posted 10 February 2005 08:14 AM            

http://www.theoryofuniverse.com/man/races/races-skulls.htm

posted 10 February 2005 08:34 AM            

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

Racial constructs such as this are outdated based upon the scientific model.

Thought Posts:

Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)
Published online: 26 October 2004; | doi:10.1038/ng1455
Conceptualizing human variation
S O Y Keita1, 2, R A Kittles1, 3, C D M Royal1, G E Bonney1, P Furbert-Harris1, G M Dunston1 & C N Rotimi1
1 National Human Genome Center, College of Medicine, Howard University, Washington, DC 20060, USA.
2 Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA.
3 Department of Molecular Virology, Immunology, and Medical Genetics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
Correspondence should be addressed to R A Kittles kittles-1@medctr.osu.edu

What is the relationship between the patterns of biological and sociocultural variation in extant humans? Is this relationship accurately described, or best explained, by the term 'race' and the schema of 'racial' classification? What is the relationship between 'race', genetics and the demographic groups of society? Can extant humans be categorized into units that can scientifically be called 'races'? These questions underlie the discussions that address the explanations for the observed differences in many domains between named demographic groups across societies. These domains include disease incidence and prevalence and other variables studied by biologists and social scientists. Here, we offer a perspective on understanding human variation by exploring the meaning and use of the term 'race' and its relationship to a range of data. The quest is for a more useful approach with which to understand human biological variation, one that may provide better research designs and inform public policy.

'Race': semantics and confusion
The term 'race' engenders much discussion, with little agreement between those who claim that 'races' are real (meaning natural) biological entities and those who maintain that they are socially constructed1. The former group sometimes stresses empirical evidence for the existence of biological 'racial' differences, and the latter stresses the role that human agency has had in creating distinctions between people (on any level). Biologists also disagree about the meaning of 'race', and whether it is applicable to human infraspecific (within-species) variation2, 3, 4, 5.

An examination of these discussions indicates that there is a problem with semantics. 'Race' is not being defined or used consistently; its referents are varied and shift depending on context. The term is often used colloquially to refer to a range of human groupings. Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'6, 7. In anthropology, the meaning of race became formalized for humans and restricted to units based on biological variation in keeping with general zoological practice8, 9. Classifications were based on somatic traits.

'Race' is applied in formal taxonomy to variation below the species level. In traditional approaches, substantively morphologically distinct populations or collections of populations occupying a section of a species range are called subspecies and given a three-part Latin name10. In current systematic practice, the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence11. Do any of the human groups called 'races', including those from traditional anthropology, meet this latter criterion?

We argue that the correct use of the term 'race' is the most current taxonomic one, because it has been formalized. 'Race' gains its force from its natural science root. The term denotes 'natural' distinctions and connotes differences not susceptible to change. One is led to ask, therefore, whether everything that is called a 'racial' difference is actually natural. 'Racial' differences carry a different weight than cultural differences. In terms of taxonomic precision and best practice, is it scientifically correct to identify European Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Han Chinese, Hispanics and African Americans of Middle Passage descent as different races? Although individuals may refer to themselves as belonging to a particular 'race', it is doubtful that this has been done with knowledge of, or concern for, zoological taxonomy, because the common use of the term has come from sociopolitical discourse. Individuals learned the 'race' to which they were assigned.

Although 'race' and subspecies are usually treated as equivalent, some zoological taxonomists reserve the word 'race' for local breeding populations, with subspecies being geographical collections of populations that are similar or the same in the defining traits. This causes no serious problem to this discussion, because the most commonly known anthropological classification of humans is said to consist of races. If 'Caucasoid' is a subspecies, however, then an endogamous village population or ethnic group becomes a 'race'. This illustrates an inconsistency even in biological usage not found in scientific or sociopolitical practice: for example, how often are the Old Order Amish referred to as a 'race' in recent scientific literature? This group of people is a breeding population, based on a particular behavioral pattern of mate choice, as opposed to being defined by an anatomical trait complex.

'Race' and subspecies
Although the subspecies level is formally recognized in taxonomy, it has been criticized. Subspecies were primarily delimited by differences in selected observable morphological traits within a restricted geographical range. In practice, divisions were made based on a few prominent traits, with subsequent variation interpreted in terms of established units.

In the 1950s many zoological taxonomists became dissatisfied with the subspecies as a way to understand variation10, 12, 13. Criticisms included (i) the nonconcordance of traits, which made it possible to produce different classifications using the same individuals; (ii) the existence of polytopic populations, which are the product of parallel evolution; (iii) the existence of true breeding populations (demes) within previously delimited subspecies; and (iv) the arbitrariness of criteria used to recognized subspecies10. In addition, some traits were found to be clinally distributed, making the creation of divisions arbitrary.

Current systematic theory emphasizes that taxonomy at all levels should reflect evolutionary relationships11. For instance, the term 'Negro' was once a racial designation for numerous groups in tropical Africa and Pacific Oceania (Melanesians). These groups share a broadly similar external phenotype; this classification illustrates 'race' as type, defined by anatomical complexes. Although the actual relationship between African 'Negroes' and Oceanic 'Negroes' was sometimes questioned, these groups were placed in the same taxon. Molecular and genetic studies later showed that the Oceanic 'Negroes' were more closely related to mainland Asians.

Molecular systematics makes it possible to explore infraspecific variation to detect patterns that would reflect phylogenetic substructuring. Avise and Ball suggest a definition of 'subspecies' that is consistent with the goals of evolutionary taxonomy11: "Subspecies are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations phylogenetically distinguishable from, but reproductively compatible with, other such groups. Importantly the evidence for phylogenetic distinction must normally come from the concordant distributions of multiple, independent, genetically based traits."

This definition is different from the previous one in that it emphasizes phylogenetics. It is, in theory, more objective and consistent with neodarwinian evolutionary theory and can be used as the basis for determining whether or not modern Homo sapiens can be structured into populations divergent enough to be called 'races'. We know that there is human geographical variation, but does this infraspecific diversity reach a threshold that merits the designation 'subspecies', as is true with chimpanzees14?

'Race' and social construction
'Race' is 'socially constructed' when the word is incorrectly used as the covering term for social or demographic groups. Broadly designated groups, such as 'Hispanic' or 'European American' do not meet the classical or phylogenetic criteria for subspecies or the criterion for a breeding population. Furthermore, some of the 'racial' taxa of earlier European science used by law and politics were converted into social identities2. For example, the self-defined identities of enslaved Africans were replaced with the singular 'Negro' or 'black', and Europeans became 'Caucasian', thus creating identities based on physical traits rather than on history and cultural tradition. Another example of social construction is seen in the laws of various countries that assigned 'race' (actually social group or position) based on the proportion of particular ancestries held by an individual. The entities resulting from these political machinations have nothing to do with the substructuring of the species by evolutionary mechanisms.

Human races as human variation
Arguments against the existence of human races (the taxa 'Mongoloid', 'Caucasoid' and 'Negroid' and those from other classifications) include those stated for subspecies10 and several others15. The within- to between-group variation is very high for genetic polymorphisms (85%; refs. 16,17). This means that individuals from one 'race' may be overall more similar to individuals in one of the other 'races' than to other individuals in the same 'race'. This observation is perhaps insufficient18, although it still is convincing because it illustrates the lack of a boundary. Coalescence times19, 20 calculated from various genes suggest that the differentiation of modern humans began in Africa in populations whose morphological traits are unknown; it cannot be assumed from an evolutionary perspective that the traits used to define 'races' emerged simultaneously with this divergence15. There was no demonstrable 'racial' divergence.

Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA genealogies are especially interesting because they demonstrate the lack of concordance of lineages with morphology15 and facilitate a phylogenetic analysis. Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex (or 'racial type'). Y-chromosome DNA from Africa alone suffices to make this point. Africa contains populations whose members have a range of external phenotypes. This variation has usually been described in terms of 'race' (Caucasoids, Pygmoids, Congoids, Khoisanoids). But the Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse21. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined 'races' are not characterized by 'private' distinct lineages restricted to each of them.

Human genome variation, demographic groups and disease
'Race' is a legitimate taxonomic concept that works for chimpanzees but does not apply to humans (at this time). The nonexistence of 'races' or subspecies in modern humans does not preclude substantial genetic variation that may be localized to regions or populations. More than 10 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) probably exist in the human genome22. More than 5 million of these SNPs are expected to be common (minor allele frequency >10%)23. Most of these SNPs vary in frequency across human populations, and a large fraction of them are private or common in only a single population. Other genetic variants are also asymmetrically distributed. This makes forensic distinctions possible even within restricted regions such as Scandinavia24. Anonymous human DNA samples will structure into groups that correspond to the divisions of the sampled populations or regions when large numbers of genetic markers are used. This has been demonstrated with autosomal microsatellites, which are the most rapidly evolving genetic variants25. The DNA of an unknown individual from one of the sampled populations would probably be correctly linked to a population. Because this identification is possible does not mean that there is a level of differentiation equal to 'races'. The genetics of Homo sapiens shows gradients of differentiation15, 26.

Because substantial genetic variation may be localized to regions or populations, attention has been focused on how geographic origins may contribute to differential distribution of disease and mortality or 'health disparities'. In January of 2000, the US Department of Health and Human Services launched "Healthy People 2010," a program committed to eliminating 'ethnic' and 'racial' health disparities. Although there is considerable debate regarding the definition, measurement and causes of health disparities, there is increased focus on the potential role of the distribution of DNA sequence variation in contributing to observed differences in disease status among groups.

Several competing, but not necessarily exclusive, hypotheses exist to describe the genetic contribution to complex disease, including the common disease–common variant (CDCV) hypothesis and the multiple rare variants (MRV) hypothesis27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32. If it turns out to be that much of the genetic variation contributing to disease is old and shared by most human populations, as implied by the CDCV hypothesis, then differences in the health status of population groups (health disparities) will be largely due to differences in exposure to cumulative environmental insults. If the MRV hypothesis turns out to be true, however, then more comprehensive sampling of multiple human populations will be necessary to adequately describe the extent to which a differential distribution of genes underlies the pathophysiology of disease susceptibility or resistance. Under this hypothesis, a substantial proportion of genetic polymorphisms will be rare and will probably be specific to groups that experienced similar evolutionary forces of selection or drift. In the end, both the CDCV and the MRV hypotheses may apply, depending on the phenotype under consideration. The etiologies of diseases such as lupus, diabetes and Alzheimer disease are examples that may require strategies derived from both hypotheses.

An important implication of the MRV model is that no one map of polymorphic markers (e.g., a SNP map such as that generated by the HapMap project) will probably be sufficient for understanding the complex interplay between multiple genetic variants and multiple environmental factors in the etiology of human diseases across all global populations. Therefore, it may be premature at this time to completely disregard all population (or group) identifiers in biomedical research, as some propose. Group identifiers are important for seeing group patterns in disparities. For example, African Americans have a higher prevalence of some chronic and degenerative diseases. African American males have a 60% greater risk of developing prostate cancer, twice the risk of developing its aggressive form and twice the mortality relative to European Americans33. Study designs should reflect efforts to partition the genetic, environmental and geographic variance for the diseases that contribute most to group disparity statistics, such as obesity and related disorders.

The finding that the demographic group called 'African American' has a higher prevalence of prostate cancer, obesity and hypertension is not to be denied. This does not mean, however, that this is a 'racial' phenomenon, as disease is probably due to gene-environment interaction and not linked to the physical traits assumed to covary with this population. This group has heterogeneous ancestral continental origins, predominantly West African and West Central African. They are heterogeneous in their African origins also. Continental African immigrants to the US, including some suprasaharan Africans (e.g., Tunisians and Egyptians) sometimes call themselves 'African Americans', which is true as an epithet but false as a marker of the bioethnic history of those whose ancestors share the experiences of the Middle Passage and slavery. It is this history, and its constituent elements, that are specific to the group. The Middle Passage African descendants, whether in North America or South America, do have a particular biocultural history34. It may be necessary to craft specific group identifiers to facilitate good research design2. 'Racial' approaches to identity, as found in Office of Management and Budget directive 15, operate from the Platonic mold that groups so defined would necessarily be genetically the same, and this is false. The New World descendants of Middle Passage Africans, whether found in specifically labeled communities (e.g., African Argentinian, African Mexican, African Venezuelan or African Canadian) or in the 'majority' populations ('mestizos' or 'whites') cannot be lumped with newcomers from the continent under the label 'black' or 'African American'. Designations like 'Arab' are also fraught with biohistorical complexity because they often designate peoples who became acculturated. For example, Syrian and Shuwa Arabs illustrate the great biological and cultural variation that may be found under a single ethnolinguistic label.

The causes of health disparities among groups are not well understood, but genetic explanations are frequently the default position for a variety of reasons, including a tradition of biological determinism4. Although genes probably have a role, we must realize that some environmental influences can be so subtle and occur so early in life as to be missed, thereby facilitating acceptance of a genetic explanation that is probably false. The fetal programming and early childhood insult hypotheses for the origins of adult disease may have a role in explaining health disparities35, 36.

'Race' and research
Modern human genetic variation does not structure into phylogenetic subspecies (geographical 'races'), nor do the taxa from the most common racial classifications of classical anthropology qualify as 'races' (Box 1). The social or ethnoancestral groups of the US and Latin America are not 'races', and it has not been demonstrated that any human breeding population is sufficiently divergent to be taxonomically recognized by the standards of modern molecular systematics. These observations are not to be taken as statements against doing research on demographic groups or populations. They only support a brief for linguistic precision and careful descriptions of groups under study. Terms and labels have qualitative implications.

Detailed description of study populations and their specific histories is advocated. The study of well-defined local populations of demographic groups of the same name should be carried out in order to understand possible gene-environment effects. Likewise, data from nationwide studies on particular demographic groups should always be disaggregated by locale. Local names should replace macrodesignations in studies in order to reflect specific populations. Generalizations that invoke 'genetic' explanations are to be avoided unless they are warranted. All of these have policy implications for health studies.

'Racial' thinking can still be found in scientific literature15. Evolutionary and other biohistorical studies should be model-based and should acknowledge the ongoing legacy of 'racial' thinking. Collaborations with experts in appropriate fields such as historical linguistics, archaeology, ethnology and recent history would improve the quality of multidisciplinary studies.

Received 9 September 2004; Accepted 23 September 2004; Published online 26 October 2004.

