deny but considers as a possibility)."
On the mathematics of the Ishango bone (also mentions the harpoons found at the same stratum—as does the second link)
Click to access Does-the-Ishango-Bone-Indicate-Knowledge-of-the-Base-12-An-Interpretation-of-a-Prehistoric-Discovery-the-First-Mathematical-Tool-of-Humankind.pdf
as does this one (the dates at Ishango in particular, of that particular culture, were actually around 20,000 BC-5,000 BC. The sites occupation ended for a while when a volcano erupted. The harpoon-fishing lifestyle there was similar to a others around Africa (which would have had their roots in the older cultures like that of Katanda); a way of life in that time-range in the mid-paleolithic to mesolithic (to quote the abstract) "whose pattern would have been widespread from the Great Lakes region (i.e East Central Africa around Uganda/Rwanda/Burundi/Southwest Kenya, etc.: my parenthesis) towards Western Africa and the North in Sudan and Egypt"
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-4425-0_9747
The second Ishango link above (with an abstract of the study by Anne Hauzeur) discussing (regarding that particular site) the ca. 20-22 Ka bc harpoons, appears to have gone down (though it appears likely temporarily.
Another one, on the settlement/culture with images of the some of the harpoons
Click to access Discover%20Ishango.pdf
Phil78 said:
Pretty much cosign with Jm8, making similar points, such as the representation of specialist's words and the credit of nonspecialists, as I would yet he cements with his more extensive archaeological knowledge.
Though it's worth noting that his point on proto australoids in Indonesia is similar to my paper on Australian and Tasmanian similarities with contemporary cultures of europe.
"In addition, bone arrows points from the around same period (ca. 61 ka BC) are found at Sibudu almost identical to Bushman arrow heads. And the use of Arrow continued in Africa through the 50-40,000s BC (at sites like Border cave S.A. and Shum Laka)—and onward of course through the paleo to the mesolithic, to more recent eras, etc.)
Where does he say that, exactly? He doesn't say it is "unconvincing, but seems to describe that he oldest undoubted evidence as from ca. 55 Ka in Africa
At around the 28:00 mark he says one of the differences between middle stone age sites and later stone age sites is the latter provide undoubted evidence of the bow and arrow. He then goes on to mention the Nature article about Pinnacle point evidence of bow and arrows 70,000 years ago, but says those blades look too big to be arrow heads. He seems to dismiss it as part of an argument that comes in and out of fashion over the years.
—an opinion I believe most archaeologists of the MSA period Africa would disagree with,
Well of course most African archaeologists want to believe stuff was invented in African countries and heavily promote these findings; it's a matter of national or racial pride. But that's why we need objective and preeminent experts like Richard Klein to set the record straight.
in light of the evidence for earlier use of arrows. There is little else they could be and their size and fracture and wear patterns were, in the Sibudu studies, found to indicate their use as arrowheads rather than atlatl points or spearheads (also they resemble the microlithic arrowheads of the later paleolithic an mesolithic) But the stone microlithic arrows also come from Sibudu (which I referred to before, rather than the ones at Pinnacle point)—In the case of Pinncle Point some of the microliths were likely used to make harpoons are well (and the people had a combined aquatic/fishing and savannah game (like antelope, etc) based subsistence strategy. In addition, bone arrows points from the around same period (ca. 61 ka BC) are found at Sibudu almost identical to Bushman arrow heads.
I'm not an archeologist so I can't evaluate these claims, but again Richard Klein is skeptical of the bow and arrow existing before 50,000 years ago
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440307002142?via%3Dihubhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440307002142?via%3Dihub
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibudu_Cave#Technologyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibudu_Cave#Technology
Again, Richard Klein not convinced. It sounds like you're citing fringe Afrocentric theories that elite archaeologists role their eyes at. Of course I believe fringe theories too (HBD) so I sympathize.
As I have mentioned, harpoons (like those of the Magdalenian in Europe) appear in Africa by 90,000 BC at Katanda,
Richard Klein seems pretty skeptical of that too.
A similar harpoon-fishing culture (with bone harpoons) existed at Ishango from the 50,000s or so through the 20,000s BC and later (where the Ishango bone, the second oldest mathematical object ca 20,000 BC was found—the Ishango people were a semi-sedentary river fishing culture) in the same general region (the older Lebombo bone from Swaziland is from between 42-44,000 BC).
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-katanda-harpoons.htmlhttp://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-katanda-harpoons.html
Blogs are not a reliable source (unless it's mine :-))
The earliest secure data concerning atlatls have come from several caves in France dating to the Upper Paleolithic, about 21,000 to 17,000 years ago. The earliest known example is a 17,500-year-old Solutrean atlatl made of reindeer antler, found at Combe Saunière (Dordogne), France.
The earliest dated cave paintings (the environment in Africa is somewhat less favorable to the preservation of caves than Europe) come from Apollo 11 cave in South Africa ca. 25,000 BC,
But that had already been accomplished in Europe and elsewhere much earlier. The New York Times reports:
A team of researchers reported in the journal Nature on Wednesday that paintings of hands and animals in seven limestone caves on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi may be as old as the earliest European cave art.
The oldest cave painting known until now is a 40,800-year-old red disk from El Castillo, in northern Spain
The BBC reports: The oldest known samples of pottery have been unearthed in southern China.
"He seems to dismiss it as part of an argument that comes in and out of fashion over the years."
That's alot to infer from the comment that "they seem a little big". At best it's a line of skepticism, hardly outright doubt or dismissal that's enough to refute actual studies.
Proof? People who study these periods aren't necessarily "natives", nor are any of the commentary by Klein actually indepth or without response to generate legitimate doubt especially when they aren't full blown papers to list out flaws.
By your logic, you could apply that to OOA in its entirety as actual scientist have gone in full depth with.
This is all without mentioning how you cite not only a non historian but an explicit white nationalist, so the irony you would use this bias as an argument is mindnumbing
"I'm not an archeologist so I can't evaluate these claims, but again Richard Klein is skeptical of the bow and arrow existing before 50,000 years ago."
Studies versus one sentence.
The irony being you still cite the non-historian but confirmed White separatist Hart.
Nothing elaborate to add, this is just blatant arrogance and hypocrisy you feel no shame in showing.
BTW, what would that say about, say, all your articles in the past that mentions blogs as sources for HBD?
You seemed to have missed the response by the excavators.
You missed this-"though heated and synthesized fat and ocher-based paints (not merely ground pigment) are dated at Blombos South Africa from 100,000 BC, so cave paintings there are possible but have not yet not yet found or possibly not survived."
He said it was older in Africa than in the Middle East, not that it was Older than in China.
So blogs, except yours, are bad sources but Wikipedia is?
See here,
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131126-oldest-javelins-stone-weapons-projectiles-human-evolution-science/
"Wooden darts were known at least since the Middle Paleolithic (Schöningen, Torralba, Clacton-on-Sea and Kalambo Falls)."
The Last one being a 250k South African Site.
The Rest of the quote was specifically referring to the European Record specifically.
"While the spear-thrower is capable of casting a dart well over one hundred meters, it is most accurately used at distances of twenty meters or less. The spearthrower is believed to have been in use by Homo sapiens since the Upper Paleolithic (around 30,000 years ago).[7] Most stratified European finds come from the Magdalenian (late upper Palaeolithic). In this period, elaborate pieces, often in the form of animals, are common. The earliest secure data concerning atlatls have come from several caves in France dating to the Upper Paleolithic, about 21,000 to 17,000 years ago. The earliest known example is a 17,500-year-old Solutrean atlatl made of reindeer antler, found at Combe Saunière (Dordogne), France.[8]"
They also mention it among Auatralians and Papuans, so likely was a diffused trait later regional specificated from OOA migrations.
"The people of New Guinea and Australian Aborigines also use spear-throwers. In the mid Holocene,[12] Australians developed spear-throwers, known as woomeras.[13][14]"
"but says those blades look too big to be arrow heads"
If he's talking about Pinnacle point, then maybe (Im' not as sure about th evidence for arrows at Pinnacle Point, though archaeologists—like McBreaty believe they were used there at that time). As far as I know, some of the blades there, are more interpreted as harpoon blades and, in other cases cutting tools (others as spear thrower points).
The site I was discussing was Sibudu (not Pinnacle Point) and Umhlatuzan, where the size (and other indicators) is most consistent with use as arrow heads.
One such (but not the only) study on the Sibudu stone points:
"Indications of bow and stone-tipped arrow use 64 000 years ago in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa" By Marlize Lombard & Laurel Phillipson
"…the deduction that a bow and arrow was in use depends heavily on the examination of certain classes of stone artefacts and their context. Here the authors apply rigorous analytical reasoning to the task, and demonstrate that, conforming to their exacting checklist, is an early assemblage from Sibudu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, which therefore suggests bow and arrow technology in use there 64 millennia ago."
Click to access Indications-of-Bow-and-Stone-Tipped-Arrow-Use-64-000-Years-Ago-in-KwaZulu-Natal-South-Africa.pdf
A very brief summary of some of the research:
https://books.google.com/books?id=g4xoAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA381&lpg=PA381&dq=arrows+sibudu+Shea%5C&source=bl&ots=cEAtPfSnva&sig=jfzZPPoTR-LTApB-6IPgHo_Ep7Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-_uXWjoHXAhVB4CYKHYlKBRwQ6AEIVTAL#v=onepage&q=arrows%20sibudu%20Shea%5C&f=false
besides this, there is also the bone point (which I mentioned) ca 61 Ka BC (the one almost identical to Bushman arrow heads), and gave links for.
Is that honestly what you think I meant?!
I meant archaeologists that study and specialize MSA Africa, not archaeologists that are Africans (you're interpretation my wording seems rather strange). Among the archaeologists I was referring to for example are those that excavated Pinnacle Point and Sibudu (such as Shea). They are not African. Klein's opinion is a minority one among scholars that study the MSA. There is no reason at all to regard his view as especially, let alone uniquely objective. He is one of the very few that still sticks to the "sudden and discrete behavioral modernity explosion ca. 70-50 ka bc" view, which most archaeologists have moved away from (and at this point is fringe, or very nearly so), in favor of the belief that behavioral complexity in sapiens somewhat developed earlier and often more gradually.
"It sounds like you're citing fringe Afrocentric theories that elite archaeologists role their eyes at."
I am doing such thing. I have only cited mainstream archaeologists and I have no interest in fringe African-centric theories, and nothing I have cited has anything to do with them (I don't know where you would get that from.).
The blog on Katanda links directly to the study (the blog mainly is reporting it), which should have been hard to miss.
And the excavators responded to his criticism (as mentioned in your link) that the associated material is from the MSA period and there no evidence of disturbance or lack or stratigraphic integrity, and that other assemblages of harpoons were found at the site. Both Direct (either Uranium-series or thermoluminescence dating, since not enough organic material remained for radiocarbon dating) and indirect means of dating (stratigraphy) were used and corroborated the date.
There was some initial skepticism (partly because finds of the type from such early dates were surprising at the time it being then one of the first, but are no longer so, since generally similar tool types—microlithic harpoons from South Africa, bone points from Blombos and Sibudu, etc—are known from elsewhere) and they are generally accepted as in the archaeological literature.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/268/5210/553
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semliki_harpoon#cite_note-2
On the harpoons initial discovery and dating"
http://discovermagazine.com/1995/aug/theslowcrawlforw555
"It was clear that the bone points hadn't fallen in from some other layer, says Brooks. There were just too many of them. Many of Brooks's peers, though, found that conclusion less than inescapable, and they greeted her reports with skepticism. To convince them that such advanced tools were being made in Africa tens of thousands of years earlier than in Europe, Brooks knew she would have to date the tools in several different ways.
"Artifacts that old are beyond the reach of radiocarbon dating…they dated a sand layer just above the tools by means of thermoluminescence, in which a flash of light given off by electrons in a heated sample indicates how long it's been since the sample was buried and electrons started accumulating in its mineral structure. And they dated hippopotamus teeth found alongside the bone tools by means of electron-spin resonance, another way of counting trapped electrons.
The researchers used four different dating techniques in all, and to Brooks they all point to the same conclusion: there were modern humans making sophisticated tools at Katanda sometime between 110,000 and 80,000 years ago."
Besides, I also cited studies on harpoons in the Ishango (and similar contemporary cultures). The harpoon was widespread all over Africa in the Paleolithic and had been for some time. Hart's claims that Africans and tropicals did not use the harpoon in the paleolithic and that European Magdalenians were the first to do so is not remotely true (the Magdalenian harpoons are more recent than those at Ishango also).
And the paintings from South East Asia are roughly contemporary ca. 36,000-40,000 BC.
Hart's claim (which you appear to endorse) , was that those things were not invented by negroids or any other tropical people, which is flatly wrong. I said right in my post that pottery was also invented in China. It was invented separately in at least two places (Africa and China) and likely a third (the Middle East) later. The earliest development of it was China, then Africa, then possibly the Middle East.
Again, the claim was that "none were made my negroids or any other group living in tropical regions", which is wrong.
I'm not an archeologist, let alone an accomplished one, so how do I know whether these scholars did a competent job? All I can do is defer to the consensus in the field and Klein said the only undisputed evidence of the bow and arrow is from the late stone age, and he said that two years after the research you cite was published. Further, your own source seems to agree with Klein, stating providing unambiguous evidence…remains challenging.
Further, if modern humans had invented the bow and arrow 60 or 70 kya, we'd expect such an impressive technological innovation to confer a massive fitness advantage, and yet Klein notes that population size crashed in Africa around this time.
Also, if the invention of the bow and arrow predated the Out of Africa exodus circa 60 kya, we'd expect Australian aboriginals to have had it since their ancestors were in Africa at the time. Yet they did not. This suggests it was invented after the Out of Africa exodus and spread around the World through cultural diffusion, missing geographically isolated Australia.
Klein's opinion is a minority one among scholars that study the MSA. There is no reason at all to regard his view as especially, let alone uniquely objective. He is one of the very few that still sticks to the "sudden and discrete behavioral modernity explosion ca. 70-50 ka bc" view, which most archaeologists have moved away from (and at this point is fringe, or very nearly so), in favor of the belief that behavioral complexity in sapiens somewhat developed earlier and often more gradually.
And yet he's considered the big kahuna in the field. When the World's most influential media (The New York Times) needs someone to comment on a recent archeological discovery, who do they call? Richard Klein. When everyone from Greg Cochran to Henry Harpending to Michael Hart needed sources on the paleolithic, who did they all cite? Richard Klein. When university students learn about paleoanthropology, who edits the textbooks they read? Richard Klein. When Klein goes on speaking tours, he's treated like an absolute God, given the most effusive introduction one can imagine:
Hart's claim (which you appear to endorse) , was that those things were not invented by negroids or any other tropical people, which is flatly wrong.
Not invented first is what he likely meant. The age of the Indonesian cave paintings were not known at the time Hart wrote his book so that's a forgivable error, but I agree it undermines his thesis if the inhabitants of Indonesia at that time did not cross through any cold regions to get there.
Cont:
Again, the claim was that "none were made my negroids or any other group living in tropical regions", which is wrong. You, and Hart, are proposing a paleolithic gap, favoring Europeans/North Asians over Africans (and other tropicals generally), and the behavioral traits/technologies the latter are supposed to lack (according to Hart), they did not lack, and in some cases, in fact had them earlier (before much of Eurasia/more Northerly Eurasia cited by Hart) or contemporaneously.
Should be:
"…have moved away from…in favor of the belief that behavioral complexity in sapiens developed somewhat earlier…"
I am doing *no such thing…."
(I perviously left out the "no" by mistake")
"I'm not an archeologist, let alone an accomplished one, so how do I know whether these scholars did a competent job? All I can do is defer to the consensus in the field and Klein said the only undisputed evidence of the bow and arrow is from the late stone age, and he said that two years after the research you cite was published. "
And he Said that in regards to a DIFFERENT site.
"Further, your own source seems to agree with Klein, stating providing unambiguous evidence…remains challenging."
That was talking about the difficulty of verifying not it's absence, as they go into more detail showing the evidence being convincing.
Just how well can you comprehend non-sequitors? So you are saying that a HUNTING DEVICE is supposed to directly relate to population size over various other factors?
By that logic the innovation of technology and infrastructure during WW11 should be unlikely due to the population decline caused by War and Poverty.
Except for Papua New Guinea people, their closest relatives did possess them as well as other neighbors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_and_arrow#cite_note-7
Click to access Papua%20New%20Guinea's%20Bows%20and%20Arrows.pdf
It's possible, due to differences in the environment and the presences of other projectiles, they had lost the use of it.
Also this ignores how people like Pygmies and LSA cultures possessed bows and arrows in microliths find going back as far as 20k-30 in central Africa, without significant non-african contact.
"And yet he's considered the big kahuna in the field. When the World's most influential media (The New York Times) needs someone to comment on a recent archeological discover, who do they call? Richard Klein. When everyone from Greg Cochran to Henry Harpending to Michael Hart needed sources on the paleolithic, who did they all cite? Richard Klein. When university students learn about paleoanthropology, who edits the textbooks they read? Richard Klein. When Klein goes on speaking tours, he's treated like an absolute God, given the most effusive introduction one can imagine:"
Wow, fuck the scientific method, appeal to authority! By that logic we ought to dismiss the Atom in favor of Aristotle's view of physics and chemistry as he out-famed Demociritis.
"Not invented first is what he likely meant."
Not with this phrasing-"None were made by Negroids, nor by any other group living in tropical regions.
"The age of the Indonesian cave paintings were not known at the time Hart wrote his book so that's a forgivable error,"
An unforgivable one though is your overreliance of his book as a source on general history.
"but I agree it undermines his thesis if the inhabitants of Indonesia at that time did not cross through any cold regions to get there."
That, among other findings regarding the nature of behavioral modernity.
"Also, if the invention of the bow and arrow predated the Out of Africa exodus circa 60 kya, we'd expect Australian aboriginals to have had it since their ancestors were in Africa at the time. Yet they did not."
Even if you don't believe in arrows at Sibudu (which would be a minority position to say the least—though those at Pinnacle Point are more uncertain,—though other advanced things went on at Pinnacle Point in the MSA, for some of which see the studies of archaeologist Curtis Marean), we know there were also arrows in South Africa (and other parts of Africa) by 55 bc (as sites like Border cave in South Africa—excavated by Paolo Villa—which Klein recognizes). But again, this is not later than their first appearance in Europe but still substantially earlier than it.
The bow in particular may have been more common pre-OOA in Southern Africa (and soon after in West and Central Africa rather than East (the prevalence of different projectiles likely varied regionally). The evidence suggests that the more common (or maybe only one in places) projectile in East Africa (at least in the area of the OOA population) was the Atlatl (common among Australian Aboriginals, Papuans paleolithic Europeans, and many Native Americans) Either way, projectiles were common among sapiens groups in Africa in the Paleolithic, including much before the OOA.
"This suggests it was invented after the Out of Africa exodus and spread around the World through cultural diffusion, missing geographically isolated Australia."
It could have been invented more than once. First in Africa (sometime between 75,000 bc and 55 ka bc—55 ka bc at the low end, if you believe Klein), and later in Europe/Eurasia (and possibly Papua, where they also used the Bow) in the Magdalenian or Gravettian— then in both regions/continents, and others, replacing the atlatl (but not, as you say, in more isolated Australia or parts of the Americas where the atlatl stayed dominant.
But re: the older points:
"I'm not an archeologist, let alone an accomplished one, so how do I know whether these scholars did a competent job? All I can do is defer to the consensus in the field and Klein said the only undisputed evidence of the bow and arrow is from the late stone age"
Why would you question their competence, and there is no particular reason to d so =, anymore than than thagt of those of specialist in the area in general. (any more than any one else's in the field—you seem to put a lot of trust in Klein?
Their methodology is discussed in cite I quoted, and they are not the only ones who have examined the subject. And many researchers accept the likelihood of arrows in those cultures at that time.
Because Klein said it, does not make it the consensus.
The consensus, tends more toward the earlier dates for arrows (and in line with Shea, Lombard and Phillips, McBreaty, Blackwell, Francesco d'Errico and others), but if Klein were right, the African dates would still be older.
