posted 01 July 2005 03:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
There are always people who feel more at home attacking to dominant power structure. It is a way of justifying their inablity to compete in the dominant culture. This is especially true in an era when Utopian philosophies are numerous. 'The Prince' and the tenents of social darwinism should be must reading for everyone. we have to understand that the strong and smart will always prevail under all possible circumstances. The weak will be subjecated and die under all possible circumstances. Even in our so called 'enlightened age' this continues to be the case, as it must be.

---

posted 01 July 2005 03:28 PM            

quote:

---

There are always people who feel more at home attacking to dominant power structure.

---

There are always people who feel threatened by new ideas and who hide inside "the Matrix" and its "dominant power structure".

quote:

---

It is a way of justifying their inablity to compete in the dominant culture.

---

It is a way of justifying their inability to think for themselves or engage in factual discourse.

quote:

---

This is especially true in an era when Utopian philosophies are numerous.

---

quote:

---

'The Prince' and the tenents of social darwinism should be must reading for everyone.

---

quote:

---

we have to understand that the strong and smart will always prevail under all possible circumstances. The weak will be subjecated and die under all possible circumstances. Even in our so called 'enlightened age' this continues to be the case, as it must be.

---

The mentally strong are capable of addressing issues, directly, specifically, concisely and clearly.

posted 01 July 2005 04:17 PM            

Critics of such theories argue that by asserting that societies develop and therefore operate by "natural" laws, the real aim of "Social Darwinism" theories is to rationalize and thereby legitimize the unequal and disproportionate divisions between and within societies. Critics may make note that Darwin's own work never contained the logical and naturalistic fallacies of assuming that the existence of natural processes would mean that they could "naturally" be extended from biological systems to social systems. In essence, it justifies the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer by incorrectly applying Darwin's theory.

Mahciavellianism - being or acting in accordance with the principles of government analyzed in Machiavelli's The Prince, in which political expediency is placed above morality and the use of craft and deceit to maintain the authority and carry out the policies of a ruler is described.

posted 01 July 2005 04:42 PM            

quote:

---

spoken like a true Utopian rasol.

---

No, just someone who actually understands the meanings of the terms you toss about without comprehension.

quote:

---

The point is that if you put 10 people in a group and leave them there, one of them will take control.

---

The above is an excellent example - defines facism - A political philosophy marked by centralization of authority under a dictator,and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

As usual, you fail to address the THREAD TOPIC of pseudoscience, and attempt to destract attention with retarded rantings on facism, social darwinism, and Machiavellian. Did you even realise that the operative principal of Machiavellianism is -> lying? In effect, this is what you are trying to justify.

Nevermind, it's clear that this is actually the best you can do, so no point criticising the lack of an intelligible discourse which you clearly, are simply not capable of.

good day, professor.

posted 02 July 2005 02:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
spoken like a true Utopian rasol. The point is that if you put 10 people in a group and leave them there, one of them will take control. That individual is going to control a larger share of the groups power and resources than the others. Aristotle said it best when he defined man as motivated by "lust, rage and greed." Even racism is economic at its core. If you told white males that their personal wealth would be doubled by marrying a black woman they would all justify doing it. In other words, if you want to understand human beings....follow the money. that is the engine that makes social darwinism correct.

---

No, we humans are not animals, we are spiritual beings. We can transcend the fleshly desires and do things completely unpredictable. We are not govern by Darwin - we are the wildcards in the equation.

posted 02 July 2005 02:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
There are always people who feel more at home attacking to dominant power structure. It is a way of justifying their inablity to compete in the dominant culture. This is especially true in an era when Utopian philosophies are numerous. 'The Prince' and the tenents of social darwinism should be must reading for everyone. we have to understand that the strong and smart will always prevail under all possible circumstances. The weak will be subjecated and die under all possible circumstances. Even in our so called 'enlightened age' this continues to be the case, as it must be.

---

posted 02 July 2005 08:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
evade the facts presented.

---

Yes, you're quite good at that:

quote:

---

• If Angel's "negroid nose and mouth traits" represent black racial admixture, then where are the other Negroid traits? Where's the Negroid hair type, skull shape, skeletal form, pigmentation etc.? Funny how these Nomadic Neolithic Niggas transmitted only two of their traits to the Levantines and Greeks. Funny also that in his more detailed analyses, Angel makes no mention of a Negroid racial strain in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks. Neither does Coon for that matter. Nor Brace. Any answers, Negroes?

• If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR world-renowned geneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a single other genetic study -- even those conducted using the same HLA genes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed? This is quite remarkable indeed, but I'm sure the Negroes have a very good explanation. We're all waiting to hear it.

• "Today, Afrocentrism is a racist, highly conservative, nationalist pseudo-science (by the latter term I mean: based upon phony scholarship and premises). It victimizes black students almost exclusively, since it is they who have this nonsense foisted off upon them as truth.

