posted 19 July 2005 07:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Coming up on five weeks now and still no answer.

Answer # 1:
Actually 8 months of your being too stupid to understand the answers provided by the current peer reviewed scholarship.

quote:What's taking so long?

Answer # 2:
That fact that you are stupid, and repeat questions via - retardation response, while ignoring the answer - because you don't like the answer, and also because you cannot refute the answer. In essence, you are silly, and a child - however long it takes for you to grow up.

quote:Are Greeks "racially mixed" because of their E3b Y-chromosomes

Answer # 3:

quote osted by rasol 19 June 2005 12:28 PM: Races have no meaning biologically, certainly not genetically. - Geneticist Dr. Spencer Wells.

quote r are Y-chromosomes unconnected to race and morphology as you claimed with the Lemba?

Answer # 4:

quote osted 29 March 2005 04:25 PM: All those genes that have been put into the Lemba gene pool have had virtually no effect on their morphology.

The genetic changes that produce the morphological change might be fairly small. You can get a very small genetic change that can have a big effect on the organism's morphology or conversely you can have a lot of genetic changes that have no effect on the organism's morphology -Biologist Christopher Wills [PH.d], University of California

quote:Erroneous writes: Or, we can try it this way:

Answer # 5:
Try it anyway you like. Rephrasing the question won't change the answer, or excuse your obtuseness and immaturity. Your problem is childishness and foolishness, the solution is for you to grow up. Try that.

quote o you accept Underhill's statement that "There are no known genes on the Y that dictate bone morphology",

Answer # 6:
Inasmuch as Togdog and I informed you of this fact, and Underhill and Wells and Wills are sources who verify it - of course we accept the truth of what we have said.

The question is - are you simply too stupid, frightened and dishonest to admit it?

The answer is - YES YOU ARE. That's Answer # 7.

quote:Or do you continue to maintain....

....the facts regarding the heterogeneous origins of the neolithic Greeks and Levantines are EXACTLY as stated by Underhill, Ehret, Angel, Furon,Garrod, Keita, McCown, Semino, Bar Yossef and others, presented here several times, and unrefuted.

All of the answers provided above are from renowned scholars in physical anthropology, history, genetics, lingusitics and archeology. You nonresponsive replies to them are brain-dead and utterly worthless.

Now, the scholars have answered all your questions yet again.

If you don't like their answers.

If they make you want to cry or...hang yourself, or whatever....too bad.

Write them yourself and do your crying to them.

But please do not write me any further.

Your stupidity and fear no longer entertains and is boring.

---

Rasol wins the award for the longest non-answer ever. I nodded off three times while reading it.

For this tremendous achievement, he gets the coveted Horse's Ass trophy:

posted 19 July 2005 07:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
These East Africans were proto-ALL Races. They were no more proto-Caucasoid than they were proto-Negroid.

---

posted 19 July 2005 07:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
You little hybrid donkey, this doesn't correspond to an answer to the specific question asked. Period.

---

posted 19 July 2005 09:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
I'm betting a grand, that dumbass-Euro will disregard all these unrefuted facts and start spewing his stupidity all over again!!!

Mark my words; it never fails!

---

posted 19 July 2005 11:31 AM            

quote:

---

Just because they have a few craniofacial traits in common with Europeans like nasal index and long narrow faces, does not mean any kind of relation to "caucasoids"!! These cranio-facial traits you call "caucasoid" are not even so because populations around the world possess such features.

By your insane reasoning, perhaps this Tibetan,

or this Tutsi who carries E3A...

are also 'intermediate' with "caucasoids"! Perhaps they are part caucasoid??

And since when did OOA have anything to do with "caucasoid" features anyway?!!!

These are pure OOA, even more pristine than Europeans, yet they look more like West Africans!!!

You stupid little dog, just give up and admit you're wrong or is a canine like you just too stubborn to admit that??!!

---

posted 19 July 2005 01:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
That's incorrect. They had far greater non-Negroid than Negroid affinities, as Howells demonstrated.

---

You are thinking Black and White and cannot see the gray. This is not a question of intermediate between Negroid and Caucasian, but rather an intermediate or containing the coding of all racial groups. If a group of people are so diverse as proposed, they will have the coding for all racial types and thus have affinities with all RACIAL TYPES. Negroid is only one of many types. So yes, on an average they would have less affinity with Negroid than with non-Negroid (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid). But then you actually have to believe that those terms are useful which I DO NOT!

posted 19 July 2005 01:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Well, when you ask an irrelevant question, you can't expect to get a straight answer. I proved that Greeks are genetically European, thus rendering your "LGM refuge" straw man null and void.

---

Evil agenda, evading a question is not considered by any means an answer.Surely, even a challenged one like you, knows better than that, don't you? You won't answer the question because of its relevancy, and it has been shown here time and again...that the substantial portion of Greek gene pool have sub-Saharan and Asian origin. Recall:

quote:

---

"Previous studies revealed that Hg I reached frequencies of ~ 40% - 50% in two distinct regions - in Nordic populations of Scandinavia and, in southern Europe..."
"Its virtual absence elsewhere, including the Near East, suggest that it arose in Europe, likely **BEFORE** the Last Glacial Maximum..."

