How do race realists explain away Mesoamerican architecture?

How do race realists explain away Mesoamerican architecture?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why would they need to? Those people are descended from ANE and literally the Eurasians the furthest away from Africa as possible

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Still no answer to this. FPBP

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      My man
      You do realise you're full of shit right?
      I mean larping may be funny or allow you to thump your chest and scream that all human achievements come from ancient aryans, but beyond that, you do realise what you're saying is nonsense?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's not nonsense though. Yakub made whites using cerise, yellows using rice and reds using maize. Then shitskins using poop. That's how he destroyed apefreaka and liberated it from the already existing Black folk. Some mesoamerican peoples were blessed by Yakub. How is that hard to understand?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So why did white people rape, torture and genocide them?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Firstly, White people didnt. small bands of adventurers engaged in small scale warfare with them.
        Secondly, do you believe that all humans get along all the time? that which makes a brother and sister quarrel is what makes a king and queen war.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Still no answer to this. FPBP

      You morons
      We arent talking only about blacks here
      We talking about non europeans as a while

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the ruling elite died out due to dysgenics and other diasters, diseases from the old world probably wiped out what few smart people remained. Only the proles were left.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The start of your theory mirrors what I'm currently writing in my 8th book which will cover the earliest years of humanity in sight of being the Christian God's creation

      Will anyone ever read my book who is reading this comment?
      99.9% chance no

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's wild how all of Latin America is complacent with their meaningless Spanish culture and there is zero desire to move on from this

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Theosophists consider them a older spwnt out decayed race.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Spent out*

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its Fools gold and a few other chemicals that i forgot. The acids melted the stones so they eventualy sat together vry tightly.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thats a relatively impressive practical understanding of aplied chemistry, so how did they get that?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Here is a video that explains the concept. They used traditional stone cutting methods and made the acid mortar that disolved the stones eventualy so they sat in very tight. By birdwatching allegedly.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=_KbSFphHCZY [Embed]

        [Embed]

        Robert Kos, helmut tributsch

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not gonna watch your videos because I assume they are moronic. Just watch Mike Haduck's video on the inca, egyptians, and a few others.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Clearly there was a Nordic originator race that built all that. When Europeans got to Mesoamerica they found stone age people living in the ruins of a former civilization.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/NHod1Jq.jpg

      >explain

      relies on your trust in the data being reported
      [...]
      relies on your trust in the data being reported

      it's true because I hate shitskins

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the truth rarely paints non-whites favorably but that doesn't mean we should lie to make them feel better.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Source: varg told me

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      WE

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A rogue daoist cultivator made all of that, ALL of it.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's andean architecture, not Mesoamerican.
    All things considered, Mesoamerican architecture was pretty simple, just simple pyramids and stone houses plastered and painted to look pretty.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >explain

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      dna tests were already done, from every era the locals were 100% Siberian (sometimes Polynesian).

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        relies on your trust in the data being reported

        This kind of theory falls apart when you remember that the Sacsayhuaman is younger than the Mongol Empire and by the time stone pyramids began to be built in Mesoamerica, the Persian Empire already existed.

        relies on your trust in the data being reported

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >"t-they're faking the data!!"
          You have no idea how this stuff works. Learn how to use NCBI and UniProt if you want to larp as a geneticist.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They are extremely similar to Tibetans from looks, to culture and religious practices. There's something to it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This kind of theory falls apart when you remember that the Sacsayhuaman is younger than the Mongol Empire and by the time stone pyramids began to be built in Mesoamerica, the Persian Empire already existed.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Just a minor correction, OP's pic isn't Sacsayguaman, the fortress that overlooks Cusco, but Hatun Rumiyoc ('Hatun' principal or big, 'Rumi' stone, '-yoc' with), the royal palace of Inca Roca, the 6th Inca king

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Extremely delusional nonsense holy fricking shit

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's this and if you hadn't been told that it wasn't your entire life it's a very obvious conclusion to draw.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Mesoamerican
    That's ANDEAN architecture you fricking moron

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shut up homosexual

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      who is this guy?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Himmler after his suicide.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Built by ancient Israelites from Book of Mormon

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Mesoamerican race is extinct.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why does ancient mesoamerican art portray Gods and others with clear mesoamerican features? Could it be that you're just a moronic we wuzzed who uses white peoples historically recent economic success as a crutch to act like the "master race"? Pathetic.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >clear mesoamerican features
        I love it when mexicans don't know shit about anything

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          same thing

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >same thing

            https://i.imgur.com/1JZ5DRR.jpg

            You're the one who clearly doesn't have a clue about what you're talking about, and neither does whoever made that picture.

            The Mesoamerican plumed serpent deity was primarily associated with water, wind and occassionally warfare and priesthood, not the sun. Iconographically, in its zoomorphic form, it was represented as just a plumed rattlesnake, with never any wings at all, unlike in your picture, which is a meaningless pop culture interpretation, thus rendering your attempt at linking it to that egyptian deity invalid. By the Aztec Period however, the much more common representation of the God Quetzalcoatl was anthropomorphic, not as an actual snake, as a man wearing a red mask.

            The Plumed serpent deity as it existed in the 16th century also originated in Teotihuacan, in the 2nd Century AD, it was contemporary with the late Roman Empire, not Ancient Egypt.

            morons will deny this connection because they are too prideful to see truth.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >morons will deny this connection because they are too prideful to see truth.
            Snakes are weird looking animals anon. Plenty of peoples have traditional stories involving snakes.
            You're seeing a connection that doesn't exist between two very dissimilar gods.
            You're pretty much schizophrenic anon.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >a connection that doesn't exist

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >>a connection that doesn't exist
            Yep, theirs no historical connection what so ever anon.
            You're schizophrenic.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nta but I am seeing very strong connection:

            https://i.imgur.com/uBeELWb.png

            >clear mesoamerican features
            I love it when mexicans don't know shit about anything

            https://i.imgur.com/Pq0bEu3.png

            same thing

            https://i.imgur.com/1JZ5DRR.jpg

            You're the one who clearly doesn't have a clue about what you're talking about, and neither does whoever made that picture.

            The Mesoamerican plumed serpent deity was primarily associated with water, wind and occassionally warfare and priesthood, not the sun. Iconographically, in its zoomorphic form, it was represented as just a plumed rattlesnake, with never any wings at all, unlike in your picture, which is a meaningless pop culture interpretation, thus rendering your attempt at linking it to that egyptian deity invalid. By the Aztec Period however, the much more common representation of the God Quetzalcoatl was anthropomorphic, not as an actual snake, as a man wearing a red mask.

            The Plumed serpent deity as it existed in the 16th century also originated in Teotihuacan, in the 2nd Century AD, it was contemporary with the late Roman Empire, not Ancient Egypt.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you have any actual argument? How do you think an ancient Mesopotamian deity made its way to Medieval Mexico at a time when the Middle East had already been muslim for hundreds of years and had been zoroastrian for hundreds more?

            If it comes from the same root as you claim, then why did this Marduk equivalent remain as a snake deity of war and water until around the time vikings were raiding all over the old world? Why was it an extremely minor mythological creature until halfway through the western Roman Empire's lifespan?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How do you think an ancient Mesopotamian deity made its way to

            https://i.imgur.com/NHod1Jq.jpg

            >explain

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/7CqAeyF.png

            nta but I am seeing very strong connection:
            [...]
            [...]
            [...]

            Samegays his own autism lol.
            Dude, you have no valid argument.
            None, what so ever.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, I assure you that even if Atlantis did exist in ancient tines, It was definetly NOT around in the High Middle Ages, the period when the anthropomorphic Quetzalcoatl began to exist.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            assumed dating of Aztec pyramid complexes may be too modern and or they may have been refreshed and maintained or built over from previous versions. Assumed dating of Aztec cosmology may be too modern and based on earlier beliefs now lost that bore even closer resemblance to Mesopotamian/egyptian beliefs.

            the parallels in iconography and symbolic meaning are self evidently in the same vein from the same root archetypes, all likely stemming from the same source culture but each divergent due to geographic isolation and the passage of aeons.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Sounds like a good new Harry Potter spin-off anon.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Aztec pyramid complexes may be too modern and or they may have been refreshed and maintained or built over from previous versions. they were. they're all older than commonly believed.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Schizo babble
            I'm also a schizo anon, but you are too far deep into your own ass.
            You're meant to meditate on weird connections and let them cook before you go around spitting nonsense all around.
            Or perhaps you're not even a schizo, just a regular moron with low IQ that got his mind melted by schizo babble, which would be worse.
            Either way, your connections are too frail, your beliefs too modern and easy to dismiss.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The opposite actually, the morons are unable to see the wide connected view because their minds are too narrow and shuttered due to their own deleterious admixtures.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The wide connection becomes small when you create concrete meaning out of it meant to compete with concrete direct connections.
            You don't have superpowers, you still have to deal with concrete direct connections, and if they contradict you, it's you that has to make the wider connection concrete, or else you're just babbling madman.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/VfM7QZB.jpg

            >Aztec pyramid complexes may be too modern and or they may have been refreshed and maintained or built over from previous versions. they were. they're all older than commonly believed.

            Well guess what? Every theory you have provided relies on undiscovered ancient sites and artifacts that don't exist yet or simply don't exist.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Even if every Mesoamerican pyramid was magically a thousand years older, it wouldn't change the fact that Quetzalcoatl's importance in the Mesoamerican pantheon was a late development in Mesoamerican religion and not some ancient practice rooted in Atlantis or whatever the frick.

            It's genuinely impressive how your kind acts all high and mighty while ALWAYS having literal surface level high school knowledge on the subject.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >was a late development in Mesoamerican religion
            earliest documented worship is about 100 BC to 100 AD, but there is no reason to assume it doesn't go back further.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >earliest documented worship is about 100 BC to 100 AD, but there is no reason to assume it doesn't go back further.
            Documented meaning it was written down in native writing or by creative interpretation of archeological artifacts?
            I can guarantee you it wouldn't be any older than that.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it wouldn't be any older than that.
            because you have a time machine? I am jealous, I wish I had one of those.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >because you have a time machine? I am jealous, I wish I had one of those.
            Because there's no evidence of an earlier origin schizophrenic anon.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >no evidence of an earlier origin
            absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

            >Lifeforms aren't the only thing that undergo evolution.
            Languages aren't living organisms anon.
            There isn't one single origin for all languages.
            >All human languages may descend from a last universal common ancestor
            Zero evidence anon.
            >There isn't nothing. For the millionth time, modern indo euroepan languages fit into the phylogenetic tree
            No they don't anon. There's zero evidence.
            >The fact that modern indo european languages can be organized into a phylogenetic tree proves
            that you can organize them into a phylogenetic tree just as Bats can be classified together with birds because they both fly, eat insects and have two eyes.
            >This is not circular logic
            It is.
            "they are called the Indo-European languages thus PIE language must have existed"
            "The bible exists thus god must exist"
            >Again, HOW do modern indo european langauges fit into a phylogenetic tree
            Zero evidence anon. It's very simple.