  "The fact that it is tolerated and even promoted at various universities, including the one I teach at, is a tribute to higher education's racism against black students. This kind of worthless, reactionary crap would never be tolerated if it were being purveyed to white students!"

  -- Grover Furr, Montclair State University

---

posted 02 July 2005 09:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
evade the facts presented.

---

quote:

---

EE writes: Yes, you're quite good at that

---

You're lousy at it.
Answers provided by Angel, Keita, McCown, Cforza, Ehret, Garrod and Furon:

quote:

---

Rasol posts: Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers....probably FROM NUBIA via the predessors of the Badarians - Larry Angel

---

quote:

---

Natufian - present Negroid characteristics attributable to C R O S S B R E E D I N G - (Garrod and Furon.)...

---

quote:

---

and which denote the biological intrusion from Black Africa in Ancient Greeks and Western Asians (Ehret, Keita)

---

quote:

---

The People of Lerna
J.L. Angel

"Egypt includes an almost Mouillian-negroid early population, linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region, as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend in the gracile Badarians."

Thought Writes:

Angel goes on to state that these people migrated FROM Egypto-Nubia TO the Levant, Anatolia and Macedonia (Greece)

---

quote:

---

Europeans are a 1/3 African 2/3 Asian MIX. -C Sforza

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

---

quote:

---

E3b and Benin HBS in Europe illustrate this point well. - Keita

---

If you feel you must continue crying about the above facts, then I suggest you cry to the scholars quoted above, and not to us.

Your tears just make us laugh.

posted 03 July 2005 08:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Answers provided by Angel, Keita, McCown, Cforza, Ehret, Garrod and Furon:

---

Misinterpretations and irrelevancies provided by rasol, the retarded ape -- but of course, still no answers:

quote:

---

• Angel's Neolithic Types:

  "Although the first agricultural inhabitants of the belt from Syria-Israel-Jordan to North Africa were mainly rugged Mediterranean (A3 and some B, in varying preponderance) the eastern end of this belt (McGown, 1939; Vallois, 1936), shows some almost Bushmen-like Basic White (A4b) as well as lateral traits (E1 and C4 [Mixed Alpine and Alpine]) as at Jericho."

  
  

• Angel's Greek Types:

  1. Basic White (Type A)
  2. Classic Mediterranean (Type B)
  3. Nordic-Iranian (Type D)
  4. Dinaric-Mediterranean (Type F)
  5. Mixed Alpine (Type E)
  6. Alpine (Type C)

  
  

• On "negroid traits":

  If Angel's "negroid nose and mouth traits" represent black racial admixture, then where are the other Negroid traits? Where's the Negroid hair type, skull shape, skeletal form, pigmentation etc.? Funny how these Nomadic Neolithic Niggas transmitted only two of their traits to the Levantines and Greeks. Funny also that in his more detailed analyses, Angel makes no mention of a Negroid racial strain in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks. Neither does Coon for that matter. Nor Brace. Any answers, Negroes?

  
  

• On Nubians:

  "Starting from the Late Neolithic...similarities between the Nubians and the populations of Northeast Africa...and Asia...became even more distinct, which may prove the existence of strong ties derived probably from influx of the Caucasoids from the regions of Levant, Mesopotamia, and India. They were coming to Nubia through the Sinai Peninsula, but probably also through the south Saudi Arabia. The Kerma series from Upper Nubia shows particular similarities to the present-day Indian series.

  "From the Neolithic on, or possibly even earlier, the strategic location of Nubia, promoting contacts between various populations, started to bring about effects in the form of the civilizational development of this region. Finally, these two factors led to the Hamitisation process, whereby superimposition of the Caucasoids on the Negroids took place."

  
  

• On HLA-DRB1 Fraud:

  If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR world-renowned geneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a single other genetic study -- even those conducted using the same HLA genes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed? This is quite remarkable indeed, but I'm sure the Negroes have a very good explanation. We're all waiting to hear it.

  
  

• On HbS Uselessness:

  "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." (Ragusa et al. 1992)

  

  
  

• Anthropology:

  
  [ Neolithic Greeks are #7 -- right next to the Neolithic Swiss at #10 ]

  
  

• Y-chromosomes:

  

  

  
  

• Autosomes:

  

  

---

posted 03 July 2005 09:49 AM            

quote:

---

The Benin haplotype accounts for HbS associated chromosomes in Sicily, Northern Greece, Southern Turkey, and South West Saudi Arabia, suggesting that these genes had their origin in West Africa.

E3b and Benin Hbs in southern europe illustrate this fact well. - SOY Keita.

---

quote:

---

About 8,000 years ago, a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern [African E, West Asian J] and a new way of life: agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration, he said - PA Underhill

---

quote:

---

Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers....probably FROM NUBIA via the predessors of the Badarians - Larry Angel

---

quote:

---

Natufian - present Negroid characteristics attributable to C R O S S B R E E D I N G - (Garrod and Furon.)...

---

quote:

---

and which denote the biological intrusion from Black Africa in Ancient Greeks and Western Asians (Ehret, Keita)

---

quote:

---

The People of Lerna
J.L. Angel

"Egypt includes an almost Mouillian-negroid early population, linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region, as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend in the gracile Badarians."

Thought Writes:

Angel goes on to state that these people migrated FROM Egypto-Nubia TO the Levant, Anatolia and Macedonia (Greece)

---

quote:

---

Europeans are a 1/3 African 2/3 Asian MIX. -C Sforza

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

---

posted 04 July 2005 07:57 AM            

Desperate, drowning ape . . .

posted 04 July 2005 09:40 AM            

quote:

---

Endless reposting of material which my data....

---

.....has no bearing on.

Some comedy from you though, @"your data" Fruedian slip, and your usual bitter racist ad hominems.

Meanwhile, here's real data from renowned scientists -

Dr's Keita and Sforza, Ehret, Angel, McCown, Garrod, Furon, Serjeant, Underhill,
...and if you want more, just ask.

The Benin haplotype accounts for HbS associated chromosomes in Sicily, Northern Greece, Southern Turkey, and South West Saudi Arabia, suggesting that these genes had their origin in West Africa.

quote:

---

Populations should be viewed processually as dynamic entities over time and not “static” entities. The presence of M35/215 lineages and the Benin sickle cell variant in southern Europe illustrates this well. - DR. SOY Keita.

---

quote:

---

We have evidence of the intrusion of peoples from northeast Africa to southwest
Asia, ... markers FADE OUT as you go deeper into Eurasia

---

quote:

---

About 8,000 years ago, a more advanced people, the Neolithic, migrated to Europe from the Middle East, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern [African E, West Asian J] and a new way of life: agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration, he said - PA Underhill

---

quote:

---

Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers....probably FROM NUBIA via the predessors of the Badarians - Larry Angel

---

quote:

---

Natufian - present Negroid characteristics attributable to C R O S S B R E E D I N G - (Garrod and Furon.)...

---

quote:

---

The People of Lerna
J.L. Angel

"Egypt includes an almost Mouillian-negroid early population, linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region, as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend in the gracile Badarians."

Thought Writes:

Angel goes on to state that these people migrated FROM Egypto-Nubia TO the Levant, Anatolia and Macedonia (Greece)

---

quote:

---

Genetically Europeans appear to be the result of a 1/3 African 2/3 Asian MIX. -C Sforza

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

---

posted 05 July 2005 07:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Some comedy from you though, @"your data" Fruedian slip

---

Uh, it means the data I collected and posted, you no-answer numbskull.

quote:

---

Meanwhile, here's real data from renowned scientists -

---

Thanks for the introduction . . .

quote:

---

• Angel's Neolithic Types:

  "Although the first agricultural inhabitants of the belt from Syria-Israel-Jordan to North Africa were mainly rugged Mediterranean (A3 and some B, in varying preponderance) the eastern end of this belt (McGown, 1939; Vallois, 1936), shows some almost Bushmen-like Basic White (A4b) as well as lateral traits (E1 and C4 [Mixed Alpine and Alpine]) as at Jericho."

• Angel's Greek Types:

  1. Basic White (Type A)
  2. Classic Mediterranean (Type B)
  3. Nordic-Iranian (Type D)
  4. Dinaric-Mediterranean (Type F)
  5. Mixed Alpine (Type E)
  6. Alpine (Type C)

• On "negroid traits":

  If Angel's "negroid nose and mouth traits" represent black racial admixture, then where are the other Negroid traits? Where's the Negroid hair type, skull shape, skeletal form, pigmentation etc.? Funny how these Nomadic Neolithic Niggas transmitted only two of their traits to the Levantines and Greeks. Funny also that in his more detailed analyses, Angel makes no mention of a Negroid racial strain in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks. Neither does Coon for that matter. Nor Brace. Any answers, Negroes?

• On Nubians:

  "Starting from the Late Neolithic...similarities between the Nubians and the populations of Northeast Africa...and Asia...became even more distinct, which may prove the existence of strong ties derived probably from influx of the Caucasoids from the regions of Levant, Mesopotamia, and India. They were coming to Nubia through the Sinai Peninsula, but probably also through the south Saudi Arabia. The Kerma series from Upper Nubia shows particular similarities to the present-day Indian series.

  "From the Neolithic on, or possibly even earlier, the strategic location of Nubia, promoting contacts between various populations, started to bring about effects in the form of the civilizational development of this region. Finally, these two factors led to the Hamitisation process, whereby superimposition of the Caucasoids on the Negroids took place." (Aleksandra Pudlo, Anthropological Review, 1999)

• On HLA-DRB1 Fraud:

  If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR world-renowned geneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a single other genetic study -- even those conducted using the same HLA genes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed? This is quite remarkable indeed, but I'm sure the Negroes have a very good explanation. We're all waiting to hear it.

