Pemalite said:
potato_hamster said:
Again, I'm not disagreeing with the science you're presenting. It's just that it's not really that scientific. What you've presented arbitrarily draws a line in the sand and said "we're going to say that the people from this area and this date are going to be considered the indigenous people of that area, and this is their skin tone." Does that map look the same if you go back 500 years? or ahead 500 years? How about 1000 years in either direction?
For example. The predominant genetic traits of the average person living in modern day Egypt has changed dramatically in the past 2000 years. It's been invaded and controlled by multiple empires. So when we look at the "indigenous people of Egypt" are we looking at the skin tone of people before or after Egypt was invaded by Genghis Khan's Mongolian Empire? Or before or after Egypt was invaded by the Persians? Italians? Ottomans? Arabs? French? Because all of those invasions affected what a modern day "indigenous Egyptian" looks like today.
So again, everyone is of mixed heritage if you trace their family tree back. Let's not pretend otherwise.
|
The scientific evidence I have presented has citations. I highly suggest you peruse them as that would answer your questions in full.
If you are unaware of what a citation is... I am more than happy to educate you on the matter.
|
Aww that's so sweet that you expect me to demonstrate the credibility of your sources instead of you! Thanks, but no thanks! We both know the onus is on you to support and defend your claims, not on me to do it for you! So please go on and quote the relevant portions of the citations that explain that their choice for indigenous people are based on reasonable assumptions and not arbitrarily chosen as I've implied.
Side note: Kids in Junior High know what citations are. How about you show a little more respect there next time? There's absolutely no need to be so condescending.