            >may descend
            means it may, not necessarily that is must or does.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
            It is actually...
            You can't say anything is true without some form of evidence.
            >means it may, not necessarily that is must or does.
            No he's certain of that. If you're equating Language with the evolution of life that is the only conclusion possible.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is some evidence of plumed serpents amongst the Olmec and the Maya in the preclassic, but as I said, those were fully zoomorphic mythological creatures, not culture heroes associated with civilization.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >fully zoomorphic mythological creatures
            bold assumption when "experts" purported confidently for centuries that pic related was nothing but a dog headed human that stupid savages worshiped for ignorant reasons.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There is some evidence of plumed serpents amongst the Olmec and the Maya in the preclassi
            In other words there isn't any evidence.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >there isn't any evidence.
            What do you expect? the evidence goes back as far as we have evidence their culture existed. if we found older shit they built there is no good reason to assume feathered snake wouldn't be associated with it too.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What do you expect?
            Evidence.

            >the evidence goes back as far as we have evidence their culture existed
            Or as far back as their culture existed.

            >if we found older shit they built there is no good reason to assume feathered snake wouldn't be associated with it too.
            What if we found a transistor in the temple?
            We would have to conclude that Natives had discovered the dark side of the moon with supercomputers.
            I know it's there, they just haven't found it yet!!!

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Or as far back as their culture existed.
            yeah, the oldest culture we have evidence of is associated with feathered serpent. if we find anything older there is no reason to assume it wouldn't also be associated with feathered serpent.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mean in the famous culture hero civilization god form.
            The plumed serpent in its most primitive state was a patron deity of a group of people at Teotihuacan associated with war, fire and water. Later its cult spread around in the late classic and only became what It was by in the 16th century some time in the early postclassic.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You're the one who clearly doesn't have a clue about what you're talking about, and neither does whoever made that picture.

          The Mesoamerican plumed serpent deity was primarily associated with water, wind and occassionally warfare and priesthood, not the sun. Iconographically, in its zoomorphic form, it was represented as just a plumed rattlesnake, with never any wings at all, unlike in your picture, which is a meaningless pop culture interpretation, thus rendering your attempt at linking it to that egyptian deity invalid. By the Aztec Period however, the much more common representation of the God Quetzalcoatl was anthropomorphic, not as an actual snake, as a man wearing a red mask.

          The Plumed serpent deity as it existed in the 16th century also originated in Teotihuacan, in the 2nd Century AD, it was contemporary with the late Roman Empire, not Ancient Egypt.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the God Quetzalcoatl was anthropomorphic
            yeah no shit, and yes they are based on the same because they come from the same root religion.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >yeah no shit, and yes they are based on the same because they come from the same root religion.
            No they don't anon...

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No they don't
            okay have it your way and live in ignorance. your stupidity is your own problem in life to deal with.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >okay have it your way and live in ignorance. your stupidity is your own problem in life to deal with.
            That isn't a valid argument anon.
            Grow up please.
            You can't just say stupid bullshit and then expect people to believe it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >based on the same because they come from the same root religion.
            How exactly? As I said, the plumed serpent deity originated in 2nd century AD Teotihuacan, with some even more minor possible precursors amongst the Olmec. And even then, its Teotihuacano and earlier forms were purely zoomorphic, and associated only with water, warfare and one of the city's elite groups. The anthropomorphic Quetzalcoatl associated with civilization which diffusionists such as yourself love did not exist until the epiclassic/early postclassic periods, that's in the 10th to 12th centuries AD, nearly 4000 years after Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >they are based on the same because they come from the same root
            Satan

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >>they are based on the same because they come from the same root
            >Satan
            In comes the israelite worshipping Christ-tard with his 50cent comment.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why does ancient mesoamerican art portray Gods and others with clear mesoamerican features? Could it be that you're just a moronic we wuzzed who uses white peoples historically recent economic success as a crutch to act like the "master race"? Pathetic.

            mad cuz IQ 84

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I love it when mexicans don't know shit about anything
          Like you?
          You just compared two completely different things and said they are the same.
          You're like those PIE theory morons that use vague similarities to claim that all the world's language and gods came from one source.
          It's stupidity.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Proto Indo European is a real thing you fricking idiot. Don't compare his pseudo religious comparison to actual linguistic theories.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It may be real, but at this point it's turned into pure moron fantasy fanfiction, no different to black we wuzzing.
            You can give your thanks to morons like him.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No linguist, archeologist, or geneticist would deny the existence of proto-indo-european or would pretend that the kurgan hypothesis hasn't basically been proven. Other than some hindutva nationalists maybe

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No linguist, archeologist, or geneticist would deny the existence of proto-indo-european
            They do all the time though. PIE isn't really relevant to anything.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, they don't. The indo-european language family is the most widely studied language family by linguists.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No, they don't. The indo-european language family is the most widely studied language family by linguists.
            Yes they do lol.
            Reconstructions based on reconstructions based on reconstructions of dead languages without writing.
            At that point it's just meaningless fantasy world building like Lord of the Rings.

            They are extremely similar to Tibetans from looks, to culture and religious practices. There's something to it.

            >They are extremely similar to Tibetans from looks, to culture and religious practices. There's something to it.
            No they aren't anon.
            You are a moron lol.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes they do lol.
            No, they literally don't. The comparative method is extremely accurate.
            Post an actual paper in a peer reviewed journal where someone claims that indo-european isn't a valid language family.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No, they literally don't. The comparative method is extremely accurate.
            It's not accurate at all.

            >Post an actual paper in a peer reviewed journal where someone claims that indo-european isn't a valid language family.
            Lol, Basalt is an igneous rock but that doesn't mean the Earth is only 6000 years old.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not accurate at all.
            Yes, it is.
            >Lol, Basalt is an igneous rock but that doesn't mean the Earth is only 6000 years old.
            This literally doesn't mean anything.
            >Lol see, this is the braindead level of PIE theorists anon. These are your idiots.
            No, you fricking idiot. Literally tens of thousands of linguists and geneticists agree with the kurgan hypothesis.
            Stop with your cringe hindu nationalism. Sanksrit is not the oldest language in the world.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the only reason you refuse to see a connection between ancient civilizations on both sides of the ocean is your own racist pride which you dress up and defend on the grounds of not having incontrovertible evidence. Be obstinate while you can.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the only reason you refuse to see a connection between ancient civilizations on both sides of the ocean is your own racist pride
            It's actually because there is no historical, archeological, linguistic, genetic or Religious connection anon.
            You can call people racist until the cow come home. It isn't going to change anything.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Proto Indo European is a real thing you fricking idiot.
            It's a vague linguistic theory anon. It's a myth.
            You guys can't even decide who the Proto-Indo-Europeans were. There are 5 completely different origin theories.
            The religious and technological comparisons are complete bullshit 90% of the time.

            >Don't compare his pseudo religious comparison to actual linguistic theories
            Have you ever stopped to think about that?
            How could a linguistic theory give you an origin of Eurasian culture before writing?
            Why does PIE theory contradict with every other facet of science?
            Because it's complete and utter bullshit anon. That's why.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's a vague linguistic theory anon. It's a myth.
            No, it isn't.
            I realize now you morons are probably just hindu nationalists so there is no reason whatsoever to argue with you gays
            ALL GENETIC, LINGUISTIC, AND ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE confirms the Kurgan hypothesis

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you seem like someone who is into linguistic anthropology. Maybe you have heard of the connection of the word Atlantic, root Atl related to atlas, to the meso american language family. I am convinced there is a deep linguistic connection between the continents.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you seem like someone who is into linguistic anthropology. Maybe you have heard of the connection of the word Atlantic, root Atl related to atlas, to the meso american language family.

            >Yes they do lol.
            No, they literally don't. The comparative method is extremely accurate.
            Post an actual paper in a peer reviewed journal where someone claims that indo-european isn't a valid language family.

            Lol see, this is the braindead level of PIE theorists anon. These are your idiots.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you neither posted a refutation or postulated a valid reason for why the question is not valid.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you neither posted a refutation or postulated a valid reason for why the question is not valid.
            Lol atlatl and Atlantis aren't at all linguistically related anon.
            That's a False cognate.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >a False cognate
            so you say. but I will not be surprised if a linguistic connection is identified connecting central and south american pre-contact language to the indo european language family.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nahuatl is a language within the uto-aztecan family, which originates from what is now the southwestern United States and whose speakers didn't enter Mesoamerica until around the late classic period, which would be around 800-1000 AD. Before that, Mesoamerica was largely dominated by speakers of Oto-Manguean, Mayan and Mixe-Zoque languages.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And what was the point of saying that anon?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No, it isn't.
            Yes it is...

            >I realize now you morons are probably just hindu nationalists so there is no reason whatsoever to argue with you gays
            >ALL GENETIC, LINGUISTIC, AND ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE confirms the Kurgan hypothesis
            Lol, I can tell you're stupid because I know more about your own bullshit that you do.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_hypothesis
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hypothesis
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_homeland#Paleolithic_continuity_theory
            You guys can't even decide what bullshit fantasy story you want to folllow.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The armenian and anotolian hypotheses were falsified several years ago in favor of the steppe theory, and their Colin Renfew admitted he was wrong.
            Are you a hindu nationalist moron or what? Why are you denying the indo-european language family? Are you just moronic?

            Why is this board full of fricking morons?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The armenian and anotolian hypotheses were falsified several years ago in favor of the steppe theory
            Lol, no they weren't anon. You guys have got no idea and are basically just making shit up...
            >Are you a hindu nationalist moron or what?
            Why would I be? You're the only person who's ever brought that up.
            >Why is this board full of fricking morons?
            You ARE the moron anon.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, they were. The Steppe theory was basically confirmed a few years ago with the work of hundreds of geneticists and linguists.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, they were. The Steppe theory was basically confirmed a few years ago with the work of hundreds of geneticists and linguists.
            No it wasn't anon.

