18 Aug 2012, 12:23 am
JakobVirgil wrote:
I am using that old of reference to show just how out of date your thinking is.
You might as well be citing phrenology books.
But since you are much to slow to understand this.
Heredity, Environment, and Cranial Form:
A Reanalysis of Boas’s Immigrant Data
(Gravlee et al 2003)
Quote:
ABSTRACT
Franz Boas’s classic study, Changes in bodily form of descendants of
immigrants, is a landmark in the history of anthropology. More than any single study, it
undermined racial typology in physical anthropology and helped turn the tide against
early-20th century scientific racism. In 1928, Boas responded to critics of the immigrant
study by publishing the raw data set as Materials for the Study of Inheritance in Man.
Here we present a reanalysis of that long-neglected data set. Using methods that were
unavailable to Boas, we test his main conclusion that cranial form changed in response to
environmental influences within a single generation of European immigrants to the U.S. In
general, we conclude that Boas got it right. However, we demonstrate that modern
analytical methods provide stronger support for Boas’s conclusion than did the tools at
his disposal.
Franz Boas’s classic study, Changes in bodily form of descendants of
immigrants, is a landmark in the history of anthropology. More than any single study, it
undermined racial typology in physical anthropology and helped turn the tide against
early-20th century scientific racism. In 1928, Boas responded to critics of the immigrant
study by publishing the raw data set as Materials for the Study of Inheritance in Man.
Here we present a reanalysis of that long-neglected data set. Using methods that were
unavailable to Boas, we test his main conclusion that cranial form changed in response to
environmental influences within a single generation of European immigrants to the U.S. In
general, we conclude that Boas got it right. However, we demonstrate that modern
analytical methods provide stronger support for Boas’s conclusion than did the tools at
his disposal.
http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ufruss/documents/boaspaper.pdf
so you are using methods discarded 100 years ago.
Quit it it makes you look dumb.
maybe you could change the subject to baseball I know jack-sh!t about baseball.
more sad news for both of us as I am a fan of neanderthal sapiens admixture
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt207073.html
to applies to your buddies the Melanesian and their Australian cousins as well.
You know what this suggests Europeans and dudes in the antipodes got their manly brows
from the same store.
Oh I see............Them melaneezhins, they be caucayzhuns n shiit!
Overall, the shape of the human skull, whether quantified using linear measurements or three-dimensional landmarks, reflects population history to a large degree [1–9]. Much of the microevolutionary history of this region, in particular the temporal bone and upper face, has involved largely neutral mechanisms and therefore reflects population history.
18 Aug 2012, 1:55 am
18 Aug 2012, 8:05 am
AspieRogue wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
I am using that old of reference to show just how out of date your thinking is.
You might as well be citing phrenology books.
But since you are much to slow to understand this.
Heredity, Environment, and Cranial Form:
A Reanalysis of Boas’s Immigrant Data
(Gravlee et al 2003)
Quote:
ABSTRACT
Franz Boas’s classic study, Changes in bodily form of descendants of
immigrants, is a landmark in the history of anthropology. More than any single study, it
undermined racial typology in physical anthropology and helped turn the tide against
early-20th century scientific racism. In 1928, Boas responded to critics of the immigrant
study by publishing the raw data set as Materials for the Study of Inheritance in Man.
Here we present a reanalysis of that long-neglected data set. Using methods that were
unavailable to Boas, we test his main conclusion that cranial form changed in response to
environmental influences within a single generation of European immigrants to the U.S. In
general, we conclude that Boas got it right. However, we demonstrate that modern
analytical methods provide stronger support for Boas’s conclusion than did the tools at
his disposal.
Franz Boas’s classic study, Changes in bodily form of descendants of
immigrants, is a landmark in the history of anthropology. More than any single study, it
undermined racial typology in physical anthropology and helped turn the tide against
early-20th century scientific racism. In 1928, Boas responded to critics of the immigrant
study by publishing the raw data set as Materials for the Study of Inheritance in Man.
Here we present a reanalysis of that long-neglected data set. Using methods that were
unavailable to Boas, we test his main conclusion that cranial form changed in response to
environmental influences within a single generation of European immigrants to the U.S. In
general, we conclude that Boas got it right. However, we demonstrate that modern
analytical methods provide stronger support for Boas’s conclusion than did the tools at
his disposal.
http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ufruss/documents/boaspaper.pdf
so you are using methods discarded 100 years ago.
Quit it it makes you look dumb.
maybe you could change the subject to baseball I know jack-sh!t about baseball.
more sad news for both of us as I am a fan of neanderthal sapiens admixture
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt207073.html
to applies to your buddies the Melanesian and their Australian cousins as well.
You know what this suggests Europeans and dudes in the antipodes got their manly brows
from the same store.
Oh I see............Them melaneezhins, they be caucayzhuns n shiit!
Overall, the shape of the human skull, whether quantified using linear measurements or three-dimensional landmarks, reflects population history to a large degree [1–9]. Much of the microevolutionary history of this region, in particular the temporal bone and upper face, has involved largely neutral mechanisms and therefore reflects population history.
cool copy and paste without reading It. I guess you proved me and mainstream anthropology wrong.
The morphologies they are talking about are not the cephalic index .
That is the bullsh!t you keep saying brachycephalic, dolichocephalic,mesocephalic
the last anthropologist of reputation to use them was Carleton Coon an american who was actively racist and a segregationist. Ghostwriting racist pamphlets.
You are just looking dumber and dumber.
So is that your answer to may assertion that the brow is likely to have the same origin in Caucasians and Astroliods if the Erectus store was closed. But ignore that and call me stupid.
If you can't keep up with the conversation maybe you should quit.
If you feel you need your inane arguments to be respected maybe I am not the one to be talking to.
18 Aug 2012, 2:33 pm
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
18 Aug 2012, 3:19 pm
18 Aug 2012, 4:57 pm
18 Aug 2012, 5:05 pm
18 Aug 2012, 5:08 pm
18 Aug 2012, 5:42 pm
18 Aug 2012, 6:05 pm
18 Aug 2012, 6:20 pm
18 Aug 2012, 6:38 pm
18 Aug 2012, 6:46 pm
18 Aug 2012, 6:47 pm
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
18 Aug 2012, 6:59 pm
18 Aug 2012, 7:03 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| DeSantis Quits Race, endorses Trump |
21 Jan 2024, 11:45 pm |
| White House Wants a Standard Moon Time for New Space Race |
04 Apr 2024, 7:39 pm |
| First human implanted with neuralink |
03 Feb 2024, 6:55 pm |
| Scientists Discover The Human Brain Is Even More Powerful |
05 Mar 2024, 3:38 am |
