posted 04 April 2005 01:22 PM            

The Story of Man

Carleton Coon

p 196-197

Borzoi Books, 1965

Few skeletons have been found in the Sahara, and these are hard to date because of soil erosion. In Arabia prehistoric archaeology has barely been started. Yet we can be reasonably confident, until other evidence upsets the theory, that these deserts were the home of the slender variety of Caucasoid man. In East Africa this type has survived among the slender, narrow-faced Watusi and other cattle people.

Tutsis have ~80% E3a accoding to published data, which ironically, was pointed out by Evil E to debunk Hiernaux, which Evil E failed to do. The PN2 clade subsequently proved Hiernaux right and Evil E wrong.

Now back to Coon, according to the late Coon, Neanderthal hybrids and now Tutsis are Caucasoids[both theories are debunked by modern genetics and anthropology], yet Evil E and his cohort Dienekes, stubbornly refuse to let go of outdated anthropological sources. Continued use of Coon will only lead both Dienekes and Evil E to a ....

.....when engaged in debates.

posted 04 April 2005 01:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Carleton Coon, Evil E's prime source of data for debates has been finally laid to rest with this post. May Evil E's constant spamming of Coon's outdated data cease and rest in peace...

The Story of Man

Carleton Coon

p 196-197

Borzoi Books, 1965

Few skeletons have been found in the Sahara, and these are hard to date because of soil erosion. In Arabia prehistoric archaeology has barely been started. [b]Yet we can be reasonably confident, until other evidence upsets the theory, that these deserts were the home of the slender variety of Caucasoid man. In East Africa this type has survived among the slender, narrow-faced Watusi and other cattle people.

Tutsis have ~80% E3a accoding to published data, which ironically, was pointed out by Evil E to debunk Hiernaux, which Evil E failed to do. The PN2 clade subsequently proved Hiernaux right and Evil E wrong.

Now back to Coon, according to the late Coon, Neanderthal hybrids and now Tutsis are Caucasoids[both theories are debunked by modern genetics and anthropology], yet Evil e and his cohort Dienekes, stubbornly refuse to let go outdated anthropological sources. Continued use of Coon will only lead both Dienekes and Evil E to a ....

.....when engaged in debates.

[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 04 April 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 04 April 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 04 April 2005).][/B]

---

Thought Writes:

posted 04 April 2005 01:50 PM            

quote:

---

Carleton Coon

p 196-197

Borzoi Books, 1965

Yet we can be reasonably confident, until other evidence upsets the theory, that these deserts were the home of the slender variety of Caucasoid man. In East Africa this type has survived among the slender, narrow-faced Watusi and other cattle people.

---

And this is why it was critical for Coon's ideology to locate human origins in Eurasia, thus allowing free speculation for 'caucasian' diffusion. This also accounts for his pleadingly wishful thinking regarding the 'Arabian' origins of the Tutsi. Coon also classed Southern Sudanese like the Shilluk as "Mediterreanian-caucazoids"....

Out of Africa was really the shattering deathblow for 'caucazoid' anthropology.

posted 04 April 2005 01:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Cooon's followers are just pathetically scrounging around trying to put Humpety'Dumpty back together again.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 04 April 2005 02:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
'Out of Africa' was gibberish. Reading crap like that is why you are a

---

Anyone but you, and I'd assume they were joking, but knowing you, you really have no clue as to what Out of Africa refers to do you?

I don't know who has the bigger tendency to humiliate themselves...you, Abaza, or Erroneous E.

Out of Africa does not refer to some cheesy novel....it refers to a revolution in the field of anthropology.

posted 04 April 2005 02:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
People laugh at this stuff.

---

We are laughing at you because of how stupid you are. You have no idea of what we are referring to, as usual.

posted 04 April 2005 03:13 PM            

I should cut your head off [might clear things up for you], but I'm feeling merciful today professor....