            >It's not accurate at all.
            Yes, it is.
            >Lol, Basalt is an igneous rock but that doesn't mean the Earth is only 6000 years old.
            This literally doesn't mean anything.
            >Lol see, this is the braindead level of PIE theorists anon. These are your idiots.
            No, you fricking idiot. Literally tens of thousands of linguists and geneticists agree with the kurgan hypothesis.
            Stop with your cringe hindu nationalism. Sanksrit is not the oldest language in the world.

            >Yes, it is.
            It isn't.
            >This literally doesn't mean anything.
            Lol. See you're an idiot.
            You can classify or group together languages geographically but that doesn't mean they all magically came into being during a randomly chosen period of time in prehistory.
            >No, you fricking idiot. Literally tens of thousands of linguists and geneticists agree with the kurgan hypothesis..
            That doesn't mean anything. Even more don't. You've already forgotten that PIE is a linguistic theory trying to say what language people were speaking when there was no writing.
            It's a useless pie in the sky fantasy.
            >Stop with your cringe hindu nationalism. Sanksrit is not the oldest language in the world.
            You are literally the only person that's obsessed with hindu nationalism in this thread anon.
            I don't know why you keep on bringing it up.

            https://i.imgur.com/GwtV97I.jpg

            Yep, they don't look at all similar.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No it wasn't anon.
            Yes, it was. Now you're just in denial.
            >That doesn't mean anything. Even more don't. You've already forgotten that PIE is a linguistic theory trying to say what language people were speaking when there was no writing.
            You don't need writing to speak languages you moron. Languages came before writing. People were talking for hundreds of thousands of years before writing.
            You can reconstruct languages based on their spoken phonemes and their grammar. There is an objective and undeniable connection between all modern indo-european languages which linguistics directly explains. You're just in denial and the only reason I can think is because you're a hindu nationalist, as they're the only people who are this butthurt about it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, it was. Now you're just in denial.
            No it wasn't. It literally isn't celebrated as such anywhere.
            >You don't need writing to speak languages you moron
            Lol, that isn't the point you moron.
            If you have no writing or sound recording you have no way of determining what language was spoken and what it sounded like.
            >Languages came before writing
            No shit anon.
            >People were talking for hundreds of thousands of years before writing.
            No shit anon.
            >You can reconstruct languages based on their spoken phonemes and their grammar.
            But you don't know what the phonemes and grammar are anon. You are literally working with nothing.
            >There is an objective and undeniable connection between all modern indo-european languages which linguistics directly explains.
            No there isn't anon. And it isn't explained. It's really nothing more than a human urge to neatly organize things in simple ways regardless of reality.
            >You're just in denial and the only reason I can think is because you're a hindu nationalist, as they're the only people who are this butthurt about it.
            Lol, anyone that doesn't entertain your idiocy is automatically a Hindu Nationalist.
            No mate. Pie theory is just complete bullshit.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No it wasn't. It literally isn't celebrated as such anywhere.
            The Steppe hypothesis is the most widely accepted to the point where basically everyone thinks it's true.
            >If you have no writing or sound recording you have no way of determining what language was spoken and what it sounded like.
            Yes, you do, as you use the comparative method to reconstruct the phonemes spoken.
            >But you don't know what the phonemes and grammar are anon. You are literally working with nothing.
            Yes you can, and linguists are NOT working with nothing. They are working with modern indo-european languages as well as the written records of ancient ones. Then they can compute homologs. in the same way you can compute similarities with the comparative method.
            It's the same idea that you use to align DNA or protein sequences with algorithms like Needleman-Wunsch etc.
            >No there isn't anon. And it isn't explained. It's really nothing more than a human urge to neatly organize things in simple ways regardless of reality.
            No, it isn't. It comes from the fact that indo-european languages have a shared grammar and work morphology. You can't do this to compare, for example, Arabic and Japanese because they don't have a shared grammar or morphology and therefore no shared history. The indo-european languages do.
            >Lol, anyone that doesn't entertain your idiocy is automatically a Hindu Nationalist.
            Either that or just a straight up moron who has no understanding of what he's talking about.
            >No mate. Pie theory is just complete bullshit.
            No, it isn't. How do you explain that indo-european language share almost all linguistically relevant features? The reason is because they evolved from a common ancestor.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The Steppe hypothesis is the most widely accepted to the point where basically everyone thinks it's true.
            Not really. It's mainly weird autists online that feel so strongly about it. It's pretty irrelevant.
            >Yes, you do, as you use the comparative method to reconstruct the phonemes spoken.
            Lol creative fantasy story writing with reconstructions of reconstructions of reconstructions.
            >Yes you can, and linguists are NOT working with nothing.
            By definition they are working with nothing anon.
            >It comes from the fact that indo-european languages have a shared grammar and work morphology
            They don't though. Going back in time within written history IE languages don't become any more similar to each other.
            >Either that or just a straight up moron who has no understanding of what he's talking about.
            So you?
            >No, it isn't
            It is. It is complete and utter bullshit.
            It is basically an IQ test at this point.
            Much like global warming.
            Anyone with a brain can check past CO2 levels and realize that it's been way higher in the past when the planet was teaming with life.
            They can also see that we recently came out of an ice age approx 12,000 years ago and are due for another one.
            Likewise, one can look at the vague linguistic and religious comparisons in PIE theory and realize that it's almost entirely bullshit.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Not really. It's mainly weird autists online that feel so strongly about it. It's pretty irrelevant.
            No, it isn't.
            >Lol creative fantasy story writing with reconstructions of reconstructions of reconstructions.
            No, it isn't. You literally just have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly can't do math.
            >They don't though. Going back in time within written history IE languages don't become any more similar to each other.
            Yes, they do
            >So you?
            Projection.
            >It is. It is complete and utter bullshit.
            No, it isn't.

            And now we get to the meat of it. You're a sniveling dogshit for brains moron who has no understanding of science, mathematics, or how scientists construct testable theories. I should have known from the beginning you'd be another run of the mill moron.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No, it isn't.
            It is.
            >No, it isn't. You literally just have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly can't do math.
            Pie theorists aren't mathematicians anon.
            >Yes, they do
            No they don't.
            Manx in ancient Ogham inscriptions wasn't at all like Old High German. And to this very day Manx doesn't at all resemble German.
            >Projection.
            Said the guy that endorses story telling.
            >And now we get to the meat of it. You're a sniveling dogshit for brains moron who has no understanding of science, mathematics, or how scientists construct testable theories. I should have known from the beginning you'd be another run of the mill moron
            When you find an ancient recording or PIE language, just give me a call.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It is.
            You're literally claiming that only autists online think that the indo-european language family exists despite it being the most widely studied language family in the field of linguistics.
            >Pie theorists aren't mathematicians anon.
            The comparative method is an algorithm. Linguists are trained in mathematics, statistics, and computer science.
            >No they don't.
            Yes, they do. All indo-european languages share grammar and morpheme similarities that prove they are in a shared language family. This is how lingusitics works. They are not in the same family as, for example, the afro-asiatic languages. You literally don't know what you're talking about.
            >Said the guy that endorses story telling.
            I'm not. Endorsing storytelling is claiming that languages with the same grammar and same morphemes in the same core vocabulary aren't related because they people just heckin' happened to magically develop entirely different languages that just so happen to have the same linguistic features.
            You don't understand evolution, it's clear.
            >When you find an ancient recording or PIE language, just give me a call.
            You don't need it. The fact that MODERN indo-euroepan languages form a language family is proof they come from a common ancestor. Proto-indo-european is the name of this ancestor, and the comparative method can be used to derive what it would sound like.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You don't need it.
            You do actually. You have no writing or recording or non-extinct language to work with. You're just hallucinating shit out of your ass.
            >I'm not.
            You by definition are.
            >Yes, they do.
            No they don't. I just gave you an example.
            When you look within written history you don't see the predicted greater similarity between the main language groups.
            >The comparative method is an algorithm.
            Lol. No, it's making up bullshit for government grants that all the forever online autists then eat up like pigs.
            >Linguists are trained in mathematics, statistics, and computer science.
            Lol...
            >You're literally claiming that only autists online think that the indo-european language family exists despite it being the most widely studied language family in the field of linguistics.
            Mate it's used to classify languages for the same reason that BC AD is used for dates.
            PIE theory and Jesus are both bullshit.
            It's just convention.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You have no idea what you're talking about.
            Language is an informational structure and different languages can be directly mathematically compared and the differences can be quantified. Linguists are trained in multiple regression, comparative method, etc. to be able to compare grammar structures and strings to directly quantify distances between languages and words etc.
            The indo-european languages form a language family because they share direct similarities in important ways. The Afro-Asiatic family, the Dravidian language family, etc. are other language families.

            Language families, just like evolutionary families, come from a common ancestor. In this case, the last universal common ancestor is simply named "proto indo european".
            You're literally just pretending that you can't compare languages now. I have no idea why you're so angry at the existence of the indo-european language family.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You have no idea what you're talking about.
            Said the guy that doesn't know what he's talking about.
            >Language is an informational structure and different languages can be directly mathematically compared and the differences can be quantified. Linguists are trained in multiple regression, comparative method, etc. to be able to compare grammar structures and strings to directly quantify distances between languages and words etc.
            99% of linguists aren't mathematicians or computer scientists anon lol. That's like claiming art historians are Mathematicians.
            >The indo-european languages form a language family because they share direct similarities in important ways.
            So bats are birds because they share direct similarities?
            It's just a useful classification anon.
            >Language families, just like evolutionary families, come from a common ancestor.
            And in a real science like Paleontology we need physical evidence.
            PIE theory doesn't have that. It's just bullshit.
            >You're literally just pretending that you can't compare languages now.
            Nobody said you can't. You simply need actual hard evidence. That's all. Without that it's just bullshit.
            >I have no idea why you're so angry at the existence of the indo-european language family.
            Why would I accept something that's clearly bullshit?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Said the guy that doesn't know what he's talking about.
            You're literally claiming that the indo-european language family isn't real.
            >99% of linguists aren't mathematicians or computer scientists anon lol. That's like claiming art historians are Mathematicians.
            Mathematicians and computer scientists aren't the only people who are trained in mathematics you fricking idiot. Every scientist learns how to do regression, for example.
            >So bats are birds because they share direct similarities?
            No. Again, we can directly compare the DNA of bats and birds and see they aren't the same, just like we can directly compare the grammar and morphemes of arabic and japanese and see that they aren't the same.
            When comparing the DNA of one species of bats and another, we see they are the same. Or comparing mammals in general, we see they are the same. The same for comparing the grammar and morphemes of indo-european languages, or afro asiatic, etc.
            >And in a real science like Paleontology we need physical evidence.
            Yes, the indo-european langauge family has an enormous amount of evidence. Again, it's the most widely studied language family.
            >Nobody said you can't. You simply need actual hard evidence. That's all. Without that it's just bullshit.
            Which we have.
            >Why would I accept something that's clearly bullshit?
            Because it isn't bullshit, and you're just pretending it is for no reason.