REFERENCES
Andreasen, R.O. Race: Biological reality or social construct. Philos. Sci. (Proc.) 67, S653–S666 (2000). | Article |
Keita, S.O.Y. & Boyce, A.J. "Race": Confusion about zoological and social taxonomies, and their places in science. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 13, 569–575 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Andreason, R.O. A new perspective on the race debate. Brit. J. Philos. Sci. 49, 199–225 (1998).
Lewontin, R. Not In Our Genes (Pantheon, New York, 1984).
Livingstone, F. On the non-existence of human races. Curr. Anthropol. 3, 279–281 (1962). | Article | ISI |
Gordon, H. Genetics and race. S. Afr. Med. J. 39, 533–536 (1965). | PubMed | ChemPort |
Stepan, N. The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain 1800–1960 (London and Basingstoke, 1982).
Deniker, J. The Races of Man (Walter Scott, London, 1900).
Garn, S. Human Races. (McGraw Hill, Springfield, 1961).
Mayr, E. & Ashlock, P. Principles of Systematic Zoology 2nd edn. (McGraw Hill, New York, 1991).
Avise, J.C. & Ball, R.M. Principles of genealogical concordance in species concepts and biological taxonomy. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 7, 45–67 (1990).
Wilson, E.O. & Brown, W.L. The subspecies concept and its taxonomic application. Syst. Zool. 2, 97–111 (1953). | ISI |
Brown, W.L. & Wilson, E.O. The case against the Trinomen. Syst. Zool. 3, 174–176 (1953).
Ruvolo, M. Genetic diversity in hominoid primates. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 26, 515–540 (1997). | Article | ISI |
Keita, S.O.Y. & Kittles, R.A. The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence. Am. Anthropol. 99, 534–544 (1997). | ISI |
Latter, B.D. Genetic differences within and between populations of the major human groups. Am. Nat. 116, 220 (1980) | Article | ISI |
Lewontin, R.C. The apportionment of human diversity. Evol. Biol. 6, 381–398 (1972).
Long, J.C. & Kittles, R.A. Human genetic diversity and the non-existence of biological races. Hum. Biol. 75, 449–471 (2003). | PubMed | ISI |
Nei, M. & Roychoudhury, A.K. Evolutionary relationships of human populations on a global scale. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10, 927–943 (1993). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Menozzi, P. & Piazza, A. The History and Geography of Human Genes. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1994).
Underhill, P.A. et al. The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origins of modern human populations. Ann. Hum. Genet. 65, 43–62 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Kruglyak, L. & Nickerson, D. Variation is the spice of life. Nat. Genet. 27, 234–236 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Carlson, C.S. et al. Additional SNPs and linkage-disequilibrium analyses are necessary for whole-genome association studies in humans. Nat. Genet. 33, 518–521 (2003). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Allen, M., Salden, T., Patterson, U. & Gyllensten, U. Genetic typing of HLA class II genes in Swedish populations: applications in forensic analyses. J. Forensic Sci. 38, 554–570 (1993). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Rosenberg, N. et al. Genetic structure of human populations. Science 298, 2381–2385 (2002). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Serre, D. & Paabo, S. Evidence of gradients of human genetic diversity within and among continents. Genome Res. 14, 1679–1685 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Collins, F.S., Brooks, L.D. & Chakravarti, A. A DNA polymorphism discovery resource for research on human genetic variation. Genome Res. 8, 1229–1231 (1998). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Reich, D. et al. Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome. Nature 411, 199–204 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Weiss, K.M. & Clark, A.G. Linkage disequilibrium and the mapping of complex human traits. Trends Genet. 18, 19–24 (2002). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Pritchard, J.K. & Cox, N.J. The allelic architecture of human disease genes: common disease-common variant...or not? Hum. Mol. Genet. 11, 2417–2423 (2002). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Carlson, C.S. et al. Selecting a maximally informative set of single-nucleotide polymorphisms for association analyses using linkage disequilibrium. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74, 106–120 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Neale, B. & Shan, P. The future of association studies: gene-based analysis and replication. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 75, 353–362 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Stanford, J.L. et al. Prostate Cancer Trends 1973-1995. SEER Program, National Cancer Institute NIH Pub No 99-4543. (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, 1999).
Rout, L., The African Experience in Spanish America, 1502 to the Present Day (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976).
Barker, D.J.P. In utero programming of chronic disease. Clin. Sci. 95, 115–128 (1998). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Sallout, B. & Walker, M. The fetal origin of adult diseases. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 23, 555–560 (2003). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort

---

posted 10 February 2005 03:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Since the Afronuts are pretending not to know what Negroid means in order to maintain their "Black African" ruse, here's a primer on the races of mankind (as derived from skeletal analysis) to set matters straight once and for all. It's from an amateur website, but all of the material is properly referenced."

---

Thought Writes:

Hi Evil "E", what I requested from you was YOUR definition of these terms. Shall I assume that you agree with this person's position 100%? If not, then I must reiterate my original request:

A) Please define your terms, what does "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" mean TO YOU in a scientific sense?

B) Please lay out YOUR chronology for the evolution of these stated morphologies?

If indeed you do agree with this person's position, I have to assume that in your interpretation the "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" races are defined on a strictly morphological basis, as there is no mention of genetics nor any multidisciplinary approach in his thesis and by default your position. Hence, your position of ascribing assumed taxonomies such as "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" and "Caucasoid" to genotypes such as E3a and E3b are inconsistent with your general racial construct.

In addition his thesis, and by default your position attributes morphological diversity to the "Caucasoid" race:

Caucasoid further divisible into:
Northern European (Nordic),
Central European (Alpine) and
Southern European (Mediterranean)

In that you have presented his position as a representation of your own I must ask you, how is it possible for Northern, Central and Southern Europeans t have diversity and continuity in a racial sense, and not Eastern and Western Africans? Are you suggesting any sources to support this conclusion? If not, what then is the basis for this seemingly contradictory position? Is it really personal bias, based upon the desire to maintain the "white racial purity" of Southern European's from Black Sub-Saharan East Africans?

posted 10 February 2005 03:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Hi Evil "E", what I requested from you was YOUR definition of these terms. Shall I assume that you agree with this person's position 100%? If not, then I must reiterate my original request:

A) Please define your terms, what does "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" mean TO YOU in a scientific sense?

B) Please lay out YOUR chronology for the evolution of these stated morphologies?

If indeed you do agree with this person's position, I have to assume that in your interpretation the "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" races are defined on a strictly morphological basis, as there is no mention of genetics nor any multidisciplinary approach in his thesis and by default your position. Hence, your position of ascribing assumed taxonomies such as "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" and "Caucasoid" to genotypes such as E3a and E3b are inconsistent with your general racial construct.

In addition his thesis, and by default your position attributes morphological diversity to the "Caucasoid" race:

Caucasoid further divisible into:
Northern European (Nordic),
Central European (Alpine) and
Southern European (Mediterranean)

In that you have presented his position as a representation of your own I must ask you, how is it possible for Northern, Central and Southern Europeans t have diversity and continuity in a racial sense, and not Eastern and Western Africans? Are you suggesting any sources to support this conclusion? If not, what then is the basis for this seemingly contradictory position? Is it really personal bias, based upon the desire to maintain the "white racial purity" of Southern European's from Black Sub-Saharan East Africans?

---

posted 11 February 2005 07:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Racial constructs such as this are outdated based upon the scientific model.

---

"First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80 percent accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations.

"I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether 'real' or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is 'only skin deep' is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.

"For the time being at least, the people in 'race denial' are in 'reality denial' as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence."

posted 11 February 2005 07:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
A) Please define your terms, what does "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" mean TO YOU in a scientific sense?

---

They're not my terms, nor do they mean anything to me personally. Their meaning has been established scientifically, and that's what I go by. If you choose to live in a fantasy world where they have variable meanings or don't exist, that's your problem not mine.

quote:

---

B) Please lay out YOUR chronology for the evolution of these stated morphologies?

