posted 28 April 2005 07:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Evil E's logic further defined:
So using Evil E's and Dieneke's logic we can say these early homo-sapiens populations of South Africa were 'non-African'

---

Their transparent obtuseness is easily enough exposed when they are confronted with: J.L. Angel -

"...one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters and in Anatolian and Macedonian firts farmers, probably from Nubia..."

...which could not be more blunt.

posted 28 April 2005 07:56 AM            

quote:

---

Erroneous E writes: what's taking so long?

---

Because you are stalling?

Because you have no answers?

Address:

quote:

---

* your intentional misquoting of Howells.

* Dr Zakrzewski's critique of Howells flawed database and its non representative population samples.

* his own inability to engage something Howells' actually DID say: there are NO RACES

* the fact that Howells does not support Erroneous' claims regarding 'caucazoids' of ancient East Africa.

* specific peer reviewed debunking of Howells badly flawed methods, which serve to independantly substantiate Dr. Zakrzewski's critique of Howells.

---

posted 28 April 2005 09:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

My definition is the anthropological definition. Unlike you, I don't invent terms and their meanings.

---

Thought Writes:

There is no definition for the term 'Negroid' in modern anthropology. The term 'Negroid' was a racial term. The AAPA has rejected the concept of race outright. Now give us **YOUR** definition of this term that **YOU** use. You will not give us your definition for this term because statistically it has no valid basis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Northern Europe is in pigmentation Zone 3, where low levels of sunlight produce lighter phenotypes. Southern Europe is in Zone 2, where greater sunlight produces darker phenotypes. It has nothing to do with Paleolithic vs. Neolithic ancestry.

---

Thought Writes:

**Real** Europeans were in Europe **PRIOR** to the LGM (~ 40,000 ky) and had time to adapt and spread out in northern Europe. The bulk of the Greek Y genetic lineage arrived from Africa and Middle East in the last 9,000 (ky) years. This is why Greeks have very low frequencies of the defining European haplogroup 'I'. Greeks are slightly related to **TRUE** Europeans, but because they are hybrid with **EXTENSIVE** tropical African and Middle Eastern genetic inputs they fall on the outer tier of this human cluster. Oromo have higher frequencies of indigenous African genes than Greeks have of indigenous European genes.

posted 28 April 2005 02:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Which none of you dumb apes have any answers for.

---

Evil, if you even had close to half an intelligence of an ape, you would consider yourself very lucky. You wouldn't be making the kind of 'beyond-stupidity' statements that you so religiously continue to punish yourself with. Calling you an ape would be an insult to that species. I hope you graduate in some distant day, to the intelligence level of an ape, and perhaps honour you with the title of an ape. Until then, you'll have to come to terms with your identity as a hybrid low-life.

posted 29 April 2005 07:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
* your intentional misquoting of Howells.

---

I never misquoted Howells, you desperate little monkey. I summarized in my own words his findings on pre-historic East Africans, which indicate that they were racially non-African:

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.

quote:

---

* Dr Zakrzewski's critique of Howells flawed database and its non representative population samples.

---

Already been addressed:

Straw man. Neither Howells nor the map claim to be depicting "typical" Egyptians or populations of the "Early Dynastic" period. The sample is clearly labeled "26th-30th Dynasties".

quote:

---

* his own inability to engage something Howells' actually DID say: there are NO RACES

---

Irrelevant to Howells' findings, which prove you wrong.

quote:

---

* the fact that Howells does not support Erroneous' claims regarding 'caucazoids' of ancient East Africa.

---

Never said he did. However, he does mention affinities with Europeans, among other groups. Either way, he clearly refutes your erroneous claims regarding "Black Africans" of ancient East Africa. And that's really all that matters.

quote:

---

* specific peer reviewed debunking of Howells badly flawed methods, which serve to independantly substantiate Dr. Zakrzewski's critique of Howells.

---

Already been addressed:

posted 29 April 2005 07:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
There is no definition for the term 'Negroid' in modern anthropology. The term 'Negroid' was a racial term. The AAPA has rejected the concept of race outright. Now give us **YOUR** definition of this term that **YOU** use. You will not give us your definition for this term because statistically it has no valid basis.

---

"To classify humans on the basis of physiological traits is difficult, for the coexistence of races through conquests, invasions, migrations, and mass deportations has produced a heterogeneous world population. Nevertheless, by limiting the criteria to such traits as skin pigmentation, color and form of hair, shape of head, stature, and form of nose, most anthropologists agree on the existence of three relatively distinct groups: the Caucasoid, the Mongoloid, and the Negroid.

"The Caucasoid, found in Europe, N Africa, and the Middle East to N India, is characterized as pale reddish white to olive brown in skin color, of medium to tall stature, with a long or broad head form. The hair is light blond to dark brown in color, of a fine texture, and straight or wavy. The color of the eyes is light blue to dark brown and the nose bridge is usually high.

"The Mongoloid race, including most peoples of E Asia and the indigenous peoples of the Americas, has been described as saffron to yellow or reddish brown in skin color, of medium stature, with a broad head form. The hair is dark, straight, and coarse; body hair is sparse. The eyes are black to dark brown. The epicanthic fold, imparting an almond shape to the eye, is common, and the nose bridge is usually low or medium.

"The Negroid race is characterized by brown to brown-black skin, usually a long head form, varying stature, and thick, everted lips. The hair is dark and coarse, usually kinky. The eyes are dark, the nose bridge low, and the nostrils broad. To the Negroid race belong the peoples of Africa south of the Sahara, the Pygmy groups of Indonesia, and the inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia.

"Each of these broad groups can be divided into subgroups. General agreement is lacking as to the classification of such people as the aborigines of Australia, the Dravidian people of S India, the Polynesians, and the Ainu of N Japan."

-- The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

quote:

---

**Real** Europeans were in Europe **PRIOR** to the LGM (~ 40,000 ky) and had time to adapt and spread out in northern Europe. The bulk of the Greek Y genetic lineage arrived from Africa and Middle East in the last 9,000 (ky) years. This is why Greeks have very low frequencies of the defining European haplogroup 'I'. Greeks are slightly related to **TRUE** Europeans, but because they are hybrid with **EXTENSIVE** tropical African and Middle Eastern genetic inputs they fall on the outer tier of this human cluster. Oromo have higher frequencies of indigenous African genes than Greeks have of indigenous European genes.

---

"We analyzed a large dataset of 22 binary markers from the non-recombining region of the Y chromosome.... The results reveal a significantly larger genetic contribution from Neolithic farmers than did previous indirect approaches based on the distribution of haplotypes selected by using post hoc criteria.... We found an average Neolithic contribution of 50% across all samples, 56% for the Mediterranean subset and 44% in non-Mediterranean samples. Thus, whichever region of Europe is considered, we find that the average value is more than twice that suggested by [previous studies] on the basis of the more readily apparent trends."

-- Chikhi et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2002

"Even assuming low mutation rates and long generation times, we found no evidence for population splits older than 10,000 years, with the predictable exception of Saami (Lapps). The simplest interpretation of these results is that the current nuclear gene pool largely reflects the westward and northward expansion of a Neolithic group. This conclusion is now supported by purely genetic evidence on the levels and patterns of microsatellite diversity, rather than by correlations of biological and nonbiological data. We argue that many mitochondrial lineages whose origin has been traced back to the Paleolithic period probably reached Europe at a later time."

-- Chikhi et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci, 1998

posted 29 April 2005 07:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Evil, if you even had close to half an intelligence of an ape, you would consider yourself very lucky. You wouldn't be making the kind of 'beyond-stupidity' statements that you so religiously continue to punish yourself with. Calling you an ape would be an insult to that species. I hope you graduate in some distant day, to the intelligence level of an ape, and perhaps honour you with the title of an ape. Until then, you'll have to come to terms with your identity as a hybrid low-life.

---

So in other words, you still have no answers for Angel's descriptions and plates. Don't feel bad. Neither does your ape friend rasol, judging by his repost of that misrepresented quote up above.

Keep trying...

posted 29 April 2005 08:13 AM            

quote:

---

I summarized in my own words his findings

---

No. You distorted Howells views in attempt to fabricate non-existent support for your own views

posted 29 April 2005 08:31 AM            

Recent linguistic and archaeological findings are also reviewed, and these seem to support application of the term Nilotic Negro to the early Rift populations. -Rightmire GP.

Rightmire actually utilised Nilotic samples and compared them to ancient East Africans and found affinities.

Howells database does not include Nilotics to begin with and so cannot assess said affinities.

This is the problem that has invalidated some of his work and it is for this reason he has been repeatedly debunked in the current bioanthropological scholarship-

Howells database: lacks the distinct morphology necessary for classifying unknown crania. - . Leathers, J. Edwards, G.J. Armelagos. et. al

Howells data set....CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series. - Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski

Howells’ data attribute the Nubian specimens
to populations on several continents,
whereas the Forensic Data Bank series provides no explainable pattern of population
attribution. These results suggest that
Fordisc 2.0 cannot accurately identify the
biological affinity of ancient Nubians. - R. Belcher1, F. Williams et. al.

posted 29 April 2005 09:09 AM            

quote:

---

Neither Howells nor the map claim to be depicting typical Egyptians

---

If the database does not consist of representative population samples, then the database is fatally flawed, and the map which functions to further distort is INTENTIONALLY misleading. It is in essence a fraud, as are you.

quote:

---

rasol posts: Erroneous Euro's own inability to engage something Howells' actually DID say: there are NO RACES

---

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: Irrelevant to Howells' findings

---

We are left with the fact that Howells methods are both flawed AND do not aid you in the slightest. And that is why you need resort to conjuring up fantasy caucazoids via FAKE map and misrepresentation.

quote:

---

rasol wrote: the fact that Howells does NOT support Erroneous' claims regarding 'caucazoids' of ancient East Africa.

---

quote:

---

EE writes: Never said he did.

---

We're telling you he doesn't and your far fetched claims are unsupported.

quote:

---

Either way, he clearly refutes.....

---

Howells 'attempts' to 'contra' Rightmire.

At that he fails miserably due to the flaws in his methods.

We have seen the result: peer review debunkings.... of Howells.

Howells methods 'obscure' by comparing ancient East Africans to Tieta, Dogon and San, but NOT the elongated and Nilotic types they were found to resemble.

You can't assess what you don't bother to test.

And this makes Howells' moot and effectively mute as relates to ancient and modern East African affinities.

You have failed to deflect attention from Howells flawed methodology as independantly documented in the peer review of several scholars. And your misrepresentations only make matters worse, for you and Howells alike.

quote:

---

....your views regarding "Black Africans" of ancient East Africa.

---

Sorry Erroneous....only facts stated here, courtesy: Dr.'s Zakrzewski, Shomarka Keita, Elizabeth Dunstan & David Hal, Philip Rightmire and Jean Heirnaux, J.O. Vogel, and many others.

As much as i'd love to take credit....

the Cushitic-speaking peoples; the Nilotic-speaking peoples; and lastly the Bantu-speaking peoples. All these groupings are based on linguistic and cultural patterns and comprise the ancestors of most present-day East Africans– the Black Africans. - Peopling of East AFrica*

Claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong -Precolonial Africa, JO Vogel.**

* You cannot refute the former with Howells discredited database which "lacks the distinct morphology" to address the issue in any specific way.

** You admit that Howells himself does not dispute the later and therefore cannot lend support to your unfounded contentions.

But you can blame the messenger for stating the facts that your frightened and infantile mind cannot bear to admit. ROTFL!

Meanwhile you can't find your ancient East African whites because they simply don't exist.

Your increasingly frustrated trolling has proven futile, merely embarrassing you and offering irrefutable evidence one thing only - your need to vent your own self loathing.

KEEP ON SPINNING ERRONEOUS:

You've clearly made yourself dizzy, but you've fooled no one else. lol.

posted 29 April 2005 10:09 AM            

quote:

---

Erroneous sites: To classify humans on the basis of physiological traits is difficult. Nevertheless, by limiting the criteria to such traits as skin pigmentation....

---

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: pigmentation [is] irrelevant to racial affinity.

---

Underscores Erroneous' contradictions, incoherence and critical failure to define HIS OWN terms.

posted 29 April 2005 10:21 AM            

quote:

---

Erroneous sites: To the Negroid race belong....the Pygmy groups of Indonesia, and the inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia

---

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: What's been proven is that Negroids are of recent West African origin

---

posted 29 April 2005 12:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 29 April 2005 12:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Chikhi et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci, 2002

Chikhi et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci, 1998

---

Thought Writes:

Fascinating, but the more CURRENT scientific evidence indicates that haplogroup 'I' is a DEFINING European (not generalized Eurasian) haplotype.

Thought Posts:

Phylogeography of Y-Chromosome Haplogroup I Reveals Distinct Domains of Prehistoric gene Flow in Europe

Rootsi et al.
2004

"Previous studies revealed that Hg I reached frequencies of ~ 40% - 50% in two distinct regions - in Nordic populations of Scandinavia and, in southern Europe..."

"Its virtual absence elsewhere, including the Near East, suggest that it arose in Europe, likely **BEFORE** the Last Glacial Maximum..."

Frequency of Hg I:

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

Thought Writes:

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

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.

posted 29 April 2005 12:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

Fascinating, but the more CURRENT scientific evidence indicates that haplogroup 'I' is a DEFINING European (not generalized Eurasian) haplotype.

---

Thought Writes:

Speaking of this **DEFINING**, European SPECIFIC gene....

Thought Posts:

Annals of Human Genetics (OnlineEarly)

The Peopling of Modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y-chromosome Haplogroups in the Three Main Ethnic Groups

D. Marjanovic et al.

Summary

The variation at 28 Y-chromosome biallelic markers was analysed in 256 males (90 Croats, 81 Serbs and 85 Bosniacs) from Bosnia-Herzegovina. An important shared feature between the three ethnic groups is the high frequency of the "Palaeolithic" European-specific haplogroup (Hg) I, a likely signature of a Balkan population re-expansion after the Last Glacial Maximum. This haplogroup is almost completely represented by the sub-haplogroup I-P37 whose frequency is, however, higher in the Croats (~71%) than in Bosniacs (~44%) and Serbs (~31%). Other rather frequent haplogroups are E (~15%) and J (~7%), which are considered to have arrived from the Middle East in Neolithic and post-Neolithic times, and R-M17 (~14%), which probably marked several arrivals, at different times, from eastern Eurasia. Hg E, almost exclusively represented by its subclade E-M78, is more common in the Serbs (~20%) than in Bosniacs (~13%) and Croats (~9%), and Hg J, observed in only one Croat, encompasses ~9% of the Serbs and ~12% of the Bosniacs, where it shows its highest diversification. By contrast, Hg R-M17 displays similar frequencies in all three groups. On the whole, the three main groups of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in spite of some quantitative differences, share a large fraction of the same ancient gene pool distinctive for the Balkan area.

Thought Writes:

Interesting that Croatians have higher frequencies of the European Hg I and lower frequencies of the African HG E, while Sebs have higher frequencies of the African Hg E and lower frequencies of the European Hg I. I wonder if those genetic differences are expressed in phenotypic traits such as blondism? Makes you go hmmm.....

posted 29 April 2005 01:32 PM            

quote:

---

What I'm saying -- actually, what Howells is saying......

---

posted 29 April 2005 01:52 PM            

[/B][/QUOTE]

posted 29 April 2005 05:37 PM            

soon or later we will get this ediot.

posted 29 April 2005 07:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

Annals of Human Genetics (OnlineEarly)

The Peopling of Modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y-chromosome Haplogroups in the Three Main Ethnic Groups

D. Marjanovic et al.

[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 29 April 2005).]

---

"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)..."

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.

Thought Posts:

Black Spark White Fire
By Richard Poe

"On the contrary, (J.L.) Angel's research seemed to indicate an unexpectedly wide range of diversity among the ancient Greeks. Some Mycenaen skulls that Angel examined looked as if they had come straight from Egypt. Could these too be vestiges of an African colonization?"

posted 29 April 2005 07:30 PM            

Many Greeks are trying to claim Macedonians as Greeks, even though their own ancient scripts say the Macedonians were 'barbarians' that is foreigners! If you ask me, I think the only reason why Greeks make this claim is because Macedonia was the first nation-state to be formed in Europe. As you know, the Greeks for millenia have divided themselves into city-states struggling for domination. It was Macedonia under the leadership of Alexander the Great, who brought union. The only so-called evidence the Greeks have to say that Macedonians were Greek is that they spoke the Greek languange. This is poor evidence, since Hellenism was rampant during the late Classical period, and was only exacerbated by Alexander. Languange alone is not enough to establish ethnic idenitity anyway.

The problem now for Greece is the many Macedonian nationalists, especially in the norther part of the country who want to seceed. I'm not surprised if other peoples of northern Greece are also of non-Greek ancestry.

posted 29 April 2005 07:47 PM            

quote:

---

Speaking of Greek origins, what do you guys make of the Greeks' denial of their ethnic heterogeneity? The fact that they don't want to admit that not everyone living within the modern-day borders of Greece are simply not Greek. This has been controversial and has caused conflict, especially with Macedonians.

---

posted 30 April 2005 07:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
If the database does not consist of representative population samples, then the database is fatally flawed

---

That criticism was about the Egyptian series. It has no bearing on the study of East Africans.

quote:

---

You ILL INFORMED IDIOT. It IS one of Howells findings. And it is relevant to your intentional misrepresentation.

---

Wow, bold and all-caps. Your lack of answers and inferiority complex must really be getting to you.

Of course, Howells' PC claim that "there are no races" doesn't change any of this:

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.

quote:

---

Howells methods 'obscure' by comparing ancient East Africans to Tieta, Dogon and San, but NOT the elongated and Nilotic types they were found to resemble.

---

posted 30 April 2005 07:41 AM            

quote:

---

That criticism was about the Egyptian series. It has no bearing on the study of East Africans.

---

- which is displayed and further distorted in the map that you presented

- which is the subject of this thread

- which your irrelevant non-responsive replies have no bearing on.

posted 30 April 2005 07:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
WTF! Peer reviewed sources please. We are discussing SCIENCE.

---

You Afronuts have quoted dictionary definitions in the past, so I can quote an encyclopedia article. What's significant is the science being reported in the article:

"...most anthropologists agree on the existence of three relatively distinct groups: the Caucasoid, the Mongoloid, and the Negroid."

quote:

---

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.

---

And yet both groups are phenotypically identical. Why? Because I, J and E3b are all Caucasoid genetic markers, and Greeks and Sardinians are both adapted to the Southern European climate.

quote:

---

Greeks represent a merger/hybrid type between indigenous southern European and in-migrating Middle Eastern and Black African elements.

---

You wrongly assume that Neolithic farmers looked "non-European". In fact, we know from Angel that they looked entirely European. It's Middle Eastern and African peoples who have changed in the millennia since the Neolithic, during which time they've become adapted to a warming climate (ending up in the southern fringe of pigmentation Zone 2 and the northern part of Zone 1) -- and in the case of East Africans even acquired Negroid elements from the West.

This phenotypic distinction between pre-historic and modern Levantines has been observed by other anthropologists as well:

"There are two variants of the Classic Mediterranean type--straight-nosed and hook-nosed. The former is the more primitive and the more widely distributed. It extended in prehistoric times along both shores of the Mediterranean, into central, western, and northern Europe and down into the Horn of Africa. Its area of characterization and source of dissemination cannot have been far from the traditional Garden of Eden--Mesopotamia, which archaeologists include in 'the Fertile Crescent.'

"The expansion of the aquiline or hook-nosed Mediterranean type seems to have been somewhat more limited and probably later than that of the straight-nosed variant. In historical times, it was carried into North Africa and Spain principally by the Arabs, but other Semitic-speaking and non-Semitic peoples of prehistoric times may well have possessed this variation. Some of this type may have reached India, but nasal convexity there seems largely the result of infusions of the Iranian Plateau type."

-- Earnest Hooton, Up from the Ape. New York: Macmillan Co., 1931 (rev. ed. 1946)

quote:

---

Hence Greeks are hybrid and genetic outliers in a European context.

---

They're not, though. They're fully European:

posted 30 April 2005 07:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The criticism is of the Egyptian series in Howells database

---

Ho-hum. The correct way to use FORDISC according to a 2005 paper:

posted 30 April 2005 07:53 AM            

quote:

---

Um, they were found to resemble South Americans, Ainu and Europeans. Comparing them to elongated Nilotic types wouldn't help

---

I won't even dignify the lack of logic inherent in that pathetic excuse by 'explaining' how stupid it is.

posted 30 April 2005 07:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Ho-hum. The correct way to use FORDISC according to a 2005 paper

---

Ho-hum is right, because that does not address Dr. Zakrzewski's criticism of Howells, as cited in the parent post..

posted 30 April 2005 10:32 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

You Afronuts have quoted dictionary definitions in the past, so I can quote an encyclopedia article.

---

Thought Writes:

Quoting the dictionary to properly define a term and quoting an encyclopedia article in an attempt to prove a scientific position are two very different things. Again, mainstream anthropology has rejected the concept of race outright. The variation within the sub-regions of Africa cannot be expressed in such minimilist terms. The term 'Negroid' is a racial expression of a bygone era. The Somali and Oromo are obviously Black Africans. They have little to no Central and West African Y and mtDNA. The people who carried E3b down the Nile and into Eurasia are the direct ancestors of the Somali and Oromo.

posted 30 April 2005 10:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

And yet both groups are phenotypically identical. Why? Because I, J and E3b are all Caucasoid genetic markers, and Greeks and Sardinians are both adapted to the Southern European climate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001782-3.html

I suspect that what you suspect is right (smile). Fortunately SCIENCE/genetics is moving in a different direction. Africans have a diverse set of physical features. Even on a micro-geographical level such as West Africa the cranial morphology, hair texture, height, limb length, nasal width, degree of prognathism, melanin level and hair and eye color diverge. The same can be said of Europe, however the approach to diversity in Europe is often to find the underlying unity, while the approach to diversity in Africa is to arbitrarily accentuate the differences. I imagine that this imbalanced approached takes place because there is a desire to 'de-Africanize' African populations who have a relationships with Europe. E3b SPREADING East and NW Africans are one such example. By 'de-Africanizing' the Somali or the Berber's Europe is able to maintain a pristine source for her 'civilization'.

---

Thought Writes:

Bottom line, Hg E is tropical African in origin, Hg J is Middle Eastern in origin and Hg I is European in origin. Evil E would have us believe that everyone from Tony Blair to General Mohammed Aidid is a 'Caucasoid'. As has been pointed out on this forum numerous times there are millions of Sub-Saharan Africans in West and Central Africa that have narrow nose and faces just like the people of the Horn of Africa. This phenotype is related to evolution in a hot dry climate. Biologically the Bantu speakers of Cameroon have higher frequencies of European genes than the Oromo. This is why we have constantly asked you for **YOUR** definition of the terms 'Negroid' and 'Caucasoid'. Then we can scientifically evaluate your premise. You refuse to give us this definition because you know that the entire theory is actually a form of psuedo-science.

posted 30 April 2005 10:56 AM            

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/brace.html

C.L. Brace -

"There is nothing wrong with using geographic labels to designate people. Major continental terms are just fine, and sub-regional refinements such as Western European, Eastern African, Southeast Asian, and so forth carry no unintentional baggage. In contrast, terms such as "Negroid," "Caucasoid," and "Mongoloid" create more problems than they solve. Those very terms reflect a mix of narrow regional, specific ethnic, and descriptive physical components with an assumption that such separate dimensions have some kind of common tie. Biologically, such terms are worse than useless. Their continued use, then, is in social situations where people think they have some meaning."

posted 30 April 2005 11:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

You wrongly assume that Neolithic farmers looked "non-European". In fact, we know from Angel that they looked entirely European.

---

Thought Writes:

Rasol has allready addressed this....

Thought Posts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasol:

Their transparent obtuseness is easily enough exposed when they are confronted with: J.L. Angel -

"...one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters and in Anatolian and Macedonian firts farmers, probably from Nubia..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

It's Middle Eastern and African peoples who have changed in the millennia since the Neolithic, during which time they've become adapted to a warming climate (ending up in the southern fringe of pigmentation Zone 2 and the northern part of Zone 1) -- and in the case of East Africans even acquired Negroid elements from the West.

---

Thought Writes:

Please provide us with a peer-reviewed study that proves the Horn of Africa was non-tropical during the period in question? Furthermore, please provide the specific Y-Chromosomal and mtDNA lineages in Somali and Oromo that indicate West or Central African admixture.

posted 30 April 2005 11:14 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Earnest Hooton, Up from the Ape. New York: Macmillan Co., 1931 (rev. ed. 1946)

---

Thought Writes:

Hate to be the one to break the news to you, but many things have changed in science since 1931!

LOL!

Thought Posts:

J.L. Angel -

J.L. Angel reports:

"In my own skeletal samples from Greece I note apparent negroid nose and mouth traits in two of fourteen (14%!!!!) Early Neolithic (sixth millenium B.C.)"

posted 30 April 2005 11:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Posts:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/brace.html

C.L. Brace -

"There is nothing wrong with using geographic labels to designate people. Major continental terms are just fine, and sub-regional refinements such as Western European, Eastern African, Southeast Asian, and so forth carry no unintentional baggage. In contrast, terms such as "Negroid," "Caucasoid," and "Mongoloid" create more problems than they solve. Those very terms reflect a mix of narrow regional, specific ethnic, and descriptive physical components with an assumption that such separate dimensions have some kind of common tie. Biologically, such terms are worse than useless.

---

Good post, case in point:

quote:

---

Erroneous sites: To the Negroid race belong....the Pygmy groups of Indonesia, and the inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia

---

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: What's been proven is that Negroids are of recent West African origin

---

I was so looking forward to Erroneous' 'explanation' of the recent West African origin of Indonesians, New Guineans and Fijians, whose Out of Africa ancestors left East Africa 50k+ years ago .... but he had no answer or even non responsive reply, so I gather he needs more time to "research".

Let's assist him, shall we :

Should be simple enough for EE to track those far-eastern 'negroids' back to a common recent West African lineage.

What's taking so long?

posted 30 April 2005 12:00 PM            

In fact the tropical Africans that are closest to Europeans genetically are from the region of the Cameroon not East Africa.

Now we see that whites in Southern Africa are now calling themselves "white Africans" to stake some kind of claim to claim the areas they invaded some years ago. I have read of some white students from Southern Africa studying in the U.S. joining the "African Student Union" at the university where they study on the basis of being "white Africans".

posted 30 April 2005 12:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by soma17:
What does it really mean to be a black african?

---

Black Africans are actually 'tropically' adapted people of Africa.

quote:

---

soma17:
Is it the pigmentation or possibly the physical features.

---

Skin pigmentation and various physical features factor into adaptation to the environment.

quote:

---

If the somali,oromo,afar and other north east african groups have little if any genetic markers on the y chromosome and the mitochondiral dna that where is the corralation of "black african".

---

I am sorry, I am lost on this one.

quote:

---

soma17:
Just asking would like insight and other perspectives.

---

Have you missed the point of those studies and explanations that were provided in another thread, where you asked the same question?

posted 30 April 2005 12:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by soma17:
Np I haven't missed the answers whatsoever but I was quoting thought on his statement that somali,oromo have little if any genetic similarity on the Y-chromosomes and mtDNA.

---

Which genetic similarity/dissimilarity are you referring to, and what quote? Nothing can be made of your comment, as it is!

posted 30 April 2005 12:24 PM            

quote:

---

If the somali,oromo,afar and other north east african groups have little if any genetic markers on the y chromosome and the mitochondiral dna

---

NorthEast Africans do have genetic markers on both the Y chromosome [Pn2 clade] and maternal DNA [L1,L2,L3, L3M1 clades] in common with other Africans, including North and South Africans. A clade in biology by definition describes a common ancestry.

The fact is, superficial physical features cannot describe this and often disguise it.

Genetics has exposed this fact and that is one of the main reasons the 'western' ideology/science of 'race' has collapsed and been all but abandoned by modern bioanthropology.

quote:

---

what is the correlation to Black African?

---

These are distinct concepts.

Genetics reveal lineage. [PN2 clade]

Black is phenotype.

African is geographic origin.

The Somali as example:

Africa is where these people originate.

They are biologically related to other Africans - the Somali, the San, the Swahilli, are of common descent - like it or not.

Black is a reference to dark skin, it is not valid as a 'race' concept. It gains social and political significance because people notice it.

digression: I know of Somali who travel to the Arab gulf states and were called Abid.

back to topic:

There are Blacks in Asia and elsewhere, who have relatively distant genetic lineages from Africans.

There are Blondes in Northern Europe and Native Australia who have relatively distant genetic lineages from each other.

Blonde and Black are phenotype or physical characteristic, and NOT discrete races.

People can have dark and light skin, Blonde and dark hair...curly or straight hair, long or broad faces and still be closly related to each other.....or not.

It is far from clear in modern bioanthropological science that 'race' actually exists in a scientific sense.

PN2 clade Black Africans are united by a common ancestry, a common geographic origin and location, and some common physical traits, like dark skin....but still do not necessarily constitute a discrete 'race'.

It is race that is the flawed concept, not genetics, nor Blackness, nor Africaness.

posted 30 April 2005 12:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Which genetic similarity/dissimilarity are you referring to, and what quote? Nothing can be made of your comment, as it is!

---

He is referring to your quote on Somali, in another thread with re. to sub-saharan DNA.

posted 30 April 2005 12:33 PM            

quote:

---

...They have little to no Central and West African Y and mtDNA. The people who carried E3b down the Nile and into Eurasia are the direct ancestors of the Somali and Oromo.

---

posted 30 April 2005 02:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
I take it that soma17 was referring to this Thought statement:

The point here, was not to say there are no common genetic relationship b/n Africans, but to show that Central and West African admixture cannot be used to explain why East Africans appear to be black (as Evil so desperately tries to do so)!

---

Good explanation. And I think you are right, in terms of what was being referred to.

posted 30 April 2005 04:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Good explanation. And I think you are right, in terms of what was being referred to.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 01 May 2005 07:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Again, mainstream anthropology has rejected the concept of race outright.

---

No, it hasn't:

"... [As of 2001] most anthropologists agree on the existence of three relatively distinct groups: the Caucasoid, the Mongoloid, and the Negroid."

quote:

---

Please provide us with a peer-reviewed study that proves the Horn of Africa was non-tropical during the period in question?

---

I haven't the slightest idea what you're babbling about or how it pertains to the information I posted.

quote:

---

Furthermore, please provide the specific Y-Chromosomal and mtDNA lineages in Somali and Oromo that indicate West or Central African admixture.

---

They have L1, L2, A, B, and some E(xE3b). I can't believe you're still trying to deny the Caucasoid affinities of Ethiopians and Somalis. You are one delusional Afronut...

Analysis of three RFLPs of the COL1A2 (Type I Collagen) in the Amhara and the Oromo of Ethiopia.

"The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position."

An anthropogenetic study on the Oromo and Amhara of central Ethiopia

"...the Oromo and Amhara appear quite similar to Europoids (particularly to the South Arabians) and considerably different from the Negritic peoples."

Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins

"The northeastern-African, that is, the Ethiopian and Somali populations, are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations."

Analysis of mtDNA HVRII in several human populations using an immobilised SSO probe hybridisation assay.

"Somali, as a representative East African population, seem to have experienced a detectable amount of Caucasoid maternal influence [22%]"

quote:

---

"In my own skeletal samples from Greece I note apparent negroid nose and mouth traits in two of fourteen (14%!!!!) Early Neolithic (sixth millenium B.C.)"

---

How many times do we have to go over this, you dumb black bitch? Prognathism and broad noses in primitive peoples are not indicative of Negroid ancestry, which is why Angel uses a lower case "n" to describe those traits. You're misrepresenting Angel's findings and you know it. Rasol knows it too, which is why he always capitalizes the "n" (the dishonest little monkey). This here is what Angel determined, and it's what you have no answer for:

Neolithic Farmers were 100% Caucasoid
Neolithic Farmers were 100% Caucasoid
Neolithic Farmers were 100% Caucasoid
Neolithic Farmers were 100% Caucasoid
Neolithic Farmers were 100% Caucasoid
Neolithic Farmers were 100% Caucasoid
Neolithic Farmers were 100% Caucasoid
Neolithic Farmers were 100% Caucasoid

posted 01 May 2005 08:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
I won't even dignify...

---

Of course not. Because you have no answer for Howells' findings.

* Repost of the part you ignored:

The inescapable fact is that ancient, pre-Bantu Kenyans were not the same race as modern, Negroid Kenyans. They were more similar to the non-African peoples of the world. Hence, OOA migrants were not "Black Africans". Sorry.

quote:

---

Ho-hum is right, because that does not address Dr. Zakrzewski's criticism of Howells, as cited in the parent post..

---

posted 01 May 2005 08:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
I won't even dignify...

---

quote:

---

EE writes: Of course not. Because....

---

quote:

---

It proves that there's nothing wrong with the FORDISC program or Howells' database. Zakrzewski's criticism is moot.

---

quote:

---

Repost of the part you ignored:

The inescapable fact is that ancient, pre-Bantu Kenyans were not the same race as modern, Negroid Kenyans.

---

Had Howells' said such a foolish thing, he would have contradicted himself, and would be discredited at any rate by Leathers, Edwards, Keita, Armelagos., Zakrzewski, Kettles, Belcher, Rightmire, Williams, Vogel and others.

Of course that is NOT a quote from Howells, but rather, your idiot babblement, for which only YOU are responsible.

Howells database, methods and conclusions have been found to be flawed, as noted by the above scholars; However unlike you, Howells is not a complete idiot, so the issue is your continued misprepresentations - by which you perpetually discredit YOURSELF.

Speaking of which....

quote:

---

Erroneous sites: To the Negroid race belong....the Pygmy groups of Indonesia, and the inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia

---

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: What's been proven is that Negroids are of recent West African origin

---

Erroneous continued failure to answer indicates admission of propaganda fraud - to traffic in ideas which one knows to be false. What's taking so long?

posted 01 May 2005 08:32 AM            

Angel also found evidence for a "black" (if such exists) genetic influence in neolithic and later Aegean populations. Racialists models, which imply non-overlapping gene pools, are clearly negated by Angel's work." - Keita

quote:

---

CryBaby Euro writes:
Neolithic Farmers were 100% Caucasoid.
Neolithic Farmers were 100% Caucasoid.
Neolithic Farmers were 100% Caucasoid.
Neolithic Farmers were 100% Caucasoid.
Neolithic Farmers were 100% Caucasoid.

---

Your temper tantrum is amusing, and further lowers the bar regarding the "fruitcake factor" which keeps you mired in zero credibility land.

However it does not exactly refute the facts related by Professors Angel, Keita and McCown, now does it? Reflect on this, and return tomorrow...preferably with some answers .

posted 01 May 2005 11:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
"...most anthropologists agree on the existence of three relatively distinct groups: the Caucasoid, the Mongoloid, and the Negroid."

---

Try to quote the entire quote:

From Columbia Encyclopedia...

"Theories postulating the very early emergence of racial differentiation have been advanced (e.g., C. S. Coon , The Origin of Races, 1962), but they are now scientifically discredited. "

Dictionary.com:

[b]Caucasian
"Anthropology. Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as very light to brown skin pigmentation and straight to wavy or curly hair, and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and India. [u]No longer in scientific use.[/u]" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=caucasian

Negroid
"Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as brown to black pigmentation and often tightly curled hair and including peoples indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa. [u]Not in scientific use.[/u]"

Once again, you continue to ignore the entire text. I suggest you define your terms because your 'sources' are not enough.