            >No, it isnt, because if you tried to group Japanese and Arabic you'd have no way of doing it.
            Not true. You can apply faulty PIE logic to anything if you want. It literally doesn't require any valid evidence. The current trajectory of PIE bullshit is still mindlessly following the trajectory of its original proponents.
            >This is why I know you can't do mathematics.
            Linguists aren't mathematicians anon.

            >Not true. You can apply faulty PIE logic to anything if you want
            No, you literally can't. There is no way to group arabic and japanese, they share no grammar or morpheme similarity whatsoever. This is NOT the case for the indo-european languages.
            Mathematicians aren't the only people who can do math. All scientists are trained in mathematics and statistics.
            You genuinely sound delusional now.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where's the physical evidence anon?
            There's no writing.
            No sound recording.
            No continuous non-extinct language.
            Within written history languages don't converge.
            ???
            What's going on ???
            ???
            >No. Again, we can directly compare the DNA of bats and birds
            You don't have the equivalent in PIE theory.
            You don't have fossils either for determining the existence of an extinct species.
            >Mathematicians and computer scientists aren't the only people who are trained in mathematics you fricking idiot.
            We don't call everyone mathematicians just because they know some mathematics anon.
            >You're literally claiming that the indo-european language family isn't real.
            No, I'm claiming that PIE theory isn't real.
            >Yes, the indo-european langauge family has an enormous amount of evidence
            Where is it then?
            >Because it isn't bullshit
            It's clearly bullshit.
            >No, you literally can't. There is no way to group arabic and japanese
            There are plenty of false cognates you can use to conjure up a bullshit theory anon.
            An anon in this thread was comparing Atlatl with Atlantis when trying to link South American pre-Columbian language with the IE grouping.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Where's the physical evidence anon?
            The entire similarities between modern indo european languages in grammar and morphemes are comparable to direct DNA similarities in related species.
            You just pretending otherwise doesn't mean anything other than you're a coping moron.
            >You don't have the equivalent in PIE theory.
            Yes, we do. We have the modern indo european languages to compare. Just like we can genetically test animals and plants and discover that they are related even without evidence in the fossil record.
            >We don't call everyone mathematicians just because they know some mathematics anon.
            I never said they were mathematicians. Now you're strawmanning. I said that they are trained in mathematics because you claimed they aren't.
            >No, I'm claiming that PIE theory isn't real.
            Yea, because you're a coping moron.
            >Where is it then?
            Literally just look up "indo european language family" and you will find thousands of papers about it.
            >It's clearly bullshit.
            No, it isn't.
            >There are plenty of false cognates you can use to conjure up a bullshit theory anon.
            No, there arent. There is no way whatsoever for you to construct a language family with both arabic and japanese. This shows you have no idea what the frick the process even is to construct phylogenetic models.
            >An anon in this thread was comparing Atlatl with Atlantis when trying to link South American pre-Columbian language with the IE grouping.
            Yes, and modern linguists wouldn't take that seriously, unlike the actual similarities between the afro asiatic languages, or the actual similarities between bats and other mammals, etc.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where's the physical evidence anon?
            There's no writing.
            No sound recording.
            No continuous non-extinct language.
            Within written history languages don't converge.
            ???
            What's going on ???
            ???

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The physical evidence (really informational evidence) is in the objective and undeniable FACT that the modern indo-european languages exist and are directly related to each other phylogenetically.
            This means that they MUST come from a common ancestor.
            Now by the way you're typing I can tell that you're an Indian and I was right the first time that this is what this is about. I don't need to continue, everyone sees what has happened now.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, and modern linguists wouldn't take that seriously
            Lol, false Cognates are the lifeblood of PIE theory anon.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, they aren't.
            You have to actually compare the grammar and morpheme structure in a way that aligns in a phylogenetic tree. And even then, there doesn't exist even close to enough false cognates between arabic and japanese to even begin making up a fake tree.
            You have no idea what you're talking about, again.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The physical evidence (really informational evidence) is in the objective and undeniable FACT that the modern indo-european languages exist and are directly related to each other phylogenetically.
            This means that they MUST come from a common ancestor.
            Now by the way you're typing I can tell that you're an Indian and I was right the first time that this is what this is about. I don't need to continue, everyone sees what has happened now.

            Where's the physical evidence anon?
            There's no writing.
            No sound recording.
            No continuous non-extinct language.
            Within written history languages don't converge.
            ???
            What's going on ???
            ???
            It's all in your head anon.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The entire similarities between modern indo european languages in grammar and morphemes are comparable to direct DNA similarities in related species
            The existence of Trilobites (extinct pie language) isn't deduced by testing the genetics of horseshoe crabs anon.

            >I never said they were mathematicians.

            >It is.
            You're literally claiming that only autists online think that the indo-european language family exists despite it being the most widely studied language family in the field of linguistics.
            >Pie theorists aren't mathematicians anon.
            The comparative method is an algorithm. Linguists are trained in mathematics, statistics, and computer science.
            >No they don't.
            Yes, they do. All indo-european languages share grammar and morpheme similarities that prove they are in a shared language family. This is how lingusitics works. They are not in the same family as, for example, the afro-asiatic languages. You literally don't know what you're talking about.
            >Said the guy that endorses story telling.
            I'm not. Endorsing storytelling is claiming that languages with the same grammar and same morphemes in the same core vocabulary aren't related because they people just heckin' happened to magically develop entirely different languages that just so happen to have the same linguistic features.
            You don't understand evolution, it's clear.
            >When you find an ancient recording or PIE language, just give me a call.
            You don't need it. The fact that MODERN indo-euroepan languages form a language family is proof they come from a common ancestor. Proto-indo-european is the name of this ancestor, and the comparative method can be used to derive what it would sound like.

            >Linguists are trained in mathematics
            ...
            >Yea, because you're a coping moron.
            Said the autistic coping moron with zero evidence lol.

            >Literally just look up "indo european language family" and you will find thousands of papers about it.
            There are thousands of papers that argue for the existence of god anon.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The existence of Trilobites (extinct pie language) isn't deduced by testing the genetics of horseshoe crabs anon.
            So what? The relation between Oak trees and pumpkins is deduced via DNA sequencing, not the fossil record. Oak trees are more closely related to pumpkins than they are to pine trees. The fossil record is NOT the only evidence in evolutionary biology. DNA evidence is stronger evidence.
            In this comparison, we don't have the fossil record (writing) but we DO have the DNA evidence (the phylogenetic model based on grammar and morpheme)
            We do not need written records to deduce the existence of the last common ancestor of the indo-european languages just like we don't need fossil evidence to deduce the existence of the last common ancestor of eukaryotes.
            are trained in mathematics
            Being "trained in mathematics" is not the same thing as "being a mathematician".
            >Said the autistic coping moron with zero evidence lol.
            You're the coping idiot who's pretending that there's zero evidence for the indo-european language family despite it literally being the most widely studied language family in the world. You're delusional.
            >There are thousands of papers that argue for the existence of god anon.
            No, there aren't. Not in peer reviewed scientific journals, and there's no evidence for the existence of god and there's no evidence in any theological paper or whatever for the existence of god, unlike existence of the indo-european language family

            [...]
            Where's the physical evidence anon?
            There's no writing.
            No sound recording.
            No continuous non-extinct language.
            Within written history languages don't converge.
            ???
            What's going on ???
            ???
            It's all in your head anon.

            I already told you. The physical evidence is the relation between the modern indo european languages, just like the DNA evidence is the physical evidence in the relation between oak trees and pumpkins.

            I'm done with this. You are just coping, for no reason, and you have no understanding of how phylogenetic models are constructed.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not only that, but we also have direct DNA evidence of the kurgan hypothesis and the indo-european migrations as well, which spread the indo-european langauge family.
            We already have all of this, you're just coping for no reason.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So what? The relation between Oak trees and pumpkins is deduced via DNA sequencing
            The common ancestor of pumpkins and Oak trees wasn't recreated and brought back to life with DNA sequencing anon.
            Comparing Modern German with Sanskrit isn't going to magically bring back PIE language that didn't exist anyway.
            >Being "trained in mathematics" is not the same thing as "being a mathematician".
            Or maybe you were just wrong anon?
            >You're the coping idiot who's pretending that there's zero evidence
            Where is it then?
            >No, there aren't
            Yes there are.
            >I already told you. The physical evidence is the relation between the modern indo european languages
            That's not physical evidence anon.
            There is no evidence.

            Not only that, but we also have direct DNA evidence of the kurgan hypothesis and the indo-european migrations as well, which spread the indo-european langauge family.
            We already have all of this, you're just coping for no reason.

            >Not only that, but we also have direct DNA evidence of the kurgan hypothesis
            No you don't. You also have four other competing theories. You are once again confusing linguistics with Genetics. PIE theory is a linguistic theory.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The common ancestor of pumpkins and Oak trees wasn't recreated and brought back to life with DNA sequencing anon.
            It proves that oak trees and pumpkins have a common ancestor. WE don't need to reconstruct the ancestor to prove that the ancestor exists.
            Likewise, we can prove that modern indo-european languages share a common ancestor language. We don't need to reconstruct proto indo european to prove that it exists.
            >Or maybe you were just wrong anon?
            No, you're just an idiot. A physicist is trained in mathematics. Physicists are not mathematicians. A chemist is trained in mathematics. A chemist is not a mathematician. A linguist is trained in mathematics. A linguist is not a mathematician.
            Are you genuinely just moronic?
            >Where is it then?
            https://www.britannica.com/topic/Indo-European-languages
            >Yes there are.
            No, not in peer reviewed journals with evidence.
            >That's not physical evidence anon.
            Yes, it is.
            >There is no evidence.
            Yes, there is.

            You can't argue with someone who pretends to be ignorant

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It proves that oak trees and pumpkins have a common ancestor
            No it doesn't actually. You never needed a DNA test for that. All life on Earth had to come from a common ancestor.
            When it comes to human inventions though, like the wheel, counting, language and stairs. You have multiple independent inventions.

