posted 26 July 2005 07:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
I guess your supply of immaterial stuff from dodona has run out of steam

---

Translation into Human: "I guess your supply of hard evidence that I, as an Afronut savage, can't refute and so choose to disregard has run roughshod over me, to the point where I can only make up lame taunts to save face."

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 26 July 2005 07:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
* Y chromosome...denotes paternal lineage, and not phenotype.

---

Which brings us back to your contradiction, and the question that you can't answer . . .

quote:

---

Question:

Are Greeks "racially mixed" because of their E3b Y-chromosomes as you've claimed many times, or are Y-chromosomes unconnected to race and morphology as you claimed with the Lemba?

Or, we can try it this way:

Do you accept Underhill's statement that "There are no known genes on the Y that dictate bone morphology", or do you continue to maintain that so-called "negroid traits" in Levantines and Greeks are the result of their E3b Y-chromosomes?

---

posted 26 July 2005 08:56 AM            

quote:

---

Osirion writes: Evil E doesn't like to deal with this issue and thus it is not worth discussing the same old crap he likes to spew.

---

More on how scientists study tropical morphology and what they learn from it -

Tropical adaptation in the original OOA population is highly informative to scientists, from this fact we learn....

* The reason that modern Africans resemble ancient Africans is due to common morphological adaptation to tropical African climate, in present and ancestral populations. [Holliday, Trinkous, Keita]

* Present tropically adapted non-Africans resemble Africans for the same reasons. [Sing, Holliday, Keita]

Caption reads: Face of the Past.

* The reason indigenous South Asians, Indian Ocean Islanders [shown above], South Sea Islanders, New Guineans and Australians are the people who most closely resemble the original Out of Africa populations, who in turn resemble ancient and modern Africans - is because they are also morphologically adapted to a tropical climate. [Neves, Hubbe, Okumura, Gonzalez et. al]

* The reason Europeans have diverged phenotypically from the original OOA population is because they are recently [mesolithic] cold adapted peoples.[Trinkhous, Stringer, Forster, Torroni, et..]

It is because Europeans so little resemble the original tropically adapted OOA populations that.....

quote:

---

A few anthropologists believe that modern Europeans are descendant from European Neanderthal Cavemen:

According to CL Brace: Neanderthals had short, narrow skulls, large cheekbones and noses and, most distinctive, bunlike bony bumps on the backs of their heads. Many modern Danes and Norwegians have identical features.

---

Brace continues with reference to ancient Ethiopians: they are splendid specimans and good example of the ancestors of modern Ethiopians....but not Europeans. Neanderthal remains a more likely candidate.

Geneticists disagree and suggest that some similarities between Neanderthal are merely due to recent homoplasy in modern Europeans:

Ancient Human DNA, rib sample of a Neanderthal infant, similar to closely related Neanderthal mtDNA but not modern human mtDNA, Neanderthals constitute a distinct group, separate from modern Europeans, some evidence of variation among Neanderthal groups in Europe, can not tell conclusively whether Neanderthals were replaced by modern humans in Europe (via competition) or were consumed by modern human gene pool via hybridization, more recent evidence suggests that Neanderthals went extinct without hybridization - Macroevolution: Systematics, Classification, Origin of Life, Paleontology,
Biogeography, Coevolution
Evolutionary Biology

posted 26 July 2005 02:25 PM            

quote:

---

eurotrash:
Translation into Human: "I guess your supply of hard evidence that I, as an Afronut savage, can't refute and so choose to disregard has run roughshod over me, to the point where I can only make up lame taunts to save face."

---

Sorry, this is still immaterial!

But as far as your 'attempt' to translate 'growling' into something meaningful goes, I am glad you are coming to terms that you are inhuman, and about time you learn to speak human "language". Still quite some ways to go though. Just keep trying hard.

posted 26 July 2005 09:50 PM            

quote:

---

"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).

---

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.

---

http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter47/text47.htm

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia remains a country largely inaccessible to scientific population studies. Consequently, very little is know of the genetic structure of its people. Under such circumstances it need not be very significant that no Negrito-like populations (or genetic traces of such) have been reported from there. It is likely that a situation not too dissimilar to that described above for the Yemen also exists, at least in some parts, in Saudi Arabia.

Prehistoric archaeology in Saudi Arabia is a relatively young field. It all started in the 1970s when a number of accidental discoveries drew attention to the potential of the area. There is now growing archaeological activity that has already brought to light evidence of Arabia as a hunting ground and corridor of passage for early pre-human and human migrations.

Dr. Mike Petraglia and his team (funded by the The Leverhulme Trust) have found evidence that so far consists of stone tools of the the Oldowan toolmaking tradition (started around 2.5 million years ago in Africa and lasted for around 1 million years) and of the following Acheuleen tradition (started around 1.8 million years ago, again in Africa,and lasted until around 150,000 years ago).

The tools have not yet been put into a typological series nor have they been dated scientifically yet. Only tools but no bones have been found so far so that their makers can only be assumed to have been Homo erectus. The site Shuwayhitiyah (no. 1 below) shows a close relationship to East African Oldoway. The sites along the coasts of the Red Sea as well as inland are younger with Acheuleen tools. The Dawadmi site (no. 2 below) is especially large and shows tools of both types, indicating that it may have been in use for long periods.

The following map shows some of the more significant excavation sites in the peninsula

The hypothetical routes of the first emigration of both pre-humans and anatomically modern humans out of Africa. All routes are likely to have been used at onbe time or the other. The earliest migration of modern humans was likely to have taken place around 100,000 years ago and to have followed the coastlines. Around 60,000 years ago they had reached Inddia.

