posted 22 July 2005 09:43 AM            

quote:

---

"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.

---

Do you read history? :

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 166–200 (1998)
Article no. AA980322

Early Pastoralists in East Africa: Ecological and Social Dimensions

Diane Gifford-Gonzalez

Linguistic and ethnic affinities of Neolithic traditions.

"Ambrose (1982) and Robertshaw (1988) have both sought to link the Elmenteitan and SPN archaeological entities to linguistic groups known to have entered Kenya at some point in the later Holocene. Sutton (1966), Odner (1972), and Ambrose (1982) argued that the SPN (earlier called the ‘‘Stone Bowl Culture’’) represents the original incursion of the earliest food producers, Southern Cushitic speakers, into eastern Africa (Ehret 1967,1974), especially if one includes Nderit/Ileret ceramic bearing occurrences under this rubric. The Elmenteitan has been most commonly linked with Southern Nilotic speakers, on the basis of ethnohistory, ceramic continuities (Robertshaw 1988),and the reconstruction of the timing of migrations and intergroup contacts (Ambrose 1982; Ehret 1974)."

So called 'Prehistoric' East African remains were found in Southwestern Kenya at Lake Elementeita. Ceramics and pottery foud there are linked to Nilotic speaking groups in Kenya, specifically the Stone Bowl culture. The people lived a primarily pastoral transhumance lifestyle just as modern Nilotic and cushitic speakers. I don't know why idiots like you look at only the skeletal remains and ignore things like material culture and linguistics. Underhill et tal pointed thi out in hi email to me and the evidence is strongly in favor of 'prehistoric' East Africans being biologically, inguistically and culturally continuous with modern Elongated East Africans.

posted 22 July 2005 11:54 AM            

quote:

---

Idiotic-Euro says: 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.

---

No one said early OOAs were tropical-rainforest adapted you moron!! When I say tropically adapted, that does not necessarily mean tropical rainforests, dumbass!! It means within the latitudinal range where the climate is hot-- the Tropics! Most of the areas in the tropics are not even rainforests you buffoon! And even if the climate at that time was "cooler and dryer" it was still at tropical temperatures, as Africa has always been!! Stop trying to make early humans like "caucasians", the climate in Africa has never been temperate or cold, you dumb-as-hell idiot!

quote:

---

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

---

It also stated that they preserve both MtDNA and Y-chromosomal lineages that are the most pristine compared to other OOAs.

quote:

---

Dumbasshell-Euro says: "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.

---

You must have hit your head really hard!! The very term and concept of "Sub-Sahara" was invented by white Westerners, not blacks!!! Its scheme was to seperate "caucasian" North Africa from the predominantly black areas south of the Sahara! The region of East Africa, including the Horn, IS south of the Sahara and its populations are black!!

Do you know how stupid you sound?!!

Your mentor Dienekes should be ashamed!!!

posted 22 July 2005 04:08 PM            

quote:

---

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

---

Call it "pre-hitory", "mesolithic" or whatever makes you feel better, but the fact remains as the early holocene spread of sub-Saharan E3b lineages by "neolithic" farmers into Europe. Be happy with your *recent* sub-Saharan lineages, or commit suicide. Either way, the facts stand, and no one cares.

quote:

---

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

---

Well then, do plan on posting that immaterial stuff for whatever remains of your life, for it doesn't affect the established fact in mainstream anthropology. This is why your whining has largely been ignored, as done by the folks of "the Best of Sicily" site; no 'living' mainstream scientist or scholar will entertain your gobbledygook. On the other hand, we've seen e-mail replies from well known mainstream scientists, as exemplified by those shown by Topdog and Thought, which have corroborated the FACTS that have simply been repeated here, and understood by virtually everyone else, but you.

posted 22 July 2005 04:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

You must have hit your head really hard!! The very term and concept of "Sub-Sahara" was invented by white Westerners, not blacks!!! Its scheme was to seperate "caucasian" North Africa from the predominantly black areas south of the Sahara! The region of East Africa, including the Horn, IS south of the Sahara and its populations are black!!

---

posted 22 July 2005 05:06 PM            

quote:

---

Djehuti writes: When I say tropically adapted, that does not necessarily mean tropical rainforests

---

Indeed tropical adaptation has little to do with 'height.

It's principal components are skeletal structure for heat dissipation which actually often includes skeletal elongation, as well as dark skin color for UV protection.

Smallness of size is principally an adaptation to limited 'food-game' supply for hunter gatherers, and is often concurrent with forests, harsh environments, including mountains, arctic, desert, and especially islands.

The early Eurasian skeletal remains show a highly tropically adapted African people of diverse sizes, up to and over 1.7 meters.
......

.....

Among the modern Southern Asian, Andaman, South Seas, Australian and New Guinnean populations who carry the most pristine lineages from the original OOA populations, heights range from under 1.6 to 1.9 meters.

This degree of variation in height exists today in New Guinnea alone, as it does in modern Africa.

That is why these people and Africans in general most closely resemble the original OOA Population that spread throught southern Asia, to Australia and beyound, as noted:

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.

---

....

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..."

---

Soon after they lost their tropical adaptations and became morphologically white, Europeans began to re-mix with Black Africans and West Asians during the Neolithic.

The result is that Europeans: appear as a mixture of 2/3rds Asian 1/3rd African- Cavelli Sforza.

This is why Europeans are closer genetically to the Blacks of Africa, whereas the Blacks of Australia, South Seas, are more 'distant'.

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

The above is concordant with the presence of haplotypes such as Benin HBS, and E3b in, especially Southern Europe.

The perceptive will also note that this is why skin-color cannot be correlated to "race."

And it is too an example of why modern bioanthropology is moving beyound race.

Races have no meaning biologically - Spencer Wells.

posted 22 July 2005 05:55 PM            

quote:

---

Supercar says: I agree that the terms were deviced by Europeans, but they are actually geographical terms. It doesn't denote some kind of "racial" divide, although people have attempted to use it as such. Africans have never been static entities, and the distribution of African lineages is testament to this. The so-called sub-Sahara Africa has never been cut off, or isolated from the north.

---

Absolutely, but apparently Stupid-Euro is to dumb to know this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Indeed tropical adaptation has little to do with 'height.

It's principal components are skeletal structure for heat dissipation which actually often includes skeletal elongation, as well as dark skin color for UV protection.

Smallness of size is principally an adaptation to limited 'food-game' supply for hunter gatherers, and is often concurrent with forests, harsh environments, including mountains, arctic, desert, and especially islands.

The early Eurasian skeletal remains show a highly tropically adapted African people of diverse sizes, up to and over 1.7 meters.
......

.....

Among the modern Southern Asian, Andaman, South Seas, Australian and New Guinnean populations who carry the most pristine lineages from the original OOA populations, heights range from under 1.6 to 1.9 meters.

This degree of variation in height exists today in New Guinnea alone, as it does in modern Africa.

That is why these people and Africans in general most closely resemble the original OOA Population that spread throught southern Asia, to Australia and beyound, as noted:

[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.

---

....

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..."

---

Soon after they lost their tropical adaptations and became morphologically white, Europeans began to re-mix with Black Africans and West Asians during the Neolithic.

The result is that Europeans: appear as a mixture of 2/3rds Asian 1/3rd African- Cavelli Sforza.

This is why Europeans are closer genetically to the Blacks of Africa, whereas the Blacks of Australia, South Seas, are more 'distant'.

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

The above is concordant with the presence of haplotypes such as Benin HBS, and E3b in, especially Southern Europe.

The preceptive will also note that this is why skin-color cannot be correlated to "race."

And it is too an example of why modern bioanthropology is moving beyound race.

Races have no meaning biologically - Spencer Wells.
[/QUOTE]

Rasol, you've been repeating this for how long?

posted 23 July 2005 07:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
No one said early OOAs were tropical-rainforest adapted you moron!! When I say tropically adapted, that does not necessarily mean tropical rainforests, dumbass!! It means within the latitudinal range where the climate is hot-- the Tropics! Most of the areas in the tropics are not even rainforests you buffoon! And even if the climate at that time was "cooler and dryer" it was still at tropical temperatures, as Africa has always been!!

---

posted 23 July 2005 07:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Call it "pre-hitory", "mesolithic" or whatever makes you feel better

---

I use those terms because they're accurate, not because of the way they make me feel. But you go ahead and keep using the inaccurate "recent" and the imprecise "sub-Saharan" to make you feel like your savage Negro ancestors had something to do with Neolithic agriculture and Ancient Greek civilization.

quote:

---

Well then, do plan on posting that immaterial stuff for whatever remains of your life

---

Immaterial stuff = Genetic evidence that Afronuts can't refute and so choose to disregard

Y-chromosomes:

Autosomes:

posted 23 July 2005 08:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Pre-historic East Africans were adapted to a cool, dry desert environment produced by the Ice Age. They looked nothing like modern Negritos or Negroes, who are adapted to hot, humid jungle environments.

---

Big nosed hybrid...hybrids don't talk, they listen...
Relaxx

posted 23 July 2005 08:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Immaterial stuff = Genetic evidence that Afronuts can't refute and so choose to disregard

[b]Y-chromosomes:

Autosomes:

[/B]

---

---------------------
Big nosed hybrid...hybrids don't talk, they listen...
Relaxx

posted 23 July 2005 12:27 PM            

quote:

---

This is something virtually all mainstream scholars agree with and if an idiot like Evil-doesn't that's just too bad for him!!