            >WE don't need to reconstruct the ancestor to prove that the ancestor exists.
            You do actually. That's the only way you can 100% certain. That's why paleontologists are always looking for remains of ancestor organisms (skeletons, fossils etc).
            DNA decays and DNA isn't always correct.
            Also PIE theory claims to have fully recreated PIE language words and sounds.
            >No, you're just an idiot. A physicist is trained in mathematics
            That's because physics by definition requires mathematics and linguistics does not?
            Are you sure you're not the idiot anon?
            >https://www.britannica.com/topic/Indo-European-languages
            That's right anon, it's a handy linguistic classification just like AD BC.
            >No, not in peer reviewed journals with evidence.
            Lol, you don't realize that creationists peer review each others papers right?
            Of course there are peer reviewed creationist papers.
            >You can't argue with someone who pretends to be ignorant
            Said the idiot with no evidence what so ever for the existence of PIE.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Languages undergo evolution just like lifeforms do, and we can construct phylogenetic trees of languages just like lifeforms.
            Languages do not develop to share extremely strong similarities in grammar and morphemes without having a common ancestor just like DNA sequences do not develop strong homologous similarities without having a common ancestor.
            >You do actually. That's the only way you can 100% certain. That's why paleontologists are always looking for remains of ancestor organisms (skeletons, fossils etc).
            No biologist is going to claim that pumpkins and oak trees dont share a common ancestor just like no linguist is going to claim that the indo-european languages don't share a common ancestor.
            >That's because physics by definition requires mathematics and linguistics does not?
            Modern linguistics does indeed require mathematics. Constructing a linguistic phylogenic model requires mathematics. Linguists are trained in set theory. WTF Are you talking about you literally don't even know anything about the field. I'm not even a linguist I'm a biologist and I know more than you about this despite your seething about it.
            >That's right anon, it's a handy linguistic classification just like AD BC.
            No, it's a model based on the phylogenetic relationship between their grammar and morphemes. It is not a "handy classification like AD BC", it's a direct phylogenetic relationship between languages, like the afro-asiatic languages are.
            You would NOT be able to classify japanese as an indo european language, and you would NOT be able to classify Arabic and Japanese under a single family. That's not how construction of phylogeny models work.
            >Said the idiot with no evidence what so ever for the existence of PIE.
            AGAIN, the existence of the modern indo-european languages are direct proof of the existence of a common ancestor.

            Why are you so fricking stupid and angry and pissed off at the existence of the indo european language family?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Languages undergo evolution just like lifeforms do
            Languages aren't lifeforms anon.
            >and we can construct phylogenetic trees of languages just like lifeforms.
            No you can't anon.
            >Languages do not develop to share extremely strong similarities in grammar and morphemes without having a common ancestor
            You can't even say that because there is no evidence of a common PIE ancestor.
            >just like DNA sequences do not develop strong homologous similarities without having a common ancestor.
            Languages aren't lifeforms anon. Also It's actually because of Ancient fossils without DNA that we know with 100% certainty that all life came from simple bacteria colonies.
            There is no equivalent physical evidence for the existence of PIE language.
            No writing, to recording, no extant language. Absolutely nothing.
            >No biologist is going to claim that pumpkins and oak trees dont share a common ancestor
            No biologist is going to claim they know what the common ancestor of the Pumpkin and Oak tree looked like.
            But PIE theorists are magically 100% certain what PIE language sounded like with zero evidence.
            >Modern linguistics does indeed require mathematics.
            Lol, you're just wrong anon. Go to sleep.
            Linguists aren't mathematicians.
            >No, it's a model based on the phylogenetic relationship between their grammar and morphemes
            So a classification that doesn't at all support the existence of a PIE language.
            >the existence of the modern indo-european languages
            Lol, once again circular logic.
            >Why are you so fricking stupid and angry and pissed off at the existence of the indo european language family?
            Why are you autistically defending something that doesn't exist?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Languages aren't lifeforms anon.
            Lifeforms aren't the only thing that undergo evolution.
            Languages evolve and their evolution can be put into phylogenetic trees.
            >You can't even say that because there is no evidence of a common PIE ancestor.
            Yes, there is. The modern indo-european languages form a phylogenetic tree, which means they descend from a common ancestor.
            Other languages do NOT fit into this tree because those languages come from a different ancestor.
            All human languages may descend from a last universal common ancestor if we go all the way back to the first humans who evolved from africa. However, in this conversation, we're just talking about the indo-european family and their ancestral lineage.
            >No writing, to recording, no extant language. Absolutely nothing.
            There isn't nothing. For the millionth time, modern indo euroepan languages fit into the phylogenetic tree. That proves they descend from a common ancestor.
            >So a classification that doesn't at all support the existence of a PIE language.
            The fact that modern indo european languages can be organized into a phylogenetic tree proves they descend from a common ancestor.
            >Lol, once again circular logic.
            This is not circular logic, as you can't circularly define a phylogenetic tree. You literally don't even know what circular logic is.
            >Why are you autistically defending something that doesn't exist?
            Because it DOES exist and you're just pretending it doesn't.

            Again, HOW do modern indo european langauges fit into a phylogenetic tree if they don't descend from a common ancestor? The only answer you have to this is to either deny that they fit on a tree (so you're moronic), or pretend that fitting on a phylogenetic tree doesn't imply common descent (you're moronic)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Lifeforms aren't the only thing that undergo evolution.
            Languages aren't living organisms anon.
            There isn't one single origin for all languages.
            >All human languages may descend from a last universal common ancestor
            Zero evidence anon.
            >There isn't nothing. For the millionth time, modern indo euroepan languages fit into the phylogenetic tree
            No they don't anon. There's zero evidence.
            >The fact that modern indo european languages can be organized into a phylogenetic tree proves
            that you can organize them into a phylogenetic tree just as Bats can be classified together with birds because they both fly, eat insects and have two eyes.
            >This is not circular logic
            It is.
            "they are called the Indo-European languages thus PIE language must have existed"
            "The bible exists thus god must exist"
            >Again, HOW do modern indo european langauges fit into a phylogenetic tree
            Zero evidence anon. It's very simple.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Languages aren't living organisms anon.
            Living organisms aren't the only thing that undergo evolution
            >There isn't one single origin for all languages.
            This doesn't mean anything. Life on another planet wouldn't have the same universal common ancestor as life on our planet but the life there would still undergo evolution.
            In fact, various viruses on our planet do not descend from a universal common ancestor but they still undergo evolution.
            In this case, languages which descend from a common ancestor can be put on a phylogenetic tree, like the indo-european languages, or the afro-asiatic languages. They can not be put on each other's tree. I can't put arabic and japanese on the same phylogenetic tree, because they don't come from the same ancestor.
            >Zero evidence anon.
            That's why I said "may", and it doesn't matter, because there IS the phylogenetic tree for indo-european
            >No they don't anon. There's zero evidence.
            Yes, they do. So you're going with option one and just pretending that they can't be put on a phylogenetic tree and that they just don't have grammatical and morpheme similarity.
            >that you can organize them into a phylogenetic tree just as Bats can be classified together with birds because they both fly, eat insects and have two eyes.
            Okay so you literally don't know how to construct a phylogenetic tree.
            Like all anti-evolution arguments (that's all you're doing right now), you just don't understand the mechanism of evolution.
            >It is.
            >"they are called the Indo-European languages thus PIE language must have existed"
            >"The bible exists thus god must exist"
            Extremely pathetic strawman and false comparison.
            Again, we can put the indo-european langauges on a tree. There is objective scientific evidence of this. There is no evidence for anything in the bible.
            >Zero evidence anon. It's very simple.
            Okay I'm done with this.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Living organisms aren't the only thing that undergo evolution
            Languages aren't lifeforms with a single common ancestor anon.
            >This doesn't mean anything.
            It instantly proves that Languages aren't lifeforms anon.
            It instantly proves that PIE language most likely didn't exist.
            >That's why I said "may"
            It doesn't exist for exactly the same reasons that PIE language doesn't exist.
            >Yes, they do. So you're going with option one
            There is no other option.
            You have literally no evidence.
            You haven't even passed stage one in proving your theory.
            >Yes, they do
            No written, recorded evidence anon.
            >Okay so you literally don't know how to construct a phylogenetic tree.
            That's exactly how you construct a phylogenetic tree anon. That's why so many mistakes have been made in species relations even with the advent of genetics. We can't even work out if we're more closely related to Bonobos or Chimpanzees.
            >Like all anti-evolution arguments
            Lol, Omg, here we go again with bringing up shit that nobody else but you has ever said.
            >Extremely pathetic strawman and false comparison.
            No, it's actually a very accurate comparison.
            >Okay I'm done with this.
            Cool, frick off and suck your own PIE language dick in a different autistic thread then.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Languages aren't lifeforms with a single common ancestor anon.
            Languages don't need a universal common ancestor.
            Different language families DO have a common ancestor.
            >It instantly proves that Languages aren't lifeforms anon.
            Languages don't need to be lifeforms to evolve. Evolution isn't restricted to any specific substrate.
            >It doesn't exist for exactly the same reasons that PIE language doesn't exist.
            No, because the indo european languages can be put on a tree, meaning they have a common ancestor. Just like the afro-asiatic languages can be put on a tree, so they have a common ancestor which is different from the indo-european one, etc.
            >There is no other option.
            Yes, there is. The option is that the indo-european languages descend from a common ancestor, which we call "proto-indo-european", just like the afro asiatic languages descend from "proto-afroasiatic".
            Why are you getting angry about proto indo european but not proto afro asiatic?
            >No written, recorded evidence anon.
            Doesn't matter. The language existed several thousand years ago before writing. There doesn't need to be writing in the language to prove the language existed.
            >Cool, frick off and suck your own PIE language dick in a different autistic thread then.
            This whole thread has just been you denying the existence of the indo european langauge family for literally no reason and with no solid argument other than "NUH UH IT DOESNT EXIST NUH UH THERE'S NO EVIDENCE NUH UH THE PHYLOGENETIC TREE IS FAKE!!!"

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Languages don't need a universal common ancestor.
            You literally said they did.
            >Different language families DO have a common ancestor.
            No they don't. They don't require it either because there is no universal common ancestor like life.
            >Languages don't need to be lifeforms to evolve.
            The do need to be lifeforms to have a single universal common ancestor.
            >No, because the indo european languages can be put on a tree,
            They can't anon. There is no PIE language.
            There's no evidence of it.
            >Yes, there is. The option is that the indo-european languages descend from a common ancestor
            Which has absolutely zero evidence.
            >Doesn't matter.
            Does matter. You have zero evidence.
            >This whole thread has just been you denying the existence of the indo european langauge
            I thought you were done with this autistic anon?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You literally said they did.
            No, I said that there may exist a universal common ancestor for languages.
            I also said that languages which can be put on a phylogenetic tree must have a universal common ancestor.
            This is why we know that the afro asiatic languages have one, or the indo european languages have one, or the turkic languages have one, etc.
            >No they don't. They don't require it either because there is no universal common ancestor like life.
            A common ancestor is not the same as a universal common ancestor you idiot.
            Indo-european languages and afro-asiatic languages may not share a common ancestor between them. But the indo-european language has a common ancestor where they all descend from just like afroasiatic languages have a common ancestor that they all descend from.
            >The do need to be lifeforms to have a single universal common ancestor.
            Lol no they don't, but that also doesn't mean anything. Whether or not indo-european langauges and afro-asiatic languages themselves come from an even earlier common ancestor doesn't change anything about the fact that the indo-european and afro-asiatic language come from their own common ancestors.
            >They can't anon. There is no PIE language.
            Yes they can
            >There's no evidence of it.
            Yes, there is
            https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-dated-phylogenetic-tree-of-87-Indo-European-languages-The-tree-is-a-consensus-tree_fig1_299878405
            >Which has absolutely zero evidence.
            Wrong
            >Does matter. You have zero evidence.
            Written evidence is not the only form of evidence.
            >I thought you were done with this autistic anon?
            I thought you'd be smarter and come up with a better argument at this point other than just going "NUH UH NUH UH"

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No, I said that there may exist a universal common ancestor for languages.
            You're directly comparing life evolution to linguistic evolution as if they're the same thing anon. So you clearly stated that all language must have a common ancestor.
            >A common ancestor is not the same as a universal common ancestor you idiot.
            No shit idiot anon.
            Just use your brain for once.
            A universal common ancestor by definition requires that all life forms must have a common ancestor. This isn't the case in language.
            >Lol no they don't
            Yes they do. Languages aren't life forms anon.
            >https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-dated-phylogenetic-tree-of-87-Indo-European-languages-The-tree-is-a-consensus-tree_fig1_299878405
            "The tree is a consensus tree derived from the posterior samples of trees in the Bayesian analyses reported by Gray & Atkinson"
            So once again.
            No written, recorded or extant language evidence for the existence of PIE language.
            >I thought you'd be smarter
            Lol, no you're an upset stupid autist.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You're directly comparing life evolution to linguistic evolution as if they're the same thing anon. So you clearly stated that all language must have a common ancestor.
            Evolution isn't substrate dependent.
            I also clearly mentioned that Viruses do not have a universal common ancestor but they still undergo evolution. You do not need a universal common ancestor for evolution.
            >A universal common ancestor by definition requires that all life forms must have a common ancestor. This isn't the case in language.
            Yes, but I never said it did. I clearly said that languages MAY (keyword, MAY) all descend from a common ancestor, but EVEN IF THEY DONT, that doesn't change anything about the fact that indo-european languages have a common ancestor, or afroasiatic languages have a common ancestor, or turkic languages do.
            These three families as examples do not need to share a common earlier ancestor with each other for them to descend from their own individual common ancestors.
            >No written, recorded or extant language evidence for the existence of PIE language.
            And once again, you don't need a written record or an extant language to prove common descent.
            >Lol, no you're an upset stupid autist.
            Lol no you literally don't even know what a phylogenetic tree is or how evolution works.
            >Notice how none of that proves the existence of PIE Language?
            Notice how it literally does?
            >Obviously modern Italian is more closely related to Spanish than German.
            And spanish and italian and german are all more closely related to each other than any of them are to arabic or japanese. And the three of them are all closer to farsi than any of the four are to arabic or japanese. This is all in the tree. Their distance is also computed and that constructs the tree.
            You can't do this with arabic and japanese because they have no similarities at all, they do not fit on a phylogenetic tree of common descent unlike the indo-european langauges do.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Evolution isn't substrate dependent.
            Evolution in life requires a universal common ancestor.
            Language doesn't.
            >Yes, but I never said it did.
            By definition you did. You equated the evolution of life with language.
            >And once again, you don't need a written record
            You do with language. Anything else is just making shit up.
            >Lol no you literally don't even know what a phylogenetic tree is or how evolution works.
            You're projecting anon...
            >Notice how it literally does?
            There's no written, recorded or extant language evidence anon. So id doesn't.
            >And spanish and italian and german are all more closely related to each other than any of them are to arabic or japanese
            Well Spanish actually shares more words with Arabic than German due to historical reasons.
            Italian, German and Spanish aren't closer to Farsi than Arabic.
            You aren't constructing a tree. You're just comparing modern languages.
            You have zero evidence for 6000+ year old ancestral languages.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Evolution in life requires a universal common ancestor.
            >Language doesn't.
            This doesn't mean anything
            >By definition you did. You equated the evolution of life with language.
            No, I didn't. Again you don't know what "by definition" means.
            >You do with language. Anything else is just making shit up.
            No, you don't. By your logic we couldn't relate indigenous languages on the american continent together because they didn't write. That's trivially false and you're in extreme denial to pretend otherwise.
            >You're projecting anon...
            No, I'm not.
            >There's no written, recorded or extant language evidence anon. So id doesn't.
            Again, this doesn't matter. You do not need a written language for comparison.
            >Well Spanish actually shares more words with Arabic than German due to historical reasons.
            But it doesn't share grammar or core morphemes.
            >Italian, German and Spanish aren't closer to Farsi than Arabic.
            Yes, they are.
            >You aren't constructing a tree. You're just comparing modern languages.
            Which constructs the tree.
            >You have zero evidence for 6000+ year old ancestral languages.
            Yes, we do.
            Again, linguists can prove that they descend from a common ancestor by comparing their grammar and morpheme similarities using the comparative method, bayesian analysis, etc.
            When you try to see if Arabic and Japanese come from a common ancestor, you see they don't.
            When you try to compare sanskrit, latin, and lithuanian, you see that they do come from a common ancestor.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This doesn't mean anything
            It means common ancestors aren't required in language evolution anon.
            >No, I didn't.
            You did autistic psychopath anon.
            >No, you don't. By your logic we couldn't relate indigenous languages on the american continent together because they didn't write
            We have surviving native language speakers and indigenous writing that predates Europeans anon.
            There is no such evidence for PIE language.

            >No, I'm not.
            You are anon.
            >Again, this doesn't matter. You do not need a written language for comparison.
            It does matter. You have zero evidence for anything you're saying.
            >But it doesn't share grammar or core morphemes.
            And that isn't the sole determinant of similarity anon.
            >Yes, they are.
            They aren't.
            >Which constructs the tree.
            It doesn't.
            >Yes, we do.
            No you don't.
            You have absolutely nothing.
            No written, recorded or extant languages.
            It's just complete bullshit

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It means common ancestors aren't required in language evolution anon.
            Common ancestors are required if the languages fit on a phylogenetic tree.
            I genuinely do not understand where your confusion is here.
            >You did autistic psychopath anon.
            No, I didn't. I did not say that languages must come from a universal common ancestor. I said they MAY come from one, but even if they don't that doesn't stop various languages families from coming from their own common ancestors.
            >We have surviving native language speakers and indigenous writing that predates Europeans anon.
            No, we don't. We don't have writing for ancient american languages just like we don't for ancient afro asiatic or proto-indo-european, but we know that many of them come from a common ancestors just the same.
            >You are anon.
            No, I'm not.
            >It does matter. You have zero evidence for anything you're saying.
            Yes, we do. You can directly compare living idno-european langauges and see structural grammatical and morpheme similarities that can put them on a phylogenetic tree and thus prove common descent.
            >And that isn't the sole determinant of similarity anon.
            And it's not the only similarity
            >They aren't.
            YES, THEY ARE.
            >It doesn't.
            Yes, it does.
            >No you don't.
            Yes, we do

            You are literally just in extreme denial for no reason whatsoever.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Common ancestors are required if the languages fit on a phylogenetic tree.
            No they aren't anon...
            PIE isn't required.
            Languages aren't lifeforms with a universal common ancestor.
            >No, I didn't.
            You did
            >No, we don't.
            We do.
            https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-dec-06-sci-olmec6-story.html
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapotec_script
            >No, I'm not.
            You are anon.
            >Yes, we do.
            No you don't
            >And it's not the only similarity
            Exactly, there are other ways in which Spanish is more related to Arabic than German.
            >You are literally just in extreme denial for no reason whatsoever.
            You literally have no evidence for anything anon.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >PIE isn't required.
            Yes, it is.
            Again, how do you explain that Hindi is more closely related to Lithuanian than it is to tamil? Just going "that's not true!" isn't an argument, because it is true.
            >https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-dec-06-sci-olmec6-story.html
            >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapotec_script
            These languages themselves derive from older languages that linguists can compute using the comparative method. These scripts are about as old as Latin, they descend from their own ancestor languages before writing just like Latin did.
            >Exactly, there are other ways in which Spanish is more related to Arabic than German.
            No, they arent

            >Hindi and Lithuanian are literally more similar to each other than Hindi is to Tamil.
            No they aren't anon. That's complete and utter bullshit.
            >You're the one who's just denying reality
            That's just you autistic anon.
            >Yes, they are
            They aren't
            >Again, how do you explain the fact that Latin, German, Russian, Lithuanian, Persian, Hindi, and Sanskrit are all more closely related to each other than any of them are to Tamil, Arabic, Turkic, etc?
            They aren't.
            >You just going "they're not related!" doesn't mean anything
            It probably means they aren't as closely related as you think they are anon.
            >That anon isn't even me. Other anons are also calling you moronic.
            You're samegayging autistic psychopath.
            Yes you are a shitskin.

            >No they aren't anon. That's complete and utter bullshit.
            Yes, they are. Again, you just going "thats bullshit" doesn't mean anything.
            The grammar and morpheme similarities between hindi and lithuanian are substantially stronger than between hindi and tamil.
            >That's just you autistic anon.
            No, you're pretending that linguists literally can't look at three languages and see which ones are more closely related.
            >They aren't
            Yes, they are.
            >It probably means they aren't as closely related as you think they are anon.
            No, it just means you're denying reality.
            >You're samegayging autistic psychopath.
            No, I'm not
            >Yes you are a shitskin.
            No, I'm a white man with blue eyes you fricking idiot.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Again, how do you explain that Hindi is more closely related to Lithuanian than it is to tamil
            It isn't. That's complete bullshit anon.

            >These languages themselves derive from older languages
            There's no evidence of that.

            >The grammar and morpheme similarities between hindi and lithuanian are substantially stronger than between hindi and tamil.
            Which indicates that morphemes aren't a good way judging similarity.

            >No, you're pretending that linguists literally can't look at three languages and see which ones are more closely related.
            It's just you autistic anon.
            >No, it just means you're denying reality.
            Nope. You're just an idiot anon.
            >No, I'm a white man with blue eyes you fricking idiot.
            No, you're a shitskin.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It isn't. That's complete bullshit anon.
            No, it's literally not bullshit at all
            https://www.journals.vu.lt/kalbotyra/article/view/23384
            https://www.journals.vu.lt/kalbotyra/article/view/23384/22620
            https://3seaseurope.com/lithuanian-language-sanskrit-indian-origin/

            >There's no evidence of that.
            Yes, there is
            >Which indicates that morphemes aren't a good way judging similarity.
            Morphemes aren't the only way. You compare the entire senteces structures and grammar along with the morphemes in the most common words etc.
            >It's just you autistic anon.
            No, it's you, as you're pretending indo-european isn't real or that linguists don't think that proto-indo-european or proto-afroasiatic etc. are real.
            I am the one taking the common scientific consensus here, you're the autistic moron in denial.
            >Nope. You're just an idiot anon.
            No, you literally deny reality like a religious moron.
            >No, you're a shitskin.
            Nope, I'm white, with blue eyes

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No, it's literally not bullshit at all
            >https://www.journals.vu.lt/kalbotyra/article/view/23384
            >https://www.journals.vu.lt/kalbotyra/article/view/23384/22620
            >https://3seaseurope.com/lithuanian-language-sanskrit-indian-origin/

            [Embed]
            It's bullshit. They don't even sound remotely similar in any way.

            >Morphemes aren't the only way. You compare the entire senteces structures and grammar along with the morphemes in the most common words etc.
            The languages you compared aren't similar anon.

            >No, it's you, as you're pretending indo-european isn't real
            Nobody needs to pretend. It literally doesn't exist.

            >No, you literally deny reality like a religious moron.
            You're the one promoting your stupid religion anon.
            Like god it has no evidence of existing.

            >Nope, I'm white, with blue eyes
            No you're a shitskin.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is genuine delusion. You're outright denying the similarity that's shown to you and denying what is completely accepted by linguists. Then you project by saying I'm the religious one when your literally in denial of blatant reality and academic consensus
            What causes people to become this way?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This is genuine delusion. You're outright denying the similarity that's shown to you and denying what is completely accepted by linguists. Then you project by saying I'm the religious one when your literally in denial of blatant reality and academic consensus
            >What causes people to become this way?
            Pretty simple.
            It's not at all similar autistic anon.
            Sometimes you find something vaguely similar that's interesting but that's it.
            This reminds me of the anon who said the Russian "cвeт svet" has an exact equivalent in sanskrit. If you actually check it out there is none.
            https://www.learnsanskrit.cc/translate?search=light&dir=es

            >There's no evidence of that.
            Yes there is. The same sound shifts show up literally every Indo-European language.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut

            >Yes there is. The same sound shifts show up literally every Indo-European language.
            The sound shifts are different for different languages anon.
            That isn't a great argument for PIE.
            Kartvelian languages have similar ablaut system and grammar and they aren't classified as PIE.
            I think you really need to think more about the crap you're regurgitating.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is genuine delusion. You're outright denying the similarity that's shown to you and denying what is completely accepted by linguists. Then you project by saying I'm the religious one when your literally in denial of blatant reality and academic consensus
            What causes people to become this way?

            I am sensing a political angle here where denial of the proto-indo-european root language is like an article of faith for some nationalist view?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I am sensing a political angle here where denial of the proto-indo-european root language is like an article of faith for some nationalist view?
            You're sensing logical thinking anon.
            Is your blind belief in PIE a form of political multiculturalism?
            The linguistic form of "We're all actually sub-Saharan Africans"?
            No, of course not. You simply don't think very much about anything. I don't think you have ulterior motives. Your views just don't make any sense to me. That's all.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're not thinking logically.
            You denying direct evidence is not logical thinking. Its politically motivated denial.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Kartvelian languages have similar ablaut system and grammar and they aren't classified as PIE.
            So? It's a collection of different factors which decide if a language is PIE, not just grammar. Just because some language group that existed right next to PIE homelands has something in common doesn't deboonk anything. Do europeans cease to exist because eskimos have white skin? Do europeans cease to exist because abos sometimes have blonde hair? Stop being dumb

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So? It's a collection of different factors which decide if a language is PIE
            Lol, so basically. PIE is just an arbitrary meaningless grouping for a hallucination of a theory.

            And El Salvador is not in South America, genius

            >And El Salvador is not in South America, genius
            No shit frickface. It's in the skinny bit of land that connects America to South America.
            You know, the most southern edge of America.
            Why doesn't Central or North America have a violence problem?
            Oh wow, It's a mystery.
            >You don't know what you're talking about. Both the natives of what is now the US and the modern country itself have more genetic and cultural ties to the Aztecs
            Lol, That simply isn't correct. They are all part white and black with not even a quarter the propensity for violence today or historically speaking compared to the Aztecs and modern day Mexicans.
            >Andean civilizations were about as related to Mesoamerican civilizations
            Lol, they are literally all northern East Asian that migrated across the Bering Straight.
            There is far greater Genetic distance between China and Medieval Europe than China and American natives.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why doesn't Central or North America have a violence problem?
            They do yoy fricking moron, El Salvador is in Central America, and both El Salvador and Mexico are in North America. Learn some basic fricking geography before posting on IQfy.
            >There is far greater Genetic distance between China and Medieval Europe than China and American natives.
            Irrelevant, you claimed that south american natives were "cultural cousins" to the Aztecs when that isn't the case in the slightest. There wss regular exchange of ideas, people and goods between Mesoamerica and what is now the Southwestern and Southeastern United States, the Aztecs themselves spoke a language on the same family as hopi and comanche. There was no such regular interchange between Mesoamerica and South America, they were culturally as related to one another as China and Medieval Europe.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you wasted too much of your time arguing with an autistic underage indian anon. Do not do that, this discord hinpoo can be easily identified by his unnecessary, exaggerated usage of <<...>>

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Indians despise the indo European language family and the aryan migration because they think it's a western conspiracy to insult india. You have no idea what you're talking about moron

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not at all similar autistic anon.
            Yes, it is. You're just in blatant denial of reality you moron.
            You can make near one to one correspondence between multiple sentences of Hindi and Lithuanian with the same semantic meaning. You can't do this with language which don't have a common ancestor. You pretending that this can't be done is just you denying reality when it's directly shown to you, like people denying the existence of DNA or proteins when they deny the relationship between humans and chimpanzees.

            [...]
            I am sensing a political angle here where denial of the proto-indo-european root language is like an article of faith for some nationalist view?

            Yea that's exactly what this is. It's just blatant denial of reality due to political reasons.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You can make near one to one correspondence between multiple sentences of Hindi and Lithuanian with the same semantic meaning.
            For example, you literally can't do with with Hindi and Tamil, or lithuanian and finnish, despite hindi and tamil being right next to each other and finland and lithuania being right next to each other.
            So the idea that similarities come from geography proximity is literally just false.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There's no evidence of that.
            Yes there is. The same sound shifts show up literally every Indo-European language.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_ablaut

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >By definition you did. You equated the evolution of life with language.
            This is what happens when an autistic esl gets arrogant and misunderstands the English language . You have no argument to stand on so you nitpick words you don’t even understand. Pick up a dictionary or frick off loser

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are like a moron but you aren’t exactly a moron. You just behave in a similar manner, do you understand? Languages evolve in a similar manner but not exactly the same as biological organisms. Because ultimately both language and dna are information.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you the "Celts don't exist" guy?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Are you the "Celts don't exist" guy?
            Why would I be?
            There's written and archeological evidence of that.
            Unlike pie theory.

            This guy is pretending that language families don't exist and that languages aren't more related to some than they are to others. Like italian and spanish aren't more closely related to each other than they are to japanese and that they don't descend from a common ancestor.

            >This guy is pretending that language families don't exist and that languages aren't more related to some than they are to others. Like italian and spanish aren't more closely related to each other than they are to japanese and that they don't descend from a common ancestor.
            Notice how none of that proves the existence of PIE Language?
            Obviously modern Italian is more closely related to Spanish than German.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why would I be?
            Because you're fricking moronic and are making the same """""""""""""arguments"""""""""""" that he does.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Obviously modern Italian is more closely related to Spanish than German.
            How are German and Spanish related if PIE didn't exist?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How are German and Spanish related if PIE didn't exist?
            Multiple separate origins and some cross-pollination over time that depends on geographical distance between language centers.

            You are like a moron but you aren’t exactly a moron. You just behave in a similar manner, do you understand? Languages evolve in a similar manner but not exactly the same as biological organisms. Because ultimately both language and dna are information.

            >You are like a moron but you aren’t exactly a moron. You just behave in a similar manner, do you understand?
            Lol, you don't have an argument do you?

            You are like a moron but you aren’t exactly a moron. You just behave in a similar manner, do you understand? Languages evolve in a similar manner but not exactly the same as biological organisms. Because ultimately both language and dna are information.

            >Languages evolve in a similar manner but not exactly the same as biological organisms
            They are not even remotely related anon.
            Life has a single universal origin. Language doesn't.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Life has a single universal origin.
            There's no evidence of this, in fact it's more likely that life came about from multiple separate origins and some cross-pollination over time that depends on geographical distance between molecular centers.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Multiple separate origins and some cross-pollination over time that depends on geographical distance between language centers.
            No, they don't. If that's the case why is Hindi more closely related to Lithuanian than it is to Tamil despite being right next to it?
            >Lol, you don't have an argument do you?
            You're the one with no argument. You denying reality isn't an argument.
            >They are not even remotely related anon.
            Yes, they are
            >Life has a single universal origin. Language doesn't.
            This literally doesn't mean anything. Again, you repeating your misunderstanding over and over doesn't make it true.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No, they don't. If that's the case why is Hindi more closely related to Lithuanian than it is to Tamil
            Because that's complete bullshit lol.
            >You're the one with no argument. You denying reality isn't an argument.
            Said the guy with no argument.
            >Yes, they are
            They aren't.
            >This literally doesn't mean anything.
            It literally means that PIE has no reason to even exist. It isn't required.
            >This is what happens when an autistic esl gets arrogant and misunderstands the English language . You have no argument to stand on so you nitpick words you don’t even understand. Pick up a dictionary or frick off loser
            Or you're the autistic shitskin with no argument?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Because that's complete bullshit lol.
            No, it isnt
            Hindi and Lithuanian are literally more similar to each other than Hindi is to Tamil.
            Again, you getting angry at this and just going "NUH UH NUH UH" doesn't mean anything.
            >Said the guy with no argument.
            You're the one who's just denying reality
            >They aren't.
            Yes, they are
            >It literally means that PIE has no reason to even exist. It isn't required.
            Yes, it is.
            Again, how do you explain the fact that Latin, German, Russian, Lithuanian, Persian, Hindi, and Sanskrit are all more closely related to each other than any of them are to Tamil, Arabic, Turkic, etc?
            You just going "they're not related!" doesn't mean anything
            >Or you're the autistic shitskin with no argument?
            That anon isn't even me. Other anons are also calling you moronic.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Hindi and Lithuanian are literally more similar to each other than Hindi is to Tamil.
            No they aren't anon. That's complete and utter bullshit.
            >You're the one who's just denying reality
            That's just you autistic anon.
            >Yes, they are
            They aren't
            >Again, how do you explain the fact that Latin, German, Russian, Lithuanian, Persian, Hindi, and Sanskrit are all more closely related to each other than any of them are to Tamil, Arabic, Turkic, etc?
            They aren't.
            >You just going "they're not related!" doesn't mean anything
            It probably means they aren't as closely related as you think they are anon.
            >That anon isn't even me. Other anons are also calling you moronic.
            You're samegayging autistic psychopath.
            Yes you are a shitskin.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also, "by definition" physics does NOT require mathematics. It just requires repeatable experiments. Mathematics is useful but not required by definition.
            You're not a scientist.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Also, "by definition" physics does NOT require mathematics
            Lol. Take your meds anon.