So much for your theory of associating an arid desert evironment to "caucasoid"-like people and not blacks!

posted 26 July 2005 11:47 PM            

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, 1999]

Early OOA populations were physically tropically adapted, and black, like modern Africans, South Asians, and Australians....they were not cold adapted whites like modern Europeans. [Rogers, Alan R., Davis, S. Wooding, 2004]

Europeans did not exist at this time and would not for another 30 thousand years.

Early Europeans still resembled modern tropical peoples -> some resemble modern Australian and Africans, more than modern Europeans [C. Stringer, R. McKie 1996]

Europeans would not become fully cold adapted, and white, until the mesolithic some 15 thousand years later. [Jacobs]

According to the peer review scientific scholarship, prior to these events there are no Europeans, and no white people, Neanderthal man notwithstanding.

posted 27 July 2005 02:14 AM            

and the greeks called the folks south of egypt ethiopians and that was for all of africa south of egypt as well but as we know they were really talking about nubia mostly and the ancient ethiopians i think brace is talking about above are the axumites.

It is known that the nubians of kush in upper and southern nubia were unmixed africans with broad noses,kinky hair and all to most for awhile in lower nubia as well with these features and most kushites of nubia had dark skin but when i read my sister's history book years back it mention that the axumites were part black and part white but most were known to be black folks that were mixed with white arabs but even if they are mixed most would be still considered black in america and it seems the evil euros and other fake history researchers do not seem to understand.I ALWAYS look or read very carefully when someone says that group or this group is singled out as splendid because i do not know where they are coming from until i know more of their work,AND WHEN YOU SEE THE GROUP THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT MOST OR LARGE NUMBERS IN THAT GROUP always seem to have some features that look like whites,like the straight hair OR narrow noses OR BOTH and sometimes lighter skin and it is known that racist europeans have for years try to make most modern day ethiopians and axumties white,along with most black african groups from all regions even if they have clearly broad noses,kinky hair and if there skin is dark,medium or light.that is really a good example of pseudo science.

BY the way there should be a topic on axumite and early egyptian relations(trade, etc.)

posted 27 July 2005 02:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Brace continues with reference to ancient Ethiopians: they are splendid specimans and good example of the ancestors of modern Ethiopians....but not Europeans. Neanderthal remains a more likely candidate.

---

quote:

---

Kenndo posts: and the greeks called the folks south of egypt ethiopians and that was for all of africa south of egypt as well but as we know they were really talking about nubia mostly and the ancient ethiopians i think brace is talking about above are the axumites.

---

He is referring to prehistoric skeletal remains found in Ethiopia.

quote:

---

it is known that racist europeans have for years try to make most modern day ethiopians and axumties white,along with most black african groups from all regions even if they have clearly broad noses,kinky hair and if there skin is dark,medium or light.that is really a good example of pseudo science.

---

Yes you are absolutely right. What is happening with Brace and a few others is that is that they have turned to Neanderthal of Europe as a hoped for ancestor, partly because modern humans lived in Africa for soooo... long before there were any Europeans, it reduces Europe to a bit player in ancient anthropological history.

The famouse "Piltdown Man" scandal - a classic of pseudoscience, which involved fake skeletal remains of supposedly prehistoric Englishmen, occured partly because Europeans could find no ancient skeletal remains equivelant to early African hominids.

Possibly one of the most famous scandals in all of science, the Piltdown Hoax illustrates the dangerous effects a preconceived notion of what "should" be true can have on the scientific pursuit of the truth. By the early twentieth century, Darwin's theory of inheritance of favored traits via competition and natural selection had been accepted by the scientific mainstream. Differing from how we view evolution today, the scientific thought of the time was of "directed evolution" [rasol posts: foreshadows intelligent design? ], or evolution leading to perfection of form.

Under this ideology, organisms evolved, toward the perfect natural form (which, incidentally, was human).

Many scientists and thinkers of the day took this notion a step further, proposing that man, too, had evolved through various stages toward a perfect human form, which just so happened to be western European (see our FAQ on the concept of race in paleoanthropology).

In 1912 Charles Dawson a collector of antiquities for the British Museum found the first of two skulls which apparently validated this hypothesis. The specimens were found in deposits that were thought to be Pliocene in age (5 million to 2 million years ago) near Piltdown, England. The fossil was exactly what the paleontological community expected, the large brain and high forehead of a modern human with an ape-like mandible. British paleontologists championed the find, that Britain was the cradle of humankind was almost too good to be true.

The evidence [of forgery] was there the entire time. Any researcher could have looked at the teeth with a microscope and noticed an artificial wear pattern, or the fact that one tooth had a coat of paint on it. But why didn't anyone recognize this forgery? One reason is that beacause Piltdown affirmed many scientists' hypotheses, they were reluctant to put it under scientific scrutiny that might have proved it wrong.
Piltdown Man

posted 27 July 2005 07:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Even an idiot knows that deserts are extremely sunny and hot!! They may be cool at night, but I doubt people with little pigmentation can survive in the desert sun, especially back in prehistoric times. Are you suggesting that the ancestors of modern humans resembled light-skinned northern Arabs??

---

Oh, I don't doubt that Ice Age East Africans were pigmented. They just weren't black like rainforest-adapted Negroes and Negritos. They were probably yellowish-brown like desert-adapted Khoisans and North Africans. But skin color is not the only trait, and you're placing far too much emphasis on it. Crania are much more racially informative, and we know that East African crania -- both ancient and modern -- show greater Eurasian than African affinities (Howells 1995; Brace 1993).

