posted 06 May 2005 02:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:

We can use phoney academics to back up anything.

---

quote:

---

Thought Writes:
Of course their third option is to simply reject science all together.

---

posted 06 May 2005 02:08 PM            

quote:

---

By whom? You? Afronut "scholars"?

---

Yes idiot, the Hamitic Hyothesis was and has been long debunked, only idiots like you and the like hold on to such nonsense to promote lies. Ever heard on Joseph Greenberg? through linguistics he just about debunked the entire Hamitic Hypothesis, need more? Read this paper it has a part in there about the Hamitic hypothesis.
http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/schuh/Papers/language_and_history.pdf

quote:

---

Exactly, because you've been proven wrong by Aleksandra Pudlo, Anthropological Review, 1999.

---

Wrong, Pudlo simply uses the hamitic Hypothesis once again to explain diversity in Nubia, there is no genetic evidence of outside populations pouring into Nubia, nor is there any arhaeological material evidence for this. The only idiot who cites Pudlo is you, I wonder why that paper isn't widely cited by others?

posted 06 May 2005 02:26 PM            

quote:

---

Prof. Horemheb writes: Here is what we have.....

---

....your inability to understand or comment intelligibly on anything.

Prove us wrong Professor, please explain to us the graphic shown above?

posted 06 May 2005 02:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Here is what we have..... These guys feed off the distorted work of a few radical, renegade professors and trash Afrocentric web sites. Don't think that most people are not on to what is happening. We don't worry about you having influence, you won't or you would not be here but you can lead a few otherwise good minds down the wrong road. Yes Thought, we need science, but not this racist crap you put out. i would like to see the day when you talk about something besides race.

---

Its impossible to debate you because you run from evidence and you post none either. Its amazing you call what Thought says racist, though it comes from peer-reviewed journals, yet you call outdated discredited Eurocentrism mainstream and correct, despite the obvious racists overtones. You are a troll.

posted 06 May 2005 02:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

....your inability to understand or comment intelligibly on anything.

Prove us wrong Professor, please [b]explain to us the graphic shown above?

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 06 May 2005).][/B]

---

LOLOLOLOLOL, I just had to laugh, because I know he's going to stick his head in the sand.

posted 06 May 2005 03:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:

Its impossible to debate you because you .....are a troll.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 06 May 2005 04:21 PM            

quote:

---

lets cut his lifeline. [/B]

---

posted 06 May 2005 10:33 PM            

Again, I have ALLREADY answered both of these questions. If you have a LEGITIMATE rebuttal please present it….

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil E:

Where's the Negroid...skull shape, skeletal form...? [ . . . ] Funny also that in his more detailed analyses, Angel makes no mention of a Negroid racial strain in either Neolithic farmers or modern Greeks. Neither does Coon for that matter. Nor Brace. Any answers, Negroes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:

Once again, the term 'Negroid' is a racial construct. 'Race' is now considered psuedo-science by mainstream anthropology. In addition, the term 'Negroid' can be utilized in an arbitrary manner by psuedo-scientists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil E:

If Arnaiz-Villena's HLA-DRB1 study on Greek-Ethiopian affinities is anything more than junk science, then why has it been rejected by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR world-renowned geneticists? And why have its results never been duplicated by a single other genetic study -- even those conducted using the same HLA genes that Arnaiz-Villena analyzed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:

A Arnaiz-Villena recieved a lot of flack when he came out with that revelation. This early work could certainly use some refinement, but his underlying premise was correct as the phylogeography of the Y-Clade E3b reveals.

---

posted 07 May 2005 07:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
There is a RANGE of climate in the tropics, hence if East Africa were a LITTLE cooler does not mean this region was non-tropical.

---

But it wasn't "a little" cooler. Between the Pleistocene and the Holocene, Europe's climate went from polar to temperate. The notion that Africa's climate stayed essentially the same during this period is absurd and proven wrong by the paper I quoted.

quote:

---

Black African or simply indigenous African captures the range, variation and underlying unity that is found in Africa.