            >It just requires repeatable experiments. Mathematics is useful but not required by definition.
            >You're not a scientist.
            So you're going to magically perform repeatable experiments without measuring anything?
            Lol. You're so autistic anon.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The fact that MODERN indo-euroepan languages form a language family is proof they come from a common ancestor
            No, that's just proof that you decided to group modern language groups together.
            That's circular logic.
            You can classify bats and birds together and then claim they are closely related without checking the fossil record.
            Same thing really.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, it isnt, because if you tried to group Japanese and Arabic you'd have no way of doing it.
            The indo-european languages can be directly related with each other in a way that only languages within a language family can.
            This is why I know you can't do mathematics. Because only an idiot who can't do math and didn't understand multiple regression would claim that you can make arbitrary comparisons between strings. That's not how it works.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No, it isnt, because if you tried to group Japanese and Arabic you'd have no way of doing it.
            Not true. You can apply faulty PIE logic to anything if you want. It literally doesn't require any valid evidence. The current trajectory of PIE bullshit is still mindlessly following the trajectory of its original proponents.
            >This is why I know you can't do mathematics.
            Linguists aren't mathematicians anon.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They don't look like Incas anon...

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They don't look like Incas anon...

            what the frick are you talking about you fricking stupid underage poojeet? I'm peruvian myself and I live with those daily. They're 100% descendants of the incans. Holy shit you filthy shitskin ffs

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They are mongliod invaders real native Americans are ane and look like pic related

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I know they're. Dude, it's the same red skin and facial features, it's just that those women are ugly

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          native gods of the Hyperborean ANE ubermenschs.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the ancient aztecs made some art
        >therefore we wuz aztecs
        Ok pablo

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, they're objectively less extinct than the natives of the US and Canada

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >No, they're objectively less extinct than the natives of the US and Canada
        Which means they are still part white and black and thus... extinct.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nah, the average Maya peasant in Guatemala is very likely to have only trace amounts of paternal spanish ancestry, not comparable to 1/16th cherokees in the slightest.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lol, Guatemalans aren't 1/16th native.
            They are more like 75% to 50% native.
            African Americans are all around 25% white.
            So yeah, native Americans have had their genome completely rewritten by whites.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There's millions more pure Guatemalan Amerindians today the pure spaniards who are all mixed with africans

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How do race realists explain away Mesoamerican architecture?
    It's very recent. And was what everyone else was doing thousands of years prior.
    So there is nothing that needs to be explained.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Incan wall
    >Mesoamerican
    Fricking American tourists, they're obsessed with their central American servants.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Me: I don't want my people to be killed by the israelites

    jew: But what about Mesoamerican architecture? You must die!

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I enjoy reading about Native American societies but tbqh I've always found Mesoamerica kind of overly lauded, they're really not that impressive.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hyperborean race of masters ANE.
    It's a pity that R1b destroyed them, no more brotherly wars.
    >t. R1a M458

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The closest relative of haplogroup Q (the founder line of all Native Americans) is haplogroup R.
    >literally a common great-grandfather with Europeans.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And in comes the idiotic haplo-autism.
      Mate, you can use Haplogroups to argue that Black Africans are Scandinavians lol.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        dont insult haplo-autists kek. we actually know what we're talking about

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I'm realizing now that this dumbfrick doesn't understand evolution which is why he doesnt understand genetic data/haplogroups nor linguistic evolution.
          There is something wrong with people who dont understand the mechanism behind evolution. Like they literally don't understand how change happens over time.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >dont insult haplo-autists kek. we actually know what we're talking about
          No you don't.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the African Yoruba tribe has late Bronze Age Eurasian admixture, R1b is not their native line.
        yes, ANE is also the founder of Iranian Neolithic cultures (including IVC) since the main haplogroup of Iranian shepherds was R2.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the African Yoruba tribe has late Bronze Age Eurasian admixture, R1b is not their native line.
          >yes, ANE is also the founder of Iranian Neolithic cultures (including IVC) since the main haplogroup of Iranian shepherds was R2.
          Haplogroups aren't a great way of determining ancestry anon.

          I'm realizing now that this dumbfrick doesn't understand evolution which is why he doesnt understand genetic data/haplogroups nor linguistic evolution.
          There is something wrong with people who dont understand the mechanism behind evolution. Like they literally don't understand how change happens over time.

          >I'm realizing now that this dumbfrick doesn't understand evolution which is why he doesnt understand genetic data/haplogroups nor linguistic evolution.
          >There is something wrong with people who dont understand the mechanism behind evolution. Like they literally don't understand how change happens over time.
          Lol, anyone that disagrees with you is automatically a creationist.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you would want to look for a signal indicating arrival of low density population of a foreign high caste between 20k and 12k years ago which suffused into earlier entry from the same root population during a much more remote period.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            meant for

            https://i.imgur.com/5XfuG2T.jpg

            >The closest relative of haplogroup Q (the founder line of all Native Americans) is haplogroup R.
            >literally a common great-grandfather with Europeans.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is just due to the ancient north eurasians.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        right. it is known that our race evolved in the region of the far north of Siberia, literally beyond the Arctic Circle (Yana RHS), it was these very extreme conditions that gave them outstanding intelligence.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >right. it is known that our race evolved in the region of the far north of Siberia, literally beyond the Arctic Circle (Yana RHS), it was these very extreme conditions that gave them outstanding intelligence.
          Which is why all the giant megaliths, obsession with astronomy, Mastery of metal, invention of the wheel etc actually happened in Central Europe...
          Your theory might need a bit of tweaking mate.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I fully expected this thread to turn out weird, but not in this way, what the frick are these cucks even talking about

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This guy is pretending that language families don't exist and that languages aren't more related to some than they are to others. Like italian and spanish aren't more closely related to each other than they are to japanese and that they don't descend from a common ancestor.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Those walls were constructed by Nephilim giants using techniques from antediluvian civilization.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Those walls were constructed by Nephilim giants using techniques from antediluvian civilization
      No, they were constructed using ordinary building techniques that are found in southern Europe thousands of years ago. Nothing mysterious about it.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    race realist here. über kino, they should have been left alone.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >race realist here. über kino, they should have been left alone.
      I don't think that was really possible.
      Sooner or later Eurasian disease was going to reach them and they were going to have a mass die off.
      The most violent places the world today are in South America. The peace-time homicide rate is higher in South America than war time in the present day middle-East.
      It's definitely genetic. Being 25% white hasn't changed the Aztecs at all.
      The Christian dream of civilizing people is stupid.
      All you can really do is give advice and then leave people to their own.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Aztecs
        >South America
        Fricking moron

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          America
          >Fricking moron
          Hey fricking moron Mexico is in the southern Half of America.
          The Incas mass sacrificed their own children. Almost everyone in South America were cultural cousins to the Aztecs.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don't know what you're talking about. Both the natives of what is now the US and the modern country itself have more genetic and cultural ties to the Aztecs than anywhere in South America. Andean civilizations were about as related to Mesoamerican civilizations as medieval Europe was to China.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Almost everyone in South America were cultural cousins to the Aztecs
            ??????????????????
            Lmao.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >people who were all literally 20th cousins 10k years prior are actually unrelated
            L O L

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You called them CULTURAL cousins you fricking moron, stop bringing up genetics and admit you don't know shit.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          America
          >Fricking moron
          The highest homicide rate in the world is in El Salvador anon.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And El Salvador is not in South America, genius

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >ancient group of grain growers made buildings with stone and stacked layers on top of one another
    I'm a Mexican man, but I honestly don't see why this should be regarded as a great accomplishment. There were civilizations, and even pre-civilized cultures that made pyramid-like layered structures with decreasing levels, all the way from Indonesia to Sudan. Pyramids are just the most intuitive way, in my opinion, of building up, since people in ancient times didn't really grasp concepts like trusses and distributed loads, let alone how to build scaffolding for tall, free-standing structures.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Less civilisation potential than whites.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > One of the last recorded military uses of Trebuchet was by Hernán Cortés, at the 1521 siege of the Aztec capital Tenochtitlán. Accounts of the attack note that its use was motivated by the limited supply of gunpowder. The attempt was reportedly unsuccessful: the first projectile landed on the trebuchet itself, destroying it.
    Imagine being a conquistador who improvised a trebuchet, and so unsuccessfully that it put an end to the use of trebuchets in general.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Whites did it next

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    when you consider that work most likely resulted from multiple men spending 8 hour work days for 50+ years, it kind of takes the mystique away.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >for 50+ years
      Significantly less is required for most walls.
      https://online.ucpress.edu/jsah/article/44/2/161/57823/Inca-Quarrying-and-Stonecutting
      >Experiments show that with this process stones can be mined, cut, dressed, and fit with little effort and in a short time.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        However, the large boulders used as walls at Sacsaywaman, along with other similar examples, are exceptions. For example, the construction of the Sacsaywaman fortress spanned two reigns. Although the zig-zag walls with those huge stones were not the site's sole feature.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What ever happened to Canaan? It is so discussed in History and Biblical Theology yet the only real accounts of what happened there is only from the Torah.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *