posted 25 June 2005 10:43 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

E3b became Caucasoid, just like all other OOA lineages acquired a racial character during the Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic.

---

Thought Writes:

Yawn...were still waiting for YOU to define what YOU mean when YOU use the terms "Caucasoid" and "Negroid"

posted 26 June 2005 07:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Please tell us SPECIFICALLY what a "generalized East African" looked like?

---

Probably like a Khoisan without the Bantu admixture. Of course, there are no living examples.

quote:

---

E3b did not enter Northeast Africa and the Levant until AFTER ~14,000 ky.

---

Incorrect. The Mesolithic is when E3b left Africa, but it entered Northeast Africa (Egypt) during the Upper Paleolithic. And in a sense, it was always in Northeast Africa because its point of origin had closer racial ties to North Africa and Eurasia than to Sub-Saharan Africa.

quote:

---

In addition the cranial remains of populations living in NE Africa at this time were similar to modern WEST Africans.

---

Nope. A single "proto-Khoisan Negro" (whatever that means) skeleton described elsewhere as having "archaic characteristics such as a very robust mandible" does not West Africans make.

quote:

---

Yawn...were still waiting for YOU to define what YOU mean when YOU use the terms "Caucasoid" and "Negroid"

---

posted 26 June 2005 12:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Probably like a Khoisan without the Bantu admixture. Of course, there are no living examples.

---

Thought Writes:

In that you claim that their are no living examples of your theoretical "generalized East African" please tell us SPECIFICALLY what EVIDENCE you use to generate your theory?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Incorrect. The Mesolithic is when E3b left Africa, but it entered Northeast Africa (Egypt) during the Upper Paleolithic.

---

Thought Posts:

http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/hape3b.pdf

Cruciani et al
2004

"On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster Delta was involved in a FIRST DESPERSAL or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from EASTERN AFRICA into North Africa and the Near East. Time-Of-Divergence estimates for E-M78 Delta chromosomes suggest a relatively great antiquity ( 14.7 +/- ky)..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Nope. A single "proto-Khoisan Negro" (whatever that means) skeleton described elsewhere as having "archaic characteristics such as a very robust mandible" does not West Africans make.

---

Thought Writes:

Actually a more recent study with a large sample size of Paleolithic Nile Valley Africans indicates phenotypic affinity between Paloelithic NE Africans and modern West Africans. Please review:

Thought Posts:

Population continuity vs. discontinuity revisited: Dental affinities among late Paleolithic through Christian-era Nubians (p NA)
Dr. Joel D. Irish
2005

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Yawn...I'm still waiting for you to stop playing dumb, or buy an anthropology book and look up their meanings yourself.

---

Thought Writes:

Actually it is not about "Playing Dumb", it is all about "BEING SMART". Racial terms such as "caucasoid" and "negroid" are no longer utilized by the mainstream scientific community. In addition these terms are vague and mean different things to different people. Hence when dealing with someone who choses to use vague and out of date references clarity must be sought.

posted 27 June 2005 07:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
In that you claim that their are no living examples of your theoretical "generalized East African" please tell us SPECIFICALLY what EVIDENCE you use to generate your theory?

---

Um, Howells' finding that pre-historic East Africans had early European and Asian affinities; his other finding that the races didn't become differentiated until 15-20,000 years ago; the fact that Khoisans came from East Africa and are generally considered ancestral to all humans. You really haven't been paying attention, have you?

quote:

---

"On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster Delta was involved in a FIRST DESPERSAL or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from EASTERN AFRICA into North Africa and the Near East. Time-Of-Divergence estimates for E-M78 Delta chromosomes suggest a relatively great antiquity ( 14.7 +/- ky)..."

---

"The E3b1-M78 and E3b3-M123 lineages, as well as the R1*-M173 lineages, mark gene flow between Egypt and the Levant during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic." (Luis et al. 2004)

quote:

---

Actually a more recent study with a large sample size of Paleolithic Nile Valley Africans indicates phenotypic affinity between Paloelithic NE Africans and modern West Africans. Please review:

---

All you posted was a title, and all I can access is an abstract. Neither of those support your claim.

quote:

---

Racial terms such as "caucasoid" and "negroid" are no longer utilized by the mainstream scientific community.

---

Nonsense. They're used in genetic studies all the time. Resistance to them by certain factions is based on politics, not science.

quote:

---

In addition these terms are vague and mean different things to different people.

---

posted 27 June 2005 10:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Um, Howells' finding that pre-historic East Africans had early European and Asian affinities;

---

Thought Writes:

Actually Upper Paleolithic Europeans and Asians had affinities with ancient AND modern Sub-Saharan Africans. Non-Africans came from Africans not vice versa.

Humans evolve through time. Upper Paleolithic Africans did not look EXACTLY like modern Sub-Saharan Africans, but in any global analysis these Upper Paleolithic Africans had RELATIVE similarity with modern Sub-Saharan Africans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

his other finding that the races didn't become differentiated until 15-20,000 years ago;

---

Thought Writes:

More recent studies indicate that "Races" NEVER came into existence. Race has been rejected by MODERN biological anthropology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

the fact that Khoisans came from East Africa and are generally considered ancestral to all humans.

---

Thought Writes:

All humans come from East Africa. The first humans had melanin levels consistent with modern Sub-Saharan Africans. Modern Sub-Saharan Africans are Black people. Khoisan is a language not a "Race".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

"The E3b1-M78 and E3b3-M123 lineages, as well as the R1*-M173 lineages, mark gene flow between Egypt and the Levant during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic." (Luis et al. 2004)

---

Thought Writes:

Lumping E3b and R1*-M173 won't help you. R1*-M173 spread into Africa during the Upper Paleolithic, at a time when Europeans still had tropical adaptations. Here is what Luis et al. state about E3b:

"A more RECENT dispersal out of Africa, represented by the E3b-M35 chromosomes, expanded NORTHWARD during the MESOLITHIC."
quote:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

All you posted was a title, and all I can access is an abstract. Neither of those support your claim.

---

Thought Writes:

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. I have given you the source, now you do some research. My point is proven.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Nonsense. They're used in genetic studies all the time. Resistance to them by certain factions is based on politics, not science.

---

Thought Writes:

More of your Left Wing conspiracy non-sense. Times have changed and your still stuck in the La Brea Tar-Pit of Racism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

No. They have very specific anthropological meanings, which I've already detailed.

---

Thought Writes:

To date I have seen no such description. Please re-post here.

posted 28 June 2005 07:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
but in any global analysis these Upper Paleolithic Africans had RELATIVE similarity with modern Sub-Saharan Africans.

---

Apparently not, as Howells' data indicates.

quote:

---

Race has been rejected by MODERN biological anthropology.

---

Howells IS modern, stupid.

quote:

---

The first humans had melanin levels consistent with modern Sub-Saharan Africans. Modern Sub-Saharan Africans are Black people. Khoisan is a language not a "Race".

---

Nope. The first humans were adapted to a cooler Pleistocene climate. Modern Sub-Saharan Africans are a product of the Holocene warming period. And Khoisanids are indeed a race, differing from Negroids as much as Caucasoids do (Coon, Baker etc.).

quote:

---

"A more RECENT dispersal out of Africa, represented by the E3b-M35 chromosomes, expanded NORTHWARD during the MESOLITHIC."

---

Key words: "out of Africa"

E3b spread throughout Northeast Africa during the Upper Paleolithic, and out of Africa during the Mesolithic.

quote:

---

I have given you the source, now you do some research. My point is proven.

---

Sorry, that's not how debating works. So far you've proven nothing, and the burden of proof remains on you. If you have the evidence to support your claim, post it. Otherwise, we have to assume that you don't.

quote:

---

More of your Left Wing conspiracy non-sense.

---

It's not a conspiracy. It's just the influence of PC "sensitivity". Are you suggesting that isn't real? Anyway, the fact remains that modern geneticists use racial terminology. Period.

quote:

---

To date I have seen no such description. Please re-post here.

---

Dishonest ape, I've made three posts describing human races. And I also posted this, to which you had no answer:

"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."

posted 28 June 2005 07:48 AM            

"The Capsians in North Africa, the Large Khoisan in South Africa, and the Gamble's Cave people in East Africa, all appear to be ancestral to populations still living in the same areas. The descendants of the first clearly belong to the Mediterranean world. Those of the other two groups differ in physique from the most numerous and most widely spread African stock which prevails in West and Central Africa."

[The People of Africa, p. 43]

Howells states in the "Who's Who in Skulls" on p. 96

"So the difficulty of placing the Elmenteita, Afalou and Teviec specimens, seen earlier and repeated here, comes to the fore again: robusticity? lack of kin among reference populations? I consider either to be plausible."

We can even see further misguided logic by Howells here again, from the same book on p.19

"Nubians are Egyptian/European in connection."

Believe what you would like to believe Erroneous E.

posted 28 June 2005 11:56 AM            

quote:

---

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.

---

erroneous writes:

quote:

---

negroids are of recent west african origin

---

erroneous, please provide your chronology for the recent west african origin of the people of Fiji, New guinea and South Asia.

India's Andaman and Nicobar islands are believed to be direct descendants of the first modern humans who migrated from East Africa at least 50,000 years ago, according to a study by Indian biologists.

The above migrated out of East Africa, are homogeneous, have changed little physically for 10's of thousands of years - so, when did they 'become' Negroid, and 'how', without any interaction with West Africa? ? ?

Given that you and Deinekes choose to ignore real science provided by molecular geneticists and assert the pseudo-scientific lunacy that haplotypes have 'races', explain how these people can be negroid with 100% OOA derived L3M mtdna lineages, and M168 paternal lineages?

These are the very lineages you supposedly claim as indicative of Eurasian-CausaZoid are they not?

Bearing in mind that these 'negroids' have -

no pre OOA admixture from L1 or L2;

no post OOA sub saharan African paternal E admixture;

no post OOA gene-traits from Sub saharan Africa, such as Benin Haplotype from West Africa.

Ironically southern europeans have all of the above sub-saharan african genes.

Accordingly they are defined as genetically MIXED - per Cavelli-Sforza Europeans are intermediate genetically with a 2/3rd Asian 1/3 African mix of genes, which places them closer to Black Africans [East, West and South] than the so called 'negroids' of Asia are.

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

When previously asked about the contradictions between the Columbia encyclopedia and his own prior statement on race Erroneous non responds:

quote:

---

don't ask me, I didn't write it.

---

if Erroneous, didn't write it; if Erroneous won't stand by it, then why quote it?

where is HIS definition of terms?

Stop wasting our time with your nonsense and contradictions you incoherent fool.

quote:

---

Thought writes: Erroneous, provide us with YOUR definition for these terms and YOUR chronology for these morphologies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Serpent Wisdom:
Keep trying Erroneous:

Keep trying....

---

posted 28 June 2005 11:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Key words: "out of Africa"

E3b spread throughout Northeast Africa during the Upper Paleolithic, and out of Africa during the Mesolithic.

---

Thought Posts:

Luis et al.

"Since the E3b*-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to Sub-Saharan populations, it is conceivable that the INITIAL migrations toward NORTH AFRICA from the south primarily involved derivative E3b-M35 lineages. These include E3b1-M78, a haplogroup especially common in Ethiopia (23%), and, perhaps E3b2-M123"

Thought Writes:

We KNOW that E3b2 has a TMRCA dating to the BRONZE AGE and NOT the Mesolithic. And Cruciani et al states regarding E3b1:
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/hape3b.pdf

Cruciani et al
2004

"On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster Delta was involved in a FIRST DESPERSAL or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from EASTERN AFRICA into North Africa and the Near East. Time-Of-Divergence estimates for E-M78 Delta chromosomes suggest a relatively great antiquity ( 14.7 +/- ky)..."

Thought Writes:

Evil E.... R.I.P.

posted 29 June 2005 06:50 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

E3b did not enter Northeast Africa and the Levant until AFTER ~14,000 ky. In addition the cranial remains of populations living in NE Africa at this time were similar to modern WEST Africans.

---

Erroneous E is wrong and those pre-historic East Africans remains *DO NOT* date back to anywhere close to 15,000-20,000 years ago, they date back to the Mesolithic period. They were far from been a generalised population. I emailed Dr Colin Groves about this matter along with Howells' findings and this was the response I was given[Dr Groves response is in bold, my words from the original email I sent in quotations]:

"Both Rightmire and Hiernaux
> concluded that prehistoric East Africans are ancestral
> to the above stated modern living East African
> populations."

I think you're right about this. The Howells huge dataset does have some holes in it, and the Nilotic and other North East African populations constitute one of them. Rightmire, in particular, has shown that these do not really fall outside the subsaharan sphere of morphology. It would be good if Phil Rightmire would add his measurements, where compatible, to the Howells dataset (which is available for free on the web, by the way), so that we could see where these fit

"Further complicating the issue in
> Howells' book, on pg 19 he states that Nubians are
> "Egyptian/European in connections". My question is
> what does all of this mean? Howells' conclusions seems
> to be at odds with other studies that bear out the
> African morphology of Nubians and pre-historic East
> Africans. I would like your words on this as well as
> your guidance in explaining all of this."

I agree; it may be so for recent Nubians but I'd like to see good evidence on this. I attach a paper written with a colleague on prehistoric North African samples, which include the famous prehistoric
Nubian sample excavated by Fred Wendorf. You will see that the prehistoric Nubians do have a sub-Saharan morphology, overlain by the robusticity which characterises many terminal Pleistocene populations.

Yours

Colin Groves

Hiernaux and Rightmire were right, Howells was not. The differences lie in the samples used and notice that Groves states that North East African populations *DO NOT* fall out of the sub-Saharan sphere of morphology, meaning Erroneous E cannot say North east Africans are not sub-saharans morphologically. In the attached pdf he sent me he does notice that Nubians become less robust and more gracile but this attributed to climate, *NOT* mixture from Arabians and Indians and people flooding Nubia as Alexsandra Pudlo states. It was simply a gracilisation or fining down of skull which Groves states happened to *ALL* terminal Pleistocene populations. Lets see Erroneos E explain this.

posted 29 June 2005 07:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
others[Hiernaux and Rightmire] have found these people to be exactly akin to the Elongated Types of East African which of course do not exactly resemble the Zulus, Dogon and Teita used by Howells

---

That's right. Howells' pre-historic East Africans don't resemble the Negroid peoples of Africa. Whether they would or wouldn't resemble "Elongated East Africans" is irrelevant. If they did, it would simply mean that EEA also don't resemble Negroids, but rather have affinities with Eurasians.

posted 29 June 2005 08:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
That's right. Howells' pre-historic East Africans don't resemble the Negroid peoples of Africa. Whether they would or wouldn't resemble "Elongated East Africans" is irrelevant. If they did, it would simply mean that EEA also don't resemble Negroids, but rather have affinities with Eurasians.

P.S. As for Hiernaux, his [b]blunder was exposed a long time ago. [/B]

---

Dumb Euro trying desperately to spin his way out but to no avail. So are you saying that Somalis, Tutsis, and Masai are Eurasian-like? Read once again:

Dr Groves:

"I think you're right about this. The Howells huge dataset does have some holes in it, and the Nilotic and other North East African populations constitute one of them. Rightmire, in particular, has shown that these do not really fall outside the subsaharan sphere of morphology. It would be good if Phil Rightmire would add his measurements, where compatible, to the Howells dataset (which is available for free on the web, by the way), so that we could see where these fit"

Hiernaux comes to the *SAME* conclusion that Rightmire comes to so of course it is relevant whether they would resemble Elongated East Africans since Elongated East Africans[which constitute just about almost all North East Africans, except for the Nilotes] do fall within the sphere of sub-Saharan morphology as per quoted from dr Groves.

posted 29 June 2005 08:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
explain how these people can be negroid with 100% OOA derived L3M mtdna lineages, and M168 paternal lineages?

---

posted 29 June 2005 08:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The explanation, you nitpicking no-answer nigger, is that encyclopedias summarize information in the most simplistic ways. The point of the passage is that as of the year 2001, "most anthropologists" still support the concept of race. And in fact, in addition to the three main races cited, they also recognize Australoids, Capoids and Amerindids.

---

Sounds like someone is angry because their dream of prehistoric East Africans being Eurasian and racially undifferentiated has come to a crumbling end. Thats what happens when people blindly cite other peoples garbage without doing further investigating on their own.

posted 29 June 2005 08:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Sounds like someone is angry because their dream of prehistoric East Africans being Eurasian and racially undifferentiated has come to a crumbling end.

---

Dumb, illogical ape. Pre-historic East Africans had affinities with Europeans (Caucasoids) and Asians (Mongoloids), but NOT Sub-Saharan Africans (Negroids). If they also had affinities with so-called "Elongated East Africans", that means that EEA were/are also different from Negroids. Of course, most (like Somalis and Tutsis) later became heavily mixed with Bantu and other Negroid peoples, as Howells indicates:

posted 29 June 2005 08:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Dumb, illogical ape. Pre-historic East Africans had affinities with Europeans (Caucasoids) and Asians (Mongoloids), but [b]NOT Sub-Saharan Africans (Negroids). If they also had affinities with so-called "Elongated East Africans", that means that EEA were/are also different from Negroids. Of course, most (like Somalis and Tutsis) later became heavily mixed with Bantu and other Negroid peoples, as Howells indicates:

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. [/B]

---

Dumb bumbling racist idiot, Howells compared mesolithic east Africans with modern Teita and since the latter have affinities with central Africans and not Elongated east Africans it would *APPEAR* that population replacement happened, that is, when Elongated east Africans and Nilotes aren't considered as part of the samples, but continuity *DOES* exist, read:

Translated from French

Jean Hiernaux, "The People of Africa", 1974, 1975, p.140

"However, the Kenyan and Tanzanian populations who practised pastoralism long before the coming of iron were themselves akin to the ancestors of the present Cushitic-speaking Galla and Somali, whose nucleus of expansion lies in southern Ethiopia[136]. The skeletons of hunter-fisher-gatherers of the Stone Age all belong to populations characterized by tall stature, generally with a long and narrow head, high and narrow face and nose, and frequently showing subnasal prognathism - features which are all displayed by the living Elongated Africans. Such skeletons include those associated with Gamble's Cave, Naivasha and Olduvai, who may date to about 4,000 B.C.; the makers of the ensuing Mesolithic Elmenteita culture of Bromhead's Site; the remains associated with neolithic stone bowl culture at Hyrax Hill and Njoro River Cave(dated by carbon 14 to 960 B.C.), and with more recent stone bowl culture at Willey's Kopje, Makalia and Nakuru, which almost certainly date from the Iron Age."

Notice that Hiernaux stated that Somalis and galla[Oromos] originated in Southern Ethiopia and that the remains in Kenya and Tanzania are akin to them. Stupid racist idiot, you've been refuted and outed and no matter how many times you wish to twist things there is no way out. I've posted information from an anthropologist who agrees with my position about Howells' samples so you're outed. This little on and off debate about East Africans is over, so get the hell out of Egyptsearch with your distortions and lies.

posted 29 June 2005 08:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Of course, most (like Somalis and Tutsis) later became heavily mixed with Bantu and other Negroid peoples, as Howells indicates:

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. [b]The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other "Negroid" tribes. [/B]

---

Dumb illogical racist retarded distorter of facts, Howells is stating that prehistoric East Africans, through population replacement evolved to look like modern day Teita people you idiot, but that isn't the case. Somalis are *NOT* heavily mixed with Bantus, they are Elonagted East Africans, and are akin to prehistoric East Africans you fool.

posted 29 June 2005 08:54 AM            

quote:

---

Dumb Euro trying desperately to spin his way out but to no avail. So are you saying that Somalis, Tutsis, and Masai are Eurasian-like? Read once again:

Dr Groves:

"I think you're right about this. The Howells huge dataset does have some holes in it, and the Nilotic and other North East African populations constitute one of them. Rightmire, in particular, has shown that these do not really fall outside the subsaharan sphere of morphology.

---

Indeed. I appreciate the Groves reply.

Robins and others describe the skeletype of elongated East Africans as super-negroid, a body plan seen as indicative of Native East African adaptation to hot dry climate. Some prehistoric Egyptians had a similar skeletype. Erroneous is backtracking once more, just as he did with his 'caucaZoid' Lemba, 'caucaZoid' E3b, 'caucaZoid' Benin sickle cell haplotype and other desperate acts of self abuse.

And of course, the point is to share accurate information with 'real people', not simply kick the smouldering ashes of burnt beaten troll Erroneous, who spins like a top while never answering the questions.

And is likely suffering from brain damage from all the RAT POISON Deinekes has been feeding him....

posted 29 June 2005 09:20 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Of course, most (like Somalis and Tutsis) later became heavily mixed with Bantu and other Negroid peoples, as Howells indicates:

---

Thought Writes:

Another circular, dead-end argument. As has been proven before Somalis have little to no E3a Y Chromosome which mark the Bantu speaking people.

posted 29 June 2005 09:48 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Another circular, dead-end argument. As has been proven before Somalis have little to no E3a Y Chromosome which mark the Bantu speaking people.

Somali's have been Black African since day one. They took their Black African bodies and migrated down the Nile and left their bloodline among the Mediterranean people living this day.

---

Of course Erroneous E is going to say that the mixing with "Negroids" came from L1, L2 carrying females. If he does I have another crushing response ready for him.

posted 29 June 2005 12:19 PM            

Re-population/back migration with other groups over the millenia caused the present phenotype to 'form'. How else can one distinguish between Norweigan, Finnish Hungarian (recent Asia Mongol and others integration) and Southern Italian. VAriation on a theme?
Don't we all have 2 arms, legs, eyes, etc and are humanoid. Many time awe are blinded by our own ignorance?