---

There's no such racial unity in Africa:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001478.html

quote:

---

Of course if they give up on Greece all they have left is the Druids.

---

No, Greece belongs to us and always has. But if you give up on it, all you'll have left is this:

Your motive is crystal clear.

quote:

---

Again, I have ALLREADY answered both of these questions.

---

posted 07 May 2005 07:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:

Songhai, Mali, and Ghana...

---

...have never produced anything of value to anyone.

quote:

---

Wrong, Pudlo simply uses the hamitic Hypothesis once again to explain diversity in Nubia

---

posted 07 May 2005 07:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Wrong again.

Dr. Sonia R. Zakrzewski examined Ancient Egyptian remains and found them to be of tropical (Nilotic) form.

She was precise enough to determine that Howells database was flawed and unrepresentative of Ancient Egyptians.

Modern bioanthropologists as diverse as Keita and Brace, understand that the human form adapts somatically to its environment. This approach to understanding human morphology is scientific.

Your ideological approach is anachronistic, and quite precisely qualifies as pseudoscience -

Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.

The older the idea, the more attractive it is to pseudoscience:

- especially if the idea is transparently wrong and has long been discarded by science.

- Pseudoscience contradicts itself
- invents its own terms
- uses terms that are vaguely defined or have no-definition at all. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001807.html

This perfectly describes your ideology and inability to define your terms.

If you can't accept this, then write the scientists and tell them to stop discussing morphological adaptation to climate.

Tell them to return to the 19th century and the works of Carleton Coon, while you're at it you can write the surgeons and tell them to abandon anesthetic and hypodermics and return to liquor and leeches. .

You merely argue out of ignorance, in defense of racism, which is no argument at all.

Erroneous: The world has moved on and left you for dead. You need to grow up, while you still can.

---

posted 07 May 2005 09:08 AM            

quote:

---

But it wasn't "a little" cooler. Between the Pleistocene and the Holocene, Europe's climate went from polar to temperate.

---

quote:

---

EE writes: The notion that Africa's climate stayed essentially the same

---

Accurate information here.

quote:

---

There's no such racial unity in Africa:

---

quote:

---

Your motive is crystal clear.

---

quote:

---

Answers involve evidence

---

Try again tomorrow and find some answers, please.

posted 07 May 2005 09:32 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Wrong again.

Dr. Sonia R. Zakrzewski examined Ancient Egyptian remains and found them to be of tropical (Nilotic) form.

She was precise enough to determine that Howells database was flawed and unrepresentative of Ancient Egyptians.

Modern bioanthropologists as diverse as Keita and Brace, understand that the human form adapts somatically to its environment. This approach to understanding human morphology is scientific.
If you can't accept this, then instead of whining to us...... write the scientists and tell them to stop discussing morphological adaptation to climate.

---

Let's examine how Erroneous Euro 'replies' but NEVER ANSWERS, because he has none.....

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: No one talks more and says less than you.

---

Ad hominem whining....

quote:

---

Erroneous E writes: shut the f*ck up.

---

Sorry, but it's MY thread Fred, and your nightmare.. If you want to play the potty-mouthed crybaby, you force me to....

SLAP YOU SILLY.

HAD ENOUGH?

THEN ALWAYS REMEMBER....

...from East Africa.

....from West Africa.

Grow up crybaby Euro. And take it like a man.

posted 07 May 2005 10:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Too bad your opinion isn't worth sh*t. Post a study that refutes Pudlo's findings. Otherwise, shut up.

---

Too bad Pudlo's study isn't quoted by anyone and the fact that she used the term 'Hamitisation' and mentions migrations of outsiders flooding Africa proves my point that she uses Hamitic Hypothesis, no modern anthropologists use that word anymore so you're debunked dummy.

posted 07 May 2005 11:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

But it wasn't "a little" cooler. Between the Pleistocene and the Holocene, Europe's climate went from polar to temperate. The notion that Africa's climate stayed essentially the same during this period is absurd and proven wrong by the paper I quoted.