---

quote:

---

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.

---

The Caption reads:
Face of the Past.

TW Holliday examined postcranial morphology of the varied Levantines from Qafzeh and Skhul (anatomically modern). He determined that they were tropically adapted, suggesting African origins,

The oldest Out of Africa expansion occurred 65,000 +- 23000 years ago and is witnessed by mitochondrial descendants preserved in Papua New Guinea; the Papuan node is derived from a Eurasian founder, we tentatively propose the following scenario to account for the obvious phenotypic differences between Papuans and [Northern] Eurasians despite their sharing a common mtDNA ancestry:

They derive from a single African migration, but split at an early stage before reaching Europe. Meanwhile, proto-Eurasians spent 20 or more millennia genetically drifting to their present distinct phenotypes.
- Peter Forster, Antonio Torroni, Colin Renfrew and Arne Röhl

Europeans and Asians did develop more unique genetic profiles over time, but had a common background before their average "uniqueness" emerged. This background is African in a bio-historical sense. Therefore, it should not be surprising that some Africans share similarities with non-Africans.
- The Diversity of Indigenous Africans
S.O.Y. Keita

East Africans have been Equatorial [Black], for 10's of thousands of years - C L Brace.

posted 23 July 2005 12:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Pre-historic East Africans were adapted to a cool, dry desert environment produced by the Ice Age. They looked nothing like modern Negritos or Negroes, who are adapted to hot, humid jungle environments.

---

Correction, the environment was probably cooler, but never actually cool, dumbstiff! East Africa was still in the tropics, and tropics does not mean humid jungle. Many deserts and grasslands are located in the tropics also, dumbsh*t!
There are many black Africans today who live in desert environments, stupiddill!!

You don't know anything about climate even the definition of latitudinal tropics, let alone prehistoric climate!!

You don't even know about physical anthropology to say that blacks only live in "humid jungle environments"!! Most populations that are jungle adapted are light-skinned, not dark-skinned, like the Pygmies!

You're belief that "caucasoid"-like people inhabited East Africa or any part of Africa for that matter is a hilarious joke!!

posted 23 July 2005 01:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Many deserts and grasslands are located in the tropics also, dumbsh*t!

---

Indeed.... regarding whites of ancient East Africa:

Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis -- usually one which is appealing emotionally,
but spectacularly implausible -- and then looks only for items to support it.

Pseudoscience ignores criteria of valid evidence and displays indifference to facts:

early Out of Africa populations were tropically adapted - TW Holliday (2000).

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

East Africans have been Equatorial [Black] for 10's of thousands of years - CL Brace.

Here are two threads devoted specifically to the facts of Africa's climate cycles throughout history, in which East Africa vaccilates over and again from tropical desert to tropical grassland [savanna].
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001735.html
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001036.html

posted 23 July 2005 02:34 PM            

quote:

---

evil agenda:
I use those terms because they're accurate, not because of the way they make me feel. But you go ahead and keep using the inaccurate "recent" and the imprecise "sub-Saharan" to make you feel like your Negro ancestors had something to do with Neolithic agriculture and Ancient Greek civilization.

---

Well, those Negroes being your *recent* ancestors, doesn't make you 'borderline' folks any less savage, wouldn’t you say? Play with terms, such as calling “Neolithic” farmers, “Mesolithic” farmers, as a remedy for your total mental break down, but your recent sub-Saharan lineages are here to stay; they were *recently* brought to Europe by people, who spread farming to your bush-dwelling 'real' European ancestors, and the ensuing crossbreeding gave rise to the 'hybrid' Europeans we see before us.

quote:

---

evil agenda:
Immaterial stuff = Genetic evidence that Afronuts can't refute and so choose to disregard

---

posted 23 July 2005 02:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Pre-historic East Africans were adapted to a cool, dry desert environment produced by the Ice Age. They looked nothing like modern Negritos or Negroes, who are adapted to hot, humid jungle environments.

---

Really? Dry cool desert environment? they don't even go together. Lets look at the evidence:

Source:

Journal of Anthropological archaeology 17, 166–200 (1998)
Article no. AA980322

Early Pastoralists in East Africa: Ecological and Social Dimensions
Diane Gifford-Gonzalez

"Prehistoric" East African remains were found in Kenya and Tanzania and were dated to 7000 B.C. as the earliest possible dating of the remains. Quit putting your foot in your mouth you idiot.

posted 23 July 2005 03:13 PM            

"The frequency of haplogroup E3b1*(xE3b1b) in Somali males is the highest observed in any populations to date, and we suggest that the Somali male population is the origin of this haplogroup...