And now for a quick recap . . .

Your "Negritos = ancient Africans" hypothesis is incorrect:

quote:

---

"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."

---

Rasol's "African Eve" reconstruction is null and void:

quote:

---

"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. [...] Some 80,000 years ago, the world's climate began to cool into a period of glaciation...turning much of Africa into arid desert."

---

And Super car's "borderline Europeans" claim is nonsense:

quote:

---

---

posted 27 July 2005 08:31 AM            

quote:

---

Surpercar posts: Sorry, but [the above] is still immaterial

---

You are correct. Pseudoscience continues to rely on non-sequitur, featuring their own desperate off-point rantings, or references that have no bearing on the attested facts.

The scholars noted below are not discussing PRE ooa hominids, tropical rain forests, or the causes of shortness in the Andaman Islanders, or tallness in New Guinneans or South Sudanese.

The noted scholars and relevant facts thus remain unaddressed and un-refuted.

Why is that?

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

posted 27 July 2005 08:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

[b]R.I.P. Afrocentrism[/B]

---

I have already explained to you. In order to refute the claims of the Afrocentrics you must provide fossil evidence that shows that the Negritos, Melanesians, Polynesians, Negrito Yemeni had previously non-Negroid affinities. The references you have provided do not refute the affinities but rather bolster them. So far all I have seen is a cranium map that supports the Afrocentric position.

How? Simple, the cranium map clearly shows that Melanesians and Australian people are essentially Sub-Saharan Africans, or as close as any other group (if we use the map as proof of some sort of relationship which I do not make such a claim). Either they were your Eurasian types originally and adapted or your East Africans were orginally "tropically adapted" or had strong Negroid affinities. Where is your fossil evidence showing adaptation? Rasol has inundated us with evidence showing that this is not the case. Where is your references showing adaptation from the proto-Caucasoid East African phenotype to Negrito?

posted 27 July 2005 10:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
The references you have provided do not refute the affinities but rather bolster them. So far all I have seen is a cranium map that supports the Afrocentric position.

---

You are quite right in noting that nothing has been presented to counter the known facts of tropical morphology in the original Out of Africa populations in contrast to the recent cold adapted morphology of Europeans.

Bear in mind, the over 20 scholars cited are themselves mostly European, and some are quite 'Eurocentric' in some respects... but the facts are there nonetheless and have not been addressed.

quote:

---

the cranium map clearly shows that Melanesians and Australian people are essentially Sub-Saharan Africans

---

They are indeed similar in appearence to each other, [don't need a map to see that] and moreover they are the most similar to Non African Paleolithic remains...

I won't re-cite the scholars here, because it's clear that pseudo's are helpless when faced with facts - which is why they run away from addressing the cited scholars directly.

quote:

---

they were your Eurasian types originally and were orginally "tropically adapted"

---

Absolutely. Whereas the original Eurasians were tropically adapted, which is highly informative, modern European are distinctly cold adapted and became so at the end of the mesolithic.

This explains why they don't look like their tropically adapted, per Holliday "African-like" ancestors. Truth is easy. It's "running away" from the truth in bitter desperation that is difficult.

quote:

---

Where is your fossil evidence a showing adaptation from the proto-Caucasoid

---

Anticipating tomorrows destractions from our resident pseudo - he will attempt once again to invoke WW Howells on his behalf, although Howells makes no claims for East African caucaZoid.

Specific findings from scholars with regard to caucaZoid in East Africa:

claims that 'caucaZoid' once lived in East Africa have been proven wrong. - JO Vogel, PreColonial Africa.

the term "Nilotic Negro" best describes early Rift populations. - Phil Rightmire.

Top Dog correctly noted earlier why references to Howells, is non-sequitur.....

quote:

---

Top Dog 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 E-diot.

---

Those 8 thousand year old remains are not the ancestors of Europeans, and so are moot to discussion of European origins.

Europeans migrated out of AFrica and settled in Europe 35 thousand years ago -PA Underhill.

They are however, the ancestors of East Africans as noted by Jean Hiernaux, the People of Africa: early East Africans are ancestral to modern Elongated East Africans. Niether ancient nor modern East Africans should be considered closely related to Europeans, whom they differ greatly from, in a number of respects.

Who exactly were the 1st Europeans and what did they look like:

Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..." - African Exodus Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie
1996

And Why is this so?

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, 1999]

Pseudo's are free to keep running away from scholars, Holliday, Stringer, Rogers, Underhill, et. al.

But they are merely venting sour grapes with non-sequitur, non-arguments and will continue to be quite rightly dismissed as such.

posted 27 July 2005 01:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Oh, I don't doubt that Ice Age East Africans were pigmented. They just weren't black like rainforest-adapted Negroes and Negritos. They were probably yellowish-brown like desert-adapted Khoisans and North Africans. But skin color is not the only trait, and you're placing far too much emphasis on it...

---

quote:

---

Crania are much more racially informative, and we know that East African crania -- both ancient and modern -- show greater Eurasian than African affinities (Howells 1995; Brace 1993).

---

This is one thing you are definitely wrong about!! Exactly what do you mean by 'Eurasian affinities' and 'African affinities'?! You still have not specified what exactly such affinities are, and both Africans and Eurasians are craniomorphically diverse!! Cranial features are the most diverse anatomical traits of humans and so they say little about lineage. Yet you seem to equate Eurasian with "caucasoid" despite the fact that there are many Eurasians who cranially are "negroid"! At the same time, Africans also vary to which some are "negroid" while others more "caucasoid", again this says nothing about genetic ties or lineage.

You are one dumb mutt!!

posted 27 July 2005 02:04 PM            

quote:

---

eurotrash:
And Super car's "borderline Europeans" claim is nonsense

---

posted 28 July 2005 07:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Where is your references showing adaptation from the proto-Caucasoid East African phenotype to Negrito?

---

posted 28 July 2005 07:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Those 8 thousand year old remains are not the ancestors of Europeans, and so are moot to discussion of European origins.

---

Right, they're so "moot" that Howells relates them to OOA migrations:

The DISPOP results here are not indicative of anything, except a general non-African nature for all these skulls. Display of POPKIN distances (infra) reinforces this and seems to find nearer neighbors among such more generalized populations as Peru, Guam, or Ainu, but also Europeans or even Easter Island.

Remembering that the Teita series (Bantu speakers of southeastern Kenya), and the recent East African skulls in table 4 above, do clearly exhibit African affiliations, it is fair to say, contra Rightmire, that there seems to be no clear continuity here in late prehistory. 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.

posted 28 July 2005 07:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
both the Khoisans and light-skinned black Berbers live in the extreme south/north ends of the continent respectively---away from the equator!!

---

But they live in deserts, you moron, which is what tropical Africa was during most of the Pleistocene.

quote:

---

This is one thing you are definitely wrong about!!

---

posted 28 July 2005 07:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Still immaterial...to your borderline european background.

---

Still dancing...because of your borderline human background.

posted 28 July 2005 07:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Right, they're so "moot" that Howells relates them to OOA migrations:

The DISPOP results here are not indicative of anything, except a general non-African nature for all these skulls. Display of POPKIN distances (infra) reinforces this and seems to find nearer neighbors among such more generalized populations as Peru, Guam, or Ainu, but also Europeans or even Easter Island.

Remembering that the Teita series (Bantu speakers of southeastern Kenya), and the recent East African skulls in table 4 above, do clearly exhibit African affiliations, it is fair to say, contra Rightmire, that there seems to be no clear continuity here in late prehistory. On the broad scale, [b]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.

[/B]

---

You didn't read the entire book, did you?:

From Howells' book, Who's Who is skulls:
p. 96

"The second kind of departure from DISPOP may be allied to the above but involves prehistoric specimens. As above, Fish Hoek, firmly Bushmen in other tests, is here, with no Bush in the reference framework, either European or Asian, not African. So the difficulty of placing the Elmenteita, Afalou, and Teviec specimens, seen earlier and repeated here, comes to the fore again: robusticity? or lack of kin among reference populations? I consider either to be plausible.

p.101

"Beyond actual recent peoples matters change somewhat. Relatively late prehistoric specimens confirm expectable affiliations in many cases; in others the assignment is unreasonable. Certain earlier cases, like Mladec 1, seem to fall into place among modern populations of an area. However, such specimens as Afalou 5, Teviec 11, Elmenteita A and B, and Upper Cave 101 all are generally recognized as modern anatomically but are here probabilistically well removed, while suggesting affiliations which are not credible.

Still waiting for your answer Eurotroll.

posted 28 July 2005 08:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
It has been established that racially undifferentiated pre-historic East Africans had greater affinities with modern Europeans and Asians than with modern Africans, and also that Negritos have experienced "long-term residence in a tropical deep-forest environment", from which they've acquired adaptations (e.g. short stature) that were not present in their desert-adapted ancestors. Of course, Europeans have adapted to their own environments as well, but the point is, they didn't evolve from "ancient Negroes".

---

I will only ask one more time and then completely ignore you.

Where is your references showing fossil records of adaptation of Negrito, Polynesian, Melanesian, etc from your so called ancient East African proto-Caucasoid types? Cranium maps, etc, not stature issues. I am open to evidence not speculation.

So far the evidence you have provided only infers that there was further diversification in East Africa before the second OOA wave.

posted 28 July 2005 10:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
You didn't read the entire book, did you?:

From Howells' book, Who's Who is skulls:
p. 96

"The second kind of departure from DISPOP may be allied to the above but involves prehistoric specimens. As above, Fish Hoek, firmly Bushmen in other tests, is here, with no Bush in the reference framework, either European or Asian, not African. So the difficulty of placing the Elmenteita, Afalou, and Teviec specimens, seen earlier and repeated here, comes to the fore again: robusticity? or lack of kin among reference populations? I consider either to be plausible.

p.101

"Beyond actual recent peoples matters change somewhat. Relatively late prehistoric specimens confirm expectable affiliations in many cases; in others the assignment is unreasonable. Certain earlier cases, like Mladec 1, seem to fall into place among modern populations of an area. However, such specimens as Afalou 5, Teviec 11, Elmenteita A and B, and Upper Cave 101 all are generally recognized as modern anatomically but are here probabilistically well removed, while suggesting affiliations which are not credible.

Still waiting for your answer Eurotroll.

---

The difference between actual thinking and mere parroting of the pseudo-scholarship of Dienekes Pontikos,

Which results in.....

suggesting affiliations which are not credible. - WW Howells.

and dullminded inability to grasp those affiliations which are....

early East Africans are ancestral to modern Elongated East Africans. Niether ancient nor modern East Africans should be considered closely related to Europeans, whom they differ greatly from, in a number of respects- J. Hiernaux.

posted 28 July 2005 10:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
I will only ask one more time and then completely ignore you.