• On HbS Uselessness:

  "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." (Ragusa et al. 1992)

  

• Anthropology:

  
  [ Neolithic Greeks are #7 -- right next to the Neolithic Swiss at #10 ]

• Y-chromosomes:

  

  

• Autosomes:

  

  

---

posted 05 July 2005 11:43 AM            

Nubians do not have "caucasoid" ancestry! Having a few cranial traits similar to "caucasoids" does not a "caucasoid" make! The term "caucasoid" is a vague and loose term anyway (one which you still have not defined )! Not only Nubians but Ethiopians and Somalis were classified a such and even Tutsis of Rawanda who are predominantly E3a, and even the Fulani of West Africa.

I suggest you try a new method instead of rehashing old dead and buried theories.

posted 06 July 2005 07:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
all of that stuff you posted has been refuted long time ago

---

Really? Please post these "refutations". (Note: Afro-opinions and distorted data don't qualify as refutations.)

quote:

---

Nubians do not have "caucasoid" ancestry! Having a few cranial traits similar to "caucasoids" does not a "caucasoid" make!

---

posted 06 July 2005 12:43 PM            

quote:

---

So Nubians showing "particular similarities" to Mesopotamians and Indians doesn't make them partly Caucasoid,...

---

Since when were ancient or Bronze Age Indians "caucasoid"?!!

posted 06 July 2005 04:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
actually most of the population of India is caucasoid and has been since pre historic times. As you may know the indo european group north of the black sea split with one part migrating towards europe (including the Greeks) and the other going in a southeasterly direction towards India, Afghanistan , Iran etc. Part of this group moved into North africa as well including Egyptians and others across to the atlantic.

---

Outdated information. You might want to get caught up on the facts.

R1B clade never migrated down into Egypt until 1000 BC. The only argument in regards to Caucasian Encient Egyptians you can make is the one that EvilEuro is making and that is the idea that there was an ancient Caucasian people in East Afica unrelated to R1B clade which is your predominant European marker. This is the idea of E3b being a Caucasian gene. However, this is quite absurd to consider these East African people to be Caucasians since True Caucasians do not have E3b at all.

posted 06 July 2005 04:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
I see. So Nubians showing "particular similarities" to Mesopotamians and Indians doesn't make them partly Caucasoid, but Levantines and Greeks having just two verified primitive traits that happen to be common among Negroes makes them partly Negroid?

---

Depends on what time period we are doing the comparison. Since Indian people are a mixture of Caucasian and Australoid (like the Geat Andamans), depending on how far back you go you'll find that there's less Caucasian influence in the gene pool of India resulting in people who do have features more similar to Nubian people like the Great Andamans.

We have already discussed a lot about the first people of India.

These are you first Indian people:

So to say that Nubians have some affinity with the original people of India doesn't really work well for your argument. And again, yes I understand that the author may not have meant this but then you didn't clarify your time period of comparison groups. So it is easy to undermine your point. Please provide more clarity.

posted 06 July 2005 05:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
actually most of the population of India is caucasoid and has been since pre historic times...

---

quote:

---

...As you may know the indo european group north of the black sea split with one part migrating towards europe (including the Greeks) and the other going in a southeasterly direction towards India, Afghanistan , Iran etc...

---

quote:

---

Part of this group moved into North africa as well including Egyptians and others across to the atlantic.

---

posted 06 July 2005 05:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
...R1B clade never migrated down into Egypt until 1000 BC. The only argument in regards to Caucasian Encient Egyptians you can make is the one that EvilEuro is making and that is the idea that there was an ancient Caucasian people in East Afica unrelated to R1B clade which is your predominant European marker. This is the idea of E3b being a Caucasian gene. However, this is quite absurd to consider these East African people to be Caucasians since True Caucasians do not have E3b at all.

---

Don't even bother with bringing up genetic studies to answer the crap Hore said. Hore only brought up ethnolinguistics, which were already inaccurate!

quote:

---

Depends on what time period we are doing the comparison. Since Indian people are a mixture of Caucasian and Australoid (like the Geat Andamans), depending on how far back you go you'll find that there's less Caucasian influence in the gene pool of India resulting in people who do have features more similar to Nubian people like the Great Andamans.

---

quote:

---

So to say that Nubians have some affinity with the original people of India doesn't really work well for your argument. And again, yes I understand that the author may not have meant this but then you didn't clarify your time period of comparison groups. So it is easy to undermine your point. Please provide more clarity.

---

posted 06 July 2005 06:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
actually most of the population of India is caucasoid and has been since pre historic times. As you may know the indo european group north of the black sea split with one part migrating towards europe (including the Greeks) and the other going in a southeasterly direction towards India, Afghanistan , Iran etc. Part of this group moved into North africa as well including Egyptians and others across to the atlantic.

---

Horemheb, it would be nice if you would provide some documented proof to back up what you are saying, but what you say is so racist and redicules that not to many sources would be available to back em up.

Next time you go to one of your dinner parties, make sure you show all the junk you be spitting here without providing your identty on it and see if the people there don't develop hernias laughing at what you say here.

posted 06 July 2005 06:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Serpent Wizdom:
Horemheb, it would be nice if you would provide some documented proof to back up what you are saying, but what you say is so racist and redicules that not to many sources would be available to back em up.

Next time you go to one of your dinner parties, make sure you show all the junk you be spitting here without providing your identty on it and see if the people there don't develop hernias laughing at what you say here.

---

Indeed, Hore really lost all of what little credit he had for actually claiming the Egyptians as a branch of Indo-Europeans!!!

The Egyptians were ethnolinguistically a branch of Afro-Afrasians. Their language and culture is closely related to the Cushitic peoples of the Horn like Ethiopians and Somalians, and Chadic peoples like the Hausa of Nigeria. Heck, even the Egyptians have more in common with "caucasoid" Semitic speakers of the Near-East than they do with Indo-Europeans!!

posted 06 July 2005 09:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Don't even bother with bringing up genetic studies to answer the crap Hore said. Hore only brought up ethnolinguistics, which were already inaccurate!

[QUOTE][b]Depends on what time period we are doing the comparison. Since Indian people are a mixture of Caucasian and Australoid (like the Geat Andamans), depending on how far back you go you'll find that there's less Caucasian influence in the gene pool of India resulting in people who do have features more similar to Nubian people like the Great Andamans.

---

quote:

---

So to say that Nubians have some affinity with the original people of India doesn't really work well for your argument. And again, yes I understand that the author may not have meant this but then you didn't clarify your time period of comparison groups. So it is easy to undermine your point. Please provide more clarity.

---

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 06 July 2005).][/B][/QUOTE]

You know quite well I don't believe in Australoids, Pygmentoids or Europoids. I am only using his own words against him. The whole racial debate about Egyptians is broadly baseless. It all has to do with a term that has no scientific merit because we have no way of being objective about it: and that term is RACE.

Still, those that believe Blacks didn't have anything to do with Egypt have problems explaining the bust of Narmer or the latest in genetic evidence. Either way you want to define race the Egyptians seem to keep bobbing up a Black people. Push down the black apple in one area and another black apple bobs up to take its place.

Stupid Hor is still stuck on the Aryan model. Even foolhearted EvilEuro is not that stupid. At least EvilE is attacking the real connection rather than using baseless arguements that have been quite refuted for some significant time.

The arguement isn't even about Egyptians anymore, its goes much further down into Africa and becomes an arguement about the whole of East Africa. Egyptians are East Africans.

posted 07 July 2005 10:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
While it's true that East Indians are not fully Caucasoid, in the genetic and craniometric maps I posted above, they group close to Eurasians and far from Sub-Saharan Africans. And Aleksandra Pudlo clearly states that she's talking about "influx of the Caucasoids from the regions of Levant, Mesopotamia, and India".

---

Dumb-Euro, craniometric features are the most diverse feautures of human anatomy!!

What you fail to realize is that Nubians, Egyptians, and other East Africans like Ethiopians and Somalians do not fall outside the range of "Sub-Saharan" types and that there are peoples from other areas of Sub-Sahara including peoples in certain areas of Central Africa and in West Africa that have such features!!

Also, Eurasians are diverse in features as well. Exactly which Eurasian feautures are you referring to? There are "mongoloid" peoples that possess affinities that some might consider "negroid", and there are many Eurasians like Andamanese who totally resemble the "true negroids" of the Guinea regions of West Africa, as we have shown you several times already!! Thus, your whole notion of "Eurasian" features being different from "Sub-Saharan", "true-negroid" features is a LIE!!

You dirty, dishonest, dumb mut!

posted 07 July 2005 09:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
While it's true that East Indians are not fully Caucasoid, in the genetic and craniometric maps I posted above, they group close to Eurasians and far from Sub-Saharan Africans. And Aleksandra Pudlo clearly states that she's talking about "influx of the [b]Caucasoids from the regions of Levant, Mesopotamia, and India".[/B]

---

I really don't know what reference you are using and don't want to sound stupid by arguing against something I haven't read myself. However, if you would be kind enough to post the reference so that we can make sure you are not reading it in a bias way or that the reference itself isn't bias.

Also keep in mind:

I already know that Nubian people did become mixed over time due to an influx of Caucasians. What is debatable is when this occurred. So again you are wasting time unless you can show evidence with a time period that would actually inform us of something we don't already know.