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

The moral: What would cockroaches know about basic geography; they spend most of their time in decaying trash and cupboards.

posted 23 July 2005 03:55 PM            

He continues to vomit old crap that has been refuted a long time ago.

Like, "negroes" are dark-skinned and live only in jungles, when the darkest skinned people live in open grassland and desert environments.

That prehistoric African climate was "cool and dry" thus no black people!! Africa, especially East Africa has always been around the equator, within the latitudinal tropics, so even if the climate was cooler back in the Ice Age, it was still sunny and hot!

And finally that E3b is an OOA haplotype like J, K, R, N, etc.. Ignoring the fact that his "true negroes" carry E3a which is a sister clade to E3b, and both clades have a common recent origin in Sub-Sahara, by definition not an OOA lineage.

posted 23 July 2005 04:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
...an OOA haplotype like J, K, R, N, etc..

---

Very questionable indeed.

posted 23 July 2005 08:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
...an OOA haplotype like J, K, R, N, etc..

---

quote:

---

Supercar writes: Very questionable indeed.

---

Supercar is perceptive. There are no official OOA haplotypes. The term is sometimes used to refer to common lineages carried by the original small population that migrated out of Africa:

These would be M-168 on the Y chromosome, and L3[mn] on the X.

This does not include any E or PN2 transition haplotype [E3a or E3b] which by definition defines the common ancestry of post OOA indigenous Africa.

Of course if one likes, one can expand the phrase OOA haplotype to include any haplotype to migrate out of Africa, including Benin HBS - sickle cell haplotype.

Dienekes often attempts to alter reality by playing with terms such as OOA lineage.

He gets by with people who don't or won't think, but his terminology is illogical, and self serving.

And even so it can't be made to serve his 'cause' in spite of all of his frustrated special pleading.

For example: Old African haplotypes like A entered southWest Europe along with E3b.

In this case you have pre Out of Africa haplotype, and a post Out of Africa haplotype, neither one of which is found among the pristine populations [like the Andamans for example], but they are found in Europeans.

By now everyone should understand why: Unlike Indian Ocean and South Sea Islanders...who have been genetically isolated from Africa since the OOA migration, Europeans keep getting sprayed over and again with African lineages both older and younger than their OOA migration.

One other thing: Dienekes attempts to create some sort of 'racial' 'thing' out of L3x lineages because that's what the OOA population has - - however Dienekes forgets that L3 lineage is derived from L1a which is still present in East Africa today.

East Africa has never been 100% L3, but it was 100% L1 before L3 existed. And L1 and L3 spread throughout Africa long before the glacial maximum. And of course, we've already seen what original OOA L3x population 'looks like'.

In other words, all of Dienekes et. al. attempts to develop a racist ideology based on haplotypes are utterly bogus and laughable to all but the most uneducated and ineducable.

posted 24 July 2005 07:54 AM            

Furthermore, the reconstructed phenotype of a 100,000 year-old Israeli skeleton has no bearing on what the pre-historic East African ancestors of all humans looked like because that skeleton predates both the climatic changes of the Ice Age and the OOA migrations that gave rise to modern populations:

quote:

---

The Climate Connection

"While Richards' genetic research suggests that only one branch of ancient humans migrated out of Africa to give rise to modern populations, research on ancient climate changes helps pinpoint the time when this migration must have occurred, argues Oppenheimer. Some 80,000 years ago, the world's climate began to cool into a period of glaciation. The polar ice caps reached far down into Europe, lowering sea levels and turning much of Africa into arid desert. This climatic shift occurred roughly at the time when the genetic evidence suggests that the tree of human life sprouted a branch that crossed onto the Arabian Peninsula toward India and Southeast Asia. Indeed, notes Oppenheimer, human-made tools dating back nearly 75,000 years have been found as far east as Malaysia. From there, our human ancestors pushed across shark-infested waters to Australia, where they left behind stone artifacts dating back 60,000 years.

"There were no doubt other human migrations out of Africa before this time. For example, ancient human remains dating from 100,000 to 120,000 years ago have been unearthed in what is now Israel. However, these populations, like others, perished without leaving their genetic imprint on present-day humans. By the time the climatic changes gave rise to the exodus some 80,000 years ago, the migration pathway out of Africa through the Near East was blocked by the Sahara desert, says Oppenheimer, and so the only way out was southward."

http://caribbeancultureproject.org/eve.html

---

posted 24 July 2005 08:06 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
the imprecise "sub-Saharan" is pretty clear to these folks

---

But it isn't to you, ape, because you think it means "Negro". It doesn't. The eastern part of sub-Saharan Africa is a very specific region that was not home to Negroes until well into the Holocene:

On the broad scale, looking at an "Out-of-Africa" scenario, one would expect that, in some region between southern and northeastern Africa, some differentiation would have been taking place within a Homo sapiens stock, evolving into something beginning to approximate later Sub-Saharan peoples on the one hand, and evolving in another direction on the other hand. East Africa would be a likely locale for appearance of the latter. So anyone is welcome to argue that this is what Elmenteita et al. are manifesting. The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other "Negroid" tribes. (Howells, 1995)

quote:

---

those immaterial stuff won’t make you any less of a borderline European

---

The stupid savage continues to dance around the evidence that kills his agenda . . .