Where is your references showing fossil records of adaptation of Negrito, Polynesian, Melanesian, etc from your so called ancient East African proto-Caucasoid types? Cranium maps, etc, not stature issues. I am open to evidence not speculation.

---

posted 28 July 2005 01:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
But they live in deserts, you moron, which is what tropical Africa was during most of the Pleistocene.

---

YOU'RE the moron!! Did you not read what I said?

quote:

---

Djehuti said: Dumb canine, the desert environment that Khoisans now live in (South Africa) probably didn't exist during that time!

Besides, both the Khoisans and light-skinned black Berbers live in the extreme south/north ends of the continent respectively---away from the equator!! In fact these people live directly outside the range of the tropical zone, with Khoisan living just below the Tropic of Capricorn and the Berbers living just above the Tropic of Cancer.

On the other hand, the East African region from whence OOAs originated is smack dab on the equatorial zone, dumbass!!

Populations that are truly adapted to rainforests are lighter-skinned, like Pygmies, because the forests offer shade from UV. While populations who are truly desert adapted have darker/blacker skin, like Nubians and Afar of Africa, the black Yemenis and Mahra of Arabia, and the Bhils of the deserts of India, because of virtually no protection from UV exposure, stupidass!

---

You call ME a moron, when you couldn't even comprehend what I've written!!

quote:

---

Um, no. Brace and Howells are not wrong.

---

I mentioned nothing about Brace and Howells. I said YOU are wrong, dumbass!

Again.

quote:

---

Exactly what do you mean by 'Eurasian affinities' and 'African affinities'?! You still have not specified what exactly such affinities are, and both Africans and Eurasians are craniomorphically diverse!! Cranial features are the most diverse anatomical traits of humans and so they say little about lineage.

Yet you seem to equate Eurasian with "caucasoid" despite the fact that there are many Eurasians who cranially are "negroid"! At the same time, Africans also vary to which some are "negroid" while others more "caucasoid", again this says nothing about genetic ties or lineage.

---

How stupid can you get?!!

posted 28 July 2005 01:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
On the Y-chromosome: Greeks, Italians and Spaniards are in the same cluster with Brits, Germans and Czechs.

---

Still immaterial, as far as borderline Europeans are concerned, grease monkey.

posted 29 July 2005 07:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Where is your references showing fossil records of adaptation of Negrito, Polynesian, Melanesian, etc from your so called ancient East African proto-Caucasoid types? Cranium maps, etc, not stature issues. I am open to evidence not speculation.

---

posted 29 July 2005 08:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Still immaterial, as far as borderline Europeans are concerned, grease monkey.

---

posted 29 July 2005 09:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
I will only ask one more time and then completely ignore you.

Where is your references showing fossil records of adaptation of Negrito, Polynesian, Melanesian, etc from your so called ancient East African proto-Caucasoid types?

---

quote:

---

relaxx wrote:
Osirion,
This is one of the best interventions so far in this thread...let's see what comes out of his empty Greek head...
Relaxx

---

Mostly....

...beads of sweat.

But no answers that's for sure.

Psuedoscience is exposed, and defeated once again.

posted 29 July 2005 11:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Well, if that data was available we wouldn't be having this discussion. However, its absence doesn't change the fact that the ancestors of Negritos came out of a desert environment and then adapted to a rainforest environment, which caused differentiation in the direction of pygmies. Hence, they look like pygmies and are not representative of ancient East Africans.

---

*sigh* and again...

quote:

---

On the other hand, the East African region from whence OOAs originated is smack dab on the equatorial zone, dumbass!!

Populations that are truly adapted to rainforests are lighter-skinned, like Pygmies, because the forests offer shade from UV. While populations who are truly desert adapted have darker/blacker skin, like Nubians and Afar of Africa, the black Yemenis and Mahra of Arabia, and the Bhils of the deserts of India, because of virtually no protection from UV exposure, stupidass!

---

quote:

---

Silence, you nattering no-answer nigger.

---

posted 29 July 2005 01:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Silence, you nattering no-answer nigger.

---

posted 29 July 2005 03:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Well, if that data was available we wouldn't be having this discussion.

---

posted 29 July 2005 03:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
That's the most stupid answer I've ever seen in my life...
Relaxx

---

posted 29 July 2005 04:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Well, if that data was available we wouldn't be having this discussion. However, its absence doesn't change the fact that the ancestors of Negritos came out of a desert environment and then adapted to a rainforest environment, which caused differentiation in the direction of pygmies. Hence, they look like pygmies and are not representative of ancient East Africans.

---

Indeed, absence of data is not proof of absence. In this case, however, data is not absent. Fossil records clearly show that these beach combing first wave OOA East African derived people were 'Tropically Adapated' with strong Negroid affinities.

A good term for them: Oceanic Negroes.

Without references to evidence showing that the research provided by Rasol has been refuted and that new evidence suggests support for your hypothesis, I must conclude that there's a preponderance of evidence supporting the Afrocentric viewpoint.

Though myself I would prefer to still see evidence supporting an intermediate I have yet to actually see proof that such exists.

posted 30 July 2005 07:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Fossil records clearly show that these beach combing first wave OOA East African derived people were 'Tropically Adapated' with strong Negroid affinities.

