posted 02 March 2005 08:32 AM            

In the following map of African genetic distances, we can see that the distances between E3b North Africans and E3a Sub-Saharan Africans are equivalent to those between white Englishmen and nonwhites, once again demolishing the Afro-myth of "Black Africans" linked by the PN2 clade. And of course, East African and Saharan groups occupy an intermediate position, reflecting their status as white/black hybrids.

Average Distances:

Among North Africans 182
Among East Africans/Saharans 200
Among Sub-Saharan Africans 166

posted 02 March 2005 09:10 AM            

Genes, peoples, and languages L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza

By Disney's ridiculous rhetoric and logic-free semantics.... wherein intermediacy on a genetic distance map somehow equates to hybrid, European whites are merely mongrel-hybrids of Black and Asian pure races.

quote:

---

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

---

Prehistoric East Africans are not hybrids with whites because WHITES DO NOT EXIST in prehistoric East Africa. The highly variable genetic distances (as low as 135 in some cases) between different groups of Black Africans and the genetically intermediate nature of Euroepeans has NO BEARING whatsoever on this fact.

The classification of humans into races has proved to be a futile excercise, there are no objective reasons for splitting the human species into any lower taxonomic level.

In terms of genetic distance the greatest difference is between Africans and non Africans.

East Asian [including Black Melanesiasn] and Africans show the greatest genetic distance regardless of phenotype.

Europeans are intermediate between Africans and East Asians.

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

Although not homogeneous, the European landscape has been characterized by relatively short genetic distances between individual populations. Classic genetic markers have revealed a few clearly pronounced genetic outliers, such as the Greeks....

-Luigi Cavalli-Sforza [Italian, population geneticist.

posted 02 March 2005 10:01 AM            

If genetic distance correlates strongly with geographical distance then possibly explain why the "greatest genetic distance exists between Africans and non-Africans" as C-Sforza claims. I believe was just being "ideologically correct" here. In fact, Y chromosome haplotype maps don't show that all-- given the data re Greek populations and other Southern Europeans.

And then there's the data qualifier which demonstates that Africa's populations are the most gentically diverse of all other populations. But again, it seems as if the orthodox researchers are reading something into the fact that world's continental masses actually meant something to humans as they trekked from place to place--no doubt in search of animals to hunt or fruit trees from which to gather fruit.

posted 02 March 2005 10:41 AM            

quote:

---

To Rasol:
If genetic distance correlates strongly with geographical distance then possibly explain why the "greatest genetic distance exists between Africans and non-Africans" as C-Sforza claims.

---

Indeed. You can do just about anything you want with genetic distance and treeness maps.

This map is also from C-Sforza:

quote:

---

And then there's the data qualifier which demonstates that Africa's populations are the most gentically diverse of all other populations.

---

This is the key point that intelligent persons need comprehend. The majority of the worlds genetic diversity is found within Africa.

Two populations of physically similar Africans may have very large genetic distances between them.

Or two populations may be genetically similar and appear physically distinct.

Since populations migrate geography doesn't necessarily tell the tale either.

Hence, genetic similarity between the West Africans of Mali and East of Africans of Egypt and Sudan may be as low as
135 (as is the case with the West African Touareg - and East African Beja) or much higher.

Thus genetic distance maps are easily made to apparently contradict each other, and they do NOT 'prove' the concept of race.

They certainly can't help Disney to fabricate a pre-historic East African white race which simply DOES NOT EXIST.

Nor will they make the facts of Black African ancestry in Southern Europeans go away.

Sub-saharen affinities of Greeks:
Arnaiz-Villena A, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J. Genetic distances between populations obtained by using HLA-DRB1 allele frequencies:

posted 03 March 2005 07:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
According to Cavalli-Sforza Europeans are GENETICALLY INTERMEDIATE between Black Africans * East Asians.

---

Irrelevant and doesn't change the fact that North Africans are as unrelated to sub-Saharan Africans as Northern Europeans are. Your dream of a unified "Black Africa" based on haplogroup E has been shattered...again.

quote:

---

Sub-saharen affinities of Greeks:
Arnaiz-Villena A, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J. Genetic distances between populations obtained by using HLA-DRB1 allele frequencies:

---

posted 04 March 2005 07:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Ah, when EUROPEANS are mapped as intermediates.... intermediacy suddenly becomes irrelevant..