Frequency of Hg I:
Sardinia 42.3%
Swedish 40.5%
Danish 38.7%
Croatian 38.1%
German 37.5%
Macedonian 30%
Normandy 23.8%
Romania 22.2%
Ukranian 21.9%
English 18.4%
Polish 17.8%
Greeks 13.8%

Thought Writes:
Sardianians are southern Europeans, yet they carry the **HIGHEST** frequency of Hg I. Greeks are southern Europeans and carry one of the **LOWEST** frequencies of Hg I. This suggests two **SEPARATE** origins for Sardinians and Greeks. Sardinians represent the **INDIGENOUS**, pre-LGM southern European type. Greeks represent a merger/hybrid type between indigenous southern European and in-migrating Middle Eastern and Black African elements.

---

posted 19 July 2005 02:29 PM            

quote:

---

Osirion writes: If a group of people are so diverse as proposed, they will have the coding for all racial types and thus have affinities with all RACIAL TYPES

---

I understand what you are trying to say, and your good intent. But genes are not coded for 'racial type'. As with your fling with -"Keyanoids", you have an unfortuntate tendancy to go off on tangents while making stuff up.

Instead root your arguments in peer review scholarship - which of course, you must familiarise yourself with, prior.

Also please review the 1st page of this thread and the topic of Pseudoscience.

posted 19 July 2005 02:46 PM            

quote:

---

"Previous studies revealed that Hg I reached frequencies of ~ 40% - 50% in two distinct regions - in Nordic populations of Scandinavia and, in southern Europe..."
"Its virtual absence elsewhere, including the Near East, suggest that it arose in Europe, likely **BEFORE** the Last Glacial Maximum..."

Frequency of Hg I:
Sardinia 42.3%
Swedish 40.5%
Danish 38.7%
Croatian 38.1%
German 37.5%
Macedonian 30%
Normandy 23.8%
Romania 22.2%
Ukranian 21.9%
English 18.4%
Polish 17.8%
Greeks 13.8%

Thought Writes:
Sardianians are southern Europeans, yet they carry the **HIGHEST** frequency of Hg I. Greeks are southern Europeans and carry one of the **LOWEST** frequencies of Hg I. This suggests two **SEPARATE** origins for Sardinians and Greeks. Sardinians represent the **INDIGENOUS**, pre-LGM southern European type. Greeks represent a merger/hybrid type between indigenous southern European and in-migrating Middle Eastern and Black African elements.

---

quote:

---

SuperCar writes:
Try hard not to stress over facts, and have a good day.

---

This is correct, and geneticist PA Underhill makes no qualms about the fact that indigenous Europeans share a common lineage from LGM refugees, and that in the Neolithic a 'new population' entered Europe carrying genetic signatures from Africa and West Asia.

About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.

When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges [R1b+I].

Research shows a pattern that developed in Spain is now most common in northwest Europe, while the Ukraine pattern is mostly in Eastern Europe and the Balkan pattern is most common in Central Europe.

About 8,000 years ago, a more advanced people, the Neolithic [agriculture], migrated to Europe, bringing with them a new Y chromosome pattern [E3b+J] and a new way of life: agriculture. About 20 percent of Europeans now have the Y chromosome pattern from this migration

Greeks at present carry Y chromsome of 24% African E3b; 23% West Asian J, and the remainder Native European haplotypes including R1b and I.

Thus Christopher Ehret notes regarding the origins of the Neolithic in Europe: We have genetic evidence of population intrusion from NorthEast Africa to SouthWest Asia.....There are several areas of the world were agriculture was independently developed - none in Europe, by the way.

Underhill further notes:

Archaeological digs in European caves clearly show that before 8,000 years ago, most humans lived by gathering and hunting. After that, there are traces of grains and other agricultural products.

Y chromosome studies are also consistent with genetic studies showing a broader picture of human migration.

In general, studies show that modern humans first arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and thousands of years later began a long series of migrations, he said. Some groups migrated eastward and humans are known to have existed in Australia about 60,000 years ago. Other groups crossed the land bridge into the Middle East. Humans appeared in Central Asia about 50,000 years ago.

From there, the theory goes, some migrated west, arriving in Europe about 40,000 years ago.

These are the indigenous Europeans - ancient Greeks were a combination of these Europeans, plus West Asians and East Africans, - this is the concensus view of geneticists, and skeletal anthropologists, archeologists and linguists.

posted 19 July 2005 04:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
I understand what you are trying to say, and your good intent. But genes are not coded for 'racial type'. As with your fling with -"Keyanoids", you have an unfortuntate tendancy to go off on tangents while making stuff up.

Instead root your arguments in peer review scholarship - which of course, you must familiarise yourself with, prior.

Also please review the 1st page of this thread and the topic of Pseudoscience.

I'm trying not to be overly critical, but if you're not careful, you will end up making almost as little sense as Erroneous, which takes some doing.

---

And I still say Kenyanoid makes more sense than Negroid! Why are all the other racial types encoded with a region or origin?

I do agree that genes do not encode racial types since we don't really know how to define such a thing. However, either you believe that things happen simply by random or you believe we have internal programming that produces what we see. In the discussion of evolution there are plenty of theories but very few facts or laws. We are really not sure what produces the diversity we see. Again, a deterministic approach to evolution is that there are discrete laws that govern the results - an internal programming.