My own source, which you mention, also discusses the multiple pieces of evidence that support the attribution of bows in the period—it has been "challenging" as they say, but the variously methods used (which such a challenge required) and pieces of evidence, makes said attributions fairly likely and well supported (of course technically nothing in science is ever one hundred percent certain, but the evidence is good, as far as I can tell).
Multi-stranded, direct and circumstantial evidence indicate the use of stone-tipped arrows, and by implication bows, comes from Howieson's Poort contexts at Sibudu and Umhlatuzan dated between 60 and 64 kya (Lombard and Phillips 2010). This supports previous suggestions that a bone point from the slightly younger, overlaying context at Sibudu signifies bow and arrow hunting at the time (Blackwell et al. 2008)."
The bone points at Sibudu have, as mentioned been found to very closely resemble the later arrows of the San (and the arrow found in South Africa from the later paleolithic and later (in contrast to the larger bone points from Blombos for instance, which are thought to be spear or atatl points or javelins, being to large to likely be arrows)
A study by Blackwell on the Sibudu assemblage (focusing on the bone tools in particular), discussing the likely bone arrow points (as well as other kinds of points) and the tests done on them, as well as early needles or "pins" (which d'Errico also discusses), and the similarity of the Sibudu bone points to ethnographic Khoisan bone arrow points
"Middle Stone Age bone tools from the Howiesons Poort layers, Sibudu Cave, South Africa"
By Backwell et al.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.466.2274&rep=rep1&type=pdf
"A slender point is consistent with a pin or needle-like implement, while a larger point, reminiscent of the single specimen from Peers Cave, parallels large un-poisoned bone arrow points from LSA, Iron Age and historical Bushman sites. Addi- tional support for the Sibudu point having served as an arrow tip comes from backed lithics in the HP compatible with this use, and the recovery of older, larger bone and lithic points from Blombos Cave, interpreted as spear heads."
Additionally, later dating of the Katanda harpoons has confirmed the early dates.
"Luminescence dating at Katanda * a reassessment" By James K. Feathers *, Elena Migliorini
Click to access katanda1.pdf
"A luminescence date of 80 ka for sediments associated with bone harpoon points recovered at Katanda in East Africa has been reassessed using additional samples. An original problem with radiation quenching has been overcome by using a higher preheat. Single-aliquot analyses suggest su$cient bleaching. New OSL dates, while scattered, support the original date and the antiquity of the site."
(As D'Errico has written. reporting on the same: "The barbed and unbarbed bone points from the Katanda sites in the Semliki Valley, Democratic Republic of the Congo, are at present the oldest known formal bone tools. The layer from which they originate has been attributed an age of ca. 90 ka (Brooks et al., 1995; Yellen et al., 1995). Although considered by some as possibly younger (Ambrose, 1998b; Klein, 1999, 2008), the more recent dating of the site confirms an old age, at least in excess of 60e70 ka… (Feathers and Migliorini," P. 12))
I doubt that he did. But assuming he did mean that, he was nonetheless not correct (for whatever reason, and whether he knew it or not at the time—which I suspect he did), and not thus not really worth citing on the subject. several f the innovations listed (such as: pottery, harpoons—not just Katanda but later paleolithic sites like Ishango, and the bow) all appear earlier in Africa than in Europe. The Solutrean, Magdalenian, and Aurignacian industries are styles (locally distinctively European versions of the Upper Paleolithic of LSA to mesolithic) that are specific, not in their skill level, but in their local particularities. Equivalents of the Upper Paleolithic with the same basic tool types (sometimes also known as LSA/late stone age) also occurred in Asia and Africa about contemporaneously. Cave painting is likely in Africa earlier (the paints at Blombos mentioned), but unconfirmed as of yet (cave pointing are less likely to survive in Africa for a host of environmental reasons. The oldest confirmed surviving ones in South Africa though, are indeed the later 22 ka bc Apollo 11 paintings.
Even if you don't believe in arrows at Sibudu (which would be a minority position to say the least—though those at Pinnacle Point are more uncertain,—though other advanced things went on at Pinnacle Point in the MSA, for some of which see the studies of archaeologist Curtis Marean), we know there were also arrows in South Africa (and other parts of Africa) by 55 bc (as sites like Border cave in South Africa—excavated by Paolo Villa—which Klein recognizes).
When did Klein recognize it?
I found a relevant page from the 2009 edition of his authoritative textbook The Human Career. Klein claims the antiquity of the bow and arrow is hard to establish but sees no evidence worth mentioning before 21-20 kya in Europe and Africa (though Africa could mean Caucasoid North Africa as Hart implied), though there's circumstantial evidence of it in South Africa by 20 kya.
However Klein states the oldest indisputable evidence is from 12 to 10 kya in France and northern Germany.
On the same page he also states Europe had the oldest known fish hooks btw.
"Cave painting is likely in Africa earlier (the 100 ka bc. paints at Blombos mentioned), but surviving paintings that old are of course unconfirmed as of yet (extremely old cave paintings are less likely to survive in Africa relative to Europe—for a host of environmental reasons. The oldest confirmed surviving ones in South Africa though, are indeed the later 22 ka bc Apollo 11 paintings."
Also, the earliest cave art in Australia have been estimated at ca. 40 ka. bc., some at ca. 20 ka bc)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradshaw_rock_paintings#Dating
Some suggest older dates, but these are apparently controversial.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-rock-may-be-among-the-oldest-in-the-world-according-to-new-research-20160219-gmyaw1.html
"I found a relevant page from the 2009 edition of his authoritative textbook The Human Career. Klein claims the antiquity of the bow and arrow is hard to establish but sees no evidence worth mentioning before 21-20 kya in Europe and Africa "
He says At least by 20k, implying relevance before that time.
"(though Africa could mean Caucasoid North Africa as Hart implied), though there's circumstantial evidence of it in South Africa by 20 kya."
You try to force a North African suggestion despite him specifying South Africa for the sake of validating Hart.
I'm not sure if Klein was specifying South Africa or describing a second african event, because he says South Africa by 20 kya but Europe and Africa 21-20 kya. If the 21-20 kya african evidence is separate, we don't know where in Africa klein meant and Hart has a footnote in the box I pasted from his book (see article) that the bow and arrow may have been invented in North Africa
He claims the oldest unquestionable arrows are from ca. 55 ka bc. I assumed this referred to those of the African LSA, (which are the second oldest after those of the African MSA at Sibudu and similar sites). And it appears that I was likely correct in that.
Klein does recognize it.
"Richard G. Klein, a paleoanthropologist at Stanford University, said in an e-mail from South Africa that the new evidence "supports my view that fully modern hunter-gatherers emerged in Africa abruptly around 50,000 years ago, and I remain convinced that the behavior shift, or advance, underlies the successful expansion of modern Africans to Eurasia."
Most scholars rather recognize that a large and growing body of evidence indicates modernity occurring/beginning substantially earlier in sapiens in Africa—some of which evidence is quite recent in discovery; it has continued to increase, (and not beginning so abruptly). But Klein recognizes at least, the presence of certain technologies including the bow, in Africa by the aforementioned period.
The Villa and d'Enrico studies referenced in the article find the package of tools used by later Bushman also found at Border cave Ca. 45,000 BC including poisons used to make poisoned arrows), digging sticks, arrows, and tally sticks/bones with counting notches. The bones with notches for counting/tallying resemble those found at Ishango as (especially so) at Lebombo (the ca. 44 ka bc numerical Lebombo bone) in nearby Swaziland.
from the article;
"At Border Cave, which lies in South Africa near the border with Swaziland, the international team of scientists analyzed a wealth of organic artifacts in the sequence of their development: bead and shell ornaments; notched bones, perhaps for counting; bone awls; thin bone arrowheads tipped with poison from toxic castor bean oil; and residues of beeswax, resin and possibly egg, which were probably used for hafting wooden handles to stone or bone tools. This may have been one of the earliest known human uses of beeswax."
Adhesive is also found earlier at Sibudu and other South African sites (microliths require it for attachment to their handles), as are many other features. The Border Cave use of poison though, is the earliest known use of poison I am aware of (though older cases may be found—or not, assuming they haven't. It remains to be seen.
the Paolo Villa study comes from 2012 (later of course than your citation), so that would likely be why he (Klein) does not mention it in your source (which he wrote before that discovery).
Villa and d'Errico, perceived a decline or break in (in South Africa) "modern behavior" bead and arrow making after (after the 70s and 60s ka BC—(where it occurs at Sibudu, etc—Villa and d'Enrico agree that the bow begins in the MSA) followed by an increase again in the 50-40s ka bc and onward.
But other evidence fills in some of the gap and shows that this previous impression of time gaps (perceived "patchy" pattern) in the use of said tool types in th SA region .was largely due to the small (size of the) sample of sites early in the investigation of the South African MSA (the record of occupation was itself rather patchy). But rather Advanced behavior endues through the time span.
An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa" By Brown, Marean et al.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7425/full/nature11660.html?foxtrotcallback=true
"The origins of composite tools and advanced projectile weapons figure prominently in modern human evolution research, and the latter have been argued to have been in the exclusive possession of modern humans5, 6. Here we describe a previously unrecognized advanced stone tool technology from Pinnacle Point Site 5–6 on the south coast of South Africa, originating approximately 71,000 years ago. This technology is dominated by the production of small bladelets (microliths) primarily from heat-treated stone. There is agreement that microlithic technology was used to create composite tool components as part of advanced projectile weapons7, 8. Microliths were common worldwide by the mid-Holocene epoch, but have a patchy pattern of first appearance that is rarely earlier than 40,000 years ago9, 10, and were thought to appear briefly between 65,000 and 60,000 years ago in South Africa and then disappear. Our research extends this record to ~71,000 years, shows that microlithic technology originated early in South Africa, evolved over a vast time span (~11,000 years), and was typically coupled to complex heat treatment that persisted for nearly 100,000 years. Advanced technologies in Africa were early and enduring; a small sample of excavated sites in Africa is the best explanation for any perceived 'flickering' pattern."
(the practice or regular and precise heat treating of silicate for tool making began earlier at the site, ca. 164,000 BC (it's only the making of small microliths specifically (as opposed to various other kinds of points and blades) that starts in the 70,000s bc phase of the culture)
"Fire As an Engineering Tool of Early Modern Humans"
By Kyle Brown, Curtis Marean et al.
"The controlled use of fire was a breakthrough adaptation in human evolution. It first provided heat and light and later allowed the physical properties of materials to be manipulated for the production of ceramics and metals. The analysis of tools at multiple sites shows that the source stone materials were systematically manipulated with fire to improve their flaking properties. Heat treatment predominates among silcrete tools at ~72 thousand years ago (ka) and appears as early as 164 ka at Pinnacle Point, on the south coast of South Africa. Heat treatment demands a sophisticated knowledge of fire and an elevated cognitive ability and appears at roughly the same time as widespread evidence for symbolic behavior."
Jm8, I found a relevant quote from a paper about Border cave suggesting you're probably right. Although Klein didn't write it, he's the editor and you can see his influence on the paper from the skepticism of middle stone age bow and arrows. But the paper does accept sub-Saharan Africa having the bow and arrow by 45,000 years ago (far earlier than any claim for Europe) and the fact that it's edited by someone as credible and skeptical as Klein is bad news for HBD:
A small bone point from the Sibudu HP has been
tentatively interpreted as an arrowhead (49). According to this
evidence the bow and arrow technology would predate 60,000
BP. This claim is poorly supported owing to (i) the very small
number of possible arrowheads compared with the total of
backed pieces, (ii) the fact that equally small or smaller pieces
were used as barbs on spears in the Upper Paleolithic, and (iii)
the total lack of evidence for arrowheads in post-HP assemblages
of the following 20,000 y (18, 50) (more in SI Appendix, Quartz-
Tipped Arrows). Bow and arrow are generally recognized as
a successful weapon, widely adopted on most continents, except
Australia (51), used for hunting a wide range of game in forested
as well as grassland areas. The loss of this successful technology
is explained as a historical contingency (52), that is, a chance
historical event, due to undetermined factors. Even if the idea of
bow and arrow in the HP is accepted, the record shows that it
was a short-lived experiment. In contrast, the bone points of
Border Cave are very similar in width and thickness to the LSA
and San poisoned arrowheads, and thinner than the MSA bone
First of all Hart was listing out the most undoubtable evidence at that time, which he misuses as points of origins.
Second, the group of caucasoid in Africa by 30k were cro-magnons from Spain, and it begs the question of how the hell by such late a time you have nearly every other culture at different ends of the earth with the device already with the exception Australian aborigines who are likely a mere regional case.
https://books.google.com/books?id=PqyMMs–IM4C&pg=PA275&lpg=PA275&dq=bow+and+arrows+north+africa&source=bl&ots=1VvByY4J8b&sig=FqBeGOHMF_gtGN02TO0XLB2cil4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijvdfN0ITXAhWC5yYKHRqTA_w4FBDoAQgnMAA#v=onepage&q=bow%20and%20arrows%20north%20africa&f=false
This culture would've been largely constrained to North West Africa based on the limits of their occupation.
By "Specify" I mean in terms of given an example as he said it was found in various parts of Africa, but the likelihood of cro-magnons being responsible with even older potential arrowpoints existing is doubtful.
According to this source, Native Americans did not have the bow and arrow until 500 AD. Cochran also claims the bow and arrow showed up late in the Americas, though this source claims it was in North America by 12 kya.
To Phil:
Yes, the Iberomaurusians, who entered the region of Morocco around that time—except that they arrived there about 20,000 BC. rather than 30,000 BC. (really at the northern Maghreb Morocco/N. Lybia, Tunisia, etc area—and were/remained limited to that North African coastal region of the continent, and were later replaced by the Capsian culture .
The culture in North Africa though to be responsible for the possible arrows (or atlatl points/darts as some believe is more likely) mentioned in your link were apparently the Aterians of 145 kc bc.-30 ka. bc. (who were a native non-Eurasian group—descended from or related to the earlier Subsaharan Sangoan culture—native to North Africa whose culture predated the migration of any Eurasian/Iberomaurusians later from Syria and/or Spain that brought the Iberomaurusian which was itself then replaced by (but really hybridized with) the (likely Afro-Asiatic speaking) Capsian culture from around Egypt around the mesolithic era.
http://lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/2006mayaterianpointspage1.htm
(the culture is now known to have begun earlier, at least by ca. 145 ka BC., than the first link reports)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aterian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberomaurusian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian_culture
I don't think the paper is skeptical about MSA arrows. It acknowledges them but says
"Some of these innovations have antecedents in the preceding Howiesons Poort (HP) and Still Bay periods (1), but they disappear or are extremely scarce in the following post-HP period, ca. 60–40 ka (9)"
"The loss of this successful technology is explained as a historical contingency (52), that is, a chance historical event, due to undetermined factors. Even if the idea of bow and arrow in the HP is accepted, the record shows that it was a short-lived experiment.
In contrast, the bone points of
and San poisoned arrowheads, and thinner than the MSA bone points"
The Sibudu point was found to be similar to types of San arrow points as well.
"parallels large un-poisoned bone arrow points from LSA, Iron Age and historical Bushman sites. Addi- tional support for the Sibudu point having served as an arrow tip comes from backed lithics in the HP compatible with this use,"
"Middle Stone Age bone tools from the Howiesons Poort layers, Sibudu Cave, South Africa" By Backwell et al.
Also, the supposed uniqueness and isolation of the MSA points is challenged by Brown and Marean. the Microlithic industry and small points that may be arrow heads (others likely the blades of compound harpoons and/or atlatl darts) are more widespread than believed and continue into the early LSA and after in parts of Southern Africa.
"Microliths were common worldwide by the mid-Holocene epoch, but have a patchy pattern of first appearance that is rarely earlier than 40,000 years ago9, 10, and were thought to appear briefly between 65,000 and 60,000 years ago in South Africa and then disappear. Our research extends this record to ~71,000 years, shows that microlithic technology originated early in South Africa, evolved over a vast time span (~11,000 years), and was typically coupled to complex heat treatment that persisted for nearly 100,000 years. Advanced technologies in Africa were early and enduring; a small sample of excavated sites in Africa is the best explanation for any perceived 'flickering' pattern."
from Villa:
"This claim is poorly supported owing to (i) the very small number of possible arrowheads compared with the total of backed pieces, "
It may be that a variety of projectile weapon types were used by some MSA Southern African cultures in places like Sibudu, including the bow, the spear thrower, and the harpoon, depending of the environment and the type of game. So the presence of other larger points and blades, likely to be spear points of atlatl darts among those though to be arrowheads does not necessity weaken the case for arrow use. many groups in the Americas for instance and parts of paleolithic and mesolithic Europe/Eurasia (esp. in Central America/Mexico—including the Aztecs/Nahuatl—, in the North American Southwest and Northwest, and in the Amazon region—where several tribes preferred the atlatl) continued to combine the two weapon types well after the arrow had come into use among them, sometimes even favoring the atlatl for various kinds of hunting and warfare (each has it advantages and both are pretty advanced by paleolithic standards)
Also, apparently, interestingly—something I missed—(according to the Paolo Villa Border cave paper you linked), the likely use of poison in hunting in South Africa goes back further than I had thought, back to the MSA, the time of the Sibudu and Howieson's Poort points, which many believe are arrows (and poison is most associated with arrow points, which would be consistent with a ca 75-60 ka bc. MSA date for arrows (though atlatl darts might be used to carry poison too, this seems less common in the ethnographic record).
"Knowledge of a wide variety of plants with medicinal, adhesive, and poisonous properties is well documented by ethnographies of modern Bushmen (54). This kind of knowledge goes back to at least 77 ka in South Africa" (Villa P. 4)
"So the presence of other larger points and blades, likely to be spear points or atlatl darts among those thought to be arrowheads, outnumbering the latter smaller arrow head points, does not necessarily weaken the case for arrow…"
I wrote:
Sorry, I contradicted myself a bit in my last post (I meant to edit the above part out). The paper is somewhat skeptical (at least in places—sometimes it seems a bit unclear). But its skepticism is not, in my opinion, entirely warranted (as my last post argues).
More on the Sibudu, and other MSa points and their resemblance to Khoisan arrowheads, and some of the methods used to test their likely use (with size not the only indicator; others being particular "macro fractures"/use and impact wear forms suggestive of particular forms of use)–more suggestive (for some of the tools found) of use as arrow points or barbs than other functions.
(Blackwell 2008)
"The Sibudu evidence fits the hypothesis that the origin of bow and arrow technology occurred in the HP and that the ap- plication of poison, rather than the invention of the bow, was the crucial LSA innovation in this field. The fact that slender LSA points fall within the same dimensional variability of modern Bushman reversible arrow points is consistent with this hypothesis. Of course, the sample size is too small to draw definite conclusions and new discoveries are needed to test this hypothesis. It is worth noting that the size of the bone points is not the only support for the use of the bow in the HP. Experimental work has shown that the backed stone tools of the HP may have served as arrow heads or barbs for arrows. Hafting arrangements that used geometrically-shaped backed tools as barbs, and microlithic backed points as tips, were effective projectiles for penetrating carcasses (Crombe ́ et al., 2001). Another experiment, using replicated Howiesons Poort-type segments, showed that these function well as pro- jectile tips and are effective when hafted in a variety of positions (Pargeter, in press). Many backed tools from the HP at Sibudu Cave have macrofractures that can be considered diagnostic of impact/hunting use and these, in combination with animal micro-residues on the sharp edges of the tools, and use-wear evidence, suggest that HP segments were inserted into composite hunting tools as tips, barbs or cutting inserts." p. 1577
Also, there is evidence of small points from Aduma Ethiopia ca. 70 ka bc (projectile points though it is not known whether atlatl barbs or arrows—from a 2006 Brooks study—later evidence (Yonatan Sahle 2013) though has pushed projectiles at least (—though not bows/arrows: but mostly javelins, and possibly—though inconclusively—also atlatls in some instances) to ca. 279 ka bc also in Ethiopia (at Gademotta)—so either the bow or the atlatl (or possibly both) were likely present then in parts of East Africa (though to me, for the Ethiopia area, the atlatl as far as I know seems a bit more likely for that ca 70 ka period.