---

Where is this evidence of "Negroid affinities"? "African" doesn't mean "Negroid". All the evidence I've seen points to the Khoisan as most representative of the first undifferentiated OOA humans. And indeed, there exist certain affinities between Khoisans and Negritos:

"Apart from dark skin and curly hair, they [Negritos] have little in common with any African population, including the African pygmies. There are, however, a few fascinating connections to the Khoisan of South Africa." (Source)

"The trait of steatopygia links the Andamanese to the South African Khoisan (Bushmen and Hottentots) in a fascinating way: the two populations are very remote from each other but they are the only living groups with steatopygia. This is especially relevant since steatopygia is genetically controlled and is thought to be very ancient indeed." (Source)

I also came across this passage about skin color, which confirms what I've been saying:

posted 30 July 2005 07:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
I'll just ignore all the nattering niggers who hide behind lame insults and bogus claims to cover their own lack of answers. They know who they are, and acknowledging them only makes them think they matter.

Where is this evidence of "Negroid affinities"? "African" doesn't mean "Negroid". All the evidence I've seen points to the Khoisan as most representative of the first undifferentiated OOA humans. And indeed, there exist certain affinities between Khoisans and Negritos:

"Apart from dark skin and curly hair, they [Negritos] have little in common with any African population, including the African pygmies. There are, however, a few fascinating [b]connections to the Khoisan of South Africa." (Source)

"The trait of steatopygia links the Andamanese to the South African Khoisan (Bushmen and Hottentots) in a fascinating way: the two populations are very remote from each other but they are the only living groups with steatopygia. This is especially relevant since steatopygia is genetically controlled and is thought to be very ancient indeed." (Source)

I also came across this passage about skin color, which confirms what I've been saying:

"Of course, nothing above is meant to imply that pre-LGM Europeans were as dark as Africans. Evidence suggests that early modern humans had a medium complexion, like that of today's Khoisan or Ethiopians. The very dark complexion of central Africans also seems to be a recent adaptation (Semino and others 2002). To be sure, prior studies had suggested Mbuti pygmies as most resembling the first moderns, but current molecular evidence points to the Khoisan and Ethiopians." (Source)[/B]

---

posted 30 July 2005 08:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

Without references to evidence showing that the research provided has been refuted and that new evidence suggests support for your hypothesis....

---

This is also characteristic of pseudoscience:

pseudoscience - does not progress. Within a given topic, no progress is made and no data is presented.

In contrast modern bioanthropology has largely abandoned the outdated discredited notions of racial typologies.

Human beings do not divide into racial sub-species - negroid, caucasoid and mongoloid, which are artificial essentially political, and non biological, abstractions.

attempts to divide humans into race have failed - Cavelli Sforza.`

posted 30 July 2005 09:41 AM            

quote:

---

relaxx writes: Pygmies 101

---

The irony will be lost on some so, spelling it out.

Steatopygia - localised fat storage in the hips, is a feature of the women, but it occurs in a lesser degree in the males. It is also common among the Khoikhoi, and has been noted among the Pygmies of Central Africa.

Steatopygia, like dark skin is a tropical morphology of African origin per.

Rensch's Rule:

populations living in cold environments tend to have a generalized distribution of fat while those living in a hot, tropical environment tend to have localized fat deposits: steatopygia

Hence both are cited by scholars as evidence in support of the tropical African character of OOA peoples, including but not exclusive to the Andamans.

Source:

Generalised fat under the skin is called sub-cutaneous fat. The advantage of sub-cutaneous fat in a cold environment is that it also traps heat. But if this is generalised throughout the body it is maladaptive in the tropics.

So tropically adapted people tend to localise fat in areas such as around the hips, wheras the rest of the body including the limbs tend to have minimal fat - which aids heat dissipation.

Europeans have more subcutaneous fat under the skin than tropically adapted peoples such as the OOA migrants.

Dark skin, steatopygia, heat dissipating limb ratios and skeletal structure - all tropical adaptations.

posted 30 July 2005 10:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The irony will be lost on some so, spelling it out.

Steatopygia - localised fat storage in the hips, is a feature of the women, but it occurs in a lesser degree in the males. It is also common among the Khoikhoi, and has been noted among the Pygmies of Central Africa.

Steatopygia, like dark skin is a tropical morphology of African origin per.

[b]Rensch's Rule:

populations living in cold environments tend to have a generalized distribution of fat while those living in a hot, tropical environment tend to have localized fat deposits: steatopygia

Hence both are cited by scholars as evidence in support of the tropical African character of OOA peoples, including but not exclusive to the Andamans.

Source:

Generalised fat under the skin is called sub-cutaneous fat. The advantage of sub-cutaneous fat in a cold environment is that it also traps heat. But if this is generalised throughout the body it is maladaptive in the tropics.

So tropically adapted people tend to localise fat in areas such as around the hips, wheras the rest of the body including the limbs tend to have minimal fat - which aids heat dissipation.

Europeans have more subcutaneous fat under the skin than tropically adapted peoples such as the OOA migrants.

Dark skin, steatopygia, heat dissipating limb ratios and skeletal structure - all tropical adaptations.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 30 July 2005).][/B]

---

posted 30 July 2005 11:51 AM            

Another thing, is why does Stupid-Euro talk as if Khoisan people are non-Africans or different from other Africans?!! Khoisan are just as African, or perhaps even more so than West African "negroes" because they are more ancient. But in the end they are all African, so what the hell?!

posted 30 July 2005 12:14 PM            

quote:

---

euroscum grunting:
I'll just ignore all the nattering niggers who hide behind lame insults and bogus claims to cover their own lack of answers. They know who they are, and acknowledging them only makes them think they matter.

---

No less immaterial! And weeping now, is yet more immaterial.