Example: Pgymies are an example of this. There seems to be a natural genetic change that occurs due to lack of food that results in dwarfism. If you are a probablistic evolutionist then you will say that all the non-dwarfs died off. If you are a deterministic evolutionist, you will say that there was a gene triggered due to an environment change. Both theories have their issues.

All I can say is that we have yet to understand how deterministic biology works but there's ample evidence that it must exist. Unfortunately because we cannot see the evidence of determinism most scientist fall back to probablistic theories. Like with Quantum dynamics, since we cannot really see quarks we use statistic to observe them. This is what probabalistic theorist do with evolution. We cannot observe evolution so we use guesswork. Just because we cannot observe quarks it doesn't mean their propery is truly random: we just can't really see them. The same is true with evolution. We cannot see the mechanism that triggers genes doesn't mean that they are not there.

Can't use peer review research since they are almost wholly into probalistic evolution.

posted 19 July 2005 04:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
About 24,000 years ago, the last ice age began, with mountain-sized glaciers moving across most of Europe. The Paleolithic Europeans retreated before the ice, finding refuge for hundreds of generations in three areas: what is now Spain, the Balkans and the Ukraine.

When the glaciers melted, about 16,000 years ago, the Paleolithic tribes resettled the rest of Europe. Y chromosome mutations occurred among people in each of the ice age refuges [R1b+I].
[B]

---

posted 19 July 2005 04:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
You are thinking Black and White and cannot see the gray. This is not a question of intermediate between Negroid and Caucasian, but rather an intermediate or containing the coding of all racial groups. If a group of people are so diverse as proposed, they will have the coding for all racial types and thus have affinities with all RACIAL TYPES. Negroid is only one of many types. So yes, on an average they would have less affinity with Negroid than with non-Negroid (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid). But then you actually have to believe that those terms are useful which I DO NOT!

---

The problem Osirion is that racial terms like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" are based on superficial features.

For example, this African is "caucasoid" by his features.

And by their features, these Asians are "negroid".

Also, as Supercar says, all of these features are phenotypical and have nothing to do with genetic markers like E3 or such but by an entirely different set of independent genes that vary in all human populations! Which is why you cannot directly link phenotype to lineage.

posted 19 July 2005 05:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
The problem Osirion is that racial terms like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" are based on superficial features.

For example, this African is "caucasoid" by his features.

And by their features, these Asians are "negroid".

Also, as Supercar says, all of these features are phenotypical and have nothing to do with genetic markers like E3 or such but by an entirely different set of independent genes that vary in all human populations! Which is why you cannot directly link phenotype to lineage.

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 19 July 2005).]

---

Anyway if someone looks at the Y chromosome genes for the so called "Caucasian" phenotypes then what about the other half of the population who are female?
Relaxx

posted 19 July 2005 05:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
You are thinking Black and White and cannot see the gray. This is not a question of intermediate between Negroid and Caucasian, but rather an intermediate or containing the coding of all racial groups. If a group of people are so diverse as proposed, they will have the coding for all racial types and thus have affinities with all RACIAL TYPES. Negroid is only one of many types. So yes, on an average they would have less affinity with Negroid than with non-Negroid (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid). But then you actually have to believe that those terms are useful which I DO NOT!

---

posted 19 July 2005 06:08 PM            

quote:

---

And I still say Kenyanoid makes more sense than Negroid!

---

Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack
precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all.

quote:

---

Can't use peer review research since they are almost wholly into probalistic evolution.

---

Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence. Genuine scientific literature is either ignored or misinterpreted.

quote:

---

Why are all the other racial types encoded with a region or origin?

---

The fallacy of the terms is partly related to lack of actual association between the terms in question and geography, the more fundamental fallacy is the ENTIRE CONCEPT of 'typalogical races'. By making up a phony race typology, you are repeating the fallacy, not correcting it, as you imagine.

If you can't see the folly of countering Erroneous fake anthroplogy by making up your own, then go for it. But your ideas betray complete lack of knowledge of biology and evolution. I only intervened on your behalf, but one can't help fools.

Continue to demonstrate pseudoscience by example......

posted 19 July 2005 06:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by true_egyptian1:
osirion - I agree with what you say. My question is why, then, do many people protest or disagree with the way ancient Egyptians are portrayed by Egyptologists. When I see the representations of ancient Egyptians, I don't see a Caucasian. I see a north African. Why do some people insist that Egyptians had more "African" features when, as you said, Africans are very diverse phenotypically. Sure, some may have had more "black" features than others, but why insist that all ancient Egyptians looked a certain way (like the protesters of the King Tut exhibit in L.A.)?

---

I'm afraid you're mistaken True. The reason why the people at the Tut exhibit were protesting is because Tut was classified not just as a North African, but as a North African "Caucasian"!! He was classified so mainly because of his narrow shaped nose, which so many black Africans have, yet all of his other features that are "typically negroid" were ignored!!

Such is the problem of certain scientists, is their inaccurate inconsistencies.

posted 19 July 2005 06:58 PM            

quote:

---

Rasol,
Is it possible to have some clarifications about what Europeans looked like before mixing with Neolithic farmers...what anthropology tells us about Paleolithic Europeans...do you have any reference?