(from the same study linked above):
"Thus the HP may have contained both early bone and stone arrow heads. However, stone arrow heads could have been an innovation predating the HP. Technological studies of small stone points suggest that some of these may have served as stone-tipped arrows long before the creation of bone arrow heads. The Aduma 4 site in Ethiopia, estimated to be older than 70 ka, has small points of a size that places them within the spear-thrower or arrow range, based on ethno- graphic specimens (Brooks et al., 2006). If the 70 ka lithic points from Aduma are indeed darts or arrows, they are the first of their kind, because prior studies of MSA and Middle Palaeolithic stone points conducted by Shea (2006) and Villa and Lenoir (2006) found support for the view that the use of lithic projectile technology, in the form of spear-thrower dart tips and arrow heads, occurred only from c. 50,000e 40,000 years ago. The bone point from the HP at Sibudu could be the earliest example of the use of bone arrow heads."
"(with size not the only indicator; others ones—which Paolo Villa does not appear to address in the Border Cave paper you linked— being particular "macro fractures"/use and impact wear forms suggestive of particular forms of use.."
To PP, That 500 AD figure was specifically for Iowa, not Native Americans in general.
"American Indians did not always have the bow and arrow. It was not until about A.D. 500 that the bow and arrow was adopted in Iowa some 11,500 years after the first people came to the region."
Cochran's comment is near meaningless without and actually age. With those things considered, what do you think of the three is the most likely?
Cochran's comment implies he doesn't think they had it when they colonized the Americas. I have no clue whether he's right or wrong, but this source implies that he's right. If both the Americas and Australia lacked the bow at first (the two most isolated regions of humanity) it suggests it was only invented in the last 20,000 years (any earlier and the Native Americans should have had it all along) and diffused everywhere except the two most isolated regions.
"Cochran's comment is near meaningless without and actually age."
…without an actual age.
"Cochran's comment implies he doesn't think they had it when they colonized the Americas."
And without a source, near pointless as I said.
"I have no clue whether he's right or wrong, but this source implies that he's right."
The source shows near the end that the bow and arrow appeared and reappeared at various times in Native American history, starting at 12k in the artcic.
"The Arctic: The first evidence for bow/arrow use is from Alaska ca. 12,000 years ago1 ."
Just like the source you shown before and is currently ignoring.
"If both the Americas and Australia lacked the bow at first (the two most isolated regions of humanity) it suggests it was only invent in the last 20,000 years (any earlier and the Native Americans should have had it all along) and diffused everywhere except the two most isolated regions."
Not really because again Australia's neighbors did have it, it shows evidence of being in the arctic as I said (which would be around the time they were migrating into America), and finally the two scenarios are not comparable to come towards that conclusion.
Australia, as far as the record showed, lacked the Bow and arrow completely in the specific area but not there neighbors. Native Americans DID possess it but it reappeared during different phases, implying hunting advantages and disadvantages throughout their history.
If anything, this implies shifting of toolkits based on wither how or what a population hunts.
Yes, but the source also says Most students of Northern North America now accept that 4000- 4500 years ago is accurate (but see Blitz 1988 who thinks it's later). The early Holocene / late Pleistocene dates seem untenable.
Not ignoring, just found a new source that claims the 12 kya date is considered fringe.
Not really because again Australia's neighbors did have it,
But Australia's neighbours had much more contact with Eurasia. If Wikipedia can be trusted, Traders from Southeast Asia had visited New Guinea beginning 5,000 years ago to collect bird of paradise plumes.. By contrast Australia has been isolated for 50,000 years.
To PP and Phil:
What you say is possible (though the bow could also have been lost in some places and then re-invented, as Phil has suggested)
As I suggested above:
The bow in particular may have been more common pre-OOA in Southern Africa (and soon after in West and Central Africa rather than East (the relative prevalence of different projectiles likely varied regionally). The evidence suggests that the more common (or maybe only in places) projectile in East Africa in particular (at least in the area of the OOA population) at the time of the OOA was the Atlatl (common among Australian Aboriginals, paleolithic Europeans, and many Native Americans) Either way, types of projectiles (whether bows, harpoons, atlatls—or javelins in the earliest periods) were common among sapiens groups over Africa in the Paleolithic, including much before the OOA.
…The bow could have been invented more than once. First in Africa: sometime between ca. 75,000 bc (likely ca. 77-65 ka bc.)—and 55 ka bc (ca.55 ka bc at the very low end, if you believe Klein), and later in Europe or Eurasia (and possibly Papua or paleolithic S.E Asia, where they also used the Bow) in the Magdalenian or Gravettian— then in both regions/continents, and others, replacing the atlatl/spear thrower or being used alongside it (but not, as you say, in more isolated Australia or parts of the Americas where the atlatl stayed dominant. And some Amerindians though used both, with some tribes preferring the atlatl, others the bow.). It could be that one of the late or middle waves that settled the Americas from Asia; Amerindians' ancestors came from Asia in several waves I believe, coming between ca 20 or 30 ka bc and 6-4 ka bc (the ancestral Eskimo-Aleut), with most waves between ca. 15 ka bc and 8 ka bc.
But the fact that Papuans, Negrito tribes and the isolated Andamanese used the bow too, suggests that it may have been invented either by the OOA population or their ancestors (and lost in some parts of Eurasia), or that it was re-invented, (having been, as we know, invented first in Africa but not necessarily by the OOA group who might have favored the atlatl—the points from ca. 75 ka bc Aduma Ethiopia could be of either type as far as we currently know) by more than one Eurasian group (South Pacific/Oceanic Eurasians and also by paleolithic Europeans and/or more Northern Asians). or it could have been lost and invented more than once in Eurasia. Different kinds of projectiles are more optimal fortheir prevalence influenced by different kinds of terrains/environments and hunting/game. In some places and times (as mentioned) the atlatl might have been exchanged for the bow or harpoon by a group of people, or vice versa (all are pretty sophisticated by paleolithic/ancient standards and have their respective advantages and trade-offs)—or different ones may tend to dominate in different periods (the Inuit relied mostly on the harpoon and had no bows as do many of the the most heavily fishing-based peoples. Indians in the N.W US were atlatl and harpoon-dominant—as were some, but not all, Amazon and Central American/US Southwest tribes—, but probably knew and occasionally used the bow. The bow tends to have more advantages in forested areas and the atlatl has some advantages in open terrain and with larger animals. Papuans, who used the bow, lived in more forested terrain, while many (not all) Australian groups lived in more open terrain. the Pygmies, who have both spears and javelins, used the first for small and medium game (and many kinds of nets and traps), and the throwing spear for elephant hunting 9larger animals)
http://twipa.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-pros-and-cons-of-hunting-with.html
What we know though is that compound projectiles of various types have been a major part of homo sapiens subsistence strategies for a long time and in all parts of the world (as have things like traps, nets and poisons used in hunting), and first began to be so in Africa.
To make a comparison, pottery was invented early in Asia, but a few cultures in Southeast Asia lost it (that is: the ancestors of the peoples of the Oceanic branch of the Austronesian ethnolinguistic group, associated with the archaeological Lapita culture, who had pottery, but they or their descendants lost it at some point, and it had long been absent among Lapita descendent cultures: like the Polynesians, Micreonesians, and Austronesian-speaking Melanesians).
"…the Pygmies, who have both spears and javelins, used the first for small and medium game (and many kinds of nets and traps), and the throwing spear for elephant hunting."
The above should be: "…who have both *bows and javelins…"
"But the fact that Papuans, Negrito tribes and the isolated Andamanese used the bow too, suggests that it may have been invented either by the OOA population or their ancestors (and lost in only some parts of Eurasia), or that it was re-invented, (having been, as we know, invented first in Africa but not necessarily—though possibly—invented/used by the OOA group from around Ethiopia who might have rather favored the atlatl) by more than one Eurasian group (South Pacific/Oceanic Eurasians who might have re-invented it earliest of the Eurasian groups, and also later by paleolithic Europeans and/or more Northern Asians)."
Perhaps, but the Andamanese, of all tribes and islands in the Andaman chain, had it to (as their primary/most important hunting weapon), and they were also very isolated for a long time (much more so than at least some of Papua, which at least has some S.E. asian influences along some of its coast—a few coastal tribes in Papua have S.E. Asian genetic admixture and linguistic/cultural influence. Though most Papuans, especially inland ones, lacked such outside influence. They were all notoriously hostile to outsiders til fairly recently, and those of Sentinel island still are and thus remain uncontacted even now—they shoot arrows at approaching boats) Andamanese remained hunter-gatherers until European contact, and their boating technology showed no influence from the S.E. Asian peoples of the Burmese mainland, or of the Nicobar islands (and non-Andaman admixture from outside as well as other identifiable cultural influences were absent also).
Perhaps, but the Andamanese, of all tribes and islands in the Andaman chain, had it to (as their primary/most important hunting weapon),
Yes, I agree that the Andaman islanders provide strong evidence for the bow and arrow being extremely ancient, since I believe their very African appearance suggests they've been genetically (and thus culturally) isolated since the Out of Africa exodus (though Phil78 argues their phenotype is just convergent evolution and wasn't inherited from Middle Stone Age Africans)
"(much more so than at least some of Papua, which at least has some S.E. asian influences along some of its coast—a few coastal tribes in Papua have S.E. Asian genetic admixture and linguistic/cultural influence. Though most Papuans, especially inland ones, lacked such outside influence.) They (the Andamanese) were all notoriously hostile to outsiders til fairly recently…"
To PP,
First of all he cites no author to back up that skepticism, second this booj from 2013 shows otherwise.
https://books.google.com/books?id=bulgq1AeO4MC&pg=PA267&lpg=PA267&dq=ackerman+bows+and+arrows+alaska&source=bl&ots=md1_Td2Sne&sig=1Z4VSVsg650htbt136d9KSr-lwk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMyP_boIjXAhUFTCYKHTEGBzUQ6AEIPTAH#v=onepage&q=ackerman%20bows%20and%20arrows%20alaska&f=false
Even shows it in continuity with blades in Siberia.
No, you found a commenter with no source for the skepticism.
The same could be said of the Andamans who did have the bow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andamanese#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andamanese#Culture
Yes as I wrote above, I find the Andaman islanders to be convincing evidence of ancient origin for the bow, or at least I did before I took a look at your Wikipedia source and discovered this:
According to Chaubey and Endicott (2013), the Andaman Islands were settled less than 26,000 years ago
"Yes, I agree that the Andaman islanders provide strong evidence for the bow and arrow being extremely ancient, since I believe their very African appearance suggests they've been genetically (and thus culturally) isolated since the Out of African exodus. (though Phil78 argues their phenotype is just convergent evolution and wasn't inherited from Middle Stone Age Africans)"
Me and various scientific sources elaborated on in the past, that is.
"since I believe their very African appearance suggests they've been genetically (and thus culturally) isolated since the Out of Africa exodus"
Some aspects of their appearance could be convergent evolution. But some basic noticeable traits likely are conserved from OOA ancestors: like their kinky hair (present in all the genetically disparate groups of subsaharan Africans without Eurasian admixture—from Khoisans to Pygmies, to W. Africans, to Nilo-Saharans, to Hadzas, to less mixed Horners etc—, as well as in most South Eurasians like Andamanese, Papuans, Melanesians, unmixed/less mixed S.E. Asian Negritos and Tasmanian Aborigines—though not really in mainland Australian Aborigines), and at least some of the genes that contribute to their dark skin could be conserved but maybe some are not conserved. Though the Andamanese are darker than some—though not all—groups of pure SS Africans; like in E. Africa (and West and central as well). Nilotes/Nilo-Saharans tend to be very dark (and W. Africans tend to be lighter than Nilotes but darker toward the savannah, like with the Senegalese, where there is more direct sun vs. the shadier Western forest zone), but some Nilo-Saharan tribes still have an (albeit small) occurrence of more medium brown skin tones (as do less Eurasian admixed Horners like the S. Ethiopian Hamar). And the Tanzanian Hadza hunter gatherers range from light medium brown to very dark near-black like Nilotes, with most in between. Whereas pure Andamanese are more or less invariably an extremely dark near-black shade (some of the darkest Indians and Sri Lankans—esp. toward the south and those with more "Asi" ancestry—are as dark as the darkest Andamanese, Africans and Melanesians/Australians too).
So the ancestors of the Andamanese could possibly have even further/more intensely selected for darker skin (and for an even darker average color) in their South Asian or Andaman-region environment sometime after they left Africa, but how much so would depend on how dark their OOA ancestors were (who could have tended more mid-brown or medium/light-medium brown to dark like some West Africa tribes, or had a range of brown skin tones, or been closer to the darker tribes of Nilotes).
ian smith said:
More recent data shows they were part of the same migration, the source implied that they were part of a different one to show the younger date.
Also, from 28-36 BC Japan.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X1630414X
No idea what you're trying to say, but regardless of how long they've been there, the fact that they had pigs and ceramics shows they had contact with the outside World during the last millennia (as stated at the top of page 155 of this paper) so it's plausible they acquired the bow very recently.
To Jm8,
On the Islander's "Phenotype" I did post evidence that, skin tone wise, they seem the same. However inphenotypes more relevant to taxonomy, like crania, skeletal formation of the hands and feet, as well as proteins, they are closer with eurasians.
Forgot the updated study on their genetics.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3621?cookies=accepted
https://books.google.com/books?id=iRJaAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA474&lpg=PA474&dq=pottery+andaman+islanders&source=bl&ots=FTbn54mElq&sig=1iHQBaWwOFDOvR9NUcm3b4UcIIw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwic1bLe6YjXAhVIRSYKHT95CfMQ6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=pottery%20andaman%20islanders&f=false
The pottery was hypothesized to be most likely an ancestral trait, which was actually common of hunter gatherers of eurasia
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X16301195
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32898327_Ceramics_before_Farming_The_dispersal_of_Pottery_Among_Prehistoric_Eurasian_Hunter-Gatherers
With that said they typically shun outsiders using those very tools which weakens the ideas that they were introduced by foriegners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balangoda_Man#Sri_Lankan_skeletal_and_cultural_discoveries
From direct evidence of the earliest south Asian Sapiens, likely closest to Andaman islanders, possessed stone arrowheads in the form of trapezoids, similar to the japanese ones observed.
"I did post evidence that, skin tone wise, they seem the same. However inphenotypes more relevant to taxonomy, like crania, skeletal formation of the hands and feet, as well as proteins, they are closer with eurasians."
Since they are Eurasians (descended from the OOA migration) and of course genetically closer to other Eurasians and very distant from Africans (and belong to their own group racially that is closest to other Oceanics and some S. Asians)—slightly closer to the Eastern Eurasian branch in particular—than to Africans (coming from the same OOA bottleneck etc.), much of the above is not surprising.
To Phil (continued):
But some of the genes at least contributing to certain traits (perhaps the more superficial ones), seem likely to be conserved; such as hair texture, and at least some (perhaps not all) of the contribution to skin tone—somewhat conserved in other South Eurasians/Oceanics and lost in more Northern Eurasians, with some other similarities perhaps being convergence
But certainly the Andamanese have their own cranio-facial looks, that are generally somewhat different/distinct (sometimes subtly, sometimes less so) from most Africans as wells other Oceanics, like Papuans, Tasmanians, Australians, Melanesians etc., which is not surprising given their long isolation and genetic distinctiveness.
see article (which references a new study by Tishkoff):
"Genes for Skin Color Rebut Dated Notions of Race, Researchers Say"
By Karl Zimmer New York Times (post perhaps doesn't show up with link)
"The dark-skinned people of southern India, Australia and New Guinea, for example, did not independently evolve their color simply because evolution favored it."
Andamanese short stature seemed likely to have developed locally, which your source confirms (of course this would not really be an instance of convergence as E. African groups are not usually short-statured):
To PP: I hope these last posts are not duplicate. I did not intend that. However, I tried to post more than once, because they never seemed to show up for some reason (not even with the usual "awaiting moderation" note below them)
Phil (cont.):
The full quote with link:
"The new genetic evidence supports this explanation, but adds unexpected complexity. The dark-skinned people of southern India, Australia and New Guinea, for example, did not independently evolve their color simply because evolution favored it.
They inherited the ancestral dark variants Dr. Tishkoff's team found in Africans. "They had to be introduced from an African population," said Dr. Tishkoff."
Fascinating quote!
I've been trying for a long time to prove that the african appearance of andaman islanders was inherited from ancient African ancestry & not a product of convergent evolution
Some aspects were and some aspects were not. As Phill references:
"…like crania, skeletal formation of the hands and feet, as well as proteins, they are closer with eurasians."
But in terms of the traits the classical Negroid traits that they share with virtually all non-admixed sub-Saharan groups: dark skin, black kinky hair, flat nose, prognathism…if the Andaman Islanders preserved all these from ancient African ancestors, then the Afrocentrics were arguably right to call them Negroid, even though they have a more recent ancestor with Eurasians than they share with Africans.
To make an analogy, crocodiles share a more recent ancestor with birds than they do with reptiles, and yet crocodiles are still reptiles. Why? Because, unlike birds, they preserved the phenotype common to all reptiles from their reptilian ancestor.
https://dr282zn36sxxg.cloudfront.net/datastreams/f-d%3Ab0005720d771053de01f08262d4f22707cd194e68b3854b0504cdc34%2BIMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD_TINY%2BIMAGE_THUMB_POSTCARD_TINY.1
And also, as i have noticed, and mentioned, the Andamanese have their own cranio-facial looks, that are generally somewhat different/distinct (sometimes subtly, sometimes less so) from most Africans as well as different from other Oceanics, like Papuans, Tasmanians, Australians, Melanesians (who all have their own unique tendencies in those areas) etc., which is not surprising given their long isolation and genetic distinctiveness.
And also, as i have noticed, and mentioned, the Andamanese have their own cranio-facial looks, that are generally somewhat different/distinct (sometimes subtly, sometimes less so) from most Africans
If you had a bantu, a sahelian, a Nilotic, a coastal west African, a Saharan, an African pygmy, a bushman and an Andaman islander, and showed them to someone who had never seen any of these groups before, would they be able to figure out which one was non-African without a DNA test?
Funny you mention the mess of birds and reptiles, because due to that reason people actually argue Birds are indeed still reptiles due to phylogenics, but more importantly your analogy fails has it didn't consider how birds are still considered diapsids (avian dinosaurs), which would correlate to both genes and phenotype.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diapsid
Applying this to your analogy, diapsids more appropriately corresponds to a racial class, as was the purpose and process of breaking them down throughout the years and why you have Australoids and negroids split apart even before genomics.
With the crania/other phenotypes and genes showing closer affinity with them, it would be more appropriate to label them such.
As for your other comment, to rely on the laymen perceptions over actual scientific investigation would be like doing away with our understanding of atmospheric chemical composition and sunlight angles and ask people why they think the sky is blue.
but more importantly your analogy fails has it didn't consider how birds are still considered diapsids (avian dinosaurs), which would correlate to both genes and phenotype
Not what your Wikipedia source says: Although some diapsids have lost either one hole (lizards), or both holes (snakes and turtles), or have a heavily restructured skull (modern birds), they are still classified as diapsids based on ancestry. So the classification is based on the recentness of the shared ancestry, unlike the reptile category which is based on phenotypic similarity to the shared ancestry.
Another example. Old World monkeys are classified as monkeys not apes even though they share a more recent ancestor with apes than with New World monkeys.
and why you have Australoids and negroids split apart even before genomics.
Not always:
As for your other comment, to rely on the laymen perceptions over actual scientific investigation
The above tree wasn't made by laymen.
To PP:
Taxonomy is not only based on surface, easily noticed traits (but also, for instance, in the case of land vertebrate subgroups, on things like endothermy vs ectothermy, mode of reproduction, anatomy, skeletal morphology, etc (and in the last, skeletal morphology, as well as genetic distance, and the traits Phil mentioned, Andamanese are their own race/clade and are closer to other Eurasians..