---

posted 11 February 2005 08:12 AM            

The genetic difference between Italians and British is 250% greater than the difference between the British and the Germans.

-Luigi Cavalli-Sforza [Italian, population geneticist.]

posted 11 February 2005 08:30 AM            

quote:

---

Again, I don't have a chronology.

---

You don't have a chronology.
You don't have a coherent theory.
You don't have a testable hypothesis.

You do have an ethnocentric ideology, which is outdated, illogical, dishonest, and blatently self serving.

Sicilians were tested for blood group evidence of African admixture. Among 100 unrelated Sicilians, the phenotypes cDe(Rho) and Fy(a-b-), and the antigens V(hrv) and Jsa, which are considered to be African genetic markers, were detected in 12 individuals. Among 64 individuals from 21 families with at least one known hemoglobin S carrier, African blood group markers were detected in 7 (11%). These findings indicate that hemoglobin S is only one of multiple African genes present in contemporary Sicilian populations.

Vocal detractors of the migration theory are not always geneticists or historians; often they are persons seeking to advance one racialist hypothesis or another, for example the idea that Sicilians lack much "African" ancestry.

posted 11 February 2005 09:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Again, I don't have a chronology. A chronology exists, and I've presented sufficient data on it. The burden is on you to place Negroid types in pre-historic East Africa, and to explain away the fact that "Elongated East Africans" are genetically and skeletally intermediate between Europeans and Africans. Good luck.

---

Moron, the only Elongated East Africans that I posted on here that have mixture with Middle Easterners and very, very moderate mixture at that are Somalis. Their level of Middle Eastern mixture is moderate as already discussed, maternally and paternally and you have presented NO evidence to prove otherwise.

The other Elongated East Africans, Tutsis, Hima, and Masai have NO Caucasoid mixture and their features developed within Africa independent of mixture with Caucasoids. You know those Tutsis you keep calling Bantu? What about about their features moron? You proved genetically they have more of a connection with West Africans so you just screwed yourself.

posted 11 February 2005 10:19 AM            

PN2 Clade Black Africans:

East or West....and how would one tell?

Cushites? Nilotes?? Bantu ? ? ? Other????

Final question...which one of below group is NOT a Black African:

Shouldn't be too hard.

posted 11 February 2005 11:22 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
If that is true Supercar then he is right with the program. Since when did this board start having anything to do with rational and coherent sense???

---

posted 11 February 2005 01:09 PM            

quote:

---

I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. - Gills

---

This self stroke couldn't mean less if it came from Stevie Wonder.

One can't help but be reminded of Howells's's' Fordisc 2.0 method of skull classification, wherein a homogeneous Group of Sudanese Nubians were erroneously classified as "Japanese, Tasmanian, Peruvian" and other non-sequitors.

classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations. - J. Edwards, A. Leathers, et al.

posted 11 February 2005 09:32 PM            

Thought Writes:

The request has always been for YOUR interpretation of these terms.

The 1994 version of the American Heritage Dictionary describes the term “Negroid” as:

“Of or being a purported human racial classification distinguished by brown OR black pigmentation and OFTEN tightly curled hair and including peoples indigenous to Sub-Saharan Africa. No longer in scientific use.”

{Their meaning has been established scientifically, and that's what I go by.}

Thought Writes:

See last sentence from definition above.

{If you choose to live in a fantasy world where they have variable meanings or don't exist, that's your problem not mine.}

Thought Writes:

In he 1994 version of the American Heritage Dictionary describes the term “Negro” as:

“A Black person”.

The 1994 version of the American Heritage Dictionary describes the term “Black” as:

“Of or belonging to a racial group having brown or black skin, esp. of African origin.”

Thought Writes:

Based upon the above definitions and the basic anthropological law known as Gloger’s Rule we have to say that the Mesolithic East Africans were “Negroid”.

{Again, I don't have a chronology. A chronology exists, and I've presented sufficient data on it.}

Thought Writes:

Evil “E”, I missed that one. Please re-post the data that supports a chronology for the evolution of “Negroid“ and “Caucasoid“ traits.

{The burden is on you to place Negroid types in pre-historic East Africa}

Thought Writes:

That is illogical. The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim in reasoned debate.

{and to explain away the fact that "Elongated East Africans" are genetically and skeletally intermediate between Europeans and Africans. Good luck.}

Thought Writes:

The fact is E3b carrying East Africans such as the Oromo and Borana have little to no European specific Haplotypes. In fact, Central Africans from the Cameroon with the stereotypical Broad/”True Negro” phenotypes have higher frequencies of European specific heliotypes than these East Africans. Your thesis in this regard is disqualified.

posted 12 February 2005 07:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
You don't have a chronology.
You don't have a coherent theory.
You don't have a testable hypothesis.

You do have an ethnocentric ideology, which is outdated, illogical, dishonest, and blatently self serving.

---

What I have is evidence that you can't refute. But replace "ethnocentric" with "Afrocentric" in your little rant, and you've just described every Afronut at this forum.

quote:

---

Sicilians were tested for blood group evidence of African admixture. Among 100 unrelated Sicilians, the phenotypes cDe(Rho) and Fy(a-b-), and the antigens V(hrv) and Jsa, which are considered to be African genetic markers, were detected in 12 individuals. Among 64 individuals from 21 families with at least one known hemoglobin S carrier, African blood group markers were detected in 7 (11%). These findings indicate that hemoglobin S is only one of multiple African genes present in contemporary Sicilian populations.

Vocal detractors of the migration theory are not always geneticists or historians; often they are persons seeking to advance one racialist hypothesis or another, for example the idea that Sicilians lack much "African" ancestry.

What is certain is that the earliest pre-historic ancestors of all men and women were Africans, and they were not white. www.bestofsicily.com

---

You're incredibly stupid, even by Negro standards. You post the same outdated, unreliable garbage over and over again, and then smile about it like a retard.

"African admixture in Sicily has been long suspected because of the presence of the sickle gene. Nevertheless, the degree of African admixture cannot be derived from the study of HbS frequency, since this gene was most likely expanded by the selective pressure of malaria, for a long time endemic to the region. We have examined 142 individuals from the Sicilian town of Butera (12% sickle trait) to search for other markers of the globin gene cluster less likely to be selected for by malaria. The TaqI polymorphism in the intervening sequences between the two gamma genes is informative. We have found only two instances of this African marker (TaqI(-)) among 267 normal chromosomes, demonstrating that the admixture occurred at a much lower level than previously thought."

posted 12 February 2005 07:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim

---

Which is not me. The record is clear: Pre-historic East Africans were "non-African", "Hamitic" and "generalized modern". You're the one making a claim that they were Negroid, so you have to prove it.

quote:

---

The fact is E3b carrying East Africans such as the Oromo and Borana have little to no European specific Haplotypes.

---

posted 12 February 2005 07:42 AM            

quote:

---

What I have is evidence that you can't refute.

---

quote:

---

Sicilians were tested for blood group evidence of African admixture. Among 100 unrelated Sicilians, the phenotypes cDe(Rho) and Fy(a-b-), and the antigens V(hrv) and Jsa, which are considered to be African genetic markers, were detected in 12 individuals. Among 64 individuals from 21 families with at least one known hemoglobin S carrier, African blood group markers were detected in 7 (11%). These findings indicate that hemoglobin S is only one of multiple African genes present in contemporary Sicilian populations.