---

Thought Writes:

You have not presented ANY data specific to East Africa. I have and here is what it states:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:

The Horn of Africa During the Last Glacial Maximum:

"Conditions over other parts of Ethiopea are a matter of conjecture. With the evidence of drying in the highlands and the rift valley region, we suggest that **TROPICAL** desert covered much of the Horn of Africa."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

There's no such racial unity in Africa:

---

Thought Writes:

The idea of ‘Race’ it self has been discredited by the modern anthropological community. Genetically and phenotypically East and West Africans share in common gene pools (E3/Pn2) and have shared derived traits from a common origin that post-dates the OOA Migration and pre-dates the LGM. Do you have any evidence to the contrary and please don’t simply post a link to a thread where you have already been debunked. Put up some new, valid evidence or be silenced.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

No, Greece belongs to us and always has. But if you give up on it, all you'll have left is this:

---

Thought Writes:

Who is ‘US’? Are you claiming that Greeks are genetically European again? If so please tell us which LGM Refuge the Greeks came out of? Ha, ha, ha…..

posted 08 May 2005 06:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Slavs cluster with Lapps, Uralics and Central Asians. They're not European, and neither are you.

---

LOL, Evil Euro is a joke

posted 08 May 2005 07:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Who is ‘US’? Are you claiming that Greeks are genetically European again? If so please tell us which LGM Refuge the Greeks came out of? Ha, ha, ha…..

[This message has been edited by Thought2 (edited 07 May 2005).]

---

Thought, why even further debate this troll? He says Russians are NOT European which proves his inability to read plots on genetic maps. He makes cringe conclusions and interpretations.

posted 08 May 2005 07:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
You have not presented ANY data specific to East Africa.

---

Moron, that study is about the climatic conditions that permitted hominid evolution. Hence, it's referring quite specifically to the East African cradle of humanity.

quote:

---

Genetically and phenotypically East and West Africans share in common gene pools (E3/Pn2) and have shared derived traits from a common origin that post-dates the OOA Migration and pre-dates the LGM.

---

West Africans are racially Negroid. East Africans (Ethiopians and Somalis) are hybrid Negroid-Caucasoid. This has been proven, and it's because of Caucasoid E3b in the East.

quote:

---

Are you claiming that Greeks are genetically European again?

---

*Yaaaaaawn*

Y-chromosomes

Autosomes

posted 08 May 2005 07:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Too bad Pudlo's study isn't quoted by anyone and the fact that she used the term 'Hamitisation' and mentions migrations of outsiders flooding Africa proves my point that she uses Hamitic Hypothesis, no modern anthropologists use that word anymore so you're debunked dummy.

---

posted 08 May 2005 08:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

[ Still talking up a storm...and still saying nothing ]

---

Where are your answers, ape? Quit stalling.

posted 08 May 2005 08:08 AM            

quote:

---

Thought writes: Now I have a question for you. You claim that Greeks are really European. All European people came out of one of three refuges (Franco-Cantabrian, Balkan and Ukraine) after the Last Glacial Maximum. Please tell me which refuge the Greeks came out of? I say they are NOT European and did not come out of any post-LGM refuge based upon DNA, but I would like to see your answer

---

What's taking so long?

posted 08 May 2005 08:12 AM            

quote:

---

The People of Lerna
J.L. Angel

"Egypt includes an almost Mouillian-negroid early population, linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region, as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend in the gracile Badarians."

Thought Writes:

Angel goes on to state that these people migrated FROM Egypto-Nubia TO the Levant, Anatolia and Macedonia (Greece)

---

What's taking so long?

posted 08 May 2005 08:17 AM            

AFraid to Face the Facts:

East Africans have been equatorial [black] for many 10's of thousands of years. - CL Brace

dark skinned is the original state of Homo Sapiens - N. Jablonski

claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong - J.O. Vogel

the peopling of East Africa was carried out by three main African groups: the Cushitic-speaking peoples; the

Nilotic-speaking peoples; the Bantu-speaking peoples....ancestors of most present-day East Africans– the Black

Africans. - Dr. Elisabeth Dunstan and David Hall

"Hamite" has long been discredited and no longer exists as a

legitimate racial, genetic or linguistic concept.