Birds are in a sense a branch or reptiles, but among the main differentiators, as far as I can tell are things like their warm-bloodedness, possession of feathers. By some definitions, many dinosaurs would not be reptiles, since many were warm blooded (probably many, and not only theropods (even crocodilians, though cold blooded, have some of the anatomical features, that would later form the base of endothermy in other archosaurs—the group that both dinosaurs and crocodillians, as well as pterosaurs, belong to—and dinosaurs) and some (most of the theropods at least) had feathers. Birds are of course an offshoot of theropods. Reptiles are not a clade, or taxon, in the same way that birds and mammals are,(in a sense mostly dinosaurs would not be reptiles, or would almost be birds, or a third category (in fact some, maybe many, were birds, depending one where you draw the line, and all birds are dinosaurs). Reptiles (unlike a true clade) do not really have distinctive traits inherited from a common ancestor (that is: traits that distinguish them from other amniotes/land vertebrates).,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptile#Phylogenetics_and_modern_definition
"Mammals are a clade, and therefore the cladists are happy to acknowledge the traditional taxon Mammalia; and birds, too, are a clade, universally ascribed to the formal taxon Aves. Mammalia and Aves are, in fact, subclades within the grand clade of the Amniota. But the traditional class Reptilia is not a clade. It is just a section of the clade Amniota: the section that is left after the Mammalia and Aves have been hived off. It cannot be defined by synapomorphies, as is the proper way. Instead, it is defined by a combination of the features it has and the features it lacks: reptiles are the amniotes that lack fur or feathers. At best, the cladists suggest, we could say that the traditional Reptilia are 'non-avian, non-mammalian amniotes'."
But in a way, the reptile classification, is like the "negroid" classification is the way that you are using it (which is no longer the way anthropologists/biologists/genetecists would use it)—it would include several races or "clades, as both are not clades in the true sense (so-called
"If you had a bantu, a sahelian, a Nilotic, a coastal west African, a Saharan, an African pygmy, a bushman and an Andaman islander,"
(even within Africa) Though though the first six are all for Africa (except the Andamanese of course), some of them are very genetically distant form each other (the Pygmies and Khoisans are quite divergent and distant both from each other and from other Africans, and some the groups within Africa can, because divergence/genetic distance, also be classified as separate races, at least as much as, if not more than, different Eurasian groups can be from each other.
Andamanese are their own race/clade and are closer to other Eurasians..
Right, but I don't think the trend towards using clades as the basis for taxonomy is a good one. For example imagine a freak mutation suddenly caused a race of humans to evolve into something phenotypically dissimilar to any primate, let alone any human. They'd still be considered human based on monophyletic classifications even though the morphology would be completely alien.
The other problem with clades is there's no way for the success of a taxon to be measured, because as soon as it colonizes diverse areas for long periods of time, it becomes a separate clade, and so even though the same phenotype persisted for millions of years in wildly different environments, they're now considered separate taxa.
So when racists say blacks are the only race that failed to leave Africa, the logic is circular because the very act of leaving Africa is now taxonomically defined as non-blackness because no matter how well the black phenotype is conserved outside of Africa, the molecular clock will show you to be different, because it's used to measure divergence time via neutral mutations, not functional similarity.
I'm not saying ignore genetics and lineage, but I am saying that taxa should be classified not by how recently they shared an ancestor, but by how much of a shared ancestor they conserved.
"Not what your Wikipedia source says: Although some diapsids have lost either one hole (lizards), or both holes (snakes and turtles), or have a heavily restructured skull (modern birds), they are still classified as diapsids based on ancestry. So the classification is based on the recentness of the shared ancestry, unlike the reptile category which is based on phenotypic similarity to the common ancestry."
Birds are linked with dinosaurs via their skeletal traits outside of cranial holes, dinosaurs in turn being linked with crocodiles under Archosaurian traits a so forth.
"Another example. Old World monkeys are not apes even though they share a more recent ancestor with apes than with new world monkeys."
Yet they two have morphological distinctions between both of those groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_World_monkey#Characteristics
When taxonomy was most advance they were. you could use that same argument on elements and laws of physics, see where I'm going with my theme of investigation?
You know what comment I was referring to, and again as I repeated in the past, older craniometrics data compared to the more modern ones I gave.
These measurements doubtfully distinguished similar traist from similar traits that aren't plastic to environment, like body proportions. Based on that, khoi san are closer to Europeans than to Bantus.
The phenotypic link between birds and reptile is so weak that it's only after the shift to cladistic classification that some consider birds reptiles.
Of course they do but they have enough morphological similarity to both be considered monkeys and not apes, despite the fact that Old World monkeys share a more recent ancestor with apes.
When taxonomy was most advance they were.
That's just your opinion.
The tree I cited was based on more than just skulls, and there's a lot more to race than just a few arbitrarily chosen skull measurements that happen to support your biases.
Speculation on top of speculation.
"Would be completely alien", Human and Great ape morphology are hardly "completely alien" despite their distinctions. I'm going to need you to come back to earth if you want to seem credible.
"The other problem with clades is there no way for the success of a taxon to be measured, because as soon as it colonizes diverse areas for long periods of time, it becomes a separate clade, and so even though the same phenotype persisted for millions of years in wildly different environments, they're now considered separate taxa."
What "same phenotype", and how would that be if they colonized diverse areas when the andamans look the way they are, by whatever explanation, due to their location being similar to Africans?
"Black phenotype", Superficiality and the actual significance of race as a biological concepts clearly either alludes you your you deliberately abuse the semantics.
Your use of racists is also another poor tactic I would have to record.
You also understand that traits could be functionally similar but still convergent, right? That wouldn't help much.
"Shared ancestor they conserved"- a concept develop by laymen perceptions of your own (see my link on Old World Monkeys), uncalled for extrapolations from jensen's work, and of course your trademark handwaving of *modern (not 1964's) understanding of phenotype/genetic relatedness data in terms of relevance and established relationships.
But overall, despite all of your excuses your proposal of taxonomy being dictacted by phenotype over molecular data undermines the very reason why phenotype was used, to actually OUTLINE population history in relation to others, not to organize life towards some OCD fueled resolution.
I'm going to need you to understand the argument if you want to seem credible. Just because a group all shares the same clade doesn't mean they all share a similar phenotype.
I'm talking generally not about Andaman islanders specifically. Modern humans colonized wildly different environments yet despite a few small differences, all have the same general phenotype characterized by a large rounded cranium, a vertical forehead a flat face tucked under the brain case, a small jaw, and gracile skeleton.
"Black phenotype", Superficiality
Most racial differences are superficial. If they were deep they wouldn't be racial differences, they'd be species differences
and the actual significance of race as a biological concepts clearly either alludes you your you deliberately abuse the semantics
No you either don't get the difference between having a common ancestor and inheriting a common ancestral phenotype or don't get that such differences are plausible
Now you're just getting desperate.
Which is why I said taxa should only be grouped by sharing the phenotype of a common ancestor, not by independently evolved shared phenotype. I've explained this to you before many, many times.
"Shared ancestor they conserved"- a concept develop by laymen perceptions of your own (see my link on Old World Monkeys),
Your link was irrelevant as I explained in my other comment
uncalled for extrapolations from jensen's work,
I didn't extrapolate anything from Jensen's work. I merely cited him to show there's a difference between neutral and non-neutral DNA and the latter is preferred for making genetic trees.
and of course your trademark handwaving of *modern (not 1964's) understanding of phenotype/genetic relatedness data in terms of relevance and established relationships.
Another meaningless barely coherent statement
But overall, despite all of your excuses your proposal of taxonomy being dictacted by phenotype over molecular data undermines the very reason why phenotype was used, to actually OUTLINE population history in relation to others, not to organize life
Why choose one or the other? Why can't we classify life by shared ancestry while also classifying life by shared ancestral phenotype? It seems stupid to void centuries of classification systems and an entire fossil record based around morphology, just because we discovered neutral DNA.
"clearly either alludes you your you deliberately abuse the semantics."
…clearly either alludes you or you're deliberately abusing the semantics.
The tree also inaccurately put/classed Eskimos and North American Indians with caucasoids/Europeans, when they are closer to or are branches of the mongoloid group—and some did know that then as well (it came much closer to getting South American Indians right, as well as Ainus correctly classing both as mongoloids/closest to mongoloids—the last of which, the Ainu, some early anthropologists speculated might be closer to caucasoids or australoids, but modern genomics has shown to be an early mongoloid offshoot and closest to E. Asians and Siberians).
Yet phenotypic analyses supports the association as I said based on the sub categories, scales being retained on bird's legs, both Birds and crocodiles having gizzards as well as endothermic traits as Jm8 highlighted.
Morphological similarity, beyond tails that are functional different, such as what generally?
No, during the latter ages nongenetic taxonomy, they were seperated. That's not debateable.
the past, older craniometrics data compared to the more modern ones I gave.
1. If you look at the chart, it's called "general anthrometrics" and it clearly is related to climate, with confounds similarly shared traits in both crania and body proportions.
2. I have backed up the significance of the traits I highlighted in the past to the point of redundancy, you are in no position to label them a product of my "bias" when I've been the most investigative and scientifically backed throughout the entire debate.
"Speculation", you mean concepts I have backed before and used various comparisons of old and modern data to demonstrate when we discussed this?
No, I made it clear by this point on multiple occasions that not only do I have a greater knowledge of this field, but that you will cling (from media outlets to short comments by specialists) while I can and will bolster myself using scientific sources.
Yet phenotypic analyses supports the association as I said based on the sub categories, scales being retained on bird's legs, both Birds and crocodiles having gizzards as well as endothermic traits as Jm8 highlighted
Just because birds have three things in common with one particular reptile doesn't mean they're especially phenotypically similar overall. If they were, scientists would have classified them as reptiles in the first place, without knowing the shared ancestry.
A tail combined with generally smaller bodies, smaller brains and less human appearance than apes.
That was just one classification system out of many. The fact that it was last doesn't make it the best.
The idea of classifying race while ignoring climate is absurd; climate is the primary cause of racial differences.
Your entire argument rests on a few arbitrarily chosen craniometric measurements, completely ignoring the rest of the phenotype and even the cranial data does not consistently support you: Andamanese crania resemble more closely those of Africans
Now hand-wave that away like you hand-waved away the 1964 anthropometric tree that didn't support you.
To Jm8, exactly.
Also, "black" is not a single race. "Black"/dark is a skin tone—commoner in groups with low latitude ancestry (not all groups with lighter skin are one single race, either, nor all groups with straight hair, or high cheekbones, or long noses, or flat noses, etc.—even if they conserve some of those features from a common ancestor: Asians, many Africans, and most Australoids all could be said to conserve a somewhat greater tendency toward flatter—maybe also somewhat wider— and somewhat shorter noses, in comparison to most caucasoid types/caucasoids in general. But one would not put them all in one single racial class together, with caucasoids/Western Eurasians as the out-group. There is, as mentioned, more than one single race in/native to subsaharan Africa. Western Eurasian (caucasoids) range somewhat in color, as do Eastern Eurasians/Amerinds. Australians and South Indians would (even superficially) be classed neither with W. Eurasians nor "Africans" phenotypically, and other Oceanic—with a kinkier hair texture that makes them look a bit more African-like superficially—like Andamanese, Papuans, Negritos, etc, belong to a broad general "Oceanic/protoAustraloid-descended cluster of humanity (which itself is very broad and internally divergent, having to begun to divide with the settling/isolation of the ancestors "Oceanic"/South Eurasian peoples in their respective regions—Australia, Papua, the Andamans, India, etc—in the Paleolithic.
(Also, many Southern Eurasians groups—like Australians, Papuans, and to an extent Melanesians—have cranio-facial tendencies that are perceptibly different from many Africans. Papuans/Australians are known for having a somewhat stronger brow ridge and more receding forehead by sapiens standards, whereas most African groups have weaker bows ridges than caucasians—who in turn tend to have weaker ones, though this varies significantly by European region/subgroup—than Papuans/Australians—and most African types have a tendency toward a more bulbous/convex or projecting forehead.)
The point isn't how obvious the traits are, it's the ancestral signifigance that actually matters.
Again, that wouldn't pass modern smell tests for taxonomy.
Yes, it does as it builds on greater research and arguments overtime AND it corresponds with modern genomics.
"Your entire argument rests on a few arbitrarily chosen craniometric measurements, completely ignoring the rest of the phenotype"
1. I have used specific ancestrally relevant phenotypes of the skull with two sources, a book chapter on the subject and a direct study, AS WELL as direct dna evidence in the form of proteins and alleles.
You used dark skin and frizzy hair, you barely covered any other significant phenotypes so you can't claim that I ignored other things you brought to my attention.
"and even the cranial data does not consistently support you: Andamanese crania resemble more closely those of Africans
Been there, done that.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/04/05/even-more-evidence-that-the-black-race-is-extremely-old/comment-page-1/#comment-56001
Also, "handwaved"? I pointed out that the metrics were nonspecified, comes from the damn 60's compared to my various studies from much latter times peroids, and that it didn't control for climate.
Not to mention I basically cosigned with Jm8's observation of it clashing with Mongoloids categories, affirming my suspicion of climate adaptation not being considered.
So no, I'm not the one handwaving.
No the point is that some scientists consider birds reptiles despite their phenotype, not because of it. This reflects a shift in taxonomy, from grouping life based by shared ancestral phenotype, to grouping life by shared ancestry regardless of phenotype. From Wikipedia:
Because some reptiles are more closely related to birds than they are to other reptiles (e.g., crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards), the traditional groups of "reptiles" listed above do not together constitute a monophyletic grouping (or clade). For this reason, many modern scientists prefer to consider the birds part of Reptilia as well, thereby making Reptilia a monophyletic class.[1][2][3][4]
I'm very concerned that you do not understand this subtle point.
That's because modern taxonomy is based exclusively on shared ancestry and ignores shared ancestral phenotype. Monkeys (like apes and reptiles) are not a monophyletic group so they are taxonomically obsolete, except in cases where people try to absurdly redefine these terms to force them to fit a clade (i.e. redefining birds as reptiles, redefining humans as apes, etc)
Seeing as you can't articulate these arguments convincingly, you have no point. As for modern genetics, show me a modern phylogenetic tree that has five distinct branches corresponding to Coon's 5 races. Cavalli-Sforza's genetic tree clearly does not:
And that's a problem why exactly?
Keep living in your own little self-reinforcing bubble.
1. I have used specific ancestrally relevant phenotypes of the skull with two sources,
Seeing as we don't know what the ancestors of modern races looked like, you have no basis for claiming your sources are more ancestry relevant than my more numerous sources
AS WELL as direct dna evidence in the form of proteins and alleles.
A DNA study you completely misinterpreted. And Jm8 has now provided proof that Andaman islanders inherited their black skin from ancestral Africans, badly undermining your argument that their African traits evolved convergently.
My evidence includes dark skin proven by Jm8 to be from Africa, kinky hair, flat nose, prognathism, large buttocks, 1964 anthropometric tree, the fact that they were called "negritos" and according to Howells's landmark craniometric data, African skulls.
A vague sentence criticising Howells is not even close to a coherent rebuttal. You need to step up your game, and fast.
Seeing as most racial differences are caused by evolved adaptations to climate, controlling for climate is controlling for race by proxy.
Howells's tree does a much better job separating Caucasoids from Mongoloids, with the exception of Native Americans who migrated South before the classical Mongoloid traits evolved. But both trees support the idea of the Negroid race extending out of Africa.
Missed this little gem.
If you bothered to look at that WHOLE graph, you would understand pretty fast that of what I meant by climatic traits gained by selection versus ancestral traits by races.
Native Americans of the Plains were lanky with high nose bridges, they must've been Whites and not mongoloids right?
The rest of the quote, using direct DNA evidence from protiens,
"However, a 1950s study on blood groups and proteins suggested that the Andamanese were more closely related to Oceanic peoples than to Africans [5]. Genetic studies on Philippine Negritos, based on polymorphic blood enzymes and antigens, showed that they were similar to surrounding Asian populations and rejected the notion that they belonged to an ancient stratum of Homo sapiens in Asia [6]. The most favored current explanation of the origin of the Andamanese and other Negritos is that they are short-statured representatives of the early Australo-Melanesian settlers of Southeast Asia and Oceania, and not closely related to the African pygmoid peoples [7]. It has been suggested that the small stature of some nomadic hunting and gathering peoples in Asia and Africa might be a local adaptation to a tropical rainforest environment, rather than the result of a shared ancestry [8]."
So you mention functionality in regards to phenotypes, here's one among many others I pointed out before.
To Jm8, another trait is, despite have rather wide noses, they have a higher root than Africans much like Caucasians for instance even with Negrito populations.
"Papuans/Australians—though not Andamanese so much—are known for having a somewhat stronger brow ridge and more receding forehead…"
It's you that's need to understand my argument, that point was supposed to show how how "completely alien" doesn't translate by itself into objective morphology as it's either vague or not realistic if taken literally.
"I'm talking generally not about Andaman islanders specifically. Modern humans colonized wildly different environments yet despite a few small differences, all have the same general phenotype characterized by a large rounded cranium, a vertical forehead and flat face tucked under the brain case, a small jaw, and gracile skeleton.
You see, this is a perfect example of you manipulating how "similar" phenotypes can be. Not only does that explanation noit explain specifically why neutral genes for clades is inefficient, but your example fails because human races as clades show significant differences in each of those very traits you described.
1. no they are mostly superficial.
2. my rebuttal for your comment on species would be dogs clearly varying in morphology despite being the same species.
I get the difference, the problem I have is how you use those "phenotypes" without any scientific backing to rearrange assigned taxa when science is currently moving away from that.
In the case of negroids, it was meant to actually reflect ancestry and not just phenotype, the latter was given so much weight because it was the best tool. Overtime time before genetics, as well as after, phenotype's significance to taxonomy is still relavent but not in the way you applied it. I have explain various times in the past why, so see my links from old threads to see why.
Me? I used only science to back up my claims, me pointing out on your various non-scientific backing is pointing out how desperate you are.
I know that, but this time you specifically said "functionality", not common preservation.
1. They do not ignore ancestral phenotypes, they just refined the actual taxonomical significance of DIFFERENT phenotypes.
2. The clades are not absurd as they are based genetic evidence, for you to say otherwise shows your novice and simplistic view of biology as well arbitrarily.
That would be extrapolation, you cited Jensen 's distinction and inappropriate decided that the nonneutral DNA was more important without anyother support.
"Another meaningless barely coherent statement."
We both know I was referring to your lack of objective response towards my data, relying on small comments or old data which was miniscule compared to my own.
And as I said before, we DON'T ignore phenotype. Half of my data was on phenotype and it's genes. The reliance and methods however changed along with the adoption of genetics.
Probably because nowhere in the quote does it mentions phenotype similarities in regards to relatedness, only the monophyletic label they were given traditionally.
Second, you are talking about why they are grouped intitally, not the actual nature of their phenotype itself compared to other reptiles.
Due to shared Archosaurian ancestry, They would automatically share more traits ancestrally than with lizards as tracked through the fossil record that links them as well.
see my response above.
Jensen even pointed the essential similarities of five distinct clusters using that same data, just to jog your memory.
See jm8's comments and the nature of similarities between groups caused by climate calling for the same traits versus those that are caused by past phenotypes. My example with khoisan and europeans in arm to body proportions.
Keep projecting all you want, I never relied on a scientist's reputation or a news outlet to support my arguments.
If you recalled that my sources were specifically looking at less plastic traits of the skull caused by selection, they can detect genetic relation in that regard.
"A DNA study you completely misinterpreted."
You are thinking of a different study which I agreed was limited, I'm referring to the quote from the same source where you got your crania data and another one specifically on alleles.
"And Jm8 has now provided proof that Andaman islanders inherited their black skin from ancestral Africans, badly undermining your argument that their African traits evolved convergently."
No, because he ALSO supported my traits having more significance in modern biology.
And I used *modern craniometric comparison, sources to located specific traits that are ancestrally relavent, proteins and alleles, and sources addressing Howells data and putting it into context in relation to jeans.
You need to read, because it wasn't a single criticism. I used Dental data aligning them with Asians, other studies grouping them with oceanic and southern Asians, and the similarities detected by howells being to due to a lack of specific traits and reasserted why Hanihara's study would be more accurate my methodology.
You gave more vague sentecing in response to me than the otherway around.
The confounds in converged traits and not considering ancestral relavance in terms of plasticity makes that proxy less reliable as I've explained before.
Also, phenotype differences also occur by genetic drift, not just selection.
No, they do not as I've explained with Andamans, the 1964 graph using Australian and PNG natives despite modern craniometric clustering them away from eachother, and howell's data already being explained to be due to generalized regions of the skull and other studies (including an unmentioned and better formulated one) showing cranial links with Asians being consistent with protiens, teeth, and hands and feet formation.
See serogenetics (protiens) and dermatoglyphics (hands and feet).
Okay let me give you a more precise example. Imagine if it were discovered that scientists had made a huge mistake and that instead of Neanderthals splitting from us over half a million years ago, we found out they split only 50,000 years ago (after the Out of Africa exodus). Would you suddenly decide they were the same species as we are? Or conversely if it was suddenly discovered that Bushmen split from modern humans over half a million years ago, would you suddenly decide they are no longer a member of our species? Based on phylogenetic taxonomy (which you embrace), the answer to both questions would be "yes" but according to evolutionary taxonomy, the answer to both questions would be "no".
According to phylogenetic taxonomy, Andaman islanders can't possibly be the same race as sub-Saharan Africans because that would form a paraphyletic group, but evolutionary taxonomy allows them to potentially be included in the Negroid taxon, if both groups are phenotypically similar enough, and, I presume, both groups inherited their shared phenotype from a shared ancestor.
You argue that their phenotypic similarity is only skin deep and that Howells study showing similar skulls has been discredited. On the contrary, Howells's research has been replicated: The similarity between Indian and Andamanese crania proposed by previous multivariate studies [6, 9, 10] cannot be confirmed by our analysis. Instead, Andamanese cluster with Sub-Saharan Africans, as originally observed by Howells [3], whereas Indians are more similar to Caucasoids than to any other populations outside of South Asia.
You could be right about them having non-African "serogenetics (protiens) and dermatoglyphics (hands and feet)", but then the Negroid race has always included diverse phenotypes so one needs objective criteria to decide how much diversity is too much to be included in the group. Until we have such objective criteria, I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I lean towards them being Negroid.
Jensen discussed 2 genetic datasets. One yielded 4 races and the other yielded 6. Both only crudely matched Coon.
They can detect phylogenetic relation in that way, I agree, however just because a trait is often selected, doesn't mean it wasn't conserved from a common ancestor. Hence the exclusion of selected traits (like the common exclusion of selected DNA), while great for phylogenetic taxonomy, is bad for evolutionary taxonomy.
And your wiki link would contradict what you said because it clearly says that modern taxonomy INCLUDES phylogenic relationships. The only clash they mainly have is organizing groups into Linnean-like taxa within Phylogenic groups to display serial (ancestor-descendant) relationships. Speaks little on what constitutes a species between morphology and physical genetic distance (which is some way or another will create differences based on genetic drift influencing phenotypes).
You would've had a point if you did just one on one comparisons between taxonomy and distance, but here You would have Sapiens like non-sapiens, Archaic looking Sapiens, with Our Sapiens as a standard to constitute Neanderthals as a Sister Taxa and Bushmen under the Same Taxa.
This wouldn't work given how much it clashes with Cladistics, which is integral to Zander's points in applying this Taxonomy.
And, preci
1. You clearly didn't read what I've typed because I memtioned this both briefly in this thread and extensively in nother, explaining WHY the results been replicated and mentioned other studies that produced different results as well as showing asian affinities other Phenotypes.
So, quantifably, Andaman Islanders would be better described as Australoids rather than Negroids.
West Africans, Negroids, diversity comes in the form of lack of large scale inbreeding, not necessarily phenotype diversity. Given the nature of Nilosaharans, they pretty much would've likely overlapped in traits compared to this population as well.
Between population diversity has been largely explained be mixing with different clusters like Bushmen or West Eurasians.
Bushmen and Pygmies come from a different migrational group, so they are ruled out automatically.
You clearly don't know what you are talking in these matters when you confuse phenotype and genetic diversity and how they would effect certain traits. Proteins, for instance, wouldn't change in terms of affinity based on the nature of Negroid diversity and neither would dermatoglyphics, as even observing mere fingerprints under that category can distinguish blacks and whites.
Yet he commented on their overall similarities in terms of geographically distinct groups, Further it matched closer than any other used model prior to it.
"They can detect phylogenetic relation in that way, I agree, however just because a trait can be selected, doesn't mean it wasn't conserved from a common ancestor. Hence the exclusion of selected traits (like the common exclusion of selected DNA), while great for phylogenetic taxonomy, is bad for evolutionary taxonomy."
That wouldn't be a problem because if it was inherited from an ancestor then it would've likely been similar in more absolute ways like the differences between obvious inherited traits and convergent trait differences.
Those two things were deciphered in Hanihara's study as I said in my comment in the past thread.
No you missed the whole point of the article. The point being: While in phylogenetic nomenclature each taxon must consist of a single ancestral node and all its descendants, evolutionary taxonomy allows for groups to be excluded from their parent taxa (e.g. dinosaurs are not considered to include birds, but to have given rise to them), thus permitting paraphyletic taxa.[2][3]
This is the exact same point I've been making. Andaman islanders should not be excluded from the Negroid taxon merely because they make the group paraphyletic.
No according to phylogenetic taxonomy (cladistics), it's impossible for modern Africans and modern non-Africans to share a taxon that excludes Neanderthals if it was discovered that Neanderthals split from modern humans after the Out of Africa exodus. It's very hard to have a discussion with you when you fail to grasp this very basic point.
Well I'm not going to reread a bunch of old comments just on the slim chance you said something coherent.
According to your interpretation of the research, but even if Andaman islanders do have Australoid skulls, Howell found Australoids and Africans to be so similar that one could lump them together into a single macro-taxon at least based on his data.
West Africans, Negroids, diversity comes in the form of lack of large scale inbreeding, not necessarily phenotype diversity.
No the point is even if you exclude Bushmen and even pygmies from your definition of Negroid, there are huge physical differences between West Africans and East Africans as reflected in their body build and the types of sports they excel in. So if phenotypic differences as large and as numerous as those found between East and West Africans don't stop them from forming a single taxon, you can't argue that the Andaman islander differences are sufficient to do so.
The difference between East and West Africans is caused by mixing with Bushmen and West Eurasians and not by adaptions to their respective locations?
You're cherry picking traits that are selectively neutral to force phenotypic clusters to fit monophyletic taxa, but you don't understand that phenotypic similarity on selected traits is not necessarily caused by parallel evolution. Similar selection doesn't just cause the same phenotypes to evolve independently, it can also cause descendants of the same ancestor to both conserve the ancestral phenotype as jm8 showed it did in the case of Andaman island skin color.
Similar in more "absolute ways"? More vague barely coherent ramblings.
I understand that my problem is that it doesn;t support your example of Neanderthals being morphologically of the ancestral taxon but genetically of the same taxa as humans, Bushmen morphologically of the same taxa but ancestral based on genes WITHOUT skeletal phenotypes caused by genetic drift to go unnoticed.
That would be different than the conundrum of diapsids and birds as the relation of phenotypes and ancestor-descendant relations are more consistent in chronology, such as the traits found in archosaurs.
I do get than point and how it applied to the Andamanese, the problem though is that you applied the taxonomy to a DIFFERENT example that doesn;t work as i explain above.
Let me rephrase that for accuracy "Well I'm too lazy to read one short comment and one longer comment, with sources, that explain the same circumstance."
"According to your interpretation of the research, but Howell found Australoids and Africans to be so similar that one could lump them together into a single macro-taxon at least based on his data."
And I used MORE data with improved methodology for phenotypes and selected DNA proxies alike..
The problem with that is that the only aspect of diversity that West And East Africans are unique at is genetic diversity, as I explained, to because by both race mixing and low events of large scale outbreeding.
On their own, having a skinny subrace and a stockier one is hardly unique to Africans in terms of phenotypes. Pygmies aren't unique in respect to their condition as it's seen in other populations of similar latitude and is even shown to be convergent within African populations and within Asian populations of pygmies.
If by east Africans (horners) yes, b ut nilotics ar taller mainly due to adaptation. the problem is though they aren't unusual enough as a phenotype as such magnitude differences exist within each subrace.
I do understand that, and I've explained that based on the number of expressed traits (proteins, alleles, blood groups, skeletal/dental, and dermatypogliths) outweigh you limited crania and superficial traits. Not only that, but I've explained how Hanihara accounted for it.
Oh no?-"Jensen counters that
the most state-of-the art population
genetic studies and statistical procedures
identify "population clusters" that
correspond quite closely to the racial
classifications of traditional anthropology
and even of "the man on the street,"
although the term "race" is avoided."
Click to access Intelligence-Race-and-Genetics-Frank-Miele.pdf
"Traditional" as in Coon's model of Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, and Australoid.
Convergent traits can be observed even without genetics. Differences can exist metrically or visibly to tell.
For instance, while genetics were required to conclude that pygmy phenotypes were independent in Asia, in Africa measurements of growth cycles between Western And Eastern Pygmies were used along with genetic data isolating the pygmy growth genes.
In the case of Hanihara, see here.
"The MMD is not based on population genetic mod-els. As such, it is a model-free, rather than model-bound measure (Howells, 1973b; Relethford andLees, 1982). The MMD is based on an assumption of trait independence. In our previous studies, the av-erage intertrait correlation in each sample was low,with Phi coefficients ranging from 0.00–0.28, with amean correlation of 0.08. Higher correlations among morphogenetically similar (hyperostotic or hypos-totic) traits have been found (Berry and Berry, 1967;Hertzog, 1968; Ossenberg, 1969; Corruccini, 1974;Hauser and De Stefano, 1989). However, the pat-terns of geographical variation tend to be differentfrom trait to trait, even in the same category, sug-gesting the more or less independent expression of these traits (Hanihara and Ishida, 2001b–e). Basedon these results, we assume that the MMD will not be seriously biased."
https://www.academia.edu/8770480/Characterization_of_biological_diversity_through_analysis_of_discrete_cranial_traits
I understand that my problem is that it doesn;t support your example of Neanderthals being morphologically of the ancestral taxon but genetically of the same taxa as humans
The great apes are a perfect example of a taxon that is morphologically ancestral to humans but phylogenetically in the same taxon. Now you've tried to cite all the phenotypic reasons why humans are great apes, just like you did for why birds are reptiles, but what you don't get is that these reasons are largely post-hoc attempts to make the clades seem phenotypically meaningful. If it were discovered tomorrow that all the great apes had split from humans long before they split from each other, scientists would exclude humans from the category in a heartbeat just as they had done before the rise of molecular biology. That should give you a clue how arbitrary these taxa are.
On their own, having a skinny subrace and a stockier one is hardly unique to Africans in terms of phenotypes.
Having one group that excels at marathons but sucks at sprinting and another that excels at sprinting but sucks at marathons is a pretty big and complex difference. You're just arbitrarily dismissing differences between East and West Africans while highlighting differences between any Africans and Andaman islanders.
And the running differences are not caused by Eurasian admixture as far as I know, since Ethiopians are more Caucasoid than Kenyans yet the latter are better at marathons. The last I heard the differences might be related to adaptations to oxygen levels in the East African highlands.
I do understand that, and I've explained that based on the number of expressed traits (proteins, alleles, blood groups, skeletal/dental, and dermatypogliths) outweigh you limited crania and superficial traits.
If I were arguing that Andaman islanders were a specific ethnic group in Africa you'd have a point, but since I'm arguing they might be part of an entire macro-race with enormous variability, then the differences you highlight are less compelling.
Except Coon didn't believe in a single African Negroid race. He subdivided it into Congoids and Capoids. Also genetics have subdivided his Mongoloid race.
Until Jm8 proved you wrong, you thought Andaman island skin color was a convergently evolved trait. So who knows how many more surprises future research has for you.
Expanding on this, I've already demonstrated multiple time of how australians and negroids do not cluster based on modern studies. Their hair texture isn't even that similar as Australians are clearly thicker and wavy on average, their skin is dark but on cranial comparisons they have a higher root of the nose, like Caucasians, and likewise they mainly only share a prognathic lower face and long low vault, and even then there are differences coupled along with that, when factors presence, causes major disruptions.
https://books.google.com/books?id=vfpYrleTsMcC&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=crania+australians+and+africans&source=bl&ots=uTRemT-XZ8&sig=3MzHMn3GOeet5srYMtlEy-nfiXc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpkoOEtI_XAhVLSSYKHeF2CwsQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=crania%20australians%20and%20africans&f=false
And honestly, the significance of robusticity and prognathism is diminished when you consider how both Cromagnon skulls and the Hofmyer skull nonetheless clustered more with each, Cromagnons in turn being closer to Modern europeans as well and were only linked to negroids due to incomplete measurements (supported by Howells).
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/early-upper-paleolithic-europeans-eups/
So therefore the greater divergence of Africans and Australians, under craniometrics, is likely under more complete conditions.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2013/836738/fig8/
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2013/836738/fig10/
The study that you used even confirms this because, unlike Indian affinities caucasoids, Howells conclusion on Australians and Africans weren't replicated. While a few groups come close, it was Guam and the Moriori that came closest on the PC2 and # cnetroid and they are more of the pacific paleomongoloids than australoids. The Tasmanians and Australians being the furthest of Oceanic groups. Arikara (Native Americans), Peruvians, and even Eskmos were closer to the Zulu/Dogon/Bushman range.
On the Dendogram 10 you have eskimos classed far away from other Asians along with Native Americans often being clustered away towards caucasians.
Here on dendogram 11 the Mongoloids are rectified, but Australians and similar groups are still distant from Africans.
Regarding the Andamanese's crania affinities, see here.
"What the present analysis adds is that southern Indians also have specialised craniometrics. Andamanese on the other hand have unspecialised craniometrics, as shown by how they cluster with geographically distant Sub-Saharan Africans, and seriate adjacently to the central bloc of recent human crania (consisting of Caucasoids, Amerindians, and populations from Japan and China to Taiwan and parts of the Pacific). Therefore, southern Indians' craniometric distinctiveness from Andamanese should be interpreted as a result of their craniometric specialisation rather than as evidence against a shared, ancient ancestry with Andamanese."
Not to mention that it also mentioned other studies, contrary to Howells, that clustered Andamanese with Indians like Hanihara.
"Previously undertaken multivariate studies are consistent in pointing to a similarity between crania from India and from surrounding locations. Stock et al. found that both northern and southern Indian crania cluster tightly together. Closest to Indians are crania from Afghanistan and Iran, the Andaman Islands, Sri Lanka (Veddas and to a lesser degree Sinhalese), and at a greater remove southwest Asia [9]. Similarly, Wright found that his Indian sample clusters with Andaman Islanders, the latter being otherwise close to southwest Asians and Egyptians [10]. Brace et al. found that northern and southern Indians constitute a discrete cluster, along with Sri Lanka crania. These South Asians cluster with Europeans if Andamanese are excluded from analysis, or with Andamanese if Europeans are excluded from analysis [6]. The impression these studies give is that northern and southern Indians are very similar in their craniometrics, with secondary affinities to Sri Lanka, Andamanese, and southwest Asian crania, regardless of whether differences between populations in cranial size are controlled for [6, 9] or not [10]."
Though Hanihara sample for Andamanese did include Nicobarese, that would've placed the group closest to Southeast Asians, not South Asians. It suggest that they descend from Austronesians.
Click to access e0c521e928ea0b9fe4c024292b5db556c9a7.pdf
"The great apes are a perfect example of a taxon that is morphologically ancestral to humans but phylogenetically in the same taxon. Now you've tried to cite all the phenotypic reasons why humans and great apes, just like you did for why birds are reptiles, but what you don't get is that these reasons are largely post-hoc attempts to make the monophyletic clades seem phenotypically meaningful. If it were discovered tomorrow that all the great apes had split from humans long before they split from each other, scientists would exclude humans from the category in a heartbeat just as they had done before the rise of molecular biology. That should give you a clue how arbitrary these taxa are."
First of all, you cut off my quote deliberately because the relationship of neanderthals and humans in your example wasn't my problem, it was the conundrum caused by Bushmen that complicated things.
Second, you have shown throughout this entire thread that your limited understanding of genetics gives you know right to conclude that these findings are post hoc, especially since you have done little investigation for yourself.
For example, with birds, their connection with dinosaurs as archosaurs was discovered LONG BEFORE genetic testing on the hypothesis was done. In was largely fossil digging.
As with apes, again, your hypothetical example carries little weight Great apes in and of itself isn;t monophyletic AS ONCE THOUGHT ALREADY. This is shown in both fossil record AND Dna already.
No, you are desperately using athletic abilities (simplified differences mind you)
based on region, posing that as a unique phenomenon, and confounding that with genetic relation.
You can observe the same occurrence with other subraces. For instance, Eastern Europeans in Boxing due to stocky nature, Northern Europeans for sprinting among Europeans along with other leaner sub types lin Southern Europe.
And I never said jack shit about their ability, I bothered to be consistent with their MORPHOLOGY and explained the difference between Horners and Nilotics while you still use simplistically "East Africans".
Plus it is specifically NILOTIC Kenyans, not Bantu Kenyans who are stockier.
No they are not because you have unconvincingly proved variability to exist in phenotypes.
Both are true, the point is that Jensen did believe in their essential similarities, in this case I'm highlighting the divergence of Negroid and Australoids.
But regarding the point on capoids, the divergence of Bushmen actually also confirm Coon as well.
Except I told him I've already mention skin color, one of the weak traits there is for taxonomy, and he agreed with my points regarding my other traits. showing them not to be truly negroid.
Trust me, the research I gave compared to the research you did will give few surprises for my position.
Once again you completely miss the point. I'm not denying that phenotypic similarities were known before genetic testing, but they were not considered relevant enough for birds to be considered reptiles. After the phylogenetic relationships were understood, reptile was redefined by phylogenetic taxonomists to include birds. It's not a case of genetics confirming the fossil record as you so naively assume, it's a case of prioritizing different phenotypes to confirm the genetics post-hoc.
Again you don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about. Before the rise of molecular biology, scientists thought the great apes were a monophyletic group that excluded humans. When this view was debunked, they redefined "great apes" to include humans, thus making it a clade.
But that's my point. Sub-races within races differ greatly, thus the differences between Andaman islanders and sub-Saharan Africans may not be sufficient to exclude them from the same race
Not really. If Bushmen really diverged as early as some claim, then there should be only 2 human races based on phylogenetics (bushmen vs non-bushmen) not 5 races per Coon.
Mean to say phenotype association.
Again, given your obvious ignorance on the greater literature of genetics and phenotypes, why shoudl i believe that it was post hoc as you claimed?
First of all the use of reptiles in phylogenics to claim birds as reptiles was mainly based on interpretation of genes and taxa assignement, making THAT arbitrary, the fossil record was just phenotypic record of their links with dinosaurs that people have been primarily observing prior to genetics that could be used as proof but wasn;t the main reason.
Therefore, it's not post Hoc.
That's exactly what I said-"Great apes in and of itself isn;t monophyletic AS ONCE THOUGHT ALREADY. This is shown in both fossil record AND Dna already."
My point by providing that was, due to it already being common belief to begin with with likely tons of evidence to support it, the likelihood that the position would reverse in unlikely given our advancement in taxa assignment and a better fossil record.
No, point is you use that to somehow prove that Negroids have "unique" diversity to make that the case when it's not unique enough for them to possess such traits to deviate from a population like West Africans in the manner you are talking about yet still align with other sub saharan populations of the OOA cluster.
Here, it shows that in respects to dermatoglphic data most sub saharans fall within eachother's variation, only pygmies and Bushman deviate.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25756579?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Also, this traits is also highly assocated with geography, therefore the liklihood of Andamanese being closer to nilotics than West Africans is unlikely.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330110222/full#references
Phenotypically speaking, they lack evidence of being diverse enough to cause this disruption you described, yet I have more than enough to association Andamanese with southern asians.
No, because the five races we've observed was the actual baseline we originally used for genetic clusters so their genetic distances isn;t undermined
Also, due to admixture ranging from 9-22%, modern khoisan appear less divergent then their larger component really is.
