Cheddar lol

>white
No such thing.

t. Incacuck

How reputable is newscientist? Don't want the revisionist dickheads saying "hurr durr no a good source"?

But the fucking article isn't even available you dumbass. Go buy it, screenshot it, post it and then we'll see what the fuck they're even talking about.

the fact that you can't tell the source of a scientific claim apart from the website reporting on it doesn't bode well for your conversations with these revisionist dickheads of yours

Is this a surprise? Anyone who looks at and doesn't realize it's complete bullshit should become an hero.

And that intermingling of cultures led to a lot of strife

Complete bullshit implies the possibility that Cheddar man had light skin

All of these are Northwestern European peoples who aren't that different genetically or culturally. The one exception is Romans, but tbf Southern Europeans aren't radically incompatible with Northern Europeans.

>light skin
fucking meme. Which of these two faces do you think most resembles the first people in Europe? Protip: Both are "swarthy."

No, right is swarthy. Left is charcoal blek.

This.
Cheddar man was just brown skinned like many Europeans today, but SJW retards obviously claim he was "black" for their agenda purpose...

I think 75% left 25% right seems like a reasonable complexion for Cheddar man. Maybe one day we'll know for sure?

>difference between individuals demonstrate race
Yeah, the big nosed race, the long skull race, the squatting race lol

It's statistically impossible for a modern European to have the same ancestral alleles for both SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. That includes the swarthiest Sicilian you could ever hope to find.

Race is more than complexion. The idea that people copypasta'd right out of Melanesia were the first Brits is embarrassing. Funny how Spaniards managed to come to a more reasonable reconstruction here .

First Europeans were Swarthy with blue eyes? They still exist in Southern Europe.

brainlet.bmp

how did they get my picture?

This guy is most likely derived for both SLC24A5/SLC45A2. Possibly ancestral heterozygous for just one of them.
You'd pretty much get the Alicia Vikander complexion if you were ancestral heterozygous for either SLC24A5/SLC45A2 and that's about as dark as Europeans generally get outside some fringe southern areas and even then the Cheddar set of full ancestral isn't possible.

Race is more than skin color RETARDS

>no argument
Yet race is still not science, user. Race is pseudoscience.

>anyone with half a brain cell read how he said he was anywhere between a range
>anyone with half a brain cell knows science changes all the fucking time e.g plum pudding model
You need to be 18 to post here

Skin colour is part of race tho

>Race is pseudoscience.
what? Are you actually saying that human populations don't cluster together into meaningful divisions which can be empirically verified?

>microcephalic Amerindian cognition on display

Seewut

It'd be very accurate to call East Asians a flat headed, squint eyed race. If what you were saying is true, how can geneticist trace your ancestry with a vile of your spit?

t. zika babby

>race
>ancestry
Wrong. Try again.
nigga r u ok?

>nigga

Subtle subscription ask, New Scientist marketing team. Could some user just copy and paste it here?

>genetics is not race

>genetics are race

Race definition literally claims that appearance judgements affects the categorizations, implying that phenotype defines genotype. Which is false. That's why "race" has no scientific rigor. Pseudoscience.

>people use these images

>he didn’t make smuggies
What’s it like not to have friends

Go back to mowing my lawn Juancito

@4187620
Do these kids actually take the images seriously?
I can't believe it.

Yet race is still not science, user. Race is pseudoscience.

Race is the reason why you're so ugly and girls don't like you.

I have only heard agitators claiming that SJWs will inevitably claim that. Luckily, they don't tend to publish scientific articles, so unless you are looking for them or are fed their dumblr posts by somebody who looks for them it's meaningless to any reasonable person.

The left side, but lighter-skinned than that. You're a goof if you think that the first Europeans looked anything like the right side, or even that most people from this sculpture's time period looked like that. She is a cartoon made to exemplify notions of beauty. Art.

Here's a highly evolved Nordic master race woman from about a thousand years ago. Now imagine the original stock that was refined over ten thousand years of sexual selection to achieve this degree of pulchritude.

Yet, race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.

10/10

Modern reconstructions are just extreme shit in most cases. Those from 20th century looked more realistic, because racial studies were also better.

>She is a cartoon made to exemplify notions of beauty. Art.
This reminds me, I nearly bust a rib when I saw this tweet. This fucker actually believes the painting on the left is Queen Margaret "as she was" or even that any human being ever looked like that, Greek statue face and all. Obviously she didn't look like the bitch on the right either but at least that one is an actual human being.

>Race
>Not ancestry
Try again

Yet race is science, in fact it's hard science

For comparison, here's a bust of Queen Margaret. It probably didn't look like the actual queen either, but I'm willing to believe the sculptor used a human model for it.

>This fucker actually believes the painting on the left is Queen Margaret "as she was" or even that any human being ever looked like that, Greek statue face and all
Image having such a severe amount of cognitive dissonance that you unironically think that the guy who tweeted this thought that the painting was 100% accurate when he gave no indication of that all

Pretty sure he was just talking about skin color , user

Imagine having such a severe amount of cognitive dissonance that you unironically think the painting on the left is an objective portrayal of a famous English queen and not at all politically motivated propaganda.

See

>you unironically think the painting on the left is an objective portrayal of a famous English queen
Nobody said that, only regarding the skin colour

>Race definition literally claims that appearance judgements affects the categorizations
What is this the 18th century? Do they just not teach you about genetic clustering in hs?

This article keeps popping up and yet nobody has actually read it.

Can someone please give a mirror or archive to get past the paywall?