How can we, in one breath, say we seek union with He who is most merciful while destroying our fellowman/woman? Something is up!!!

posted 29 June 2005 12:42 PM            

quote:

---

explain how these people can be negroid with 100% OOA derived L3M mtdna lineages, and M168 paternal lineages?

---

The 'supposed' reply to the question:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The explanation, you nitpicking no-answer nigger, is that encyclopedias summarize information in the most simplistic ways. The point of the passage is that as of the year 2001, "most anthropologists" still support the concept of race. And in fact, in addition to the three main races cited, they also recognize Australoids, Capoids and Amerindids.

---

As expected, Evil was unable to answer the specified question. Instead, we see an irrelevant fanfare for encyclopedia as an authoritative bioanthropological source. Hitler and Mussolini are probably next in line, to be referenced as authorities in bioanthrology.

posted 29 June 2005 01:44 PM            

quote:

---

As expected, Evil was unable to answer the specified question

---

posted 29 June 2005 05:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Dumb, illogical ape. Pre-historic East Africans had affinities with Europeans (Caucasoids) and Asians (Mongoloids), but [b]NOT Sub-Saharan Africans (Negroids). If they also had affinities with so-called "Elongated East Africans", that means that EEA were/are also different from Negroids. Of course, most (like Somalis and Tutsis) later became heavily mixed with Bantu and other Negroid peoples, as Howells indicates:

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. [/B]

---

I maybe wrong but didn't EE take this stance concerning the Bantus on another thread:

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
"The San ([b]Bushmen) in southern Africa are a group that physically looks quite different from other Negroids. Baker (1974), and Coon (1965) among others, have argued they are as different from Negroids as Caucasoids are, and should be treated as a separate race from other Negroids."

But here he says:
"Of course, most (like Somalis and Tutsis) later became heavily mixed with Bantu and other Negroid peoples"

Maybe I am reading or interpreting his responses wrong, if so I apologize to rasol, Super Car and TopDog for unneccessarily getting into this debate.

I was wondering if his (San) Bushmen and Bantu were the same.

[

posted 29 June 2005 05:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Serpent Wizdom:
I maybe wrong but didn't EE take this stance concerning the Bantus on another thread:

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
"The San ([b]Bushmen) in southern Africa are a group that physically looks quite different from other Negroids. Baker (1974), and Coon (1965) among others, have argued they are as different from Negroids as Caucasoids are, and should be treated as a separate race from other Negroids."

But here he says:
"Of course, most (like Somalis and Tutsis) later became heavily mixed with Bantu and other Negroid peoples"

Maybe I am reading or interpreting his responses wrong, if so I apologize to rasol, Super Car and TopDog for unneccessarily getting into this debate.

---

If you mean that he retracks, and sometimes reverts back to his profoundly discredited claims, concerning the black appearance of Cushitic East African speakers being attributed to Bantu admixture, then the answer is Yes. The lunatic fails to see that Bantu admixture cannot be used as a pretext, because these Cuchitic speakers have little to no Bantu admixture just as study after study has reflected, and they don't even speak such language. The scale of admixture he is trying to get at, would likely result in the 'replacement' of the languages spoken in the region. This is clearly not the case. Evil's alternative answer to such a comical claim of Bantu admixture, is to resort to the mtDNA lineages, which according to him were inherited from black females. As Topdog correctly anticipated, this could be the next thing he rehashes. He dodged Rasol's question about dark skin folks of the Andaman Islands, because he realized what the answer would do, i.e., literally make him admit that he is one big mentally jumbled up FRAUD!

Khoisan refers to a language group. Bantu and Khoisan language groups are separate.

posted 29 June 2005 06:22 PM            

The Somali/Borana are descendant of the pristine E3b1 population.

The Andaman's are descendants of the pristine Out of Africa EurAsian L3X population.

There are NO caucasians at this time in any respect -

* no humans living in northern Eurasia.
* no 'white' morphologies for adaptation to the cold climates of ice-age Europe.
* no genetic lineages that link specifically to 'white people' morphologies.

Nothing....

The only 'caucasians' alive at this time are Neanderthal cavemen who literally lived in the caucasus region......

Known range of Neanderthal man.

Geneticists say that Neanderthal were replaced by African moderns.

A few anthropologists believe that modern Europeans are descendant from European Neanderthal Cavemen:
According to CL Brace: Neanderthals had short, narrow skulls, large cheekbones and noses and, most distinctive, bunlike bony bumps on the backs of their heads. Many modern Danes and Norwegians have identical features.

If Erroneous must find specific ancestors of white people from 50k years ago.....Neanderthal cave man, a primative creature with only rudimentary cognitive and language ability, is the place to start.

Keep trying Erroneous.....you can start by checking the back of you skull for 'bumps'.

posted 29 June 2005 07:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Keep trying Erroneous.....you can start by checking the back of you skull for 'bumps'.

---

posted 29 June 2005 07:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The South African Khwe are the descendants of the pristine E3b population.

The Somali/Borana are descendant of the pristine E3b1 population.

The Andaman's are descendants of the pristine Out of Africa EurAsian L3X population.

There are NO caucasians at this time in any respect -

* no humans living in northern Eurasia.
* no 'white' morphologies for adaptation to the cold climates of ice-age Europe.
* no genetic lineages that link specifically to 'white people' morphologies.

Nothing....

The only 'caucasians' alive at this time are Neanderthal cavemen who literally lived in the caucasus region......

Known range of Neanderthal man.

Geneticists say that Neanderthal were replaced by African moderns.

A few anthropologists believe that modern Europeans are descendant from European Neanderthal Cavemen:
According to CL Brace: Neanderthals had short, narrow skulls, large cheekbones and noses and, most distinctive, bunlike bony bumps on the backs of their heads. Many modern Danes and Norwegians have identical features.

If Erroneous must find specific ancestors of white people from 50k years ago.....Neanderthal cave man, a primative creature with only rudimentary cognitive and language ability, is the place to start.

Keep trying Erroneous.....you can start by checking the back of you skull for 'bumps'.

---

LMAO

All you guys, especially Rasol, you crack me up as always! The way you roast Stupid-Euro is superb, but then again it is his own fault.

posted 29 June 2005 08:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[b]LMAO

All you guys, especially Rasol, you crack me up as always! The way you roast Stupid-Euro is superb, but then again it is his own fault.

With all the idiocy that he has brought up for like how many months now, he must have a lot of bumps on his head!! [/B]

---

Please note that in the Neanderthal area there are people with the biggest amount of body hair in the world...no wonder Western girls spend a lot of time working on their legs...Northern Eastern European usually don't have much body hair (I know for sure) and they are obviously outside the Neanderthal area...
Relaxx

posted 30 June 2005 07:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Howells compared mesolithic east Africans with modern Teita and since the latter have affinities with central Africans and not Elongated east Africans it would *APPEAR* that population replacement happened, that is, when Elongated east Africans and Nilotes aren't considered as part of the samples

---

No. You really need a lesson in logic:

If A is distinct from B, and C resembles A. Then C is equally distinct from B. Now, replace A with "Pre-historic East Africans", B with "Negroids", and C with "Elongated East Africans". Howells' conclusion is that A has affinities with Europeans and Asians but not with B. Therefore, if C resembles A, it has equal affinities with Europeans and Asians, and is equally distinct from B (modern Sub-Saharan Africans).

quote:

---

Jean Hiernaux, "The People of Africa", 1974, 1975, p.140

---

Stop quoting Hiernaux, moron. He proves you wrong because he screwed up. He tried to claim that Tutsis are representative of continuity between pre-historic and modern East Africans, when in fact they have 80% West African "Bantu" Y-chromosomes (E3a) and who knows how much West African mtDNA.

His description of the pre-historic East African remains clearly reveals a non-African, Caucasoid-like morphology, which even he considered 'Hamitic':

"The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region."

posted 30 June 2005 08:41 AM            

quote:

---

Erroneous writes: If A is distinct from B, and C resembles A. Then C is equally distinct from B. Now, replace A with "Pre-historic East Africans", B with "Negroids",

---

A -> pre-historic East Africans
B -> modern East Africans
C -> 'caucaZoids'

Instead, let's replace Erroneous' empty bluster with real scholarship from Dr. Philip Rightmire-

the term Nilotic Negro [is best applied] to the early Rift populations

conclusion: 'A resembles B.'

got it? then let's move on -
these [Elongated Africans] differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions, and should not be considered closely related to people of Europe and Western Asia - J Hiernaux

therefore: 'A differs greatly from C'

and finally-
claims that caucasoid once lived in East Africa have been shown to be wrong - JO Vogel

therefore: 'C is irrelevant'

As for Howells? His dataset does not have native East Africans and so cannot properly address either A or B.

Therefore Howells cannot help you, no matter how much special pleading you engage in.

THAT, is logic. You take your time and think it thru Erroneous.

But your problem is both a lack of intelligence AND integrity and that is why you cannot come to grips with Hiernaux, or RightMire or Groves, or UnderHill or anyone else who is much more intelligent and honest than you are.

You are simply a dull minded ineducable racist fraud who cannot abide the truth.

posted 30 June 2005 08:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The Tutsi are an interesting population whose "Hamitic" traits need to be investigated further. However, your example looks nothing like the unambiguously part-Caucasoid Somali I posted. Nor like any of these clearly hybrid Ethiopians:

---

posted 30 June 2005 08:51 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Erroneous Euro just got busted for trying to pawn off Asian mail order brides as original East Africans and "carriers" of male chromosome.

Even though he doesn't believe is own garbage, he's still an idiot for imagining that anyone else might.

---

Then Euroneous got cought posting facke pictures...

posted 30 June 2005 12:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
"The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region."

---

Stupid-Euro, why can't you get it through your head?!

Since when are long narrow heads and narrow faces "caucasoid" features? There are many populations around the world that have nothing to do with Europeans, yet they have these features! Peoples in Asia and the Americas, and yes even peoples in Africa, even West Africa.

Also, since when do caucasians have prognathism??!

While you're checking your head for bumps, I suggest you check yourself for a concussion as well. In fact, why don't you do yourself a favor and get a CT scan or an MRI?

posted 30 June 2005 02:47 PM            

you are not evil but anyway your logic is excellent but daily living is far from that logical book universe. Most of my friends look European but are not and they refuse to be identified as such. Yes, they do have admixture of European genes but that is the extent. They have degrees of African and Asian ancestry and that is their dominant background (self identified). Others have native american (indigena-maya, aztec, carib, yanamamo, etc) despite some of their European surnames. That is why I said in a previous thread that surnames in a place like North America (hetereogenous society)is one key.
My daughter has green/blue eyes but we do not identify as European! Family friends of various ethnicities have one child looking like one group (non-European-take your pick)and another child looking European in all manifestations but the mother father gene pool is the same!!!
In my part of the world other than usually spanish/portugues/french etc, there is also India (South) North India (Urdu speaking) Lebanese, and Palestinian.

I tried to be short here but here it is. I do not like abstraction.

posted 30 June 2005 03:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Stop quoting Hiernaux, moron. He proves you wrong because he screwed up. He tried to claim that Tutsis are representative of continuity between pre-historic and modern East Africans, when in fact they have 80% West African "Bantu" Y-chromosomes (E3a) and who knows how much West African mtDNA.

---

Dummy, Hiernaux doesn't limit the 'elongated' morphology to East Africans, it also includes West Africans such as the Fulani. Idiots like you are trying to pin down genes and lineages to certain morphologies, which cannot be done. Hiernaux is *NOT* refuted, but you are. Hiernaux *NEVER* tried to pin down E3b to an Elongated morphology. Look here for yourself:

quote:

---

His description of the pre-historic East African remains clearly reveals a non-African, Caucasoid-like morphology, which even he considered 'Hamitic':

---

Idiot, he never called them 'Hamitic' or said they were part of an 'Hamitic' race or stock, he was making a case *AGAINST* the Hamitic classification. You ignored the rest of Hiernaux's words for said these elongated populations differ from Europeans, North Africans and West Asians. He considers them within the range of sub-Saharan morphology, which is the exact thing Rightmire and more recently Professor Groves concur on.

quote:

---

Tutsis (and other East Africans) are only marginally descended from these people. Most of their ancestry is recent Negroid from western and central Africa.

---

No Tutsis are *NOT*, in anthropometric measurements, which rasol and Said Mohammad posted numerous times, they group closer to Somalis and Oromos[Gallas] than they do to West Africans.

posted 30 June 2005 05:01 PM            

Hiernaux made three essential and astute observations about the elongated African morphology;

1) they are indigenous to Africa.

2) are related to each other and other Africans.

3) are not related to Europeans.

these people differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions, and should not be considered closely related to people of Europe and Western Asia - J Hiernaux.

Hiernaux showed great insight in anticipating the Pn2 clade genetics which verified his observations.

Which is why he is commonly cited with authority in current studies on population genetics.

Deinekes and parrot Erroneous are truly laughable in terms of the wretched nature of the enfeebled, desperate, special pleading that they mistake for, 'arguments'.

posted 01 July 2005 07:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
As for Howells? His dataset does not have native East Africans and so cannot properly address either A or B.

---

Third time explaining this to the stupid monkey, and no doubt the third time he'll have no response and immediately forget it:

Um, they [pre-historic East Africans] were found to resemble South Americans, Ainu and Europeans. Comparing them to elongated Nilotic types wouldn't help your agenda any. 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:

---

these [Elongated Africans] differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions, and should not be considered closely related to people of Europe and Western Asia - J Hiernaux

---

That might have something to do with their 80% E3a and additional western/central African mtDNA, of which Hiernaux was painfully unaware.

quote:

---

therefore: 'A differs greatly from C'

---

posted 01 July 2005 08:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
[B] Tell that to Topdog. He's the one claiming that Pre-historic East Africans were identical to Elongated East Africans

---

rotfl! No you idiot,

A -> pre-historic East Africans
B -> modern East Africans
C -> 'caucaZoids'

The issue at hand is whether ancient East Africans resemble modern East Africans, per rightmire, hiernaux and now groves,

as opposed to 'caucaZoids', per you, and no one else. lol.

In fact, A resembles B, differs greatly from C, and C is irrelevant.

spelling it out for extremely slow folks ->

pre historic east africans resemble modern native east africans. [rightmire]

pre historic east africans differ greatly from europeans. [hiernaux]

europeans are irrelevant to the equasion. [vogel]

Howells did not compare A to B, nor does he claim A specifically resembles C, nor would such a claim [made by you, misrepresenting Howells in desperation] be possible, without comparing A to B.

In fact, no one is making bogus caucaZoid claims, other than you.

And considering that you cannot even fathom elementary excercise in logic, that isn't saying much. lol.

Keep trying...

posted 01 July 2005 09:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

They were more similar to the non-African peoples of the world. Hence, OOA migrants were not "Black Africans".

---

Thought Posts:

African Exodus
Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie
1996

"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..."

posted 01 July 2005 09:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
quote:

They were more similar to the non-African peoples of the world. Hence, OOA migrants were not "Black Africans".

---

Thought Writes:

More evidence supporting the fact that the OOA migration was carried out by Black Africans.

Thought Posts:

J Hum Evol. 2005
Apr;48(4):403-14.

A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil: implications for the settlement of the New World.

Neves WA, Hubbe M, Okumura MM, Gonzalez-Jose R, Figuti L, Eggers S, De Blasis PA.

Laboratorio de Estudos Evolutivos Humanos, Departamento de Biologia, Instituto de Biociencias, Universidade de Sao Paulo, CP 11461, 05422-970, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. waneves@ib.usp.br

Increasing skeletal evidence from the U.S.A., Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil strongly suggests that the first settlers in the Americas had a cranial morphology distinct from that displayed by most late and modern Native Americans. The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more generalized and can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians. Here, we present the results of a comparative morphological assessment of a late Paleoindian/early archaic specimen from Capelinha Burial II, southern Brazil. The Capelinha skull was compared with samples of four Paleoindian groups from South and Central America and worldwide modern groups from W.W. Howells' studies. In both analyses performed (classical morphometrics and geometric morphometrics), the results show a clear association between Capelinha Burial II and the Paleoindians, as well as Australians, Melanesians, and Africans, confirming its Paleoamerican status.

posted 01 July 2005 10:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
But your problem is both a lack of intelligence AND integrity..[/B]

---

posted 01 July 2005 10:58 AM            

quote:

---

Stupid-Euro says: That might have something to do with their 80% E3a and additional western/central African mtDNA, of which Hiernaux was painfully unaware.

---

quote:

---

Stupid says: Um, they [pre-historic East Africans] were found to resemble South Americans, Ainu and Europeans...

---

Have you not learned that many pure black Africans today have these same features, so such features are *not* unique to OOA people?!! For example, are there not blacks that have "mongoloid" features? Who is to say that such features even belong to mongoloids in the first place?!

Also, you were still unable to answer Rasol's factual statement...

All of these people above look like your "typical negroids" yet they are found between India and Southeast Asia and carry L3M mtdna lineages and M168 paternal lineages. They are pure Out-of-Africans (more pure than Europeans) with no L1 or L2 or E3 lineages!! Thus, your ridiculous notions of the first Out-of-Africans having to appear "caucasoid" is DISMISSED!!

This also proves that phenotype does NOT reflect genotype, so you can't trace haplogroups to certain morphologies!!

The only dumb, dishonest, ape around here is YOU, Stupid-Euro!! LOL In second thought, I would be insulting primates everywhere to call you that. A dumb ass dog, is what you are.

I swear, it has been almost a year and no matter how many times you've been corrected, refuted, debunked, and plain roasted, you keep talking the same BS!!! I'm beginning to agree with Rasol, that you are brain damaged!!!

posted 01 July 2005 11:13 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Have you not learned that many pure black Africans today have these same features, so such features are *not* unique to OOA people?!! For example, are there not blacks that have "mongoloid" features? Who is to say that such features even belong to mongoloids in the first place?!

Also, you were still unable to answer Rasol's factual statement...

All of these people above look like your "typical negroids" yet they are found between India and Southeast Asia and carry L3M mtdna lineages and M168 paternal lineages. They are pure Out-of-Africans (more pure than Europeans) with no L1 or L2 or E3 lineages!! Thus, your ridiculous notions of the first Out-of-Africans having to appear "caucasoid" is DISMISSED!!

This also proves that phenotype [b]does NOT reflect genotype, so you can't trace haplogroups to certain morphologies!!

The only dumb, dishonest, ape around here is YOU, Stupid-Euro!! LOL In second thought, I would be insulting primates everywhere to call you that. A dumb ass dog, is what you are.

I swear, it has been almost a year and no matter how many times you've been corrected, refuted, debunked, and plain roasted, you keep talking the same BS!!! I'm beginning to agree with Rasol, that you are brain damaged!!!

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 01 July 2005).][/B]

---

posted 01 July 2005 11:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
Why are you wasting your time with this guy? He's obviously upset by the fact that his forefathers were Blacks...well...he doesn't need your intellectual skills...he needs some psychiatric therapy.
Relaxx

---

What Stupid-Euro needs is a lobotomy!!

posted 01 July 2005 02:24 PM            

quote:

---

That might have something to do with their 80% E3a and additional western/central African mtDNA, of which Hiernaux was painfully unaware.

---

Um no again fool, no physical anthropologists connects specific lineages to physical morphologies. At any rate, in that passage Hiernaux isn't referring to just Tutsis, he's referring to Elongated East Africans....*ALL** of them. Its amazing how an idiot like you consistently distorts people's words over and over again, pay attention idiot: Frpm p. 62

"Now as mentioned in Chapter 3, the fossil record tells of tall people with long and narrow heads, faces and noses who lived in a few thousand years B.C. in East Africa at such places as Gamble's Cave in the Kenya Rift Valley and Olduvai in northern Tanzania. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and Western Asia, as they usually are in the literature."

And while we're on the subject of connecting lineages to morphology Dumb Euro, East Africans share *NO* specific Ainu, European[Europeans got E3b from East Africa, not the other way around], Peruvian and Easter Island DNA, so your argument of connecting DNA with specific phenotypic morphologies is further destroyed. As stated by Professor Groves who agreed with Rightmire, North East Africans do *NOT* fall outside the sub-Saharan sphere of morphology. This is further supported in a recent study on Northeast Africans by Shomarka Keita. You have no argument so quit arguing for the sake of arguing you idiot.

posted 01 July 2005 07:00 PM            

quote:

---

Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and Western Asia

---

A and B [fossil and modern], not closely related to C. [Caucasoids].

posted 02 July 2005 07:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:

And while we're on the subject of connecting lineages to morphology Dumb Euro, East Africans share *NO* specific Ainu, European[Europeans got E3b from East Africa, not the other way around], Peruvian and Easter Island DNA, so your argument of connecting DNA with specific phenotypic morphologies is further destroyed. As stated by Professor Groves who agreed with Rightmire, North East Africans do *NOT* fall outside the sub-Saharan sphere of morphology. This is further supported in a recent study on Northeast Africans by Shomarka Keita. You have no argument so quit arguing for the sake of arguing you idiot.

---

Ainu, Peruvians and East Islanders certainly are not known for being tall people. Europeans are tall people but as you stated, East Africans don't have any European ancestry, but Europeans do have East African lineages like E3b1's delta cluster in small frequencies. I thought Evil Euro as resourceful he pretends to be knew this.