Again, what time period are you referring to?

posted 07 July 2005 10:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
While it's true that East Indians are not fully Caucasoid, in the genetic and craniometric maps I posted above, they group close to Eurasians and far from Sub-Saharan Africans. And Aleksandra Pudlo clearly states that she's talking about "influx of the [b]Caucasoids from the regions of Levant, Mesopotamia, and India".[/B]

---

Sorry but you are going to have to clarify something. My understanding is that Ethiopia, Somalia and Kenya are in Sub-Saharan Africa. Using your maps there is a cluster of Black people that shows that Indian people are more or less in an intermediate position between Blacks and Europeans. This is what you would expect if the Great Andaman people were originally East African and mixed with your Caucasian Noth Indian people.

But then this debate is all about shifting definitions. What do you define as Sub-Saharan?

posted 08 July 2005 07:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
However, if you would be kind enough to post the reference so that we can make sure you are not reading it in a bias way or that the reference itself isn't bias.

---

Population of Nubia up to the 16th Century BC

Aleksandra Pudlo
Anthropological Review, 1999

"Starting from the Late Neolithic...similarities between the Nubians and the populations of Northeast Africa...and Asia...became even more distinct, which may prove the existence of strong ties derived probably from influx of the Caucasoids from the regions of Levant, Mesopotamia, and India. They were coming to Nubia through the Sinai Peninsula, but probably also through the south Saudi Arabia. The Kerma series from Upper Nubia shows particular similarities to the present-day Indian series.

"From the Neolithic on, or possibly even earlier, the strategic location of Nubia, promoting contacts between various populations, started to bring about effects in the form of the civilizational development of this region. Finally, these two factors led to the Hamitisation process, whereby superimposition of the Caucasoids on the Negroids took place."

quote:

---

Using your maps there is a cluster of Black people that shows that Indian people are more or less in an intermediate position between Blacks and Europeans.

---

In this autosomal DNA map, East Indians (including dark-skinned Dravidians) cluster in-between European and Asian groups, reflecting their mixed genetic heritage. They're far away from any African group.

In this craniometric map, East Indians cluster closest to Caucasoids. Nubians are located in-between them and Sub-Saharan Africans, which accords perfectly with Pudlo's finding of Caucasoid-Negroid admixture in Nubia.

posted 08 July 2005 12:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
In this autosomal DNA map, East Indians (including dark-skinned Dravidians) cluster in-between European and Asian groups, reflecting their mixed genetic heritage. They're far away from any African group.

In this craniometric map, East Indians cluster closest to Caucasoids. Nubians are located in-between them and Sub-Saharan Africans, which accords perfectly with Pudlo's finding of Caucasoid-Negroid admixture in Nubia.

---

On the issue of Caucasian migration into Nubia.

Where is the actual physical evidence of this and what difference does it make? Already know that Hebrews were there and mixed with the local populations. Not enough though to change the genetic makeup of these people. Besides, I haven't seen R1B frequencies amongst the Nubians even of today to account for your supposed migrations.

As for your map. Again I ask you to clarify what is Sub-Saharan. I noticed that Somalia is showing as even closer to European types than modern day Nubians or Nubians of the ancient times. I consider Somalia part of Sub-Saharan Africa and as a result it completely undermines your argument. You will have to redefine what is Sub-Sahara Africa in order to try to make the point you are making. Also, doesn't the area of Sub-Saharan Africa include SANs which may skew the map since they are not Negroids? Keep in mind I don't believe in a Negroid race but am only trying to communicate in your language. Is the map basically saying the SAN people of the Sub-Sahara are significantly different from Indian people? The map is very vague on these definitions and probably is quite questionable on what groups it represents. I think I will completely dismiss it unless you can find better clarification. That and the idea of a mass migration of Caucasian people from the Caucasus that didn't leave any genetic evidence. But there's plenty of genetic evidence of Nubian people moving into Europe thanks to E3b.

posted 09 July 2005 07:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
On the issue of Caucasian migration into Nubia. Where is the actual physical evidence of this and what difference does it make?

---

The evidence is series of crania from Nubia that are identical to crania from Mesopotamia and India. Read Pudlo and stop asking stupid questions.

quote:

---

Besides, I haven't seen R1B frequencies amongst the Nubians even of today to account for your supposed migrations.

---

What does R1b have to do with anything?

quote:

---

I noticed that Somalia is showing as even closer to European types than modern day Nubians or Nubians of the ancient times. I consider Somalia part of Sub-Saharan Africa and as a result it completely undermines your argument.

---

The intermediate status of Somalis between Africans and non-Africans has already been discussed ad nauseam. I suggest you start paying attention.

quote:

---

You will have to redefine what is Sub-Sahara Africa in order to try to make the point you are making.