Y-chromosomes:

Autosomes:

posted 24 July 2005 08:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Really? Dry cool desert environment? they don't even go together. Lets look at the evidence:

---

The climate descriptions in your charts only go back to 10,000 B.C. That's the Holocene, when Africa was beginning to acquire its present hot, humid climate. We're talking about the Pleistocene, when East Africa had a cool, dry desert climate.

Read, monkey:

posted 24 July 2005 09:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
"Tropically adapted" is uninformative. It tells us what region OOA migrants were adapted to, but not what climate existed in that region. You Afronuts are interpreting it to mean adapted to modern tropical conditions, but we know that "contemporary conditions are unrepresentative" (Andrew S. Goudie, The Ice Age in the Tropics and Its Human Implications).

Furthermore, the reconstructed phenotype of a 100,000 year-old Israeli skeleton has no bearing on what the pre-historic East African ancestors of all humans looked like because that skeleton predates both the climatic changes of the Ice Age and the OOA migrations that gave rise to modern populations:

[QUOTE][b]The Climate Connection

"While Richards' genetic research suggests that only one branch of ancient humans migrated out of Africa to give rise to modern populations, research on ancient climate changes helps pinpoint the time when this migration must have occurred, argues Oppenheimer. Some 80,000 years ago, the world's climate began to cool into a period of glaciation. The polar ice caps reached far down into Europe, lowering sea levels and turning much of Africa into arid desert. This climatic shift occurred roughly at the time when the genetic evidence suggests that the tree of human life sprouted a branch that crossed onto the Arabian Peninsula toward India and Southeast Asia. Indeed, notes Oppenheimer, human-made tools dating back nearly 75,000 years have been found as far east as Malaysia. From there, our human ancestors pushed across shark-infested waters to Australia, where they left behind stone artifacts dating back 60,000 years.

"There were no doubt other human migrations out of Africa before this time. For example, ancient human remains dating from 100,000 to 120,000 years ago have been unearthed in what is now Israel. However, these populations, like others, perished without leaving their genetic imprint on present-day humans. By the time the climatic changes gave rise to the exodus some 80,000 years ago, the migration pathway out of Africa through the Near East was blocked by the Sahara desert, says Oppenheimer, and so the only way out was southward."

http://caribbeancultureproject.org/eve.html

---

posted 24 July 2005 09:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The stupid savage continues to dance around the evidence that kills his agenda . . .

[b]Y-chromosomes:

Autosomes:

[/B]

---

--------------------------
Big nosed hybrid...hybrids don't talk, they listen...
Relaxx

posted 24 July 2005 09:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The climate descriptions in your charts only go back to 10,000 B.C. That's the Holocene, when Africa was beginning to acquire its present hot, humid climate. We're talking about the Pleistocene, when East Africa had a cool, dry desert climate.

Read, monkey:

---

posted 24 July 2005 10:34 AM            

quote:

---

TopDog writes: "Prehistoric" East African remains were found in Kenya and Tanzania and were dated to 7000 B.C. as the earliest possible dating of the remains. Quit putting your foot in your mouth you idiot.

---

Good point:

By about 10 ka, rainfall was plentiful and most of the Sahara was vegetated; in the south, vegetation zones were displaced some 400 km north of their present-day positions, and fauna from the equatorial regions had migrated north into the Sahara (Lezine, 1989; Lioubimsteva, 1995; Ritchie and Haynes, 1995

We are relating the facts of tropical adaptation in Africans and consequently in the 1st Out of Africa peoples, which is very important and highly informative to bioanthropology.

Here is why:

The earliest anatomical moderns found in Eurasia were skeletally tropically adapted, or "African like", whereas Neanderthal were cold adapted, or "European like". The finding suggests two - highly distinctive populations in Pleistocene Eurasia and that modern Humans were tropically adapted and African in origin - TW Holliday, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1999.

As usual no refutation has been offered of the salient facts stated plainly above, because none is possible.

The approach of Pseudoscience is to attempt distraction via non-sequitur.

Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic theories that contradict what is known about nature. [ex: prehistoric caucaZoid of East Africa]

Pseudoscience not only provides no evidence that their claims are true. They are also indifferent to the scientific evidence that contradict their conclusions.

posted 24 July 2005 12:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
But it isn't to you, ape, because you think it means "Negro". It doesn't. The eastern part of sub-Saharan Africa is a very specific region that was not home to Negroes until well into the Holocene

---

Since when did Supercar or anyone else here for that matter (except YOU), use the word "negro"??

You have never been able to properly define what that word means?

The point is, "negro" or not prehistoric East Africans, by our social context were indeed black people.

And as far as your complaints about the climate in East Africa. It does not change the fact plain and simple that East Africa was still around the tropical latitudes and the weather still sunny and warm, even if it was cooler than it is now.

Why bother explaining anything to you, anyway? You are the person who claims that "negroes" are Bantus, and claim that any black person in modern-day East Africa must have Bantu ancestry!!!

Comes to show you have no knowledge on African ethnography and history, let alone climatology and bioanthropology!

You are a waste of time, stupid canine!

posted 24 July 2005 01:57 PM            

quote:

---

evil agenda:
But it isn't to you, ape, because you think it means "Negro". It doesn't. The eastern part of sub-Saharan Africa is a very specific region that was not home to Negroes until well into the Holocene.

---

Well slut, nobody has used the word "Negro" here in replacement for sub-Sahara; you are one delusional "borderline" creature. You’ve always denied the of course,undeniable recent ‘sub-Saharan’ origins of the Y chromosomes you folks carry. With the well known fact of sub-Saharan East Africa being well within the tropical African latitudes, it doesn’t come as a surprise that the folks coming from this region have always had a tropical background, and hence, tropically adapted. If this is what you personally refer to as "Negro", then yes, that would certainly make you a hybrid "Negro-european".

quote:

---

evil agenda:
The stupid savage continues to dance around the evidence that kills his agenda . .

---

The only agenda here, is to instill you with common sense, i.e., your apparent "borderline" european background. Being born from incest is something that you have to personally deal with, but the resultant brain damage, will not be entertained.

posted 24 July 2005 03:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
I'm through giving you attention because you're too dumb to comprehend anything.

---

posted 25 July 2005 03:06 AM            

quote:

---

E3b entered Europe and North Africa from the Near East during the Neolithic. It's virtually absent in sub-Saharan Africa.

---

...which of course, induced this response:

quote:

---

Incorrect. E3b originated in tropical East AFrica...[E3b] is the dominent Paternal haplotype in Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea

---

But eurotrash insisted:

quote:

---

That's not sub-Saharan Africa,…It's Northeastern Africa

---

And now...

quote:

---

eurotrash:
The eastern part of sub-Saharan Africa is a very specific region...

---

Well, well! Notice how the grease bush ape has now virtually confessed to the truth, having been cornered. This habbit of backtracking is of course nothing new. eurotrash may be good at lying to himself, but he definitely recognizes the truth.

posted 25 July 2005 07:12 AM            

So I'll just kindly repost it for you:

"Tropically adapted" is uninformative. It tells us what region OOA migrants were adapted to, but not what climate existed in that region. You Afronuts are interpreting it to mean adapted to modern tropical conditions, but we know that "contemporary conditions are unrepresentative" (Andrew S. Goudie, The Ice Age in the Tropics and Its Human Implications).

Furthermore, the reconstructed phenotype of a 100,000 year-old Israeli skeleton has no bearing on what the pre-historic East African ancestors of all humans looked like because that skeleton predates both the climatic changes of the Ice Age and the OOA migrations that gave rise to modern populations:

quote:

---

The Climate Connection

"While Richards' genetic research suggests that only one branch of ancient humans migrated out of Africa to give rise to modern populations, research on ancient climate changes helps pinpoint the time when this migration must have occurred, argues Oppenheimer. Some 80,000 years ago, the world's climate began to cool into a period of glaciation. The polar ice caps reached far down into Europe, lowering sea levels and turning much of Africa into arid desert. This climatic shift occurred roughly at the time when the genetic evidence suggests that the tree of human life sprouted a branch that crossed onto the Arabian Peninsula toward India and Southeast Asia. Indeed, notes Oppenheimer, human-made tools dating back nearly 75,000 years have been found as far east as Malaysia. From there, our human ancestors pushed across shark-infested waters to Australia, where they left behind stone artifacts dating back 60,000 years.