Where are Erroneous Euro's pre-historic whites of East Africa?

No wonder he's in tears.

Erronous better STOP CRYING AND find some answers soon.

posted 08 May 2005 08:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
In other words, you still have no study refuting Pudlo's findings.

---

No in other words, you can find no modern anthropologist that believes in the hamitic hypothesis except Pudlo, an obscure Polish woman.

posted 08 May 2005 11:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:

The Horn of Africa During the Last Glacial Maximum:

"Conditions over other parts of Ethiopea are a matter of conjecture. With the evidence of drying in the highlands and the rift valley region, we suggest that **TROPICAL** desert covered much of the Horn of Africa."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil E:

Moron, that study is about the climatic conditions that permitted hominid evolution. Hence, it's referring quite specifically to the East African cradle of humanity.

---

Thought Writes:

Please pull one quote from that study that SPECIFICALLY refers "quite specifically to the East African cradle of humanity" as being Non-Tropical.

posted 08 May 2005 12:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

West Africans are racially Negroid. East Africans (Ethiopians and Somalis) are hybrid Negroid-Caucasoid.

---

Thought Writes:

We have been over this before and you had no answers the first time. Race is not an accepted scientific reality in modern biological anthropology. The term "Negroid" as CL Brace states, is less than useless. E3b carrying East Africans such as Oromo and Somali have few if any Euraisan derived genes. Please provide some EVIDENCE to support your claims or I will be forced to cut your lifeline as you are becoming a useless troll through your circular arguments.

posted 08 May 2005 12:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:

Thought, why even further debate this troll? He says Russians are NOT European which proves his inability to read plots on genetic maps. He makes cringe conclusions and interpretations.

[This message has been edited by Topdog (edited 08 May 2005).]

---

Thought Writes:

Topdog, you may be right. It seems the Evil E Train has run out of steam. He has nothing new to contribute and hence he has resorted to regurgitating the same slogans over and over again. We have been through each and every position he has raised and proven them wrong point by point with peer-reviewed scientists. In turn Evil E has fudged data, quoted half a century old anthropologists and utilized the same old racial term and ideas long-ago disgarded by science. Unless he can come back with something of real scientific value I would say he is used up.

posted 09 May 2005 07:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Please pull one quote from that study that SPECIFICALLY refers "quite specifically to the East African cradle of humanity" as being Non-Tropical.

---

The WHOLE study is about that, dumbass. It's called: The Ice Age in the Tropics and Its Human Implications.

quote:

---

E3b carrying East Africans such as Oromo and Somali have few if any Euraisan derived genes. Please provide some EVIDENCE to support your claims

---

Already have. Ignoring it won't make it go away:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001510.html

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001467.html

quote:

---

Now I have a question for you. You claim that Greeks are really European. All European people came out of one of three refuges (Franco-Cantabrian, Balkan and Ukraine) after the Last Glacial Maximum. Please tell me which refuge the Greeks came out of? I say they are NOT European and did not come out of any post-LGM refuge based upon DNA, but I would like to see your answer

---

Of course, Neolithic Caucasoid lineages are part of Europe's genetic structure. Germans have ~10% J/E3b and ~17% Neolithic mtDNA. Last time I checked, they were European. And so are all the other Northern Europeans with Neolithic ancestry -- just like their Southern counterparts.

Y-chromosomes:

Autosomes:

posted 09 May 2005 07:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Where are Erroneous Euro's pre-historic whites of East Africa?

---

"...results here are not indicative of anything, except a general non-African nature for all these [pre-historic Kenyan] 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."

posted 09 May 2005 07:54 AM            

quote:

---

The WHOLE study is about

---

This WHOLE thread is about a frightened fraud named Erroneous Euro, who tries to change the subject because he has no answers:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Dr. Sonia R. Zakrzewski examined Ancient Egyptian remains and found them to be of tropical (Nilotic) form.

She was precise enough to determine that Howells database was flawed and unrepresentative of Ancient Egyptians.

---

posted 09 May 2005 07:57 AM            

quote:

---

Rasol posts:
claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been
shown to be wrong. - JO Vogel

the peopling of East Africa was carried out by three main African groups: the Cushitic-speaking peoples; the Nilotic-speaking peoples; the Bantu-speaking peoples....ancestors of most present-day East Africans– the Black Africans. - Dr. Elisabeth Dunstan and David Hall

The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa [resemble] several living populations of East Africa, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. [Jean Hiernaux, "The People of Africa",,,,Where are Erroneous Euro's pre-historic whites of East Africa?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
"...results here are not indicative of anything....

---

...other than to say that Erroneous Euro still has no answers, and so tries to fabricate non-existent support via misrepresentation of Howells' debunked database.

Where are Erroneous Euro's pre-historic whites of East Africa? You better STOP RUNNING and find some real answers soon.

posted 09 May 2005 08:07 AM            

- which was glacial, like his cognition,

- and frigid, like his off-topic, non responsive replies.

So...Let's thaw him out and help him get back on point, with a fresh reminder on the actual topic:

Erroneous E's latest blunder

Erroneous E writes:

quote:

---

the utility and efficacy of FORDISC has been criticized for providing incorrect classifications, however these disputed results are often due to inappropriate reference sample

---

Actually what provides incorrect classifications and inappropriate reference samples are fruitcakes like Erroneous E:

quote:

---

Map posted by Erroneous E, courtesy of "NuSapiens pseudo-anthropology blog" by way of Deniekes equally pseudo blog":

based on W.W. Howells 1989, 1996

---

NuSapien apologia/excuse:
All I did was visualize the output of Dienekes' statistical methods, which were mathematically derived from Howell's data I only was make pie charts and plot them on a map.

In some of my other maps, I do play with data and add my own interpretations and assumptions...

But enough of the foolishness of those clowns:

Instead, some real science from an actual bioanthropologist:

Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.

Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.

The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.

The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series.

In his desperation to deceive, Erroneous Euro misrepresents data; from discredited and uneducated sources ; utilising inappropriate samples in order to incorrectly classify and so promote pseudo scientific propaganda.

Unfortunately for him, Erroneous has long since lost all credibility, so his efforts to distort information invariably end with his own humiliation:

Continue to parrot Dienekes, Erroneous..

quote:

---

Meroitic Nubians were compared
to two populations within Fordisc 2.0:
Howells’ worldwide data set and the Forensic
Data Bank series from Ousley and Jantz
(1996) Fordisc 2.0. The University of Tennessee,
Knoxville. Our results indicate that
Fordisc 2.0 identifies gracile individuals (either male or female) as female, and robust
individuals (either male or female) as male
unless the sex is constrained by the program.

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 Nubian crania.

We question the utility of any forensic application that attempts to constrain worldwide human cranial variability into discrete biological groupings, or races.
- R. Belcher1, F. Williams1, G.J. Armelagos2.
1Dept. of Anthropology and Geography, Georgia
State University, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA,
2Dept. of Anthropology, Emory University.
Forensic Anthropology data bank at the University of Tennessee.

---

Stop dancing Erroneous, and face the music.

posted 10 May 2005 07:44 AM            

The truth is out there: how NOT to use FORDISC

Freid et al. (2005)

THE FORDISC PROGRAM WORKS . . .

"The utility and efficacy of FORDISC has been criticized for providing 'incorrect' classifications, however these disputed results are often due to inappropriate reference samples and failure to properly evaluate the typicality and posterior probabilities provided by the program."

AND HOWELLS' DATABASE IS FINE . . .

"The researcher guides the analysis by choosing the populations against which to classify the unknown, choosing from eleven population samples from the Forensic Anthropology Data Bank or twenty-eight population samples from Howells' (1989) worldwide database."

Now that we've cleared that up, where are your answers, drowning monkey?

posted 10 May 2005 07:53 AM            

Better find some answers fast.

Unless you secretly enjoy getting


SMACKED AROUND BY SONIA

Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.

Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.

The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.

The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series.

In his desperation to deceive, Erroneous Euro misrepresents data; from discredited and uneducated sources ; utilising inappropriate samples in order to incorrectly classify and so promote pseudo scientific propaganda.

Unfortunately for him, Erroneous has long since lost all credibility, so his efforts to distort information invariably end with his own humiliation:

Continue to parrot Dienekes, Erroneous..

quote:

---

Meroitic Nubians were compared
to two populations within Fordisc 2.0:
Howells’ worldwide data set and the Forensic
Data Bank series from Ousley and Jantz
(1996) Fordisc 2.0. The University of Tennessee,
Knoxville. Our results indicate that
Fordisc 2.0 identifies gracile individuals (either male or female) as female, and robust
individuals (either male or female) as male
unless the sex is constrained by the program.

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 Nubian crania.

We question the utility of any forensic application that attempts to constrain worldwide human cranial variability into discrete biological groupings, or races.
- R. Belcher1, F. Williams1, G.J. Armelagos2.
1Dept. of Anthropology and Geography, Georgia
State University, Atlanta, GA, 30303, USA,
2Dept. of Anthropology, Emory University.
Forensic Anthropology data bank at the University of Tennessee.

---

posted 10 May 2005 07:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Per [b]peer review Howells' is flawed. Your map is a fraud. The abstract you point to does not address either fact.

Better find some answers fast.

Unless you secretly enjoy getting


SMACKED AROUND BY SONIA

Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.

Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.

The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.

The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series.

In his desperation to deceive, Erroneous Euro misrepresents data; from discredited and uneducated sources ; utilising inappropriate samples in order to incorrectly classify and so promote pseudo scientific propaganda.

Unfortunately for him, Erroneous has long since lost all credibility, so his efforts to distort information invariably end with his own humiliation:

Continue to parrot Dienekes, Erroneous..

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 10 May 2005).][/B]

---

posted 10 May 2005 07:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
Rasol,
I'm a little shocked by the language used by this bigot, why do you reply?
Relaxx

---

posted 11 May 2005 12:51 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

The WHOLE study is about that, dumbass. It's called: The Ice Age in the Tropics and Its Human Implications.

---

Thought Writes:

www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-823388-4.pdf

I have read the entire paper NO WHERE in this paper does it state that East Africa was non-tropical. It states that the tropics were COOLER. Cooler does not equal non-tropical as there are regions within tropical Africa today that are COOLER than other regions in the tropics, but all of these regions fall within the range of tropical Africa.

posted 11 May 2005 01:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:

E3b carrying East Africans such as Oromo and Somali have few if any Euraisan derived genes. Please provide some EVIDENCE to support your claims

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Already have. Ignoring it won't make it go away:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001510.html

---

Thought Writes:

This link refers to ALL Ethiopians. I mentioned the Oromo specifically, not ALL Ethiopians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001467.html

---

Thought Writes:

You dropped out on this thread:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Like most East Africans, Somalis are a hybrid Negroid/Caucasoid population

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:

Thought Writes:

Evil Euro, before we can take this debate to its logical conclusion we need you to define your terms. Please tell us specifically what a "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" are in a scientific sense?

---

posted 11 May 2005 01:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:

Now I have a question for you. You claim that Greeks are really European. All European people came out of one of three refuges (Franco-Cantabrian, Balkan and Ukraine) after the Last Glacial Maximum. Please tell me which refuge the Greeks came out of? I say they are NOT European and did not come out of any post-LGM refuge based upon DNA, but I would like to see your answer

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Of course, Neolithic Caucasoid lineages are part of Europe's genetic structure. Germans have ~10% J/E3b and ~17% Neolithic mtDNA. Last time I checked, they were European. And so are all the other Northern Europeans with Neolithic ancestry -- just like their Southern counterparts.

---

Thought Writes:

You didn't even answer my question. I asked you SPECIFICALLY which refuge the Greeks came out of?

posted 11 May 2005 04:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
*Yaaaaaawn*

[b]Y-chromosomes

Autosomes

[This message has been edited by Evil Euro (edited 08 May 2005).][/B]

---

posted 11 May 2005 04:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Too bad your opinion isn't worth sh*t. Post a study that refutes Pudlo's findings. Otherwise, shut up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:

Songhai, Mali, and Ghana...

---

...have never produced anything of value to anyone.

quote:

---

Wrong, Pudlo simply uses the hamitic Hypothesis once again to explain diversity in Nubia

---

Too bad your opinion isn't worth sh*t. Post a study that refutes Pudlo's findings. Otherwise, shut up.

west africa had many early great civilizations,so you are dead wrong about ghana,mali and songhay.read for once,and this pudlo's you are writing about is dead wrong if you are writing about him.

you must have been on something to write these incorrect comments.

posted 11 May 2005 04:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:

E3b carrying East Africans such as Oromo and Somali have few if any Euraisan derived genes. Please provide some EVIDENCE to support your claims

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Already have. Ignoring it won't make it go away:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001510.html

---

Thought Writes:

This link refers to ALL Ethiopians. I mentioned the Oromo specifically, not ALL Ethiopians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001467.html

---

Thought Writes:

You dropped out on this thread:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Like most East Africans, Somalis are a hybrid Negroid/Caucasoid population

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:

Thought Writes:

Evil Euro, before we can take this debate to its logical conclusion we need you to define your terms. Please tell us specifically what a "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" are in a scientific sense?

---

now i know evil euro is not just on drugs but drunk with racism and dummness.
evil euro look at a map of east africa again dummy,and you would see that most east africans do not live in ethiopia and somalia.those are not the only two states in east africa just like russia and poland are not the only two eastern european states.
the others are

kenya-around 35 million
tanzania-41 million
sudan-around 43 million
as we know most black africans in kenya,sudan and tanzania are still unmixed blacks so this is clear and there is no debate here ,now let's move on.

now-ethiopia-68 or 69 million
djibouti-less than 500,000 or 600,000
somalia-around 9 to maybe 10 million
eritrea-less 5 million

now do the math evil dummy.

By the way not everybody in ethiopia and somalia have some form of mixture
(AND SINCE you are using hybrid-meaning really half of something or close to it in my mind)

and if most do in ethiopia or somalia it did not happen over night it would have taken time in the past,but if everyone did have some form of mixture or in this case 50% or close to 50% non african admixture in those two states they would still be negriod or black,and most of them still look like black africans just like most russians or most folks from spain still look white.

by the way in my mind mix means half of something,some mixture means less or not half and the meaning -some form of mixture could be anywhere in my mind from 50% to 1% of something.

FULL-blooded whites are not even really full bloods so it never made sense to me when someone says they are half black and half white if that black person was unmixed.

The real meaning of that would mean someone that has one parent of a different race and that persons childern keeps on having childern with someone with that type of background as well unless you take this to another level and say ,well somE whites could be 100.8% full-blooded but not 100.9% full-blooded like really full-blooded blacks but this talk would be on another level if you do it in this type of scale so i will stop here.

life would be easy for you and me if we stick to what certain words mean and stop changing the meanings to suit certain purposes.

posted 11 May 2005 07:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
I have read the entire paper NO WHERE in this paper does it state that East Africa was non-tropical. It states that the tropics were COOLER. Cooler does not equal non-tropical as there are regions within tropical Africa today that are COOLER than other regions in the tropics, but all of these regions fall within the range of tropical Africa.

---

But it's not a question of "cooler than other regions of the tropics". It's a matter of cooler than present regions of the tropics. The study says that Pleistocene East Africa was cool and dry (i.e. non-tropical desert), it speaks of glaciers forming at high altitudes, and so on. Wake up from your "Tropical Ice Age" dream world.

quote:

---

This link refers to ALL Ethiopians. I mentioned the Oromo specifically, not ALL Ethiopians.

---

Genetics:

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

Anthropology:

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

quote:

---

You dropped out on this thread:

---

I've defined 'Caucasoid' and 'Negroid' numerous times, and you already know what they mean anyway seeing as you use them. Stop feigning ignorance to avoid the facts which you dislike. East Africans are mixed. Period.

quote:

---

I asked you SPECIFICALLY which refuge the Greeks came out of?

---

Straw man. Who says you have to come from a "refuge" to be European/Caucasoid? Anyway, ~67% of the Greek genome is of non-Neolithic origin. Germans are a bit more (~85%) but still not descended entirely from the three refuges you mentioned. Your "argument" is going nowhere.

The reality is that I have answers for all of your idiotic questions. But where are the Afronut answers for this, this, this, this and this? Clearly, you have none because you ignore the evidence and keep posting irrelevant questions as a cover. That's the tactic of a drowning man...

posted 11 May 2005 09:08 AM            

quote:

---

now i know evil euro is not just on drugs but drunk with racism and dummness.
evil euro look at a map of east africa again dummy,and you would see that most east africans do not live in ethiopia and somalia

---

Kenndo, you are correct, but as we discussed earlier....the Cushite speaking populations such as the Borano of Kenya are the oldest East African groups.

The Bantu speaking groups such as the Kikuyu of Kenya are relatively recent migrants into East Africa from West Africa.

the peopling of East Africa was carried out by three main African groups: the Cushitic-speaking peoples; the Nilotic-speaking peoples; and lastly, the Bantu-speaking peoples....ancestors of most present-day East Africans– the Black Africans. - Dr. Elisabeth Dunstan and David Hall

The present day numbers of each group, are not relevant because we are discussing events that took place before the Bantu migrated into the area.

This can be a difficult point to relate, just like it's difficult to relate the Nilo-Saharan African base of ancient Nubia before the Arabs.

It is the ancestors of the Oromo, Borana and other early East African groups who migrated down the Nile and into the West Asia, NorthWest Africa and Greece.

The result is that the Ancient Greeks, instead of being descendant entirely from native ICE-Age refuge populations of Europe, were actually descendant from a diverse blend of European whites, West Asians and Black Africans.

This is why the Greeks to this day, have Benin HBS - a genetic trait that is inherited specifically from Black Africa:

And this is why nearly 1/4 of Greek paternal heritage is traceable to Black Africa, 1/4 to West Asia, and less than 50% specifically to Europe.

The ancient Greeks and therefore so called "Western" civilisation are of 'mixed' origins.

Modern scholarship acknowledges this.

As for Erroneous/Dienekes & co:

All the fake maps and phony fanfare to the contrary are the result of a sub-intellectual propaganda campaign, which they actually take seriously, but is a pitiable joke to educated folk.

posted 11 May 2005 09:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

You didn't even answer my question. I asked you SPECIFICALLY which refuge the Greeks came out of?

---

What's taking so long?

posted 11 May 2005 09:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
TROPICAL desert covered much of {LGM} Horn of Africa http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/new_africa.html

Please provide ONE study that states East Africa was NON-Tropical during the period in question?

---

What's taking so long?

posted 11 May 2005 10:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Also there is a common misleading practice in eurocentric circles which make reference to "Ethiopians" as if it were an ethnic group, instead of a vast and diverse nation, and then reference studies which are essentially of the Amhara only - this allows them to present a distorted picture of Ethiopian genetics.

---

THANKS for saying this because i am getting wary of this, but it must be said over and over again because it is true.