Now, let us get to what matters to an intellectually downtrodden ginney clown, who hides behind lame insults and bogus claims to cover his own lack of answers:

Richards et al, 2002, actually make reference to an even more recent gene flow of sub-Saharan E lineages into Europe:

"The analysis for eastern Mediterranean Europe indicated a very high frequency (∼20%) of recent gene flow, as compared with only ∼10% Neolithic input. It would be necessary to perform a similar founder analysis (using, for example, a large panel of fast-evolving microsatellites) to see whether a proportion of the putative Y chromosome Neolithic types in Europe are actually of more recent origin. However, it is suggestive that the frequency of Y chromosome haplogroup E, which Semino et al. (2000) have inferred to be Neolithic, appears at particularly high levels in the western Mediterranean in the more extensive sample of Rosser et al. (2000) (fig. 3E). As Rosser et al. suggest, this may imply gene flow mainly from North Africa (where haplogroup E reaches its highest frequency), rather than mainly from the Near East, because, judging from archaeological evidence, the development of agriculture in Iberia is likely to have been largely indigenous (Zilhão 2000)."

From the first PC analysis, Richards et al found that,

"The first PC accounts for 49% of the variation and is approximately east-west within Europe, but the Near East and eastern Mediterranean Europe cluster with central Europe. This gradient is accounted for largely by paragroup R* (nomenclature of the Y Chromosome Consortium [2002]), formerly haplogroup 1 (Jobling and Tyler-Smith 2000) in the west and by haplogroups R1a (formerly haplogroup 3) and N3 (formerly Tat) in the east (fig. 5). In agreement with the suggestion proposed to explain the distribution of mtDNA haplogroup V (Torroni et al. 1998, 2001), the distributions of Y chromosome groups R* and R1a have been interpreted by Semino et al. (2000) to be the result of postglacial expansions from refugia within Europe."

But with Hg E in the mix, they got:

"The second PC of Y chromosome variation accounts for 26% of the variation, and it clusters most European regions at one pole while grouping the Near East at the other, with eastern Mediterranean and central Mediterranean Europe between the two poles.

The main contributors to the gradients are haplogroups E and J (formerly haplogroups 21 and 9, both of which are frequent in the Near East) and, again, R* and N3 (both of which are more frequent in Europe). This points to gene flow from the Near East, as suggested by both Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994) and Semino et al. (2000). Haplogroup J in Europe is interpreted more specifically by Semino et al. (2000) as the result of Neolithic dispersal. Curiously, however, haplogroups E and J are again most frequent along the Mediterranean coastline and rapidly dwindle as one moves into central Europe, where the archaeological record tells us the main farming expansion took place…

From Semino et al,

"Southern Italy (Apulia and Calabria) contains sites of the early Neolithic period (Whitehouse 1968), but we know from history that these regions were subsequently colonized by the Greeks (Peloponnesians). To test the relative contribution of Greek colonists versus putative earlier Neolithic settlers, an admixture analysis (Bertorelle and Excoffier 1998) was performed, using E-M78 and J-M172(xM12) as signatures of Greek and Anatolian lineages, respectively. The Anatolian source population was based on 523 Turks, of whom 118 were J-M172(xM12) and 25 were E-M78 (Cinniolu et al. 2004). The Greek population comprised 36 Peloponnesian samples, 5 of which were J-M172(xM12) and 17 of which were E-M78 (R.K., unpublished data). In spite of the small Peloponnesian sample size, the high E-M78 frequency (47%) observed here is consistent with that (44%) independently found in the same region (Di Giacomo et al. 2003) for the YAP chromosomes harboring microsatellite haplotypes (A. Novelletto, personal communication) typical of Hg E-M78 (Cruciani et al. 2004 [in this issue]; present study…

…Moreover, the observation that the derivative E-M78 displays the DYS392-12/DYS19-11 haplotype suggests that it also arose in East Africa."

From Sanchez et al.,
"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."

Semino et al,

German
E3b 6.2%, I 37.5%, J 0%, R1b 50%

Polish
E3b 3.6%, I 23.6%, J 0%, R1b 16.4%, R1a 56.4%

Greek
E3b 22.4%, I 7.9%, J 21%, R1b 27%, R1a 11%

Lebanese
E3b 25.8%, I 3.2%, J 29%, R1b 6.4%, R1a 10%

Now that's some food for thought, for a borderline european.

posted 30 July 2005 12:19 PM            

quote:

---

however you don't find people who have San features

---

Tends to be somewhat subjective.

Many people see "East Asian features" in Khoisan speakers, such as the prominent cheekbones and ephipantic eyefolds.

Doesn't matter much as biologically and phenotypically the Khoisan, Pygme, Elongated, Niger Congo types, and Bantu are all related and indigenous African varients.

They share common lineages and moreover their physical features cross-into one another today and did even moreso in the past.

This is why they are not seen as racial types by modern bioanthropologists.

The earliest modern remains found in the Nile Valley 33kya~ were likened to Nubians...but also Khoisans:

Nazlet Khater falls closer to the Late Palaeolithic Nubian samples, If an ancestral descendant relationship existed between Nazlet Khater and the Late Palaeolithic Nubian specimens, then regional continuity persisted among the Upper/Late Pleistocene populations of the Upper Nile region. - The position of the Nazlet Khater specimen among prehistoric and modern populations. Pinhasi R., Semal P.
Journal of Human Evolution, Vol. 13, (2000), pp. 269-288

It is a futility to play the Khoisan-vs-Bantu-vs-Nilote-vs-Pygme game on old African remains....