Again, given your obvious ignorance on the greater literature of genetics and phenotypes,
No the only one who shows ignorance is you.
why shoudl i believe that it was post hoc as you claimed?
Because they didn't do it until after the ancestry relations were known.
First of all the use of reptiles in phylogenics to claim birds as reptiles was mainly based on interpretation of genes and taxa assignement, making THAT arbitrary,
That's the whole point IQ78! They're looking at genetics to find clades, and then defining that clade as a taxon based on all the phenotypic traits everyone in the clade has in common. That's post-hoc because instead of the phylogenetic clusters matching the phenotypic clusters independently, once they know the phylogenetic clusters, they cherry-pick the phenotypes that fit it.
Again you know nothing. Prior to the DNA age, all the great apes shared the ponginae taxon which excluded humans.
No I'm not claiming negroids have unique diversity. All macro-races have enormous diversity.
Again you're just cherry picking traits that are selectively neutral so that phenotypes match phylogenetic clusters. If that's how you want to define race, that's fine, but you should at least be aware that's what you're doing.
Traits Andaman islanders share with Negroids:
1) Black skin
2) Kinky hair
3) flat nose
4) prognathism
5) large buttocks
6) Howell's cranium traits
Incoherent
Except I've explained this was already understood int the fossil record prior.
"That's the whole point IQ78!"
Blown a gasket?
"They're looking at genetics to find clades, and then defining that clade as a taxon based on all the phenotypic traits everyone in the clade has in common. That's post-hoc because instead of the phylogenetic clusters matching the phenotypic clusters independently, once they know the phylogenetic clusters, they cherry-pick the phenotypes that fit it."
No, in RAW phylogenic they define Taxa by their genes in relation to each other, not ohenotypes involved.
My mention of phenotypes is SEPARATE from typical raw phenotype mapping, that additionally, you also have fossil record data ALREADY RECORD.
Again, I KNOW THAT, which is why I the said the groups isn't as monophyletic AS ONCE THOUGHT and based on the nature of evidence that would existed during the position change, it's unlikely that it will change UNLESS in the event of methodology flaws.
Then you would understand the unlikelihood that the variation, when unadmixed, is to overlap when one subgroup such as West Africans for negroids is already shown to be excluded.
"Again you're just cherry picky traits that are selectively neutral so that phenotypes match phylogenetic clusters. If that's how you want to define race, that's fine, but you should at least be aware that's what you're doing."
No, I'm not cherry picking, this entire section of the debate was talking about serogenetics and dermatoglyphics's validity, there fore I'm using on the clustering on the specific phenotype.
1. Superficial
3. Doesn't links Australian very close when more complete measurements are taken.
4. See 4
5. Likely convergent, large fat storage expressed as such is actually more particular to certain pygmies or Bushman of similar latitude and environment rather than West Africans proper.
6. Already discussed that, see my previous comments regarding other studies and Hanihara
No it isn't, as when the samples of dna collected were from 5 races compared to eachother, their diversity would be the "baseline" of the unveiled geographic clustering. In return, depending on conditions explained before like admixture, the Bushmen would just appear more distant in comparison.
Just because phenotypic similarities were known doesn't mean they were judged relevant enough to define precise taxa. Reptiles were defined by poikilothermy and not having protective traits such as hair and feathers. Their known similarities with birds were judged insufficient to include birds in the reptile taxon until the rise of cladistics where by definition, all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of all reptiles had to be included in the taxon. At that point many scientists either rejected reptiles as a valid taxon or broadened the phenotypic requirements to include birds.
But cladistics predates advanced genetic knowledge so when phentotype is used to form cladistic taxa, only phenotypes shared by all descendants of a taxon's common ancestor are allowed to define said taxon, which means that if it had been discovered (from fossils not genetics) that say, anatomically modern humans (AMH) had split from Middle eastern Neanderthals (MEN) long after they split from European Neanderthals (EN), then whatever phenotype that was shared by MEN and AMH but not shared by EN would be used to define anatomically modern humans and you'd be sitting here arguing that all the phenotypic similarities between MEN and EN are trivial and superficial.
Whether you knew it or not, it makes my point.
Unclear comment
What makes a phenotype "valid"?
And yet when arguing birds are reptiles, you cited the scales on their legs which is also a superficial trait. Do you not see how arbitrary you're being?
But Howell's not my only source. Forensic anthropologists also consider Australoid skulls to be Negroid as I've told you before.
If they split off as long ago as some claim, then on neutral DNA (excluding admixture) they should be more distant from any other 4 groups than any of the other 4 groups are from each other.
"you also have fossil record data ALREADY RECORD."
Should've read "already recorded.".
Yet what also occurred, prior to genetics, was the questioning of Dinosaurs as reptiles despite long assumptions. Due to their links with birds, and despite being warm blooded, their position as non reptiles is supported despite being Archosaurs nonetheless along with crocodilians.
Whatever label give by the end of the day, they were shown direct links with specific subgroups that caused conundrums within Taxonomy.
"But cladistics predates advanced genetic knowledge so when phentotype is used to form cladistics taxa, only phenotypes shared by all descendants of a taxon's common ancestor are allowed to define said taxon, which means that if it had been discovered (from fossils not genetics) that say, anatomically modern humans (AMH) had split from Middle eastern Neanderthals (MEN) long after they split from European Neanderthals (EN), then whatever phenotype that was shared by MEN and ANH but not shared by EN would be used to define anatomically modern humans and you'd be sitting here arguing that all the phenotypic similarities between MEN and EN are trivial and superficial."
You know, you like to say my comments are "incoherent" and "vague", but this is just fluff.
Number one, my response was in your accusation of the similarities of Birds and reptiles being link is post Hoc, yet you continue to describe a process akin to Modern Taxonomy.
Second, as for your assertion that I would label these hypothetical Variants of Neanderthals as "superficial" or essentially unsupportable for Paraphyly, you'd be wrong as your own list of Andaman Islander and "negroid" traits aren't equivalent to fossil/skeletal data used for Hominids in real life and in your scenario
No it doesn't, because even based on assumed methods they would've came to that conclusion by perceiving objective grounds and understanding of biology, not arbitrarity as you simplify it to.
"Unclear comment."
If you understood the nature of the phenotypes of east and west Africans as you cite, you would know that it is weak support towards Andaman being within Nilotic variation if excluded from West Africans discretely.
"What makes a phenotype 'valid'?"
By "valid", meant to refer to how closesly it, as a phenotype, conformed to molecular data.
That, however, wasn't meant to be a criteria for a legitimacy in taxonomy, but to define the unlikelihood of it overlapping with Andamans
The problem isn't using superficial traits, the problem is using them soley to define a specimen's taxa. I used in COMBINED with other traits.
And I explained to you how that forensic anthropologist's criteria wasn't equivalent to modern craniometrics and how that skull was shown to align with modern population in the area that clearly weren't negroid.
Furthermore, I've already devoted a whole comment outligning the how gretaer measurements splits negroid and Australoid skulls, including your own source (that i've discussed mothns before) on Howells data.
But I've explained Months before if how admixture with East Africans and Bantu (and vice versa) closed the distance as well as west Africans mxing with a cluster similar to their ancestors.
Thus they belong in the same clade with West Africans but aren't of the same Macro race.
It's not a question of what we call things, but rather how we group things.
The process of grouping taxa into monophyletic clades has been around since the 1980s, possibly earlier.
Name a paraphalytic taxon you agree is valid.
Arbitrary in the sense that only phenotypes that create perceived clades are accepted by cladists.
What do you mean by "if excluded from West Africans discretely"?
Seeing as much of our DNA is not functional, conforming to molecular data largely means picking traits that reflect the recentness of shared ancestry at the expense of functional phenotypes that are nonetheless homologous.
Probably because those sources use selectively neutral cranial traits, while Howell included cranial traits that are sensitive to selection. Thus Howell likely gives a better measure of morphological similarity, but a worse measure of population splitting history and divergence times. Of course some of the morphological similarities Howell noted between Negroids and Australoids may have been convergent, but we don't know how much.
Thus they belong in the same clade with West Africans but aren't of the same Macro race
So are you saying Negroids are paraphyletic?
The labels we are discussing is directly in regards to their group, not creating a name out of nowhere.
That's not my point, it's that you regurgitated modern taxonomy's methods as if I don't get, which I do and agree on. the problem is rather how you apply that to race in regards to phenotypes.
If you read my comment carefully, your neanderthal-human example would be one, but it isn't equivalent to Negroids and Andaman islanders in terms of criteria.
Monophyletic cladists, as I've already discussed in the case of birds as reptiles, DON'T use Phenotypes. Otherwise, what they do wouldn't be distinguished from modern taxonomists who use Phylogenics.
The quote from the study I used that shown that serogenics and dermatoglyphic were consistent with DNA results. BTW, the data on these traits pre date the genetic finding of the study, so it wouldn;t be Post hoc.
Why the are expressed isn't the point, that point is that they are expressed phenotypes and are usable in taxonomy nonetheless.
Second, conforming to molecular DNA could also reflect functionality of ancestral environment as well, not necessarily that Neutral DNA (which correlates to coding DNA similarities anyway if you remember that link on great apes I gave you) created them.
Here, dermatoglyphics are also shown to be functional in regards to climate.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4061621
"Probably because those sources use selectively neutral cranial traits, while Howell included cranial traits that are sensitive to selection."
"Probably", if you mean as in exclusion of selectively neitral traits then you are wrong as measurements (due to increases in technology) advanced and lead to old allusion between Cro Magnons and africans to be weakened towards Modern Europeans, as well as me outlining non neutrally linked features of Africans and Australians diverging them drastically in correspondence to your own source.
BTW, if they were looking at molecular expressed traits, then Andaman islander and Africans, for reasons I've also explained in my comment, wouldn't have clustered.
" Thus Howell likely gives a better measure of morphological similarity, but a worse measure of population splitting history and divergence times. Of course some of the morphological similarities Howell noted between Negroids and Australoids may have been convergent, but we don't know how much."
Again, unlikely for reasons I've stated above and explained further in said comment.
No, because I don't label African Hunter gathers as Negroids, I agree in certainly similarity in phenotype and genes but not in a simplistic subracial relationship.
Monophyletic cladists is redundant since clades by definition are monophyletic. The distinction is between those who use phenotypes to infer clades and those who use genes to infer them, but both groups are trying to cluster organisms into families, not phenotypes.
Now both types of cladistic taxonomists are different from evolutionary taxonomists who accept paraphyletic groups (which by definition exclude some family members) as long as said groups are united by a shared phenotype.
But both cladistic taxonomists and evolutionary taxonomists reject polyphyletic groups, presumably because these imply convergent evolution. This sets both groups apart from phenetic taxonomists, who are only interested in phenotype, regardless of whether the phenotypes evolved independently.
I'm not explaining all this to be condescending, since I could be wrong about some of these facts myself. But we seem to disagree on how these concepts are defined.
me outlining non neutrally linked features of Africans and Australians diverging them drastically in correspondence to your own source
Can you name some non-neutral skull traits on which Africans and Australians are especially different? Brow ridge is definitely one.
But you said Africans and Bushmen formed a clade, so if people you define as Negroid share a clade with people you define as non-Negroid, then by definition, you're saying Negroids are paraphyletic because clades by definition are monophyletic. If your taxon excludes members of a clade, by definition it's paraphyletic.
"Monophyletic cladists is redundant since clades by definition are monophyletic. The distinction is between those who use phenotypes to infer clades and those who use genes, but both groups are trying to cluster organisms into families, not phenotypes.
Now both types of cladistics taxonomists are different from evolutionary taxonomists who accept paraphyletic groups (which exclude some family members) as long as said groups are united by a shared phenotype.
But both cladistics taxonomists and evolutionary taxonomists reject polyphyletic groups, presumably because these imply convergent evolution. This sets both groups apart from phenetic taxonomists, who are only interested in phenotype, regardless of whether the phenotypes evolved independently.
Not really, this is just fluff which could've easily been narrowed down to the very first sentence, to which I stand corrected to an extent but I meant to use the adjective to "reinforce" a principle of their distinction rather than to specify them.
For instance, defining Ancient greeks as polytheists and Hebrews as monotheists to reinforce a point.
I've linked towards a short book passage on the topic many comments before on the whole subject.
"But you said Africans and Bushmen formed a clade, so if people you define as Negroid share a clade with people you define as non-Negroid, then by definition, you're saying Negroids are paraphyletic because clades by definition are monophyletic."
Not really, it would be paraphyletic if Negroids existed in different clades.
The Clade they Share is "African" comprised of Capoids, Negroids, and Pygmies.
By that logic, NE Asians and Caucasian forming the North Eurasian clade would makes each group paraphyletic.
Not really, this is just fluff
The point is you can't use the groupings of even phenotypic cladistic taxonomists to infer how phenotypically similar two taxa are on homologous traits, because even if A and B share far more homologous traits than either share with C, if the fossil record shows A split from B before B split from C, the latter two will often form a taxon that excludes A.
I've linked towards a short book passage on the topic many comments before on the whole subject
You should write a guest article explaining your views on this subject so that all your sources are in one relevant easy to find place, rather than scattered through dozens of comments in different articles.
I get that but what confuses me is your apparent view that there are three macro-races in Africa alone. Rushton and Jensen would have called the entire African clade a macro-race and labeled it Negroid, but I know you disagree. Again, a guest article on racial taxonomy would be quite interesting so we could have all your views and sources on this topic in one place where they could be more easily evaluated and referenced.
"The point is you can't use the groupings of even phenotypic cladistic taxonomists to infer how phenotypically similar two taxa are on homologous traits, because even if A and B share far more homologous traits than either share with C, if the fossil record shows A split from B before B split from C, the latter two will form a taxon that excludes A."
This doesn't make sense based on how you use both taxonomists and homologous phenotypes.
By that logic you used in your previous examples, A and B would be in the same paraphyletic taxon based on their phenotypes if inferred by Evolutionary taxonomy.
What you describe, unless on molecularly correlated traits, is closer to inferences from Cladists though they use just genetics as I've said.
With both said however, I've just now realized that you used this term "phenotypic cladistic taxonomists", and again, the closest thing to anything we have discussed that actually exists would be modern evolutionary taxonomists.
They was phrased awkwardly, I meant that the source was in a single comment that was posted many comment ago. The comment itself is fairly easy to distinguish as it centers specifically on Negroids, Australoids, and the Islanders.
As for a guest post, quite frankly I'm tired of repeating myself and doubt I'll have the time.
Where to begin? First you lose credibility as citing them, on specialists, on opinions form on 1990's population genetics. RR made you pretty aware of Rushton's limited comprehension.
Second, I've made this point clear before. The reason why a "subrace" doesn't work is because the occupy different migration times based on the majority of their ancestry. Capoid, 260k, pygmies, 150k, Negroids 70-80k.
What links them is Negroids absorbing the Basal African lineage at roughly 30%. This course of splits is different than typical subrace identification by genetics.
If we were to use the majority of the ancestry, Negroids by their dominant component would be closer to Eurasians rather than Huntergathers yet due their secondary component they gravitate towards them on a global scale in addition to the genetic drift experienced by Eurasians.
Therefore, a "clade" relation is more appropriate than labeling them simplistic negroids.
See and comment here if you want organization.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/27/origins-and-the-relationship-between-west-africans-and-hg-populations/
No evolutionary taxonomists by definition don't limit themselves to clades; I'm talking about cladistic taxonomists before the rise of molecular biology.
Okay I'll reply if and when I find it
In the long run it would save you time but suit yourself.
Where to begin? First you lose credibility as citing them, on specialists, on opinions form on 1990's population genetics.
I cited them because it sounded like you were supporting 1990s genetics with your talk of an African clade, but I see below that you don't
RR made you pretty aware of Rushton's limited comprehension.
That's a whole other series of topics that you can discuss when they're relevant
If we were to use the majority of the ancestry, Negroids by their dominant component would be closer to Eurasians rather than Huntergathers yet due their secondary component they gravitate towards them on a global scale in addition to the genetic drift experienced by Eurasians
I see. Lumping Negroids with Pygmies and Capoids is a bit like lumping Caucasoids with Native Americans because iirc Native Americans absorbed 30% ancestry in an archaic Caucasoid lineage before they entered the Americas. It would be nice to find an up to date phylogenetic tree since Cavalli-Sforza's sounds quite obsolete. But essentially you're defining Negroid using cladistic taxonomy not evolutionary taxonomy, though I know you believe the latter supports you too.
Why would you when during the whole discussion we were talking of either Cladists or evolutionary taxonomists?
I do support an African Clade, which is repeated in modern genetic, The problem is, a clade is a broader level of taxon than a cluster corresponding to a traditional race.
"That's a whole other series of topics that you can discuss when they're relevant."
I was referring to his mention of Razib Khan's talks with Rushton.
I'm not opposed to either method, my problem however is that using evolutionary taxonomy rules I fail to see how negroid would deviate from my definition of West Africans, Nilotics, and Bantus. based on my own.
For instance, In terms of average cranial clusters that I've outline seperating Ancient Africans from Rhodey to Early Sapiens, Pygmies, Bushmen, and Bantus clearly divergeing in phenotypical traits of their overall morphology.
Then you have Carleton coon's data which defines the OOA/ Basal African fossils as "Robust Mediterraneans" (understandable as Beduions, which fall under that group, has the highest hypothetical portion of basal Eurasian element in them today) which exist in negroids in varying amounts towards more pygmy like traits. The higher Basal Eurasian element in West Eurasians in general, along with Back migrations, explains why West Eurasian are closer to negroids than East Asians are.
As well Carleton coon's analysis of the Asselar man, based on comparisons with modern populations, shares facial traits of West/Central Africans those body traits of West Sudanic Africans. He makes note of other observation of "Kaffir" traits of Khoisan elements being present within the specimen converging with more negroid ones.
As far as I'm concerned, the Fossil record certainly conforms to the essential idea of negroids being a hybrid population of OOA and ancient African lineages.
"negroids being a hybrid population of OOA and ancient African lineages."
I'm guessing you mean you mean a mix of OOA (i.e. peoples likely native to Easerm Africa that stayed in Africa but that were similar/or of the same group to the ones that left and became the ancestors of Eurasians) and of more early diverged homo-sapiens lineages within Africa/more basal African sapiens lineages not as close to the OOA group—with the former being higher in Eastern African negroid groups such as Nilotes (and the latter often much lower if present)?—in which case I would of course agree.
Cont.: Basal Eurasian generally does not exist in negroids (outside likely of hybrid partly non-negroid groups like horners) but is somewhat similar to the OOA-like component (being so basal it would retain some affinity to that early group from Africa that might be lost in other Eurasian branches) that does, and thus does seem to pull the Eurasian groups that have it slightly toward an African direction relative to those without it (like Eastern Eurasians).
To Jm8, Precisely.
"…/more basal African sapiens lineages distinct from the OOA group that originated in E. Africa"
Yes, that's what i meant to say. Dienkes did a post trying to explain it as E originating in West Eurasia and it spreaded through farming or some over means.
Even if it that was supportable, I doubted that alone would leave an autosomal influence in Yoruba large enough for the pull to be that obvious.
Doing more research, the pull is better explained by the common affinity between basal Eurasian and East African clusters.
You're right. It probably wouldn't (though some some common autosomal trace or component might exist in the region if that were supportable, and it doesn't). But E/DE is more likely to be of native East African origin—native to a part of E. Africa (while other Y haplogroups likely/may have dominated in some other parts of that region)—likely from an OOA-like group native to E. Africa—and its spread west predates farming. And there isn't a W. Eurasian autosomal component in either Yoruba or other West Africans/Niger-Congo groups, but there is of course a very ancient East African one (similar to the East African cluster).
Yes I (and most) would agree. And the pull is stronger in East Africans (like Nilotes, who are mostly of the East African cluster), but generally (depending on the group) have less E than West Africans.
Yeah, i think someone in the comment section of Dienekes pointed out how Nilotes had stronger affinity despite being comprised of A and B Y haplogroups.
"And I believe the pull is stronger in relation to East Africans (like Nilotes, who are mostly…"
"…(though some some common autosomal trace or component would likely exist in the region if that were supportable, and it doesn't…"
Some (I meant to add) also speculate and it also seem possible that Basal Eurasian might rather/alternately be (or have been, since it now is extinct except in heavily hybridized forms) a distinct type of African (that had remained in Africa, i.e. not OOA/Eurasian, but only that later spread into West Eurasia mixing with W. Eurasian stocks) native/specific to North Africa (rather than actually being a—divergent/basal—form of Eurasian),—since (among a few other reasons) it seems to have little to no neanderthal admixture—and whose (Basal Eurasians) closest relative in Africa might have been the East African cluster (and thus it would have, like the E. African cluster does, had an affinity to and been related to the OOA group that became left Africa and became Eurasians). But its origin is still as of yet indeterminate, and it could also, as often proposed and as I described/speculated above in my prior comment on it, be a divergent/isolated early Eurasian branch preserving certain African affinities (as its name suggests). Awale at Anthromadness (a few others it seems) seem to be undecided on the question, and I would agree that the evidence is still inconclusive.
http://anthromadness.blogspot.com/2016/06/new-information-on-basal-eurasian.html
"…perhaps native/specific to North Africa or somewhere in that area—of course being later hybridized and/or diluted mostly out of existence by the migrations and/or back-migrations that later would affect the region."
if you ever identify me on another blog again i will drown you in a 6′ deep above ground pool of my own feces. the neighbors will complain.
#free_barrett_brown
I've never outed you on any blog except this one.
i wasn't referring to you peepee.
What the fuck…
chikoka said:
Do you beleive that any of those european acheivements trump the ishango bone? And why?
from wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics
Prehistoric artifacts discovered in Africa, dated 20,000 years old or more suggest early attempts to quantify time.[12] The Ishango bone, found near the headwaters of the Nile river (northeastern Congo), may be more than 20,000 years old and consists of a series of tally marks carved in three columns running the length of the bone. Common interpretations are that the Ishango bone shows either the earliest known demonstration of sequences of prime numbers[13] or a six-month lunar calendar.[14] Peter Rudman argues that the development of the concept of prime numbers could only have come about after the concept of division, which he dates to after 10,000 BC, with prime numbers probably not being understood until about 500 BC. He also writes that "no attempt has been made to explain why a tally of something should exhibit multiples of two, prime numbers between 10 and 20, and some numbers that are almost multiples of 10."[15] The Ishango bone, according to scholar Alexander Marshack, may have influenced the later development of mathematics in Egypt as, like some entries on the Ishango bone, Egyptian arithmetic also made use of multiplication by 2; this however, is disputed.[16]
This implies that africans were doing complex philosophy (see the attempts to make sense of time started in africa as mentioned above) and mathematics 20 000 years before any other race.
Can any other prehistoric acheivement come close?
There doesn't seem to be any consensus on what the Ishango bone means. If you take the most generous interpretation, then it might record the most impressive paleolithic innovation, but it's still only one innovation.
Its clearly a musical instrument pumpkin. Why wont you admit blacks are good at music?
The idea that the Ishango bone is a mathematical instrument is complete nonsense and the product of fantasy. I recognize JM8's proof of African achievements, but not this.
There are also other tally sticks from paleolithic Africa likle from lebombo and border cave. They would be used at the least to keep numeric records whether or not more complex mathematics were involved.
Z said:
PP, if they wanted a better gripping surface why would they carve those in mathematical patterns?
i too was surprised listening to jayman, as he is married with chillens.
he sounded much gayer than i thought he would sound.
but he also sounded dumber than i thought he would sound.
he sounded like he needed a prostate orgasm.
He did sound kinda gay. And he talked kinda slow.
He's still a brilliant exponent of HBD studies.
PP,
On another note, what does 'genetic IQ' mean? Is it the maximum IQ that a person's or people's genes can confer upon them?
If you believe in the Phenotype = Genotype + Environment model, it means the IQ you would have if everyone shared the same environment.
But if you believe in reaction norms, it would be (as Mug of Pee kind of implied) how well 100 of your clones scattered all over the world would tend to score compared to 100 of an average person's clones scattered all over the world.
I am an indian .So indians genetic IQ could be more than 100 then according to the first model. As I have an IQ of 104-108 depending on the day and test. Ofcourse i also scored as high as 124 on some tests. But lets ignore that score as some tests artificially inflate scores 🙂
So even if we consider my lowest score which is 104, then indians genetic IQ should be above 100. Lest you think i am an outlier like one of the smartest in my country, let me say i was not even the smartest in my class of 45.
So by this logic could the genetic IQ of europeans and east asians too also be more than their current genetic IQ score according to the first definition?
I didnt understand the reaction norm model( i only have an iq of 97 now:) … too much smoking which lead to headaches upon lying down which i felt have affected my brain as i am no longer able to think as good as before smoking)…..does the model mean how well my clones score raw score wise compared to others clones or percentile wise
https://www.patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=13528
Thats another contribution to humanity made by an african :)…..my work in natural language processing in the field of artificial intelligence. It was suggested by a former researcher at google deep mind that i present it at the NIPS conference.
its a non overly technical description.
If the type of intelligence needed to discover prime numbers is greater than that needed to invent agriculture then by inference africans had the complete disposition (genetic potential ) to invent agriculture 20 000 years before other races and hence by transitivity they could do all that 21st century man from other races has/can do now , then.
Right now there is only evidence that whites and asians aquired this disposition around 10 000 bc
Please discuss
Along with exposure to cold, i think for inventing agriculture, along with the need for various geographical and weather patterns and suitable crops in the areas to enable agriculture, a minimum tendency of inter group co-operation was also needed to exist in order to form a society big enough to create a market for agriculture. I guess this was lower in africans at that time (and also probably in other societies which didnt create agriculture at that time) compared to the ethnicities which did. And once they fell behind in agriculture at that time they also fell behind in acquiring the beneficial mutations agricultural societies gave rise to, and ideas, architectural skills, writing, religion and all the other things agricultural societies were able to do over non-agricultural societies at that time.
This is assuming those societies didnt independently invent agriculture. If they did then the lack of cold exposure is the only thing that i can think of that could have tipped the balance in favour of non-africans after 10,000 B.C
But those in cold environments were not as intelligent as the africans……pp is using artifacts to establish intelligence and so am i……..hypotheses do not come suspended in thin air….if you claim that the cold environment caused greater intelligence and we dont see this evidence then the scientific method says we must reject it……the OP says hominids only lived in tropics for a long time…he hypothesises that they were not intelligent enough to survive there…but every archeological finding finds that those hominids that eventually got LESS intelligent when they did, the neanderthals started out looking very much like anatomicaly modern humans with large frontal lobes, after living in the cold for 200000 years (which i think is enough time to adapt) they got smaller frontal lobes….the early humans in europe had bigger heads straight from africa than modern europeans have now…lets please follow the scientific method and follow the evidence rather than hypotheses not supported by it
Please explain how genes change for greater intelligence when you invent agriculture?
What was the selection process……how was it selecting for intelligence…..clearly living in a cold places had challenges and living in a civilisation did not….make up your mind on what causes intelligence..
if living in a cold place makes you develop technology…..to counteract challenges (challenges cause innovation) . then the challenges by the hypotheses have dissapeared and there wont be any challenges to make you cause innovation…
If you notice my comment i used the words like ' i guess' 'i think' 'could have' and that too only because you asked peoples opinion as a response to this sentence of yours :
Please discusso this "
we were talking about developments that took place after ten thousand B.C. Agriculture could have selected for higher IQ in the following ways: I am just speculating the 'how', evidence already exists for more achievements in non-africans after 10,000 B.C. Dont see this comment as racist :), if you notice i implied the ishango bone markings were actual math in an above comment of mine. I dont think africans were dumber or smarter, i dont know, i am just saying the civilisations achievements were lesser after 10,000 B.C.
An agricultural society could have had a high IQ (relative to those times) 'smart fraction' of people (mostly among the descendants of the top one percent of the
earliest agricultural societies…..as they no longer had to hunt because of surpluses produced by an agricultural society and they must have became smarter and smarter over generations thereby creating more and more advanced systems of writing, religion. architecture etc in the following millenia ). Early agricultural societies usually must have had access to a more varied and regular diet compared to their contemporary hunter gather societies as i believe those earlier agricultural socities must have continued hunting and gathering while also planting crops and the transition to agriculture was gradual. So the earlier agricultural societies had the best of both worlds. This could have enabled the creation of the earliest form of writing, which in turn could have lead to increased communication and transfer of ideas from one neighbouring settlement to another, which in turn could have lead to furthur development of agriculture and thereby a surplus which led to a smart fraction (which hunting gathering communities must not have had) and later better writing and all the civilisational achievements. It was cyclical one thing could have led to another.
That's not how evolution works, in order for evolution to speed up stupid people have to die, the faster it moves the greater the rate at which people die, and they have to die before they get children, that way their genes for stupidity get removed from the species, the invention of agriculture caused deaths to be fewer, right now humanity's intelligence is a relic of the precivilisation exam when it was developed, genetic in and other genetic defects are greater now in a advanced civilisation because technology protects these people from dying
>"if living in a cold place makes you develop technology…..to counteract challenges (challenges cause innovation) . then the challenges by the hypotheses have dissapeared and there wont be any challenges to make you cause innovation…""That's not how evolution works, in order for evolution to speed up stupid people have to die, the faster it moves the greater the rate at which people die, and they have to die before they get children, that way their genes for stupidity get removed from the species, the invention of agriculture caused deaths to be fewer, right now humanity's intelligence is a relic of the precivilisation exam when it was developed, genetic in and other genetic defects are greater now in a advanced civilisation because technology protects these people from dying"<
Better nourished and better educated people over generations, also with lesser exposure to parasitic diseases give rise to better academically intelligent people. It was a presence of a high IQ (relative to those times) smart fraction that enabled civilisational achievements, even though stupid people could have existed in those socities. Stupid people usually could have made up only a smaller fraction of those societies. Most were average some were smart some were stupid.
I dint mean africans were dumb, they simply could have lacked after 10,000 B.C a smart fraction that was 'smarter' than the smart fraction of those mega agricultural societies.
>"if living in a cold place makes you develop technology…..to counteract challenges (challenges cause innovation) . then the challenges by the hypotheses have dissapeared and there wont be any challenges to make you cause innovation…<''
There will be more challenges atleast to the smartest fraction…..in a bigger society than in a smaller one.
your not getting it Z. the point of challenges is to kill, and kill stupid people….thats just how challenges bring about intellignce….if there were more challenges to the smartest fraction then those with less challenges would be more likely to survive…i.e. the stupid ones……..better nourishment is exactly the type of easy life that encourges those doing nothing to proliferate in society because those who would hve died from not being able to think and find a living would simply feed of the others
Please try to me a bit more clear in your language usage. Maybe then i will get it?
SantOculto [Oprah is my inspiration ] said:
Most of this are conjectures, nothing was really empirically proven.
"One reason people think the black-white IQ gap is at least partly genetic is its durability over time."
This people may are [also] stupid because nobody can observe "durability of given subject over time", only in your own time, in literal/hyper-real ways. I never needed any "scientific" evidence to conclude that there are visibly behavioral differences among different human groups [duh] and this differences cannot be explained via only-"environment". Indeed seems quite easy to perceive any human behavioral differences, within our own families, ourselves… because we are the main-issue of all this debate. We just need to check the viscosity of patterns. Most leftists are teachers who pretend to be scientists. It's explain why they tend to commit all sort of basic incongruencies in their scientific approaches.
But also because we have constant inter-sections among this different groups based on different perspectives or attributes, for example, black nerd/white nerd versus black athlete/white athlete, stereotypically speaking, so many people fail to understand that this similarities don't cancel this major differences. Indeed most people have huge psychological issues, but because they cannot be diagnosed with some EXPLICIT mental disorder, instead call their mental deficits as mental deficits, "we" give the pseudo-democratic euphemism: "point of view" or even "cultural variation".
Most people fail not in their cognitive capability but in their psychological/aka, instinctive/subconscious capability… to shape and control the late to work in cooperative ways with the first ones.
Cognitive weakness is usually very easy to perceive.
Psychological weakness in interaction with cognitiion is the most difficult because it's can be found usually not where we even try but exactly where we always fight for.
When people talk
" "africans" in pre-history"
i really don't think we are talking about the same people today who live in Africa, and the same for "europeans", "east asians".
Even to talk about "chineses", for example, ancient "chineses" [a plethora of different cultural/ethnic or sub-ethnic groups] weren't the same than "chineses" today. Or germans… or….
Africans, europeans, east asians, before their respective racial differentiation, are geographical identification, firstly, and not racial ones.
And specially about "africans" in pre-history, if out of africa theory is significantly correct.
Huge dysgenic trends in recent selective pressures [end of "natural selection" among black underclasses and consequently disproportionate fertility of this groups over black middle classes, presumably smarter than under-ones] may have some role in this disparity "persistence'.
" Obviously, we can't get in a time machine and return to the paleolithic to give IQ tests to the ancestors of today's blacks and whites, but what we can do is check the archeological record for evidence of prehistoric intelligence."
We have some vestigial pre-historical populations as inuits, khoisans and saami. I don't know how disturbed they has been by modern world pressures, specially saami.
"Critics dismiss IQ as just a score on a silly little test with no relevance to real world intelligence,
however if racial differences in IQ predict real world creativity tens of thousands of years ago, this suggests the tests are measuring differences that are very real, very important, and very genetic and ancient in origin."
Populations without their own writing system score lower in verbal IQ tests/have lower vocabulary*
meLo said:
Pumpkin, stop being a beta bitch and learn to think for yourself. Do you cradle Richard klein's ball sack when you slob on his cock?
Melo, stop making a fool of yourself. I'm merely citing an authority in the field to show the early bow and arrow theory is not fully accepted.
Chikoka
Whether it does or not, many of them are not European achievements (or, that is too say, at least are not exclusively European achievements), as many were also achieved in Africa (and/or Australasia/Oceania) either about contemporaneously or in some cases earlier.
I'm taking the stance that "even if"
Im the one making a fool of myself? You're the one trying to pass off this bullshit as a "scientific blog" you literally compared him to a God, hop off his dick and actually read the counter evidence, there is actually pretty convincing mathematical models.
Im the one making a fool of myself? You're the one trying to pass off this bullshit as a "scientific blog"
The fact that I call myself "Pumpkin Person" makes clear I'm not trying to pass myself off as a serious scientist.
you literally compared him to a God,
I said he is treated like a God. I was making the point that he's not some fringe voice but reflects serious scientific criticism.
hop off his dick and actually read the counter evidence, there is actually pretty convincing mathematical models.
I'm not on his dick though I can see how it came across that way. But there are two reasons why Klein might be wrong:
1) He's heavily invested in his theory that behavioral modernity didn't evolve until 50 kya and thus might hold middle stone age evidence to a higher standard
2) Ashkenazi Jews (despite the highest verbal IQs) often lack spatial IQ which is important when judging arrow blades
But the reason I'm relying so heavily on experts like Klein is 1) I know nothing about archeology and 2) by relying on second-hand arbiters who don't believe in HBD, I don't have to worry about whether these archeological judgement calls are tainted by a pro-HBD bias
"I'm not trying to pass myself off as a serious scientist."
Yes but you are trying to pass this blog off as scientific.
" I don't have to worry about whether these archeological judgement calls are tainted by a pro-HBD bias"
That's bullshit you already admitted he has a bias for his own theory and his model is preferred across HBD circles for obvious reasons.
All scientists have biases, but he doesn't have a pro-HBD bias. On the contrary he thinks a genetic mutation for behavioral modernity is what caused the Out of Africa exodus, meaning he thinks it occurred in Africa.
Why would you pick the scientist with a bias over the ones who dont? Not all scientists have bias. In this case Klein has shown a higher level compared to his critics
All scientists have bias. They want their names in the paper and they want tenure, publications, funding and status, and that means exaggerating the significance of what they find. Scientists are people too Melo. They have egos just like you.
While what you said isn't necessarily wrong, the researches who found evidence of bows in Africa were not exaggerating and they were not fabricating data. In this case, Klein is wrong.
"On the contrary he thinks a genetic mutation for behavioral modernity is what caused the Out of Africa exodus, meaning he thinks it occurred in Africa."
While mutations likely caused the form of behavioral development in humans 70-50k ago, that's technically different from "causing OOA".
What caused the dispersal itself was a global climate fluctuation as i highlighted in the past.
I don't disagree. Just saying Klein is not an HBDer. He states:
I think that what happened 40,000 or 50,000 years ago was the last major change in the genotype. At least the last major biological change. Evolution continues, but the evolution that's involved in making us capable of wielding this vast variety of cultures—that probably stopped around 40,000 or 50,000 years ago and there's been no essential change since.
They (mutations, or many-most of them) it seems would likely have came substantially earlier (though you of course are right that the two are different phenomena)
As certain evidence of modern behavior comes earlier—e.g things like the atlaltl likely somewhat predate the bow: and harpoons at Katanda 80-90 ka bc, Gademotta throwing spears ca. 270 ka, Pinnacle Point starting 164 ka bc heat treating silicrete for flakeability to make points/tools though bows and smaller heated silicrete microliths in particular come later there ca.70 ka bc—or a bit earlier/maybe ca. 100-80 ka bc for the non-arrow microliths (and certain fishing/shellfishing techniques from ca 100 ka bc), the Blombos paints and beads cited before ca.100 ka bc, atlaltl darts and/or possibly arrows at Aduma Ethopia from ca 70 bc, Aterian possible projectile spear thrower/atlatl points ca. 100 ka bc-30 ka bc . (See Sahle, Marean, Henshilwood). The appearance in many (sometimes widely separated) regions of Africa of similar technologies and behaviors (many around the same periods) suggests the ability to make them was inherited from earlier sapiens ancestors (rather than developing all those regions separately)
It is true though that the known cases of modern behavior do seem to become somewhat more frequent in the archaeological record around 80-70 ka bc or 80-60 ka, but this may partly be from the rather small and fragmentary/patchy amount of archaeological work so far done in Africa in those areas, And more earlier ones may be discovered (as more, it seems are starting to be lately; Blombos, Gademotta), but its hard to say. I wonder whether that will be the case, or how much so, and so I will be interested to see what further archaeological evidence may be found.
I had a good opinion of you but i no longer have it. One shouldnt speak to other people like that melo.
I'm not here to make friends. If he wants to be taken seriously he needs to learn how to properly research.
Pumpkin you have to compare humans operating tin the same environment. If eiuropeans invented all these things doesnt that say more about their environment than their genes? In my opinion if we forced all of africa to come to europe by making european women become surrogate mothers for all african babies, let every african live with european families, mass convert to the euro religion (jewish equalism), wear the same clothes, listen to the same music and read the same jewish mind control media then – and only then!- can we say anything about european and aftican intelligence.
peepee fears the black penis said:
or blacks and whites together on a tiny island 700 miles off the coast of north carolina, and its economy depends on regulatory arbitrage. mostly for insurance. 128 actuaries in a population of 65,000.
only then can black and white be compared.
only then.
[disgusting sexual fetish redacted by pp, oct 22, 2017]
Pumpkin keeps making factually incorrect claims about africa. First of all who invented rap music? Who invented being a jewish sock puppet? Who invented crack cocaone?
These are amazing acheivments and i just have to laugh at your obvious racist attempts to subjugate blacks as a legacy of colonialism.
The racism at the end of ww1 has not faded i daresay. Hmmpf!
Crap i just googled crack cocaine inventor and read it was a cia scheme to fund arms sales to fascist black ops in latin america. Ok im wrobg abojt that, but blacks definitely invented being religious totems to mind controlled whites with really low testosterone and/or verbal intelligence. I stand by my convictions against the evil scourge of racism .
Pumpkin is purposely ignoring the system of government in place in these respective regions. In africa the government could not be formed due to ebil spirits and lack of shamen to ward these off. In europe the government supported tax reform and that boosted the economy by allowing the rich paleotlithic europeans to buy yachts and butlerzs, unleashing the free market!
If africa could somehow replicate the free market i am sure there is no doubt it could become rich like every other country with a free market .