In 1987, Allan Wilson, Rebecca Cann, and Mark Stoneking, researchers at the University of California-Berkeley, catapulted mitochondrial DNA into the headlines worldwide when they announced that they had traced it back 200,000 years to the oldest female ancestor of living humans–an African woman quickly dubbed Eve. Eve's debut rocked the archaeological community, which had been arguing for decades over whether modern humans evolved on more than one continent or instead swept out of Africa to replace more archaic hominids around the world. Wilson's group was attacked for sloppy science, and in fact there were problems with the original calculations. But genetic data from dozens of researchers have since almost universally supported the "Out of Africa" theory. "History has made a pretty consistent stamp on populations," says Lynn Jorde, a geneticist at the University of Utah, who has found African roots in nuclear DNA as well as in mitochondria and the Y. "Looking at more and more of the nuclear DNA is going to clarify the picture."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-origin_hypothesis.html

posted 04 April 2005 03:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
Maybe one of you guys can help me out. I'm not to big on the genetics things so forgive me if this is a stupid question. I watched a program on the biological Eve, and from what I understand, she was supposed to be the mother of all men outside of Africa. The point was that every non black human being is the result of a single migration out of Africa. Are they suggesting that everyone, including all Africans, can trace their lineage back to a single woman some 200,000 years ago?

Forgive me if you've already been over this but I usually back away from a topic once the trolls get on it.

---

We need intelligent posters like you to help keep things on topic.

The idea is that she is a common ancestor of all human beings - not the only ancestor.

For example, you share two ancestors with your first cousin - two grandparents. But you also have two other grandparents that you do not share.

What is also of interest is that all people outside of Africa [black, non black, is irrelevant to the genetics of it] are descendant from a small group of people living in East Africa at the time.

We know that because the entire non-African maternal [female] DNA pool is derived from just L3 [on the map shown above].

The overwhelming majority of the human races genetic material is actually found in and among africans.

All the rest of the world [regardless of physical appearance] contains only a fraction of the genetic diversity found in Africa.

This is also why maps sometimes foisted on the unknowing with the intent of showing the great distance that exist between different parts of Africa or African peoples are misleading. Of course genetic distances in Africa can be contrived as 'great' because most of the genome is African to begin with.

For example, this map was used be Erroneous E to try to prove a point about the Lemba:

According to Erroneous E's BOTTOM LINE:
accompanying maps group Lemba with or near "Caucasoid" populations, away from "Negroids."

Until he was made to confront the reality of what the Lemba actually look like:

...at which point he was forced to reverse himself and claimed the Lemba were "negligibly" caucazoid. Whatever Euro-fool!
Same with the San, above grouped with the Zulu and not the Lemba. You could just as easily circle the Lemba, Ethiopians and Zulu and exclude the San. Or acknolwedge the reality of African diversity by circling them all.

Carleton Coon's caucazoid propaganda anthropology is dead. His 'followers' are intellectual zombies...brain dead, but just can't admit it.

posted 04 April 2005 04:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

The overwhelming majority of the human races genetic material is actually found in and among africans.

All the rest of the world [regardless of physical appearance] contains only a fraction of the genetic diversity found in Africa.

---

posted 04 April 2005 04:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Indeed. The deepest of E3b group is found in the Horn of Africa, which is why I eagerly await the explanation of a Eurasian origin of this haplotype.

---

posted 05 April 2005 10:39 AM            

quote:

---

Carleton Coon, Evil E's prime source of data for debates has been finally laid to rest with this post

---

Nicely done TopDog.

You've shown that Coon's Arabian caucasoid theory about the Tutsi was wrong; and also that Erroneous Euro - who stated Coon was right with regards to the Tutsi was actually unfamiliar with Coon's views.

Two birds with one stone....speaking of which:

posted 05 April 2005 11:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Its pure crap rasol and is a revolution of absolutely nothing. People laugh at this stuff. as long as you hang onto these insane ideas about the Greeks nobody is going to consider the other information you put out.. They hear that and simply dismiss you as a kook. You guys have spent way too much time talking to each other.

---

I had to respond to this clown. The out of Africa theory is pretty much a fact that human beings first evolved in Africa (east) and then a small portion of them left and populated the world later evolving to become non-black or other genetic and phenotypic sub groups. Get a clue professor! People would laugh at you if you label this theory/fact as rubbish. It is the racist whites (not all but the old school sceintist train of thought) that try to establish themself as the center of the human family by making up pseudo-nomenclature that has Europeans as a starting point "caucasians" and then applying that faux term so generously to everone and their dogs. It sceintifically makes ZERO sense and is sceintifically flawed and bankrupt.

posted 05 April 2005 11:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Obviously, northeast Africans have a strong caucasian componet. Even Dr. Hawass alluded to that awhile back. The only study you need is your two eyes.

---

posted 05 April 2005 11:24 AM            

quote:

---

First you talk about man originating in Africa.....as far back as 3.5 million years ago and then try to connect that to the classical Greeks

---

bzzt. Greeks have nothing to do with this thread.

posted 05 April 2005 11:28 AM            

quote:

---

Even Dr. Hawass alluded to that awhile back

---

posted 05 April 2005 11:33 AM            

Out of Africa' was gibberish. Reading crap like that is why you are a grown man and still do not undersatnd the basic structure of history. - Professor Horemheb.

Imagine a Professor who thinks OOA refers to a romance novel.

posted 05 April 2005 12:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[B][/B]

---

posted 05 April 2005 12:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
Thank you for the breakdown.

---

You're welcome. I learned a long time back that the "Professor" really is completely clueless. He can't be underestimated in this regard. He just doesn't know. Moreover he does not want to.

My only reason ever for response to him is to bring his ignorant trolling to a stop, otherwise we will end up discussing 'Newt Gingrich' here instead of Carelton Coon - I've seen this happen too many times before.

posted 05 April 2005 12:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Keins, the only one laughing is me...at you. First you talk about man originating in Africa.....as far back as 3.5 million years ago and then try to connect that to the classical Greeks in 300 BC. Are you some kind of nut? This is the problem we have, uneducated people trying to tackle complicted problems and going all over the road. Go back and read your post Keins and think about what you just said.

---

Non Sequitor
Nothing about man evolving in Africa was directly connected to Greece. Stop with your out right lies and diversion tatics. You are the one who is undeucated especially when it comes to Africa, Arabs countries and yes even ancient Greece. You read preschool, feel good, surface dept topics on Ancient Greece and feel you are equipped to argu with Ausar, Rasol, Super Car and thought2 but time and time again you have NOTHING substantial to offer. All you have is emotionally charged, political and hateful rhetoric. 99% of the time your response is totally disconnected and devisive.

posted 05 April 2005 01:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keins:
Non Sequitor
Nothing about man evolving in Africa was directly connected to Greece. Stop with your out right lies and diversion tatics. You are the one who is undeucated especially when it comes to Africa, Arabs countries and yes even ancient Greece. You read preschool, feel good, surface dept topics on Ancient Greece and feel you are equipped to argu with Ausar, Rasol, Super Car and thought2 but time and time again you have NOTHING substantial to offer. All you have is emotionally charged, political and hateful rhetoric. 99% of the time your response is totally disconnected and devisive.

Now you are supporting coon when he is discredited worldwide for his flawed and biased scholarship. You have not even read his works nor have you read other scholars whom you try to discredit! So how can you be objective much less informed? Your problem lies in that you are willing to deny and ignore facts, suppress truth in order to make yourself feel good and to support a scientific and especially political dogma no matter how erroneous, hateful and wrong it is.

---

I agree 100%

posted 05 April 2005 02:36 PM            

http://www.familytreedna.com/images/2005%20TreeFTDNA.jpg

Haplogroup B is one of the oldest lineages in the world, and found found only in Africa.

posted 05 April 2005 03:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keins:
Non Sequitor
Nothing about man evolving in Africa was directly connected to Greece. Stop with your out right lies and diversion tatics. You are the one who is undeucated especially when it comes to Africa, Arabs countries and yes even ancient Greece. You read preschool, feel good, surface dept topics on Ancient Greece and feel you are equipped to argu with Ausar, Rasol, Super Car and thought2 but time and time again you have NOTHING substantial to offer. All you have is emotionally charged, political and hateful rhetoric. 99% of the time your response is totally disconnected and devisive.

Now you are supporting coon when he is discredited worldwide for his flawed and biased scholarship. You have not even read his works nor have you read other scholars whom you try to discredit! So how can you be objective much less informed? Your problem lies in that you are willing to deny and ignore facts, suppress truth in order to make yourself feel good and to support a scientific and especially political dogma no matter how erroneous, hateful and wrong it is.

---

well put. I never saw Horemheb post anything more than 3 lines of baseless biased political assumptions he expects readers to explicitly and implicitly place faith in.

posted 05 April 2005 03:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BigMix:

But when a guy believes that Colonialism was good because of its educative benefits, alarm bells should go off that he should not be taken seriously.

---

..which needless to say, dismisses pre-existing educative systems that are not in "English", or "French, and the like. But this is a whole another topic; we are only concerned with the need for disposal of antiquated 19th century thinking in bio-anthropology.

posted 05 April 2005 04:45 PM            

quote:

---

As far as I know the Brits did not eat anyone.

---

As far as you know, does not take you very far Professor, but we don't want to discuss medievil Europe's fetish for eating mummy here and now thank you.

posted 05 April 2005 05:53 PM            

And don't forget you share those German(Vandal) genes with master cannibals like Jeff "I am a sauteed thigh and buttocks man" Dahmer and Armin Miewes. Armin as we know liked his sausages "fresh off the man" style.

posted 05 April 2005 06:23 PM            

Horemheb, I would not bring up cannibal if I were you. Caucasians were commiting cannibalism in the past and this is because of the harsh environment.

Those that constantly claim that others commit an act without evidence has likely committed such an act. Cannibalism is linked with Africans and Native Indians, because Europeans do not want to admit their history of cannibalism.

posted 05 April 2005 09:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
You're welcome. I learned a long time back that the "Professor" really is completely clueless. He can't be underestimated in this regard. He just doesn't know. Moreover he does not want to.

My only reason ever for response to him is to bring his ignorant trolling to a stop, otherwise we will end up discussing 'Newt Gingrich' here instead of Carelton Coon - I've seen this happen too many times before.

---

posted 05 April 2005 10:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
Don't get me wrong. I completely understand the reason for responding to the trollers. I would hate to see someone new to the game read their posts and think they represented modern scholarship. They're just annoying as all hell because the keep posting the same ish. Is there anyone else out there other than Coon?

---

In this day and age, other than the backward-minded stormfront buffoons, the only other two people I am aware of who share Coon's pre-historic hogwash, is Dienekes and Evil.

posted 05 April 2005 11:23 PM            

Read anything you can get your hands on from SOY Keita.

Read the essay: Finally in Africa? Egypt, from Diop to Celenko.

I linked to the above essay from this cite quite awhile back. If I can find another link, I'll post it.

posted 06 April 2005 08:17 AM            

quote:

---

Yes, Coon was wrong to call the Tutsi "Caucasoid",

---

quote:

---

just as Hiernaux was wrong to call them "Hamitic".

---

Incorrect. Hiernaux's whole point was that the Tutsi were NOT related to caucazoids but rather to other Africans. He was correct. The term 'Hamitic' is thus used with irony which, being lost in a fog of racism has apparently gone right over your head. There is no Hamitic race in bioanthropology, and Coon's racist screw-ups explain why the concept has been discarded.

quote:

---

S. Mohammad writes:

Stupid Euro once again puts his foot in his mouth:

The Tutsi and Hutu have intermixed to some degree but, as groups, they remain strikingly different. The Tutsi exhibit 'Hamitic' features to a marked degree. Do they systematically differ from the Hutu in the direction of Caucasoids?

In detailed study, relative growth in the two groups and in Europeans has been compared. In the development of a number of body proportions with age, which appears to be largely determined by heredity, the Tutsi are more different from Europeans than the Hutu[96]. In cephalic index, the Hutu are nearer to Yemenites than the Tutsi, whose long, narrow head makes their index lower than that of the other two groups..............

The Tutsi are taller than the Hutu by nearly ten centimetres; the average male stature is 176 cm. such tallness is by no means characteristic of North Africa or Western Asia: for example, the inhabitants of the central plateau of Yemen have an average stature of 164 cm. In skin colour, the Tutsi are darker than the Hutu, in the reverse direction to that leading to the caucasoids. Lip thickness provides a similar case: on an average the lips of the Tutsi are thicker than those of the Hutu. In most cases, however, they are not everted as in many West Africans. Like that of the Hutu, the hair of the Tutsi is spiralled(perhaps less tightly so, but this has not been quantified).

Apparently, either 'Hamitic' features developed in the Tutsi's ancestral line independently of any exotic source or, if an exotic element was introduced, it was such a long time ago that selection has thoroughly remodelled the resulting gene pool. Even if the second hypothesis was correct, the physical appearance of the Tutsi would result from evolution which took place in sub-Saharan Africa.

Jean Hiernaux
The People of Africa
pg 61

---

Hiernaux correctly debunked Coon, and you have contradicted YOURSELF yet again by 1st insisting that he was right, and now saying he was wrong.

Fact is, Coon was wrong, and you STILL ARE wrong. Having settled that matter let's have a look at some more of Carleton Coon's "Mediterreanian" caucasoids .....

....in this case they have E3b and little to no E3a.

Would you like to recant further?

posted 06 April 2005 12:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Yes, Coon was wrong to call the Tutsi "Caucasoid", just as Hiernaux was wrong to call them "Hamitic". As I proved, they carry only E3a, not E3b, and accordingly show no clear evidence of Caucasoid admixture (unusual-looking Paul Kagame notwithstanding)

---

Actually, not surprisingly this is an outright LIE.

This was a point that was proven to you, by others. And yes, at times even your own sources were used against you, because you misinterpret them; that is no cause for taking credit for the 'correction' of what ****you did in your best to distort***.

You have been claiming that they exhibited their traits because they must have come from east Africa, and then got their negroid traits from Bantus that over-run them. That you constantly reshape your position is no doubt a clear sign of bankruptcy in your entire outlook of geneology.

Geneology is best left in the hands of those who can understand them, and therefore correctly interpret them, even when they are outdated. You've done a good job of proving that you don't have what it takes to do such a thing.

posted 07 April 2005 07:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Hiernaux's whole point was that the Tutsi were NOT related to caucazoids but rather to other Africans.

---

But he still likened their features to those of Hamitic North Africans. He was wrong. It turns out they simply look Negroid (as they should given that they're E3a and not E3b).

quote:

---

Fact is, Coon was wrong, and you STILL ARE wrong. Having settled that matter let's have a look at some more of Carleton Coon's "Mediterreanian" caucasoids

---

Of course, Coon never called East Africans "Mediterranean Caucasoids". He stated that they were a Mediterranean-Negroid hybrid, and he was absolutely correct. (Btw, do you ever plan on learning how to spell "Mediterranean"?)

quote:

---

....in this case they have E3b and little to no E3a.

---

Yeah, plus some A and B, and almost all L mtDNA.

posted 07 April 2005 09:26 AM            

quote:

---

But he still likened their features to those of Hamitic North Africans. He was wrong. It turns out they simply look Negroid

---

Coon uses the EXACT same racist criterion on the Tutsi and other so called "Mediteranian caucazoids".

Carleton S. Coon makes an even more grandoise claim of these Mediterranean types. "Coon reported that excavations in Kenya and Tanganyika had uncovered the remains of a tall, extremely long-headed "Mediterranean" type with a tendency to great elongation and narrowness of face." - Dana Reynolds

For Coon, the Tutsi, the Masai, the Somali, the Shilluk, the Borana and others are the living proof.

But he was wrong of course, and so are you.

posted 07 April 2005 09:31 AM            

quote:

---

Yeah, plus some A and B, and almost all L mtDNA

---

Pretty much defines East African genetically.

Accordingly indigenous East Africans are Black.

Prehistoric East African whites do not exist.

posted 07 April 2005 12:13 PM            

The whole reason why many are able to get away with these extreme caucasoid racial classifications is much to do with sub-racial categories. Nobody in the field of physical/biological anthropology uses sub-races anymore,and people who do are fringe types.

posted 07 April 2005 01:26 PM            

The worst lies are ones that are partially true, and those are exactly the kinds of lies Evil-Euro tells!

He claims that caucasoids were indigenous to East Africa, yet the only so-called ‘proof’ he has is a measly few pictures of ‘East African’ people and that they carry E3b. He uses Ethiopians and Somalians as examples. I already knew about the E3 lineages being African in origin, and you guys have already explained this all so many times. What I find more ridiculous are his pictures!

LOL I find it funny that out of all the pics of Somalis out there, Evil-E only has maybe a couple. It’s true that Somalis have narrow features like narrow faces and noses, but isn’t it convenient that Evil’s two pics show men whose features are not narrow, but really thin and aquiline!

I’ve seen plenty of Somalis both in real life and elsewhere but I’ve never seen any with features exactly like that, not that there aren’t any Somalis like that, but you guys already know the game he plays.

Are Somalis mixed? The answer is only a very small percentage of them and these are mostly confined to the cities around the coast. As some of you may already know, many of these cities grew from settlements of Arab traders, so it’s not surprising. I believe these Somalis of Arab ancestry are known as Benadir and they seem to have a more privileged status because of their ancestry are seen as ‘closer’ to the Prophet Muhammad. I personally know a few Somalis and they tell me all this themselves.