---

Poor, low-IQ slave -- can't understand the white man's science. Europeans are geographically located between Africans and Asians, and hence genetically intermediate. East Africans are located within "Black Africa" and therefore should cluster with other black Africans. They don't. They're intermediate between Africans and Eurasians. Deal with it.

And of course, none of this changes the fact you keep avoiding, that E3b North Africans are as unrelated to E3a Sub-Saharan Africans as Northern Europeans are.

quote:

---

moving on.....

---

posted 04 March 2005 07:58 AM            

quote:

---

Europeans are geographically located between Africans and Asians

---

Africa borders Asia.

Europe is a geographically remote part of Eurasia.

This is one reason why Europe was one of the last places on earth settled by modern African humans and a last hold out of primative Neanderthal man.

(Loring Brace actually believes Europeans are Hybrid with Neanderthal)

Hence Europe's genetic intermediacy remains just as relevant as any other form of "intermediacy"....if not MORE SO.

It's your EXCUSES that are irrelevant.

quote:

---

East Africans are located within "Black Africa"

---

Which leads right back to what you're RUNNING AWAY FROM:

The gene flow FROM Black Africa TO Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.) -Arnaiz-Villena A et al

quote:

---

E3b North Africans

---

E3b is East African, which is in Black Africa, whose Natives are Black Africans. Are you getting any clearer on this, or are you still feigning denial? Doesn't matter, you ARE gradually admitting the truth, however bitter you may be about it.

quote:

---

therefore should cluster with other black Africans

---

But where are your pre-historic whites of East Africa? They don't exist do they? Why pretend otherwise? Just admit it and end your self inflected suffering.

quote:

---

Poor, low-IQ slave

---

Flame attacks expose your frustration in the face of your own ineptitude. Boring.

Slavery played a major role in ancient Greek civilization. . There may have been as many, if not more, slaves than free people in ancient Greece. It is difficult for historians to determine exactly how many slaves there were during these times, because many did not appear any different from the poorer Greek citizens. They were always supervised by the woman of the house who was responsible for making sure that all the slaves were kept busy and didn't get out of line. This could be quite a task as most wealthy Greek households had as many as 10-20 slaves. http://www.crystalinks.com/greekslavery.html

quote:

---

can't understand the white man's science.

---

Dr Spencer Wells, Harvard evolutionary geneticist:

There is more genetic diversity in any single African village than in the whole world outside Africa, which proves that the world's entire non-African population must be descended from a relatively small sub-set of Africans. There isn't as much non African diversity because there wasn't much genetic material to begin with. But Africans are descended from a far larger population, providing greater genetic diversity. - South Africa Sunday Times.

EuroDisney, let us know when you learn how to think, and not just hate. Then we can have, an actual debate.

posted 04 March 2005 07:26 PM            

It's a complex mosaic, which is what you get when you have a hybrid," Dr. Trinkaus said. "This is the first definite evidence of admixture between Neanderthals and European early modern humans." http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Neanderthal.html

or not?

posted 04 March 2005 07:35 PM            

Here is an interesting link on European origins.

posted 04 March 2005 07:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Here is an interesting link on European origins.

Thought Posts:
http://members.surfeu.fi/kalevi.wiik/juuret/atlasdemo.pdf

---

Thought Writes:

Question 20 indicates that Europeans are heterogenous. The Ukranian region may have served as the refugium for "REAL Whites"/Northern Europeans.

posted 04 March 2005 08:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Question 20 indicates that Europeans are heterogenous. The Ukranian region may have served as the refugium for "REAL Whites"/Northern Europeans.

---

posted 04 March 2005 08:47 PM            

quote:

---

Evil:
Poor, low-IQ slave -- can't understand the white man's science.

---

posted 05 March 2005 08:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
That is because East Africans are predominently Black

---

Ah, so you're finally backtracking in the face of overwhelming evidence. Yes, East Africans (Ethiopians and Somalis) are indeed "predominantly black", since 60% is more than half. But they're also significantly non-black, which explains why they place between Africans and Eurasians in genetic as well as skeletal analyses. Glad you're finally beginning to accept the truth.