Vocal detractors of the migration theory are not always geneticists or historians; often they are persons seeking to advance one racialist hypothesis or another, for example the idea that Sicilians lack much "African" ancestry.

What is certain is that the earliest pre-historic ancestors of all men and women were Africans, and they were not white. www.bestofsicily.com

---

quote:

---

You post the same outdated, unreliable garbage over and over again, and then smile about it like a retard.

---

Your 'rebuttal'...
African admixture in Sicily has been long suspected because of the presence of the sickle gene. Nevertheless, the degree of African admixture cannot be derived from the study of HbS frequency
...is an EMPTY DISCLAIMER, refuting no point in contention. It does not deny that Benin sickle cell is proof of West African admixture.

It merely states that you cannot accurately measure 'the degree' of said admixture soley from it.

To have Benin sickle cell is to have West African ancestry, period. And we know that you know this, because you've had it explained to over and again including by other Medits, who unlike you can admit the truth.

The Benin haplotype accounts for HbS in Sicily, Northern Greece, Southern Turkey, and South West Saudi Arabia, suggesting that these genes originated in West Africa. http://home.nc.rr.com/ambiient/site/sickle.htm

The existence of Black African mixture in the southern European populice is an absolute fact.

The notion of racial purity of southeren europeans....a hilarious folly.

How relevant? Because it is southern Europe's 'racial purity' that you set out to prove. And you failed miserably to do so.

posted 12 February 2005 08:01 AM            

quote:

---

The record is clear: Pre-historic East Africans were "non-African"

---

Oxymoron, pre historic East Africans were African by definition and Thought is of course correct, you are pleading ignorance yet again:

quote:

---

Thought Posts:

Journal of Human Evolution
2000 Sep;39(3):269-88.

The position of the Nazlet Khater specimen among prehistoric and modern African and Levantine populations.

Pinhasi R, Semal P.

Department of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3DZ, U.K.

The morphometric affinities of the 33,000 year old skeleton from Nazlet Khater, Upper Egypt are examined using multivariate statistical procedures. In the first part, principal components analysis is performed on a dataset of mandible dimensions of 220 fossils, sub-fossils and modern specimens, ranging in time from the Late Pleistocene to recent and restricted in space to the African continent and Southern Levant. In the second part, mean measurements for various prehistoric and modern African and Levantine populations are incorporated in the statistical analysis. Subsequently, differences between male and female means are examined for some of the modern and prehistoric populations. The results indicate a strong association between some of the sub-Saharan Middle Stone Age (MSA) specimens, and the Nazlet Khater mandible.

---

"Oldest human skeleton found in Egypt". Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: "Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology form & structure. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average." The burial was of a young man of 17-20 years old, whose skeleton lay in a 160cm- long narrow ditch aligned from east to west. A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry.

Thoma A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khater man, Journal of Human Evolution,

vol 13, 1984.
And you wonder why the forum discussants are uniformly unimpressed with your arguments?

But let's move the game forward.

After we cite numerous studies of pre-historic remains with modern African affinities. What then?

posted 12 February 2005 08:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Of course they do: E3b. Those are precisely the groups who cluster with Europeans and other Caucasoids on the Y-chromosome. If E3b were "Black African", they would place closer to sub-Saharan populations.

---

East Africans who carry E3b don't cluster with Europeans at all nor with other Caucasoids you dumbass.

Some E3b information:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dgarvey/DNA/hg/YCC_E3b.html

Read up and get your head out of your ass moron. No Caucasoid remains have been found in East Africa and none of E3bs found in East Africa have anything to do with Caucasoids, those E3bs originated there. Get a life and quit being an ignoramus.

posted 12 February 2005 09:08 AM            

quote:

---

The fact is E3b carrying East Africans such as the Oromo and Borana have little to no European specific Haplotypes.

---

It is worth noting that the frequency of group VI chromosomes in the Ethiopian Jews (just one chromosome out of 22) is similar to that reported for the p12f2 chromosomes in the Oromo from Ethiopia (3.8%) and is considerably lower than the frequency reported for the Amhara of the same region (33%). These data, together with those reported elsewhere (Ritte et al. 1993a, 1993b; Hammer et al. 2000) suggest that the Ethiopian Jews acquired their religion without substantial genetic admixture from Middle Eastern peoples and that they can be considered an ethnic group with essentially a continental African genetic composition. - Fulvio Cruciani,1 Piero Santolamazza,1 Peidong Shen, et al.

posted 12 February 2005 10:27 AM            

Thought Writes:

Being disingenuous again? You quoted a statement from me in which I say that I do not even subscribe to the use of the term “Negroid” as it has no scientific usage.

{ If E3b were "Black African", they would place closer to sub-Saharan populations}

Thought Writes:

E3b clusters with E3a before it clusters with any European specific haplotype. Are you suggesting E3b originated in Europe? If so please provide your sources? Thanks.

posted 13 February 2005 08:06 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The smile is because the truth enrages you and you respond with anger and ad hominem....methods of the weak.

---

I'm quite calm. For anger and ad hominems, you need to read the posts of your friend S.Mohammad more carefully. If I'm "enraged" then he must be infuriated, incensed, fuming and beside himself over the undeniable truth I present.

quote:

---

It does not deny that Benin sickle cell is proof of West African admixture.

---

Never said it did. Straw man.

quote:

---

It merely states that you cannot accurately measure 'the degree' of said admixture soley from it.

---

Exactly. And it also states that "admixture occurred at a much lower level than previously thought." So why keep posting material that proves nothing? Because you're a retard with no evidence.

quote:

---

The existence of Black African mixture in the southern European populice is an absolute fact.

---

It's amazing how much you sound like the Aryanists (Kemp and crew). The only difference is that they're at least smart enough to correctly spell simple words like "populace".

quote:

---

Because it is southern Europe's 'racial purity' that you set out to prove.

---

posted 13 February 2005 08:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Oxymoron, pre historic East Africans were African by definition

---

Semantics. "Non-African" means they resembled worldwide populations and not modern Bantu-influenced Africans. Obviously.

quote:

---

The morphometric affinities of the 33,000 year old skeleton from Nazlet Khater....

---

Wow, a single skeleton that's described as "proto-Khoisan" and "suggestive of Negroid morphology". How conclusive. Sounds like a generalized modern. They were "suggestive of" a lot of races.

posted 13 February 2005 08:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Are you suggesting E3b originated in Europe?

---

posted 13 February 2005 08:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The smile is because the truth enrages you and you respond with anger and ad hominem....methods of the weak.

---

quote:

---

I'm quite calm.

---

quote:

---

It does not deny that Benin sickle cell is proof of West African admixture.

---

quote:

---

Never said it did. Straw man.

---

Either way, your 'troll thesis' on racial purity of Southern Europeans is destroyed.

posted 13 February 2005 08:35 AM            

quote:

---

It's amazing how much you sound like the Aryanists (Kemp and crew).

---

Actually the Aryanists and Medicentrists essentially agree. You both beleive in the fantasy of the pure caucasian race. The only difference is that THEY EXCLUDE YOU FROM IT.

Your anger and hatred at Blacks is therefore misdirected and a classic example of transference in the face of rejection. Hope this helps.

posted 13 February 2005 08:46 AM            

Just so you understand the difference between your and Kemp's lunacy, and the sanity the most others ascribe to.....Enjoy...

Caucasian:

The term Caucasian race has in time acquired somewhat different meanings in different contexts. It is popularly used in North America to describe whites of northern, eastern and western European descent, usually excluding southern Europeans (often called "Latins") and peoples of Asian, African, Slavic, Semitic, and Turkish origin. In North America, Caucasian is also used in the broader meaning of "white" especially in government and census forms. Another, earlier use of the term, originally based on craniology, refers to various ethnic groups living in the Caucasus region.

It is clearly observable that many people do not correspond easily to one racial/subracial type or another. There is currently extensive debate on the scientific validity of racial classifications, and many people reject systems of racial classification as inherently arbitrary and subject to wide divergences in most populations. Indeed, the advances in biochemistry over the past 30-40 years have revealed that the traditional racial divisions have extremely little genetic basis. Its relevance is debatable as a physical anthropological, ethnic/cultural or socio-political concept.
Oh my.

Caucasian: reference to various ethnic groups [about 50] living in the caucasus.

Caucasoid race:
Term once commonly used in physical anthropology to denote a division of humankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type (e.g., Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid).
Today the term has little scientific standing, as older methods of differentiation, including hair form and body measurement, have given way to the comparative analysis of DNA and gene frequencies relating to such factors as blood typing, the excretion of amino acids, and inherited enzyme deficiencies. Because all human populations today are extremely similar genetically, most scientists have abandoned the concept of race.

Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia

posted 13 February 2005 09:07 AM            

quote:

---

The morphometric affinities of the 33,000 year old skeleton from Nazlet Khater....

---

Wow, a single skeleton that's described as "proto-Khoisan" and "suggestive of Negroid morphology". How conclusive.

Wow, 3 weeks of empty rhetoric from you and still: prehistoric whites of East Africa ARE NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. In terms of this discussion, that IS conclusive.

As for prehistoric Black Africans, if you want more, just ask politely....

Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities - S.O.Y. Keita
Journal of Human Evolution, 2000 Sep; 39(3): 269-88.

A phenetic craniometric analysis of early farmers from the Nile Valley of Upper Egypt was undertaken in order to explore this hypothesis. Badarian crania were studied with European and African series, using Generalized distances and cluster analyses (neighbour joining and UPGMA algorithms). Greater affinity is found with the African series.
- Soy Keita, A.J. Boyce.

The equally Negro features of the protodynastic face of Tera Neter and those of the the first king to unify the valley, also prove that this is the only valid hypothesis. - Prof. William Petrie, The making of Egypt.

The Anu- first rulers of Kemet.

These... were long-headed-dolicocephalic is the learned term-and below even medium stature, but Negroid features are often to be observed. Whatever may be said of the northerners, it is safe to describe the dwellers in Upper Egypt as of essentially African stock, - Sir Alan Gardiner.

comparison with neighboring Nile Valley skeletal samples suggests that the high status cemetery represents an endogamous ruling or elite segment of the local population at Naqada, which is more closely related to populations in northern Nubia than to neighboring populations in southern Egypt.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 101, Issue 2, October 1996, Pages: 237-246

At Tushka in Nubia, the horn cores of cows were placed in burials as early as 10,000 BC, suggesting their afterlife beliefs. - The Origins of Egyptian Religion
by Taylor Ray Ellison

Late Pleistocene/Holocene Tushka ( Sudanese Nubia) is 'Negroid'
COLIN P. GROVES AND ALAN THORNE 1999
The Terminal Pleistocene and
Early Holocene Populations of Northern Africa.

The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar associationis presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia. -Hiernaux The People of Africa.

"The M2 lineage is mainly found primarily in "eastern", "sub-saharan", and sub-equatorial African groups, those with the highest frequency of the "Broad" trend physiognomy, but found also in notable frequencies in Nubia and Upper Egypt, as indicated by the RFLP TaqI 49a, f variant IV (see Lucotte and Mercier, 2003; Al-Zahery et al. 2003 for equivalecies of markers), which is affiliated with it. The distribution of these markers in other parts of Africa has usually been explained by the "Bantu migrations", but their presence in the Nile Valley in non-Bantu speakers cannot be explained in this way. Their existence is better explained by their being present in populations of the early Holocene Sahara, who in part went on to people the Nile Valley in the mid-Holocene, according to Hassan (1988); this occured long before the "Bantu migrations", which also do not exlain the high frequency of M2 in Senegal, since there are no Bantu speakers there either". S.O.Y. Keita
American Journal of Human Biology
16:679-689 (2004)

Black African Hunter 5'5" in height, 6000 BC

The people of the Sahara apparently influenced the cultures of both the Nile valley and of West Africa. The domestication of the local wild Bos africanus cattle probably also originated in the Sahara, in the fourth millennium.

The pictures provide the most complete record of a prehistoric African culture.

An Italian team of archaeologists first explored the Libyan Sahara almost fifty years ago. In 1958 they struck gold. Professor Fabrizio Mori discovered the Black mummy [5,000 bc] at the Uan Muhuggiag rockshelter - world fact book, http://www.fulcrumtv.com/blackmummy.htm

posted 13 February 2005 01:07 PM            

quote:

---

Evil:

Semantics. "Non-African" means they resembled worldwide populations and not modern Bantu-influenced Africans. Obviously.

---

Making no sense here: How could it be "non-African", when you are in fact talking about "Africans"?

Are you suggesting that East Africans didn’t have their traits, before others outside Africa? If so, the evidence for this is most welcome.

quote:

---

Evil:

Negroids developed in West Africa during the Holocene. This has been proven.

---

…When?

Let us see if we can address amnesia by refreshing your memory. Therefore bit by bit, here’s what went down:

Evil Euro stated:

quote:

---

You're quite delusional. What's been proven is that Negroids are of recent West African origin, that they spread east beginning c. 1000 B.C., and that pre-historic East Africans were generalized moderns. E3b, of course, is associated with the Caucasoid populations of North Africa, West Asia and Europe, and the hybrid populations of East Africa. It's not associated with unmixed Negroids.

---

S.Mohammad used Evil’s own reference against him:

quote:

---

The first known inhabitants of Ethiopia were hunting peoples whose scattered descendants remained in southern Ethiopia. As early as the 8th millennium B.C., a [Negroid element appeared, probably only in the southern part of the country, and mingled with people arriving later (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1964, vol. 8, p. 782).

---

After which, Evil said:

quote:

---

Thanks for confirming that Negroids were not yet present in East Africa at the time of any OOA migrations. Nice job proving yourself wrong…

---

S.Mohammad’s reply was:

quote:

---

Your own source debunked you.
• This paper says nothing about Negroids not being present in East Africa during OOA migrations, which happened BTW 70,000-90,000 years ago.

• The source does debunk what you have been saying, and that was Negroids were not present in East Africa until Bantu dispersals brought them there. That was the lame purpose of your Asselar Man thread.

• Its amazing to see your reaction, now that you can no longer say Negroid people only came from West Africa, since the Negroid presence in Ethiopia in essence precedes the appearance of Asselar Man.

  
  

• BTW, the source says nothing about Caucasoids being in East Africa before Negroids. Indeed Passarino et tal's study says that "Caucasoid" mixture came in the Neolithic and much later on through contact with Yemen. Your own source totally debunked you…
  

---

Evil said:

quote:

---

E3b, of course, is associated with the Caucasoid populations of North Africa, West Asia and Europe, and the hybrid populations of East Africa. It's not associated with unmixed Negroids.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

1. Define your terms. What is a Negroid in a scientific sense?
   
   
   
   • What is a non-Negroid "generalized modern" in a scientific sense?

   • Would a Tutsi be a Negroid or a non-Negroid "generalized modern" in a phneotypic sense?
     

2. Central African's migrated into East and West Africa prior to the Last Glacial Maximum spreading L2a lineages.
   

---

Also Thought asked a simple question:

quote:

---

Are you suggesting E3b originated in Europe?

---

To which Evil evaded, and instead states:

quote:

---

E-M78-alpha originated in Europe. Other descendents of E3b originated in North Africa and the Middle East. E3b itself was an OOA haplogroup like M89 and L3.

---

This doesn’t answer Thought’s question. He asked you about origins of E3b, not descendents of E3b!

Thought repeatedly asked:

quote:

---

Please define your terms, what does "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" mean TO YOU in a scientific sense?

In that E3a and E3b CLEARLY derive from a common source, lay out your chronology for the appearance of "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" phenotypes?

---

Evil’s answer to date:

quote:

---

Nil…

---

posted 13 February 2005 08:18 PM            

Thought Writes:

posted 13 February 2005 08:23 PM            

Thought Writes:

Are you saying that humans all over the globe resembled East AFricans during the Mesolithic period?

{Wow, a single skeleton that's described as "proto-Khoisan".....Sounds like a generalized modern}

Thought Writes:

The prefix "proto" means earliest or original. Hence "proto-Khoisan" means first Khoisan. Are you suggesting that populations worldwide were Khoisan like in appearance/phenotype during the mesolithic period?

posted 14 February 2005 07:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Actually the Aryanists and Medicentrists essentially agree.

---

There's no such thing as a Medicentrist. That's a term used only by Nords and Negroes with inferiority complexes. See, an Aryanist is someone who believes ancient Mediterranean cultures were created by Nordics. Similarly, an Afrocentrist is someone who believes ancient Mediterranean cultures were created by Negroids. However, since ancient Mediterranean cultures actually were created by Mediterraneans, there's no need for a pseudo-historical movement to establish such. "Medicentrism" is simply historical fact. And giving it that name is just a way to deny the facts.

quote:

---

Your anger and hatred at Blacks is therefore misdirected and a classic example of transference in the face of rejection.

---

Yes, I'm sure I'm heartbroken that a South African halfwit, who undoubtedly has more black admixture than any Southern European, doesn't want to be my friend. And I'm equally devastated by the rejection of his semi-literate, trailer-dwelling, hillbilly followers in the U.S. My feelings toward (certain) blacks stem directly from the folly of Afrocentrism. Stop trying to absolve yourself by pawning your crimes off on others. And keep your psychobabble to yourself.

quote:

---

usually excluding southern Europeans (often called "Latins")

---

posted 14 February 2005 07:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
As for prehistoric Black Africans, if you want more, just ask politely....

---

posted 14 February 2005 08:04 AM            

quote:

---

There's no such thing as a Medicentrist.

---

quote:

---

Yes, I'm sure I'm heartbroken that a South African halfwit, who undoubtedly has more black admixture than any Southern European, doesn't want to be my friend. And I'm equally devastated by the rejection of his semi-literate, trailer-dwelling, hillbilly followers in the U.S.

---

posted 14 February 2005 08:15 AM            

quote:

---

Hiernaux has been refuted.

---

quote:

---

And Negroid skeletal remains from the Holocene are irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

As usual, you've proven nothing.

---

lol. As usual, you have NO ANSWERS.

next customer....

posted 14 February 2005 09:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Keita is an Afrocentrist.

---

Automatic strawman argument as none of what Keita says is Afrocentric. Yeah, an Afrocentrists like Keita continues to post in the most prestigous Journals.

quote:

---

x has been refuted. And Negroid skeletal remains from the Holocene are irrelevant. As usual, you've proven nothing.

---

Where and when you moron? If anything, the information Thought posted proves why Hiernaux was right and you're wrong, continue to parrot Dienekes .

posted 14 February 2005 09:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Keita is an Afrocentrist.

---

Evil Euro has put his head up his rearend once again.......

The Question of Race in ancient Egypt
A disputed terrain

The human catastrophe of early modern slavery juxtaposed west and central Africans with northwest Europeans in the Americas. Out of this genocidal experience, race has become a dominant category for uniting and dividing people in modernity. Within the race debate, ancient Egypt has become a terrain contested by three mutually exclusive views:

modern Egyptian: the ancient Egyptians are the same group of people as the modern Egyptians

Afrocentric: the ancient Egyptians were black Africans, displaced by later movements of peoples, for example the Macedonian, Roman and Arab conquests

Eurocentric: the ancient Egyptians are ancestral to modern Europe
Sources

1. Human remains: The direct evidence for debating the question is the ancient population as it survives in human remains. There are two dominant problems:

published physical anthropological study of groups remains astonishingly rare, with most attention going to studies of a single individual objectivity remains elusive within the race debate, and is perhaps impossible

The contributions by Keita are outstanding exceptions to the general lack of both demographic study and objectivity (Keita 1990; Keita 1992). DNA research is expected to transform this debate, though self-critical consciousness is not always displayed by proponents.

http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/social/race.html

Once again you have been debunked and your lame strawman refuted. So I guess this site is Afrocentric for saying Keita is objective? Quote one source that says Keita is an Afrocentrist from an established authority. Jackass!!

posted 14 February 2005 10:19 AM            

quote:

---

Evil:

Semantics. "Non-African" means they resembled worldwide populations and not modern Bantu-influenced Africans. Obviously.

---

Making no sense here: How could it be "non-African", when you are in fact talking about "Africans"?

Are you suggesting that East Africans didn’t have their traits, before others outside Africa? If so, the evidence for this is most welcome.

quote:

---

Evil:

Negroids developed in West Africa during the Holocene. This has been proven.

---

…When?

Let us see if we can address amnesia by refreshing your memory. Therefore bit by bit, here’s what went down:

Evil Euro stated:

quote:

---

You're quite delusional. What's been proven is that Negroids are of recent West African origin, that they spread east beginning c. 1000 B.C., and that pre-historic East Africans were generalized moderns. E3b, of course, is associated with the Caucasoid populations of North Africa, West Asia and Europe, and the hybrid populations of East Africa. It's not associated with unmixed Negroids.

---

S.Mohammad used Evil’s own reference against him:

quote:

---

The first known inhabitants of Ethiopia were hunting peoples whose scattered descendants remained in southern Ethiopia. As early as the 8th millennium B.C., a [Negroid element appeared, probably only in the southern part of the country, and mingled with people arriving later (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1964, vol. 8, p. 782).

---

After which, Evil said:

quote:

---

Thanks for confirming that Negroids were not yet present in East Africa at the time of any OOA migrations. Nice job proving yourself wrong…

---

S.Mohammad’s reply was:

quote:

---

Your own source debunked you.
• This paper says nothing about Negroids not being present in East Africa during OOA migrations, which happened BTW 70,000-90,000 years ago.

• The source does debunk what you have been saying, and that was Negroids were not present in East Africa until Bantu dispersals brought them there. That was the lame purpose of your Asselar Man thread.

• Its amazing to see your reaction, now that you can no longer say Negroid people only came from West Africa, since the Negroid presence in Ethiopia in essence precedes the appearance of Asselar Man.

  
  

• BTW, the source says nothing about Caucasoids being in East Africa before Negroids. Indeed Passarino et tal's study says that "Caucasoid" mixture came in the Neolithic and much later on through contact with Yemen. Your own source totally debunked you…
  

---

Evil said:

quote:

---

E3b, of course, is associated with the Caucasoid populations of North Africa, West Asia and Europe, and the hybrid populations of East Africa. It's not associated with unmixed Negroids.

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

1. Define your terms. What is a Negroid in a scientific sense?
   
   
   
   • What is a non-Negroid "generalized modern" in a scientific sense?

   • Would a Tutsi be a Negroid or a non-Negroid "generalized modern" in a phneotypic sense?
     

2. Central African's migrated into East and West Africa prior to the Last Glacial Maximum spreading L2a lineages.
   

---

Also Thought asked a simple question:

quote:

---

Are you suggesting E3b originated in Europe?

---

To which Evil evaded, and instead states:

quote:

---

E-M78-alpha originated in Europe. Other descendents of E3b originated in North Africa and the Middle East. E3b itself was an OOA haplogroup like M89 and L3.

---

This doesn’t answer Thought’s question. He asked you about origins of E3b, not descendents of E3b!

Thought repeatedly asked:

quote:

---

Please define your terms, what does "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" mean TO YOU in a scientific sense?

In that E3a and E3b CLEARLY derive from a common source, lay out your chronology for the appearance of "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" phenotypes?

---

Evil’s answer to date:

quote:

---

Nil…

---

hybrid populations in east africa?this guy evil euro thinks that all or most of east africa is/was like modern somalia.wrong again euro,most of east africa is not hybrid,and some of the ones that mixed happen over the centuries,and mostly in recent african history,of course in the depends on the region,state or ethnic group.
some of the east africans that have some form of mixture did not just happen overnight.
Most sudanese are not mixed or hybrids as you call them, even some black arabs in the sudan are unmixed blacks, chancellor williams said when he did his field work in the sudan in 1964,and most nubians are full blood black africans in the sudan,but nubians are nilo-saharan and came from the southwest ANYWAY.
most folks in kenya,tan. and some in ethiopia are still full blooded black africans and in some other states in east africa.most of the so CALLED mixing did not happen overnight and most of it happen in the horn of africa.

The horn of africa is not only east africa.Most east africans live outside of the horn africa,and most EAST AFRICANS outside the horn of africa did not mix with outsiders that much.by the way the state of sudan is not a horn of african state.
Most of east africa like west africa is mostly filled with unmixed black africans,and the ones that have some form of mixture are still black.
some that have a greater mixture and do not look black or really white,might not call themselves black while others do,of course it depends on the ethnic group.

posted 14 February 2005 11:27 AM            

quote:

---

You realize that Keita professor was none other than Larry Angel. Angel has fairly the same view as Keita.

---

Of course he knows because he's been told before:

quote:

---

Journal of Human Evolution (1972) 1, 307 - 313 "...one can identify NEGROID traits of nose and prognathism appearing in natufian hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and MACEDONIAN first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably FROM NUBIA (Anderson, 1969) via the unknown predecessors of Badarians..."

---

He simply has no answers to Kieta, or Boyce or Angel or Heirnaux or Ellison
or Groves or Thorne or Fabrizio Mori or Petrie or Gardiner.

So he offers up a straw man and baits you into chasing after it. Boring.

posted 14 February 2005 06:13 PM            

quote:

---

kenndo:

hybrid populations in east africa?this guy evil euro thinks that all or most of east africa is/was like modern somalia.

---

quote:

---

Thought writes:

In terms of mtDNA the ONLY substantial non-African lineage Somalians have is pre-HV at about 11%...In terms of the Y Chromosome, the Eurasian input is about the same, with the presence of haplogroup J at about 11% as well. This limited gene flow, which probably dates to the historic Arab period in no way implies that the original Somalis were Caucasoid. In fact Bantu speakers from Cameroon have R1b frequencies greater than 14%...

---

posted 14 February 2005 10:07 PM            

The American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 1975

New studies of post Pleistocene human skeletal remains from the Rift Valley Kenya.

quote:

---

Prehistoric human crania from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, Makalia Burial Site, Nakuru, and other localities in the Eastern Rift Valley of Kenya are reassessed using measurements and a multivariate statistical approach. Materials available for comparison include series of Bushman and Hottentot crania - South and East African and Egyptian. Up to 34 cranial measurements taken on these series are utilized to construct three multiple discriminent frameworks, each of which can assign modern individuals to a correct group with considerable accuracy.

When the prehistoric crania are classified with the help of these discriminents, results indicate that several of the skulls are best grouped with modern Negroes This is especially clear in the case of individuals from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, and Nakuru, and the evidence hardly suggests post-Pleistocene domination of the Rift and surrounding territory by "Mediterranean’s", as has been claimed.

Recent linguistic and archaeological findings are also reviewed, and these seem to support application of the term "Nilotic" to the early Rift populations.

---

posted 14 February 2005 11:08 PM            

quote:

---

posted by rasol:

EuroDisney - we want to talk to Boss Dienekes now please. You are 'excused'.

---

Speaking of Dienekes, interestingly it appears that Thought (likely the same Thought2 on this board) had a discussion with him elsewhere about the study you just posted...in which of course, Dienekes made the mistake of talking about ESA so-called "white" or Mediterranean East Africans, and attributing greater diversity and continuity to Europeans, than Africans.

Evil Euro indeed appears to be very much influenced by him and funny at that, in that, after the aforementioned discussion, its unlikely that Dienekes would make the mistake of trying to provide chronology of "negroid" and "caucasoid" appearance in East Africa.

posted 15 February 2005 01:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Speaking of Dienekes, interestingly it appears that Thought (likely the same Thought2 on this board) had a discussion with him elsewhere about the study you just posted...in which of course, Dienekes made the mistake of talking about ESA so-called "white" or Mediterranean East Africans, and attributing greater diversity and continuity to Europeans, than Africans.

Evil Euro indeed appears to be very much influenced by him and funny at that, in that, after the aforementioned discussion, its unlikely that Dienekes would make the mistake of trying to provide chronology of "negroid" and "caucasoid" appearance in East Africa.
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 14 February 2005).]

---

Where does the idea of Mediterranean East Africans come from? I actually found the following statement by Mr.Evil especially absurd:

quote:

---

The record is clear: Pre-historic East Africans were "non-African", "Hamitic" and "generalized modern".

---

Simply mind-boggling...

posted 15 February 2005 07:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

---

Google "Medicentrism". Zero results. It doesn't exist. It was made up last year by Aryanists envious of Mediterranean achievement, and picked up shortly after by equally envious -- and politically kindred -- Afronuts.

quote:

---

"No man hates the world so much as the man who hates himself"

---

The world you hate . . . . . . . . . The self you hate . . . . . . . .

quote:

---

They are relevant to...East African colonisation of the Levant during the Holocene

---

posted 15 February 2005 08:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
The funny part is that Pete Sampras has more prognathism and a wider nose that most East Africans yet Evil Euro considers him as part of "Caucasoid natural variation". Pete Sampras can pass a quadroon. He's a perfect example of a Greek with Negroid affinities. Europeans are diverse but not as much as Africans. East Africans that have so-called "Caucasoid" features are hybrids, but Pete Sampras is pure Caucasoid even with his Negroid features. No kind of consistency by Evil Euro

---

Sampras is a Mediterranean with a thin nose and no prognathism. He has no Negroid features whatsoever. You're a blind monkey.

posted 15 February 2005 08:18 AM            

quote:

---

Google "Medicentrism". Zero results. It doesn't exist

---

It exists. It simply doesn't 'register.'