---

The sample labeled "Sub-Saharan Africa" on the map is composed of Central, Western and Southern Africans (i.e. Negroids). Somalis and Nubians are distinct from those populations.

quote:

---

I think I will completely dismiss it

---

Well, that is the standard Afronut response to hard evidence that proves you wrong. So I'm hardly surprised.

quote:

---

That and the idea of a mass migration of Caucasian people from the Caucasus that didn't leave any genetic evidence.

---

Caucasians don't all come from the Caucasus, you retard.

quote:

---

But there's plenty of genetic evidence of Nubian people moving into Europe thanks to E3b.

---

posted 09 July 2005 01:16 PM            

quote:

---

Stupid-Euro says: The evidence is series of crania from Nubia that are identical to crania from Mesopotamia and India. Read Pudlo and stop asking stupid questions.

---

quote:

---

The intermediate status of Somalis between Africans and non-Africans has already been discussed ad nauseam. I suggest you start paying attention.

---

quote:

---

The sample labeled "Sub-Saharan Africa" on the map is composed of Central, Western and Southern Africans (i.e. Negroids). Somalis and Nubians are distinct from those populations.

---

posted 11 July 2005 03:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The evidence is series of crania from Nubia that are identical to crania from Mesopotamia and India.

---

The personal attacks against you are somewhat valid. You misrepresent facts quite a bit.

The evidence you sited was "affinities" not "identical". Irregardless, I already know that there were Hebrews that migrated into Nubian territories. The question is when? It wasn't until near the Hysok invasian that the Nubians developed a relationship with Asiatics.

Basically, putting aside a few questionable skulls of people that "Looked similar something" which doesn't PROVE anything, what about other physical evidence such as pottery or glass? Perhaps there would be proof of trade similar to what was in Lower Egypt?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
What does R1b have to do with anything?

---

R1B is a true Caucasian marker that is found in 90% of all Europeans. It originated in the Caucasus amongst the IndoEuropean people. If you are White then you have R1B. If you find people that look like Caucasians but don't have R1B then you don't have a Caucasian. The problem is that people like yourself use the term Caucasian too losely.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The intermediate status of Somalis between Africans and non-Africans has already been discussed ad nauseam. I suggest you start paying attention.

---

And you call this map scientific? Let me get this straight. Somalians are in Sub-Saharan Africa but because they skew the cranium map and put the rest of Sub-Sahara Africa closer to the Middle-Eastern, they are reclassified outside of Sub-Sahara? That is ridiculous and completely evidences the lack of professionalism and racist bias of the people that are conducting this research. This is a complete outrage! If you use a regional classification system for comparions, such as Sub-Sarah Africa, you cannot pick an choose who to put into that region, you must take an appropriate cross the board sampling. Fools like you buy into this bias sampling data? That is flat out wrong and you know it. Basically what should happen is that the term Sub-Sarah is dropped and different parts of the area are specifically used.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Caucasians don't all come from the Caucasus, you retard.

---

TRUE CAUCASIANS are derived from IndoEuropean people that lived in the Caucasus region. You love to talk about the TRUE NEGRO but lets deal with another topic - TRUE CAUCCASIANS!!!! R1B!

Only one racial group has no indication of origin and that is Negroid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
E3b wasn't spread to Europe by Nubians. It was spread by Northern Levantines.

---

Good grief you like to try to twist things around.

Angel - Negro features probably from Nuba

Its actually somewhat debatable but mainstream geneticist have primarily agreed that E3b likely originate in East Africa (Kenya) and traveled up the Nile and made it into Greece.

All mainstream now and not just the Afro-Nuts saying this anymore.

;-)

Actually I was more like you when it came down to Greece until I started reading the National Geographic Genographic project. Then all that Afrocentric stuff just suddently became quite a bit more substatiated with EVIDENCE from a mainstream source that even you MUST ACCEPT!

[This message has been edited by osirion (edited 11 July 2005).]

posted 11 July 2005 03:33 PM            

Interesting caucasians, don't you think?

quote:

---

Evil:
Caucasians don't all come from the Caucasus, you retard.

---

If they don't come from the Caucasus, then why call them "Caucas-ians", you retard!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
E3b wasn't spread to Europe by Nubians. It was spread by Northern Levantines.

---

And from where did these Levantines carry E3b to Europe?
You need to learn to crawl first, before you can attempt to walk. This is the level where you are with genetics!

posted 12 July 2005 08:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
R1B is a true Caucasian marker that is found in 90% of all Europeans. It originated in the Caucasus amongst the IndoEuropean people. If you are White then you have R1B. If you find people that look like Caucasians but don't have R1B then you don't have a Caucasian.

---

posted 12 July 2005 08:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
If they don't come from the Caucasus, then why call them "Caucas-ians", you retard!

---

"Caucasian" is a misnomer based on early anthropologists' belief that Whites originated in the Caucasus. Seriously, if you don't know that by now, then you have no business discussing race and anthropology.

quote:

---

And from where did these Levantines carry E3b to Europe?

---

posted 12 July 2005 10:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Do you realize that not a single sentence in that paragraph is factually accurate? And the rest of your reply has basically the same problem. That should give you some idea of what an ignorant fool you are.

---

Now you know exactly how you sound to me with this stupid talk about Ancient Caucasian East Africans and E3b being a Caucasoid gene.

posted 12 July 2005 01:54 PM            

quote:

---

Evil:
"Caucasian" is a misnomer based on early anthropologists' belief that Whites originated in the Caucasus. Seriously, if you don't know that by now, then you have no business discussing race and anthropology.

---

You got the "misnomer" part right! In fact, it [caucasian] is intellectually bankrupt, with no place in modern anthropology, and so, using it to forward a scientific logic, is well...called pseudo-science. You must also be discussing "race" with yourself, for it has no place in anthropology or genetics.

One wonders why two separate words exist for what you are vainly trying to present as one and the same. Black whites; I must say, that is truly a funny one!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Um, from the Levant.

---

E3b just popped up in the Levant like a phantam from nowhere, right?

"Looney" Tunes world is doing a number on your head!

posted 12 July 2005 04:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Now you know exactly how you sound to me with this stupid talk about Ancient Caucasian East Africans and E3b being a Caucasoid gene.

---

posted 13 July 2005 07:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Now you know exactly how you sound to me with this stupid talk about Ancient Caucasian East Africans and E3b being a Caucasoid gene.

---

posted 13 July 2005 07:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
..."race"...has no place in anthropology or genetics.

---

Really? Then why does the term "Caucasoid" appear in 26,938 studies at PubMed? And "Negroid" in 38,623 studies? And "Mongoloid" in 12,258?

quote:

---

E3b just popped up in the Levant like a phantam from nowhere, right?

---

posted 13 July 2005 07:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
full of inferiority complex

---

posted 13 July 2005 12:36 PM            

quote:

---

Stupid-Euro says: No, it came from pre-historic Northeast Africa just like every other gene on earth. What silly questions you ask.

---

Moron, E3b is not an Out-of-African haplotype, it is part of the PN2 transition and exited Africa relatively recently!

quote:

---

"For [African scholar Valentin] Mudimbe, Afrocentrism is sheer transference of an inferiority complex among today's African Americans."

---

posted 13 July 2005 12:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
In this autosomal DNA map, East Indians (including dark-skinned Dravidians) cluster in-between European and Asian groups, reflecting their mixed genetic heritage. They're far away from any African group...

In this craniometric map, East Indians cluster closest to Caucasoids. Nubians are located in-between them and Sub-Saharan Africans, which accords perfectly with Pudlo's finding of Caucasoid-Negroid admixture in Nubia.

---

The populations of India are diverse, moron! The people of southern India alone descend from several populations and it's the same case with northern India.

posted 13 July 2005 02:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The fact that my logical explanations and scientific evidence sound that way to you only goes to confirm your total ignorance.

---

Yes I am ingorant of your foolish, outdated and moronic facts. I find it amusing at best to hear what garbage people use to think but have long since dropped as being scientific.

One has to lower himself down to your level to have a discussion. You use terms and facts that are "misnomers", "misreprestations", "unscientific"!

Lets just deal with one fact at a time.

FACT: R1B is a marker for Cromagnon. I

FACT: Western European people have this marker in a frequency of 70-90%.

FACT: Most people consider TRUE Caucasians to be Western European people. Most people recognize that South East Europeans and East Indian people are not TRUE Caucasians but mixtures.

FACT: R1B can be traced back to the Caucasus region. I would say that it is reasonable to call this a Caucasoid gene because it at least can be taced back to an area close to the Caucasus.

FACT: You use a term like Caucasian knowing that it is: "an unscientific application", "a misnomer" and "not genetically relevant".

FACT: I use the term to try to describe a group that historically migrated out of a certain area which can be shown via scientific methods.

FACT: You use it to describe facial features that doesn't show ancestry, doesn't show commonality genetically, doesn't show region of origin.

FACT: You seem to want to live in ignorance of the truth. If you are going to believe in a concept of race then you must drop the superficial subjective approach of comparing facial features and use genetics as a more objective approach. Consequently terms like Caucasian which are known misrepresentations and a complete misnomer should be dropped.

With all that said let deal with the issue that you threw a Red Herring at.

*Is Somalia in Sub-Saharan Africa?*

If so, the map you provided as evidence that Nubian are intermediates between Sub-Saharan Africa and East Indian people thus boasting the idea of admixture, is "unscientific and fraud" = PSEUDO SCIENCE!

At the same time. Terms like Caucasian, Negroid, Mongoloid, etc, are misnomers, misrepresentations and are unscientific. So how can we use this terms and be factual about anything we are saying!

Conclusion: The whole debate is about Pseudo scientific concepts that means it makes us all look foolish talking about it!