But he never and I never said that. One I'd clearly a shit painting of a European woman and the other was an African woman trying to portray her

>do they
>"Race is a concept used in the categorization of humans into groups, called races or racial groups, based on combinations of shared physical traits, ancestry, genetics, and social or cultural traits. "
All scientific discussion studies that debate "race" validity repeat the same definition and implications.

Race is not science. Race is pseudoscience.

He called the painting on the left "Margaret as she was" as opposed to "how the BBC chose to portray her", you're literally delusional by insisting that he only said that about the skin color.

I'd be quite amazed if the painting on the left happened to get the skin color right either way, it's much more likely it's as embellished as every other feature.

>a shit painting
that's quite rude to the artist who tried his hardest to paint the most perfect classical beauty he could imagine.

They looked more like semi-scientists expected them to look, you mean.

It's true that I find the computer-aided reconstructions to be a little jarring and incredible, but for want of photographs, I will give the experts the benefit of the doubt as I should. If you look at photographs from a hundred years ago you will be lucky to find a woman who looks remotely fuckable. Pic unrelated: Belle Gunness, a literal fucking succubus who seduced and killed like ten men. People's appearances have changed that much in such a short time, I can only imagine the contrasts between what historical depictions would have us believe and what they looked like. And even those, exaggerated for beauty, often look pretty hideous or weird. See anime queen at If you saw that face in the real world you would presume serious congenital issues and probably mental retardation. Her guava-sized eyes are halfway up her forehead. But you know that the art is meant to communicate beauty, so that's what you recognize in the image, divorced as it is from your real standards.

>Doesn't post the source of that quote
>Says it's pseudoscience
I guess half of all geneticist and anthropologists are all pseuds then huh?
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/329/

>All scientific discussion studies that debate "race" validity repeat the same definition and implications.
Umm... No they don't?

>semi-scientists
So professors of universities are now "semi-scientists"? Lol.

Old reconstructions made sense, were realistic, modern are just made by race-denying retards who make everyone look like a nigger.

it was so obviously a piece of propaganda. the sad thing is there's no way the mainstream media is going to post any retractions so the majority of people will still believe it.

>East
>relevant
lol

I don't deny the existence of races but no one in the scientific world gives a fuck about some Eastern publications.

Why arent the BBC and other media outlets making a big story out this like they did when they thought he had black skin?

Now show me old reconstructions and actual photos.

Reminder that Eastern Europe is economically developing at a rapid speed and have a long history of higher learning (the Soviet ones were actually rather good). But stay butthurt by any means.

Because it's not that important. We will never be 100% sure about ancient and prehistoric skin colour. In the paper it's said that he was dark or black. Apparently he was darker than some later WHG.

This is irrelevant and no one cares about it. If you don't publish in journals with high impact factor no one cares about your research.

See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
>i guess
Yet race is still pseudoscience.
Such as...

But they still think he had dark to black skin, they're just pointing out that they don't fully understand the genetics involved.

>East
>Irrelevant
Lol, I guess you're going to ignore how almost all of Chinese anthropologists agree on the existence of race as well, because nothing is relevant except what Western Europe believes

>He just went to wikipedia and then made the bold claim that it's definition is universally accepted
Brainlet detected

>Maybe if just call it pseudoscience it will actually become so
Lol

Police forensics are notoriously shoddy. Show me a debunked reconstruction of something old that isn't an Iguanodon.

You probably can't. That doesn't prove that modern constructions must be accurate, of course, but unless you are in expert in that field I will take their word over yours. Especially since you are citing science from a field that is now literally a cautionary tale of poor method and wish fulfillment in Introduction to Anthropology.

See>repetition
Try again and put a more effort into your next post, boy.

desu anthropology/history is always mired in the politics of its time, it's a "soft" science, current day anthropology is about as reliable and just as politically polarised as the nordicist stuff of yester century

everyone knows why they gave cedar man black skin and why the BBC paraded the story for a week, it's shameless bs

I have only reconstructions of skulls, but they didn't make them negroes if they were caucasian, so they are more accurate than modern SJW ones...

...

Imagine thinking the woman on the right is for some reason a more accurate "portrayal" of an ENGLISH queen. I know you said you don't think the one on the right looks like her but your entire post is retarded. Obviously an English queen was white therefore that person's post comparing how ridiculous the BBC casting a black woman is correct, you are complete and total nonsense

She was white not black and the BBC is foolish in their casting. No matter if the painting got her hue of white wrong she was stilll white

Earliest Great Britain inhabitants had dark skin. Invaders after invaders mixing cultures and replacing males happened. Denying this exchange of different cultures BTFO his entire attempt of "argument".

Ruskies made Kostenki man look Negroid

>all these ethnicities waged war with one another

It's called color-blind casting and it was a play, so there is nothing wrong with it.

This, it is a social science. My forensic anthropology prof said with a straight face "there exist no physical differences between races". Ok there

I don't know enough about the science to dispute them outright, but it's worth noting that the Chinese are as ethnonationalist as the eugenicists were. China has a broad and aggressive program of historical revisionism aimed at bolstering traditional notions of national and racial identity. Exhibits on ethnography and anthropology in China are said to smack of PT Barnum.

It is worth considering that Chinese science may not be definitive and their opinions may not be free of an agenda. Unlike the liberal Jewish media conspiracy, there is a known and explicit state agenda to Chinese research. If you're sensitive to that kind of influence on science in the West, please apply the same principles to China.

I disagree there should be a degree of realism when you're depicting historical events. I'd also wager if you had Hugh Jackman portray some Ethiopian king there'd be a flurry about It, and rightfully so.

You assume that Cheddar Man is presented as a Negroid based on skin tone alone. All of his other features suggest otherwise -- notably, the blue eyes he is supposed to have had.