Mikey Blayze said:
Pumpkin why go on and on about this? Its very simple. Blacks lived in a hot hunter gatherer society. Every day they woke up and hunted for food. Its hot af with no ice anywhere so no food could be stored away. On the other hand Europeans had the cold and frozen caves where they could store food in and heat up later. So they did not need to hunt every single fucking day, and thus were able to hone their intelligence. Its literally that simple .FFS
Pumpkin why go on and on about this?
Because the case for racially genetic differences in intelligence becomes a whole lot stronger if proto-Caucasoids were already inventing more stuff than sub-Saharan Africans tens of thousands of years ago
PP you dont even beleive the explanation he gave for why there are differences
-==========
Blacks lived in a hot hunter gatherer society. Every day they woke up and hunted for food. Its hot af with no ice anywhere so no food could be stored away. On the other hand Europeans had the cold and frozen caves where they could store food in and heat up later. So they did not need to hunt every single fucking day, and thus were able to hone their intelligence.
At least youre trendy…
A****First they said primates must have ecolved out of africa,
B*****then …well,..ok they did ..but onluy those that left early on evolved into humans then went back..
C*****then well…ok..no…humans evolved in africa but modern behaviour began outside africa
youre currently at this stage here:
D*****well …ok…but the main inventions happened afetr leaving africa…….
In hotter (and other) climates things can also be preserved by drying/smoking— and they traditionally are (meat—by often smoking like the Pygmies and other Africans do, and drying meat and fish is traditionally common all over Africa—as well as Eurasia; and later things like grains in the case of the periods of farming—storing things for the dry season in granaries in hotter places like Africa/India and for winter in Northern Eurasia). I'm not sure how often cold weather or temperate hunter-gatherers—I would guess many did at least sometimes depending of the duration of cold. The Inuit and similar peoples certainly traditionally do (it would be hard for them not to).
"…often by smoking like the Pygmies and other Africans do, and drying/smoking meat …is traditionally common…"
"I'm not sure how often cold weather or temperate hunter-gatherers used freezing to preserve food— but I would guess many did at least sometimes depending of the duration of cold. The Inuit and similar peoples certainly traditionally do (it would be hard for them not to)."
People traditionally preserved things by salt in the pre modern world. Thats why soldiers were paid 'salaries'. The word is derived from the latin for salt.
To The Philosopher:
True, that too (salt was also used).
Every society seems to have the following classes of economic/social activity: nobility, warrior, servant/slave, artisan, merchant and priest/shaman/druid.
You can add farmer for the more advanced societies.
Modern society seems to have the following classes of economic/social activity: nobility, warrior, servant/slave, artisan, merchant and priest/shaman/druid. .
Now put the correct occupation labels into the correct categories (not necessarily mutually exclusive).
Farmers predate artisans in the development of modern societies, try again.
I dont think so buddy.
Among Hunter-gathers, outside of rank, they lacked specialized roles. That only occurred once farming communities gain surplus, expanded trade with other communitities, as well as leaving room for new Jobs, Artisan being one of them.
Look up the Neolithic or Holocene "Philosopher".
When I think of primitive man, I think of Africa. Which largely didn't have farming until europeans brought it. And i think of african tribes. All african tribes have warriors, chieftains/nobles, shaman, healer, artisan, and some of the tribes along the coast have traders.
West Africans and Bantus did have farming prior to Europeans if you paid attention to recent posts on the matter, you really are a hack.
And to give you an idea of how long this has been understood, see here.
"Thus the forest regions are distinguished by a particular form of culture which differs from that prevailing in the more open country (see AFRICA: Ethnology). But it may be said generally that the negro is first and foremost an agriculturist." from 1911.
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2008/04/negro-entry-in-1911-encyclopedia.html
You should add scribes to that.
Although often priests were scribes.
Actually I forgot about the poet/scribe/artist class. Poetry is no longer fashionable and arguably dying (although it lives on vicariously through blacks in hip hop music or music more generally if the Nobel Committee is to be believed)
Yes! Also medicine man/barber-surgeons (at one time in Europe surgery was done by barbers…yes, weird).
That's where we get the red & white barber pole: a bloody leg with bandages
Ah. Very good factoid.
I'm not impressed with Socrates/Plato to be honest. I'm reading this and it seems like he starts with the answer he wants, and then uses a series of metaphorical similes to get to the answer.
I've said before that allegorical thinking is a type of logic. In what way is X alike to Y is a good way to analyse something. But it shouldn't be the main way you think about how the world works.
I funnily enough found Freud to be much more logical even though he had no empirics, and in ways that Kevin McDonald pointed out, was basically a kind of cult leader who claimed anti antisemitism was a "mental illness".
I think Freud is right about 'penis envy', the subconscious and the role of dreams and his larger critique that society is kind of 'stunted' because it must regulate sexual relations and eliminate polygamy to be "civilised". Its frustrating not just with Freud, but people like Soros or Chomsky or other intelligent people who can be insightful, but not always truthful.
Marx is the only one I can think of in terms of very high IQ jews who was truthful and insightful.
Einstein was honest as well maybe. But einstein never really discussed non technical issues unlike say, Bertrand Russell.
Russell is the strange case of a philosopher who would have been better off sticking to mathematics as he doesn't seem to have the 'common sense' faculty that is required.
An example of high IQ but lack of common sense is when Godel said the flaw in the US republic was within the written constitution, and not say, an open immigration policy to high IQ psychopathic leaning races of man in the early 20th century. You have to be kind of autistic to believe a written document is the failing of anything. America is not a written document. Its very hard for autistic people to accept this. But high verbal IQ keep pretending its a written document of 'ideals', that stands on its own, because this is a convenient bludgeon.
I always have said there is a large trade off between quantitative intelligence and the 'common sense' reasoning you need. Russell and Wittgenstein don't have common sense.
SantOculto [Oprah, why you're so perfect ] said:
I think BUGable is correct when she/he/PP says "everything is about economy", we debate the propaganda and not the real intentions which have economic nature. We debate the marketing of given product and not what is the real reason for that product.
Genetics overrides economics. You cant explain nation states otherwise.
As a corollary, this explains why libertarian computer programmers keep talking about the constitution as if it means anything.
Did you know many African republics modelled their constitutions on American and European systems? (All to bad results). The flaw wasn't it wasn't written well enough. Its the genetics of the underlying people that (a) would create such a document and (b) would abide by it and (c) would live in their daily lives without someone watching.
The acid test of civilisation is whether the populace are willing to abide by Master's rules even if nobody is looking. If Master says people can't spit on the street, what do you think the reaction would be in China and Zimbabwe to the same edict?
The willingness to spit on the street is directly proportional to the sexual attractiveness of said individual.
True. However, following master's rules isn't a good thing for your genetics: you'll be apt for civilization, yes, but you'll have the status of a chicken in the food chain. Evolutionary successful, as they serve the needs of master, but ultimately a loser in the evolutionary race and doomed to extinction.
Chickens are really at the top of the evolutionary totem pole as opposed to food chain. People first thought they were just birds we were living off then they realised that they were in fact parasites using us to spread to all continents, and care and breed them. They feed off of our knowledge in vetinery science that we developed for them, how exactly did they do that?? And they frequent top hotels too:)
Why are the japanese as creative as whites? But not the other asians?
Why are mongols good warriors…but not the other asians?
Asia is probably the best example anti HBD people can use to bash 'white supremacists'. I bet the jews will hone in on those anomalies.
I can't explain them.
Culture. HBD is minor. Culture is major.
If japanese are more creative than other east asians (which i doubt) but if its true, i think its because of some australoid blood too in them. There is a theory saying that. There is also a theory that australoids also crossed the bearing strait to north and south america. So if they could have crossed over the bearing strait… some of them could also have settled in japan. Also some of native americans dont look like darker mongoloids, some of them look like south-asians, so they must have a 'combo' of mongloid- austarloid' blood which could helped them be more creative than just mongloid or australoid blood. This could also explain why we see more creative civilisational achievements among ancient central and south-american cultures than north-american cultures or even compared to australoids in australia.
This was a reply to philosopher.
SantOculto [ME TOO] said:
I find recent creative explosion of japanese"s" very interesting. Also seems interesting that there are many great japanese writers but not many chinese"s" or korean"s".
Other interesting and seems deep differences between japaneses and other east asians is the factor PERFECTIONISM, a psychological factor.
All this people has emulated modern/western civilization, voluntarily or not, but… japaneses are the best not just to emulate "westerners" but also to improve some of this inventions while chinese"s" seems less perfectionists. Well, how better than Japan is Singapore or Hong Kong**
Japaneses are clearly more neurotic and introverted than continental east asians.
"recent JAPANESE creative explosion", 😉
I don't know how great chineses could be in capitalistic societies without communist structures, but i think it's just like compare germans with ethnic russians [with similar general avg IQ's]. Instead very similar in many ways, germans tend to be /to do better than ethnic russians. Even i think if it was Germany which became communist, they had been much more resilient than ex- Soviet Union. Germany and Japan indeed are very similar in their psychological features.
The geman and russian comparison is very interesting.
I mean, WHOLE Germany and not just East part.
Yes, russians is to chineses, as well germans is to japaneses.
Question – is phil78 afrosapiens?
Seems to be the exact same agenda. If i see naked men pictures i will know for sure.
No they're not the same person.
Well well, looks who's worked up after given a history lesson. Seeing how I actually do bring up selection differences in HBd different from conventional ones, as opposed to the environmental ones of Afrospaiens, you concluding "the same agendas" is pretty lazy of you.
Want incidents like this not to happen again? Read.
You guys are nothing alike. I actually find you to be more informative.
Thanks, but in all honesty I would rank myself overall below Afro, due to his first hand experience in Africa, and of course below Jm8 due to his all-around knowledge on history and anthropology.
Guys …guess what! I've just been invited to the NIPS Neural Information Processing Societ's conference in December to do a presentation on that paper on Natural Language Processing that I showed you. The deadline had passed for submissions but they actually removed someone just to put me in. NIPS is the most prestigious event in the field. All the big names will be there. 🙂
Will oprah be there?
i dont understand your hatred with blacks. You bought them against their will to your country. Similar with other ethnicities in your country…your govt was the one that started inviting them…first the chinese and then later the mexicans and the indians. They didnt come as conquerers. They were 'brought' into your own country by your own people. Same with jews too.
Be a nice person philosopher.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/congressional-black-caucus-wants-a-taste-of-that-facebook-half-tril/
In the declaration of independence, he at age 33 put in the document that no skin color of a person could be used to take away their rights as human beings. Slavery could have completely ended in America by 1800. But his statements were too politically incorrect and so black people having rights was taken out of the document.
Slavery on English soil was unsupported in English law and that position was confirmed in Somersett's Case in 1772, but it remained legal in most of the British Empire until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.
Slave Trade Act 1807 – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1807
Tomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of independence.
Didn't know that. England doesn't have written constitution. It has common law. No surprise whites are the first to banish slavery. While also being the most advanced race.
These two facts are linked.
And so I am happy to now say to you all I quit another job and am now working from home but not yet $$$.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/modern-humans-lost-dna-when-they-left-africa-mating-neandertals-brought-some-back
How do you post images on this site?
When you do search for an image on google images, there's usually a view image option that takes you to the image's url which starts with "https://" and ends with "jpg" or "jpeg". You simply copy and paste that url into the comment.
So I just took a culture fair I q test and got a 90. The test was match the shapes match the pattern. I'm not surprised since I'm a prodigy when it comes to interpreting data like statics, and charismatic language and making enjoyable music. Anything else I severely struggle in. Especially something that's pure logic like that.
Its ironic how my full blood sister. Is the exact opposite profile of mine
I remember pumpkin said my culture fair subtests on wais 4 amount to 90.
I told my therapist I have trouble being alone because I am bored. I cannot daydream so all I have are invisible memories and facts. I am severely limited in mental manipulation. Since I cannot see anything in my head I cannot manipulate anything in my head.
180 brain regions exist connected by white matter. I think that the white matter connectivity allows for coordination and 10 percent of connectivity is random so if connectivity is different so is coordination and so would be intelligence. The 180 regions would also need to have the right plasticity to coordinate with each other.
culture fair tests, test pure logic. Wich obviously we both lack.
You are the same as bruno? Aha! Another key piece of evidence what you have is autism, with psychosis. Not a schizophrenic mind.
I do not have poor social intelligence.
I have neurological pain and Anxiety.
(I have isolated myself because of traumatic events in my life)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DM3PX2FVoAAIrnS.jpg:large
https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06643
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B46EAk2S5MWwZXhKbHJMQjJCeGVPeEVUS3FlNnR2MjFzanRz
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B46EAk2S5MWwVTQxenVKOWFrSUp0ZWYxU2Y4SHQzS3UxQlcw
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B46EAk2S5MWwX1VfdFdUMFhqSnAxbUpHT2FTZUZscXpwLVFJ
I'm Tofara Moyo and Timnit Gebru you can google
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B46EAk2S5MWwZXhKbHJMQjJCeGVPeEVUS3FlNnR2MjFzanRz/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B46EAk2S5MWwVTQxenVKOWFrSUp0ZWYxU2Y4SHQzS3UxQlcw/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B46EAk2S5MWwX1VfdFdUMFhqSnAxbUpHT2FTZUZscXpwLVFJ/view?usp=sharing
try these links instead
Why did you remove my images PP?
I didn't.
Oh ok.
rr and afro are much more thought police than peepee, yet they bitch about peepee banning them. sad!
afro is french so, as chomsky has noted, he is incapable of understanding the value of npt censoring speech. this despite voltaire. the french are pathetic!
the point of pictures of huge black penises is that the pluaral of anecdote IS data.
IS!
yet low IQ southern italians like rr will claim there's no evidence of differences in penis size among the races.
but the professor shoe's hope of breeding super intelligent people is delusional. why?
this is why…
Well actually you can add me as part of the police seeing how also I deleted you penis post first hand on the blog.
Already gave Philosopher a history lesson, so I have time to for some basic statistics tricks.
1. Random samples
2. Sample sizes of more than one.
Speaking of hypocritical bitching and racial denial, where did we leave off on sprinting?
Maybe if you actually took your medicine everytime you comment online at least, maybe the majority of your comments could pass.
i told you phil78 is rr peepee.
phil78 can't delete comments on rr's blog.
many samples of size 1 equal data when the data are extreme. moron!
you find me a single picture in all of google images of a white or chinese with a dick that big. you can't find more than a couple. you can find thousands of blacks.
we didn't leave off anywhere fucktard.
the reason blacks dominate the sprints has absolutely nothing to do with their muscle fiber type. absolutely nothing. this is an old wive's tale.
He gave me access as a co/guest author/
"When the data are extreme"? Whatever the hell you are trying to say, I'm guessing something along the lines of case studies. you failed to make comparisons.
And how do you even know that those pictures are authenthic? And how reliable are the pictures in terms of actually representing the penises that exist in the world? You assume everyone with a huge penis have access to the internet and uploaded it.
No, you didn't make any point in directly refuting the role of fibers and sprinting whatsoever.
You pointed out Eurasians record-breaking sprinters and different body types being preferred at different distances due to endurance, but you didn't directly refute Fiber types themselves.
Again, you failed to prove it. Had you relied on consistent scientific explanations, you would've reiterated it here instead of using childish profanity.
the black penis is not a halloween costume. said:
moron!
the extent to which random samples can be used to estimate the parameters of a population distribution DEPEND on assumptions as to what that distribution is.
peepee worships the normal distribution like she worships oprah.
reality never corresponds to math.
but sometimes it's very very close. very.
models are always wrong, but sometimes they are useful.
whenever common sense and the opinions of scientists conflict one should assume that the scientists are stupid, not that common people are stupid.
Reality is difficult to capture accurately, true, but your use of never clearly shows how little you understand statistics. I know random samples aren't perfect, such as assuming college students to pick from reflects the whole population under the same circumstances, but it's still an actual measure that should always be taken to prevent additional bias.
Your statement in and of itself is contradictory since you defended your math of using one sample size as for reflecting reality.
For the sake of broadening your english, substitute wrong with "imperfect", "limited", or "flawed". With that said, the use of random samples, in the wake of additional assumptions regarding the population, is STILL better than using one.
This pretty much shows how stupid you are to lump scientists all in one group when they constantly criticize each other's results and perform studies to either replicated or disprove others.
Regular people, on the other hand, are constantly limited in experience and understandings of the natural world regarding the less obvious events or just mere perceptions of how things actually work.
Their actual behavior/ traits in and of itself will be more accurate than what scientists will observe inherently, but that doesn't equate to their awareness or knowledge.
How the hell do you think scientists even came to be? The develop under the developing and changing disciplines in understanding humans and their environment due to the inability of most to express it coherently.
I learned that Secretariat from a car commercial that the heart of the horse was twice the size of any horse of that size. He pumped twice the blood to his muscles.
The brain uses energy from blood and this is a key point. Metabolism controls neuron plasticity. White matter determines how mental manipulation takes place utilizing memory connecting the 180 brain regions that exist.
A flaw exists in my wiring because the memory connection between abstraction and vision is so weak I cannot see what normal people see. I have no reflective connections for imagination. But some people like Nicola Tesla could invent machines in his head and see them.
It is possible to find out the optimized metabolic network for High IQ. Because it is a memory problem. Memory and structure to create the ability to simulate anything in the mind.
secretariat is like usain bolt in comparison to other horses in two ways.
1. he's the fastest horse ever.
2. he was the tallest and the heaviest triple crown winner ever. bolt is 6'5″ and was near 200lbs when he set his records. he isn't robust, but i'd bet he's the heaviest gold medalist in 100m ever. sprinters must be both muscular and light. i guess this means very low body fat. at his peak arnold at 6'1″ weighed 250lbs. that's bad for sprinting.
my halloween costume is a black penis. said:
according to this crawford was 198 and christie and bailey were over 200.
but bolt is the heaviest.
http://www.topendsports.com/events/summer/science/athletics-100m.htm
Visual ability is a sign of High General Intelligence.
Pumpkin said that the two test I took measure different brain regions. I am supposed to be tested for a learning disability. A neuropsychological evaluation. But it seems my doctor is gone for the month so I do not know what anyone else is supposed to do. I know I cannot draw that image. I was told there are two people in this world, those that look and those that read. I read too much, my sister like to look and draw. But I do listen to music. I will post my result of my neuropsychological evaluation when I take it.
Why the necessity of this picture and why PP accepted this and at the same time censor many of my comments***
Instead, "big penis" is a HUGE fraud propaganda, the best penis at least for anal sex is the avg and the little size…
90% of Mug of Pee's dick pics are in moderation but in this case he put it in context so I approved it. What I can't stand is when people just post pictures or videos but don't say anything about what they are posting. Those I often don't approve.
The why did you ban The Secret?
This secret?
baseball: the one sport where you can still be a fat white trash piece of shit.
and kruk reminded me…
how do i put it?
the philadephia teams of 1980…
mlb, nba, nfl, nhl…
all of them appeared in the finals of their leagues.
all of them lost…
except for the phillies. they won the 1980 world series.
this is an example of an extreme event. an anecdote.
i know philly a little bit because i played in a chess tournament there. i walked around it until it hurt. i even walked through its black ghetto. lucky i'm alive. i ate in a sushi restaurant there. it was great. but there were two obnoxious frenchmen. not making it up. the world would be so much better without france and its diaspora.
philly is one of many shrinking american cities behind the trump win.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shrinking_cities_in_the_United_States
name redacted by pp, oct 28, 2017 said:
santo is not a size queen. apparently.
but it is true that there s such a thing as having too big a penis.
the maximum is probably 7.00″ and 6″ around hard. that's pretty big. any bigger and it's cervical bruising and painful intercourse…even with practice.
that's what's so hilarious about a yuge penis.
it's a deformity.
Many homos think anal sex and variable tolerance with pain is ok AND most of this "big penis is better" is a ((((propaganda))) of certain defective humans…. INCAPABLE to learn with the experience… or ALWAYS learn but to obscure the only path to the life, the truth.
"to pain".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZWUx5bzBWZ1BuMUk/view
PP, do you already saw this study* Babidi Thompson posted in Unz-(((platform(((
quite interesting and my pedantic opinion, very likely to represent reality.
Interesting how southern european countries were… and how slavic nations were….