Pemalite said:
potato_hamster said:
Bolding, Italicizing and underlining something doesn't make it more true.
|
Point me to where I have asserted otherwise?
There is a point to Bold/Italics/Underlining certain parts of a reply, it places emphasis on the point being presented so you don't miss it.
potato_hamster said:
1) You can predict the geographic area someone is from based on a single photo. (You obviously can't using your "citation" but I'll get there)
|
Up to a point. And I did elaborate on why it's not accurate in the modern world or did you miss that part?
potato_hamster said:
2) Your picture from an article regarding predicting the hypothetical skin tone people should have in 2007 based on UV index, skin reflectance of "indigenous people", and Vitamin D3 synthesis amongst others, supports this claim. (Yeah, I did read the citation days ago. It's pretty clear you didn't because you completely misrepresented it right from the start, and had the audacity to insult the intelligence of anyone who dared question you)
|
The map was updated in 2007. It wasn't predicting the skin tone that people will have in 2007.
And people wonder why I have the audacity to insult the intelligence of others? I mean really. Common.
Here is a another source that breaks down how skin pigmentation evolved thanks to UV exposure.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/Supplement_2/8962
potato_hamster said:
3) The criteria for determining "indigenous people" in the article is not arbitrary (It is defined in your citation as" those which had existed in their current locations for a long time prior to European colonization." Sounds pretty arbitrary to me, especially considering they use it to predict the skin tone of what people from Europe should be.)
|
And?
You are just reinforcing my position.
potato_hamster said:
Now go tell an Innu and an "Indigenous" Irish person they have the same skin tone with a straight face. K. Thanks. Bye.
|
So. Have you done another backflip and are thus suggesting the source that I presented does come into conflict with your prior assertion?
Because you don't seem to be capable of remaining consistent in your argument.
Or do I need to make some more quotes to point out where you have contradicted yourself?
|
Nope. Almost every sentence you wrote is factually incorrect, but it appears you've dug yourself such a big hole that you've decided to go down with the ship.
Have fun.