Relaxx

---

The caves of Erg-el-Ahmar produced 132 individuals for Miss Garrod. All these Natufians share the same physical type, completely different from that of earlier Palestinians. They are short, about 160 cm. and dolichocephalic. They were probably Cro-Magnoid Mediterraneans, presenting certain Negroid characteristics attributable to crossbreeding. - Raymond Furon - Manuel de Prehistorie Generale

posted 20 July 2005 04:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

The caves of Erg-el-Ahmar produced 132 individuals for Miss Garrod. All these Natufians share the same physical type, completely different from that of earlier Palestinians. They are short, about 160 cm. and dolichocephalic. They were probably Cro-Magnoid Mediterraneans, presenting certain Negroid characteristics attributable to crossbreeding. - Raymond Furon - Manuel de Prehistorie Generale

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 19 July 2005).]

---

posted 20 July 2005 07:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
LOL Somalis don't even have OOA ancestry you moron!! Just because they have a few craniofacial traits in common with Europeans like nasal index and long narrow faces, does not mean any kind of relation to "caucasoids"!! These cranio-facial traits you call "caucasoid" are not even so because populations around the world possess such features.

---

Your Tibetan and Tutsi don't look remotely Caucasoid, and your Negritos are a recent adaptation. They don't represent pre-historic East Africans any more than Swedes do.

Somalis don't just have "a few craniofacial traits in common with Europeans". They group closer to Europeans than to West, Central and even Southeast Africans in an MDS plot based on 24 cranial measurements.

On the other hand, Neolithic Greeks, who had just two primitive traits in common with Bushmen, bear no relation whatsoever to any kind of Africans (they're #7, right next to the Neolithic Swiss at #10).

posted 20 July 2005 07:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
the substantial portion of Greek gene pool have sub-Saharan and Asian origin.

---

Incorrect. A portion of the Greek (and European in general) gene pool has a Northern Levantine origin. J is a Neolithic Anatolian marker, and E3b is an ancient Horn of Africa marker that predates the formation of modern races and that spread to Europe much later from the Levant along with J. Thus, labeling it "Sub-Saharan" is inaccurate and only good for lifting deflated Negro self-esteem. Especially since the bulk of it in Greece has a recent Balkan origin.

But of course, the real issue here is not the idiotic question that you keep asking, but the genetic evidence that you keep ignoring.

Greeks cluster with Europeans and away from Middle Easterners:

Greeks cluster with Paleolithic Basques and away from Africans:

posted 20 July 2005 11:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Your Tibetan and Tutsi don't look remotely Caucasoid, and your Negritos are a recent adaptation. They don't represent pre-historic East Africans any more than Swedes do.

Somalis don't just have "a few craniofacial traits in common with Europeans". They group closer to Europeans than to West, Central and even Southeast Africans in an MDS plot based on 24 cranial measurements.

On the other hand, Neolithic Greeks, who had just two primitive traits in common with Bushmen, bear no relation whatsoever to any kind of Africans (they're #7, right next to the Neolithic Swiss at #10).

---

posted 20 July 2005 11:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by true_egyptian1:
osirion - I agree with what you say. My question is why, then, do many people protest or disagree with the way ancient Egyptians are portrayed by Egyptologists. When I see the representations of ancient Egyptians, I don't see a Caucasian. I see a north African. Why do some people insist that Egyptians had more "African" features when, as you said, Africans are very diverse phenotypically. Sure, some may have had more "black" features than others, but why insist that all ancient Egyptians looked a certain way (like the protesters of the King Tut exhibit in L.A.)?

---

BECAUSE the modern day fake recreation of TUT completely ignores ALL THE EVIDENCE that the Egyptians left of what TUT looked like and instead THESE FRAUDS created a TUT that looked like themselves (European)! They say: "We will never know what color Tut looked like or the soft tissue shapes". Really. Of all the people in AE we have Tut's face the best preserved and an excellent idea of what skin color he had!

However, with that said. East African people in general are rather intriguing. I have done my own survey and it is rather interesting what people think of people like King Tut as well as moder day Upper Egyptians. From Asians to Europeans and Africans, everyone see's an affinity with themselves. Asian will note the Asian eyes and high checks. European will note the nasal shape. An African will not the everted lips and protrusive mouth. It is not that these people are mixed but rather that they are more like the original East African which was a converged type before man became more adapted like we see today.

posted 20 July 2005 11:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The fallacy of the terms is partly related to lack of actual association between the terms in question and geography, the more fundamental fallacy is the ENTIRE CONCEPT of 'typalogical races'. By making up a phony race typology, you are repeating the fallacy, not correcting it, as you imagine.

If you can't see the folly of countering Erroneous fake anthroplogy by making up your own, then go for it. But your ideas betray complete lack of knowledge of biology and evolution. I only intervened [b]on your behalf, but one can't help fools.

Continue to demonstrate pseudoscience by example......

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 19 July 2005).][/B]

---

I have already said that if we are going to talk about a fallacious concept such as race then whatever we say will also have to be fallacious by definition. No matter what terms I use as long as it holds to an idea of race it will never be non-fallacious. But then this forum seems to be all about race so I wouldn't have much to say if we didn't discuss it. So lets not be nit-picky and just have fun discussing stuff. Besides, most of the posts of references I have seen from you have terms such as Negroid, Cromagnoid, etc in them. I'm not sure how you are avoiding the race concept yourself.

posted 20 July 2005 03:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
[B] Incorrect. A portion of the Greek (and European in general) gene pool has a Northern Levantine origin. J is a Neolithic Anatolian marker, and E3b is an ancient Horn of Africa marker that predates the formation of modern races and that spread to Europe much later from the Levant along with J. Thus, labeling it "Sub-Saharan" is inaccurate and only good for lifting deflated Negro self-esteem. Especially since the bulk of it in Greece has a recent Balkan origin.

But of course, the real issue here is not the idiotic question that you keep asking, but the genetic evidence that you keep ignoring.

---

posted 20 July 2005 03:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
I have already said that if we are going to talk about a fallacious concept such as race then whatever we say will also have to be fallacious by definition. No matter what terms I use as long as it holds to an idea of race it will never be non-fallacious. But then this forum seems to be all about race so I wouldn't have much to say if we didn't discuss it. So lets not be nit-picky and just have fun discussing stuff. Besides, most of the posts of references I have seen from you have terms such as Negroid, Cromagnoid, etc in them. I'm not sure how you are avoiding the race concept yourself.

---

posted 20 July 2005 05:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

If you don't believe in intelligent design then of course your a going to dismiss everything I am saying.

---

posted 20 July 2005 06:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
What do you consider as "intelligent" design?

---

Intelligent design is a pseudoscientific attempt to reconcile religion and science.

It is a form of creationism.

The irony of this thread being hi-jacked by pseudoscientific babblement is rich indeed.

Osirion, I'm going to ask you to do me a favor:

If you want to discuss intelligent design please start another thread and do so.

posted 20 July 2005 08:42 PM            

For once I have to agree with the Greek Bastard, they are remotely related to the following big nosed hybrids:

“As was noted earlier, gene frequency data suggest that European's gene frequencies appeared to be about what would result from a third African and two-thirds Asian mix. While this mixture could occur by direct diffusion into Europe from Africa or Asia (and undoubtedly there were such gene flows), it is easier to understand if the ancestors of Europeans were originally in the Middle East, possibly even Israel (where there is evidence of a settled culture that stored wild grain, which could have easily shifted to cultivating grains.) Such a population would have been receiving genes from Africa via the Isthmus of Suez (and possibly across the Red Sea) and from Asia.”
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P., & Piazza, A.
The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994)

posted 20 July 2005 08:57 PM            

Random mutation has a hard time explaining why people in West Africa and people in New Guinea look the same. Deterministic evolution can explain it quite easily. Same or similar environments with similar nutrients produce similar results.

Essentially, God is a genetic programmer and has some really good branch routines.

posted 20 July 2005 09:14 PM            

quote:

---

Random mutation has a hard time explaining why people in West Africa and people in New Guinea look the same.

---

No it does not.

quote:

---

Deterministic evolution can explain it quite easily.

---

posted 20 July 2005 09:15 PM            

quote:

---

Stupid-Euro says:
Your Tibetan and Tutsi don't look remotely Caucasoid,..

---

quote:

---

...and your Negritos are a recent adaptation. They don't represent pre-historic East Africans any more than Swedes do.

---

May 20, 2005— Two primitive tribes in India's Andaman and Nicobar islands are believed to be direct descendants of the first modern humans who migrated from Africa at least 50,000 years ago, according to a study by Indian biologists.

A team of biologists at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in the southern Indian city of Hyderabad studied the DNA of 10 Onge and Great Andamanese people in the Indian Ocean archipelago who lived for tens of thousands of years in "genetic isolation" from other human contact.

The findings suggest the tribes are descended from the "oldest population of the world and were among the first batch of modern humans to migrate from Africa," said professor Lalji Singh, director of the center.

and this

hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/CB_2002_p1-18.pdf

The oldest OOA anatomically modern humans all possess greater affinity to Australian aborigines or even your West African "negroids" than they do to your Eurasian "caucasoids" that you keep preaching!

quote:

---

Somalis don't just have "a few craniofacial traits in common with Europeans". They group closer to Europeans than to West, Central and even Southeast Africans in an MDS plot based on 24 cranial measurements.

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, Neolithic Greeks, who had just two primitive traits in common with Bushmen, bear no relation whatsoever to any kind of Africans (they're #7, right next to the Neolithic Swiss at #10).

[/B]

---

That's besides the point that they have sub-Saharan ancestry no matter what they look like now!!

You are one dumbf***!

posted 20 July 2005 09:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
However, with that said. East African people in general are rather intriguing. I have done my own survey and it is rather interesting what people think of people like King Tut as well as moder day Upper Egyptians. From Asians to Europeans and Africans, everyone see's an affinity with themselves. Asian will note the Asian eyes and high checks. European will note the nasal shape. An African will not the everted lips and protrusive mouth. It is not that these people are mixed but rather that they are more like the original East African which was a converged type before man became more adapted like we see today.

---

Actually, epicanthic (slanted) eyes occur among East Africans no more than they do West Africans! Epicanthic eyes have the highest frequency among South Africans, particularly the Khoisan people. As far as high-cheekbones, that seems to be a trait typical of many Africans of all regions including West Africa. The "European" nose shape is moreso common in East Africa, but there are people in West Africa like the Fulani and Tuareg that have that, and East Africans don't have everted lips as frequently as say West Africans!