And of course, North Africans (~70% E3b) are not black at all, which is why they're an average distance of 1689 from sub-Saharan Africans -- the same distance as Englishmen.

quote:

---

The gene flow FROM Black Africa TO Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.) -Arnaiz-Villena A et al

---

Posting that obviously bogus study over and over betrays your lack of any real evidence, and indicates that you're drowning and have nothing left to lose at this point. How sad.

quote:

---

Flame attacks expose your frustration in the face of your own ineptitude.

---

No, they reflect my exasperation in the face of your stupidity.

posted 05 March 2005 08:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
That is because East Africans are predominently Black

---

quote:

---

Ah, so you're finally backtracking

---

Review, Disney admits:

quote:

---

East Africans are located within "Black Africa"

---

Rasol writes:

quote:

---

Exactly. That is because East Africans are predominently Black, hence the term Black Africa.

---

Don't try and distort my comments Disney. I'll nail you every time.

Now...where are your pre historic whites of East AFrica?

posted 05 March 2005 08:24 AM            

quote:

---

Yes, East Africans (Ethiopians and Somalis) are indeed "predominantly black"

---

No pre-historic whites of East Africa = you have no argument.

posted 05 March 2005 08:33 AM            

quote:

---

And of course, North Africans (~70% E3b) are not black at all

---

posted 05 March 2005 08:49 AM            

quote:

---

The gene flow FROM Black Africa TO Greece may have occurred in Pharaonic times or when Saharan people emigrated after the present hyperarid conditions were established (5000 years B.C.) -Arnaiz-Villena A et al

---

quote:

---

...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

---

Sorry Disney, but the conclusions quoted above are essentially accurate and have been independantly verified via Benin Hbs from West Africa and E3b from East Africa preponderant in modern day Greece and other parts of Southern Europe.

Most Southern Europeans know this. Which is why they have rejected you and your ethnocentric sillyness, as do we.

quote:

---

Flame attacks expose your frustration in the face of your own ineptitude.

---

quote:

---

Disney writes: No, they reflect my exasperation

---

with a scientific community that has rejected your racist views.

with southern europeans who reject ethnocentric grandstanding.

with your Nordi-centric counterparts who draw the bogus race-purity apartheid line two inches in front of your nose, and then taunt you with it.

and with egyptsearch.com, because you've trolled your pet obsession for almost two months on this forum and have been exposed as a fraud in every single thread including this one.

No wonder you're frustrated.

quote:

---

in the face of your stupidity.

---

Troll response - meant to evade answering....

quote:

---

Dr Spencer Wells, Harvard evolutionary geneticist:

There is more genetic diversity in any single African village than in the whole world outside Africa, which proves that the world's entire non-African population must be descended from a relatively small sub-set of Africans. There isn't as much non African diversity because there wasn't much genetic material to begin with. But Africans are descended from a far larger population, providing greater genetic diversity.

---

posted 05 March 2005 10:18 AM            

Issue: How To Maintain An Illogical Proposition.

Method: Utilize reason up to a certain point, then shift to a vague argument in a dishonest attempt to protect ones biased ideological premise.

Example: Claim that pre-historic East Africans were MOT Black or "Negroid", yet never describe what one means when utilizing these terms.

posted 05 March 2005 12:03 PM            

quote:

---

You guys, look at what you've done!! All your racial debates have now attracted an imbecile from the screwed up school of thought of Arthur Kemp!! When will you guys just leave these idiots alone and talk Egypt, other than race!!!

---

Best to make constructive contributions rather than giving others sanctimonous lectures.

Especially coming from someone who repeatedly respounds to Abaza's absolutely brain dead troll bait.

Stormfront flakes have come around periodically to this forum for years.
Since long before you joined this forum.

It's up to the FORUM MODERATOR to delete such obvious trolling posts.

posted 05 March 2005 02:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Stormfront flakes have come around periodically to this forum for years.
Since long before you joined this forum.

It's up to the FORUM MODERATOR to delete such obvious trolling posts.

ps - why are you even reading this now?

---

Thought Writes:

I have a feeling Djehuti may not REALLY be the person he is REPRESENTING himself as.

posted 06 March 2005 07:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Sorry Disney, but the conclusions quoted above are essentially accurate and have been independantly verified via Benin Hbs from West Africa and E3b from East Africa preponderant in modern day Greece and other parts of Southern Europe.

Most Southern Europeans know this. Which is why they have rejected you and your ethnocentric sillyness, as do we.

---

Drowning Afronuts . . .