Genetically, when you go back in time, the lineages of different modern AFrican groups converge, and do not necessarily concord with specific modern ethnic groups, nor should they - since these ethnic groups did not exist at that time.

[this is also why the notion of 'aethiopoid', popular among white purity fantasy crowd in places like stormfront and dodona - and a very few foolish somali who ape them, has no currency in science]

This leads us to the misleading "halfquote" offered by the resident pseudo from the same "PaleoEtiology of Human Skin Tone" article which was earlier properly sited with respect to the tropical African morphology of OOA peoples.

quoted:

Evidence suggests that early modern humans had a medium complexion, like that of todays Khoisan or Ethiopians.

left out:

To be sure, prior studies had suggested Mbuti pygmies as most resembling the first moderns, but current molecular evidence points to the Khoisan and Ethiopians. [Semino 2002]

The 'prior studies' referenced are skeletal, and are correctly represented by the more recent.....

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/realeve/interactive/migration.html

It reinforces, and is not in conflict with the also excellent Semino [2002] study which is genetic and properly referenced below:

Ethiopians and Khoisan share the deepest clades of the human Y-chromosome phylogeny. - Am J Hum Genet 70:265268, in which

The presence of different Y-chromosome haplotypes belonging to African-specific Group I {Haplotype A} in all groups of Ethiopians and in the Khoisan (at frequencies of ­13% and 44%, respectively) confirms that these populations share an ancestral paternity, and it indicates that Group I was part of the proto African Y chromosome gene pool.

Note A/B are precurser to D.

Derived D lineages are what tropical Asians of New Guinnea, Melanesia and the Andamans have.

A/B is also precursor to E, and E is what most modern Africans have, only the oldest East and South African populations like the Oromo, the Khwe, and San retain high levels of Group A.

The current findings, genetic and skeletal are coherent and consistent with the tropical African affinities of OOA populations.

Of course, we don't expect pseudo's who believe women 'carry' Y chromosome to grasp any of it. But that's their problem.

posted 30 July 2005 12:24 PM            

quote:

---

Speaking of steatopygia, isn't that why many black women have the "big booty"??!

---

Steatopygia is present most common in descendants of hunter gather groups probably because it is most strongly selected for among them, then in diminuative types "pygme", and then broad African types.

It is less common in elongated types, who have the least amount of sub-cutaneous body fat in the world having given up storing fat altogether in favor of dissipating heat.

posted 30 July 2005 06:27 PM            

Some of the early branches of physical anthropology, such as early anthropometry, are now rejected as pseudoscience. Metrics such as the cephalic index were used to derive behavioral characteristics. With the rise of Darwinian theory and the modern synthesis, anthropologists had access to new forms of data, and many began to call themselves "biological anthropologists".

quote:

---

There is no such thing as a Eurocentric Keins. That is a little fantasy cooked up in the minds of people who are preoccupied by their race, like yourself. Keins...you are black, you were born black and you will die black. Why spend all of the years you have PREOCCUPIED by blackness. Join the world, go out and lead a full life and leave the bitterness to the racists like rasol. IBM and GE don't care if you are green. If you can make them money you have a place in the world. This need globalism CREATED by western society and led by the US and UK has a place for everyone , regardless of race.

---

I agree, money and health is much more important than race. In fact wealthy and educated blacks do not care much about other blacks as well.

posted 30 July 2005 07:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puro Hybrido:
Pseudoscience refers to any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific. The standards determining such a distinction vary, but often include lack of empirical evidence, unfalsifiability, or failure to comply with scientific method or apply a heuristic such as Occam's Razor.

Some of the early branches of physical anthropology, such as early anthropometry, are now rejected as pseudoscience. Metrics such as the cephalic index were used to derive behavioral characteristics. With the rise of Darwinian theory and the modern synthesis, anthropologists had access to new forms of data, and many began to call themselves "biological anthropologists".

---

You're exactly correct.

In this case we are dealing with Evil(Stupid, really) Euro, who distorts real science. Distortion of real science is, of course, pseudo-science also.

Evil-Euro is a firm believer in the false notion of racial groups and tries to use genetic markers like mtDNA and those on Y-chromosomes as his 'proof'. Furthermore he tries to associate such genetic markers with phenotype, while all the while ignoring all the evidence.

When he cites sources, he only partially cites the material and leaves out the rest that refutes him!

Stupid-Euro is just a frustrated racialist loony, but don't worry. In time he will just become a normal annoyance.

Welcome to Egyptsearch, by the way.

posted 30 July 2005 07:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Speaking of steatopygia, isn't that why many black women have the "big booty"??!

Another thing, is why does Stupid-Euro talk as if Khoisan people are non-Africans or different from other Africans?!! Khoisan are just as African, or perhaps even more so than West African "negroes" because they are more ancient. But in the end they are all African, so what the hell?!

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 30 July 2005).]

---

posted 30 July 2005 07:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
I noticed that among Ethiopian girls too compare to other African girls...
Relaxx

---

posted 30 July 2005 07:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Noticed what?

---

posted 31 July 2005 07:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super coon:

[ Certainly not any answers ]

---

E3b is found at frequencies of over 50% only in fully Caucasoid North Africans like Kabyle and Middle Atlas Berbers, and partly Caucasoid East Africans like Ethiopians and Somalis. It is not found substantially in any fully Negroid Sub-Saharan Africans. This fact has yet to be refuted (because it can't be).

On the Y-chromosome Greeks, Italians and Spaniards cluster with Brits, Germans and Czechs: