posted 04 August 2005 07:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arsalan:
To Horemheb, Abaza, and your ilk...

It's been months since I've visited this forum. It's sad to see that you're still beating the racial horse. Why so much obsession with the "Black Condition". The posts I've read have all started with a meaningful scientific premise and you immediately drag the thread through the muck and mire of race. I've never heard of white men so absorbed by the "reform" of black people... oh wait... I have. They were the slavers and missionaries that were so convinced that all their actions and theories were justified by the "white man's burdon".

I would also ask, with long proud history of various European tribes. Why do Europeans such as yourselves make such a frantic effort to place the culture and achievements of other ancient societies (i.e. Egypt and India) under the European umbrella?

And of all your posts, not a single one makes a scientific statement. All are appeals to emotions, weather good or bad, that will derail any meanful discussion.

---

Indeed, non of the so-called "Afrocentrics" have ever degraded Europeans, Asians, or anyone else but the ignorant individuals themselves!!

Non of them espouse black supremacy, just because Egypt is an African civilization!

And just because peoples of southern Europe happen to have relatively recent African ancestry compared to other Europeans does not mean that their culture is African. However, it is understandable why someone would be so upset to find out they have black ancestry. Members of the KKK in Florida were angry and wanted to silence the genealogy programs that revealed many blacks in the area share the same paternal European heritage that is as recent as several decades to a century. People like Stupid-Euro just can't stand it that they paternally they have prehistoric black ancestry.

quote:

---

Relaxx says: ...However every single person on earth has a Black African ancestor...
Relaxx

---

Correct, so the question is what the heck is the problem with that??!!

If the racist can't stomach the very thought that they share not only a relation to black peoples but also an ancestry, then so be it!

posted 04 August 2005 07:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
Here we are just talking about the subsaharan haplogroup E3b, originally carried by Black Africans and even today. However every single person on earth has a Black African ancestor, only some racist and ignorant people can't sleep at night because of that...
Relaxx

---

heh heh. nicely put.

posted 04 August 2005 08:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
Here we are just talking about the subsaharan haplogroup E3b, originally carried by Black Africans and even today. However every single person on earth has a Black African ancestor, only some racist and ignorant people can't sleep at night because of that...
Relaxx

---

Thanks relaxx but it's not just E3b. Basically every gene (including U5 which is frequent in Europe) dates back to a quite recent African supercluster.

Racists are just ignorant and prejudiced idiots leaving in denial about themselves.

posted 04 August 2005 08:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puro Hybrido:
Thanks relaxx but it's not just E3b. Basically every gene (including U5 which is frequent in Europe) dates back to a quite recent African supercluster.

Racists are just ignorant and prejudiced idiots leaving in denial about themselves.

---

Truth, and they will go to bizarre extremes of pseudoscience to deny the undeniable.

These people are the Sandawe of East Africa, related to the Khoisan of South Africa:

Here's what geneticist Sarah TishKoff has to say about them:

We have been able to show, for the first time, that the Sandawe of East Africa the southern bushmen of Botswana, Namibia and South Africa share a recent common ancestry, within about 35,000 years. We speculate the southern bushmen originated in East Africa, and that they both are remnants of a very old group of hunter-gatherers, perhaps the earliest ancestors of modern humans."

posted 04 August 2005 09:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Truth, and they will go to bizarre extremes of pseudoscience to deny the undeniable.

These people are the Sandawe of East Africa, related to the Khoisan of South Africa:

Here's what geneticist Sarah TishKoff has to say about them:

We have been able to show, for the first time, that the Sandawe of East Africa the southern bushmen of Botswana, Namibia and South Africa share a recent common ancestry, within about 35,000 years. We speculate the southern bushmen [b]originated in East Africa, and that they both are remnants of a very old group of hunter-gatherers, perhaps the earliest ancestors of modern humans."

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 04 August 2005).][/B]

---

Thanks rasol. What she discovered is that the most ancient populations include the Sandawe, Burunge, Gorowaa and Datog people who live in Tanzania. The 150,000-year-old female ancestor (mtDNA) of every person on Earth, may have lived in Tanzania or Ethiopia.

http://www.ntz.info/gen/n01574.html

posted 05 August 2005 04:31 AM            

The Datoga, Gorowaa, Burunge, Masai and others best resemble the East African mesolithic remains and classified by anthropologist as 'elongated' types.

Two of the above are Nilo-saharan and two are Cushitic - those are languages, not skeletypes.

The skeletal remains of these groups overlap in range and appearance and in some cases go back to before the modern ethnic groups diverged.

Tishkoff's genetic data reinforces earlier skeletal data.

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience:

Scientists such as Tishkoff do not attempt to infer East African genetic lineages from "mystery Y chromosome carrying" mail order brides from Best of Asia website.

posted 05 August 2005 07:36 AM            

quote:

---

E3b is a haplotype that originated in Sub-Saharan Africa only over 10,000 years ago, which means Greeks have black African ancestry!!

---

Incorrect. E3b originated in East Africa ~26,000 years ago, predating ALL modern races, including blacks who aren't even native to East Africa. The racial affiliations of Y-chromosome markers came much later.

quote:

---

The Borana/Cushite: [Highest levels of E3b1 and E3b]

---

Of course, the Borana are descended from Oromo migrants originating in Ethiopia, and it has been well established that the Oromo -- like the Amhara -- are racially hybrid:

"Considering the erythrocyte enzyme data, the Oromo and Amhara appear quite similar to Europoids (particularly to the South Arabians) and considerably different from the Negritic peoples. There is evidence for close genetic affinity among the Cushitic- and Semitic-speaking population groups of the Horn. Admixture between Europoid and Negritic populations seems to have been the main microevolutionary factor in generating the present day Cushitic (and Semitic)-speaking group of eastern Africa." (Tartaglia et al. 1996)

"The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position." (De Stefano et al. 2002)

posted 05 August 2005 08:43 AM            

East Africa is so always intermediate with respect to all of Africa, and all non-Africans. This is because it is the central point of origin. This is true whether comparing East Africa and the rest of Africa to China, or New Guinnea.

This can even be shown simply when looking at the maternal dna.

The three main lineages all of which are African in origin are L1, L2 and L3.

East Africa is 50% L3, and 50% L2 and L1.

The rest of Native Africa is 25% L3 and 75% L2 and L1.

The rest of the natively non African world is essentially 100% L3x -

This includes the earliest non African populations in the Andamans, Australia, Fiji, New Guinnea....all 100% L3x.

Thus East African L3 frequency of 50% is "intermediate" between the above mentioned non-Africans at 100%, and the rest of Africa, at 25%.

Europe is as irrelevant to this fact of genetics as Y chromosome is irrelevant to female morphology.

It is simply the consequence of the origin of all non Africans from a small East African population - per Tishkoff.

From Dr. SOY Keita: the anthropological record indicates the presence of anatomical modern people in Africa at a time when hominids in Europe had Neanderthal morphology

From JO Vogel:
claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong

Meaning:

It is "Europeans" whose tropical African ancestors, the same ancestry as shared by East Asians, Australian aborigines, etc.., migrated out of Africa, splitting from East Asians before moving into Europe.

Therefore Europeans SHOULD show similar 'genetic distance' from Africans as East Asians.

But they don't.

Europeans are about 1/3 closer genetically to Africa relative to East Asians.

Why is this?

The 1st Europeans settled in Europe's glacial refugess for 15 thousand years, before Africans began spreading new genes into Europe's population, particularly during the Neolithic.

This is indicated by Benin HBS and E3b haplotypes among others.

These are genes that originate in tropical Africa and spread to Southern Europe.

African genes in Europeans is what is referred to by geneticist Cavelli Sforza, who tells us and shows us: Europeans appear as a 2/3 Asian, 1/3rd African mix.

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

posted 05 August 2005 11:57 AM            

quote:

---

Stupid-Euro says: Incorrect. E3b originated in East Africa ~26,000 years ago, predating ALL modern races, including blacks who aren't even native to East Africa. The racial affiliations of Y-chromosome markers came much later.

---

You talk about "predating all modern races", well how so? Phenotypical change is an ongoing process that takes thousands of years. Also, how the hell did blacks not exist?!! Blacks have always existed in Africa, stupid ass!! What do you think, they were white?!! LOL

quote:

---

Of course, the Borana are descended from Oromo migrants originating in Ethiopia, and it has been well established that the Oromo -- like the Amhara -- are racially hybrid:

"Considering the erythrocyte enzyme data, the Oromo and Amhara appear quite similar to Europoids (particularly to the South Arabians) and considerably different from the Negritic peoples. There is evidence for close genetic affinity among the Cushitic- and Semitic-speaking population groups of the Horn. Admixture between Europoid and Negritic populations seems to have been the main microevolutionary factor in generating the present day Cushitic (and Semitic)-speaking group of eastern Africa." (Tartaglia et al. 1996)

"The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position." (De Stefano et al. 2002)

"Here we report the gene frequencies of these two polymorphic sites in nine additional populations (Egyptians, Spaniards, Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Africans from Togo and from Benin, and Pygmies), confirming their ethnospecificity and, through the analysis of these two markers in Oromo and Amhara of Ethiopia (two mixed populations), their usefulness in genetic admixture studies." (Ciminelli et al. 2002)

---

Partially correct! The Oromo are indeed related to the Amhara since the Amhara are Ethiopians also, but Amhara carry more OOA haplotypes like J. Which means, if anything, the Amhara are the real "hybrids". Heck, even the Amhara are distinguished by lighter color and more pronounced Middle-Eastern features. The same cannot be said for the Oromo who are are much more pure African. Your "Europoid" features are baseless altogether anyway since such features are globally widespread. Sorry dumb-euro.

posted 05 August 2005 12:04 PM            

It has been almost a year, how stupid can this guy get?

Over a dozen scientists, including 2 TV programs now, Discovery's The Real Eve and PBA's The Journey of Man, and yet his dumb ass is still talking the same dumb ****!!

Will his stupidity end, I'm betting it won't.

Why? Because for a person who uses epithets like ni***r, ape, monkey, slave, and such and talks about females carrying the Y-chromosome, you can bet that the only way his stupidity can end is to seek professional help!

But in Stupid-Euro's case, fat chance that's gonna happen anytime soon!

posted 05 August 2005 01:26 PM            

quote:

---

Djehuti:
Stupid-Euro just keeps talking bull****, that no one would buy cuz they know better.

---

Of course, bull**** doesn’t matter, since we are certain that:

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%

Not to mention:

Benin haplotype Sickle Cell presence > Africans, Italians, Greeks,…

And…

"Negroid traits of Anatolian and Macedonian early farmers attributable to crossbreeding" - Angel, Garrod, Furon

Thought:
The **REAL** Europeans have features such as blue eyes and blonde hair as found among populations such as the Swedes, Croatians, Bosnians, Slovenians, Sardinians, Danes, Dutch, Germans, Normans, etc. All of these groups carry high frequencies of the pre-LGM haplogroup I in frequencies greater than 35%. Greeks carry this defining European haplogroup at ~13%. Lebanese, Jews, Turks etc. also carry this European lineage in low frequencies like the Greeks.

posted 05 August 2005 02:32 PM            

quote:

---

...blacks who aren't even native to East Africa.

---

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of! Dumb-Euro's claims that all the blacks of East Africa are of "recent Bantu" descent is hilarious!!

Not only has it been proven that Oromo, Somalis, and Boranas are pure Africans with no Bantu admixture but...

quote:

---

Rasol says: These people are the Sandawe of East Africa, related to the Khoisan of South Africa:

Here's what geneticist Sarah TishKoff has to say about them:

We have been able to show, for the first time, that the Sandawe of East Africa the southern bushmen of Botswana, Namibia and South Africa share a recent common ancestry, within about 35,000 years. We speculate the southern bushmen originated in East Africa, and that they both are remnants of a very old group of hunter-gatherers, perhaps the earliest ancestors of modern humans."

---

quote:

---

and Puro Hybrido answers: What she discovered is that the most ancient populations include the Sandawe, Burunge, Gorowaa and Datog people who live in Tanzania. The 150,000-year-old female ancestor (mtDNA) of every person on Earth, may have lived in Tanzania or Ethiopia.

http://www.ntz.info/gen/n01574.html

---

quote:

---

and Rasol replies: The Datoga, Gorowaa, Burunge, Masai and others best resemble the East African mesolithic remains and classified by anthropologist as 'elongated' types.

Two of the above are Nilo-saharan and two are Cushitic - those are languages, not skeletypes.

The skeletal remains of these groups overlap in range and appearance and in some cases go back to before the modern ethnic groups diverged.

Tishkoff's genetic data reinforces earlier skeletal data.

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience:

Scientists such as Tishkoff do not attempt to infer East African genetic lineages from "mystery Y chromosome carrying" mail order brides from Best of Asia website.

---

These remnant populations of East Africa--the Hadzabe, Sandawe, and others are the aboriginal peoples of the area long before Cushitic and Nilo-Saharan speaking peoples. And they are ALL BLACK!!!

The notion that prehistoric Africans were anything else but, is a ridiculous joke.

posted 06 August 2005 07:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
African genes in Europeans is what is referred to by geneticist Cavelli Sforza, who tells us and shows us: Europeans appear as a 2/3 Asian, 1/3rd African mix.

---

Now would be a good time to stop pretending you haven't seen this thread:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/002449.html

posted 06 August 2005 07:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Now would be a good time to stop pretending you haven't seen this thread:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/002449.html

---

quote:
And P.S. Cavalli-Sforza clearly identifies Europeans as Caucasoid. So when he says that their gene frequencies are "a third African and two-thirds Asian", he isn't claiming that they're racially mixed, as some Afronuts absurdly maintain.

posted 06 August 2005 07:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
You talk about "predating all modern races", well how so? Phenotypical change is an ongoing process that takes thousands of years. Also, how the hell did blacks not exist?!! Blacks have always existed in Africa, stupid ass!!

---

"There are implications for the origins of modern races, too. Herto (and Jebel Irhoud) are H. sapiens, but with primitive features. They are not, racially speaking, Africans. The later Omo and Klasies remains are more modern, but they too are archaic, and certainly show no traces of the features that characterise any modern races. Only Qafzeh and Skhul seem to lack these primitive features, and rate as "generalised modern humans". Our species seems to have existed as an entity long, long before it began to spread outside Africa or the Middle East, let alone split into geographic races." (Colin Groves)

posted 06 August 2005 08:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
By the way, as to Stupid-Euro's claims that..

These remnant populations of East Africa--the Hadzabe, Sandawe, and others are the aboriginal peoples of the area long before Cushitic and Nilo-Saharan speaking peoples. And they are ALL BLACK!!!

The notion that prehistoric Africans were anything else but, is a ridiculous joke. [/B]

---

The Iraqw of Tanzania,

Yet another Black East African group with oldest mtdna and Y lineages [L1,A] as well as E3b@35%. [Tishkoff, Underhill]

Peter Underhill: E3b-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations."

posted 06 August 2005 08:52 AM            

quote:

---

Djehuti writes: You talk about "predating all modern races", well how so? Phenotypical change is an ongoing process that takes thousands of years. Also, how the hell did blacks not exist?!! Blacks have always existed in Africa, stupid ass!! LOL

---

The term "generalised modern" is accurately disected in this thread

quote:

---

The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more generalized and can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians.

---

Early tropical Africans were by definition Black:

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.

they had to have very dark skin in order to survive in such an environment - Jablonsky

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

quote:

---

Thought posts: Define what YOU mean when YOU use the term negroid/caucasiod

---

Naturally pseudo's cannot speak to any point of fact, and prefer to hide behind nonsense terms, that remain forever undefined....

The lack of a coherent answer simply lends further credence to the following:

terms like caucaZoid-mongoloid-negroid are worse than useless - Cl Brace

Conclusion:

Pseudos - invent their own vocabulary, hide behind ambiguous terms, or terms which have no definition at all.

posted 06 August 2005 09:20 AM            

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%

Not to mention:

Benin haplotype Sickle Cell presence > Africans, Italians, Greeks,…

And…

"Negroid traits of Anatolian and Macedonian early farmers attributable to crossbreeding" - Angel, Garrod, Furon

Thought:
The **REAL** Europeans have features such as blue eyes and blonde hair as found among populations such as the Swedes, Croatians, Bosnians, Slovenians, Sardinians, Danes, Dutch, Germans, Normans, etc. All of these groups carry high frequencies of the pre-LGM haplogroup I in frequencies greater than 35%. Greeks carry this defining European haplogroup at ~13%. Lebanese, Jews, Turks etc. also carry this European lineage in low frequencies like the Greeks.

posted 06 August 2005 09:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
Yes he is, and that's what they look like.

---

Sforza is simply relating the reality of the biological history of Europeans given the fact of RAO - recent African Origin of all people.

If you took a modern population of fulani, and fijiians - who look rather similar but are genetically among the two most distant people on earth - placed them on an island, and then allowed them to intermix for several generations, the end result would be as following:

Genetically they would appear as a MIX of fulani and fijiian.

The difference is that East Asians and Europeans are clearly descendant from the same small population of tropically adapted, black Africans.

Yet, their genetic distance w/regards to Africans is not the same.

What has happened is Europeans have remixed with Africans to a far greater degree than East Asians have, and moreover this has a great impact on the European genome for reasons stated by geneticist Underhill and Tishkoff:

non africans descend from a small group of africans, there isn't as much genetic diversity "as in africa" because there wasn't much to begin with

When you admix African genes - Benin HBS, E3, L2, etc.. back into the European genome it has a major impact.

quote:

---

Europeans appear as a 2/3 Asian 1/3 African mix - Sforza

Why is this?

The 1st Europeans settled in Europe's glacial refugess for 15 thousand years, before Africans began spreading new genes into Europe's population, particularly during the Neolithic. {PA Underhill}

This is indicated by Benin HBS and E3b haplotypes among others.

These are genes that originate in tropical Africa and spread to Southern Europe.

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

---

posted 07 August 2005 07:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
Early tropical Africans were by definition Black:

---

No, they were by definition "not, racially speaking, Africans ... [showing] no traces of the features that characterise any modern races."

quote:

---

terms like caucaZoid-mongoloid-negroid are worse than useless - Cl Brace

---

One of the world's preeminent geneticists begs to differ: "Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids (purple)"

quote:

---

Europeans appear as a 2/3 Asian 1/3 African mix - Sforza

---

posted 07 August 2005 10:47 AM            

What were their features?

posted 07 August 2005 11:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
"The map does show the unity of the...[b]Caucasoids from Europe" - Sforza[/B]

---

posted 07 August 2005 11:04 AM            

Early Blacks:
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. - Rogers

Early Eurasians:
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]

C Sforza, The History and Geography of Human Genes, Chapter. 2 - "The Scientific Failure of the Concept of Race.":

Classification of humans into races has proven tobe a futile excercise

posted 07 August 2005 11:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
Mulatto unity

---

lol. While Europeans show the effects of reduced genetic diversity due to recent expansion from a small population of ICE age refugees, who depigmented [meaning turned white] during the Mesolithic.... the effects of West Asian and East African admixture has been documented by Sforza.

Sforza found Germans and English to be very closly related genetically, whereas the Italians are twice removed, and the Greeks 4 times removed from English/Germanics.

This makes sense - England is an Island settled by Germans from the Paleolithic ice age refuges.

Greece is genetically a combination of paleolithic Europeans plus Neolithic East African and West Asians.

This is why the Greeks have been referred to as "genetically outlier" in a European context.

posted 07 August 2005 02:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Sforza found Germans and English to be very closly related genetically, whereas the Italians are twice removed, and the Greeks 4 times removed from English/Germanics.

This makes sense - England is an Island settled by Germans from the Paleolithic ice age refuges.

Greece is genetically a combination of paleolithic Europeans plus Neolithic East African and West Asians.

This is why the Greeks have been referred to as "genetically outlier" in a European context.

---

...which is of course why even the likes of Best of Sicily just ignore bafoons like ginney troll, as pests too insignificant for any kind of attention, and aslo...

which is clearly demonstrated time and again, in results like:

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%

Not to mention:

Benin haplotype Sickle Cell presence > Africans, Italians, Greeks,…

And…

"Negroid traits of Anatolian and Macedonian early farmers attributable to crossbreeding" - Angel, Garrod, Furon

Thought:
The **REAL** Europeans have features such as blue eyes and blonde hair as found among populations such as the Swedes, Croatians, Bosnians, Slovenians, Sardinians, Danes, Dutch, Germans, Normans, etc. All of these groups carry high frequencies of the pre-LGM haplogroup I in frequencies greater than 35%. Greeks carry this defining European haplogroup at ~13%. Lebanese, Jews, Turks etc. also carry this European lineage in low frequencies like the Greeks.

Thought Writes:
Sardianians are southern Europeans, yet they carry the **HIGHEST** frequency of Hg I. Greeks are southern Europeans and carry one of the **LOWEST** frequencies of Hg I. This suggests two **SEPARATE** origins for Sardinians and Greeks. Sardinians represent the **INDIGENOUS**, pre-LGM southern European type. Greeks represent a merger/hybrid type between indigenous southern European and in-migrating Middle Eastern and Black African elements.
Greeks have a low frequency of this **DEFINING** European haplogroup and have **EXTREMELY** high frequencies of Middle Eastern Hg J and Sub-Saharan African Hg E as a result of gene flow from these regions to Greece **AFTER** the LGM. Hence Greeks are hybrid and genetic outliers in a European context.

Pretty clear to every thinking individual, but one borderline european's pet.

posted 08 August 2005 07:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ignorant, Babbling Ape:
Early Out of African migrants:
The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more generalized and can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians.
J Hum Evol. 2005 Apr;48(4):403-14, Neves, et al.

Early Eurasians:
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]

---

Of course, "African" doesn't equal "Negroid" or "Black", and Australoids are a modern race distinct from generalized pre-historic humans:

"Of all 'major races', Australoids have evidently changed least from the generalised modern human pattern, but the flat, receding forehead and angular skull vault that characterise many full-blooded Aboriginal people today are somewhat different to the Qafzeh/Skhul pattern. A 1999 study by Susan Antón and Karen Weinstein of the University of Florida, in the process of confirming that some of the Australian fossils (including most of the famous Kow Swamp series) had undergone artificial head deformation in infancy, found unexpectedly that most of the Pleistocene fossil Australian crania are rounder-skulled than modern ones. So racial features developed late in this part of the world, too." -- Colin Groves

quote:

---

C Sforza, The History and Geography of Human Genes, Chapter. 2 - "The Scientific Failure of the Concept of Race.":

Classification of humans into races has proven tobe a futile excercise

---

The savage keeps pretending, but he'll never escape the truth . . .

Cavalli-Sforza Believes in Race

quote:

---

Sforza found Germans and English to be very closly related genetically, whereas the Italians are twice removed, and the Greeks 4 times removed from English/Germanics.

This makes sense - England is an Island settled by Germans from the Paleolithic ice age refuges.

Greece is genetically a combination of paleolithic Europeans plus Neolithic East African and West Asians.

This is why the Greeks have been referred to as "genetically outlier" in a European context.

---

• European Distances:

  The genetic distances between the English and other European populations are small. The two greatest are 404 for the Lapps, and 340 for the Sardinians, two populations that contributed few immigrants to the United States. With major European populations, 22 with the Germans, the distances are 24 with the French, 51 with the Italians, and on up to 204 with the Greeks. In comparison with the much larger genetic distances from the Bantu and West Africans, or the Japanese, South Chinese, or American Indians, the European populations do indeed seem similar to each other.

• Sub-Saharan African Distances:

  Likewise, the various West African populations are similar to one another. The average distance between the various West African tribes is 157, and 211 among the Bantu groups (p. 184). A representative Bantu to West African distance is 188 (p. 175).

• European Outliers:

  For instance, in inspecting the tree for Europe (p. 268), the Lapps will be found to be the population that is furthest separated from other populations. Next come the Sardinians, which are sufficiently different from other Europeans that their inclusion in the principal components analysis would have required that they be given a component to themselves (p. 291). Their unique gene mix is attributed primely to genetic drift in a small population. The Basques are found to be another distinct group, who are argued to be a remnant of the original Europeans. Iceland is found to be quite distinct from the rest of Europe, which is attributed to genetic drift in a small population.

• Italian Y-chromosomes:

  Torroni, Semino, Scozzari, Sirugo, Spedini, Abbas, Fellous, & Santachiara Benerecetti (1990) reported a sharp distinction between Africans and Italians using markers on the Y chromosome.

  -- Data from Cavalli-Sforza

Cavalli-Sforza's Autosomal DNA Map:

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

posted 08 August 2005 08:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
...which is of course why even the likes of Best of Sicily just ignore buffoons like ginney troll, as pests too insignificant for any kind of attention

---

posted 08 August 2005 10:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Of course, "African" doesn't equal "Negroid" or "Black", and Australoids are a modern race distinct from generalized pre-historic humans:

---

Can you define the terms "negroid" and "black", and is there a difference??

Stupid-Euro has not even expressed what he means by those terms, as the troll usually does.

posted 08 August 2005 10:53 AM            

quote:

---

Stupid-Euro has not even expressed what he means by those terms, as the troll usually does.

---

posted 08 August 2005 12:04 PM            

quote:

---

i could of swore scientist a few years ago said black wherent even native to africa they i was taught in school that they migrated there and ther skin turn black lol. Thats what i was taught in school of a video we watch so u cant go buy all scientist cause they switch there stories.

---

If you understand the parent post and topic, you will be able to distinguish between science and pseudoscience.

Science: findings are expressed primarily through scientific journals that are peer-reviewed, current and maintain rigorous standards for honesty and accuracy. As time goes on, more and more is learned about the physical processes under study

Ex: the mutations that produce light skin color in Northern Eurasians are derived from the original, "darker" form of the gene known as MCiR - melanocortin receptor, virtually the only form found in Africa still. Africans [unlike Northern Eurasians] have retained their original dark color - Geneticist Spencer Wells.

Pseudoscience: does not progress. No physical phenomena or processes are ever found or studied. No progress is made; nothing is learned.

Bandon [Brandon], the 'video' you referenced is apparently badly outdated.

When you choose to stop learning, you become a pseudo. The fault isn't with "science", the responsibility to keep learning is yours.

posted 08 August 2005 01:56 PM            

quote:

---

ginney pussy:

• [b]European Distances:

  The genetic distances between the English and other European populations are small. The two greatest are 404 for the Lapps, and 340 for the Sardinians, two populations that contributed few immigrants to the United States. With major European populations, 22 with the Germans, the distances are 24 with the French, 51 with the Italians, and on up to 204 with the Greeks. In comparison with the much larger genetic distances from the Bantu and West Africans, or the Japanese, South Chinese, or American Indians, the European populations do indeed seem similar to each other.

• Sub-Saharan African Distances:

  Likewise, the various West African populations are similar to one another. The average distance between the various West African tribes is 157, and 211 among the Bantu groups (p. 184). A representative Bantu to West African distance is 188 (p. 175).

• European Outliers:

  For instance, in inspecting the tree for Europe (p. 268), the Lapps will be found to be the population that is furthest separated from other populations. Next come the Sardinians, which are sufficiently different from other Europeans that their inclusion in the principal components analysis would have required that they be given a component to themselves (p. 291). Their unique gene mix is attributed primely to genetic drift in a small population. The Basques are found to be another distinct group, who are argued to be a remnant of the original Europeans. Iceland is found to be quite distinct from the rest of Europe, which is attributed to genetic drift in a small population.

• Italian Y-chromosomes:

  Torroni, Semino, Scozzari, Sirugo, Spedini, Abbas, Fellous, & Santachiara Benerecetti (1990) reported a sharp distinction between Africans and Italians using markers on the Y chromosome.

  -- Data from Cavalli-Sforza

Cavalli-Sforza's Autosomal DNA Map:

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

---

None of this has of course become any less immaterial to the undeniable recent black African gene flow into Southern Europe, particularly southeastern Mediterranean regions. Let’s recap:

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."

An example of genetically outlier Europeans:

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

"Indeed the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina display European specific haplogroups that most likely arose in different glacial refuge areas of Europe (I-M170, R-M17 and R-M269 from Balkan, Ukrainian and Franco-Cantabrian refuges, respectively), and haplogroups considered to have originated in Africa (E) and the Middle East (J)..."
The Peopling of Modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y-chromosome Haplogroups in the Three Main Ethnic Groups
D. Marjanovic et al.

Thought Writes:
The *TRUE** European populations that carried Hg I, Hg R1a1 and HG R1b1 INTO these glacial refuges spread down into southern Europe from the north and hence had adapted to Northern Europes clime. The Greeks on the other hand arrived AFTER the LGM from Africa and the Middle East, as the incredible prescence of Hg E and Hg J indicate.

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."

Ps- Here is a source that seems to have a good idea on what ‘generalized’ means:
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. - Neves et al

posted 08 August 2005 03:06 PM            

quote:

---

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

---

posted 08 August 2005 04:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The pseudo also continues to spam charts every one of which contradict its own bizarre claims, that is when he is not directly contradicting himself, in his own terms - as pseudos are prone to do.

---

You are exactly right about that Rasol!

Notice that in the very genetic map the dumb dog posts, East Africans are placed in the same cluster as other Africans and are even close to Bantus. Yet the dumb mutt continues to spew the same nonsense that East Africans are closer to Eurasians than to other Africans!!

pseudo-science is an end to itself.

posted 08 August 2005 07:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Stupid-Euro, just curious but exactly what did early "generalized modern" humans look like?

What were their features?

And what constitutes a modern black African?

---

posted 08 August 2005 09:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keins:
Many to most modern africans have a mixture of all the phenotypes. They are a phenotypic mixture of the khoisan "mongoloid", elongated "caucasoid", and broad "negroid" types. This mixture along with curly to kinky hair and dark skin is still by definition what sceintist today call black or negro.

---

Ultimately it is the entire idea of physical archtypes, stereotypes really, that is flawed.

This is known as "essentialism" and it is an inherent feature of Blumenbach's race partitioning system.

For example: a pure caucaZoid would be a blonde haired, blue eyed, pale skinned long nosed type....the essential caucaZoid.

At the opposite end of this spectrum you would have your modern olive skinned dark eyed, dark haired, curly haired Greeks, for example.

In fact, modern physical anthropology has proven to us that humans never have existed as separate physical archtypes, nor can you reginerate them based on postulating hybridisation from supposedly "pure" states.

This is also why the notion of generalised modern, ultimately works against racialist essentialism.

Again, the Greeks by example.

If we say, as Howells did that Europeans were a generalised "non European" looking people....in the Paleolithic;

If we say, as Erik Trinkaus does, that Europeans did not lose their skin color, and tropical skeletal structure to become "essentialist whites", until the end of the Mesolithic;

If we say, as Larry Angel and Dorothy Garrod did...that they were "hybridised" with East African [Nubian] and West Asian [Natufians], beginning at the onset of the Neolithic;

Then we must ask the question....when did the Greeks ever exist in 'racially essentialist' form?

The notion of an "Aryan" Greece is in fact a platonic [pun intended] ideal, and not a reality that can be assessed and affirmed by physical anthropology.

posted 08 August 2005 09:04 PM            

quote:

---

rasol thats what im talking about i know that my whole point of that was saying scientist switch there views on many things.

---

posted 09 August 2005 12:56 AM            

quote:Evil Euro
Originally posted by The Great Pretender...:
Non-sequitur, as Y chromosomes don't have "races."
Y chromosomes are generally classified by geography, and not into "race" which is irrelevant.

...Pretending not to see the evidence that proves him wrong:
"Marked differences in Y-SNP allele frequencies between continental populations can be used to predict the biogeographic origin of a man's ancestral paternal lineage. Using 627 samples collected from individuals within the UK with pale-skinned Caucasian, dark-skinned Caucasian, African/Caribbean, South Asian, East Asian or Middle Eastern appearance we demonstrate that an individual's Y-SNP haplogroup is also strongly correlated with their physical appearance. Furthermore, experimental evaluation of the Marligen Signet Y-SNP kit in conjunction with the Luminex 100 detection instrument indicates that reliable and reproducible haplogrouping results can be obtained from 1 ng or more of target template derived from a variety of forensic evidence types including, blood, saliva and post-coital vaginal swabs. The test proved highly male-specific with reliable results being generated in the presence of a 1000-fold excess of female DNA, and no anomalous results were observed during degradation studies despite a gradual loss of typable loci. Hence, Y-SNP haplogrouping has considerable potential forensic utility in predicting likely ethnic appearance." (Wetton et al. 2005)

This is my gross understanding:
1) It is known that phenotypic variations occur in human beings.
2) The genetic markers associated with various populations, of known phenotypes, have been (at least partially) catalogued.
3) Based on the catalogued data a relationship is established between the population and the genetic marker.

posted 09 August 2005 06:39 AM            

quote:

---

How does it then follow that the ability to predict phenotype from the genetic data catalogued proves the existence of different races?

The reasoning seems to be somewhat circular.

---

To say the least.

Correlation is not cause:

Confusing correlation with cause is a basic error of logic:

You can correlate the English language to phenotype and come up with an Indian or Nigerian before you come up with an Englishmen for the simple reason that there are more English speakers in those countries today, than there are in Great Britain.

Moreover - if you do the correlation in Africa or Asia, you are guaranteed to come up with a non-European correlation.

What does this teach us about the origins of the English language?

You can correlate Benin Hbs - the gene that causes sickle cell in Europe to Greece or Sicily. You can predict ethnicity and phenotype in Europe via where sickle cell does and does not exist.

You can correlate Cohen Model Haplotype in South Africa to the Buba Lemba Bantu and hence, their phenotype.

The error lies in confusing correlation with cause.

To suggest that any of the above is causal leads directly to error - ie - English Language is Indian or African and not European.

In Genes Languages and Peoples Cavelli Sforza uses correlations on all the above to help invistigate the origins of all three.

Regardless of the acumen of his conclusions he does not make the trivial mistake of confusing correlation for cause and stating that genes 'have languages' or races.

Thus when Cavelli Sforza says in this book that:

Europeans: appear as a 2/3rds Asian 1/3rd Africa mix.

He is not saying that they are racially 'hybrid'.

He is not saying that they are racially 'pure'.

He is shedding light on what HE clearly states is:

* the scientific failure of the idea of "race"

and why....

* classification into race has proven a futile excercise.

Reputable and current geneticists simply do not classify Y chromosome into "races".

That uneducated non-scholars like 'racial reality' and Dienekes Pontikos disregard actual geneticists, and do so anyway, simply reflects their lack of understanding and interest in both the basics of biology, and the basics of logic in thinking processes.

They are only interested in using dis-information to exploit ignorance.

posted 09 August 2005 07:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
Originally posted by Super car: ...which is of course why even the likes of Best of Sicily just ignore buffoons like ginney troll, as pests too insignificant for any kind of attention

Pseudos invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all. - Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience Rory Coker, Ph.D.

The pseudo also continues to spam charts every one of which contradict its own bizarre claims, that is when he is not directly contradicting himself, in his own terms - as pseudos are prone to do.

---

Translation: After seven months, the dumb savage still has no answers for anything.

quote:

---

For example: a pure caucaZoid would be a blonde haired, blue eyed, pale skinned long nosed type....the essential caucaZoid.

---

Caucasoids were not originally blond and blue-eyed. Those are recent mutations. You're a clueless moron.

quote:

---

The notion of an "Aryan" Greece is in fact a platonic [pun intended] ideal, and not a reality that can be assessed and affirmed by physical anthropology.

---

Straw man. No one here has ever claimed that Greeks were blond, blue-eyed "Aryans". They were, are and will always be Mediterranean, Alpine, Dinaric and Nordic -- i.e. Caucasoid (Angel, Coon, Brace etc.)

quote:

---

Thus when Cavelli Sforza says in this book that: Europeans: appear as a mixture of 2/3rds Asian 1/3rd Africa mix.

He is shedding light on what HE clearly states is: * the scientific failure of the idea of "race"

---

His name is CavAlli, you illiterate monkey. And he both believes in race and classifies Europeans as Caucasoid. Nothing you say will ever change that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super coon:
None of this has of course become any less immaterial to the undeniable recent black African gene flow into Southern Europe, particularly southeastern Mediterranean regions. Let’s recap:

---

Of course, all of that information is accurate (more or less), but none of it mentions anything about "Black Africans". That's just your little Afronut fantasy.

quote:

---

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti:
Notice that in the very genetic map the dumb dog posts, East Africans are placed in the same cluster as other Africans and are even close to Bantus. Yet the dumb mutt continues to spew the same nonsense that East Africans are closer to Eurasians than to other Africans!!

---

East Africans are genetically intermediate between North Africans (Caucasoids) and Sub-Saharan Africans (Negroids):

-- Cavalli-Sforza

posted 09 August 2005 08:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The pseudo also continues to spam charts every one of which contradict its own bizarre claims, that is when he is not directly contradicting himself, in his own terms - as pseudos are prone to do.

---

quote:

---

LMAO

You are exactly right about that Rasol!

Notice that in the very genetic map the dumb dog posts, East Africans are placed in the same cluster as other Africans and are even close to Bantus. Yet the dumb mutt continues to spew the same nonsense that East Africans are closer to Eurasians than to other Africans!!

pseudo-science is an end to itself.

---

Correct, the E. Africans referred to in that chart are Ethiopians. There are exactly 42 populations listed, and they are separated where possible by linguistic group, with Nilo Saharans separated from Afrasan speakers.

You will also note it is the Berber who are intermediate in that map.

Each map is different and too reflects the methodologies of genetic testing and clustering and other mapping 'artifacts'.

In this case the same approach that makes Europeans to cluster together....causes Ethiopian, Nilo Saharan, Bantu, and San to all cluster together.

2nd:

Erroneous tries again, with another map, but in this case all the populations are African, to begin with.

By definition, this can only show relationships within African groups, not between Africans and Europeans.

In that map, the Taureg of West Africa are most closely related to the East African Beja of Egypt/Nubia, begging the question of other specific East African/West African ethnic group affinities, and once again, completely defeating the intended purpose of displaying it.

No good presenting maps when you don't know how to read them in the 1st place.

3rd:

The same failing is shown on the cranial map shown over and again in which present Africans and Melanesians group together, actually more closely than Europeans to one another.

This lends further impact to Holliday, Trinkaus, Stringer et. al regarding the affinity of modern tropically adapted Africans and Melanesians to early Out of Africa humans.....and their lack of affinity with modern Europeans, who in fact did not become fully cold adapted until the end of the Mesolithic.

And lastly the Lemba Jew fiasco;

in which the claim is made that Lemba "group with caucaZoids" with map presented to that effect, by someone who had never seen an actual picture of a Lemba.

When made to face the reality of the obviously Black African Lemba, the claim of caucaZoid Lemba is reversed.

Yet the pseudo continues to display the map -which shows the Lemba as closer to the Greeks than the Ethiopians are - even as he now denies the claim which provided the basis for displaying the map in the 1st place.

So, you're right, Djehuti.

Pseudos contradict themselves and so refute themselves;

while spinning in n circles.

posted 09 August 2005 01:39 PM            

ginney cave bitch scribbles:

quote:

---

Of course, all of that information is accurate (more or less), but none of it mentions anything about "Black Africans". That's just your little Afronut fantasy.

---

This wop scribble is yet more immaterial. ‘Black Africans’ doesn’t have to be used; it is a given! Sub-Saharan Africans have always been tropically adapted, *never ever been cold adapted*; this naturally comes with considerable skin pigmentation, and therefore you have “black Africans”. But if it makes you feel any better, sub-Saharan Black Africans can also be referred to as “tropical Africans”, whose sub-Saharan lineages you are carrying as we speak, borderline europussy. Hey, no need to thank me; it’s a pleasure to continue to confuse you with reality:

Here is a source that seems to have a good idea on what ‘generalized’ means:

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. - Neves et al

Here’s some bonus reality check for you, ginney pussy:

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."

An example of genetically outlier Europeans:

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

The gist: To deny recent Black African gene flow, would be to essentially deny the existence of E lineages altogether in Europe, not to mention Benin Sickle cells, notably present in European countries like Italy and Greece. But as we can see, they do exist[/i], particularly in borderline Europeans.
-------------

posted 09 August 2005 07:38 PM            

quote:

---

Stupid-Euro, just curious but exactly what did early "generalized modern" humans look like?

What were their features?

---

The dumb dog has failed to answer my questions above...

But Neves et al provides a clear and concise answer-- 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.

posted 10 August 2005 12:21 AM            

But Neves et al provides a clear and concise answer-- 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. [This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 09 August 2005).]

There is more from Spencer Wells in support of the above view.
Quoted from pgs 74-75 of Spencer Well’s The Journey of Man:

“One other piece of evidence suggests a direct link between Africa and Australia – physical appearance. The dark skin of the Australians is reminiscent of that found in Africa – something that begs an explanation. Most of the people living in south-east Asia today would be classified as ‘Mongoloid’ peoples, implying a shared history with those living further north in China and Siberia. There are, however, isolated populations of so-called Negritos living throughout Southeast Asia who closely resemble Africans. The most obvious examples are found in the Andaman Islands. The largest tribal groups known as the Onge and Jawara have many features that link them with the Bushmen and Pygmies of Africa, including short stature, dark skin, tightly curled hair and epicanthic folds…The Andamanese are thought to represent a relic of the pre-mongoloid population of Southeast Asia –‘living fossils’, if you will.”

From the foregoing it is clear that Spencer Wells is suggesting continuity in the physical appearance of the Andamanese, “living fossils”, with that of the OOA population and therefore with that of early East Africans as opposed to their (Andamanese) appearance being attributable to local adaptation.

posted 10 August 2005 12:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Calypso:
Djehuti Quotes:

But Neves et al provides a clear and concise answer-- 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.

There is more from Spencer Wells in support of the above view.
Quoted from pgs 74-75 of Spencer Well’s The Journey of Man:

“One other piece of evidence suggests a direct link between Africa and Australia – physical appearance. The dark skin of the Australians is reminiscent of that found in Africa – something that begs an explanation. Most of the people living in south-east Asia today would be classified as ‘Mongoloid’ peoples, implying a shared history with those living further north in China and Siberia. There are, however, isolated populations of so-called Negritos living throughout Southeast Asia who closely resemble Africans. The most obvious examples are found in the Andaman Islands. The largest tribal groups known as the Onge and Jawara have many features that link them with the Bushmen and Pygmies of Africa, including short stature, dark skin, tightly curled hair and epicanthic folds…The Andamanese are thought to represent a relic of the pre-mongoloid population of Southeast Asia –‘living fossils’, if you will.”

From the foregoing it is clear that Spencer Wells is suggesting continuity in the physical appearance of the Andamanese, “living fossils”, with that of the OOA population and therefore with that of early East Africans as opposed to their (Andamanese) appearance being attributable to local adaptation.

Hope this brings light not heat.

---

It does, and re-iterates Neaves, Holliday Trinkaus, et. al. on facts having been related earlier in the thread.

Straw-fire posts notwithstanding, no attempt has been made to refute any of the cited scholars.

Trolls attempt to prevent the truth from being known or simply vent anger and frustration by baiting others.

Hasn't worked though.

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. Lalji Sing, director Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, India

---

quote:

---

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
Dr. Shomarka Keita

From http://www.andaman.org/book/index.htm :

Life in an environment with strong solar radiation inevitably selects dark skin.

The dark-skinned Australian aborigines wandered from Africa through tropical Asia to Australia more than 2000 generations ago.

Throughout their wanderings they never left the belt of intense solar radiation of the lower latitudes and they are still dark.

The human race most likely came out of tropical Africa and was just as likely dark-skinned as most of Africa still is today.

In Africa, the Khoikhoi and San people are "relatively" light-skinned because they have lived in the relatively high latitudes of southern Africa for a very long time.

Sickle-cell anemia is a genetically inherited disease widespread in Africa and also known

from other tropical and subtropical regions but unknown among Andamanese aborigines

---

It IS known among Europeans though because they inherit the condition from a West African genetic haplotype: Benin HBS. The whites of Europe have West African genes. The Black Andaman Islanders do not.

Correlate as you like....