"There were no doubt other human migrations out of Africa before this time. For example, ancient human remains dating from 100,000 to 120,000 years ago have been unearthed in what is now Israel. However, these populations, like others, perished without leaving their genetic imprint on present-day humans. By the time the climatic changes gave rise to the exodus some 80,000 years ago, the migration pathway out of Africa through the Near East was blocked by the Sahara desert, says Oppenheimer, and so the only way out was southward."

http://caribbeancultureproject.org/eve.html

---

posted 25 July 2005 07:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
The only agenda here, is to instill you with common sense, i.e., your apparent "borderline" european background. Being born from incest is something that you have to personally deal with, but the resultant brain damage, will not be entertained.

---

The stupid savage is still dancing frantically . . .

quote:

---

Anthropology:

On the broad scale, looking at an "Out-of-Africa" scenario, one would expect that, in some region between southern and northeastern Africa, some differentiation would have been taking place within a Homo sapiens stock, evolving into something beginning to approximate later Sub-Saharan peoples on the one hand, and evolving in another direction on the other hand. East Africa would be a likely locale for appearance of the latter. So anyone is welcome to argue that this is what Elmenteita et al. are manifesting. The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other "Negroid" tribes. (Howells, 1995)

Y-chromosomes:

Autosomes:

---

posted 25 July 2005 07:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
No you stupid guido, If you read correctly those charts go back to 21,000 years which is well within the Pleistocene

---

posted 25 July 2005 07:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Pseudoscience contradicts itself, even in its own terms.

---

"Today, Afrocentrism is a racist, highly conservative, nationalist pseudo-science (by the latter term I mean: based upon phony scholarship and premises)." -- Grover Furr, Montclair State University

posted 25 July 2005 10:04 AM            

All these backtracking and contradictions, the stupid canine is trying to avoid the obvious and undeniable.

East Africa is and has always been in Sub-Sahara. It has always been within the latitudes of the tropics, even if temperatures at that time were cooler. I noticed he is so insistent about East African climate being cool during the Pleistocene. As if this is to say a "caucasoid" like population.

posted 25 July 2005 01:28 PM            

quote:

---

eurotrash:
...still dancing frantically...

---

An interesting sigh of total defeat from the halfrican grease savage.

posted 25 July 2005 02:02 PM            

Point made: The polynesian people that are part of the OOA migration from East Africa are clearly not Caucasoid and have more affinities with Black Africans. They also left earlier than the more recent E3b migrants.

Conclusion: the 1st wave of East African people during the OOA were clearly negroid.

EvilE: They became Negroid later due to adaptation.

Correction: Fossil records show that these OOA migrants were clearly negroid over 30,000k years ago.

Still standing conclusion: East Africans were originally tropically adapted people.

Needed evidence to refute this conclusion: Fossil evidence showing that Australian, Polynesian, Great Andamans, Negrito Yemeni, etc, did not have Negroid affinities 20K years ago. The map so far used by EvilE seems to bolster the agrument that they did have Negroid affinities and thus so must ancient East Africans.

So this Ice Age arguement that produced non-Negroid East African thing doesn't seem to fit into the relity of what is known: Negroid like features found all the way around the world all originating from East Africa. Fossil evidence of these affinities going about 20K years.

EvilE doesn't like to deal with this issue and thus it is not worth discussing the same old questionable crap he likes to spew.

posted 25 July 2005 02:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

Why do you guys bother with EvilE? You have already made your point but he just won't accept it.

---

posted 25 July 2005 03:08 PM            

modern humans first appear in Europe as tropically adapted. (Trinkhaus, 1981).

early Out of Africa populations were tropically adapted - TW Holliday (2000).

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

East Africans have been Equatorial [Black] for 10's of thousands of years - CL Brace.

Skeletal evidence strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a distinct morphology - which can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians.
- Neves WA, Hubbe M, Okumura MM, Gonzalez-Jose R, Figuti L, Eggers S, De Blasis PA.

The oldest Out of Africa expansion occurred 65,000 +- 23000 years ago and is witnessed by mtDNA descendants preserved in Papua New Guinea; the Papuan node is derived from a Eurasian founder, we tentatively propose the following scenario to account for the obvious phenotypic differences between Papuans and [Northern] Eurasians despite their sharing a common ancestry:

"They derive from a single African migration, but split at an early stage before reaching Europe. Meanwhile, proto-Eurasians spent 20 or more millennia genetically drifting to their present distinct phenotypes."
- Peter Forster, Antonio Torroni, Colin Renfrew and Arne Röhl

Europeans do not become fully cold adapted until about the end of the mesolithic (Jacobs 1993)

"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..." - African Exodus
Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie
1996

Tropical adaptation is about morphology adapted to climate. It is highly informative for the reasons stated above.

Of course, no one can force another to learn, especially when ignorance and bigotry are the preferred path.

At any rate, the above scholarship can only be addressed directly, not evaded via non-sequitur ad-hominem or childish distraction.

posted 25 July 2005 09:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by yazid904:
Isn't there a snow capped area in Kenya that has been around for millenia and it is slowly melting? I don't recall the area but I will check. A rarity, to say the least.

---

LOL unless Evil-E can say modern humans originated from the tops of Mount Kilimanjaro, cold-adapted!!

Better than saying that the whole region of East Africa was cold!!! LOL

posted 25 July 2005 10:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^^ Mt. Kilimanjaro of course, and of no relevance to:

modern humans first appear in Europe as tropically adapted. (Trinkhaus, 1981).

early Out of Africa populations were tropically adapted - TW Holliday (2000).

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

East Africans have been Equatorial [Black] for 10's of thousands of years - CL Brace.

Skeletal evidence [b]strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a distinct morphology - which can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians.
- Neves WA, Hubbe M, Okumura MM, Gonzalez-Jose R, Figuti L, Eggers S, De Blasis PA.

The oldest Out of Africa expansion occurred 65,000 +- 23000 years ago and is witnessed by mtDNA descendants preserved in Papua New Guinea; the Papuan node is derived from a Eurasian founder, we tentatively propose the following scenario to account for the obvious phenotypic differences between Papuans and [Northern] Eurasians despite their sharing a common ancestry:

"They derive from a single African migration, but split at an early stage before reaching Europe. Meanwhile, proto-Eurasians spent 20 or more millennia genetically drifting to their present distinct phenotypes."
- Peter Forster, Antonio Torroni, Colin Renfrew and Arne Röhl

Europeans do not become fully cold adapted until about the end of the mesolithic (Jacobs 1993)

"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..." - African Exodus
Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie
1996

Tropical adaptation is about morphology adapted to climate. It is highly informative for the reasons stated above.

Of course, no one can force another to learn, especially when ignorance and bigotry are the preferred path.

At any rate, the above scholarship can only be addressed directly, not evaded via non-sequitur ad-hominem or childish destraction.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 25 July 2005).][/B]

---

posted 26 July 2005 12:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
How do you find this stuff?

---

It's basic bioanthropology available in peer review journals, libraries and on the internet.

However, the best place to start is with modern anthropology and molecular genetics textbooks and college courses if possible.

Before discussing anthropology in depth, one needs to know that -

* 'tropical adaptation' is morphology, and is HIGHLY informative to anthropologists - it is not "region". lol.

Understanding what is morphology, is critical to comprehending human origins.

* Y chromosome is not carried by the female, and denotes paternal lineage, and not phenotype or race catagories.

* Conversely, Benin Hbs is a haplotype that is actually causal of morphological change.

Just keep learning, and refer back nto the parent post.

If one learns how to distinguish science from pseudoscience, you will never be distracted by the ignorance of the ill informed.

A great book to read.

posted 26 July 2005 07:31 AM            

When will these dumb Negroes face the facts?

"Tropically adapted" is uninformative. It tells us what region OOA migrants were adapted to, but not what climate existed in that region. You Afronuts are interpreting it to mean adapted to modern tropical conditions, but we know that "contemporary conditions are unrepresentative" (Andrew S. Goudie, The Ice Age in the Tropics and Its Human Implications).

Furthermore, the reconstructed phenotype of a 100,000 year-old Israeli skeleton has no bearing on what the pre-historic East African ancestors of all humans looked like because that skeleton predates both the climatic changes of the Ice Age and the OOA migrations that gave rise to modern populations:

quote:

---

The Climate Connection

"While Richards' genetic research suggests that only one branch of ancient humans migrated out of Africa to give rise to modern populations, research on ancient climate changes helps pinpoint the time when this migration must have occurred, argues Oppenheimer. Some 80,000 years ago, the world's climate began to cool into a period of glaciation. The polar ice caps reached far down into Europe, lowering sea levels and turning much of Africa into arid desert. This climatic shift occurred roughly at the time when the genetic evidence suggests that the tree of human life sprouted a branch that crossed onto the Arabian Peninsula toward India and Southeast Asia. Indeed, notes Oppenheimer, human-made tools dating back nearly 75,000 years have been found as far east as Malaysia. From there, our human ancestors pushed across shark-infested waters to Australia, where they left behind stone artifacts dating back 60,000 years.

"There were no doubt other human migrations out of Africa before this time. For example, ancient human remains dating from 100,000 to 120,000 years ago have been unearthed in what is now Israel. However, these populations, like others, perished without leaving their genetic imprint on present-day humans. By the time the climatic changes gave rise to the exodus some 80,000 years ago, the migration pathway out of Africa through the Near East was blocked by the Sahara desert, says Oppenheimer, and so the only way out was southward."

http://caribbeancultureproject.org/eve.html

---