You seem to be missing the point Osirion that phenotype does not reflect genotype! Most modern day East Africans don't even closely resemble the first Out-of-Africans. But since Africa was the cradle, it would only be natural for blacks to be phenotypically diverse.

As far as your "intelligent design", I really hate to bring religious belief into this issue. Not that I don't believe in a higher power, but science by itself has explained everything already without getting into the works of God.

It is quite simple, phenotype is an adaptive response to an evironment and as humans we are diverse.

End of story.

posted 20 July 2005 09:42 PM            

quote:

---

Dejhuti writes: Incorrect. What makes you think they [Melanesian/Andaman/Australian] are only a 'recent' adaptation?

---

Indeed....

quote:

---

J Hum Evol. 2005
Apr;48(4):403-14.

Neves WA, Hubbe M, Okumura MM, Gonzalez-Jose R, Figuti L, Eggers S, De Blasis PA.

Laboratorio de Estudos Evolutivos Humanos, Departamento de Biologia, Instituto de Biociencias, Universidade de Sao Paulo, CP 11461, 05422-970, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. waneves@ib.usp.br

Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a cranial morphology distinct from that displayed by most late and modern Native Americans. The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more generalized and can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians. Here, we present the results of a comparative morphological assessment of a late Paleoindian from Capelinha Burial II, southern Brazil.

In both analyses performed (classical morphometrics and geometric morphometrics), the results show a clear association between Capelinha Burial II and the Paleoindians, as well as Australians, Melanesians, and Africans, confirming its Paleoamerican status.

---

Additionally, early 40kya~ Europeans were also tropically adapted and still had many affinities with Africans - and Melanesians and Australians and other tropical peoples.

Europeans gradually lost their tropical adaptations thru genetic and physical isolation in ICE AGE Europe.

This is why SuperCar & Thought's unanswered questions about the ICE Age refugee European origins of the Greeks is significant.

Before Europeans lost their tropical adaptations?

quote:

---

African Exodus
Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie
1996

"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..."

---

Earliest Known Out of Africa modern human, found in Israel 70kya~.

posted 20 July 2005 09:49 PM            

quote:

---

It is quite simple, phenotype is an adaptive response to an evironment and as humans we are diverse.

---

Correct. It is also worth noting that human beings have lived in Africa and only Africa for most of their biological history.

This reflects itself in genetics: most of the human genome is found in Africa, in spite of the fact that Africa has only a fraction of the modern population.

posted 21 July 2005 02:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

You seem to be missing the point Osirion that phenotype does not reflect genotype! Most modern day East Africans don't even closely resemble the first Out-of-Africans. But since Africa was the cradle, it would only be natural for blacks to be phenotypically diverse.

---

I think this comment could use some modification in that, phenotype does reflect genotype...just that it cannot be predicted from the type of sex related markers that we deal with here on a regular basis, in terms of Y-haplogroups; familiarity with a few identified alleles doesn’t necessarily ensure the prediction of phenotype. Both genetic mutations and the effects of environmental pressure determine phenotypes. Phenotypic similarity doesn’t equate to genotypic similarity, nor does it imply genetic closeness. We’ve seen many examples of this from studies that have been posted here.

Recalling on:

"...all those genes that have been put into the Lemba gene pool have had virtually no effect on their morphology. The genetic changes that produce the morphological change might be fairly small. You can get a very small genetic change that can have a big effect on the organism's morphology or conversely you can have a lot of genetic changes that have no effect on the organism's morphology..." - Christopher Wills

Ps-I think Hiernaux handled phenotypic diversity of sub-Saharan Africans in his table reasonably.

posted 21 July 2005 04:41 AM            

[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 21 July 2005).]

[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 21 July 2005).]

posted 21 July 2005 07:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Hate to break it to you buddy, as always, but calling E3b "ancient" and talking about "races", for which you've never been able to define and provide a chronology, has no bearings on the **RECENT** spread of **sub-Saharan** E3b lineages into Europe, among other things inherited, like the Benin Sickle cell. No distorted nitpicking of phrases from studies that you don't understand, will be effective either. Your idiotic replies that never address the question at hand, don't make matters any better for you. The gist is that, instead of being ashamed of being 'hybrid' European, you should embrace it. Insistance on distorting reality, will always lead you to fall on your face. Take care now.

---

Pre-history is not "recent", and E3b is not "Sub-Saharan". It's East African, Levantine, North African or Balkan, depending on the subclade/cluster.

Keep ignoring the evidence, ape. I know your low self-esteem can't handle it.

Y-chromosomes:

Autosomes:

posted 21 July 2005 07:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
The Tibetan and Tutsi have the same features you call "caucasoid" such as similar nasal indices and long facial lengths but short facial breadths. If they were included in the cranio-facial map, they too would group close to Europeans

---

Don't be stupid. The craniofacial map is based on 24 measurements, not just two.

quote:

---

What makes you think they are only a 'recent' adaptation? Are you suggesting that their "negroid" features are recent, and that a more "caucasoid" look would be the more ancient look??

---

Negritos and Negroes are similarly adapted to modern tropical environments. Neither is representative of ancient East Africans.

quote:

---

That's besides the point that they have sub-Saharan ancestry no matter what they look like now!!

---

posted 21 July 2005 08:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Actually, epicanthic (slanted) eyes occur among East Africans no more than they do West Africans! Epicanthic eyes have the highest frequency among South Africans, particularly the Khoisan people. As far as high-cheekbones, that seems to be a trait typical of many Africans of all regions including West Africa. The European "nose" shape is moreso common in East Africa, but there are people in West Africa like the Fulani and Tuareg that have that, and East Africans don't have everted lips as frequently as say West Africans!

You seem to be missing the point Osirion that phenotype does [b]not reflect genotype! Most modern day East Africans don't even closely resemble the first Out-of-Africans. But since Africa was the cradle, it would only be natural for blacks to be phenotypically diverse.

As far as your "intelligent design", I really hate to bring religious belief into this issue. Not that I don't believe in a higher power, but science by itself has explained everything already without getting into the works of God.

It is quite simple, phenotype is an adaptive response to an evironment and as humans we are diverse.

End of story.

[/B]

---

I find it interesting that many people believe in 'God' but deny that he has any place in our design. Science is about what is observable and since we really cannot observe evolution but rather can only make conjectures based on what is probable or statistically likely, I would argue that Evolution as we define it is only pseudo-science.

As for genotype and phenotype; genes do determine what we ultimately look like. I think your point is that looks do not define your lineage. Just because someone has features similar to Europeans, this does not mean that they are related somehow. What we can surmise conclusively from pheontype is what kind of environment that person's ancestors have lived in for a considerable period of time. If we want to know relatedness which is what race is suppose to be about, then you need genetics. But you already know this.

posted 21 July 2005 08:51 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
No it does not.

[QUOTE]Deterministic evolution can explain it quite easily.

---

Again, please start a new thread devoted to intelligent design and race and I will contrribute, thanks.[/QUOTE]

I do disagree with you faith in Darwinism. It's amazing how people dogmatically believe in Darwinistic principles even though they have no hard evidence supporting it and knowing that new theories are having to be created all the time to try to explain how rapidly a species can adapt (ie: punctual equilibrium).

Random mutation plays a very small part in evolution (and it is really not random). Only the ill-informed and naive believe that science has explained everything via statistical models. It is simple, when we don't understand or it is too complex we just put it into a statistical model and say what is probable.

There is no random and everything can be explained (cause and effect - laws of nature). Even what we call random is governed by the laws of physics which makes it part of the design.

posted 21 July 2005 09:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
No they don't. See the maps in my reply to Super car above.

---

Not a very comprehensive map.

posted 21 July 2005 09:40 AM            

quote:

---

Even what we call random is governed by the laws of physics.

---

quote:

---

I do disagree with your faith in Darwinism

---

If you feel a further need to justify your religious beliefs via the pseudoscience of creationism, pease start a new thread and I will be happy to discuss with you. Thanks.

posted 21 July 2005 01:07 PM            

quote:

---

Dumb-Euro says: Don't be stupid. The craniofacial map is based on 24 measurements, not just two.

---

Well Tutsis and Tibetans were not even included on your silly map! I only stated two features, that doesn't mean two measurements only, dumbass!

quote:

---

Negritos and Negroes are similarly adapted to modern tropical environments. Neither is representative of ancient East Africans.

---

quote:

---

Pre-history is not "recent", and E3b is not "Sub-Saharan". It's East African, Levantine, North African or Balkan, depending on the subclade/cluster.

---

East Africa IS in "Sub-Sahara," sh** for brains!!

posted 21 July 2005 01:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
I find it interesting that many people believe in 'God' but deny that he has any place in our design. Science is about what is observable and since we really cannot observe evolution but rather can only make conjectures based on what is probable or statistically likely, I would argue that Evolution as we define it is only pseudo-science.

As for genotype and phenotype; genes do determine what we ultimately look like. I think your point is that looks do not define your lineage. Just because someone has features similar to Europeans, this does not mean that they are related somehow. What we can surmise conclusively from pheontype is what kind of environment that person's ancestors have lived in for a considerable period of time. If we want to know relatedness which is what race is suppose to be about, then you need genetics. But you already know this.

---

It is not a good idea to mix our own personal religious beliefs in with science. Yes I believe in the design of God, but I hardly seen what this has to do with the whole topic we are discussing!

quote:

---

As far as West Africa is concerned. Keep in mind that East Africans migrated into West Africa in several waves. The Fulani, Tuareg, Tutsi are recent migrants from East Africa into West Africa. The people with the richest variety of phenotype and genetic diversiy are still the East African people.

---

The Tuareg yes, the Fulani maybe, but Tutsi are predominantly E3a carriers while East Africans are predominanty E3b, as such, their origins from East Africa seem unlikely.

And as far as genetic diversity, yes East African carry a great deal, but you seem to know little about the population history of Africa. Populations were more widespread and even more diverse during prehistoric times. You seem to propose that human origins in general are to be found in the East African region. The problem is there is no conclusive evidence for this notion. East Africa maybe the origin of all Out-of-African populations but not for all the populations in Africa. There are peoples in Southern and Central Africa that possess lineages not found in East Africa. The point is, all we know is that human origins began in the African continent but we don't know yet, which exact region.

There was an article I read once which stated how Africa has even lost some of its diversity due to the expasion of certain populations and this is reflected in the languages. There are four main language phyla in Africa right now, yet there are more language phyla in Asia or even in the Americas. Human history in Africa has just been too long to know for sure what all the populations were.

posted 21 July 2005 02:30 PM            

quote:

---

Evil agenda:
Pre-history is not "recent", and E3b is not "Sub-Saharan". It's East African, Levantine, North African or Balkan, depending on the subclade/cluster.

---

Hey 'hybrid' scum, convincing yourself that the neolithic in the Holocene (recent epoch) is "pre-history" or talking about some additional "allele", doesn't change anything about your recent sub-Saharan origins. Hang yourself if you will, but you'll still be a 'borderline' European. Please do come back for more punishment, of being told the truth.

posted 21 July 2005 03:10 PM            

quote:

---

Ancient East Africans all show tropical adaptation and you read the peer reviewed article I cited, it claimed that Negritos are the best representation of early OOAs, you nitwit! All early East African and OOAs are tropically adapted, moron!!

---

Correct. It's really refreshing to read the posts by SuperCar, Relaxx and yourself as well as some others [forgive me if I do not mention the several others] which show that it IS possible to understand modern bioanthropology.

Holliday (2000) examined postcranial morphology of the varied Levantines from Qafzeh and Skhul (anatomically modern) and from Amud, Kebara and Tabun (Neanderthal). He determined that they were morphologically distinct;

the anatomically moderns were tropically adapted, suggesting African origins,

while the Neanderthals had cold adapted morphology, suggesting European origins.

- Investigating Human Adaption in the Early Paleolithic. Audouze, F., and J. G. Enloe, 1997. High resolutionarchaeology at Verberie: Limits and interpretations.World Archaeology

quote:

---

J Hum Evol. 2005
Apr;48(4):403-14.

Neves WA, Hubbe M, Okumura MM, Gonzalez-Jose R, Figuti L, Eggers S, De Blasis PA.

Laboratorio de Estudos Evolutivos Humanos, Departamento de Biologia, Instituto de Biociencias, Universidade de Sao Paulo, CP 11461, 05422-970, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. waneves@ib.usp.br

Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a distinct cranial morphology. The Paleoamerican morphological pattern can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians.

---

It's the whites of Europe who are a recent product of cold adaption in Europe....

quote:

---

African Exodus
Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie
1996

"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..."

---

All people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein. However, the progeny of those humans who migrated North away from the intense African sun were not under the evolutionary constraint that keeps human skin black generation after generation in Africa - Rogers 2004:107

East Africans have therefore been Equatorial [Black] for many 10's of thousands of Years - CL Brace

And interesting question [in modern bioanthropology] is whether Europeans are a hybrid with cold adapted Neanderthal.

Genetics suggest that they are not, morphology suggests that there are similarities but again, phenotype does not always reveal lineage, and whites of Europe are also VERY RECENTLY adapted to the same cold climate.

posted 22 July 2005 07:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
How so? Ancient East Africans all show tropical adaptation

---

Well, to give an obvious example, Negritos are short-statured like Pygmies, which is a recent local adaptation:

"If the pressures selecting for a particular characteristic last long enough that characteristic eventually becomes genetically determined in the general population. This is what must have happened to the Negritos. Their remote ancestors need not have been short. It is more likely that dwarf groups acquire their short stature independently: what many such groups have in common is a long-term residence in a tropical deep-forest environment. The African pygmies, for example, are not genetically related to the Negritos beyond their common humanity but they, too, have been living in a heavily jungled tropical environment for hundreds of generations." (Source)

Of course, pre-historic East Africa wasn't a "tropical deep-forest environment". It was much cooler and dryer.

quote:

---

the peer reviewed article I cited, it claimed that Negritos are the best representation of early OOAs

---

No it didn't. It just said they're descended from the earliest OOA migrants. That's not the same thing.

quote:

---

East Africa IS in "Sub-Sahara," sh** for brains!!

---

posted 22 July 2005 07:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Hey 'hybrid' scum, convincing yourself that the neolithic in the Holocene (recent epoch) is "pre-history"

---

Of course the Neolithic is pre-history. But E3b actually left Africa during the Mesolithic, so the point is moot.

quote:

---

Hang yourself if you will, but you'll still be a 'borderline' European. Please do come back for more punishment, of being told the truth.

---

I'll just keep posting the evidence until you can bring yourself to accept it:

Y-chromosomes:

Autosomes:

posted 22 July 2005 07:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
"Sub-Sahara" is broad and used by Afronuts to imply "modern Negro". "East Africa" is specific, and in pre-historic times had nothing whatsoever to do with Negroes of any kind.

---

So what about this:

Somalis are sub-Saharans and the Horn of Africa is considered as a part of sub-Saharan Africa:

European Journal of Human Genetics (2005) 13, 856−866

High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males

"Although the Horn of Africa is considered a geographic part of sub-Saharan Africa, we have analysed the Somali population separately in order to be able to compare the results with previously published data from other African populations."

Sub-saharan Africa is geographic, not racial and Brace is the one who uses Sub-Saharan Africa to mean 'modern Negro' by the way how he breaks his clusters down you silly buffon. Don't come in here with that arrogant attitude as if you know everything and you're above everyone in here. You've been thrashed so many times.

[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 22 July 2005).]